“The moment of change is the only poem.”
That’s a line from one of my favorite poets, Adrienne Rich. I think it’s fitting as we focus upon the theme of change in legal education.
Change is at the forefront of our discussions at Seattle University School of Law this year. We are marking our 35th anniversary and engaging in an exciting strategic planning process to chart our future. When we began our year of festivities in October with a spectacular kickoff reception for our friends and alumni at the Museum of Glass, we went back to the place of our roots to honor how strong they have made us. We’ve come to understand that part of celebrating who we are is celebrating both what has changed over the years and — just as significantly — what has not.
Looking both at what has changed and what has not is an apt lens not only for our law school during this year, but also for legal education more generally. The first significant study of legal education since the influential McCrate report of the early 1990s was released last summer by the Carnegie Foundation. The Carnegie report builds upon McCrate’s strong emphasis upon skills training in legal education, urging law schools to continue to go beyond teaching students merely to “think like lawyers” and to reach for a more robust vision of professional formation that includes skills and personal development, as well as cognitive development.
As important as this message is for legal education, it was in many respects old news for our law school. As part of our Jesuit-based mission of educating outstanding lawyers who are leaders for a just and humane world, we prioritize holistic education. Though we are always striving to do more, part of our tradition is to seek to impart an integrated education that develops the whole person. But for many law schools in the United States, this approach to education is still considered a daring one.
Historically, legal education has done a good job at cognitive development, using the Socratic Method and case analysis to teach rigorous intellectual skills. That much is as it should be; that is part of what should not change. Lawyers need to be able to spot issues, decide what’s relevant and formulate cogent arguments of doctrine and policy. Law schools everywhere do a pretty good job of this form of intellectual development. We aim at the mind, and we get there; indeed, most all who go to law school will readily agree that their minds will never be quite the same again.
But lawyers are more than their minds. A good lawyer must be able to do more than just think; a good lawyer must also act — with ethics and integrity, with care and compassion, and with skill and judgment. And that’s exactly what students want to do when they come to law school.
Most students are drawn to law school for more than just intellectual development: They are caring people who want to make the world a better place. Legal education that does not address its students as whole persons, that sees students as just “minds to be molded,” is insufficient. In the words of one of my faculty colleagues, it risks “turning gold into lead.”
The world needs more from legal education. Lawyers are called upon to be leaders for the rule of law, for peace and for democracy. That leadership requires not only intellectual acumen, but also professional skills and personal strength and resiliency. Legal education cannot inspire and educate lawyers as leaders through cognitive focus alone. Some of our experience in providing holistic education can help to shed light upon what will be necessary to accomplish this change.
One area of change will be curriculum and pedagogy — looking at legal education in a broader sense, giving students the chance to get more practical experience. For this reason, we have and will continue to prioritize our legal writing, clinical, externship and trial advocacy programs, and to integrate them with one another so that students can build a comprehensive professional formation portfolio.
Clinical education is an especially important bridge to practice, as well as vital for developing lawyers as reflective professionals. In addition to many clinics focused on the city and state, Seattle University School of Law established the first international human rights clinic in the Pacific Northwest and one of the few such programs on the West Coast.
This clinic gives students the chance work on real cases with experienced human rights attorneys representing individuals and organizations claiming violations of international human rights law. That’s just one of the courses offered at the Ronald A. Peterson Law Clinic, which has been providing representation to underserved communities for more than 25 years.
In addition, the curriculum will need to keep pace with growth in technology and globalization. For instance, our curriculum is more interactive and interdisciplinary. We have significantly increased our upper-level courses, offering more than 100 specialized and intellectually challenging courses on such topics as Computer Crime and Privacy, Electronic Discovery and E-Evidence, Law of War and Humanitarian Intervention, Biotechnology and the Law, Aviation Law, Corporations & Public Policy, Intellectual Property Licensing Law, Corporate Governance, Constitutional Law of Terrorism, Environmental Justice, Transnational Litigation & Arbitration, and Intellectual Property Law & Globalization.
The trend toward expanding law school curricula can be seen at law schools nationwide and is a response to a competitive marketplace in which graduates are increasingly expected to have advanced and specialized training in their chosen practice areas. Many of our enrichment courses are taught by adjunct faculty members, who number more than 120, increasingly reflect the gender and ethnic diversity of our region and legal community, and bring their substantial experience to life in the classroom.
We, like many law schools, have also expanded our education reach outside of the U.S. Our students are learning in the community and the world. Our professors have researched and taught in Uganda, South Africa, Turkey, Peru, Nicaragua, Colombia, Mexico, China and other international locations. Students are enrolled in summer programs in South Africa and Brazil and conducting externships in places such as Geneva and Cambodia.
Co- and extra-curricular programs are vital for a holistic approach to education as well. One of the most important for us has been our Access to Justice Institute, which is the hub for social justice activities in our law school and connects students to volunteer opportunities in the legal community. Since we founded AtJI in 1999, I’m proud to say that many other law schools have followed suit.
As many schools work to incorporate pro bono service into their educational requirements, most of our students continue to dedicate many hours to pro bono, public interest and public service activities without a mandate. I believe this is proof that we are nurturing our students’ commitments to justice rather than “turning gold into lead.”
I’ll end where I began — with poetry. Part of what is beautiful about poetry is that it makes you think as well as feel — it operates on many levels all at the same time. If legal education, spurred by the Carnegie study and report, can become more poetic in this sense, I’m convinced it will do a better job of educating leaders for justice. Now that’s a change we can all live with.
Seattle University School of Law invites alumni and members of the legal community to celebrate our 35th anniversary at a gala celebration April 25 at Benaroya Hall. If you would like more information, contact Eva Mitchell at 206-398-4210 or mitche@seattleu.edu.
n
Kellye Y. Testy is dean of Seattle University School of Law.
