Over the last century, public interest law has taken shape as advocating on behalf of “the people” over economic interests. In the present day, there still exists some ambiguity and controversy as to the definition of public interest law and all it encompasses. Who are the “people” that public interest lawyers advocate for? What is the “public interest” and who defines it? Lawyers have argued that “the people” who are the subject of public interest law are historically underrepresented and disadvantaged groups. These groups—while also ill defined—are often comprised of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) minorities. On the other hand, organizations and legislative bodies, influenced by their political, moral, and religious beliefs, regularly determine what the public interest is. Many public interest lawyers in these decision making positions mimic the demographics of the larger legal field which is predominately white. Given the recent popularity of antiracism efforts, I ask the question: Is the public interest lawyer intrinsically antiracist? To cut a long story short, the answer is no.
Historian and scholar Ibram X. Kendi explains that racism is “a marriage of racist policies and racist ideas that produces and normalizes racial inequities.” Racism, often framed as discriminatory interactions between individuals, is, in its societal application, a system of oppression created and maintained by policies and practices. The inaction of the “not racist” individual amounts to complicity in sustaining the system of racism. Kendi asserts that the only way to overcome racism is to be antiracist. An antiracist understands that racial inequity is rooted in white supremacy, acknowledges their privilege and position in a racist society, and actively strives for equity. Antiracist principles also recognize the intersection of racism and other types of intolerance including homophobia, transphobia, sexism, colorism, classism and that equity requires the liberation of all marginalized groups. As someone who has worked in various non-profits and for the “public interest,” I—as many others have—believed that by serving the interests of minority populations I was antiracist. It is a stark reality to learn that public service, even with the purest intentions, can preserve systemic racial inequities.
As lawyers, we have a “special responsibility for the quality of justice,” which entails seeking and remedying disparities where we find them. Our duty to carry out justice extends far beyond our professional capacities into who we are as members of society, which is why lawyers, in particular, must embody antiracist ideals with the understanding that equity is a basic tenet of justice. Public interest litigation has been a successful vehicle for systemic and social change, but we must recognize the internal obstacles the public interest sector must overcome to achieve racial justice. Racism within the public interest sector is interconnected between the dominant white organizational culture and savior relationships with BIPOC communities and must be addressed two-fold.
Internal White Organizational Culture
Diversity and inclusion statements, committees, and task forces have become a renewed priority for law firms, organizations, and educational institutions following the rampant state violence and anti-Blackness that has been brought to the public eye in 2020. Despite these efforts, the legal profession remains one of the least diverse career fields, with only 14% of lawyers identifying as BIPOC. Further, the public interest and non-profit sectors have a racial leadership gap with mostly white staff in organizational decision-making roles.
In these predominantly white spaces, white culture and comfort are prioritized giving way to subtle racism in the form of microaggressions, which are often unseen and unaddressed. Microaggressions enforce power hierarchies within organizations by invalidating the experiences and existence of minorities, in turn creating a violently oppressive work environment. People are often unwilling to intervene when microaggressions occur around them to prevent confrontation or to preserve the mirage that subtle racism has no substantive effects. It is hypocritical for organizations infested with white supremacy culture to offer a helping hand in achieving racial justice without first purging their own house of racism.
When racism is left unbridled in organizational culture, it inevitably feeds into work and relations with the public. When organizational staff and leadership do not reflect the racial demographics of their constituents they are unable to adequately understand community needs, build trust within those communities, and establish credibility. The lack of racial diversity and accountability for racist culture can translate to impacting an organization’s success in achieving its mission.
I ask you to reflect on the following questions and to name racism where you see it within organizational structures.
In your organization, are BIPOC individuals carrying the weight of diversity, equity, and inclusion work? How are you contributing to diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts?
Does your organization work under the premise that racism is the root of the problems affecting the communities you serve?
Do you recognize when microaggressions occur in the environment around you?
Are you willing to put yourself in uncomfortable positions to advocate for your BIPOC peers?
