Times are changing in the world of law school admissions, with at least 23 institutions, including Harvard, Columbia, Cornell, and Georgetown now accepting GRE scores instead of, or alongside, the long-favored LSAT. What’s more, 25 percent of law schools are currently working on retooling their processes to accept the GRE.

Why the shift? According to administrators, GRE scores are predictive of a student’s success as a 1L and open the legal profession to students with a wider set of skills and backgrounds. The GRE is also offered in a computer format, almost every day of the year, in more than 1,000 places, while the LSAT is not nearly as accessible – it’s offered on paper only and can only be taken four times a year.

However, it’s unlikely the LSAT will become obsolete any time soon. The American Bar Association (ABA) still requires that 90 percent of an entering class at an ABA accredited-law school have an LSAT score.  The Princeton Review keeps a running tally of law schools accepting the GRE.

Morgan Wright

Morgan Wright is a product manager at Fastcase and publisher of RAIL: The Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law. She earned her undergraduate degree from Hood College and her law degree from the University of Richmond School of Law. She has worked at the Institute for Actual Innocence and the Office of the Capital Defender in Virginia, as well as in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.

The post Growing Number of Law Schools Accept GRE Instead of LSAT appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, the Department of Justice released an internal memo that instructed the department to look into whether universities are discriminating against white candidates.

While the memo does not specifically mention white students, it pointed to programs that lead to “intentional race-based discrimination,” a clear reference to the policy of affirmative action, which President John F. Kennedy introduced in the 1960s to promote equality in education.

The move is popular among Trump’s conservative base. Roger Clegg, president of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity, hailed the project as something that has been long overdue:

The civil rights laws were deliberately written to protect everyone from discrimination, and it is frequently the case that not only are whites discriminated against now, but frequently Asian-Americans are as well.

In a way Trump and his team are right: there is a serious discriminatory problem in college admissions. However, the problem has less to do with race and more to do with socioeconomic status. Children whose parents rank toward the top of the income bracket are overly represented at top colleges in the U.S., compared to students whose parents come from the bottom tier.

A study by The Upshot earlier this year shows that since 2002, the share of students from the top one percent (in terms of household income) attending elite universities has steadily increased. But the share of students from the bottom 40th percentile and below has slightly decreased. At 38 colleges in America, including five Ivy League schools, the top one percent had more representation than students from the bottom 60 percent.

Why is this the case when some of the best schools in the country provide full tuition to students who are in the lowest socioeconomic class? The answer is simple: legacy, connections, and resources. Some students are given priority admission to top schools because of family ties, while largely ignoring the merit of their applications.

Take for instance the story of Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law. Kushner attended Frisch’s, a well known New Jersey prep school. One college prep counselor said that Jared was “certainly not anywhere near the top of his class.”

However, Daniel Golden, author of “The Price of Admission,” claims Kushner’s father donated $2.5 million right around the time his son applied to Harvard. Unsurprisingly, Kushner was accepted. But according to Golden, Kushner would not have been accepted on his own merits

If the Justice Department truly wants to fight against discrimination, it should focus on preventing those with the financial means from buying their way into a top school.

This is where race plays a factor, as minority groups tend to be the ones who are historically financially disadvantaged in the U.S. The median household income for whites is approximately $30,000 dollars more than black and Hispanic families, according to a 2016 Pew Research Center study.

Universities should accept more students whose household income is in the bottom percentile, and prevent those who are in the from the top percentile from using their financial resources to usurp those who do not have the same financial means.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Irony of the Justice Department’s Affirmative Action Probe appeared first on Law Street.

The parents of 12-year-old Mallory Grossman are suing her school district in the wake of her suicide in June. They believe that the school was negligent when it ignored allegations that Mallory’s classmates were cyberbullying her.

According to the suit, Mallory’s classmates at Copeland Middle School had been bullying her since October of last year. She told her parents right away. After that, Seth and Dianne Grossman approached administrators of the Rockaway Township School District on a monthly basis, trying to speak to someone about their daughter’s ordeal.

However, although the administrators told them that the school was investigating the matter, they ultimately dismissed the parents’ concerns.

“I‘m going to make the assumption that the school did something, but I’m also going to make the assumption, based on where we are today, that they didn’t do enough,” Mrs. Grossman told NBC News.

According to Bruce Nagel, the family’s attorney, the classmates’ cruel messages were the cause of Mallory’s death. “There were texts, there was Snapchat, there was Instagram, for months she was told she’s a loser, she had no friends and finally she was even told, ‘Why don’t you kill yourself?’,” he said in a statement.

Photos accompanying at least two of the malicious Instagram posts were taken on school grounds. Nagel’s office has not yet released or independently verified the texts.

Mallory’s classmates also allegedly bullied her in person, giving her “dirty looks” and excluding her from their lunch table.

In response to the torment, Mallory’s grades dropped from As and Bs to Cs and Ds. She complained of headaches and stomachaches to get out of going to school.

At one point, the school met with the parents to discuss Mallory’s failing grades. However, Mrs. Grossman claims that “they were not at that time concerned with her emotional well being.”

Hours before Mallory took her own life on June 14, Mrs. Grossman appealed directly to the mother of one of the bullies. “I can tell you that the mother dismissed it, said it was just a big joke and that I really shouldn’t worry about it,” she said. “Even after I asked her daughter to please stop texting Mallory, three minutes later a text message — a series of text messages — came through from that child.”

Nagel claims that he has identified “three or four” of Mallory’s bullies. He also said that the Grossmans are considering bringing legal action against the bullies’ families.

On Wednesday, Rockaway Township Superintendent Greg McGann released a statement on the school district’s website.

Because the case is still under investigation by the Morris County Prosecutor’s Office, and also the subject of a tort claim, under the advice of legal counsel, The Rockaway Township School District cannot discuss this case in public or with media. The teachers, staff and administrators within the Rockaway Township School District are, as they have always been, and will continue to be, committed to protecting the rights and safety for all our students.

Last year, the district released a self-assessment report on how it dealt with bullies. Copeland Middle School received a 74 out of 78.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post N.J. Parents Sue School District After Daughter’s Suicide appeared first on Law Street.

A new Florida law allows residents to challenge any school textbook that they find inappropriate.

The legislation, which went into effect on July 1, is known as the Instructional Materials Bill. It permits any resident, regardless of whether or not they have a child in school, to challenge what Florida students are learning via an independent hearing. If the hearing officer deems the complaint justified, they can order the school to ban the book. However, school districts will still have the final say.

The Florida Citizens’ Alliance, a conservative group, pushed for the law after examining more than 60 textbooks in 2015. The group’s founder, Keith Flaugh, found more than 80 instances in one government textbook that he believes gives false information.

“We found [the textbooks] to be full of political indoctrination, religious indoctrination, revisionist history and distorting our founding values and principles, even a significant quantity of pornography,” he told NPR.

He goes on to explain the pornography is in literature within the school library or on summer reading lists.

While the bill can apply to any piece of required reading, the FCA’s main concern is with science textbooks. The group does not believe the schools should teach evolution or climate change as facts. One unnamed member claimed that the “vast majority of Americans believe that the world and the beings living on it were created by God as revealed in the Bible,” so the textbooks should only present evolution as a theory.

Similarly, an affidavit from a teacher complains that her school is teaching climate change as “reality.”

Other issues the FCA has with the books include attitudes toward Islam and anti-American portrayals of history.

In response to the bill, the Florida Citizens for Science Group posted a statement on its blog:

We believe that should this bill become law with the governor’s signature, people who crusade against basic, established science concepts such as evolution and climate change will have the green light to bog down the textbook selection process on the local level and bully school boards into compromises that will negatively impact science education.

Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, is also concerned. “It’s just the candor with which the backers of the bill have been saying, ‘Yeah, we’re going to go after evolution, we’re going to go after climate change,'” he said.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Florida Law Fights Against “Political Indoctrination” in School Textbooks appeared first on Law Street.

As a politician, there is a base expectation that–at one point or another–you will have to pick a side on a variety of different issues. Are you pro-choice or pro-life? What do you think about single-payer healthcare? Should recreational marijuana use be legalized? Yet even with this understanding, Utah state Representative Craig Hall must have been surprised when he had to step forward as an active proponent of sunscreen use.

Hall has four red-headed school-aged children and currently lives in the state with the highest rate of melanoma in the United States. He has even said that he buys sunscreen “in the Costco size,” so his seemingly-peculiar stance should not be a shock to anyone. But Hall cemented himself into this position earlier this year when he introduced legislation this year to allow kids to bring sunscreen to school.

“My colleagues’ first reaction to this bill was mostly, ‘Seriously? We need a bill for this?'” he told PBS Stateline.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration classifies sunscreen as an over-the-counter drug product–right alongside ibuprofen or cough syrup–which means that students from kindergarten to 12th grade cannot bring it to school without a doctor’s note. Even with a note, it must be applied under the supervision of a school nurse.

Under this new sunscreen bill, students would be allowed to bring and self-apply their own sunscreen, without a parent or physician’s authorization. If need be, someone working at the school could help apply sunscreen on the student if a parent or legal guardian provides a signed consent form saying so. It was officially signed into law back in March and started a trend among other states to amend their sunscreen-in-school laws.

Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, and Washington have all enacted measures that followed Utah’s example within the last four months. They joined California, New York, Oregon and Texas, which already have lifted the ban on sunscreen in school. Terry Cronin, a Melbourne, Florida, dermatologist and head of the advocacy working group for the dermatologic surgery society, attributes the quick results to how easy the issue is to get behind.

“It’s an issue that doesn’t seem to be politically divisive at all,” said Cronin. “Everybody sees that kids need to be protected from skin cancer and they should be protected with sunscreen.”

But sunscreen bills still face some roadblocks in legislatures across the country. One such bill in Mississippi cleared the Senate but died in a House committee, and a bill introduced in Georgia has stalled. In Rhode Island–where outdoor recess is mandated state-wide–a sunscreen bill was held up because the state’s association of school nurses cited concerns of potential allergies among students.

