As many of you know, for the past two years, I’ve been researching, writing, and presenting about Implicit Bias as part of the American Bar Association Section of Litigation’s Implicit Bias Task Force. I’ve said both publicly and privately that this work has changed my life, certainly it has changed my perspective, and I am more sensitive to bias and to micromessages and microinequities that I see around me in my work and, it seems, in my recreation time as well.

Implicit bias is described by some researchers and authors as a lens through which we see the world. Implicit bias is unconscious. In his recent book Thinking, Fast and Slow, Economics Nobel Prize Winner Daniel Kahneman describes this as System 1 thinking. It’s quick, automatic, often based on mental schema we’ve developed since early childhood. Sometimes System 1 thinking is very helpful, helping us navigate every day’s onslaught of information; sometimes not. More conscious thought, System 2 thinking, is, well, more thoughtful, more analytical; it is what we self-report when asked if we are making a bias decision. The basketball refs and coaches would certainly self-report that their calls were unbiased. So would most judges, jurors, attorneys …

Those interested in a bit of self-reflection on the topic, should try one of the tests of implicit bias on the Harvard test site. I’ll be interested in hearing your reactions. I’ve taken the test myself and with a wide variety of my students; the results are always interesting and revealing. For me, the most interesting question in all of this are whether and how we can debias our implicit biases. Interested in hearing from those trying…

Last week I had the honor and opportunity to visit Chicago to present at the Chicago Committee on Minorities in Law Firms Pipeline Symposium. It was an impressive array of presenters and the expertise in the sessions was extraordinary.

As is often the case at these convenings, I found myself thinking about why we cannot do a better job on diversity in the profession when there is so much intellectual heft behind the idea. At this meeting there was a panel on the work of other professions (who are ahead of us in diversity), which gives more impetus for trying to understand the direction of the legal profession. Always interested in learning what others are thinking on the why…?