GB News commentator Sophie Corcoran claims programme is discriminatory
The Bar Council is facing an employment tribunal discrimination claim brought by a white journalist and GB News commentator who says her application to its 10,000 Black Interns programme was rejected because of her race.
Sophie Corcoran, a Queen Mary University of London politics graduate whose writing has appeared in the Daily Mail, Daily Express and ConservativeHome, says she applied to the scheme last October after considering a career at the bar.
The programme, run in partnership with the 10,000 Interns Foundation, offers six-week placements at chambers and legal organisations paid at the London Living Wage of £14.80 per hour. Eligibility is restricted to applicants who are Black or of Black heritage.
Corcoran says she received confirmation her application had been received and that she would hear back in November regarding potential placements. She never did. “I believe it is because of my race,” she said.
On her CrowdJustice fundraising page, she wrote: “I found it difficult to believe that in modern Britain a professional opportunity connected to the legal profession could be limited in this way. The Bar Council represents the legal profession and the rule of law, and I believe it should uphold the principle that opportunities should not be allocated on the basis of race.”
She has now lodged a claim at the employment tribunal alleging loss of employment opportunity and discrimination under the Equality Act. She is seeking an initial £1,500 through CrowdJustice to fund her legal team, with a stretch target of £50,000. At the time of writing she had raised £4,180.
“This case is not simply about my own experience,” Corcoran continues on her fundraising page. “I am pursuing it because I believe that no person in Britain should be denied opportunities because of the colour of their skin.”
In response to the claim, a spokesperson for the Bar Council said:
“The Bar Council has been served with a claim under the Equality Act relating to the 10,000 Black Interns programme. We have filed our defence which denies all of the claimant’s allegations and we will vigorously contest the claim. The tribunal proceedings will not impact the delivery of the 2026 internship programme this summer and we are looking forward to welcoming this year’s interns. In light of the court proceedings, we do not intend to make any further comments.”
In a separate statement, 10,000 Interns Foundation said it “exists to expand access to opportunity for underrepresented talent, supporting them toward careers that have historically been out of reach for many”.
“Each year we collect data from our partners and evaluate the evidence of underrepresentation across different sectors,” it continued. “We are confident in the legal basis of our work, which is grounded in the Equality Act and reflects established principles of lawful, proportionate positive action.”
Em… 10,000 Black Interns programme. It’s in the name of the scheme?
Wouldn’t she have seen that before applying?
The point
————-
Your head
Respectfully, you’re missing the point.
Corcoran’s case is that it is unlawful discrimination for the Bar Council to be offering such a scheme to black individuals only.
Whether that case is well-founded will be decided in due course.
To see why your reasoning is invalid, consider this. Imagine that you saw a chambers advertising pupillage only to white candidates. Imagine further that a non-white pupillage seeker complained about this. Would you be saying to that candidate that they have no valid complaint because “you surely saw that this position was only for white people before you applied?”
For clarity, I am not saying that my (obviously discriminatory) example is necessarily equivalent to the Bar Council scheme. I’m simply pointing out that your reasoning is wrong – and more work needs to be done to justify why the Bar Council scheme is lawful (if it is).
Respectfully, your white-only pupillage analogy does not work. The whole point of positive action is that context matters. A targeted scheme for an under represented group is not the same as a targeted scheme for the already dominant group.
Black or Black British people are about 5.5 percent of the UK working age population, but only about 3.6 percent of the Bar, 3.9 percent of non KC barristers, and just 1.2 percent of KCs. The Bar Council’s own Race at the Bar work also identifies continuing barriers for Black barristers, including weaker progression outcomes and lower earnings compared with white barristers.
That is why a paid six week internship aimed at Black students and graduates is materially different from a chambers advertising pupillage only to white candidates. The former is an access measure directed at a documented inequality. The latter would entrench an existing imbalance in a profession where white barristers are not under represented, and where white barristers remain especially over represented at senior level.
None of this means the Bar Council will automatically win. The tribunal will decide whether the scheme is lawful and proportionate under the Equality Act. But the answer cannot be reached by pretending that a remedial access programme for Black aspiring barristers is equivalent to a white only pupillage. Equality law is not blind to context. It expressly permits proportionate positive action where there is evidence of disadvantage or low participation.
So you see that’s why my racism is good and noble, but your racism is wicked and wrong.
Me discriminating against you is all done for a higher cause. But you mustn’t imagine that you’re allowed to do the same thing.
