Thursday, April 14, 2016
Clinical Law Prof Questions Indoctrinating Students With Social Justice Morality And Requiring Pro Bono By Students, Not Faculty And Administrators
Wall Street Journal, Law Schools Are ‘Indoctrinating Students with a Social Justice Morality,’ Says Professor:
A typical law school clinic gives students experience doing legal work for a government agency or teaming up with activists in the public-interest arena. Some schools also offer post-graduate “bridge-to-practice” fellowships with nonprofit or public-sector employers. And increasingly, pro bono service has become a graduation requirement.
Such programs teach law students and young graduates legal skills while aiding vulnerable and under-served populations, law schools say. Julie D. Lawton, a clinical professor of law at DePaul University in Chicago, worries they’ve become a form of indoctrination. ...
Ms. Lawton says many of the legal educators emphasizing social justice have a laudable goal: to try to diminish gaps in access to justice. But by dedicating so much resources into social justice programs, she argues, law schools are “imposing their own morality upon students” and limiting exposure to competing ideas. ...
Ms. Lawton doesn’t just criticize law schools for imbalance but also inconsistency. A further challenge to the imposition of social justice morality by legal educators is the hypocrisy of pro bono requirements for law students, but not for law school faculty and administrations. If legal educators genuinely believe that mandatory pro bono is a necessary part of our collective responsibility, why are educators not arguing for a similar requirement for law school faculty?
Julie D. Lawton (DePaul), The Imposition of Social Justice Morality in Legal Education, 4 Ind. J.L. & Soc. Equality 57 (2016):
There exists an undeniable need for social justice in this country. Our American society, in all its greatness, is still neither equitable nor just. It restricts access to justice based on income and too often denies access to those most in need. The question of how to manage this need is not novel: for years, the legal profession has struggled with whether it has a responsibility to address it and, if so, how. The profession has considered mandating attorney pro bono service and fees to support legal services providers, as well as lobbying federal and state governments to increase public funding for access to these services. More recently, advocates have called for mandatory pro bono and public interest service in law schools. New York, leading the charge, is now the first state to mandate pro bono service as a prerequisite for acceptance to the bar.
Law schools, in reflecting the social justice morality of its faculty and leaders, have increased their efforts to encourage students to engage in social justice. The vast majority of in-house, live-client experiential learning opportunities require law students to provide pro bono legal services for low- to moderate-income individuals. Law schools provide funding at a far greater rate to pre- and post-graduate students working in public interest than to those students working in business disciplines. In many ways, law schools attempt to convince law students of the validity of working in the public interest for social justice.
While recognizing the need for improving access to justice, we must also recognize that the choice to support social justice is a value judgment, reflecting the morality of those performing the work. This choice is particularly important in the context of legal education, where our students likely (and rightly) have alternative views of morality than those of us who have accepted the responsibility of educating them. Law students should not be required to adhere to the social justice morality of law faculty and law school administrators any more than law faculty should be required to adhere to the social justice morality of law school and university administrations. Law schools, through their financial support of public interest students and programs, clinical programs, and mandatory pro bono requirements, attempt to inculcate law students with a responsibility of social justice that reflects the morality of the faculty and administration. While this Article does not call for law schools to cease supporting these important social justice programs, this Article does encourage law faculty to recognize law schools’ attempts to impose a chosen morality upon law students and for law schools to have open conversations with students about whether social justice in law school is also a reflection of the students’ chosen morality. This Article also encourages law schools to consider whether students who are not interested in engaging in social justice should receive the same financial support and experiential learning opportunities as those interested in social justice. The primary goal of a legal education should be to educate students through exposure to, and analysis of, competing ideas. However, in doing so, legal educators should be cautious of trying to impose their own morality upon students.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2016/04/clinical-proflaw-schools-indoctrinate-students-with-a-social-justice-morality-why-do-they-require-pr.html
Comments
Law schools could start clinics to try to serve large multinational corporations, but the response would be, "no thank you, we already have lawyers with far more experience and who are completely dedicated to our needs full time. We pay them $1,200 per hour and they are worth it."
The only clients who are going to walk into a law school clinic are poor people who can't afford real lawyers. The same people who let dental students drill into their teeth to save a few bucks.
As for professors being required to do pro-bono--many law schools have service requirements, and professors are *already* working at non-profit organizations making hundreds of thousands less than they could be making in the private sector with their supreme court clerkships and law degrees from Harvard and Yale.
