As someone who graduated from law school just three years ago, I had a sinking feeling in my gut as I read about the recent flap over a third-year Harvard law student's "Racist Email [Going] National." Stephanie Grace sent an e-mail to fellow students clarifying her opinion that she thinks it's possible that African Americans are "naturally" less intelligent than white people:
This suggests to me that some part of intelligence is genetic, just like identical twins raised apart tend to have very similar IQs and just like I think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria. I don’t think it is that controversial of an opinion to say I think it is at least possible that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level, and I didn’t mean to shy away from that opinion at dinner.Many people are shocked by the e-mail, but I didn't find it surprising at all. In fact, my own law school experience was riddled with race-related controversy, most of which took place over the school's open listserv. There was the time many students objected to an event being held at a bar with a racist dress code. Also, the time that a student made a joke on the open listserv that legislation allowing pit bulls to be killed would result in "more sesame chicken for me." Of course, the biggest school-wide controversy came when our Student Bar Association president resigned after making comments that questioned the role of minority student groups at the school.
Why do these kinds of controversies plague law schools, especially the top law schools in the nation? Jill Filipovic has a stunningly apt explanation:
I’m not entirely sure what it is about law school that encourages the kind of behavior that Stephanie Grace exhibits here ... but I suspect it’s some combination of students with fairly sheltered upbringings and homogeneous social circles, an academic emphasis on logical consistency over actual justice, and an environment where discussions are so hyper-intellectualized that students feel they can say anything so long as they can give it a veneer of logic and rationality.I couldn't have said it better. Young, privileged students interpret the principle of "academic freedom" to mean "I can say whatever I want and you can't criticize me." This atmosphere of polite disagreement, no matter how odious the position offered, was stifling to me as a law student. It was based on the notion that we law students were all in this together, and therefore should "play nice," even when there were other students whose stated political aim was to deny rights to women and people of color, rights whose denial cut to the very core of my being. Meanwhile, no one seemed to consider the impact on academic freedom caused by allowing discourse that was overtly hostile to minority groups.
The hyper-intellectual, logic-focused law school environment denigrates feelings. Even when the issues were deeply personal, we were supposed to regard classroom and extracurricular discourse as purely academic. This mentality goes beyond the confines of the university. I am reminded of the ridicule heaped upon Obama when he suggested a Supreme Court justice should have empathy, rhetoric he's backed away from the second time around.
But empathy has a place in the law, and it needs a more prominent home in law schools.The legal system is built to try to address unfairness and injustice, to make sure everyone gets their due process and fair share. If we didn't care about the well-being of our fellow citizens, we wouldn't need justice at all.
It matters how people feel. It matters whether racist arguments are tolerated, and whether other voices rise to their aid. When lawyers go on to serve as judges, senators, policy-makers, prosecutors, and presidents, an e-mail isn't just an e-mail. The e-mail and the ambivalent response to the odious attitudes expressed in it exemplify the serious empathy deficit in our law schools.
When I look at the product of these law schools -- a legal system where if you are poor, black, or both, you simply cannot get a fair shake -- I think, is it any wonder? An academic structure that glorifies logic and consistency, and denigrates empathy, will never produce justice.
--Silvana Naguib
