Missing Queers

One underreported aspect of the U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of U.S. law schools is the magazine’s accompanying assessment of these schools vis-à-vis a diversity index it has created.  There is likely to be disagreement about whether or not a law school’s student body diversity should factor into a school’s ranking at all—whether done by the USNWR (where student body diversity is not factored in) or another entity.  Here, however, I’d like to query this diversity index’s sole focus on racial/ethnic diversity and, moreover, this index’s failure to incorporate sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) diversity.  In a similar spirit, I’d also like to query the SOGI omission in how the American Bar Association measures the diversity of both U.S. law schools’ faculty and student bodies.  With the ABA, and its required disclosures (for an example, click here) there is a sole focus on racial/ethnic diversity and also male/female (M/F) diversity.  In short, I think these kinds of diversity measurements results in ‘missing queers’—though it be for better or for worse.

In querying the omission of queers from measures of institutional diversity, my main goal here is to puzzle (with readers and commentators) through the reasons behind this continuing omission, and whether these reasons still make sense.  Certainly one can understand how the omission developed in previous eras of silence about queerness. Indeed, with such pervasive silence (and ignorance), it’s a bit anachronistic to even identify an ‘omission’ in earlier times. 

But now?  In an era of same-sex marriage, LGB people openly serving in the U.S. military, and more, what explains a census’ silence?  Why cannot queers be counted?  Should they be?

Certainly, one reason that SOGI diversity might get omitted in relation to law schools is because the results might be pretty embarrassing.  Important actors may not want their law school’s failure to attract LGBTQ students and faculty to be ever discovered.  While embarrassment (or shaming) is likely to accompany the results of any future SOGI diversity measurement with respect to law schools, embarrassment doesn’t seem to have stopped the ABA in this general domain before.  Indeed, the ABA has tried to measure SOGI diversity in its own operations (see here) and, yes, the results were embarrassing, but they were still published (to the ABA’s credit).  And there seems to be ongoing efforts to remedy the situation (though, notably, the ABA seems unable to say the word 'queer,' and seems only interested in Ls, Gs, Bs, and Ts).

Another reason might have to do less with law schools being caught with their pants down and, instead, law schools not wanting to ask others what they do when their pants are down.  This kind of paternalism, I think, could take two forms:  1) wanting to ‘protect’ students and faculty from ‘embarrassing’ questions about their ‘private’ lives, and 2) in especially phobic contexts, wanting to protect LGBTQ students and faculty from exposure and abuse.  Especially in an era of small class sizes, it wouldn’t be too hard at some places to reverse engineer census numbers to guess who are the pink sheep in the family—and to hurt them.

Finally, I can imagine the ‘this is too damn hard to do’ argument.  Facebook now has 50-something gender options.  Should all of these be measured?  Maybe.  But, regardless, race is also non-dyadic, and we manage to find a way to measure it (thought there are objections to common census categories from across the political spectrum).

I’d be curious as to others thoughts about why SOGI diversity is not measured in U.S. law schools, and whether it should be.  NB:  Comments that respond to the substance of this particular post, as well as comments that demonstrate the ability to put spaces between paragraphs, will receive priority posting-wise.  Others will probably be deleted.

Comments

[Anthony Infanti]

Given the history of exclusion from the practice of law on the basis of sexual orientation, this is a form of diversity that definitely should be measured. The lack of measurement or valuation of diversity along sexual-orientation- and gender-identity-based lines is not explainable by any reason other than discomfort or ignorance on the part of those doing the measuring. NALP has measured diversity along these lines for years (I can remember, many years ago, being the only "out" LGBT person at the law firm I worked at who was reported to NALP--I certainly wasn't the only LGBT individual, just the only one who was out). It is long past time for USNews (and others, they are far from alone) to start counting LGBT individuals in their measures of diversity.

[M. Jones]

There are all kinds of diversity that could potentially be measured that are not (e.g., class). Enter Occam's razor. I would hazard a guess that the ABA doesn't collect data on every form of diversity because they are not wanting to expressively value and incentivize all forms of diversity. The same could be said of other organizations. The other side of this would be to question why we measure racial diversity or sex-based diversity and I expect the answer is because it is seen (in proportions approaching consensus, if not yet there) as socially valuable.

[Jeff Redding]

Anthony: Thanks for your perspective and the information on NALP!

M. Jones: Thanks too for your input. In addition to race, gender, and sexual orientation diversity, I can see class, religion, and dis/ability as important diversities to measure as well. I'm sure there might be others too.

[Jimbino]

Sex diversity has been attained. Racial diversity is on the way.

There is no diversity in law schools when it comes to STEM background and ability. Indeed, our Supreme Court is a model for lack of religious diversity and STEM diversity: only Breyer among the nine has a clue about math and science.

After he leaves, we'll be left with the usual crowd of Engllish, history, and political science majors. No matter, COTUS and POTUS are equally handicapped.

[Glomarization]

What the heck does a disembodied female leg poking out of an armoire have to do with the topic of this post?

[Anon]

A few years back, Bank of America sought to collect information from its employees regarding their sexual orientation and it caused a huge backlash, even though it appeared that the bank wanted the information so that it could better meet the needs of its employees. They ceased the effort almost immediately because of the negative press. It is still a hot button issue and not so easy to measure.

[Jeff Redding]

Anon: Thanks for the information. Is this the incident you were thinking of? http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Bank-of-America-survey-asks-workers-about-sexual-2705535.php

It sounds like there was a fair amount of distrust between the employees and employer in the first instance there. I wonder if the dynamic is different between students filling out a survey for their law school, including information about their SOGI, and this situation of employer/employee conflict.

[Jeff Harrison]

Ideally, the quality of the education is influenced by diversity and should be part of the analysis. And, as things stand now, if gender and race count the exclusion of sexual preference and socioeconomic class makes little sense. Age would also be a factor. My classes often benefit by having students who have been out for some time. USN@WR should include them all. What increasingly concerns me is that I am not sure we get diversity when we admit or hire diversity. In faculty hiring most minority hires have upper middle class backgrounds and elite degrees. The bring some diversity. The same is likely true of other "diverse" groups. I think diversity in the student body is more important but I am not sure a single characteristic can be used any longer to identify meaningful diversity.