The Savior Complex in Legal Advocacy
Gerald López coined the term “regnant lawyer” to describe progressive lawyers who rely on conventional, dominant culture beliefs placing themselves as “heroic figures” to maintain the power hierarchy between marginalized communities and the lawyers that represent them. The hierarchal collaboration between the public interest lawyer and vulnerable communities creates a power imbalance which only yields short-term benefits while validating the privilege and perceived altruism of the lawyer. The underlying unjust conditions are then unresolved, leaving communities with no long-term relief.
Community organizers maintain critical views of the role of lawyers in social justice movements with one organizer stating, “In my [twenty-five] years of experience, I find that lawyers create dependency. The lawyers want to advocate for others and do not understand the goal of giving people a sense of their own power. Traditional lawyer advocacy creates dependency and not interdependency.” Racial equity, as both a process and an outcome, requires those affected by inequities to reclaim a sense of agency over their own lives. The public interest lawyer must remove themselves as the main character of the narrative to work in the best interests of the communities they serve even when there is a disagreement as to what that is.
Dismantling the power hierarchy of legal advocacy also requires confronting the white savior industrial complex. The appeal of public interest law, to many, can be to “save” those who cannot defend themselves. The problem with this ideology is that it feeds off of the power dynamic between dominant and minority groups and is driven by the myth that only the western white individual can liberate BIPOC suffering. As the wage gap between the private and public interest sectors continues to expand, the lack of monetary compensation can be perceived as a sacrifice to the public interest lawyer, feeding the savior ideology that a personal sacrifice for the “greater good” signifies virtue. The income divide does not imply virtue but rather society’s value—or lack thereof—of service to marginalized communities. While we should be aware of the white savior complex and its harmful effects, it should not deter our desire for public service but re-inform the methods and ideologies behind our service.
I ask you to reflect on the following questions to determine where you stand in the power hierarchy.
What are the motivations behind your public service?
Do you view the communities you serve as the out-group? What are you doing to navigate the differences between these groups?
Are there community organizers that have been doing this work before you? How can you assist them without obstructing their cause?
Are there non-legal avenues you can pursue to better serve the community’s interests?
Are you the best suited person to be advocating for this group and this cause?
Counter to the regnant lawyer, the rebellious lawyer immerses themselves in the communities they serve to work collectively towards sustainable, long-term solutions to systemic problems. The act of rebellious lawyering removes the lawyer-client hierarchy all together and is structured from a community model that is not limited to only legal means. The rebellious lawyer is antiracist to the extent that their actions renounce the moral denotation of the law, public service, and racism. The law, designed to regulate social order, does not reflect the moral worth of our society. Therefore, the practice of law does not place a moral judgment on lawyers, even when applied to public service. Similarly, racism is not a derogatory term that implicates a character flaw in us as complex human beings. When racism is viewed as overt discrimination it becomes easy to place “good” and “bad” labels on those who do or do not participate in racist acts. At one point or another, we have all upheld the system of racism and deserve the opportunity to confess to our shortcomings and apply an antiracist lens to our future actions.
Kendi reassures us, saying the “good news is that racist and antiracist are not fixed identities. We can be racist one minute and antiracist the next. What we say about race, what we do about race, in each moment, determines what—not who—we are.” Being antiracist is not a static state of realization but a state of being that is in constant flux and within our control. Our profession, while having an influence, cannot singularly define our antiracist identities without our conscious intervention. There is no steadfast blueprint on how, in practice, to be an antiracist lawyer and only we can hold ourselves accountable. We will make mistakes and our antiracist journey will be incredibly uncomfortable and difficult but will allow us to be better advocates in the pursuit of equity and justice.
I conclude with a reminder that being antiracist is less about good intentions and more about being intentional with our ideologies, actions, and perception of society. Being intentional entails aligning our thought process and actions with the goal of equity and drawing awareness to our past actions and thoughts that may have been out of focus. Adopting an antiracist perspective is not only beneficial to the public interest lawyer’s daily work with minority communities but imperative to maintain the integrity of the profession dedicated to justice.
Bavani Sridhar: (she/her/hers) is a second-year law student at Northeastern University School of Law. With a background in public health, she is passionate about bridging health inequities across race, gender, sex, and socioeconomic status. At NUSL, Bavani is the Co-Chair of the South Asian Law Student Association (SALSA), a Health Law Scholar, a Lawyering Fellow, and a former member of the Committee Against Institutional Racism.