TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2022-23

[Winter]

No long-standing dictionary definition of racism has ever accounted for a power dynamic. That introduction has been made by radical leftists who try to excuse racism towards certain races. But even if we don't consider that let's use a bit of common sense here. Regardless of whether we call it racism or not, being prejudiced towards another solely based on the colour of their skin is discrimination. And unfair discrimination is wrong regardless of the perpetrator's or the victim's race

Citing a dictionary to justify your definition or understanding of racism, just further exemplifies how little your understanding of racism is. Racism cannot be summarised into a single definition. It is much more complex than prejudice and is backed by systemic and power imbalance. There is a difference between prejudice and racism, which you’ve highlighted perfectly. I agree, prejudice is discrimination. Historical context matters and will always matter.

 

[Abii]

But how does it do this? I know firms who have progressed applicants to the interview stage purely because they have a disability, for example. That to me is literally being prejudicial towards certain candidates not based on merit, but based on immutable characteristics.

No firm would do this. A disabled applicant would still need to reach the benchmark. They may be entitled to reasonable adjustments such as not doing a specific type of test because their disability means they cannot do it or they cannot be fairly assessed for it.

 

[NotLord Denning]

A quick google search will tell you that affirmative action is actually illegal in the UK. Adding to this, to suggest that it somehow makes it “easier“ for minorities to get in is very, very offensive when minorities have traditionally been kept out of the legal industry and still have to fight tooth and nail to get a foot in the door. Really showing your true colours.

"However, the law in the United Kingdom does allow for membership in a protected and disadvantaged group to be considered in hiring and promotion when the group is under-represented in a given area and if the candidates are of equal merit (in which case membership in a disadvantaged group can become a "tie-breaker")."

This is literally being prejudicial based on an immutable characteristic. I also think it's pretty condescending of you to infer things about my character simply because I disagree with you. How exactly are minorities fighting tooth and nail to be given equality of opportunity?

 

[Winter]

But how does it do this? I know firms who have progressed applicants to the interview stage purely because they have a disability, for example. That to me is literally being prejudicial towards certain candidates not based on merit, but based on immutable characteristics.

I would like you name and shame those firms because I’m pretty sure hiring specific individuals to fit the diversity quota is a sham. That in itself is not affirmative action, that’s pure misrepresentation.

 

[pineappleonastick]

With 'HUGE overrepresentation', I am referring to the tradition that women or minorities were not even allowed to practise law. This means that practically all UK lawyers up until about 100 years ago were exclusively male and predominantly white, and they were seen as the best for the jobs due to their gender and skin color (obviously, class also played a role). Therefore I do not see a slight overrepresentation of minorities or women with as much worry given the historic underrepresentation.

But there is no causal link between individuals that existed in the time period you referenced and today. You're advocating for some sort of grand ledger; that's really bizarre.

 

[lawapplicant]

I don't know why people are finding this hard to get their head around? Maybe I should have clarified "overrepresentation in relation to their population" which is clearly what I meant. I also meant it in regard to intakes. But there is a higher intake of females and asian graduates. I also believe in the profession as a whole Asians are represented at a degree higher than their percentage of the population.

 

[futureTS2025hopeful]

anyone know whats happening with Akin Gump? I have been ghosted

 

[Deleted member 22634]

Anyway....moving swiftly on....

So RS's "you will hear by the 10th" really means "we'll tell you on the 10th"

There's just a pit of existential dread and anxiety waiting to hear back from 6+ firms

Ya breaking hearts before v-day. classic

 

[daisy_yawn]

First of all, 'reverse' racism fails to address the *power* dynamic. Power is the keyword here. I do think it is interesting that the people who are so outspoken about 'reverse' racism are the same ones who tend to minimise the historical context and its implications in the present and future. There's a name for that...

I'm sticking to what I originally said: the bare definition of racism is prejudice against a person on the basis of their racial or ethnic group. Power dynamics affect how far that prejudice is actualised into discrimination, making it easier for the more dominant side to discriminate against the weaker, but it doesn't mean the weaker side can't commit prejudice against the stronger.

Prejudice and discrimination are different things.

