Many legal educators, members of the bench and bar focus on the wrong
issue when they consider the legal education of [students-of-color].(1)
Their focus is almost exclusively on the discontinuity between the number
of people of color who [are admitted to law school, the number who] graduated
from law school in a given year and the corresponding number of students
of color who fail the bar examination the first time they sit for it. Concomitantly,
they tend to rationalize those numbers on the basis that:
(1) the students who failed should not have been admitted to
law school in the first place;
(2) the students were not intellectually competent and should not have
been allowed to graduate; or
(3) that people of color are not suited for the study of law.
If the students happened to have attended a historical law school for people
of color, then their failure is attributed to:
(1) poor quality of instruction,
(2) an overly permissive curriculum, and/or
(3) a complete absence of qualitative standards in the application of
the admissions standards. . . . .
Categorically, that problem is:
(1) getting people of color into law school;
(2) getting students of color [to excel in] law school; and
(3) getting people of color certified to practice law within the same
time expectancy as any other law graduate.
This statement of the problem may not appear different from that which
has been traditional. However, it is predicated on a different set of presumptions
and assumptions about
(1) the purpose of teaching,
(2) the methods which should be used in teaching [students-of-color],
(3) the indicators to be used to determine success and
(4) the key factors that have impeded attaining the desired results.
In this context, there are two critical factors.
First, the problem is more psychological than intellectual
in nature.
Second, it is related to the acquisition and development of skills and
not to a lack of substantive knowledge.
Both of these factors are treatable in an educational context. Therefore,
it is crucial that [law schools] focus their efforts on building students
self-confidence and self-worth, and in teaching them how to effectively
the mode expected of lawyers. That means that [ethnic American] students
must learn to write like lawyers. One learns to write by reading and writing.
The more one writes the better one becomes at writing, assuming that
one receives assistance in learning the technical requirements of [legal]
composition and grammar. (emphasis added)
. . . . Black people [ and many students of color] come out of an oral
tradition. . . .The richness of . . . oral tradition is best illustrated
in the explanation Alex Haley gave as to how he came to discover his roots.
The ability of a people to compile, organize, remember, and render their
historical and cultural lineage is no small accomplishment. This is especially
true when the basic social institutions necessary to support, enhance,
and encourage that development has been specifically targeted for destruction.
[African American] oral tradition has to include the detrimental effects
of American slavery. That "peculiar institution" was deliberately designed
to destroy the essential institutions of a people. . . .(1) family, (2)
language, (3) religion [and (4)] self and group worth. Yet, in spite of
the assault upon the very foundation of a group's being, African Americans
learned the language. Moreover, through their own intellectual creativity,
they mastered the art of the [English] spoken word . . . . Nevertheless,
the legacy of that historical Black Experience resulted in a practical,
almost vocational value, being ascribed to education. It associates teaching
with the tradition of being "instructed," that is, being told.
This legacy is not easy to overcome. Social mobility and the acquisition
of wealth alone are not sufficient to overcome it. In fact, there is little
evidence that the achieving of middle and upper class status, and having
access to discretionary income has shifted Black middle class emphasis
to a reading tradition. . . .
Lack of the tradition also suggest why students of color have a utilitarian
approach to reading. It appears that when they read, they have a particular
objective in mind, e.g., pleasure, instruction, comfort, etc. While there
is nothing wrong with single purpose reading, it does limit ones experience
in terms of over all exposure if it becomes the exclusive objective. It
is in this context that [students-of-color] are short-changing themselves
in terms of becoming lawyers and in developing the necessary skills to
[excel in law school].
Thurgood Marshall School of Law Faculty were invited by the State Bar
examiners to review the examinations their students had written, and in
large numbers, failed. After reviewing the papers, it was both clear and
indisputable that the vast majority of those examinations were (1) poorly
written, (2) poorly organized, (3) highly disjointed in thought continuity,
and (4) tended not to specifically address the issues.
. . . . I could not help thinking how similar they were to the manner
and style which those same students used in law school. Enough information
was contained in each answer to indicate that the writer had some knowledge
about the subject in question, but not enough to indicate he or she knew
what to do with it. Reading these papers suggested that our students
were extremely insecure in taking an authoritative legal position relative
to an issue; and second, they were extremely insecure in expressing themselves
in terms of legal art (legalese). (Emphasis added) I then began to
more fully appreciate the symbiotic relationship between law school and
the Bar; and why and how we, as legal educators, were missing the point
where [Students-of-color] were concerned.
Most minority students focus mainly on reading for information. They
tend to read a case in a law book and factually describe what has happened
in the same manner as they might read Hemingway's novella, The Old Man
and The Sea, and describe it as a fish story. But law professors expect
more than that. (emphasis added) Therefore, it is incumbent upon law
professors to teach minority students to read. They must help these students
to understand what to expect from reading over and above information about
legal rules and doctrines.
[First, students] must . . . [read] a case to . . . [understand]
why judges decide the way they do; that if one judge's decision is different
from that of another in a similar situation; and . . . students must seek
to find the reasons for that difference in outcome.
Second, . . . students [must] decide for themselves what the decisional
outcome should be; and then to measure their own decisions and judgments
against that of the courts. If their decision is different from that of
the court, they should seek to find out why.
[Third, students]. . . must [learn to] appreciate [and use consistently]
the use this specialized language in their explanations and expressions
of opinion.
[Fourth, students]. . . must . . . augment and enrich their experiences
by absorbing the historical significance associated with the development
of doctrines, policies, industries, economic activities, etc., which some
courts elaborate upon in great detail.
And last, [students] must. . . . read cases and law-related materials
to learn how lawyers are expected to organize their thought, and to communicate
with others within the profession.
Minority law students will [excel] . . . . by learning to communicate
as lawyers are expected to communicate. (emphasis added).
1. See, Donald K. Hill, Law School, Legal
Education, and the Black Law Student, 12 T. Marshall L. Rev. 457 (1987)(cites
omitted)(The article focuses on Black students. I believe that it applies
with equal force to any student who comes from a oral tradition. This includes
most students of color (African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans
and Native Americans) and many white students. |