Feb 4, 2023·edited Feb 7, 2023Liked by Skye Pillsbury
+ Googled Prince Lobel out of bursting curiosity. And it turns out you were too kind :D. First thing that jumped out is the stark nonexistence of women of color across all tiers of attorneys besides 1 Black woman and 1 Latina, both at the lowest tier. Asian women, South Asians, Pacific Islanders, whole ethnic groups need not apply. I know this is Boston we're talking about, but is this typical? I've sent to my paralegal friend in Mass. to ask around too.
BTW of the 3 Business Litigation division women you mention, only 1 actually is listed as a partner, 2 are only associates. If reviews are indication, most women will be run out before they start getting too skilled and confident or running their traps about proper pay. Have you combed their Glassdoor yet? Didn't bother signing up to see in full, but mentions extreme turnover, they seem truly deeply hostile to women who don't know their place, and the most recent one's title is simply: "Toxic." Solid choice, PRX!
Bonus points: solid judgment for both a journalism outfit and a supposedly journalists-supporting law firm to bet on journalists failing to expose their diversity and inclusion prattle for the deceptive grandstanding it is. What stupefying foolishness.
Enlightening and crucially important work -congratulations, Skye. Spread the word, all.
Wow, Skye! Outstanding. The Prince Lobel one, holy $^&*. This is such revealing context. That PRX report perplexed me back when it landed in my feed. There were some funny guesses of who they think they're fooling after the tweets spread. Remember thinking, what and who is this even for? They're really trying to blame the young woman for not cooperating with their low attempts to publicly discredit her? They find excess stress and barriers "BIPOC" specifically suffer **at all levels** and then trivialize all as "microaggressions"? Farcical. (The pop buzzwords also gave it a very "how do you do, fellow kids" energy, ha.)
A big reason you see rules like "interns must receive college credit" has to do with employment laws. The quick and dirty is that you can get people to work for free as long as they get "paid" in credit. It's similar to "consideration" within contracts.
I appreciate the value of internships and entry level work under established people, but at the same time, I think we're in a world where it matters less and less, because it's so much easier to jump in with limited resources and do something on your own. Yeah, the mentorship isn't there in the same way, but if you're looking to jumpstart a career, you no longer have to wait for somebody to established to validate you.
Who gets internships is an important question. I think the SAG-AFTRA response is in good faith. Their first interest is in guarding against exploitation. As for giving priority to grads of accredited programs, I expect this is, in part, a way of dealing with having way more applications than intern positions. Understandable, but imperfect. Perhaps NPR should earmark at least a few positions for people with non-conforming backgrounds.
Why do you feel it's right to throw Jeffrey Pyle under the bus for something he wrote in 1999? He represents journalists on important transparency cases. Not many firms do that. He's on your side.
+ Googled Prince Lobel out of bursting curiosity. And it turns out you were too kind :D. First thing that jumped out is the stark nonexistence of women of color across all tiers of attorneys besides 1 Black woman and 1 Latina, both at the lowest tier. Asian women, South Asians, Pacific Islanders, whole ethnic groups need not apply. I know this is Boston we're talking about, but is this typical? I've sent to my paralegal friend in Mass. to ask around too.
BTW of the 3 Business Litigation division women you mention, only 1 actually is listed as a partner, 2 are only associates. If reviews are indication, most women will be run out before they start getting too skilled and confident or running their traps about proper pay. Have you combed their Glassdoor yet? Didn't bother signing up to see in full, but mentions extreme turnover, they seem truly deeply hostile to women who don't know their place, and the most recent one's title is simply: "Toxic." Solid choice, PRX!
Bonus points: solid judgment for both a journalism outfit and a supposedly journalists-supporting law firm to bet on journalists failing to expose their diversity and inclusion prattle for the deceptive grandstanding it is. What stupefying foolishness.
Enlightening and crucially important work -congratulations, Skye. Spread the word, all.
Wow, Skye! Outstanding. The Prince Lobel one, holy $^&*. This is such revealing context. That PRX report perplexed me back when it landed in my feed. There were some funny guesses of who they think they're fooling after the tweets spread. Remember thinking, what and who is this even for? They're really trying to blame the young woman for not cooperating with their low attempts to publicly discredit her? They find excess stress and barriers "BIPOC" specifically suffer **at all levels** and then trivialize all as "microaggressions"? Farcical. (The pop buzzwords also gave it a very "how do you do, fellow kids" energy, ha.)
A big reason you see rules like "interns must receive college credit" has to do with employment laws. The quick and dirty is that you can get people to work for free as long as they get "paid" in credit. It's similar to "consideration" within contracts.
I appreciate the value of internships and entry level work under established people, but at the same time, I think we're in a world where it matters less and less, because it's so much easier to jump in with limited resources and do something on your own. Yeah, the mentorship isn't there in the same way, but if you're looking to jumpstart a career, you no longer have to wait for somebody to established to validate you.
Current examples in podcasting:
The Clock Starts Now - https://redcircle.com/shows/the-clock-starts-now
Shameless Acqusition Target - https://www.shameless.biz/
Who gets internships is an important question. I think the SAG-AFTRA response is in good faith. Their first interest is in guarding against exploitation. As for giving priority to grads of accredited programs, I expect this is, in part, a way of dealing with having way more applications than intern positions. Understandable, but imperfect. Perhaps NPR should earmark at least a few positions for people with non-conforming backgrounds.
In light of what you've deftly shown are PRX and Prince Lobel's true values, I'm intrigued by the contemporary attribution featuring Mr. Pyle's princelobel.com email on his older work (https://web.archive.org/web/20210309190532/https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2124&context=bclr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dcritical%20race%20theory%20randall%20kennedy%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CCgQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Flawdigitalcommons.bc.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2124%26context%3Dbclr%26ei%3D6M1cT7eoB4jhiAKQqbnXCw%26usg%3DAFQjCNHAmA_oZsiBOwhxDrE1cbvNYRw8Sg%26sig2%3D594KFFfIaVHaU4RonqMT_Q) I'm inclined to believe he's been well aware of where his influence is most felt, and wouldn't stonewall you if he's in fact had more knowledge or empathy lead to a change of heart or personal values. I'm wondering if it suggests something for the firm to allow its name on something like this. But I'm not sure if I'm assuming too much based on my own company's policies. Do you happen to know, generally?
Why do you feel it's right to throw Jeffrey Pyle under the bus for something he wrote in 1999? He represents journalists on important transparency cases. Not many firms do that. He's on your side.