-
Hey Guest, do you have a question for graduate recruitment? Gemma Baker from Willkie is live to answer your questions!
-
Get line-by-line feedback on your applications, access to our weekly application workshops, and our law firm profiles. Use the coupon code 'SIXWEEKS' at checkout for 10% off.
TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2022-23
- Thread starter Jessica Booker
- Start date
- Status
Wouldn't be surprised given the Hogan-Shearman rumours lol
Racism isn't just oppression though, no? Racism is simply prejudice or discrimination directed at someone based on their race, and if this happens to be white people, that's racism. I'm not a fan of double standards, so hate it when people say racism can't be committed against white people, or sexism against men because it's just not true.
Anyway manifesting good news for everyone who’s expecting to hear back tomorrow 💕🎉👏
Last edited:
It was about racism not oppression. And racism can be afflicted on anyone, by anyone
I didn't say they were, but it's interesting to see your mask slip!
ngl this one cracked me upCan't say - he may come back for an eighth time.
I think it's disingenuous to compare these stats against the UK population to conclude that there is overrepresentation of minorities (meanwhile implying that there is positive discrimination towards them). This train of reasoning would only hold if you compared the respective stats to the applicant pool of each of these firms, NOT the wider UK pop.
Also note the firms you listed are based in London. Without looking this up, BAME proportions in London are most certainly significantly higher than the 13.8% you quoted. Londoners will be overrepresented in the applicant pools for these firms and naturally lead to greater representation there.
Also note the point of intersectionality someone else made, where there may actually be overrepresentation of some minority groups (for whatever reason), the effect of this "BAME" bunching is that BAME stats often mask gross underrepresentation of minorities within the group. Hence a conclusion that 'minorities are overrepresented' even if true for some, lacks nuance.
Radiating ‘The one that got away’ vibe lolCan't say - he may come back for an eighth time.
I honestly think in the specific instance of law firm job applications nobody is actually that under advantaged - if anything affirmative action makes it easier for minorities to get in
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...
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.
Pretty much same story with me and the SPB interview. It was difficult to really develop on the questions asked. Wouldn't worry about it at all.
I don’t think affirmative action works that way buddy. Affirmative action doesn’t make it “easier”, it allows for equity. It levels the playing field for historically marginalized groups who have faced systemic barriers and discrimination, providing them with equal opportunities to succeed. It’s important to understand that affirmative action is not an “advantage” but moreso a correction.
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 raceFirst 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...
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.
I wouldn't go as far as saying affirmative action makes is 'easier' for minorities than white people! It's still a highly merit-based selection process, and access initiatives and measures are aimed at levelling the playing field, not clearing the path entirely for minority students.
Last edited by a moderator:
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 know you think you're being ever so nuanced with this take, but it's utter nonsense. Stop repurposing words to suit your agenda, which is coming across as a pretty discriminatory.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...
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Sticky
- Locked