Some of the bills have continued to face challenges, even after they have become law. While many California school districts updated their sunscreen policies as a result of Billy’s Bill for Sun Safety–the nation’s first sunscreen bill enacted by the state in 2002–surveys have discovered that “many schools had not changed their practices even though the district had changed its policy,” said Jeff Ashley, a Burbank, California, dermatologist. Ashley believes this is because schools don’t want to become babysitters.

Even so, states such as Illinois, Ohio, and Massachusetts are still pushing for change. Dr. Henry Lim, president of the American Academy of Dermatology, said that the risk of developing melanoma in adulthood is strongly related to a history of sunburns as a child and teen.

“Children’s skin is much thinner, so the ability for the sun to penetrate the skin is significantly higher as compared to adults,” he said. “Having availability for kids to be able to use sunscreen saves them from a lot of sun damage and saves them from the development of skin cancer.”

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post States Push to Allow Kids to Use Sunscreen in Schools appeared first on Law Street.

A high school in New Jersey is under fire after someone edited a photo of Grant Berardo in the yearbook without telling him. On picture day, Berardo wore a black t-shirt with the text, “TRUMP: Make America Great Again” on the chest. When he saw the result in the yearbook, he realized the text was gone. Now his parents are demanding answers and one teacher is suspended.

Critics are accusing the school, Wall Township High School, of censoring the kids and violating their First Amendment rights. Two other students also had their photos edited. Wyatt Dobrovich-Fago had a small Trump logo on his vest, and his sister Montana wanted to insert a Trump quote under her freshman class president photo. But both were missing in the final version of the yearbook.

A New Jersey high school is under fire for erasing Trump slogans from its yearbook https://t.co/8mAxFHin1H pic.twitter.com/XrPTkEaRfk

— CNN (@CNN) June 12, 2017

Now the parents of the affected students want the school to issue new yearbooks, including an explanation of what happened. According to Berardo’s father, Joseph, his son was very disappointed as this was the first election he was interested in. The school’s Superintendent Cheryl Dyer said one teacher who was overseeing the production of the yearbook has been suspended.

In a statement on its website, the school points out that there is nothing in the school’s dress code that prohibits students from expressing political views. The digital removal of the Trump slogans and logos was nothing the school’s administration was aware of. And the name of the specific teacher that was suspended has not been released. The statement said:

The allegations referenced above are disturbing, and any inappropriate challenge to these principles will be rectified as swiftly and thoroughly as possible. The actions of the staff involved will be addressed as soon as the investigation is concluded.

To the Berardos, it was peculiar that no one told Grant that there was a problem with his t-shirt to begin with. His mother Tammy works at the school and someone could easily have told her in time for him to re-take the photo. When the family received the photos by mail, the logo was still there. It was just in the final yearbook that it was gone, without any explanation.

Berardo’s father Joseph said that he doesn’t like excessive political correctness. “It gets in the way of meaningful discourse. And, frankly, I hate being on the other side of it now,” he said, referring to being the “victim.” He thinks that ultimately the whole conflict is a matter of freedom of speech. “And if we come to find out they blacked-out Clinton or Sanders shirts, that’s just as egregious,” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Jersey School Accused of Removing Trump Logo from Yearbook Photos appeared first on Law Street.

Over the past few weeks, hundreds of thousands of students nationwide walked across football fields, basketball courts, and stages to receive their diplomas. They sat patiently, sporting caps and gowns in their school colors, while professors, politicians, CEOs, and celebrities imparted wisdom, jokes, and life lessons upon them. Here are the commencement speeches from politicians that will be flooding your newsfeeds for the next month.

Donald Trump: Liberty University

In his first commencement speech as president, Donald Trump encouraged graduates to take the “road less traveled” and follow their convictions.

“You must be willing to face criticism from those who lack the same courage to do what is right,” Trump said. “I know that each of you will be a warrior for the truth, will be a warrior for our country and for your family. I know that each of you will do what is right, not what is the easy way, and that you will be true to yourself and your country and your beliefs.”

He took the opportunity to subtly criticize his opponents in “broken” Washington, saying that the system is overrun with “a small group of failed voices who think they know everything and understand everyone.”

Like in many of his public speeches since the beginning of his presidency, Trump also mentioned crowd sizes and voter turnout.

“This is a beautiful stadium and it is packed. I’m so happy about that,” he said. “And I want to thank you because, boy, did you come out and vote, those of you that are old enough, in other words, your parents. Boy, oh, boy, you voted, you voted.”

Trump’s speech focused primarily on the importance of embracing the label “outsider” and standing up for one’s beliefs, even when critics get in the way or say something is unattainable. This theme rings especially true coming from Trump, whose election success can be partially credited to his status as a political outsider.

“Nothing is easier or more pathetic than being a critic, because they’re people that can’t get the job done,” he said. “But the future belongs to the dreamers, not to the critics. The future belongs to the people who follow their heart no matter what the critics say, because they truly believe in their vision.”

The president also spoke at the Coast Guard Academy. Read his full remarks from Liberty here.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Commencement: What Politicians Want the Class of 2017 to Know appeared first on Law Street.

A federal lawsuit has been filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center against the state of Mississippi, arguing that the state is violating a 150-year-old law that requires it to provide a “uniform system of free public schools” for all students. The SPLC lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of the parents of four minor children, claims that Mississippi has deprived black students of the “school rights and privileges” guaranteed in its 1868 constitution.

According to the lawsuit, evidence of the unfair treatment of African-American students in the state can be seen in the ratings that the schools receive. The SPLC points out that of the state’s 19 worst-performing school districts, thirteen have more than 95 percent black students. The other six have somewhere between 81-91 percent black students. In contrast, the state’s top five highest-performing school districts mostly have white students.

The plaintiffs’ children go to two schools that are among the worst in the state–Webster Elementary and Raines Elementary. The plaintiffs described horrible conditions at those schools, including a lack of basic necessities like toilet paper. Raines Elementary serves lunches with spoiled fruit and rotten milk.

To understand what’s going in Mississippi, a little history is necessary. In order to be brought back into the United States following the Civil War, terms were set by Congress that included that the state ratify a constitution that provided equal education to its citizens. Specifically it required the “uniform system of free public schools” regardless of pupils’ races. But in the years that followed and the onset of the Jim Crow era, those requirements were watered down. At one point, Mississippi fought against the Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.

And the state’s education woes don’t stop with this recent lawsuit–another lawsuit is currently underway, brought by two state legislators. It claims that the governor should not be able to make mid-year budget cuts, because it infringes on the legislative branch’s power. Some of the cuts that are being contested include serious blows to education funding in the state. And currently, Mississippi’s schools are struggling as a whole–the state ranks 50th in national rankings of the 50 states and Washington D.C.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mississippi Sued, Accused of Not Providing Equal Education to Black Students appeared first on Law Street.

Chinese-American Physics professor Xi Xiaoxing has filed a lawsuit, claiming that the FBI agents who accused him of espionage in 2015 knew that the evidence against him was false. The suit is claiming malicious prosecution, due process violations, and unlawful searches and seizures. The FBI alleged that Xi, a professor at Temple University in Philadelphia, was sending advanced technology to China. Xi claims that in reality, he was transmitting a technical invention he had made himself, and sent it to China as part of regular academic collaboration.

“They are paid with taxpayer money to catch spies. And they catch people like me, who have done nothing wrong,” Xi said to the New York Times. His lawyers say that the FBI was ordered to investigate Xi as a potential spy. Agents then stormed into his house and arrested him in May of 2015.

But there was allegedly no evidence of espionage. Instead, the agency charged him with handing over confidential blueprints for a piece of laboratory equipment called a “pocket heater” to Chinese researchers. But during the trial, several months after Xi was arrested and handcuffed in front of his family, leading scientists testified in court that it wasn’t even a pocket heater.

He was wrongly charged with spying for China. Now this professor is accusing the FBI of falsifying evidence https://t.co/YZohzli0et

— Karin Fischer (@karinfischer) May 10, 2017

In fact, it was a device that Xi had designed. The mistake was embarrassing for U.S. law enforcement and raised confusion about why Xi was targeted–including potential racial profiling. According to Xi’s lawyer, Peter Zeidenberg, it seemed like the FBI also never consulted any experts or scientists to see what the device really was.

“If he was Canadian-American or French-American, or he was from the U.K., would this have ever even got on the government’s radar? I don’t think so,” Zeidenberg said at the time. Xi’s lawsuit, which was filed on Wednesday, alleges that the FBI agent who arrested him, Andrew Haugen, knew the evidence was not what it was made out to be.

Prosecutors have never explained the 2015 decision to drop the case, and Xi never received an apology. And unfortunately he is not alone. There have been many cases in recent years of high-profile Americans with Chinese ancestry wrongly accused of espionage. But this is believed to be the first lawsuit by a Chinese-American scientist against the federal government since 2006.

Xi said he would also like an apology. After the arrest, he was suspended from work and lost the chance to become his department’s interim chairman. He could no longer enter campus or talk to students. He said that he and his family live in fear of surveillance and being targeted again. Agents storming his house with guns and handcuffing him in front of his children was also a traumatizing experience. But, he said, “They will probably never apologize.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Professor Accused of Being a Chinese Spy Sues FBI Agents appeared first on Law Street.

Albany Unified School District in California was just hit with a lawsuit over its officials’ choice to suspend students who interacted with racist images on social media. More than a dozen students at Albany High School, near San Francisco, allegedly liked and posted racist images on Instagram. In response, some were suspended. Now, four of the students have filed a lawsuit against the school district, claiming that their suspensions are a violation of their First Amendment rights.

The images in question included photoshopped pictures of some of the black female students at the school, posted on Instagram. The photos were photoshopped to include nooses and other racist symbols. At least a dozen students liked or commented positively on the posts. The four students who are suing fell into that category–the kid who originally created the posts is not party to the lawsuit.