But obviously I want to end discrimination and have everyone treated the same. Which I’m sure is very clear to you from my actions.
I understand the concern, but I think this reduces a legal distinction to a slogan.
The argument is not “our racism is good, yours is bad”. The argument is that equality law distinguishes between exclusion which entrenches inequality and proportionate positive action which seeks to reduce it.
That distinction is not moral special pleading. It is built into the Equality Act. Parliament expressly allowed limited positive action where there is evidence of disadvantage or low participation. Whether this particular scheme falls within that protection is the legal question now before the tribunal.
So the real disagreement is not whether everyone should ultimately be treated equally. Most people in this discussion would agree with that aim. The disagreement is whether doing nothing in the face of documented inequality is neutrality, or whether carefully limited access measures can sometimes be lawful and justified.
You are entitled to argue that this scheme goes too far. But simply calling it “racism” does not answer the statutory question. The question is whether this particular scheme is a lawful and proportionate attempt to widen access in a profession where the evidence shows continuing under representation.
Exactly.
The distinction between discrimination that is lawful (and permitted, even encouraged in some situations) and that which is unlawful (not allowed).
Previous posters lumping all discrimination together simply do not understand (or perhaps care about) the nuance because it dooms their “all discrimination is bad” arguments.
I have a feeling that you think we all start out as equal.
Equality is not about treating people the same, it is about making allowances for those who do not have the same opportunities as those who have the most. It is not racist to help people who have less opportunities because of there race. It may be ignorant to not understand it, when we all have the same access to information though. However, the person who is the subject of this article, has had the education not just the access to the information. I feel that her intentions are based on something a lot worse than ignorance.
Well said!!
Race does not universally mean lack of opportunity. It often can, but there are a good number of successful and wealthy black people out there too. Why should they get preferential access over someone from a poor white or Asian background?
You can’t point to examples of successful black individuals to claim that they are not disadvantaged as a group. I expect the statistics and data are plentiful in this area.
The BSB appear to have decided to offer this scheme based on their underrepresentation evidence rather than in an arbitrary way.
Whether or not other groups are also disadvantaged is a separate question and has no bearing on this scheme.
Why is it these days, that when some organisation supports one disadvantaged group, someone will also suggest that the organisation cares nothing about other disadvantaged groups?
If you want the BSB to promote access for a different disadvantaged group, go champion that, present your arguments to the BSB, and make that difference.
Challenging the current scheme in this way is not the way to make that difference.
100% agreed – the 10,000 interns approach ignores intersectionality – a black person from a wealthy background (think Eton grad Kwazi Kwatang) would have more monetary and social capital to propel her career progression than a working class person from other races. 3.9% vs 5.5% representation is not statistically significant. If we are looking for exact representations should football clubs limit their recruitment of black players ?
Totally agree..!!
I also agree her reason for saying that is not based on what she was moaning about, it’s worse.
I agree
Creating special privileges for a specific group of people is admission of government and the BSB that racism exists in UK.
I don’t know why you think your post contradicted anything I said.
I made clear in my final paragraph that I wasn’t presenting my example as equivalent to the Bar Council scheme. I also made clear that further work may well show the latter scheme to be perfectly lawful. Your post may very well constitute such work.
None of which contradicts or undermines the point I was making. Which was that the initial argument made by Confused is wrong: you cannot justify prima facie discrimination simply by saying, in effect, you should have known you were excluded.
Your stat is wrong. In E&W 3.9% of individuals are Black, Black British, Caribbean, or African. 3.4% of the Bar is Black. By comparison, the Diversity at the Bar 2025 data shows that 76% of the Bar is white, compared with 81.7% in the population.
Hi Wigmore,
The stats are here: Around 3.6 per cent of the Bar, 3.6 per cent of pupils, 3.8 per cent of non KCs, and 1.3 per cent of KCs are from a Black/Black British background. This compares to around 5.4 per cent of the UK working age population.
which is a little off but close enough given the way this data is collected, but it looks like your stats are also off a bit
Around 82.7 per cent of the Bar, 75.5 per cent of pupils, 82.1 per cent of non-KCs, and 89.2 per cent of KCs are from a White background. This compares to around 80.8 per cent of the UK working age population.
