The Language of Law School This page intentionally left blank

[ . . . ]
 Well, like in 
The Paper Chase
. If you
have a professor like that which is to humiliate you on purpose” (7–11, 12).
However, quite a few felt that there was some value in a modified kind of Socratic
teaching that engaged students in extended but not mean-spirited dialogue:
[5-22]
Student 1: I never raise my hand, but if I’m called on, I don’t mind answering. So
for me the Socratic method is kind of good, because I never talk if I
wasn’t called on and I was very intimidated, very uncomfortable about
the whole idea and then you realize, it’s not that bad. But, so person-
ally, I think it’s good because it kind of boosts your self-confidence in
your ability to actually say something.
In discussing the professor in this particular classroom, the student notes that
he “brings it down a bit more, by the joking or by his style.” Note that this

---

Student Participation and Social Difference
201
student was a woman and provides a good illustration for the quantitative find-
ing above: that in Socratic classrooms, women students speak more when they
are called on, perhaps in part because they hesitate to volunteer.
99
 For some
students, it seems that the most salient distinction is not “Socratic versus non-
Socratic” but “unnecessarily mean-spirited versus encouraging.” Some allusion
to this was found in discussions by students across the various prestige rankings
of law schools. At the same time as they appreciated the more encouraging
professors, the students also commented with some acerbity on moments when
professors did not adequately control the class during Socratic or other dis-
cursive exchanges, so that particular students were able to talk for what was
viewed as an excessive period of time. When a student who didn’t have much
to contribute substantively talked for a long time, it could become a confusing
distraction. That this can happen in today’s modified Socratic classrooms is
one sign that many professors have adopted pedagogical models that diverge
from the stereotypic Socratic class.
100
In substantive terms, many students converged on professors’ views when
discussing their first-year training and their Contracts class in remarks that re-
vealed much insight. Echoing an observation found in many of the professors’
interviews about the ubiquity and importance of contract, one student from a
local law school explained with energetic passion:
[6-1]
Student 1: Contracts is- it’s almost so basic and people sign contracts every day
of their lives for whatever reason, whether it’s to sign their Visa
charge- and there’s so much that the general public doesn’t under-
stand about where you stand, what your rights are 
[ . . . ]
 and it’s
almost like, why isn’t Contracts taught your senior year of high school
[Student 2: Exactly- like that case about the Carnival Cruise Lines-]
[
general comments and exclamations by group, including:
 Oh my God,
that was unbelievable!] 
[ . . . ]
[6–1]
Student 1:
[ . . . ]
 but Contracts is just so basic, and it’s something that every-
body- I can’t think of how you could live without ever getting through
without dealing with a contract; either apartment lease, or your credit
cards
[ . . . ]
Students also commented on the process they were absorbing: of picking up
a case and learning to read it, of building analogies, and of parsing language
in new ways. Several pointed in particular to the ambiguity of law, a perspective
their professors were at pains to get across to students who sought easier answers.
Thus, along with some differences in perspective between professors and students,
and among students in different kinds of law schools, we find some convergence
in perceptions regarding the core task of the first year, which across all of
the schools in the study remains centered on learning to read cases and deci-
pher doctrine (with some discussion of policy and theory as part of the picture
as well).

---

202
Difference
Summary
We find some support for the overall patterning by race and gender that has been
documented in other studies. In addition, this study introduces some nuances and
complexities that will be important considerations in any thorough examination
of these problems. For example, attention to the effects of context emerges as a
vital part of understanding these phenomena, from differences among law schools
to variations in teaching styles commonly denominated simplistically as Socratic.
One interesting result of comparisons among our classrooms is a more com-
plex definition of inclusiveness; it is clear that inclusiveness is not a uniform char-
acteristic across different dimensions. A classroom can be quite inclusive along lines
of gender but not race, and vice versa. For example, Class #8, with among the larg-
est gender disparities against women, is the most inclusive for minority students
overall, with a 43% disproportion in favor of students of color in terms of turns
and a 51% favorable disproportion in terms of time. This, of course, immediately
raises the question of intersectionality, for when we separate out the categories of
gender and race in this way, we create ambiguity in one arena even as we gain clar-
ity in another.
101
 Another arena worthy of further study is a more fine-grained
approach to issues of racial and other social identities; this would call for extensive
and systematic interview work in addition to the observational research.
As we add more observations and studies to the foundations already provided,
we will be able to point with increasing specificity to the constellations of condi-
tions that create more inclusive, participatory, and effective law school teaching.
The complexities involved should not lead us to throw up our hands and settle for
comforting oversimplifications. Rather, they provide the more realistic, respect-
ful, and nonessentializing ground from which real understanding continues to
emerge.
Behind the nuances and complexities, however, we have also identified some
patterning that is consonant with the findings of a number of other studies. This
patterning continues to link increased class participation and classroom presence
with traditional insiders in the legal profession; that is, white male students tend
to predominate. Among the classrooms of this study, male students dominate in
the classes taught by white male professors and by a female professor in a higher-
ranked school. Women students have more of a voice in classes taught by women
in the nonelite classrooms of this study, and students of color are dominant speakers
only in the classes taught by professors of color. There are some interesting fluc-
tuations in the patterning, warning us against overly essentialist thinking: students
of color also had some positive participation ratios in one regional law school class
taught by a white male, as well as in a local law school class taught by a white fe-
male. As I’ve noted, it is important to remember that silence can have many mean-
ings for individual students; we cannot assume that differential silence always
proceeds from insecurity or fear. However, differential silence on the part of stu-
dents of color or white women raises a different, institutional kind of question about
cultural invisibility and dominance. We first considered this issue in examining
the content of law school pedagogy; now we turn to the question in terms of the
structure of law school teaching. If students of color and female students tend to

---

Student Participation and Social Difference
203
be more silent in law school classrooms, then any differences these students bring
with them in terms of experience or background are not given voice in the crucial
initial socialization process. To the extent that these differences in experience re-
flect race, gender, class, or other aspects of social identity, we again see aspects of
social structure and difference pushed to the margins of legal discourse.
102
 Thus,
in addition to this tendency in the content of the message law students are receiv-
ing, we find a possible reinforcement of the marginalization in the actual structure
of voices in some law school classrooms.
This raises a concern about the overall culture of the classroom, an issue that
is independent of concerns about student performance on exams or individual
student motivations. Even if there is no connection between class participation and
grades, we can still ask what the classroom culture conveys to students about law
and its central priorities, particularly during an important initiation into legal think-
ing. Correlatively, we can also ask what message is conveyed to students regarding
which voices can speak in the language of the law. If certain voices, attitudes, and
experiences become invisible during lawyers’ formative training, this could send a
message about what the law values (and about what is deemed unimportant or
irrelevant). Of course, we need to proceed with some caution in developing an
understanding of how cultural invisibility and dominance become features of train-
ing across different law school classrooms. As we have seen, any simplistic or ho-
mogeneous model of this process is likely to be inaccurate. However, to the degree
that we find an erasure of the voices and experiences of traditionally marginalized
people, we uncover important clues to the underlying worldview that, consciously
or not, is conveyed to law students. We also gain a better understanding of fea-
tures of the law school experience that may contribute to differential alienation
and marginalization on the part of students of color and women.

---