ADVERTISEMENT

Iowa's Brenna Bird among 5 attorneys general warning law firms to end race-based hiring

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,442
58,934
113
Deplorable:

Brenna Bird of Iowa is among five Republican attorneys general to sign off on a nine-page letter to the 100 largest law firms in the United States, known as the "Am Law 100." The letter warns executives of the firms that they must "refrain from discriminating on the basis of race, whether under the label of 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' or otherwise."

"Differential treatment based on race is not only divisive but illegal … We expect our attorneys to follow the law like everyone else," Bird wrote in a Tuesday social media post.


The letter cites a June U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down affirmative action admissions policies used by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina.

Led by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, Bird and attorneys general from Arkansas, Kansas and Kentucky argue that the decision extends to private employers.

Their letter raises concerns with diversity programs at law firms, such as requiring diverse candidates when hiring for leadership roles, setting goals for the percentage of employees from underrepresented groups, or sponsoring fellowship programs based on race.

They also criticize diversity training that assigns "fault, blame or bias" to members of a race, or that discusses implicit racism or bias because of race.

POLITICS

Iowa's Brenna Bird among 5 attorneys general warning law firms to end race-based hiring​

Katie Akin
Des Moines Register









Iowa has joined four other red states in sending a warning to America's largest law firms: Stop using race-based hiring for employees and contractors or "you will be held accountable."

Brenna Bird of Iowa is among five Republican attorneys general to sign off on a nine-page letter to the 100 largest law firms in the United States, known as the "Am Law 100." The letter warns executives of the firms that they must "refrain from discriminating on the basis of race, whether under the label of 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' or otherwise."

"Differential treatment based on race is not only divisive but illegal … We expect our attorneys to follow the law like everyone else," Bird wrote in a Tuesday social media post.


The letter cites a June U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down affirmative action admissions policies used by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina.

Led by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, Bird and attorneys general from Arkansas, Kansas and Kentucky argue that the decision extends to private employers.



Their letter raises concerns with diversity programs at law firms, such as requiring diverse candidates when hiring for leadership roles, setting goals for the percentage of employees from underrepresented groups, or sponsoring fellowship programs based on race.

They also criticize diversity training that assigns "fault, blame or bias" to members of a race, or that discusses implicit racism or bias because of race.


Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, who is in a heated race for governor against incumbent Democrat Andy Beshear, dismissed race-based hiring practices as "identity politics" and said at a Wednesday campaign stop, “Kentucky should be a place where everyone can succeed, not just those who were born on third base to check a DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) box.”

Federal law prohibits employers from considering race and other protected characteristics in employment decisions.

However, employers may use diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives to make their workforces less homogeneous and their workplaces more inclusive by casting a wide net for qualified workers from different backgrounds, according to Andrew Turnbull, a labor and employment partner at law firm Morrison & Foerster.
 
1. The most hilarious part is that, among the AmLaw 100, they might collectively have one local office in the five states in question.
2. As an AmLaw firm lawyer, I have to say, some of us are just a bit over the top about DEI stuff, both in hiring and operations. it's like our marketing department - sometimes it feels like I'm working for them rather than the other way around. So I actually get a bit of a chuckle about the prospect of the firms that actually have to defend the lawsuits that have been filed. Needless to say, if it gets to discovery, I'm sure they'll find some massively stupid communications among them.
 
What a fvcking joke Iowans elected.

She sure seems to prioritize national stuff over State issues.
“Red meat” is her main plank as Iowa A/G. She is singular in purpose and purposely driven....it’s not about the needs of Iowa or its citizens and the law, as much as it s about MAGAt legal priorities and fitting Iowa into that shoe.
 
1. The most hilarious part is that, among the AmLaw 100, they might collectively have one local office in the five states in question.
2. As an AmLaw firm lawyer, I have to say, some of us are just a bit over the top about DEI stuff, both in hiring and operations. it's like our marketing department - sometimes it feels like I'm working for them rather than the other way around. So I actually get a bit of a chuckle about the prospect of the firms that actually have to defend the lawsuits that have been filed. Needless to say, if it gets to discovery, I'm sure they'll find some massively stupid communications among them.

I’m always torn a little of stuff like this. I don’t love the idea of quotas or requirements, but think it’s something all companies should try to keep in mind, as I believe diverse staffs are better for all.
 
