A trip back to 1974 - harmless banter or offensive prejudice?

Harmless Banter?

I am really discouraged by this piece. The reason I am discouraged is because that by not saying anything about the behaviour of these senior members of the legal profession, their behaviour is being condoned and therefore will continue. Why do people not have the courage to confront this behaviour?

Katie Gossage -23 Aug 2011 | 22:46

Lighten Up

I feel the writer of this article needs to lighten up. Yes, prejudice is bad, but I doubt the middle aged partners being described would be prejudiced in substantive decisions such as who to employ, who to make up to partner etc. In fact in today's climate, probably the opposite. They may well positively discriminate.

I think the writer of this article smacks of political correctness, making he/she just as bad as the prejudiced men.

Since the beginning of time people have made jokes about each other - people make jokes about the size of my nose, but I laugh and tell myself they are joking (which most of the time they are!) In turn I am respected for not being terrible company and everyone is happy.

It is life. Prejudice in tangible decision making is bad, but is becoming scarcer and scarcer. Prejudice in a jovial way is the substance of many major comedians and people, the writer of the article included, ought to lighten up and enjoy life.

Anon -23 Aug 2011 | 23:52

"Prejudice in a jovial way is the substance of many major comedians and people, the writer of the article included, ought to lighten up and enjoy life."

A sense of humour is great, but isn't it strange how it's never the rich white male people that we're supposed to be hur-huring about? I guess there's nothing 'funny' about them.

FD -24 Aug 2011 | 02:13

You lighten up!

"Yes, prejudice is bad, but I doubt the middle aged partners being described would be prejudiced in substantive decisions such as who to employ, who to make up to partner etc. In fact in today's climate, probably the opposite. They may well positively discriminate."

What an absurdly speculative comment! I'm sorry, but considering the actual evidence for a moment, the fact that the upper echelons of the legal profession continue to be overwhelmingly white and middle class suggests, I'm afraid, that there probably isn't that much positive discrimination going on - despite what the "right-wing fairground barkers" try and argue. The idea that a person who finds it amusing to make openly prejudice remarks in private, can then easily discard his prejudices when making decisions in the public/business world is naive and wrong. Prejudices are opinions about people which will necessarily affect the holder's decisions. The author is completely right that this is totally unacceptable.

"Prejudice in a jovial way is the substance of many major comedians and people"

Yeah, comedians like Bernard Manning i.e. racist comedians!

Mike -24 Aug 2011 | 10:21

Its interesting to see the views of a white male on prejudice in the legal profession.

Despite the efforts of the Law Society, the BSN and other groups, prejudice remains rampant in the profession. It's simply disgusting and this from a minority ethnic woman.

I am just about ready to give up pursuing a legal career in private practice... and this after working for many years in industry before deciding to re-qualify as a lawyer. It was whispered to me that I might face prejudice but I just didn't believe it would be so suffocating.

Anonymous -24 Aug 2011 | 13:15

As a senior woman (though white) in the profession I've come across my fair share of this and I totally understand why the writer didn't take issue at the time. What I mind about this behaviour is that the sexist/racist old farts who still do this assume not just that this 'banter' is OK but that I won't find their comments offensive.I'm better at taking issue with it than I used to be - but it's really hard not to come over as a humourless old-style women's libber and just increase the prejudice.

Anonymous -24 Aug 2011 | 17:28

A blogger writes

Thanks all for these comments. I feel that I should respond briefly to a couple of them.

To Katie: I don't feel good about not confronting it, but I can't really explain why I didn't without giving more details than I would be comfortable with. In some ways, and I know that it's not very brave, my blog is my voice for things that I can't say in my day job.

To the anonymous commenter who told me to lighten up: Hmmm...

First, political correctness is a straw man, and you know it. Even if it wasn't, in what way would it be as bad as the prejudice it sought to confront?

Next, even if prejudice is a fit subject for comedy, that doesn't excuse the same behaviour in the workplace, especially from those in a position of authority. Senior members of the profession have a statutory and moral responsibility for the wellbeing of those that they supervise, and it is not open to them to argue that the subject of discriminatory humour is not entitled to take offence.

And finally, I may well be terrible company, but it isn't because I don't have a sense of humour. Of course, you don't know me, but do have a look at my blog or my Twitter feed to see if I've ever written anything vaguely amusing.

Other commenters have kindly addressed your other points. My thanks to them.

Legal Bizzle -24 Aug 2011 | 20:03

uncomfortable

I was at a meeting recently attended by senior members of another profession. Some unpleasant sexist comments were made. I felt very uncomfortable. It was worse than talking to Gene Hunt.

HampshireLawyer -25 Aug 2011 | 14:22

Change career

You appear better suited to a career in journalism. I don't think you'll make it in the law. Clients don't tend to pay much for preciousness.

Boredwithyou -31 Aug 2011 | 04:01

.

I judge people by what they do rather than what they say. Some people are old-fashioned and reconstructed. It doesn’t mean they are prejudiced and likely to discriminate.

An example. I was interviewing a candidate for a job once and my colleague was interviewing someone else at the same time. Afterwards, we compared notes. I asked my colleague what she thought about the candidate she interviewed: She said: “well, she was a bit ‘black’ but I think she’s got the right attitude”.

The black girl got the job.

I then interviewed her and I knew exactly what my colleague was referring to. She spoke with a heavy “street” London/black accent that most middle-class educated people would run a mile from.

The point I’m getting at is that it’s what you do, not what you say.

Clearly, most educated middle-class people would never have said “she was a bit black” because they have a smooth delivery and a well developed social filter that eschews plain speaking and dances round issues like this.

They would use vague, ambiguous language such as “she’s not the right fit” (while smiling weakly)

But 99% of them would never have hired this girl, therefore a young, black woman would never have got a good job – thereby perpetuating the injustice that the well-meaning north London guardianista types tell us they’re opposed to.

Affluent, upper middle class “liberals” (I use that term loosely) are some of the most prejudiced people in society – but their prejudice is delivered more subtly, and is well masked with education and superior communication skills.

Billy -01 Sep 2011 | 21:01