What does the "end" of DEI mean for students and "big law" job prospects? (Part I)

President Trump's Executive Order against several private and public institutions raises the question: what does this mean for first-generation students applying for post-bar jobs? Several of my law school courses have explored whether the 14th Amendment––the Constitutional requirement to treat all individuals equal––is useful socially and legally as a way to propel marginalized individuals forward. Or, alternatively, if “‘[d]iversity,’ for all of its devotees, is more a fashionable catchphrase than it is a useful term, especially when something as serious as racial discrimination is at issue.'" Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, n. 3 (2003) (Thomas, J., concurring in part).

Three major ("Big") law firms––WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Perkins Coie LLP––have been the subjects of Executive Orders telling them to halt their DEI practices, forgo certain pro bono projects, and end relationships with partisan clients. 

Litigation before the Supreme Court between the firms and the Trump administration is pending. Several major law firms are representing those firms, and many other law firms have signed an amicus brief asking the Court to hold in favor of Perkins Coie and their diversity practices. 

However, a growing contingent of big law firms (like Skadden Arps; Paul Weiss; Milbank; and Wilkie, Farr, and Gallagher) have acquiesced. To avoid an Executive Order, they promised the Trump administration hundreds of "pro bono" hours. 

Other large law firms have (thus far) remained silent.

As a law student, my news feed is filled with reactions against "big law" firms capitulating to the Trump administration: open letters by associates threatening resignation, "big law" partners initiating focus groups for other partners to act, or data suggesting 1L students applying to jobs are avoiding those firms. The American Bar Association and law school deans have also issued statements against the Trump Administration's actions.