"The lesson is that you never know in life whether something is going to work out to your advantage, even if it seems to be a terrible impediment."

So says Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in an interview with law.com.

The interview is fascinating for its look into the world of law school in the 1950s and how it had changed--and hadn't changed--by the time I attended at the turn of the century.

Ginsburg was one of only 9 women out of a class of 500 at Harvard Law School. By the time I went to law school (although not at Harvard!), women made up nearly 50 percent of the class.

Ginsburg and her female colleagues faced a variety of challenges (women's restrooms only in one building where they had classes) and insults (a professor asked Ginsburg, "Why are you taking a place that should have gone to a man?"). My law school had potty parity, but we frequently faced questions of the why-are-you-here variety, especially if you weren't planning to work 100 hours a week. Basically, the staff felt you were wasting their time if you wanted to have life outside law.

Ginsburg also talked about the challenges she faced gaining employment after law school. She wound up teaching law as opposed to working in a large firm, and feels it shaped her chances to balance work and family better.

I certainly lay no claim to such an illustrious path. I chose not to pursue a career in law largely because of the huge hours expected of first year lawyers at a time when my children needed more of my attention. As time has gone on, I've also realized that I don't like what most lawyers have to do to practice; that is, lie. Prevaracate. Stretch the truth.

I still fantasize about getting my bar card and hanging out my shingle, especially after reading articles on other women who faced worse struggles and made it. Who knows? It's still a possibility.

"There is no gospel. There are simply opinions."

That's according to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, speaking in Atlanta Thursday to promote his book, My Grandfather's Son.

According to Thomas, the justices on the Court know that they don't have the "gospel," just their opinions. "That's why it's called an opinion," he said.

"Unfortunately, particularly the case for those of us who happen to be considered minorities ... others seem to know what the gospel is for us, to know how we should come out in particular cases because of the pigment of our skin. That harkens back so often to the way things were done back in Savannah," he continued. "I think that is unfortunate, but there is no gospel. There are simply opinions."

He said that when he first joined the Court, "those who were insistent on discrediting" him suggested erroneously that he was following Justice Antonin Scalia in his decision making ("There was no one more horrified than Justice Scalia").

"Obviously what it's based on is that I'm black and that I'm supposed to think a certain way," said Thomas. "and ... there's no way, since I'm not supposed to think that way, that I could up with that myself, so I must be following somebody."

From personal observation, this is still a problem for minorities in law school. One of my best friends was the only black person in my section, and she would sit in stony silence whenever a racial discussion took place in class. At times, I was aghast at her refusal to express an opinion or give testimony to what she had seen and heard as an African-American, when some of the arguments seemed either so warped or so naive.

"I'm not going to be the voice of black America," was her answer to my inquiries.

I can understand that to a degree. We are each shaped by our individual experiences and it's silly to project them onto whole groups or classifications of people. This seems to me to be one of Justice Thomas' points: it is insulting to assume that you have to hold certain opinions simply because of your skin color.

As a white person, I'm allowed to hold a variety of opinions on certain subjects, although our liberal friends will call me "racist" if I express some of them. But as a woman, particularly when I was in college, there were certain opinions I was essentially required to hold or else be discredited. Those opinions included most of the blather you see Amanda Marcotte write at Pandagon about Teh Patriarchy, abortion, and societal oppression of women.

The problem with these opinions is that, like the humans who hold them, they are flawed and time can change them. What was gospel in one era (Plessy v. Ferguson) is vile and wrong in another (Brown v. Board of Education).

Unfortunately, liberals do not allow for minorities to hold differing opinions on legal issues or anything else, really. And so, if Justice Thomas--who was the supposed beneficiary of affirmative action--speaks out on the stigma and wrongheadedness of affirmative action, he is called a vulgar assortment of names based on the idea that he's not appreciative of what he has received. It is, perhaps, the dark underbelly of liberalism: you must want to be treated as inferior so we can feel better about lifting you up.

Fewer Women Seek Law Degrees

Broader opportunities and a strong economy are causing fewer women to seek law degrees.

From 1963 to 1990, the enrollment of women in law schools rose each consecutive year, according to the ABA. In 1963, just 3.7 percent of law school students were women, compared with 42.5 percent in 1990. In 1992, for the only time, women outnumbered men at 50.4 percent. And from 1994 to 2001, female enrollment again began to climb steadily.

One reason for the reversal now may be the media attention that law firms have received about the scant number of women partners and the problems firms have in retaining women, said Elizabeth Pederson, a graduate of Stanford Law School last May and president of Ms. JD, an online community for women attorneys.

Many legal trade and general print publications recently have reported that few women become partners in the nation's law firms. In 2006, just 17.9 percent of partners in law firms were women, according to NALP, a nonprofit organization that tracks legal careers. Meanwhile, 44.3 percent of associates were women.

Law firms are trying to become more friendly to women, providing flex-time schedules, on-site daycare, better maternity leave, and breastfeeding rooms. But you can't get around the grueling schedule young lawyers are expected to keep at a time that many women are wanting to get married, start families and have careers.

After I had my son at the end of my first year of law school, I knew the lawyer's life was not for me. I had no intention of paying someone else to raise my children for me while I worked massive hours. I finished my degree more so I could have the sense of accomplishment than because I intended to become an attorney. It sounds to me like more women are opting for other career paths because of the workload.

Chemerinsky Rehired as Dean of UC-Irvine

Via Patterico's Pontifications, we discover that liberal law professor Erwin Chemerinsky has been rehired as the Dean of the UC-Irvine Law School.

In a statement, Drake and Chemerinsky said: "Many issues were addressed in depth, including several areas of miscommunication and misunderstanding. All issues were resolved to our mutual satisfaction."