It's as if professors are donating a few hundred thousand dollars to charity each every year simply by not working at a big law firm.
Posted by: Dental School | Apr 14, 2016 6:42:23 AM
Or consider that, unless "social justice" is merely a euphemism for justice as defined by a socialist, there are also conservative ways to seek social justice. For example, an interest in civil rights might include protecting the 2nd Amendment rights of people without government connections or wealth, or the right of people to engage in business without unnecessary government regulations, such as requiring broad cosmetology licenses for cornrow braiders, or imposing an oligopoly of taxi medallion holders.
Posted by: David Pittelli | Apr 14, 2016 7:11:34 AM
Prof. Lawton should first advocate abolition of Section 6.1 of the Model Rules of our profession, which imposes the same "chosen morality" on our students after they graduate:
"Every lawyer has a professional responsibility to provide legal services to those unable to pay. A lawyer should aspire to render at least (50) hours of pro bono publico legal services per year. In fulfilling this responsibility, the lawyer should:
(a) provide a substantial majority of the (50) hours of legal services without fee or expectation of fee to:
(1) persons of limited means or
(2) charitable, religious, civic, community, governmental and educational organizations in matters that are designed primarily to address the needs of persons of limited means; and
(b) provide any additional services through:
(1) delivery of legal services at no fee or substantially reduced fee to individuals, groups or organizations seeking to secure or protect civil rights, civil liberties or public rights, or charitable, religious, civic, community, governmental and educational organizations in matters in furtherance of their organizational purposes, where the payment of standard legal fees would significantly deplete the organization's economic resources or would be otherwise inappropriate;
(2) delivery of legal services at a substantially reduced fee to persons of limited means; or
(3) participation in activities for improving the law, the legal system or the legal profession.
In addition, a lawyer should voluntarily contribute financial support to organizations that provide legal services to persons of limited means."
Posted by: Theodore Seto | Apr 14, 2016 7:16:59 AM
Quote: "Ms. Lawton says many of the legal educators emphasizing social justice have a laudable goal: to try to diminish gaps in access to justice. But by dedicating so much resources into social justice programs, she argues, law schools are “imposing their own morality upon students” and limiting exposure to competing ideas. ..."
Quite true. It's easy suspect that a law school would look with favor on a student devoting untold hours to defending a poor black charged with a crime, even if caught in the act. But what if the case involved an identical crime committed by an equally poor white? Disdain would follow, I suspect.
Countering some legacy of racism? Hardly. Crime almost invariably takes place within races. Getting that black criminal off almost certainly means that 90% of his later victims will be poor but law-abiding black people, often the elderly or women. It'd be more apt to say being soft on policing and enforcement of crimes by black criminals is simply the old racism masking itself as anti-racism. It even continues the old tradition, as illustrated by the film Birth of a Nation, that the architypical black man is a rapist. He is the "real" black. His victims, equally black, are non-persons in the eyes of liberal lawyers.
And still more revealing, what is the issue that student chose to take up was abortion and the "gaps in access to justice" was that of an unborn child? Then it's easy to suspect that the law school faculty would get quite nasty with that student. As that article points out, "social justice" in law schools does impose the professors "own morality upon students."
And in the latter case, even a small child can grasp why the crypto-racists that one suspects dominate our nation's law schools might be especially eager to maximize the abortion rate of black women.
The very fact that the topic is passed over without discussion is most revealing. After all, the first paragraph of Roe v. Wade mentions the "eugenic" and "racial overtones" of the decision. Why do law schools steer so carefully away from what Blackmun was not afraid to mention? And while, if legalized abortion is about "freedom of choice," does Blackmun cite with favor, Buck v. Bell, which declared forced sterilization constitutional?
Never forget that abortion legalization took place in the midst of a very contrived hysteria about an alleged "population bomb." (The 1970s were supposed to end in global famines.) Never forget that the chief proponents of that hysteria were eugenists masking themselves as population controllers. Nor should we neglect the fact that the leading champion of abortion legalization in the 1960s was Dr. Alan Guttmacher. Then the president of Planned Parenthood-World Population, he was a former vice-president of the American Eugenics Association.
In short, the real agenda of the social justice movement isn't social justice. It's social control. Placing poor blacks in crime riddled neighhborhoods with inadequate schools and depriving them of any choice in what schools their children attend—all clearly part of what liberals want for the poor—creates pressures to force black women to abort that child who is, make no mistake about it, emphatically "not wanted" by the typical law school professor.
