Perhaps you’re old enough to remember the movie The Paper Chase, which centered around the first-year contracts course at Harvard Law. It was a good movie and gave an accurate idea of what the study of law then entailed — rigorous study of the principles of the law. Professors sought to instruct students in the elements of the law and opinions about what it should be, and give opinions about real or imagined social ills were out of place.
Things are much different today. “Progressive” activism has swept through many of our law schools, and Matthew Anderson discusses that sad truth in today’s Martin Center article.
He writes:
Even at more practical regional schools, the effect can be insidious, as faculty bring with them a progressive bias from their extensive academic exposure. Sometimes, this ideological emphasis is subtle and difficult to detect, because it can be integrated into the basic framework of how law is taught. At other times, the effect of ideological preoccupation in the legal academy is observable in how law students behave.
The behavior that prompted Anderson’s article occurred at the UNC Law School, when students walked out of classes to protest the administration’s decision not to expel a student involved with terrorism. (No, not the “terrorism” of parents protesting against public-school policies.)
Anderson asks:
Could it be that many law students shouldn’t even be in law school? Students who want an actual legal career are typically interested in basic trade work like writing contracts, defending trademarks, or standing in front of a judge. Too often, however, the legal academy holds out to idealistic young adults the possibility of being “more than just a lawyer” — being, instead, a lawyer-citizen.
Where is Professor Kingsfield when you need him?