The lawyers of the four students who filed the federal lawsuit claim that in addition to violating the students’ freedom of speech, what the students did outside of school was none of the school’s business. The lawsuit reads:

This action arises out of a private online discussion between friends that the Albany School system has pried into without authority. All conduct at issue in this matter occurred off school property, were conducted off school hours, and were otherwise completely unrelated to school activity.

The plaintiffs also claim that the school officials made a spectacle out of them by bringing them through the hallways and allowing them to be berated by other students.

The parents of the students who were the victims of the photoshopping disagree with the First Amendment claims, pointing out that the images constitute hate crimes. One of the fathers of the girls told a local outlet: “This is a hate crime. You don’t have a First Amendment right to promote a hate crime against a group of people based on their skin color.”

The students are suing for damages, but they haven’t specified how much they’re asking for. They’re also asking to have the incident removed from their records. The school has said that it will be reviewing the lawsuit, but it’s unclear what move it will make from here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California School Sued for Suspensions of Students who “Liked” Racist Images appeared first on Law Street.

For years, schools have had different ways of shaming children to force their parents to pay for their school lunch. This act of holding a kid responsible for their parents’ inaction is referred to as “lunch shaming.” It can range from throwing the food away to branding kids with markers. The practice leaves children hungry, wastes food, and could have longtime psychological effects. But now schools have a deadline to set their policies for how to deal with unpaid lunch bills.

Caitlin Dolan discovered she had an unpaid food bill from the previous school year on her first day of seventh grade last fall. The cashier simply threw her food away in front of her friends. “I was so embarrassed. It’s really weird being denied food in front of everyone. They all talk about you,” she told The New York Times. And that is only one example. According to a study by the Department of Agriculture, nearly half of school districts in the country used some kind of shaming to pressure parents to pay.

Parents who don’t pay lunch bill are lamentable. Schools that shame kids are despicable. Surely we can solve this.https://t.co/pOhtSB6ilD

— Peter Cunningham (@PCunningham57) May 1, 2017

Last June, a school in Alabama stamped a boy with the words, “I need lunch money.” His father, Jon Bivens, said the school normally would email him when their son’s account ran low, not “brand” him. “They herd these kids like cattle,” Bivens said. In Texas in 2013, cafeteria staff took a little boy’s breakfast and dumped it in the trash–because he owed 30 cents.

Last September, a cafeteria worker in Pennsylvania posted a Facebook status saying she resigned after allegedly being forced to take food from a little boy because he had an unpaid bill. Some students with meal debts are forced to give back their hot meal. Instead, they get a piece of white bread with one slice of cheese. “If you didn’t eat the lunch, they were just going to throw it away,” said Oliver Jane, a student from Kansas whose hot meal was taken away because of a meal debt.

According to Kevin W. Concannon, the USDA’s under secretary for food, nutrition and consumer services in the Obama Administration, this behavior has been going on for decades. It was not until the update of school nutrition standards in 2010 that the department heard about how widespread this problem was. Then last summer, the USDA decided that states should handle meal debts locally. In March, the department issued a deadline for states to have a policy in place on how to deal with it, but did not prohibit the shaming practice.

We have billions to spend on missiles & drones but can’t even feed kids in public schools. Lunch shaming is a terrible practice. https://t.co/P6HiUe9NV9

— Simar (@sahluwal) April 16, 2017

However, the guidelines from the USDA do say that schools need to make sure their policies “do not have a negative impact on the children involved,” and instead should focus on the parents or adults that are responsible for the kids’ finances.

In April, New Mexico became the first state in the country to outlaw lunch shaming. The Hunger-Free Students’ Bill of Rights applies to all schools in the state that receive federal subsidies for school meals. It states that schools should cooperate with parents to pay the debts, or sign them up for federal meal assistance.

Although unpaid meal bills could amount to large sums for individual schools, and parents that have the financial means to pay for their kids’ lunch should do so, most people agree that the children are the victims. No one wants to take food from a child, and not getting enough nutrition affects the brain’s ability to learn. A federal program for free meals for all students could be a solution. Either way, hopefully more states will follow New Mexico’s example.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New USDA Guidelines Seek to End “Lunch Shaming” of Students appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday ordered a review of the federal government’s control over education policies and regulations. It is the president’s latest attempt to grant more flexibility over education policy to the states, a position his Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, shares.

Wednesday’s executive action instructs DeVos–an advocate for school choice–to conduct a review of the Department of Education’s regulations and guidance documents. Within 300 days, her findings will be published in a public report.

“For too long, the federal government has imposed its will on state and local governments,” Trump, whose 100th day in office is on Saturday, said at a press conference on Wednesday. “The result has been education that spends more, and achieves far, far, far less.”

The purpose of the order is “to protect and preserve State and local control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, and personnel of educational institutions, schools, and school systems, consistent with applicable law.” According to an Education Department official, the review will concentrate on K-12 institutions.

DeVos is a staunch backer of school vouchers, charter schools, and private education institutions. Her critics worry she will funnel resources away from public schools–many of which already suffer from a lack of funding–to vouchers and other avenues for boosting school choice.

In an interview with The New York Times, DeVos, who also opposes the Common Core curriculum, called Trump’s executive action a “welcomed opportunity.” The order, she said, is “a clear mandate to take that real hard look at what we’ve been doing at the department level that we shouldn’t be doing, and what ways we have overreached.” She added: “And when it comes to education, decisions made at local levels and at state levels are the best ones.”

But not everyone thinks diminishing the federal government’s role in education is for the best. In a statement, Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, called the order “dangerous and wrongheaded.” Henderson added: “State and local primacy without federal oversight in America’s schools has never worked for all children and will not work now.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Orders Betsy DeVos to Review DOE Regulations appeared first on Law Street.

Announced in January and passed by the state legislature on Friday, New York’s Excelsior Scholarship is the nation’s first plan to cover the costs of a four-year public college or university. The program will be rolled out over three years, with the household income threshold for qualifying families gradually increasing each year, starting for the 2017-2018 year. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a long-time advocate for tuition-free colleges in his state, is expected to sign the bill on Wednesday at LaGuardia Community College in Queens.

Though other states–like Tennessee and Oregon–have programs that cover the costs of two-year colleges, the Excelsior Scholarship is the first in the nation to cover the cost of a four-year program, starting with families making $100,000 annually. One controversial aspect of the program is its requirement that recipients live and work in New York after graduation, for as many years as the grant covered. Otherwise, the grant would retroactively become a loan that had to be paid off.

On Monday, Cuomo defended the requirement. “The rationale is clear,” he said. “Why should New Yorkers pay for your college education, and then you take off and you move to California? The concept of investing in you and your education is that you’re going to stay here and be an asset to the state.” The vast majority of students at New York’s public colleges and universities stay in state after graduating, he said, adding,  “if you don’t stay here, then go to California and let them pay for your college education.”

Aimed largely at middle-class students, some are concerned that low-income students would not qualify for the scholarship’s requirements. For one, qualifying students must be enrolled full-time. Many low-income students in New York–60 percent by some measures–enroll part-time because they have to work to supplement their parents’ incomes.

“If you’re really concerned about students who are not attending [college] because of the reality or the perception of unaffordability [sic],” D. Bruce Johnstone, a former State University of New York (SUNY) chancellor, told the New York Times, “this is not the way to help them.” He added: “This is going to cost money, and it will make some parents happy, but I don’t see it moving the accessibility needle.”

But the program is expected to benefit a large chunk of New York’s middle-income student population. SUNY estimates that one-fifth of undergraduates, or 80,000 students, would qualify for the Excelsior Scholarship. The City University of New York, or CUNY, estimates a much smaller group–3,000 to 5,000–of undergraduates would meet the program’s requirements.

Cuomo is sticking by his signature achievement. In a recent Medium post titled “A National First,” Cuomo made clear the scholarship’s intended beneficiaries. The scholarship, he wrote, “will make college accessible to thousands of working and middle class students, and shows the difference that government can make.” The governor’s plan is also earning plaudits from a well-known former New York Senator:

Let’s celebrate New York State getting something important done that we wanted to do nationally. A great step for progressives. https://t.co/CmUZ8njtWF

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) April 8, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About New York’s Tuition-Free College Plan appeared first on Law Street.

Princeton University–the prestigious Ivy League institution whose famous alumni include Woodrow Wilson, Michelle Obama, and Queen of Genovia Amelia Mignonette Thermopolis Renaldi–is suing the Department of Education in an attempt to block the release of its admissions data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), according to Buzzfeed News.

The lawsuit is an attempt to hinder the anti-affirmative action organization Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), a nonprofit whose mission is to remove race-based college admissions standards and is accusing Princeton of practicing anti-Asian bias in its admissions. The organization seeks to use a FOIA request to prove its accusations by releasing documents that Princeton gave to the DOE during a long investigation by the department’s Office for Civil Rights into anti-Asian discrimination that concluded in 2015. The investigation determined that this bias did not exist.

According to Buzzfeed, Princeton claims that it turned those admissions documents over to the department under the condition that sensitive data would be kept private, and that if the data were to be released, the department would be in violation of the Trades Secrets Act. SFFA perceives Princeton’s lawsuit as an inherent admission of guilt; however, the logic of that perception does not totally check out, for Princeton could not want to release the documents because it would reveal practices that are just bad PR, such as admission preferences for children of alumni or for celebrities.

Speaking to USA Today, Daniel Day, a spokesman for Princeton, said that the university filed the lawsuit “to honor the promise of confidentiality we make to all applicants and their families . . . [and] so future applicants will be willing to provide materials to [the university] knowing the confidentiality of their materials will be respected.”

This is not SFFA’s first attempt to reveal information about the admissions practices of Ivy League institutions, having also filed similar lawsuits against Harvard and UNC-Chapel Hill. SFFA filed a lawsuit in 2014 against Harvard, alleging that the university employed discriminatory practices in its undergraduate admissions process.

While progress has been slow–mainly due to the case being put on hold in anticipation of the Supreme Court ruling on Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin–some action has been taken. In September, a district court judge ordered Harvard to release six years worth of “comprehensive data” on its undergraduate admissions process. This order came shortly after Harvard attempted to get the suit dismissed.

