|
This page intentionally left blank
III
.
.
DIFFERENCE: SOCIAL STRUCTURE
IN LEGAL PEDAGOGY
Through an awareness of intersectionality, we can better ac-
knowledge and ground the differences among us and negotiate
the means by which these differences will find expression.
1
My difference argument . . . is grounded in empirical realiza-
tions, in gendered experiences, and therefore, in women’s lives
as constructed in society and culture.
2
From here, what we need to do is work, in specific contexts, on
the problems of difference.
3
A
debate has emerged in recent years over the impact of social difference on law
school education. Studies and anecdotal accounts have suggested that women
are disadvantaged in law school classrooms because of differential patterns of par-
ticipation and inclusion and because of gendered reactions to distinctively legal
discourse styles. Although far less systematic attention has been paid to the effects
of race, class, or school status on students’ experience in law schools, there have
been accounts suggesting that students of color also feel excluded in law school
classrooms. In addition, recent work documents negative effects of the law school
milieu for working-class students. In this part of the book, we examine the shape
of the differences and similarities among the classrooms in this study in terms of
race, gender, and school status.
Chapter 7 begins the section with an overview of the different professorial
teaching styles found in the classrooms of the study, analyzed in context. Chapter
8 presents this study’s findings on student participation, with particular attention
to race and gender. The chapter analyzes the implications for our understandings
of diversity, both in the law school classroom and beyond it. These chapters sug-
140
Difference
gest that the twin problems of cultural invisibility and dominance, which we have
already encountered when scrutinizing the
content
of classroom discourse, are also
important issues when analyzing the
structure
of legal teaching. At the same time,
in an important check on essentialism, we should note that some students of all
races and genders find law school training alienating. In this sense, an improved
understanding of the features of this training that impact traditionally marginalized
students can benefit other students as well.
Professorial Style in Context
141
7
.
.
Professorial Style in Context
141
I
n this chapter, we survey the variety of classroom styles found among the pro-
fessors in the study. It is important to remember that there are continuities to
be found across these differences in style, as outlined in Part II. These continuities
were not only matters of the content of the lesson conveyed or of common orien-
tations regarding the correct reading of legal texts, the importance of hierarchies
of legal authority, and so forth. As we’ve seen, there were also similarities of dis-
cursive form and structure. For example, even teachers who employed a great deal
of lecture nonetheless replicated aspects of dialogic form within their own turns,
and when they did call on students there were similarities of approach to be found
in the questioning. And all of the professors employed exegetical lecturing, some-
times for long periods of time, sometimes interspersed with ongoing questioning
of students. At the same time, there was considerable variability among the pro-
fessors in terms of discourse style. After surveying the variations among classrooms
in detail, we return at the end of this chapter to the question of assessing similari-
ties and differences in professorial style, seen now in terms of the contexts pro-
vided by social patterning.
A Diverse Range of Styles
One of the most fascinating aspects of law school classroom discourse uncovered
by this study is the combination of underlying structural similarities with, on the
surface, a startling array of diverse teaching styles. At one end of the spectrum, we
find the most highly stylized Socratic classroom, with heavily structured dialogue
dominating (represented here by one of the pilot study classrooms). More com-
mon in this study were mixed formats of various kinds. For example, in modified
142
Difference
Socratic classrooms, professors loosened the ongoing questioning, provided some
answers, and did some lecturing. There were also a number of classrooms in which
an almost conversational give-and-take was at times permitted, although question-
answer sequences controlled by the professor nonetheless provided a strong struc-
tural backbone even in these settings. Finally, one professor relied primarily on a
lecture format.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
