When looking at the massive issues of sexism and racism within the legal industry, there is very little a talking head like me can do. I mean, I get paid to bitch so I can do that, but little else.

ATL columnist Jeena Cho has long suggested something more impactful. She wants to bring about an end to all-male panels at conferences and events, and it’s a good thought. If me, and a bunch of people like me, simply refuse to participate in all-male/all-white panels, then panels will eventually become more diverse and representative of the legal profession. It’s a small thing, but it’s so small that nearly everybody can do it.

Of course, taking even a small stand against the patriarchy is not without cost. University of Denver Law Professor Nancy Leong did her small part to try to make one of these events more inclusive, and she was booted off the stupid panel for her efforts.

Leong explains what happened, here, in a Twitter thread:

1/ What happens when women of color ask for more diverse conference speakers? Well, I was just removed from a panel at the 10th Circuit Bench and Bar Conference because I objected that the other three speakers on my panel were white men. #appellatetwitter — Nancy Leong (@nancyleong) December 18, 2017

Leong noticed that a 10th Circuit speaking gig on qualified immunity included her, and three white men. Leong, to her credit, decided to not be satisfied with mere tokenism. Yes, she’s a minority woman, but there are three other spots on that dais that need not be reflexively filled with the best available white men. She spoke out about it to the conference organizers. Initially, they seemed responsive, but eventually Judge Suzanne Mitchell decided that Leong, and not the white men, needed to go:

10/ But then first thing this morning I got this response. In contrast to her previous email, there is no opening to work out a solution. pic.twitter.com/bJPkiKCW0s — Nancy Leong (@nancyleong) December 18, 2017

This stinks to high heaven. I know a lot of our readers won’t see why this is such a huge problem, so let me try to explain it, very slowly.

Qualified immunity is, pretty much, the CIVIL RIGHTS LEGAL ISSUE OF OUR TIME. We live in a world where law enforcement can kill with impunity, confident that no jury will convict them. We live in a world where the F.B.I. is controlled, more or less, by a petty despot who places bigotry towards Muslims ahead of the Constitution. Piercing the veil and holding law enforcement liable for their actions performed in the “normal course” of their duties is a HUGE issue for those seriously concerned with justice and racial equality.

There are any number of topics where discussion diversity is merely appropriate. You should have a woman on your carried interest panel, not because you expect the woman to have a distinct “female approach” to carried interest, but because women are tax lawyers too and deserve the opportunity to say the same things that any male tax lawyer is going to say. But there are other discussion where viewpoint diversity is critical. While gender and racial diversity is a mere proxy for viewpoint diversity, you don’t have to twist your mind into a knot to think that a balanced panel might be necessary if you want to have a full discussion about qualified freaking immunity, of all things. The last thing anybody needs to hear is three white men sucking off the #NotAllCops hooka, while Leong sits there and tries to be balanced all by herself.

Speaking of Leong’s position here, many of you will never have the… opportunity to be the only “other” on a panel full of white men. I can only speak for myself, but as a person who often finds himself in these situations, it usually leaves me with only one option: Full Angry Black Man Mode. I don’t get to sit there and have “nuanced” opinions on qualified immunity, when I have to fight on behalf of ALL NON-WHITES on a panel full of white guys. I don’t get to explore my elitist, limousine liberal side when the discussion is just me and a bunch of pasty f**ks whose heads have never been slammed against the hood of their car. I have no idea what Leong’s position is on qualified immunity, but I KNOW it would be easier for her to make it if there was some other “other” up there, sharing the goddamn weight.

In the face of all that, Judge Mitchell’s decision to just exclude Leong is beyond tone deaf. You noted that this is coming out of the 10th Circuit, right? That’s the Circuit that has graced us with our most recent embodiment of white male privilege, Neil Gorsuch. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that even a woman nominated by Obama on that Circuit is critically unable to see the problem with just listening to whatever the white males have to say.

It’s not too much to ask that there be diverse representation on panels at boring-ass legal conferences. It’s not too much to expect that roughly half the spots are represented by women. It’s not unreasonable to conclude that the old way of doing these things is unacceptable.

Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and the Legal Editor for More Perfect. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.