In December, two Asian American high school seniors and Harvard applicants, working in conjunction with Advancing Justice-Los Angeles, petitioned a federal judge to join the case as amici curiae (friends of the court). This  would allow them to file amicus briefs, participate in oral arguments, and submit evidence, according to a report from NBC News.

“We refuse to be used as a wedge by outside players stoking the insecurities of newer Asian immigrants, provoking them to lash out at the very programs that have helped communities of color gain access to higher education,” Nicole Ochi, supervising attorney for Advancing Justice-Los Angeles, said in a statement reported by NBC News.

The Harvard Crimson reported that 22.2 percent of those admitted into Harvard’s class of 2021 are Asian American students. While much has been said about Asians who oppose affirmative action–particularly in the Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin ruling–polls show that a majority of the Asian American community still support the practice.

Last year, the Asian American Voter Survey found that, among respondents, 64 percent said that they favor affirmative action programs designed to help blacks, women, and other minorities gain better access to higher education. A mere 25 percent of respondents disagreed with the practice.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Princeton Sues the Federal Government to Protect Admissions Data appeared first on Law Street.

High school journalists across the country are proof that you’re never too young to start holding people accountable.

Students at Pittsburg High School in Pittsburg, Kansas learned this lesson after their investigation into a newly-hired administrator led to her resignation. Although their incoming principal, Amy Robertson, claimed to have earned degrees from Corllins University, some background research by the reporters for the school’s paper found that this was not an accredited institution.

Last Friday, the students published an article in their newspaper, The Booster Redux, detailing how Robertson’s statements about her qualifications did not add up. On Tuesday, she officially stepped down.

Their investigative work comes at a time when journalists are fact-checking more aggressively than ever, particularly under President Donald Trump, who was explicitly called out by the New York Times for his lies—a term that many news organizations don’t use lightly.

Although scoops about Trump’s tax returns or leaked tapes in which he made derogatory remarks about women didn’t hurt his success during the election, the outcome of The Booster Redux’s work provides some hope that thorough reporting about people in power can cause direct change.

Luckily, Pittsburg students aren’t alone. In New York, staff at The Classic, the student newspaper for Townsend Harris High School in Queens, have been shedding light on the troublesome reputation of their interim principal, Rosemarie Jahoda. Jahoda was hit with complaints for unnecessarily tightening regulations and mishandling a case of discrimination against a Muslim student.

Like students at The Booster Redux, writers for The Classic faced resistance from their subject, who avoided answering many questions. An official from the New York City Department of Education, which appointed Jahoda, even referred to the publication as “fake news.” If that sounds familiar, it’s probably because Trump labeled CNN (and other outlets) the same thing at a press conference earlier this year when he refused to take their questions.

Though these aspiring reporters may be getting interested in the field at a time when the media is facing a lot of hostility, at least they’re being prepared to push back against it as early as possible.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Looking to Avoid Fake News? Check Out These High School Journalists appeared first on Law Street.

UC Berkeley used to provide thousands of free lectures and podcasts to anyone who was interested. But now, the school has decided to bar the public from accessing 20,000 videos and podcasts in response to complaints that the content did not meet the needs of vision or hearing-impaired students. Last August, the Department of Justice found that UC Berkeley had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires public universities to provide equal education access to students with disabilities.

Officials say that their decision to restrict access to the videos will allow them to focus their resources on creating newer and more accessible material. In a statement, the university’s vice chancellor for undergraduate education Cathy Koshland said:

This move will also partially address recent findings by the Department of Justice which suggests that the YouTube and iTunesU content meet higher accessibility standards as a condition of remaining publicly available. Finally, moving our content behind authentication allows us to better protect instructor intellectual property from ‘pirates’ who have reused content for personal profit without consent.

The DOJ’s review, prompted by complaints from two Gallaudet University employees and members of the National Association of the Deaf, found incomplete or inaccurate closed captioning on videos that would pose challenges for those with hearing disabilities. Low color contrast in some videos would make them difficult to watch for vision-impaired viewers as well.

Berkeley isn’t the only institution where lectures have presented difficulties for disabled students. Two years ago, Harvard University and M.I.T. both faced discrimination lawsuits from advocates for the deaf for not including closed captioning on their online lectures.

But other universities say that removing content altogether isn’t the answer. Inside Higher Ed reached out to the University of Minnesota, M.I.T., Georgia Institute of Technology, Stanford University, and the University of Texas at Austin, almost all of which replied that their lectures meet accessibility standards and that they have no intentions to keep the public from viewing their content.

But the UC Berkeley videos are not lost forever, thanks to one website’s decision to make them available to the public again starting in April. LBRY, a “digital marketplace” where users can publish their content and set a price for other users to view their content, announced the site would re-publish the lectures and make them viewable for free.

LBRY CEO Jeremy Kauffman wrote that uploading the files would be legal because they are under a Creative Commons license that permits non-commercial redistribution with attribution. This means LBRY will not charge for the access to the material or make a profit, and will give credit to UC Berkeley. He told UC Berkeley’s campus newspaper, The Daily Californian, that he is open to collaborating with someone who could add subtitles to the videos that LBRY will publish.

“What motivated our community is that we saw information disappearing that shouldn’t disappear, and our technology is designed to keep information around,” he told the paper.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UC Berkeley Lectures Removed After Disability Discrimination Complaints appeared first on Law Street.

Public school districts are obligated to provide students with disabilities a chance to make “appropriately ambitious” progress, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Wednesday. The case, Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, could have widespread implications when it comes to how educators treat special education students moving forward–as children with the right to advance in the classroom.

“It cannot be right that the IDEA generally contemplates grade-level advancement for children with disabilities who are fully integrated in the regular classroom, but is satisfied with barely more than de minimis progress for children who are not,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a unanimous opinion, using the acronym for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which guarantees free public education for students with disabilities.

The plaintiff, Endrew F., has autism. In 2010, his parents determined that his public school was not providing him with a sufficiently rigorous education. They removed Endrew from public school and enrolled him in a private school, Firefly Autism House. After spending two years at the private school, Endrew’s parents sought reimbursement for his private school tuition with the Colorado Department of Education. That request was denied by an Administrative Law Judge, but the case moved forward.

A Federal District Court later ruled in favor of the school district; the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. Wednesday’s decision vacates the lower court’s ruling. According to the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, which filed a brief for Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, “public school educators across the nation have regularly set high expectations for and provided meaningful educational benefits to students with disabilities.”

The brief continued: “Decades of research and experience establish that the education of children with disabilities is enhanced by placing high expectations on these children – tailored to their individual abilities and potential – in order to prepare them to be college- and career- ready and to lead productive and independent adult lives.”

The 8-0 decision came as Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, is on the third day of his confirmation hearings. Gorsuch has been involved in over ten cases involving students with disabilities. In eight he sided with the school district. In today’s hearing, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), asked Gorsuch about his pro-school district record on cases like the Endrew. “I was wrong, Senator, because I was bound by circuit precedent, and I’m sorry,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Special Education Rights appeared first on Law Street.

Student loan debt–it’s one of the most pervasive concerns for young adults today. Approximately 44 million Americans have student loan debt–those Americans in total owe about $1.3 trillion. The average graduate of the Class of 2016 will hold $37,172 in student debt by the time they graduate. But how much do students actually know about the debt they’re taking on? A new survey conducted by LendEdu, a New Jersey-based company that calls itself the “Kayak of student lending” shows that they may not know that much.

One of the biggest revelations from LendEdu, which surveyed current college students, is that about half of college students surveyed think their loans will qualify for federal forgiveness after graduation–and most of them are probably wrong. In truth, there are very few ways to get your loans completely forgiven. One way is to go into public service work for a minimum of 10 years, but a relatively small percentage of the population follows that path. A few other (rare) ways that students manage to qualify for student loan forgiveness is by accepting certain teaching programs that place teachers in underserved areas, or if the university you attended shuts down while you’re a student or within 120 days after you graduate. For the record, death also qualifies someone for student loan forgiveness…but it’s probably safe to say that most students aren’t including that as a viable option when it comes to not paying back student loans.

Other questions on the survey indicated that the respondents don’t have a great handle on a few different aspects of student loans. According to the survey: “80 percent of college students could not identify the current interest rates on undergraduate federal subsidized and unsubsidized student loans.” Similarly, “79 percent of college students could not identify the current repayment term of a federal student loan” and “when asked, 64 percent of college students incorrectly believe that it is possible to refinance student loan debt with the federal government.”

This of course, isn’t to say that these are facts that all borrowers of student loans should have off the top of their heads. Student loans–from applying to paying back the debt–are complicated. But at the same time, it’s important to teach and encourage realistic expectations as student loan debt continues to grow.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Much Do You Know About Your Student Loan Debt? appeared first on Law Street.

The Trump Administration announced Wednesday that it will  reverse federal protections for transgender students in public schools, citing federal overreach. A letter jointly released by the Education Department and the Justice Department effectively leaves it up to individual schools to decide whether transgender students can use the bathroom that aligns with the gender they identify with.

The heads of the two departments that issued the letter, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, were reportedly at odds over rescinding the previous rule, which was instated by former President Barack Obama last May. According to Republicans with direct knowledge of the discussions, Sessions wanted to rollback the protections, while DeVos wanted to keep them because she worried about the potential harm it could cause transgender students.

The Attorney General needed DeVos to sign on to his directives, but she would not. Therefore Sessions took the matter to the White House where, in the Oval Office on Tuesday, he, DeVos, and President Donald Trump discussed what direction the administration would take. Trump sided with Sessions and told DeVos that she had a choice: agree or resign. She agreed.

The Obama Administration’s previous directive was enacted “without due regard for the primary role of the states and local school districts in establishing educational policy,” said the Education Department and Justice Department letter.

Reportedly at the urging of DeVos, the letter included a passage encouraging the protection of all students. “All schools must ensure that students, including L.G.B.T. students, are able to learn and thrive in a safe environment,” the letter said. 

