The good news is that law firms are addressing issues of racism in their respective environments more aggressively, much as other business and social institutions -- e.g., corporations, banks, and federal agencies -- have been doing for years. Asking "how do we view our firm and how do we treat all partners and associates?" many firms are beginning to identify the subtle and not-so-subtle practices of racism (and sexism) that are undermining morale, productivity and growth.

The bad news is that often this recognition and acknowledgment of racism comes through only after the repeated observation of damaging trends. For example, firms frequently hire some of the brightest and best people of color from the most prestigious law schools, who -- at higher rates than their white male peers and despite high salaries and comfortable "perks" -- either burn out or leave before they become eligible to make partner. The departures by such talented individuals represent an unfortunate and costly trend. Many of the firms that have experienced such loses have begun to question the role of racism in their partner track derailments.

For more than two years I have been working with attorneys in a variety of legal settings -- e.g., prestigious law firms, community law offices, in-house legal departments -- to discover and eliminate racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination in the workplace. Most often, my work consists of presentations and workshops that increase participants’ awareness of and self-interest in combating racism in its myriad forms. In this process, as well as in the process of assessing the workplaces’ ambiance, as it relates to issues of racism and sexism, I have had the opportunity to talk with many minority and majority attorneys regarding issues of race and gender in their work environments.

Racism, as expressed in most professional settings, is subtle. Few people are running around the halls of this city’s or this nation’s law firms yelling racial epithets or openly saying that people of color don’t belong there. But far too many of the partners, associates and staff members do hold such beliefs which, unacknowledged or denied consciously, often are revealed or communicated subtly or unconsciously, in a variety of ways, to the people of color. For example, people frequently give very different interpretations to the same behavior in the same settings depending on whether the person is white or a person of color. John, a white male associate, tends to be quiet in team meetings. Frequently, observers will describe John as pensive, contemplative and maybe even methodical. Bill, a black associate, who displays very similar conduct in the same context will often be described as uninterested, withholding or uninformed about the subject matter.

In addition to the flawed perceptions about people of color that racism breeds, specific situations that occur with disturbing frequency in law firms, offices or institutions undermine the individuals’ chances for advancement and growth. For example, a black female associate writes a brief that the senior, white partner minimally revises maintaining 90+% of the associate’s research and work. Yet, when it comes time to meet with the client, instead of her, it is two white male colleagues working on the fringe of the case who are invited to present the brief.

While some benign explanation of this scenario could conceivably be valid, it is more likely that this is evidence of racism and/or sexism. Whether it is to "protect" the possibly bigoted client from knowing who really did the work, or just a gross slight on the part of the senior partner orchestrating the meeting, the black associate experiences this treatment as discriminatory and to varying degrees will probably be demotivated.

Blacks are not the only ones who are objects of such skewed perceptions and discriminatory treatment. Asians and Hispanics are also subject to subtle (and not-so-subtle) forms of bias. However, as a recent study of minority attorneys in New York law firms found Hispanics and Asians are less likely to report such experiences. I think this is the case for at least three possible reasons -- one, many Asians and Hispanics, being of lighter skin color than most blacks, may, in fact, elicit fewer racially based discriminatory responses from whites; two, many Asians and many Hispanics may be less willing to risks the opprobrium that will surely follow if they do openly confront, admittedly ambiguous or racist behavior and, finally, some Asians and some Hispanics are products of cultures which do not support direct confrontations of discriminatory behavior. Direct confrontation of racism has, historically, been a style preferred by African Americans to almost any other. The same may not be as true for members of other groups.

For example, a Hispanic woman was hired into a large, prestigious law firm. During her first nine months on the job she was given no assignments and was not assigned to work for any particular partner. So, she sat in her office for the entire period, isolated and neglected. When I asked her why she did not leave or confront some one about her treatment, she replied that she did not leave because she was furious at the firm and refused to simply skulk away. She wanted them to face her and either fire her or begin to treat her better. As for her confronting them, she was convinced that they "knew" what they were doing and that the onus of initiating the confrontation rests with them, not her. So, while her fury compelled her to stay at the firm, it did not direct her to confront those responsible for her treatment. By the way, there never was a satisfactory answer as to why she was ignored for all those months.

The fact that the discriminatory behavior is subtle and difficult to prove or often to even describe, makes it all the more onerous to deal with because it often leaves the victim (whether black, Asian or Hispanic) questioning his/her own sanity and perceptions. It is often easier for the victim to simply ignore the slight or the off-hand remark. And, the experience is often all the more difficult to deal with because the victim frequently knows or believes that the perpetrator does not mean the remark or the gesture to be racist.

There’s no easy way to measure the degree of racism in a firm. I’m convinced, however, based on verbal reports by associates and partners, that some firms are more conscientious than others on this score. The simplest thing to do is to ask all members of the firm -- partners, associates and staff -- how they experience the environment of the organization as it relates to race.

