Yale Law School's Peter Schuck has an article in the American Lawyer on the lack of viewpoint diversity at elite law schools, why it matters, and what to do about it. Among other things, he argues that ethnic and gender diversity are no substitute for real diversity of opinion and perspective. Here are some excerpts:
Elite law schools cherish robust debate, iconoclasm, and arguing issues from all sides, right? Wrong. The dirty little (not-so) secret about these faculties-that they care much more about diversifying their skin colors, genders, and surnames than about diversifying their points of view-has finally come to the attention of the general public.Schuck does not believe there is an easy answer to this dilemma -- thought he knows that any legislative response would be a terrible idea. If there is to be more viewpoint diversity in legal academia, he argues, elite law schools must commit to changing from within.Now that the truth is out, law school faculties are likely to come under increased pressure to surrender some of their hiring autonomy. But this pressure would be misguided. If these faculties know what is good for them, they will acknowledge the dearth of dissenting voices within them-and work earnestly to correct the problem from within.
* * *
a teaching institution that constructs an ideologically one-sided faculty, whether liberal or conservative, seriously abdicates its pedagogical responsibilities. Professors have a sacred duty to their students and to each other to affirm-and also to exemplify-core academic and intellectual values. We should convey to our students an abiding respect, even awe, for the complexity of law in society, and we should exhibit the ideological humility that this complexity implies. Any professors worthy of the title have strong views, of course, but they should also have a keen sense that those views may be wrong, or based on incomplete evidence, or highly reductive. Even if we are utterly convinced of the correctness of our positions, we should teach as if we aren't-as if there are serious counterpositions to be entertained and explored, as if even the truth cannot be fully apprehended until it is challenged by the best arguments that can be marshaled against it. And although scrupulous teachers can sometimes challenge their own deepest convictions in class, most of us need competing points of view-on our own faculties, debated before our own students-to keep us intellectually honest and to enrich learning. It is all well and good for student groups like the Federalist Society to bring heterodox lecturers to campus, but these extracurricular speakers are no substitute for what should go on in class-and seldom does, I fear.
As Glenn would say, read the whole thing (especially if you are planning to post a comment).
I speak, of course, of the inescapable fact that biased faculty cannot form the basis of a sound legal education.
Yale, and other so-called "elite law schools," self-perpetuate their own institutional biases with outrageous hiring and admissions criteria (truly classifiable as the most heinous form of discrimination in the academy), and then spend millions covering it up with slick marketing campaigns and carefully manicured campuses. They consistently produce “lawyers” with unremarkable reasoning skills, a complete lack of perspective, and no ability to think critically (to “challenge your assumptions,” as it were).
These ideological advocates have perverted our legal system by their incessant demands for interpretations that fit their particular policy preferences (the consequences and precedents be damned), and they leverage their institutions to do it. With each passing year our law is increasingly obfuscated by their tactics, and their profiles seemingly rise.
We, as studious and motivated defenders of the Constitution, or at least as reasonable Americans, can only wait for the day when legal education is valued in a manner exceeding name-recognition; continuing all the while to ridicule their antics while not holding out breath.
Law professors (and to a lesser extent, liberal professionals generally) share many ideological predispositions, not all of which fit neatly into the liberal-conservative dichotomy. Even if we achived "viewpoint diversity" such that 50% of law school profs voted Republican, the faculty would match the public's views along only one, really quite limited dimension.
Along similar lines, although I'm suspicious of "diversity" rationales for affirmative action, I'm also puzzled why Schuck is convinced that minority and women faculty can add no "viewpoint diversity" just because they (like the white male faculty) are largely Democrats.
On a personal note, as a law student, I have to say that thus far, the one professor I have had who was the least "ideologically inclusive" in terms of allowing discussion of and exposing students to different points of view, etc. was one of the professors who regularly posts on this very blog. Perhaps others will write in saying that their worst experiences were with so-called left-wing professors, but I can definitely say that my least intellectually satisfying class (at least in terms of exposure to diverse intellectual viewpoints) came from a conservative/libertarian.
Law students need not be treated as though they need to be exposed to 48% Dem and 50% Repub and 1% Green (or whatever) ideas or they won't ever be able to grasp ideas that differ from their own. Still, it would have been fun to have a few more conservative profs at law school.