Obama’s directive had not gone into effect–even before Trump rescinded it–because of two pending battles in federal courts. Last August, a federal district court in Texas issued an injunction on Obama’s order, blocking it from being implemented.

Judge Reed O’Connor, the presiding judge in that case, said the federal order put states “in the position of either maintaining their current policies in the face of the federal government’s view that they are violating the law, or changing them to comply with the guidelines and cede their authority over this issue.”

Wednesday’s announcement brought hundreds of protesters to the front of the White House, where they chanted: “No hate, no fear, trans students are welcome here.” Civil rights advocates also decried the new directive.

The rollback also prompted Jackie Evancho, the “America’s Got Talent” runner-up who sang the National Anthem at Trump’s inauguration, to tweet at Trump on Wednesday to ask the president to meet with her and her transgender sister to discuss transgender rights.

. @realDonaldTrump u gave me the honor 2 sing at your inauguration. Pls give me & my sis the honor 2 meet with u 2 talk #transgender rghts

— jackie evancho (@jackieevancho) February 23, 2017

“This is a mean-spirited attack on hundreds of thousands of students who simply want to be their true selves and be treated with dignity while attending school,” said Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality in a statement.

In a separate statement DeVos said that issuing statutes regarding school policy is a state-level issue, and that the Education Department “remains committed to investigating all claims of discrimination, bullying and harassment against those who are most vulnerable in our schools.”

“We owe all students a commitment to ensure they have access to a learning environment that is free of discrimination, bullying and harassment,” wrote Devos.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Administration Reverses Federal Transgender Protection Rules appeared first on Law Street.

New Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has had a rough first few days. On Friday morning, she was supposed to make her first visit to a public school in Washington D.C., but she was blocked from entering by a group of protesters. The protesters physically blocked DeVos from reaching the entrance of Jefferson Academy, a middle school. One of them yelled, “She doesn’t represent anything they stand for” and another one, “Keep giving money to senators and find your way to positions, you should be proud of yourself.”

WATCH: Sec. Betsy DeVos physically blocked by protesters from entering DC school–turned away and left.
Video: @SweeneyABC pic.twitter.com/RAycuKEVgm

— ABC 7 News – WJLA (@ABC7News) February 10, 2017

DeVos and her driver turned around and left, but entered the school through another entrance and met with teachers, the principal, and the chancellor of D.C. public schools.

Earlier in the week, DeVos–or whoever runs her Twitter account–sent out a tweet about her first day on the new job.

Day 1 on the job is done, but we’re only getting started. Now where do I find the pencils? pic.twitter.com/0vRKF1opE9

— Betsy DeVos (@BetsyDeVos) February 9, 2017

What was probably meant as a cute question did not sit well with the public. A ton of Twitter users offered their answers.

@BetsyDeVos not in the thousands of public schools that can barely afford supplies. Looking forward to you cleaning that lil issue up.

— Erin Weaver (@ByErinWeaver) February 9, 2017

Many others pointed out that public schools are underfunded and that many teachers have to use their own money to buy pencils for the students.

@BetsyDeVos At the store. Something you should know: we teachers buy pencils and supplies for our classes with our OWN money.

— Robin McCauley Lynch (@RobinMcCauley) February 9, 2017

Others criticized DeVos’s earlier statement that guns could be necessary in some schools, because students could be threatened by grizzly bears.

.@BetsyDeVos He has them… pic.twitter.com/6UkaKaP0sN

— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) February 9, 2017

Some were wondering what she was going to do with the pencils:

.@BetsyDeVos is this what you plan to do with your pencil while public school teachers work hard to educate and protect students? pic.twitter.com/fzyCPlhLkb

— Jaipreet Virdi (@jaivirdi) February 9, 2017

And yet others came up with ideas for how she could make some money to actually buy pencils:

@BetsyDeVos You worked a whole day but didn’t have anything to write with? Maybe you could hold a bake sale to buy some pencils.

— (((David Lytle))) (@davitydave) February 9, 2017

While it was a laughing matter for some, there are still concerns that the new Education Secretary is a billionaire who has no experience working in education or even attending a public school. But as the Washington Teacher’s Union said during an earlier, peaceful, gathering; if DeVos succeeds in her new role, everyone succeeds.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Twitter Replies to Betsy DeVos’s First Week appeared first on Law Street.

A state lawmaker in Arizona on Thursday proposed a bill that would prohibit colleges and universities from hosting classes, activities, or events that “promote division, resentment or social justice toward a race, gender, religion, political affiliation, social class or other class of people.” HB2120, proposed by Representative Bob Thorpe, a Republican, would also grant the state’s attorney general the power to withhold up to 10 percent of state aid to institutions that failed to comply with the regulations.

Thorpe said he is primarily concerned with schools “finding ways to divide people and put wedges between people,” instead of simply teaching historical facts. While conversations about different modes of thought, and about America’s stain of racial discrimination should be encouraged at institutions of learning, “let’s just ensure they’re accurately discussed,” Thorpe said. “What I don’t want is somebody to be treated negatively and poorly because, for example, they are a Green Party member or they’re a Democrat or they’re a Republican.”

In 2010, the Arizona legislature passed a bill that would have banned the Mexican-American studies curriculum at Tucson public schools. But the bill was challenged in federal court, and in a 2015 ruling, judges said the bill was a form of discrimination, and could be unconstitutional. That case is currently awaiting trial. Thorpe’s proposal would expand upon the 2010 bill, including in its ban certain activities and events, rather than just courses.

Arizona Rep. Bob Thorpe wants to ban all activities from college campuses in the state which “are designed… https://t.co/097tPVaAiB

— Ric Hudgens (@rdhudgens) January 13, 2017

As an example of the sort of programs or classes that he would like to do away with, Thorpe pointed to the University of Arizona’s “privilege walk.” The voluntary event is designed to “help participants to acknowledge their privileges, contextualize their own experiences, and learn about their peers.”

Thorpe acknowledged that this is the first draft of his bill, and that it will be revised. He also said his opposition to certain topics being taught in Arizona schools is tied to taxpayer dollars. “I’m not saying in my bill these classes cannot occur,” Thorpe said. “What I’m saying is taxpayers should not have to pay for them.”

Journalist and civil rights activist Shaun King was not too pleased with Thorpe’s bill. “All of this is completely and utterly disgusting,” he wrote in an op-ed for the New York Daily News. “That an aloof lawmaker wants to actually oversee and monitor individual activities and events to prohibit students and staff from discussing economic and skin privilege in this country is not just petty, it’s deeply problematic.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lawmaker Proposes Bill to Ban “Social Justice” in Arizona Schools appeared first on Law Street.

Students attending a suburban Chicago high school were hospitalized on Tuesday after eating gummy bears that authorities suspect to have been tainted.

The Naperville High School students hospitalized suffered varying degrees of illness, including rapid heart rate, dizziness, and dry mouth. The school encouraged parents to have an open dialogue with their children about healthy choices in a statement posted to Facebook on Tuesday night.

Today at Naperville North High School, 14 students were transported to Edward Hospital for medical treatment. We can confirm 12 are being treated as a result of consuming gummy bears that may contain another substance.

This candy made those students both uncomfortable and sick, so they were taken to the nurse’s office for care. For safety precautions, the students were transported to Edward Hospital to receive medical attention. Each student had varying degrees of discomfort and subsequent treatment.

Currently, 2 students are in stable condition and are undergoing evaluation, while 11 have been treated and released. They have been experiencing symptoms that include fast heart rate, dizziness and dry mouth.

We encourage all parents to have conversations with their children about making healthy choices. Our community is fortunate to have a number of resources available through school and other community partners to support the wellbeing of students.

We continue to review the specifics of the situation and will address it appropriately. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact your school’s principal.

Students told police that they thought the gummy bears were “laced with something with marijuana, like a liquid-based marijuana substance,” said Naperville Police commander Jason Arres. Authorities determined that the gummy bears were ingested voluntarily, but investigations are underway to determine how the gummy bears were distributed.

According to local news station WLS, a 17-year-old male student was taken into custody, but released without being charged.

“There are a lot of avenues that we can take with juvenile discipline,” Arres said. “Again they’re young, so we want to work through these issues in partnership and collaboration with the school district to make sure the punishment fits the crime.”

One Facebook user commented on the Naperville Police Department’s post and suggested the students might have fallen victim to the notorious Haribo sugar-free gummy bears, which online reviewers have complained made them feel ill.

But this doesn’t seem to be the case.

The Naperville incident appears to be the latest in a string of cases where students have sought medical attention after consuming drug-laced candy. Similar reports have appeared in a variety of states–from Pennsylvania to Florida. It seems that students are slowly realizing a “harmless treat” isn’t always as it seems.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chicago Students Hospitalized After Consuming ‘Laced’ Gummy Bears appeared first on Law Street.

A Virginia school district has temporarily banned two classic novels, “To Kill A Mockingbird” and “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” after a parent raised concerns over the racial slurs presented in each book.

Accomack County Public Schools Superintendent Warren Holland confirmed that the two books had been banned to WAVY-TV as a result of a student’s mother complaining at a school board meeting in November. The mother claimed that her son, who is biracial, was deeply troubled by the racial slurs he had to read in the books.

These books are not strangers to challenges and banning by school systems. According to the American Library Association, the two are frequently banned and challenged young adult reading. Racial slurs occur 219 times in Mark Twain’s “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” and 48 times in Harper Lee’s “To Kill A Mockingbird.”

“So what are we teaching our children?” the parent asked  during the meeting. “We’re validating that these words are acceptable, and they are not acceptable by any means.”

Claire Fallon from the The Huffington Post expressed concerns over the ban, writing

Shielding citizens, from youth through adulthood, from the full extent of wrongs perpetrated by Americans and the U.S. government prevents the understanding that could allow for real problem-solving. For example, last year, a survey found that nearly half of Americans don’t believe that the Civil War was primarily motivated by Southerners’ desire to keep slavery, despite a historical consensus that it was. Most Americans don’t support reparations ― or even apologizing for slavery ― and this ignorance about the severity and willfulness of the nation’s past crimes is surely a factor.