This approach has some drawbacks, though, as the people of color who are most successful and therefore most likely to have the greatest credibility may also have the greatest conscious or unconscious motivations to overlook the racism, if it exists. And, in fact, such individuals may actually be treated better than some other people of color in the same firm who are held in lower esteem. The situation can be even worse in that even those people of color who are highly thought of can lose stature if they confront members of the firm too frequently about their racism. Then those people of color are perceived as the problem, instead of the racism against which they are railing. They get labeled as "one issue partners" or associates, or the firm’s radicals or militants.

All of this leads to a kind of conspiracy of silence on the issue of racism. Which, in my view, is the best way I know of to sustain or perpetuate the problem. Whites frequently can not see or experience racism in the firm and some frequently don’t want to see that which is obvious. And, the situation is further complicated by the fact that many of the labor attorneys in the firm, in their attempt to safeguard the organization against potential suits, discourage partners and associates from talking about racism in their workplace and/or investigating the possibility of its existence. People of color, on the other hand, are often apprehensive about talking about it. After all, one does not get to be a successful attorney by being perceived as overly sensitive and crying foul every time something negative happens to him/her.

New associates usually won’t leave over one or two unpleasant encounters with racism. Remember, racially or culturally biased behavior if often difficult to prove or identify, so, its targets face the daunting and uncomfortable question of what they should do when they become its victims. Confronting a partner in a law firm about his or her racist behavior is fraught with pitfalls, since few individuals respond to an accusation of racist behavior on their part with equanimity. The accuser is likely to be labeled thin-skinned or unable to take a joke (if humor was attempted or intended), or difficult to get along with, or not a team player, or -- most damaging of all -- as using race or culture to cover marginal performance. With such ramifications to consider, people of color do not throw around accusations of racism casually. There is little to gain by doing so. The road to becoming a partner in a law firm is rarely paved by protestations of racism against your potential future partners.

But when a series of indicators reveal themselves (such as minority associates finding out over several Mondays that fellow white associates have been invited to various partners’ houses for dinner or to their clubs to play golf or tennis, or in the last round of promotions, no minorities were made partner), it becomes clear that unfair or special treatment is part of the firm’s overall environment. The minority associate (or partner, in some cases), convinced that she or he is the victim of subtle, pervasive racism (and/or sexism), without an avenue to combat it such as focussing a verbal spotlight on it, often feels that they are left with few alternatives but to vote with their feet.

In order to address the uncomfortable, taboo questions of racism in the workplace we need to create a language with which to talk about race, gender and all aspects of human diversity. In many ways, we are about workplace diversity in the ‘90’s as we were about sex in the 1930’s or before. That is, we don’t have a language to talk about cross race or cross cultural interactions (we could also include gender) in ways which don’t embarrass or enrage people. Much of what I try to do with organizations is to help them develop some comfort and skill at discussing issues of diversity, especially race.

There is no way, that I’m aware of, that law firms or any other companies can completely and entirely eliminate racism in the way that toxic substances can (in theory) be purged from the office air. But what law firms can do is to raise awareness about the issues, frequently, keep them in the front of peoples’ attention by talking about racism at firm functions -- formal and informal -- until people grasp through training and education, ways of identifying and eradicating it.

Giving people opportunities to talk about racism, and encouraging them to form networks of "people of difference" where they will learn about people who in some ways are different from themselves, is a good start to eliminating racism in law firms and other legal environments. That isn’t to say that I am advocating that partners and associates stop networking and socializing with their respective groups of choice, but I do advocate that they be encouraged to form cross-race, cross-gender, cross-cultural and cross-age/physical ability networks, as well. Without authentic relationships across racial and other lines of differences, we have little hope of ever seeing each other as individuals. We will forever see each other as the larger culture prescribes that we see each other -- i.e., through the lens of racial and cultural stereotypes.

Along with starting to talk about racism, law firms are taking more aggressive steps to discourage it at all levels. Increasing numbers are refusing to pay for partners’ memberships in exclusive clubs, for example; especially if the members are relying on those clubs to provide an environment for doing business. And more and more firms are putting together minority concerns committees and minority retention committees while also taking on the task of recognizing which clients and projects are and are not being assigned to minority partners and associates. Also, many law firms are starting mentoring programs for associates and, in general, are tightening-up and making the process of going from associate to partner more rational and objective.

We need to recognize a myth of the dominant culture: a level playing field has been created by passing laws and doing EEO and affirmative action work. This is sheer denial of the facts. No matter how much we may all wish the myth were true, it is honored more in the breach than in the observance.

Despite its history and conservative nature, the legal profession can, should it have the will, still join the vanguard of elite companies and other social institutions in their attempt to make the workplace a truly hospitable place for all Americans. By learning to effectively deal with the challenges presented by subtle racism in the workplace, law firms have the opportunity to better utilize the talents of all segments of the population and to reinforce the moral and political basis of the law itself. And, since workforce diversity tends to be highly correlated with creativity and high quality productivity, law firms may find that greater diversity may be their best weapon against a cruel business environment which expects all businesses to exact more from less in order to survive and thrive.