Law Commons^™

The Diversity Feedback Loop, Patrick Shin, Devon Carbado, Mitu Gulati

Faculty Scholarship

At some point in the near future, the Supreme Court will weigh in on the permissible scope of affirmative action to increase workplace diversity. Undoubtedly, many scholars will argue that if affirmative action is good for colleges and universities, it is good for workplaces as well. One cannot assess whether this “transplant” argument is right without understanding the complex ways in which diversity initiatives at colleges and universities interact with diversity initiatives at work. The university and the workplace are not separate and distinct institutional settings in which diversity is or is not achieved. They are part of an interconnected …

Cultivating Inclusion, Patrick S. Shin, Mitu Gulati

Faculty Scholarship

In this symposium essay in honor of critical race theory stalwart Mari Matsuda, we discuss two of her essays on affirmative action, "Affirmative Action and Legal Knowledge: Planting Seeds in Plowed-Up Ground" and "Who is Excellent?" We draw on the insights of these essays, one written almost twenty-five years ago and the other over a decade ago, to reflect on currently prevailing justifications for affirmative action, which revolve entirely around debates about diversity. We contrast the production of racial diversity with the more robust concept of affirmative action that Matsuda advocated. We argue that the modern diversity rationale lies at …

A Difficult Conversation: Corporate Directors On Race And Gender, Kimberly D. Krawiec, John M. Conley, Lissa L. Broome

Faculty Scholarship

This symposium essay summarizes our ongoing ethnographic research on corporate board diversity, discussing the central tension in our respondents’ views – their overwhelmingly enthusiastic support of board diversity coupled with an inability to articulate coherent accounts of board diversity benefits that might rationalize that enthusiasm. As their reactions make clear, frank dialogue about race and gender – even a seemingly benign discussion of diversity’s benefits – can be a difficult conversation.

The Danger Of Difference: Tensions In Directors’ View Of Corporate Board Diversity, Kimberly D. Krawiec, John M. Conley, Lissa L. Broome

Faculty Scholarship

This Article describes the results from fifty-seven interviews with corporate directors and a limited number of other persons (including institutional investors, search firm personnel, and the like) regarding their views on corporate board diversity. It highlights numerous tensions in these views. Most directors, for instance, proclaim that diverse boards are good, but very few directors can articulate their reasons for this belief. Some directors have suggested that diverse boards work better than non-diverse boards, but gave relatively few concrete examples of specific instances where a female or minority board member made a special contribution related to that director’s race or …

Dangerous Categories: Narratives Of Corporate Board Diversity, Lissa Lamkin Broome, John M. Conley, Kimberly D. Krawiec

Faculty Scholarship

In this article, we report the results of a series of interviews with corporate directors about racial, ethnic, and gender diversity on corporate boards. On the one hand, our respondents were clear and nearly uniform in their statements that board diversity was an important goal worth pursuing. Yet when asked to provide examples or anecdotes illustrating why board diversity matters, many subjects acknowledged difficulty in illustrating theory with reference to practice.

This expressed reluctance to come to specific terms with general claims about the value of director diversity inspired our title phrase: dangerous categories. That is, while "diversity" evokes universal …

Showcasing: The Positive Spin, Katharine T. Bartlett

Faculty Scholarship

This Commentary outlines the positive case for showcasing diversity. Patrick Shin and Mitu Gulati criticize showcasing on the grounds that appointing women and minorities to board directorships is unreliable as a sign of true commitment to diversity and, further, that showcasing is detrimental to women and minorities because it treats them as objects or “prized trophies.” Drawing on social psychology, this Commentary highlights the mechanisms through which showcasing, despite the negative features emphasized by Shin and Gulati, also reinforces diversity values and strengthens the existing societal consensus in favor of diversity.

Different Strokes For Different Folks: A Different Standard Is Not Inherently A Double Standard, James E. Coleman Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

During the Senate’s closed confirmation hearings on President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s nomination of George E. Wilson, President of General Motors, to be Secretary of Defense, a senator asked Wilson if he would be able to make decisions as Secretary of Defense that were adverse to General Motors’ interest. Wilson replied that he would, but added he could not imagine having to make such a choice because “[f]or years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa.” This bit of rhetorical bromide was reported erroneously by the press, which had been excluded from …

Showcasing Diversity, Mitu Gulati, Patrick S. Shin

Faculty Scholarship

Diversity initiatives are commonplace in today’s corporate America. Large and successful firms frequently tout their commitments to diversity, sometimes appointing women and racial minorities to highly visible posts, including seats on their boards of directors. Why would a profit-minded firm engage in such behavior? One frequently voiced explanation is that by creating such diversity, firms send out a positive signal about their attributes: a firm’s willingness to expend resources on diversity shows its commitment to workplace fairness and equality, which makes it more attractive to potential employees, customers and financiers. This claim has considerable surface appeal not only as an …

Affirmative Action And Colorblindness From The Original Position, Guy-Uriel Charles

Faculty Scholarship

In this Article, the author explores Grutter v. Bollinger from the vantage point of the colorblindness principle. He posits that the Grutter decision is noteworthy for two reasons. First, the Court rejected the argument that the Constitution is colorblind and that the classifications based on race are per se unconstitutional. Second, the Court explicitly recognized that racial categorizations are not all morally equivalent. The author uses classical liberalism as a heuristic for exploring whether the colorblindness argument is necessarily a moral imperative. He ultimately concludes that the Court adopted the correct approach in Grutter in rejecting the allure of the …

In Defense Of Deference, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

What Exactly Is Racial Diversity?, Devon W. Carbado, Mitu Gulati

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Law And Economics Of Critical Race Theory, Mitu Gulati, Devon W. Carbado

Faculty Scholarship

Legal academics often perceive law and economics (L&E) and critical race theory (CRT) as oppositional discourses. Using a recently published collection of essays on CRT as a starting point, we argue that the understanding of workplace discrimination can be furthered through a collaboration between L&E and CRT. L&E's strength is in its attention to incentives and norms, specifically its concern with explicating how norms incentivize behavior. Its limitation is that it treats race as exogenous and static. Thus, the literature fails to consider how institutional norms affect, and are affected by, race. To put the point another way, L&E does …

A Preliminary Report On The Bakke Case, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Scholarship

This comment breaks down the variety of opinions in the Bakke case and discusses the immediate implications the decision may have on the academic community.