On July 13th, 2013, the United States was forced to grapple with what many would call one of the most high-profile trials of the decade. In particular this trial, in which it was decided that George Zimmerman would be found not guilty of killing unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, reaffirmed to many Black Americans that regardless of criminal record or intention, simply one’s Blackness can easily lead to their own demise. 

Even before hearing of the many deaths of Black individuals at the hands of law enforcement, and other patrolling entities, my mother cautioned me that elements of my appearance would have to change. No longer would my monochrome black hoodies be worn outside, no longer would I let my natural hair grow and no longer would I be incredibly unintentional about what I even sounded like. This “balancing act of blackness” is the reality that many people of color face not only in their daily commutes, and places of employment, but during the hiring processes as well. Specifically, contrary to the public’s high valuation of the field, implicit balancing often occurs heavily in the prestigious professional hiring of law associates, who often go on to impact policies affecting the lives of those similar to Trayvon. 

In her book “Pedigree: How Elite Students Get Elite Jobs”, Lauren Rivera outlines how, despite the interest of a wide assortment of academics, there is very little research on the specific hiring processes in large law firms. As it stands, according to the American Bar Association (ABA), the legal profession remains one of the least diverse of any professional environment.  For example, the percentage of women within the legal field recently rose to slightly above 35 percent in 2017 (the highest it has ever been). However, when it comes to private practice, women make up only 20 percent of partners and just 18 percent of equity partners.

These statistics are far worse for racial minorities. According to the ABA “4 percent of active attorneys identified as Black or African American in 2007 and 4 percent identified as Hispanic or Latino”. Despite over a decade passing, these numbers have only risen slightly to 5 percent each. This is especially stark considering that there has been a decline in the white population and a simultaneous growth of the Latino or Hispanic, Asian American, and Black populations by rates of 20%, 29%, and 8.5%, respectively. When avoiding national averages these statistics reflect the narrative of exclusion outlined by Rivera in Pedigree. As it stands almost 19% of offices reported no minority partners and over 45% reported no minority women partners.

Though there have been substantial initiatives by the American Bar Association and a select few firms, there is still a clear lack of underrepresented minority associates within the top 100 law firms. This is primarily because the main drivers of this lack of representation are not found in explicit behavior. Rather the primary driver of this disparity is the fixation on “Pedigree”, the use of soft skills, interpersonal relationship building and experience screening, during the firm interviewing process. Pedigree primarily inserts itself into the hiring process via two mechanisms: 1) screening by interviewers for professional status; and 2) the reliance on implicit biases of applicants in the resume review round.  There is a wide assortment of narratives that reinforce the concept of socio-economic discrimination in firm culture. In addition, though the percentage of minority law students has doubled, there has not been an equivalent in the top corporate firm world.

The mechanism of “professional” screening in which applicants are judged based on their ability to “fit in” with current associates, yields the statistics observed. It is a commonly discussed belief that standards of professionalism are rooted in the systemic centering of whiteness. This is why the use of professionalism, or more specifically the screening against “nontraditional dialects ”, non-white hairstyles, and ethnic professional garb, hurts prospective associates. Furthermore, the mechanism of implicit bias during resume screening is a component of “Pedigree” as well. There is robust literature on implicit bias in resume review processes, yet it is usually not explicitly referenced in firm hiring practices. For example, white sounding names received 50 percent more call backs than identical resumes with black sounding names.  In addition, the high valuation for activities that have a high barrier to entry for low socioeconomic classes such as sommelier training, tennis club membership, lacrosse competition and piano efficacy is common.

If we are to improve the outcomes for not only children such as Trayvon Martin but also the general outcomes of the policy field broadly, we must work to erase this notion of Pedigree. For as it stands, the legal profession remains as one of the most widely utilized paths to impactful leadership, and it would be detrimental to the most marginalized to restrict it.  

Kendrick Peterson is a 1st year Dual Degree Master’s of Public Policy student at the Goldman School of Public Policy and Juris Doctorate student at Berkeley Law. Throughout Kendrick’s academic career he has gravitated towards positions in law and public policy that allow him to make an impact. While at his undergraduate institution, alongside his participation in marching band and his presidency of the sole LGBTQ+ undergraduate organization, his studies concentrated in Political Science, Business Economics, and Public Policy. However, as an JD/MPP graduate student, as well as a former fellow at Columbia's African American Policy Forum, the Human Rights Campaign and South Bend Juvenile Justice Center, his current passions include Higher Education litigation, policy memo construction and varying Law practice areas. He is an alumnus of the National Bill and Melinda Gates Millennium, Questbridge, International Benjamin A. Gilman, Harvard PPLC and PPIA fellowship programs, and hopes to carry the mission of these organizations into his professional career.