By Danni Bian
Education is significant to our democratic society because it builds a foundation for people to practice effectively in the political system with freedom and independence.[1] However, an unequal education deprives lower income individuals
access to minimum welfare.[2] For a long time, the legal profession has been exclusive to the elites in society, who set the rules and decide admission standards for legal education, restricting other people’s learning opportunities.[3]
Legal education divides traditional scholars, students, and impacted communities.[4] Unlike organic jurists who tend to embrace traditional legal education, those who are historically excluded from legal education and those who educate themselves and their communities about their legal rights and realities often do not have access to legal education and its power.[5] The monopoly power and exclusivity of the U.S. legal profession give the public a general perception that lawyers are special and are more knowledgeable than they really are.[6] In the past, when evaluating whether someone was capable of delivering legal services, we looked at factors including a college degree, a three-year law school degree, and bar admission.[7] However, in the current age, the actual standard may not be that straightforward. Many jobs provide legal-related services to clients, and others involve legal analysis and advice.[8] We should instead focus on the changes and improvements that someone can make after becoming a lawyer.[9]
Law is considered the least diverse profession as White lawyers disproportionately hold power and resources.[10] In fact, “White people represent 86 percent of lawyers although they are only 60 percent of the total U.S. population; however, Black people represent 5 percent of lawyers while they are 13.4 percent of the population.”[11] Although White test-takers receive higher LSAT and GRE score on average than Black and Latinx test-takers, the scores do not determine whether White test-takers can be better attorneys than other test-takers in the future.[12] To address these issues, legal organizations should embrace a stronger commitment to equal opportunity, which is reflected in policies, priorities, and reward structures.[13]
Equality and democracy require us to provide a legal system with a wide range of training to people of all races, cultures, genders, and income levels.[14] Because people are central to the legal narrative, the law cannot be understood without impacted individuals engaging as active participants in their own advocacy.[15] “In a law school classroom or in court, lawyers and judges write mostly about non-lawyers.”[16] People who are impacted by the law barely have a role in shaping the narrative in teaching and writing about law, or in constructing legal opinions. In addition, most legislators are often indifferent to incarcerated people’s interests because they do not consider incarcerated people to be real constituents.[17]
Law schools, the primary gatekeepers to the legal profession, should take initiatives to promote diversity and inclusion in legal education. As a key determinant in admission to law school, the LSAT has a disparate impact on students of color.[18] “The scores can be impaired by many factors, such as lack of quality education, a range of life complexities, test anxiety, and financial stresses.”[19] Therefore, law schools must stop using LSAT as a sorting function to funnel applicants into a reproduction of hierarchy.[20] In addition, law schools should foster faculty diversity to ensure students a richer learning environment, which encourages different experiences, perspectives, and knowledge in teaching. Only through abolishing the barrier for people to access legal knowledge and interpret and apply the law, can we fully accomplish the goal of democratizing legal power.
[1]Goodwin Liu, Education, Equality, and National Citizenship, 116 Yale L.J. 330, 344 (2006); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 221(1972).
[2] Kenneth L. Karst, The Supreme Court, 1976 Term-Foreword: Equal Citizenship Under the Fourteenth Amendment, 91 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 40 (1977).
[3] Okechukwu Oko, Laboring in the Vineyards of Equality: Promoting Diversity in Legal Education through Affirmative Action, 23 S.U. L. Rev. 189, 196-97 (1996).
[4] Pearce et al., Subversive Legal Education: Reformist Steps Toward Abolitionist Visions, 90 Fordham L. Rev. 2089, 2089 (2022).
[5] Id at 2096.
[6] Bridgette Dunlap, Anyone Can “Think Like a Lawyer”: How the Lawyers’ Monopoly on Legal Understanding Undermines Democracy and the Rule of Law in the United States, 82 Fordham L. Rev. 2817, 2821 (2014).
[7] Pearce et al., supra note 4, at 2096.
[8] Renee Knake Jefferson Et Al., Professional Responsibility: A Contemporary Approach, 47–57 (2020).
[9] Pearce et al., supra note 4, at 2097.
[10] Deborah L. Rhode, Law Is the Least Diverse Profession in the Nation. And Lawyers Aren’t Doing Enough to Change That, WASH. POST (May 27, 2015), https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/27/law-is-the-least-diverse-profession-in-the-nation-and-lawyers-arent-doing-enough-to-change-that/
[11] Pearce et al., Subversive Legal Education: Reformist Steps Toward Abolitionist Visions, 90 Fordham L. Rev. 2089, 2098 (2022).
[12] Marisa Manzi, ‘Already Behind’: Diversifying the Legal Profession Starts Before the LSAT, NPR (Dec. 22, 2020), https://www.npr.org/2020/12/22/944434661/already-behind-diversifying-the-legal-profession-starts-before-the-lsat
[13] Rhode, supra note 10.
[14] Gerald P. López, Shaping Community Problem Solving Around Community Knowledge, 79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 59, 64 (2004).
[15] Pearce et al., Subversive Legal Education: Reformist Steps Toward Abolitionist Visions, 90 Fordham L. Rev. 2089, 2120 (2022).
[16] Id.
[17] Fisher et al., Prison Gerrymandering Undermines Our Democracy (Oct 22, 2021), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/prison-gerrymandering-undermines-our-democracy
[18] Michelle J. Anderson, Legal Education Reform, Diversity, and Access to Justice, 61 Rutgers L. Rev. 1011, 1013 (2009).
[19] Id.
[20] Diane Curtis, The LSAT and the Reproduction of Hierarchy, 41 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 307, 331 (2019).