Diversity-at-the-Bar-2024.pdf
Also note the year which is a bit older
The population of the UK is 3.7%
I’d be very interested to read pleadings in the case when they come, as the BSB seems confident in its position, but my read (as someone who is far from an equality specialist) is that Sophie’s team will argue:
(i) s159(3) EqA 2010 disapplies the general s158 positive action provision in respect of recruitment/promotion;
(ii) accepting someone to a paid internship scheme constitutes “recruitment” since it entails “offer[ing] employment to a person” (s159(5)(a)) (or, in the alternative, it constitutes “a service for finding employment” (s159(5)(i));
(iii) per s159(4), protected characteristics can therefore only be taken into account as a tiebreak, and 10,000 Interns must “not have a policy of treating persons who share the protected characteristic more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than persons who do not share it”;
(iv) ergo the scheme amounts to unlawful discrimination if it can be shown that a less competitive candidate than Sophie was admitted to the scheme on the basis of their race, or if it can be shown 10,000 Interns have such a policy in respect of the scheme (seems obvious).
To me, (ii) seems to be the possible weakest link if it can be argued that the internship amounts to training rather than employment under a contract of employment, a contract of apprenticeship or a contract personally to do work (s83(2)(a)). But I’ve not heard of any precedent on that as regards paid internships specifically. Am I totally getting the wrong end of the stick? Equality specialists / smart people chime in.
I concur. I don’t understand what their legal theory is. It’s clearly a job – it’s being paid. s159 is very clear that you can’t recruit only from one race.
It’s crazy how if I’m to do this in a situation whereby I’m from African origin when applying to some things I’m automatically disqualified but it’s now an issue for a situation meant for Black individuals facing barriers in this sector.
Which jobs have you applied for where it sate that if you are black you need not apply ?
Only at the final selection stage when you have otherwise equally suitable candidates is race, disability etc allowed to be used.
Absolutely correct couldn’t explain it any Better .
At least one person Absolutely gets and understands why it’s not about right or Wrong its about justice and having respect for other People especially Minorities.
Well said
Mr or Mrs or LGBTQ , otherwise Anonymous
Your Analogy don’t work because this has been happening for years as a Minority myself you Can ask places like Cambridge and Oxford Universities.
Places like Parliament and Queens Regiment.
Bring it even down to earth you Never use to see even Black Dustmen because it was given to a Selection of White People.
So not sure where you fit in as race but I can Categorically tell you as a Minority in my late 60s this is a known fact to all Minorities.
So if you see a project for a Black group of people its because they are unrepresentative hence the reason why it was set up in the first place .
As a black person I can say she has a point, why should it be for black people only? These are the issues fueling the hatred by far rights all this benefits in the basis of colour or religion needs to stop. If black people done like it if it’s done to them, then they shouldn’t defend it. And I know many black, brown and white will not support it.
….and the haters should be allowed to hold everyone else to ransom?
Suggested reading: Prof Keon West ‘The Science of Racism’.
There is a section that addresses internalised racism.
It falls within the parameters of Positive Action in order to attract under represented groups. White people are the majority not the minority. Positive Action is legal and in this case being black is a Genuine Occupational Qualification.
In employment, positive action is only legal as a tiebreaker, which isn’t how it is being used here. Being black obviously isn’t a genuine occupational qualification. I have no idea why you would even say that.
Maybe she identifies as black.
The term Black interns programed is racist, what would the reaction be if it stated White interns programme
Exactly!
I’m so sick of people doing this bs. There are schemes out there for women only ect. But she’s a grifter and needed to make headlines. I hope that one is created for Working white class males and see if she complains about that. I hope that they do pull something together for WWCM because they need support too, due to such a classist society.
Are there schemes like this only for women? Where they are offering paid jobs that only women can get?
Your sick and of people fighting for equity ?
Agree that there should be one for working class white males who seem to have somehow fallen behind.
It would be interesting to find out why this is and compare to those comparatively few people from the Global Majority (preferred term – MINOR-ities is subliminal messaging of less to my mind) who are successful.
I also prefer the term Equity which takes into account the fact that we are not all born equal – in terms of class, circumstances, genetics, ability etc
Giving equal support/resources would advantage some and disadvantage some.
It isn’t the right way, but it does hopefully help address the diversity problem.
Are internships, or programs for 18-25, or fields where women or men are under represented also wrong?