Some on social media saw this as a slippery slope.

Banning classic lit. isn’t the answer people. I have heard more offensive crap in rap music. https://t.co/3JQGP3w0F5

— BethM (@BethMcCall84) December 2, 2016

POLL: Should Accomack County Public Schools ban “To Kill A Mockingbird” & Huck Finn? The novels are currently suspended due to racial slurs.

— Katie Collett (@KatieCollettTV) December 1, 2016

Other parents from Accomack County voiced their concerns over the bans.

“Everybody’s read it… it didn’t change a difference in my views at all,” one parent Catherine Glaser told WAVY-TV. “I’d like my son to read those books… my daughter’s mixed, and I don’t have a problem with it, I love those books.”

Nothing is certain, however. The complaint was filed as “a request for reconsideration of learning resources.” The request will go before a committee made up of different school members, such as a principal, librarian, teacher, and parent; and they will make a recommendation to Holland.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Virginia School District Bans Two American Classics over Racial Slurs appeared first on Law Street.

Halloween is a frightening time of the year, although it does not normally send university students to counseling.

The University of Florida said in a statement last week that it will be offering counseling students to students who are offended by Halloween costumes.

“Some Halloween costumes reinforce stereotypes of particular races, genders, cultures, or religions,” the statement says. “Regardless of intent, these costumes can perpetuate negative stereotypes, causing harm and offense to groups of people.”

The school then provided contact information for different resources around campus. One of the resources, the U Matter, We Care program, describes itself as “UF’s umbrella program for UF’s caring culture and provides students in distress with support and coordination of the wide variety of appropriate resources,” according to its website.

Additionally, students have access to a 24/7 counselor reachable by phone and a service to mediate situations of bias. According to the statement, “the Bias Education and Response Team at the University of Florida is able to respond to any reported incidents of bias, to educate those that were involved, and to provide support by connecting those that were impacted to the appropriate services and resources.”

Over the past few years, Halloween costumes have become a large issue on college campuses, with many people feeling as though costumes appropriate their culture or reinforce negative stereotypes.

This year, costumes such as the “Kim the Hostage” costume and another depicting a gorilla holding a plastic baby, have come under intense scrutiny, as they reference graphic events.

They made a Kim K hostage costume …………… pic.twitter.com/arLpoiV6uS

— Nathaniel (@swallowship56) October 13, 2016

Some people, however, voiced their concerns over the services the university is providing.

Our country is doomed. “The school is offering counseling to those who may be offended by costumes this season.”https://t.co/h6It6mTjx3

— Matt Lewis (@Mac_Tampa) October 15, 2016

University of Florida is offering counseling to anyone upset by a halloween costume. In other news, the 4th Horseman just saddled up

— Andy Lambert (@AndyLambertAndy) October 15, 2016

The university encouraged students to be aware of the costumes that they choose to wear on Halloween, adding, “Thank you for being mindful of these values, and have a fun and safe Halloween.”

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post University of Florida to Offer Halloween Counseling to Offended Students appeared first on Law Street.

Another college is in the news, accused of mishandling a rape case. A female student at Old Dominion University who reported that she was raped in her own dorm room says she was denied a medical exam until after campus police had interrogated her for eight hours. The assault took place in October 2014 at the Old Dominion University campus in Virginia. Late Wednesday, the woman’s lawyer, Laura Dunn, filed a complaint against the university, accusing the school of mishandling the case and violating federal law.

The woman, who was not named in the complaint obtained by the Associated Press, wrote that she booked an appointment at a local medical center to get an exam after she was assaulted. But when she told campus police about what happened, officers wouldn’t let her leave. They took her to their department where they denied her food, water, and bathroom breaks. They interrogated her for eight hours, asking questions like “do you like rough sex?” and saying, “I’m just trying to find the crime here,” implying that it was her own fault that she was raped.

My alma mater is out here treating rape victims like criminals. And y’all wonder why people don’t come forward. #ODU https://t.co/SJT4MsCZ33

— Kris (@thatkblife) October 14, 2016

The way the campus police treated the student caused her stress and anxiety disorders. “After the entire day of being victimized by your police department, I was left feeling paranoid and scared as if I was the criminal,” she wrote in a personal statement attached to the complaint. The man, who was not a student at the university, was never charged with a crime.

Said it before and I’ll say it again, college “police departments” should be banned. https://t.co/eWseSI028R

— Bryan Beal (@bryanrbeal) October 14, 2016

The complaint accuses the school of violating federal law by not informing the woman of the importance of preserving evidence by getting a forensic exam right away–which she wanted to do, but wasn’t allowed–and not letting her know that she had the right to not report the incident to police until after being examined. She was also not informed that she could seek a protective order against the man, what her counseling options were, or the possibility to change her living situation. She was not even allowed to move out from the dorm where the assault took place until after getting a diagnosis from a psychologist. The school also failed to add the assault to the school’s “crime log” until after a reporter asked about it.

“This validated to me that Old Dominion University never took my sexual assault seriously and does not care for me as one of their students,” she wrote.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Old Dominion Student Who Reported Rape Was Interrogated for 8 Hours appeared first on Law Street.

Minutes before midnight on Monday evening, many teachers in Chicago breathed a collective sigh of relief: there would be no strike, and their classes would go on as planned on Tuesday. After over a year of testy negotiations, the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) struck a four-year contract with the school board. While it won’t officially be cemented until it’s ratified by the CTU’s House of Delegates and voted on by members, the agreement staved off a looming strike, which could have kept over 300,000 Chicago students out of school.

At a press conference after the deal was reached, and following 12 hours of discussions, CTU President Karen Lewis said the agreement is “good for kids, is good for clinicians, is good for paraprofessionals, for teachers, for the community.”

For Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the last minute consensus was a welcome refuge during a politically turbulent time. The relationship between Chicago residents and police officers has frayed under his leadership, and a strike, which would have been the second CTU strike of his tenure, would have been fuel for the flames.

“Chicago Public Schools’ finances will be stronger and on firmer ground because of this agreement,” Emanuel said at a post-midnight press conference. “Parents and taxpayers will be relieved, and more importantly, reassured, that we all came together to work together with a common purpose.”

The contract includes a pension pick-up for teachers, a key concern for the union; a promise to cap classroom sizes for kindergarten through second grade; and millions of dollars in funding to help offset cuts to teacher salaries and a number of school services.

Both sides narrowly avoided what would have been the second strike of Emanuel’s six years in office. The first came in 2012, when the union and the board wrangled over the previous contract. That strike lasted seven days.

Union members were preparing for a strike in the hours leading up to the midnight agreement. They picked up materials–shirts, twine, and signs–at designated areas around the city, and were instructed to strike outside of their schools at 6 AM on Tuesday. A union strike is legal, according to Illinois law, only if more than 75 percent of members authorize abstaining from work. According to the union, 88 percent of members agreed to the Tuesday strike.

Negotiations were successful, however, ensuring students could go back to school, teachers could go back to work, and Emanuel, for the time being, could escape another political fallout.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Strike Stricken: Teachers Union and School Board Reach Agreement in Chicago appeared first on Law Street.

Forty-one Nigerian students have sued Alabama State University for misusing their government’s scholarship money, overcharging the students, and treating them “like animals.” Though it is one of America’s historically black colleges, the students think discrimination was a contributory factor. “I’m a black man and I’m proud to be black, but I felt discriminated against,” said former student Jimmy Iwezu to The Daily Beast. He also said the school called him and his fellow Nigerian schoolmates “cash cows”.

Students Godsgift Moses, Promise Owei, Thankgod Harold, Success Jumbo, Savior Samuel and others, came to America thanks to generous scholarships for four years of college from the Nigerian government. The government paid around $30,000–$35,000 per student per year—to cover tuition, books, room and board and any other expenses. But instead of forwarding excess money to the students’ accounts, the University held on to the money.

Nigerian students sue Alabama University for treating them ‘like animals’ https://t.co/eQNpI9WW4g via @todayng pic.twitter.com/JHpbbCWuP6

— Nigeria Newsdesk (@NigeriaNewsdesk) September 12, 2016

According to the students’ lawyer Julian McPhillips, who first filed a lawsuit in April that was dismissed, these students were treated differently from other attendees. The scholarship money that is supposed to go to the students was instead used to help solve the school’s “bond issues,” pay for a new stadium, and create a new civil rights awareness center.

The Nigerian students were not allowed to eat anywhere other than the school cafeteria and their scholarship funds were charged for living in the school’s dorms even if they didn’t live there. The cost for living on campus was also allegedly raised specifically for the Nigerian students, who had to pay $3,000 per semester. One student named Success Jumbo was married and lived off campus, but the school took money from his scholarship for dorm expenses anyway, instead of transferring the money to his personal account to use for his actual rent. Jumbo told the Montgomery Advertiser:

I got married May 2014. I’ve approached ASU on several occasions, I even took my wife and my baby to them and said, ‘Look, I no longer live on campus. I believe you guys understand the importance of being married. I need to get this money so I can use it to pay for my housing elsewhere.’

“The school compelled us to buy books from the book store and eat only at the cafeteria,” said Iwezu. “I tried to make them understand, ‘Hey, we don’t want to live in the dorms anymore, and we don’t want to eat our entire meals at the dorms.”

After complaining and demanding a refund for the students, McPhillips received an answer from the school–its officials said: “there is no financial agreement between the University and the individual Nigerian students,”–and the request was denied. Another student was charged for summer school after he graduated that he never attended or even applied to.

“They had me as if I was going to school this summer. I asked them, ‘I graduated in May, so where is the scholarship money my government gives to you?’” said Kehinde Batife.

But the students won’t give up–on the other hand, they’re more determined than ever to fight for their cause. Batife said: “I cannot forget about this and I’m ready to fight the school, even if it means 10 years from now I’m still fighting to get justice.”