 

[lawapplicant]

but isn't overrepresentation great for everyone because it helps to correct historical bad stuff in society? do you really not think we should at least have quotas to balance out the population at partner level??!?

Jesus Christ

 

[NotLord Denning]

Citing a dictionary to justify your definition or understanding of racism, just further exemplifies how little your understanding of racism is. Racism cannot be summarised into a single definition. It is much more complex than prejudice and is backed by systemic and power imbalance. There is a difference between prejudice and racism, which you’ve highlighted perfectly. I agree, prejudice is discrimination. Historical context matters and will always matter.

We are talking in terms of the hiring process of firms. I never asked for a single definition - all I am asking is that you provide me with a concrete definition. Because if we continue to say that it exists on a completely arbitrary basis it makes it very easy to abuse the doctrine of fair labeling. I also agreed that we should dispense with the dictionary definitions - I merely used that to highlight that a long standing institutional definition of the term has never accounted for a power dynamic. It seems very weird that you're trying to distinguish between racism and prejudice. Both are equally bad. I hope this isn't trying to segregate the two so that you can later claim that racists should be looked on even less favourably that prejudiced people, because then we're right back at square one

 

[antisocial applicant]

Just popped in to check on vac scheme progress and some dude's on about genocide, tf is going on here?

 

[daisy_yawn]

This discussion really shows everyone's true colours, huh

 

[Winter]

I fear for some of you going into the legal field with opinions such as this. Wishing better for the future of diversity

 

[Abii]

a number of firms and companies offer guaranteed interviews to disabled applicants

Guaranteed interview is exactly that, guaranteed if you meet the benchmark and are disabled, not only because you are disabled!

 

[NotLord Denning]

I would like you name and shame those firms because I’m pretty sure hiring specific individuals to fit the diversity quota is a sham. That in itself is not affirmative action, that’s pure misrepresentation.

I can't exactly remember those firms now but if you go to the next application cycle for VSes, this disclaimer for their disability support scheme will literally be on one of the first 3 pages of their application

 

[Denver]

I hate to push you on this but I would need a specific example because I have read many of these proposed solutions and they generally all centre around the same principles - which are generally to rank order specific past instances of perceived oppression like slavery, genocide etc on a completely arbitrary basis and then to punish present-day people based on their accumulated score.

I haven't heard of a ranking method, but some things that I can remember from the top of my head is
1. quotas (to mitigate bias)
2. child care provided by or at work (to mitigate lack of career progression due to family commitments)
3. flexibility of working hours (for working fathers and mothers)
4. both parents taking parental leave (to reduce the stigma of women taking time off work - mitigate career progression)
5. effective and independent complaint procedures and strong HR department (sexual assault, discrimination experiences)

I know these are mainly gender-focused apart from the Nr. 1 and maybe 5, but maybe it gives you some inspo how inclusive working environments could look like.

 

[NotLord Denning]

a number of firms and companies offer guaranteed interviews to disabled applicants

exactly

 

[MeWantTCPlz]

"However, the law in the United Kingdom does allow for membership in a protected and disadvantaged group to be considered in hiring and promotion when the group is under-represented in a given area and if the candidates are of equal merit (in which case membership in a disadvantaged group can become a "tie-breaker")."

This is literally being prejudicial based on an immutable characteristic. I also think it's pretty condescending of you to infer things about my character simply because I disagree with you. How exactly are minorities fighting tooth and nail to be given equality of opportunity?

you described it originally in the vein of positive discrimination—which is illegal and now you’ve decided you want to get technical with the wording To try and undermine my point. Hiring someone on the basis of an immutable characteristic is illegal. Minorities are doing this by creating several schemes that help create an even playing field like another user described. Such as SEO London, 10k black interns, 10k abled interns etc. You aren’t just handed the role, you go through the same highly merit based processes like everyone else.

If thats how you feel then thats how you feel.

 

[daisy_yawn]

I fear for some of you going into the legal field with opinions such as this. Wishing better for the future of diversity

I'm a minority student but don't think opinions such as 'minority students SHOULD be overrepresented to make up for history, and racism can't be committed against white people' bode well for the future of diversity either.