It's like we live in bizzarro world or something. It's deplorable to not be racist. Smh
 
  • Like
Reactions: ICHerky
I’m always torn a little of stuff like this. I don’t love the idea of quotas or requirements, but think it’s something all companies should try to keep in mind, as I believe diverse staffs are better for all.
Agree, but it's really hard to keep it from spinning out of control into morose stupidity. Like when I got the "latin american heritage month" emails talking about how we were going to have a reception with enchiladas and nachos, and (at the end of the month) patting ourselves on the back and telling everyone to keep in mind the hard working people that cut our lawns, serve our food, and clean our houses. (Not kidding)
 
Is that how it works?
Damn.....who’d have guessed?
Ha. How do you think Chris Christie got his start in NJ politics? I'll tell you how. He had ongoing investigations of five major orthopedic surgerymanufacturers, and one day said they're all going to settle at the prices he dictated, and they're all going to engage the consultants he dictated to act as monitors. And guess who the initial big contributors were to his gubinatorial campaign fund were? That's right - the consultant monitors.

(To be clear, it's not any different than the game played by the plaintiff-side firms on mass tort matters, opioids, and the like.)
 
You think racism is a good hiring policy?
Define “your” racism....
I believe in giving all qualified candidates a seat at the “jobs” table. Diversity for diversity’s sake is never a guarantee to success. The trick is to find “the middle ground” here....
As imperfect as what you think we had before the SC decision of a couple of months ago, has been “replaced” by a policy equally as imperfect as the one it replaced. This Supreme Court and its decision did nothing to clarify the intent of “affirmative action” but it certainly leaves those who might have benefitted from “AA” without any legal recourse in case of discrimination.
 
Stating facts? It never ends. What did I say that wasn't correct here? Nice attempt at another perceived gotcha moment when you have nothing else. BAU.
it's not that, it's that i just literally have no idea what youre referring to...no gotcha involved.
 
Lefties love to claim racism everywhere except where it is actually being practiced. But everyone knows, the left doesn't really hate racism, they just want to be the ones who get to decide who gets discriminated against.

Since you really are a lefty, why dont you tell us?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Agree, but it's really hard to keep it from spinning out of control into morose stupidity. Like when I got the "latin american heritage month" emails talking about how we were going to have a reception with enchiladas and nachos, and (at the end of the month) patting ourselves on the back and telling everyone to keep in mind the hard working people that cut our lawns, serve our food, and clean our houses. (Not kidding)
That sounds like some LinkedIn posts I’ve read over the years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aardvark86
Subtly, yes they are. By making “AA” in its present form, illegal the SC effectively denied some a potential seat at the table of employment. Again, it is a fine line but it is a line that be easily camouflaged or “mismarked.”
Bologna
 
Hmmm. What am I missing that I don’t see anything wrong with that?

Businesses do it all the time. I don’t think they really need a letter.
 
What is wrong about hiring someone based on their race? Seriously?

That isnt what I asked you.

Again; "What is wrong with considering it in hiring"?

Notice I said considering, not hiring based on it. Rather, the makeup of the workforce is a variable to consider.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sober_teacher
Nobody is stopping anyone from having a diverse workforce.

Subtly, yes they are. By making “AA” in its present form, illegal the SC effectively denied some a potential seat at the table of employment. Again, it is a fine line but it is a line that be easily camouflaged or “mismarked.”

We know from history that if people aren’t pushed to do things at times they aren’t comfortable, they stick with what they know. In practice this also means that many potentially qualified aren’t ever considered because they would have been outside that comfort zone.

What is wrong about hiring someone based on their race? Seriously?

If it’s solely based on race, then yes that’s a problem. That’s not what is happening tho and you know it.
 
That sounds like some LinkedIn posts I’ve read over the years.
Another of my favorites was when they (in this case, actual practicing lawyers) tried to explain (i) the difference between Latino and Hispanic, and (ii) why Hispanic American Heritage month started in the middle of the month. The Latinx (Latin America) v. Hispanic (derivative of European spaniards) was easy enough to grasp. But then, it got sorta confusing pretty quickly. On the one hand, we were calling it hispanic american heritage month, which of course is sort of celebrating the colonizing Europeans, but then the reason it was starting on the 15th was to coincide with independence day for a lot of latin american countries, presumably independence from the spaniards.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT