|
MISPERCEPTIONS WHICH OPERATE AS BARRIERS TO THE EDUCATION OF MINORITY LAW STUDENTS Nerissa Bailey-Scott Skillman
Having taught in the area of education of minority law students for several years, I have observed numerous misperceptions held by students and faculty, which operate as barriers to the education of minority law students. When these misperceptions are institutionalized, they become even greater obstacles. The misperceptions which I have observed generally fall into two categories. The first can be described as general misperceptions which influence the students' ability to achieve academic excellence. The second consists of very specific problems that interfere with the students' ability to write in a manner consistent with the expectations of their law school professors. I. GENERAL MISPERCEPTIONS
I will always remember the words of one of the entering first-year minority law students at the University of San Francisco: "Until you suggested to us that we could achieve excellence, quite frankly, I'd never considered the possibility of getting 'A's'." That student graduated from law school several years ago; his law school grades upon graduation placed him in the top of his class. Of equal concern to me is the fact that the standard of survival often becomes institutionalized by the law schools. A subtle way in which this happens is revealed by closer examination of the name assigned to academic support programs sponsored by law schools. Schools often choose to call their academic support programs "tutorial" programs. In America, the use of the word "tutorial" denotes that a program is remedial in nature. The next step which often occurs is that law faculty and law students alike begin to articulate the standard for students attending the programs as one of survival. Otherwise, why would the students attend such programs if they did not need remedial help?The standard which should be communicated to all law students is one of excellence. To promote excellence, we must articulate the standard for achievement in terms of excelling.
My observation is that minority law students tend to enter law school with the idea that a legal education will enable them to accomplish specific goals, often articulated in terms of "social justice." Many times these students tend to approach the study of law though the fundamental goal of the legal system is to achieve equality. The impact upon students' academic performance is far reaching because they often analyze legal problems through translucent glasses. For instance, a student with such a misperception might analyze Shelley v. Kraemer as applying principles which would facilitate the achievement of social equality when, in fact, the case should be framed in terms of property concepts. I suggest students be informed, as soon as they enter law school, that the achievement of social justice is not the overriding policy concern of the legal system. If students are put on notice early, they will more quickly become attuned to the proper way in which to analyze legal issues.
In the study of law there are at least three sets of values which are in operation: the values of the casebook editor, the professor, and the student. If we were to categorize the values of the casebook editors and the professors, we would find that they closely approximate the values of those who have traditionally become lawyers. Until the 1960's, people who traditionally became lawyers were almost always majority group members. Further, they were usually male and conservative. By definition, minority law students do not come from the same background as the "traditional lawyers." Yet minority students often perceive themselves as having the same value system as the "traditional lawyer." Students often fail to distinguish among the values which are in operation in the study of law; instead they apply their own values. The failure to apply the "traditional lawyer's" value system to a legal problem will result in failure.Minority law students should be informed that they are in fact studying a different value system-that of the "traditional lawyer." Once the students are put on notice, they can be instructed as to study methods which can be employed in successfully learning this value system. It is equally important to reassure students of the continuing validity of their own values. However, be pragmatic; inform the students that while they are writing law school exams, it is necessary for them to put their own values on the back burner.
The commonly held misperception that grades are a reflection of intelligence operates also as a barrier in the education of minority law students. Law school grades are a reflection of the student's ability to communicate to the reader that he or she understands the values of the legal system. When the lack of any meaningful experience with the legal system is coupled with minority students' lack of understanding of the values of the "traditional lawyer," the results are reflected in the law student's grades. However, the misperception is that the student's grades represent an accurate evaluation of his or her intelligence. This misperception can be devastating, especially for students who are performing poorly in law school. The student is faced with poor academic performance and with questions about his or her own basic intelligence. If students and faculty were more aware of the impact of this misperception, they could resourcefully learn and teach methods which would better direct the student toward meeting the dominant values in legal education. II. SPECIFIC MISPERCEPTIONSThere are three specific misperceptions which I have identified as creating obstacles in the education of minority law students.
My observation is that minority law students generally approach the study of law from the vantage point of achieving a level of true knowledge about the law. They tend to study their textbook materials by reading from cover to cover rather than by imposing structure upon the materials as a part of their study. In my work with minority law students, I emphasize the importance of using the structure established by the table of contents in each casebook. If students learn to utilize the table of contents, and the professor's syllabus, as organizational guides, they can learn the materials more efficiently. They can also learn the issues for each course easily; they can learn to brief, take notes, and prepare outlines more effectively. Whenever a student seeks my advice, I always begin by asking the student to give a detailed description of his or her study methods. Invariably, the student who is having difficulty fails to understand the importance of the table of contents of the casebook. Once the student is made aware of the way in which the casebook is organized and the value of the table of contents, he or she can be a more effective student. To teach minority students how to excel, law faculty would be well advised to examine the study methods used by their students.
Minority law students often have the perception that they are writing for an informed reader. In fact, students often state they believe that they are supposed "to write to" their professors. This assumption can be fatal academically because if one writes to an informed reader, one writes with the assumption that the reader knows the law. The answers, therefore, appear conclusory. Thus, when the student fails to meet his or her absolute duty to inform the uninformed reader of the relationship between the law and the facts, the student is given a low grade. If minority law students are to excel, it may be necessary for faculty to identify for the student the audience for whom he or she is writing.
Having taught legal writing, my observation is that most faculty emphasize the concept of "factual analysis." Minority students seem to hear the term "factual analysis" as meaning "restating the facts." Given this misperception, the students are unable to excel in their writing because they are expected to focus upon the application of the law to a specific situation. Students should be taught to think law, write law, and integrate facts into the statements of the law which are being applied. By avoiding the term "factual analysis" or by accurately explaining what the term means, faculty can better enable their students to excel. Without clear articulation of the meaning of the term "factual analysis," student will respond by needlessly restating facts. Conclusion Perhaps, if these seven misperceptions can be acknowledged, they can be eliminated as barriers, or obstacles, to the education of minority law students. Assistant professor of Law, University of San Francisco School of Law; B.A. University of Hawaii (1970); J.D. Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley (1978). |
Last Updated:
|