If it is employment, then legally yes, it is wrong. Underrepresentation of a group with a protected characteristic can only be used as a tie breaker when you have equally suitable candidates
It’s all pointless for most of the time anyway, which is why a program such as this will never port over into anything more than an internship. An internship is generally not a door into pupillage. It simply offers, insight to the self employed Bar. I know so many students with multiple one month internships who are still job hunting a year after or more after Call. (I shall leave commentary about the validity of this legal challenge to others)
In my view, the programme is discriminatory, regardless of its stated intention to address diversity issues within the profession. If the aim were truly to ensure equal opportunity, race would not be a determining factor at all. Schemes of this nature risk creating new forms of discrimination, when the focus should instead be on selecting the strongest candidates based on merit, irrespective of race, gender, or age. I have experienced this issue personally when applying for apprenticeships (similar situation): on one occasion, a firm informed me that I had passed the entry assessments, subsequently asked about my ethnicity, and then failed to respond further. Experiences like this raise real concerns about how “equal opportunity” is being applied in practice.
I think your apprenticeship example raises a serious concern. If a firm asked about your ethnicity after you passed the assessments and then used that information to quietly filter you out, that would be wrong. Nobody should defend that.
But I do not think that follows that every targeted access scheme is therefore unlawful or unfair. There is a difference between covertly penalising an individual applicant because of their race and openly operating a limited positive action scheme aimed at addressing under representation.
Merit and positive action are not opposites. A programme can still assess candidates on merit while also being directed at a group that faces documented barriers to entering or progressing in the profession. Equal opportunity does not always mean pretending that everyone arrives at the starting line with the same access, networks and chances.
The real legal question is not whether race has been mentioned at all. It is whether the measure is evidence based, limited and proportionate. If this scheme fails that test, it should fail. But if it is a lawful attempt to widen access in a profession where participation is still uneven, calling it discrimination in the same sense as ordinary exclusion does not really answer the point.
I agree that selection should never become tokenistic or arbitrary. But a carefully justified access programme is not the same thing as abandoning merit.
So any measure to rectify a lack of opportunity for an underrepresented grip is doomed because it doesn’t approach the situation as if they weren’t underrepresented.
Hmm, don’t think you’re suited for the Bar.
You are confusing equity and equality. In order for something to be equitable, one may need to level the playing field by giving some people a box to stand on. Claiming this is discrimination is the same as saying that systemic racism does not exist.
Racism in itself is about political structures being set up to keep a minority down. The majority of barristers are white. So the argument of this being racism does not hold water.
Your box argument is flawed. It says you should get the same regardless of what you put in. Equality says you should have the same opportunity if you put in the same effort. If you want to keep the box analogy, then there should be enough boxes for those willing to go get them.
I think Anon might have been suggesting something like this:
https://share.google/d4WnyFvVDnZSUof0r
The majority of the country is white.
The reality is our society will never achieve equality. Choosing not recognise race or colour does more harm than good. Men and women will never be treated equally, people from different backgrounds will never be treated as equal. No matter how much we try to deny unconscious bias it is still there. Schemes like this and schemes to help people from specific backgrounds aim to help those who were left out of certain spaces and who still deal with the consequences of prejudice their ancestors faced. Would you also complain about a scheme to help refugees or the disabled ? No because they deserve a stepping stone because they had to face obstacles we couldn’t even comprehend.
At best, it seems to be a misguided challenge against positive action (to promote diversity and inclusion), which is likely justifiable by the BSB as a form of lawful discrimination?
Justifiable how? I can’t find any exemption in the Equality Act that seems to apply.
Not about to do your research for you. Pick up a textbook on discrimination or
watch the case and see.
I’m not interested in a textbook on discrimination. I’m interested in the law. You made an assertion that this is legally justifiable so it is for you to cite the relevant law. The only law on this subject I know is s159 of the Equality Act 2010 and this scheme clearly doesn’t fall within the requirements of that section. If there is another exception that I’m missing, cite it.
No one is going to have a serious debate on the correct law in the comments section of a rage bait article. The textbook was a suggestion on doing your own research to develop your own understanding of why this is a legitimate scheme. But if you’re intent on getting your quick and easy answers from someone’s comments, suit yourself.
Translation:
“I have absolutely no idea whether this scheme is lawful, but I strongly feel that it should be. Thus, I’m just going to assert that it is without evidence and demand that anyone who thinks otherwise does the work to prove me wrong.”
This is, unfortunately, a common problem. A lot of people seem incapable of comprehending the difference between what the law is and what they think the law should be.
You are both looking at this the wrong way round.