Drake's decision to dump Chemerinsky last week set off a national debate about academic freedom and sparked a revolt by faculty at UCI against Drake.

Chemerinsky contended last week that Drake succumbed to political pressure from conservatives and sacked him because of his outspoken liberal positions. The flap threatened to derail the 2009 opening of the law school and prompted some calls for Drake's resignation.

Drake and Chemerinsky said in their statement, "Our new law school will be founded on the bedrock principle of academic freedom. The chancellor reiterated his lifelong, unqualified commitment to academic freedom, which extends to every faculty member, including deans and other senior administrators."

On Friday, details emerged about the criticism of Chemerinsky that the university received in the days before Drake rescinded the job offer, including from California Chief Justice Ronald M. George, who criticized Chemerinsky's grasp of death penalty appeals. Also, a group of prominent Orange County Republicans and Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich wanted to derail the appointment.

Drake has insisted that Chemerinsky didn't lose the dean's position because of his politics, saying that it was only because he expressed himself in a polarizing way.

I'm sad that the story doesn't reference the number of conservatives who blasted UC-Irvine for rescinding its offer. I'm just glad Drake finally decided to do the right thing.

Thinking Like a Lawyer

From the first days of law school, students are told they will be taught to "think like a lawyer." What that means is that students will learn how to look at an issue from every possible angle and argue for virtually possible side in a case. The exercise is designed to help break down a person's personal prejudices in a situation by forcing them to view things from different perspectives.

While this is a useful (and essential) skill for young lawyers, shouldn't they also be trained how to act like lawyers?

Wallflower at Ms JD makes a good argument for law schools giving their students practical, real world experience, as well as theory in two posts here and here.

Her solution is to mimic the medical school example where third-year students work through a series of clinical rotations to learn real world applications of classroom theory.

A more logical solution would be to require clinical education or internships as part of legal education, perhaps making the third year a series of rotations through various kinds of legal practice, much as medical interns rotate through departments in a hospital. Law schools could form partnerships with law firms, individual practitioners, and government and private agencies and, together, these groups could create clinics for almost any area of practice in which there was student interest. The two-semester third-year internship program could be divided into four quarters, and students would have the option of devoting their time two or four rotations.

Devoting the third year to a variety of clinical experiences would expand students’ knowledge of the law and its practical applications and effects. With a quarter- or semester-long rotation in a business law clinic, students would be able to apply what they know about contracts, secured transactions, and protection of intellectual property. A rotation interning in a public defender’s or prosecutor’s office would give students with an interest in criminal law experience with arguing at bail hearings and filing motions. Family law or private client internships would give students so inclined an understanding of the drafting of wills or the negotiation of visitation between divorced parents. Students would have not just a grasp on the theory of law or what it means to “think like a lawyer;” they would have a greater understanding of how to cope with real-world legal problems and develop practical solutions.

This seems to me to be an excellent idea for making a legal education more practical. Too many students (like me) graduate with the education but no actual experience handling the mundane areas of practicing law. Few students graduate knowing how to draft a will, file a temporary restraining order, or write a motion unless that person worked in a law office while in school. Requiring clinical rotations in the third year would force all students to get real world experience so that they were better prepared for life after law school.

The Duke-ification of Speech

Leonard Kaplan is the latest victim of what I'm calling "Dukeification" after the Duke lacrosse fake rape scandal.

Kaplan is the University of Wisconsin law professor who has evidently caused enormous pearl-clutching throughout the liberal university by actually expecting students to think.

Yet offend he did, during a discussion about conflicts between culture and the legal system in which he used Hmong immigrants as an example.

A few days later, third-year law student KaShia Moua sent an e-mail citing four “incredibly offensive and racist” remarks she said Kaplan had made during a “10-minute rant about the Hmong.” Among them: “Hmong men have no skills other than killing” and “All second-generation Hmong end up in gangs and other criminal activity.”

Proclaiming that Kaplan “has violated our rights as students,” Moua called a meeting “to hold Kaplan and our administration accountable.” Moua did not reveal she was not in the class and received her information secondhand.

Just like the Duke University's overreaction to the charges of rape, the UW administration pre-emptively issued apologies to offended students. There was even an investigation of Kaplan and students attempted to have him fired.

The problem, as with the Duke case, is that events didn't happen quite the way the professional offended class says they did.

Kaplan denies ever saying that Hmong men have no skills except killing. Other quoted comments, he says, were taken out of context. For instance, he did say many young Hmong men are involved in criminal activity, but explained that this is typical of new immigrant groups...

Kaplan’s fellow faculty members, some of whom initially sided with the offended students, are increasingly coming to his support.

“The quotes are obviously cruelly torn from the teaching context,” wrote professor Ann Althouse, a nationally read blogger and guest columnist in The New York Times. “It is irrational to think that a law professor would assert things like this as a matter of belief.”

Also rising to Kaplan’s defense are many of the students in his class.

“Professor Kaplan is the farthest thing from a racist,” says Jason Gonzalez, the lone undergraduate in the class. “He was talking about how some recent immigrant cultures don’t assimilate to our laws immediately, and was asking if it’s ethical and right to expect that, or whether the law and society should provide more assistance.”

Students who go to law school should expect that their preconceived notions, beliefs, and attitudes are going to be questioned and dissected. Playing devil's advocate is part of a law professor's job, forcing students to "think like lawyers" in trying to justify their beliefs and theories about the law. Students have to be able to handle having their closely-treasured sensitivities challenged repeatedly.

More than a few times in law school did I have professors say outrageous things to me and attempt to embarrass me. But most professors are truly interested in presenting material in interesting and thought-provoking ways. That some students get the vapors when confronted with unpleasant truths (many new immigrants fall into crime) speaks more to their fitness for law school than to the sensitivity of the professor.