I could eliminate what were then somewhat fringe possibilities. Although few of my professors in the relevant subjects (contracts, torts, property,antitrust, administrative law, labor law, corporations, tax) were highly complimentary about much of what passed then for economic regulation or tax policy, I was reasonablty sure there weren't any any whole-hog advocates of social darwinism or any socialists. They all seemed to accept a broadly capitalist society with some role for the government. No one semed to have much use for various forms of discimination, though I couldn't tell you where they stood on certain remedial questions like affirmative action, and I have no idea where any of them stood on Roe, or even on legislative liberalization except for one who opposed it outright as illegitimate and another who thought the opinion embarassing as a matter of craft and counterproductive as a matter of politics. No Crits, no Constitution-in-exile types, but beyond that I could tell next to nothing.
Many former law students I have spoken to had the same experience. Maybe the ones who didn't were like the woman who taxed Samuel Johnson with putting dirty words in his dictionary: "Madam, you have been looking for them."
a) this is true (to a somewhat lesser degree) to the incoming class of the top law schools
and
b) that conservatives value money more + the pay relative to any law professor's other options is (significantly) negative
Of course, this says nothing about intellectual diversity once one gets past the silly notion that Bush and Kerry debating in 2004 about who loves puppy dogs more comprises the entirety of the political spectrum. I agree with Brian Leiter that the problem with law schools is not that they are predominantly liberal but they are predominantly centrist and statist.
Schuck uses the term "bias" multiple times in his essay. It's unfortunate - it either shows the Schuck is being obtuse (by assuming bias solely due to the existance of what he considers a disparity) or dishonest (by attempting to assert something he has yet to prove, or to at least imply that something he knows is debatable is evidenced by the facts he presents).
Schuck's "analysis" is the same rotten analysis that comes across saying that there is a liberal bias amongst the smart, and the poor, one which we should correct (perhaps by killing off smart and poor democrats); and an equally disturbing bias amongst the rich, and the stupid (perhaps by killing off rich and stupid republicans).
If conservatives want anyone else to treat this line of arguement seriously, it would be nice if they didn't get outraged every time someone whose on the left speaks up about something equally contraversial. But David Horowitz is good for business these days. Even so, by using terms like "bias" and "discrimination", conservatives fail to engage meaningfully any issue of intellectual diversity.
The political viewpoints of professors spill over into nearly every class. Since most classes there are taught as each professor's personalized version of conlaw-disguised-as-contracts (or whatever the class may be), students end up learning a great deal about each professor's feelings on "justice" and the First Amendment, and very little about the law. Students are routinely taught that statutes don’t matter; that the federal rules of procedure have the same value as a law review article (try writing that in a brief and see how far it gets you); and that everything essentially devolves into a public policy argument (and of course it is us, the legal elite, who should decide all policy issues, rather than those peasants in fly-over country). Perhaps CJColucci is accurately describing his experience. In any event, he is certainly not describing Yale. It is not even true that the professors there broadly accept capitalist society. Anyone who doubts this should read Bruce's Ackerman's ludicrous manifesto "The Stakeholder Society."
The only flaw in Schuck's piece is that it is not critical enough. Do we need a 50/50 Democrat/Republican split. No? But don't pretend that students are receiving a balanced education when the actual split is 79-to-1, and the ideological spectrum ranges almost entirely from far-left to neo-socialist. If the roles were reversed, and the Republican/Democrat ratio were 10 or 20 or 50-fold in favor of conservatives, all of Schuck’s critics on this board would take the exact opposite approach and would loudly condemn the lack of ideological diversity.
the ideological spectrum ranges almost entirely from far-left to neo-socialist
which made me crack up. Thank you.
Let's say I want to be a tax attorney or work in lots of other areas of the law that are not normally associated with hot button political issues (my grandfather did routine transactional work for local businesses, for example). And let's say that Yale Guy is right and YLS grads get garbage for training in these fields and are filled with lefty con-law-as-tax.
What I don't get, then, is how so many of these graduates pass the bar and seem to do well in the job market, partner progression, etc. Is it all Bar Review and old-boy-network? All on-the-job training? Does the YLS do nothing to help? Other than put a you-are-elite filter on the resume, which is good to have in any case.
This is not a silly question to me, or totally irrelevant to my potential career. Feedback or email would be helpful.
This leads me into all sorts of heresy - law school as mostly for faculty rather than students, law school as indoctrination camp, etc. Better get off the bus before it heads over the cliff.
Of course, this artificial unanimity bled into the classroom in various ways, but the overall environment thus created was surely not what I had been sold regarding what was supposed to be a top-flight liberal education.
It's as if in the effort to oppose a perceived jingoistic nationalism, the whole idea of American exceptionalism and what makes it exceptional to the millions who have come and continue to come to these shores has been not only deemphasized, but completely forgotten.