The assertion being made by Ms Corcoran and her supporters is that it is unlawful. As (former?) law students, I’m expecting you know that they need to prove your assertion, rather than others having to prove it is not unlawful?
Beep – wrong. A decent translation is – do your own research. But do carry on with providing the sarcasm service in between your billing if you so choose.
I’m not interested in having a debate. You have made an assertion about legality and I’m simply asking you to cite the law you are relying on. I feel no need to develop my understanding since I’ve read the relevant law and I had no difficulty understanding it.
Every society tries to help its disadvantaged demographics. But whenever you try to help Black people in the UK, someone shows up to steal it. This program is designed to help disadvantaged Black people. The law permits it, otherwise, Black people will be discriminated out of every opportunity. That surely can not be difficult to understand.
Not every black person is disadvantaged. Not every white person is privileged
This is UNDOUBTEDLY discriminatory. I think the scheme is illogical and flawed in every respect. Why don’t you create one for people who are socially immobile and have real financial hardship? And why don’t you create one for underprivileged Indian Indians?
Because even the most disadvantaged white person has more opportunities than a black person. Even people of other races have better opportunities than black people in the UK. you melt
That’s not remotely true. You are showing enormous ignorance in that comment. A lot of people of all races experience hardships.
I remember hearing a “DIO Officer” of my uni’s law society complaining that there was a white, working class man speaking at an “access to the bar” event. Ironic, not very inclusive for the society’s DIO head…
Denying that white people can also be disadvantaged is simply incorrect.
Boy oh boy. Really stuck in the victim mode. The politics of low expectations. How offensive.
Div of the year award goes to
Funny how ethnic minority programs like these seem to not only exclude white people but also Asian people too, who are punished for being high achievers for some reason…
Really? Are Asians the only high achievers? Aren’t Black as well as White people high achievers as well? Is there any group where you do not have high achievers? Asians have gained from BAME programmes as well as from Asian only programmes. Correct me if I am wrong?
Under section 159 of the Equality Act 2010 this issue is quite clearly addressed. Per the Act, on issues such as recruitment or promotion, positive discrimination is lawful provided that it is employed to address disadvantage and further is done with the goal of promoting further participation/access from groups with protected characteristics.
Furthermore, the fact that the 10,000 Black internship programme has charitable status means that access to it can be restricted to specific groups for the same reasons as stated above.
Clearly, this is a thinly veiled attempt to gain traction for a certain individual in the current political climate. The obvious racist agenda of this case is loud and clear in the far right echo chamber. However, it may not stand up to legal scrutiny.
Have you read s159(4)? You can’t have a blanket policy of favouring a particular group. You can only use it as a tiebreaker.
There is no discrimination claim as the admission criteria were clear about admission considering the magnitude of the established facts that black lawyers face challenges (few judges amongst others professions) we are seeking to address without admission of guilt in recruitment procedures.
Some job application specifications made it absolutely clear that in some specific cases, the criteria for job application is established without falling short of the discrimination law.
The idea of pursuing a claim has no foundation and should be withdrawn.
So if the sign on the door says “no Irish”, that’s not discriminatory?
How on earth do you analyse this so poorly? The criteria for a job application might well be to have a woman doing bra fitting, or an Urdu speaker working with certain refugees, but this is paid work experience in barristers’ chambers. Race isn’t a required criterion .
Regardless whether this is legal or not, it will get thrown out on the basis that it’s not a Bar Council’s Scheme. They are supporting the internship via a charity called 10,000 Black Interns. The application process etc is done via this charity – not the Bar Council. The interns will based in Chambers who are involved in the scheme – not the Bar Council. She is taking the wrong organisation to an employment tribunal. I assume she’s done this only for publicity.
The claim she’s bringing is against both the Bar Council and the charity. The Bar could try and get their part of it dismissed by saying it was all the charity’s doing, but I’m not sure they would succeed. They seem to be very closely involved.
Selection should be based on merit only. There should not be any reference to ethnicity at all, nor should it be precursor whom to select. It is discriminatory in its root. A lot has been done already to change recruiters’ mentality and I believe they are already open minded towards black ethinicity.
How I long for a meritocracy and the mentality change you reference…..
My original post in response to your comment was not allowed – possibly because I named names.
The gist of the disallowed post:
I used to think (naïvely to my mind) the same way as you. When the founding of an all melanin enhanced orchestra was mooted I voiced that these musicians should join the mainstream.
How wrong I was!
