denotes premium content | Feb 8 2012 Feature
posted 22 Apr 2010 in Volume 2 Issue 3
The frequent conversations share remarkable similarities, both in tone and level of frustration.They occur in different geographies and at different times, but in each instance the goal is the same: engage leaders of the profession in educational programmes that will address the continuing leadership, partnership, and compensation gaps that women face in the profession.Thirty years after we started practising, equality remains a wishful goal and the variety of programmes and initiatives designed to redress the imbalance have only had limited success.
But something different is happening this year.There is a growing restlessness with the long-held status quo, and an emerging frustration with the typical proposed fixes. Nowhere has this been more evident than in the recent controversy surrounding the New York State Bar Association’s Annual Meeting program planned by the Association’s Committee on Women in the Law.
The agenda indicated that the programme was designed for participants to learn from the perspective of senior women, followed by a panel of senior male partners. But publicity about the two panels unleashed an outpouring of anger that says far more about the simmering feelings people harbour on this topic than it does about a well-intended bar association’s effort to add to the catalogue of programmes for women lawyers.
A writer for the web site, Above The Law, expressed amusement at the programme’s description, suggesting to its women readers: “[M]aybe you still need some advice for navigating the mean, cutthroat, male-dominated world of the legal profession. Ideally these tips should come from, you know… MEN.”A torrent of swift and angry response from its readers followed.
Elsewhere on the web commentators underscored why training on the topic should be required in every workplace, and Pace law professor Bridget Crawford called for an outright boycott of the programme.“Yes, the speakers have a right to speak, but we don’t have to go and listen,” she said.“Men have been telling us for years how we don’t measure up.To have a panel of men, endorsed by the New York State Bar Association, discussing our ‘strengths and weaknesses,’ is a regression and an insult to all women in the legal profession.”
The NYSBA was swift in responding to the negative outpouring. It modified the programme and refocused the panel discussion on men and women “sharing their points of view”.
The changes made by the NYSBA may have effectively quelled the firestorm surrounding this one programme, but the example is instructive for what it says about the topic of women’s advancement.The hostile response to what was clearly a well-meaning effort by its Committee on Women speaks volumes about the state of diversity in our profession and the growing frustration with the slow progress that has been made.
So what lessons can be learned from this experience? First, programmes in which women are described as a problem to be solved feed stereotypes.They allow programme participants to ignore the reality that institutional barriers are far more of an impediment to the success of women than are gender differences.
Second, men have a lot to contribute to any discussion of gender barriers, but their participation cannot be perceived as paternal figures offering advice about how to be like them.The fact is that the law firm of the future cannot succeed by relying on the old models of the past.Young lawyers of both genders have far different expectations about their own career paths. If law firms continue to resist change, there will be no talent pool available to support continued institutional growth.
Third, the Association’s immediate decision to alter the programme in response to negative comments was a welcome change from the way too many other public organisations deal with criticism.The NYSBA is a nationally respected bar association that erred in the way it introduced a programme that it likely hoped would contribute to the advancement of women. It was wise to recognise that holding firm to its original idea would breed further ill will and negative publicity.
Finally, new ways must be found for advancing a more sophisticated dialogue on these issues. Bar associations can best contribute through their role as conveners. By facilitating summits or task forces, rather than panels and lectures, they may be in the best position to help lead in-depth, facilitated efforts that can result in specific recommendations for meaningful change.
The response to the NYSBA’s proposed programme is but one public manifestation of the increased frustration with the slow pace of progress, and the mistaken belief that the metrics will change when women do.The reality is that state and local bars can and should lead the way - assisting a profession in transition that needs diversity to thrive.
Lauren Stiller Rikleen is the Executive Director of the Bowditch Institute for Women’s Success (see www.bowditchinstitute. com) and a partner at Bowditch & Dewey, LLP.