Posted by: Michael W. Perry | Apr 14, 2016 8:04:26 AM
"Voluntary" work required of students by a professor is forcing students against their wills, and sometimes time and money resources, to do the professor's bidding, just so the professor can feel good about himself and as a lazy alternative to the professor actual teaching. There may be time for pro bono work after college, but let the students pick the time and beneficiaries. In the meantime, don't expect good service from slaves.
Posted by: Woody | Apr 14, 2016 8:08:09 AM
unless "social justice" is merely a euphemism for justice as defined by a socialist
It would be fun to ask any advocate of "social justice" to name a few examples of where "social justice" conflicts with socialist principles. Respond to the silence with a few suggestions, such as not being forced to work for the benefit of others, many of whom are much better off. Or being allowed to defend oneself rather than relying only on police who have no enforceable duty to do it effectively. When they disagree, ask who gets to decide what is and is not "social justice" and who gave them that authority. Then you MIGHT reach agreement that yes, "social justice" is shorthand for socialism.
Posted by: AMT buff | Apr 14, 2016 11:32:49 AM
"professors are *already* working at non-profit organizations making hundreds of thousands less than they could be making in the private sector with their supreme court clerkships and law degrees from Harvard and Yale."
Of course, they are making more than anyone else in the academy save for medical school professors, despite being virtually the only people in the academy without real doctorates or (for the most part) any meaningful experience in their vocation. Studies show an average of 1.4 years of practice before becoming a law professor; that is 1) not enough time to become a competent lawyer without constant supervision and 2) far from enough time to blithely assume that you would have made equity partner (or even senior associate) had you stuck around. How many first year associates make any level of partner these days? 1 in 20? 1 in 25? Confirmation bias does not play in your favor here.
Posted by: Unemployed Northeastern | Apr 14, 2016 12:31:03 PM
Dental School,
When I was in law school, I went to you guys to fix my teeth. Thank you. I wish I could do that now. Law Schools should focus on the following ethical rules and morality.
1. Clients and employees are not for sleeping, kissing, fondling or calling BABE.
2. Client money is not your personal piggy bank. Do not steal.
3. Do not take money from your client and not show up for work.
Posted by: Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King | Apr 14, 2016 1:06:27 PM
I solved this problem in my unique public interest law course by having the students pick for themselves the type of legal action they wish to bring - and, yes, they are required to bring a legal action in my course in "Legal Activism" if they want to pass.
SEE, e.g., NYT MAGAZINE - The Law Professor Behind ASH, SOUP, PUMP, CRASH - http://banzhaf.net/about/NYTimesBehindASHSoup.pdf
Some of the resulting projects have been liberal, some have been conservative, and some fit neatly into neither category.
Also, it should be clear that law students can learn-by-doing outside of law school clinics which have a variety of limitations, including very high costs per student. My own course is an example.
SEE, Try Clinical Courses Without Clients - http://banzhaf.net/by/CliinicalCoursesWithoutClinics.html
Public Interest Law Professor John Banzhaf
Posted by: GWU Law Prof John Banzhaf | Apr 14, 2016 2:28:13 PM
FA Hayek, The Mirage of Social Justice (1973):
"In my earlier efforts to criticize the concept I had all the time the feeling that I was hitting into a void and I finally attempted, what in such cases one ought to do in the first instance, to construct as good a case in support of the ideal of ‘social justice’ as was in my power. It was only then that I perceived that the Emperor had no clothes on, that is, that the term ‘social justice’ was entirely empty and meaningless. As the boy in Hans Christian Andersen’s story, I ‘could not see anything, because there was nothing to be seen.’ The more I tried to give it a definite meaning the more it fell apart — the intuitive feeling of indignation which we undeniably often experience in particular instances proved incapable of being justified by a general rule such as the conception of justice demands.”
Posted by: bob | Apr 14, 2016 2:34:45 PM




"There exists an undeniable need for social justice in this country. Our American society, in all its greatness, is still neither equitable nor just."
Hogwash. By asserting this she undermines her whole argument.
Stick to the working of the law, once you have striped it of all the Marxist BS, and you will have "justice", or at least something approaching it. "Equitable"? What ever does that mean. If it means anything more that equality before the law, then it is pure Marxist propaganda.
"Social Justice" is really just Communism, and it is time that this is called out clearly. Ms Lawton here fails to do this.
Posted by: harumpf | Apr 14, 2016 6:25:30 AM