The Language of Law School This page intentionally left blank

participation that are obscured by a stark comparison of minority to nonminority
students.
37
 Interestingly, all the classes with overall ratios favorable to students of
color show a negative ratio for one or more groups; in Classes #8 and #4 it is the
Latino/a students who are more silent, whereas in Class #6 it is the Asian Ameri-
can students who speak less frequently. As we’ve seen, use of an overall ratio for
students of color in Class #2 obscures the fact that if Asian American students were
treated separately, Class #2 would have a relatively egalitarian overall ratio for the
remaining students of color. But as we consider differences among subgroups, we

---

Student Participation and Social Difference
181
have smaller and smaller numbers in each group, limiting considerably any con-
clusions that can be drawn from the comparisons.
In addition to the two classrooms taught by professors of color, there were
two other classes in which students of color achieved positive participation ratios.
One of them, Class #6, was taught at a local law school by a white female professor
and was overall the most egalitarian class of the study. With 53 students, the class
was in the midrange of class sizes and fell into the more conversational end of the
pedagogical spectrum. It is the only class in the study in which 100% of the stu-
dents spoke at least once. It shares with Class #3 the smallest gendered time and
turn disparities in the study (in favor of women by small percentages), and with
Class #2 the smallest race-based time and turn disparities.
38
Lest we conclude that the more conversational style of this last class was the
key factor in generating more egalitarian participation patterns, we note that the
fourth classroom in which students of color participated more than predicted by
their numbers is Class #4, taught by one of the more Socratic professors. How-
ever, this was the youngest teacher in the study, and although he employed a rela-
tively Socratic format, his classroom style was somewhat relaxed (as we saw in
Chapter 6, where he was the leading example of an encouraging modified Socratic
teacher). Here we see the complications involved in delineating what aspects of
classroom style might be most important in creating an inclusive atmosphere, for
we have found positive participation ratios for students of color in both a more
conversational and a more Socratic class. A qualitative examination of both classes
reveals an underlying similarity that is difficult to quantify: the professors in both
classes seemed to adopt less of a distanced position than the prototypical formal
law professor, using humor, discourse-cohesive devices, and other signals (includ-
ing prosody and intonation) to create a somewhat more informal atmosphere than
students might expect.
Here it’s also intriguing to consider the possibility that these professors are all
to some degree operating against a backdrop of the stereotypical law professor
created in part by popular culture representations (films such as 
The Paper Chase
,
books such as 
One L
). This is a stereotype that is so austere and intimidating that
it is not difficult to appear more humane and informal by comparison. It thus seems
possible that—sometimes through indirect commentary, as we’ve seen, and some-
times without any effort or comment at all—these professors may be invoking a
contrast in which they appear relatively benign. Alternatively, of course, the ste-
reotype may at times help cast a long shadow over the classroom, helping to create
an intimidating atmosphere that professors would have to actively work against if
they wished to create an encouraging atmosphere; so, for example, just the use of
the discursive format of Socratic questioning might take on additional significance
in light of its representation in popular culture. As we will see, we can find evi-
dence for both positions in the student interviews. In any case, these two profes-
sors, neither of whom are in the oldest age group in the study, did seem to create
a less formal atmosphere in their classes—although it should be noted that, with
its combination of conversational structure and relatively light atmosphere, Class
#6 was by far the more informal of the two. This reminds us that even though the
effects of a more formal discourse style may be softened by the use of an informal

---

182
Difference
overall tone in particular classrooms, the more formal discourse style can still ex-
ert an influence that, in combination with other factors, impacts the overall effect
of the teaching (e.g., giving a more relaxed professorial approach a nonetheless
somewhat stylized feel).
Another factor worth considering in this regard is the effect of a critical mass of
fellow students of color in the class. As can be seen in Table 8.2, there is some vari-
ability among the classrooms in terms of the proportions of students of color; mi-
nority student cohorts range from 23% in Class #2 to 6.6% in Class #3. The cohorts
are largest in the elite and prestige law schools of the study and grow smaller as we
move down the status hierarchy. Although the two classes with the largest minority
cohorts have positive participation rates for students of color, the class with the third-
largest minority cohort (Class #5, with a cohort fairly comparable in size to Class
#2’s) is one of the worst classrooms in this study in terms of minority participation
rates. So it appears that, at least in the classes of this study, a substantial cohort alone,
absent other conditions, may not be enough to create an inclusive classroom for stu-
dents of color. This is underscored by the fact that the two classes with the smallest
table
 8.2
Class Size and Cohort Data by Race
Percentage of