Ten years later, the orchestra, fielding excellent musicians, has been, and continues to be a roaring success evidencing the fact that there are excellent musicians from this demographic.
I invite you to look at mainstream orchestras’ current visible melanin quotient.
I rest my case.
She’s doing this as news bait for her GB news agenda. Tool.
Of course she is. That doesn’t mean she’s wrong. This scheme does appear to be illegal…
So you’re a mind reader? How do you know this? She seemed pretty passionate, when I saw her speaking about it. Oh, I forgot, only left wing people have actual principles – we on the right are all just grifters and don’t believe in anything. As for the scheme it is obviously racist. Why not set up a scheme based on financial background – that would apply to working class people of all backgrounds – much fairer. Especially, as white working class boys are the most disadvantaged group in our education system and have been for the past 10 years.
She’s a journalist. I think it is reasonable to assume that she’s doing this as part of her job.
In my former role as a graduate recruitment coordinator, I looked into what the equality act says because I was concerned I might be in a difficult position given I had short listed 11 young men and only 2 young women. The act says you can only consider underrepresentation at the final stage of your selection process, and then only to choose between otherwise equally suitable candidates. The approach they should be taking is similar to many universities, so based on a broad look at the applicant’s background.
Professional “journalist” engages in whataboutism over scheme intended to combat inequality.
This is not a controversial scheme. The journalist is trying to make it so because her Gb News audience is bigoted and racist.
She’s not claiming it’s a controversial scheme. She’s claiming it is an illegal scheme. Nobody in the comments here has been able to cite a law that makes this permissible discrimination, so it would seem she is correct. Whatever her motives for bringing the case are, the law as I know it is on her side. People are welcome to write to their MPs and suggest the law be amended to allow schemes like this, but the law is what it is, not what people would like it to be.
This has to be the most entitled thing I’ve ever read. The programme was set up specifically for under represented groups who have evidently shown to struggle with getting opportunities in the wider sense when it comes to apprenticeships and employment. She could very well have applied for any other programme as she would have been 74% more likely to receive a positive call back as a white British person with a white British name, than applicants with African or Muslim associated names, despite having identical qualifications.
Expecting the Bar Council to obey the law is entitled?
I think this response is disingenuous. I may be wrong, but I think the poster was referring to the journalist whose actions have initiated this debate.
Perhaps this is an appropriate point to post the following quote:
Leo Tolstoy:
“I sit on a man’s back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means – except by getting off his back.”
Obviously they are talking about the journalist. Who else would they be talking about? I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Another scheme in support of disadvantaged groups has been announced. https://www.legalcheek.com/2026/05/11kbw-and-39-essex-chambers-join-forces-to-expand-scholarship-for-black-aspiring-barristers/
This should be a standard discussion at pupillage open days – “we offer such schemes to promote inclusion for disadvantaged groups – what are your views on the lawfulness and appropriateness of such schemes”?
Would be testing legal understanding and understanding of privilege/inclusivity in society at the same time..
Scholarships are very different to internships. Scholarships would fall under the s158 exemption, which is much broader than the s159 exemption.
This isn’t a new scheme. 11KBW have had this open for a couple of years already, they just added 36 Essex as a partner chambers.
Having read some of the comments below, some appear to argue that the existence of this intern programme is discriminatory. It is not. As a black female lawyer, who struggled to get a foot in the door when I qualified in the 90s, schemes like these are neither racist nor political correctness….they are vital to avoid the profession losing out on talented and hardworking people who would otherwise not be given a chance.
Were we living in a country with a white minority where whites were under represented in the legal profession and especially at the higher echelons, I would wholeheartedly support a similar scheme for them.
What this young lady is doing is virtue signalling….. attempting to make it appear as though white people are somehow suffering.
Some white people might feel threatened by the greater representation of non whites in their midst but the white population as a whole remains firmly in the majority and firmly favoured when it comes to opportunities. We are a long way away from being able to compare the experiences of blacks and whites within the legal profession. It’s on a par with claiming men suffer just as much as their female partners during childbirth.
White people aren’t a monolithic bloc and working class white people have suffered discrimination by class in this country for centuries! I would be very interested to see how many white judges and lawyers in this country come from working class backgrounds and attended state schools.
The primary question being discussed in the comments isn’t whether the scheme is racist or political correctness. It is whether the scheme is legal. This is not a matter of any of our personal opinions on the merits of such a scheme. It is a simple application of the law to the facts.