April 4, 1968: Death, Difference, and Dialogue

Robert Kennedy's announcement of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., in an Indianapolis urban community that did not revolt in riots on April 4, 1968, provides one significant example in which feelings, energy, and bodily risk resonate alongside the articulated message. The relentless focus on Kennedy's spoken words, in historical biographies and other critical research, presents a problem of isolated effect because the power really comes from elements outside the speech act. Thus, this project embraces the complexities of rhetorical effectivity, which involves such things as the unique situational context, all participants (both Kennedy and his audience) of the speech act, aesthetic argument, and the ethical implications. This version of the story embraces the many voices of the participants through first hand interviews and new oral history reports. Using evidence provided from actual participants in the 1968 Indianapolis event, this project reflects critically upon the world disclosure of the event as it emerges from those remembrances. Phenomenology provides one answer to the constitutive dilemma of rhetorical effectivity that stems from a lack of a framework that gets at questions of ethics, aesthetics, feelings, energy, etc. Thus, this work takes a pedagogical shift away from discourse (verbal/written) as the primary place to render judgments about the effects of communication interaction. With a turn to explore extra-sensory reasoning, by way of the physical, emotional, and numinous, a multi-dimensional look at public address is delivered. The rhetorician will be interested in new ways of assessing effects. The communication ethicist will appreciate the work as concepts like answerability, emotional-volitional tone, and care for the other, come to life via application and consideration of Kennedy's appearance. For argumentation scholars, the interest comes forth in a re-thinking of how we do argumentation. And the critical cultural scholar will find this story ripe with opportunities to uncover the politics of representation, racialized discourse, privilege, power, ideological hegemony, and reconciliation. Through an approach of multiple layers this real-life tale will expose the power of the presence among audience and speaker, emotive argument, as well as the magical turn of fate which all contributes the possibility of a dialogic rhetoric.

Difference Blindness vs. Bias Awareness: Why Law Firms with the Best of Intentions Have Failed to Create Diverse Partnerships

This Article uses the example of BigLaw firms to explore the challenges that many elite organizations face in providing equal opportunity to their workers. Despite good intentions and the investment of significant resources, large law firms have been consistently unable to deliver diverse partnership structures - especially in more senior positions of power. Building on implicit and institutional bias scholarship and on successful approaches described in the organizational behavior literature, we argue that a significant barrier to systemic diversity at the law firm partnership level has been, paradoxically, the insistence on difference blindness standards that seek to evaluate each person on their individual merit. While powerful in dismantling intentional discrimination, these standards rely on an assumption that lawyers are, and have the power to act as, atomistic individuals - a dangerous assumption that has been disproven consistently by the literature establishing the continuing and powerful influence of implicit and institutional bias. Accordingly, difference blindness, which holds all lawyers accountable to seemingly neutral standards, disproportionately disadvantages diverse populations and normalizes the dominance of certain actors - here, white men - by creating the illusion that success or failure depends upon individual rather than structural constraints. In contrast, we argue that a bias awareness approach that encourages identity awareness and a relational framework is a more promising way to promote equality, equity, and inclusion.