“I want justice to prevail, and the remaining money should go to [Nigeria’s] Treasury and make a better life for other Nigerians,” concluded Iwezu.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nigerian Students Sue Alabama University For Using Up Their Money appeared first on Law Street.

Remember the “clock kid”? Ahmed Mohamed, the 14-year-old from Irving, Texas became a viral phenomenon last year after he was arrested for bringing in a homemade clock to school to show a teacher, which was mistaken by school officials as a bomb. The outcry that followed shoved the teenager into the media spotlight, making him an inadvertent symbol for religious tolerance and equal protection under the law. As his story spread, his fame brought with it opportunities such as invitations to the White House, offers for multiple scholarships, and support from organizations such as NASA, MIT, and many major tech companies.

One year later, the Mohamed family is filing a lawsuit against the Irving Independent School District (IISD), his former principal, and the City of Irving for violating Ahmed’s constitutional rights.

The lawsuit highlights IISD’s alleged history of racial and religious discrimination, including many such incidents that Mohamed himself experienced involving classmates and teachers while he was a student in the school district. It also details “unconstitutional arrests” by Irving’s Police Department, which, the lawsuit claims, city officials knew about but showed “deliberate indifference” toward. The failure of officials to provide training to officers after such incidents “[led] Irving police officers to arrest Ahmed Mohamed without probable cause.”

Last November, it was reported that Ahmed and his family wrote letters to the City of Irving threatening a civil suit unless they received $15 million in damages and apologies from city and school officials. This suit did not provide specific monetary demands, only requesting a trial by jury.

Ahmed and his family moved to Qatar late last year, accepting a scholarship offer from the Qatar Foundation. However, Ahmed has expressed a desire to return to the U.S., telling The Washington Post that  he gets “bored” in Qatar and would like to study in an American college.

Both IISD and the City of Irving responded to the lawsuit to WFAA on Monday. The school district said it “continues to deny violating the student’s rights,” while the City “is prepared to vigorously defend itself” in the case.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post “Clock Kid” Is Back and Suing His Former City and School District appeared first on Law Street.

At the end of last July, the Obama Administration selected 67 colleges to participate in an experimental pilot program through the Department of Education (DOE) to extend Pell Grants to certain incarcerated individuals. The experimental program will impact up to 12,000 inmates working to earn a post-secondary degree. 141 correctional institutions will take part in the Second Chance Pell Grant program. 

This monumental move in criminal justice policy marks the first time inmates will be eligible for Pell Grants in over 20 years, when the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 explicitly banned grants to any incarcerated individuals. Though that bill is still in place, the new pilot program is granted through experimentation under the Higher Education Act.

As for the grants, they function in the same way as grants for non-incarcerated students. Federal Pell Grants are available to students seeking a college degree with demonstrated financial need. The grant is proportional to the student’s income with a maximum amount of $5,815 for the 2016-2017 academic year.

The initiative follows a slew of research in recent years showing that educational rehabilitation for inmates sharply decreases recidivism, increases social capital, and aids re-entry into society. One such 2013 study found that individuals who participated in correctional education were 43 percent less likely to recidivate in the three years after release than individuals who didn’t participate in education. Further, the program serves individuals marked for release within the next five years, the demographic educational programming will benefit most.

But the program has been met with some public disapproval, largely because some believe that confronting the student debt epidemic in the U.S. and extending grant programs for traditional students should receive higher priority than funding education for incarcerated students.

Nevertheless, the DOE has made their priorities and intentions clear with regards to the intersection of criminal justice and education. In a report released this month, the DOE pointed out that in the last 25 years average spending on PK-12 education has increased around 100 percent, whereas correctional spending has increased around 300 percent. That figure is even higher in states like Texas, where correctional spending has increased by 850 percent during the same time period. 

Investing in education is a cost effective method for reducing crime. The DOE report points to a study which found that a 10 percent increase in high school graduation rates could result in an approximately nine percent decrease in arrest rates leading to drastically fewer inmates and prison costs.

As a snapshot example, it cost the city of New York an average $167,731 for each inmate held in a correctional institution in 2013. By reducing arrests and thus incarceration, correctional institutions can re-allocate greater funds towards rehabilitative services like vocational training and higher education aided by Pell Grants.

For now, the Pell Grant extension to inmates is experimental, but marks an important shift away toward rehabilitative approach to inmates within the U.S. criminal justice system. A grant program that was created to allow students to go to college who otherwise could not has a clear purpose in correctional institutions where inmates may have their only chance to pursue a college degree.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Administration to Extend Pell Grants to 12,000 Inmates appeared first on Law Street.

For the first time in history, historians believe, a university president met with a descendant of slaves that worked as laborers on its campus. Georgetown University president John J. DeGioia took this historical first step Tuesday in Spokane, Washington, in an attempt to make amends with Georgetown’s slave-owning past.

DeGioia met with Patricia Bayonne-Johnson, the great-great-great granddaughter of Nace and Biby Butler, two of the 272 slaves Georgetown sold in 1838–the proceeds partially went to paying off the school’s debts in a time of financial distress. The two chatted at the local library for 45 minutes before heading to lunch at the nearby Davenport Hotel.

“I wanted to show him my family, that they are real people,” Bayonne-Johnson, an amateur genealogist and retired teacher, said, adding that she respects DeGioia’s efforts to “to honor the sacrifice and legacy” of her ancestors.

In 1838, Georgetown University was financially struggling, and sold 272 of its slaves for about $500,000, roughly the equivalent of $3.3 million today. Jesuit priests, who founded and operated the university, owned the slaves. The slaves were sold to Louisiana, uprooting and separating dozens of families.

For years, Georgetown University swore that there were no living descendants of the slaves the school sold back in 1838. But Georgetown isn’t the only university grappling with ties to slavery and racism–dozens of others across the nation have recognized their pasts as well. In the fall, students at Georgetown pushed for the removal of the names of two former university presidents from campus buildings due to their involvement in the slave sale.

DeGioia agreed to change the names of the buildings, and went a step further and created a committee dedicated to deciding the university’s response to its past. The list of possibilities includes: apologizing for profiting from slave labor, creating a memorial to those that were enslaved, or providing scholarships for their descendants. The report is expected to come out this summer, according to DeGioia.

Inspired by the protests last fall, Georgetown alum Richard J. Cellini founded the Georgetown Memory Project, a nonprofit to help find and support the descendants of the slaves who were sold. Bayonne-Johnson is involved in the project, along with seven other genealogists and several researchers.

Earlier this year, the university built an online digital archive that consists of records describing the slave sale and the Jesuit and Louisiana plantations. Craig Wilder, a historian at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology applauded how Georgetown is handling their past. “Georgetown has made a decision to recognize the humanity of the problem they’re dealing with, to treat it as more than a public relations problem,” he said.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Georgetown President Meets With Descendant Of Sold Slaves appeared first on Law Street.

Protests erupted throughout the nation last week after a California judge sentenced former Stanford University freshman Brock Turner to a six month jail sentence for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman behind a dumpster.

People are mad, and there are currently six Change.org petitions protesting Turner’s sentence. If you’re new to the case, here are five reasons why people are outraged:

1. The Judge Was Extremely Lenient

On March 30, Turner was found guilty of three felonies: assault with intent to rape an intoxicated woman, sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object, and sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object.

Then on June 2, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky sentenced Turner to six months in county jail, which is less than the state’s recommended sentence, followed by three years of formal probation. Turner must also register as a sex offender and participate in a sex offender rehabilitation program. However, with good behavior Turner may only have to serve three months of the prison sentence.

Since the charges carried a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison, Turner’s six months came across as extremely lenient. Apparently the judge worried that a stiffer sentence would have a “severe impact” on the 20-year-old star swimmer.

Many people theorized that the judge offered Turner “special treatment” because he was a Stanford alum as well as a former college athlete. The judge is now facing public demands to resign from office.

2. The Father’s Letter to the Judge

Before sentencing, Turner’s father wrote a letter arguing that his son should receive probation instead of jail time. In the letter Dan A. Turner writes, “He will never be his happy go lucky self with that easy going personality and welcoming smile.”

Turner added, “His life will never be the one that he dreamed about and worked so hard to achieve. That is a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his 20 plus years of life.”

Brock Turner’s father criticized for statement he read to court in sexual assault case: https://t.co/ELMMkUfQtu pic.twitter.com/A9CcKvBiWu

— CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) June 7, 2016

At no point did the letter acknowledge that Brock committed the assault, instead the letter focused entirely on Brock’s pain and suffering rather than his victim’s. Eventually Dan A. Turner apologized for his “20 minutes of action” comment, which he claims was “misinterpreted by people.”

3. Biased Media Coverage

Mugshot Double Standard

For weeks, whenever the media reported on Turner, this photo was used:

Brock Turner’s friend blames his felony sexual-assault conviction on political correctness: https://t.co/GGXH6VcwjR pic.twitter.com/TO3KQ1k8cP

— New York Magazine (@NYMag) June 6, 2016

After a while this photo of a suited Turner smiling for his yearbook photo began to drum up its own controversy. Many people wondered why Turner’s booking photo wasn’t being used instead. It wasn’t until recently that Turner’s mugshot from the night he was arrested was finally released to the public.

The mugshot taken of Brock Turner the night of his arrest https://t.co/NVU6ZmXTqe pic.twitter.com/3lKGu9W7Sl

— deathandtaxes (@DeathAndTaxes) June 7, 2016

These photos illustrate a double standard in the way the media treats young, white criminals versus young, black victims of violence.  For an excellent explainer on this double standard, read this think piece by Mic.

Washington Post Coverage

The Washington Post was also criticized for its coverage of Turner’s verdict. In an article titled “All-American swimmer found guilty of sexually assaulting unconscious woman on Stanford campus,” the paper dedicated several paragraphs to Turner’s swimming career and squashed Olympic dreams.

Even though Turner had already been convicted, the paper showed him preferential treatment by focusing on his accomplishments and the impact the sentence would have on his once-promising future, rather than the severity of his crimes.

