Diversiﬁcation can be deﬁned as providing all things “different” with an opportunity to argue in front of an ironclad tradition that prefers to continue entertaining what it knows and is comfortable with, rather than attempting – and subsequently failing miserably – to genuinely explore the currently nebulous and precarious void that is “different.” “Different,” “being different” and “different for the sake of being different,” however, are not only theoretic conceptualizations or normative pedestals onto which all hope for change is often placed, at times by the academic zealots of yesterday, but also equally invested tyrants that continue to aggravate the very social blister that they tirelessly try to cure. What creates a cause for concern then, is not that “different” has continued unfettered, but that “different” is actually beginning to retaliate after years of neglect and abandonment. Its owner, the carnivorous open market, is no longer interested in supporting its petulant thirst for surreptitious inequality and behind the scenes collusion. All of a sudden, the pretexts of merit, no longer carrying with them sufﬁciently wealthy and compelling substance to dictate otherwise, are incapable of negotiating with the claws of impending defeat.
To the foot-soldiers of the legal profession, marching to the beat of “different” may make public relations sense, an anomaly that modernity has failed to address. But to the efforts of those who genuinely wish to incorporate “different” so as to ﬁnd perspective, open previously unexploited markets and deconstruct the myths that drive assumptions, “different” is but a platitude that is to be recycled for the purposes of extracting, pound-for-pound, the value of having access to a global, rather than a local, pool of opportunities. And so, the question that asks whether the legal profession would beneﬁt from aligning itself with the regurgitation-friendly complications of retaining “different,” is but a foregone conclusion. “Different” is and should be, ﬁrst and foremost, a choice, albeit one that may be inﬂuenced by the amount of black ink that is drying on a balance sheet at any one time. Conversely, “different” should not be a reﬂexive reaction to a frenzied political charade of mind-numbing populism that imposes a preference for homogeneity by replacing pragmatic business considerations, realties and choices, with a homogenized mix of merit, afﬁrmative action and academic ﬁst-pumping. This would be a complete waste of time, the end result of which would offer a valueless bag of equally harmless hypothermic solutions to a problem that is at best non-existent, given that “different” is and should be, as it has already been mentioned, the outcome of a choice and not the prerogative of an anticompetitive regime.