Black attorneys make up five percent of the total number of lawyers in America. Leah Goodridge is one. She has represented tenants in New York City for over 11 years. Her success was not without challenges. Her superiors, her family and even her own mother told her to “put her head down and work hard” throughout her life. She learned as she worked in the legal field that she couldn’t or shouldn’t fight discrimination in the workplace because the standards for professionalism and the expectations of the profession were different for everyone.
Goodridge, the author of Professionalism as a Racially Construct, led a discussion on November 1 about racial inequality and hierarchy within the context of legal professionalism. The panel was sponsored by the Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Profession and the Stanford Center for Racial Justice. It also included the Black Law Students Association and the Asian and Pacific Islander Law Students Association.
Goodridge started with a presentation that showed how professionalism was used to police and regulate black people in many ways, including hair color, tone and food smells. The discussion then moved to a panel, moderated by Richard Thompson Ford, George E. Osborne professor of law, with Misasha Suzuki-Graham, co-author, co-host and host of Dear White Women and Professor Ron Tyler of Stanford Law School Criminal Defense Clinic to examine further the relationship between racism and professionalism.
First, they questioned the assumptions about professionalism that are often unquestioned and taken for granted. Tyler discovered that communication styles were heavily policed and often in an ableist manner. People who have difficulty vocalizing or finding words, speak at a different pace, or use a language other than “the Queen’s English” will be deemed unprofessional. Some people find that hairstyles and lengths are also unprofessional. Tyler says that “Black women’s and men’s hair are often considered unprofessional, unless they’re treated like the hair of white women.” This not only hurts, but has real consequences. Tyler cited, for instance, the fact that Black lawyers were found in contempt for wearing clothing in courtrooms deemed to be “unprofessional”.
Suzuki Graham emphasized this notion of professional dress and asked his audience to visualize a successful lawyer or trial attorney: “Whom do you see?” It’s the white male partner. As a white man, you take’reasonable’ and ‘professional’ standards. You can go through the list and see what we think is professional. For Ford, it’s a Catch-22. It’s important to be assertive. But being assertive also means that you are angry. Arguments are necessary to get a raise. However, arguing is ungrateful. He said: “You assume that you can meet the standard if you work hard, but it actually keeps you off-balance forever .”
What would the application of true professionalism look like? Goodridge’s first step is to identify the problems when they occur and then move on from a white-centric perspective as the basic understanding of racism in the workplace. Goodridge stated, “You don’t need to be spoon-fed. Knowing how to treat others .” is part of being a pro.
Suzuki Graham would like these conversations to take place also in spaces that are all white. She drew on her own experience as a bi-racial person to describe situations where she found herself in spaces that were all white, and no one suspected a non-white was there. She argued in these situations that silence can reinforce harmful behaviors and encouraged the audience to have these conversations immediately. She believes it’s important to ask questions and interrupt even when the person who is being targeted is not present.
Tyler elaborated on Suzuki Graham’s point about the all-white space, calling it disruption allyship. People with power and influence already have the least to gain. He said that in these situations it is these people who need to speak up, as “nobody will say anything if usual people do not say anything.” It would be great if the person who speaks up in these moments is not the usual suspect.
Ford then turned to the audience and asked them to continue the discussion. A member of the audience asked about professionalism and competency, and if unprofessional behavior was associated with incompetence. Tyler said that is exactly how professional standards should be applied. The “unprofessionalism” used to evaluate someone’s incompetence is based on the term. He said that this would be a good place to start – rather than merely labeling someone unprofessional, there should also be other factors considered. He stated, “Too many times, the term unprofessional is used to describe someone who is less competent, and therefore, less compensated .”
Panelists were asked to discuss ways to improve professionalism standards. This was especially important given the difficulty of changing norms that may have existed for many generations. Tyler thought that the Stanford entrepreneurial spirit was key. He suggested leaving law firms with outdated practices, which are hard to change, and starting a new firm to set expectations from day one. Goodridge rejected this idea and suggested that it’s not always possible to leave a harmful institution. She emphasized the importance of calling bias out when it occurs. Ford called attention to best practices that already exist in many institutions–particularly within human resources departments–that could be implemented. Ford said that there should be someone present who can flag up issues of discrimination and bias. This person should also be hired specifically for this purpose, rather than being forced to do “shadow HR” work.
Goodridge closed the panel by reminding the audience that the work they do can have a negative impact on their mental health. She also stressed that perseverance is achievable, but that self-care should be a priority from the beginning, regardless of the professional field you choose.