4. The Victim’s Powerful Letter

After the sentencing, the victim, whose identity has been protected, wrote a heart wrenching 12-page letter addressed to Turner that has since gone viral. In the letter, she discusses learning about her assault, reliving that night in court, and struggling to move forward after everything that happened to her.

She writes,

If you think I was spared, came out unscathed, that today I ride off into sunset, while you suffer the greatest blow, you are mistaken. Nobody wins. We have all been devastated, we have all been trying to find some meaning in all of this suffering. Your damage was concrete; stripped of titles, degrees, enrollment. My damage was internal, unseen, I carry it with me. You took away my worth, my privacy, my energy, my time, my safety, my intimacy, my confidence, my own voice, until today.

Unfortunately, the victim’s emotional message had no real effect of the outcome of Turner’s sentencing.

You can read the victim’s powerful letter in full here.

5. We Can’t Even Call Him a Rapist

It’s important to note that the reason I haven’t used the word “rapist” to define Turner throughout this article is not due to personal bias, but California law.

According to New York Magazine,

In California, rape is defined as someone using “physical force, intimidation, duress, or threats to persuade the victim to engage in sexual intercourse.” In the case of Turner’s rape of an unconscious woman, witnesses and testimony determined that Turner penetrated his victim with a foreign object, not a sexual organ.

So in other words California is telling me and the rest of the world that Turner was able to rip the clothes from his victim’s body, insert his fingers inside of her, grope her breasts, and hump her half naked body, but we can’t call him a rapist?

Like almost everything else involving this case, it simply doesn’t seem fair.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 5 Reasons Why People Are Protesting Brock Turner’s Sentence appeared first on Law Street.

In a May 17 vote, the Portland Public School board unanimously approved Resolution No. 5272 to develop a new plan for how information about climate change is taught in local public schools. The controversial catch? The resolution specifically included a section mandating the abandonment of any books that are “found to express doubt about the severity of the climate crisis or its root in human activities.” While proponents of the resolution argue that textbooks containing doubt about the existence of man-made climate change lead to fewer informed children, many people are outraged at the idea of textbook censorship being enacted in public schools.

From the view of the school board, removing texts that cast doubt on the severity of man-made climate change will help to enlighten students in Portland. Rather than seeing the initiative as a ban on certain viewpoints, the school board has identified it as a way to make climate change literacy a priority in the school system. Bill Bigelow, editor of the Rethinking Schools magazine, said: “a lot of the text materials are kind of thick with the language of doubt, and obviously the science says otherwise.”

He even discussed the fact that it is not uncommon for fossil fuel producers and their PR departments to influence written sections in textbooks about climate change, which could lead to skewed information. “We don’t want kids in Portland learning material courtesy of the fossil fuel industry,” Bigelow said.

On the other hand, the stir that has been created in response to the school board’s resolution has been overwhelming in the last few days after the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) released an official statement against the resolution. Its response detailed several features of the resolution that it considered concerning including the resolution’s overly broad nature, its undervaluing of students being able to consider all sides of an argument, and the fact that it was almost entirely created because of political pressure by environmental lobbyists. The coalition even tweeted last week that the resolution was  unnecessary:

Portland’s climate education resolution is over-broad, politically influenced, and unnecessary. https://t.co/QLf33nDleB

— ncacensorship (@ncacensorship) June 3, 2016

To NCAC, the censorship of books curtails individual students’ rights to read multiple opinions on global warming and then decide for themselves what impact they believe it is having. In addition, the ban could limit accurate exposure to the debate over man-made climate change from the last couple of decades for students. NCAC’s statement express concern over wresting independence from those who teach the material, teachers:

Deciding how to approach the existing political debate around the causes of climate change should be left to those who teach about it: science professors, social studies and civics professors may approach the issue differently in accordance with the requirements of their subject matter. Elected officials have an important role in ensuring the availability of an adequate education to all students; they should devote their energies to that worthy goal, and leave decisions about what and how to teach to the people who are trained to do it.

In other words, students should be exposed to all viewpoints and then it should be up to teachers and professors to determine what is and is not taught in schools–not politicians. Other opponents have criticized the public school system in Portland of promoting “political indoctrination” over the education of children.

While the new Portland plan may raise questions about student access to accurate summaries of the historical debate over man-made climate change, 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that it is reality. Maybe what Portland needs is an amendment to the plan rather than a complete overhaul: some way to teach kids that the cause and existence of climate change has been debated, but that science overwhelmingly supports its existence and human origin. It seems like the Portland Public School Board had its heart in the right place, and that the controversy stirred up by the NCAC may help the board tailor its policies to be slightly less all consuming and perhaps more effective.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Portland Censors Climate Change Material In Textbooks, Sparking Controversy appeared first on Law Street.

A series of viral tweets alleging that four Morehouse College students gang raped a Spelman College student set off campus outrage and protests at both HBCUs, resulting in Spelman launching an official investigation into the allegations.

A Twitter account using the handle @RapedAtSpelman began publicly sharing the story of how she was gang raped at a party, and then was asked to keep quiet by the college’s dean and Public Safety Department in a series of tweets Monday evening.

Its sad that I have to create a page to express myself rather than tweeting from my real account because AUC students blame & bash victims.

— Raped At Spelman (@RapedAtSpelman) May 2, 2016

The person behind the anonymous ‘Raped At Spelman’ account identified herself as a freshman at Spelman, a historically black private female college. She said that the night she was raped she had gone to a college party and gotten drunk with a group of friends and upperclassmen. Later that night she says four Morehouse students attacked her.

I was drunk but that doesn’t mean I forgot about what happened. I went to the bathroom upstairs to throw up and when I opened the door I was

— Raped At Spelman (@RapedAtSpelman) May 2, 2016

surrounded by 4 Morehouse students who took me to another room and took turns raping me. I was in shock about what had happened.

— Raped At Spelman (@RapedAtSpelman) May 2, 2016

After the alleged rape, Raped At Spelman states that she discovered her friends had left, so she walked back to campus alone and went to Public Safety to file a report before being sent to the hospital for a rape kit. 

She says it took a month before she was scheduled to have a meeting with the college’s dean and Public Safety; to her surprise they asked her to give her “brothers” a pass.

When I got to the meeting with the Dean and Public Safety they asked me what was I wearing, why did I seperate from my friends, & why was I

— Raped At Spelman (@RapedAtSpelman) May 2, 2016

drinking under age. The Dean also said that Spelman & Morehouse are brother & sister so I should give them a pass. I never felt so worthless

— Raped At Spelman (@RapedAtSpelman) May 2, 2016

in my life. I got so depressed that I wanted to take my own life and I started to self-harm. I don’t want to be at a school that does not

— Raped At Spelman (@RapedAtSpelman) May 2, 2016

make me feel safe and wants to silence me. So I would like to say goodbye to Spelman and to the amazing people I’ve met along the way.

— Raped At Spelman (@RapedAtSpelman) May 2, 2016

Adding…

You can NEVER say Morehouse has their sisters back if they are just going to force her on it.

— Raped At Spelman (@RapedAtSpelman) May 2, 2016

By Tuesday, the hashtags #RapedAtSpelman and #RapedByMorehouse were trending on Twitter. Students quickly organized public demonstrations in which they spoke on the state of rape culture at both colleges.

Just like that, the sun’s out and the protest is underway.#RapedByMorehouse #RapedAtSpelman pic.twitter.com/GMzCQESJAF

— Da’Shaun Harrison (@_iAmRoyal) May 3, 2016

Today Black women are doing it again. They’re defending all of our humanity. #RapedByMorehouse pic.twitter.com/V22fc3pZr9

— Avery. (@Philosavery) May 3, 2016

Raped At Spelman continues to tweet from the handle, but her identity remains a mystery. The claims add Spelman and Morehouse to a long list of other schools that have been accused of covering up or mishandling sexual assaults on campuses. As of now, it is unclear whether or not Spelman’s investigation will in fact be able to validate her claims, or provide any type of resolution.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ‘Raped at Spelman’ Twitter Account Details Alleged Morehouse Gang Rape appeared first on Law Street.

With movies like “The Hunting Ground” making waves, numerous studies conducted on incidences of sexual assault on college campuses, and dozens of schools under investigation by the federal government for possible Title IX violations, the conversations about rape on college campuses are at an all time high. Now, a new video protesting the way that some of our nation’s institutions of higher learning deal with sexual assault on campuses is making its rounds, and it’s possibly the most powerful statement I’ve seen yet:

The video takes a common life marker–getting accepted into college–and features videos of a bunch of different kids reading their college acceptance letters. But then, after each of the students find out they’ve been accepted, they go on to read promises from their prospective schools that are about more than just education. The teens read the following phrases in short succession: “Prepare for a challenging year ahead,” “which includes losing your virginity to a rapist.” “You’ll be taken to the basement and violently raped.”

The video directs viewers to the website dontacceptrape.com for more information, a joint effort between advertising agency Goodby Silverstein & Partners, LA-based production company PRETTYBIRD, and Ultraviolet, a group fighting against sexual assault and sexism. The group explains its inspirations for the campaign:

The campaign includes stories of sexual-violence survivors in the form of ‘acceptance letters’ detailing the truth of the event as if it were coming from the college itself. These videos tap into the trend of teens posting acceptance videos on social media. The goal of the campaign is to raise awareness of this issue and inspire students, parents and the public to demand their colleges and universities act to protect their students.

In addition to launching the videos, the campaign also published full page ads in a couple of print publications, including the Harvard Crimson and USA Today. That ad took a similar approach:

The Unacceptable Acceptance Letter campaign launched today with this story printed in @thecrimson. #dontacceptrapepic.twitter.com/F5D4iwPSik

— Laura Petruccelli (@LauraPastacheli) April 16, 2016

As college acceptance season continues, and students begin to narrow down where they will be spending the next 4-odd years, this haunting video is particularly timely.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Anti-Rape PSA Features Dark College Acceptance Letters appeared first on Law Street.

April is sexual assault awareness month. And on Friday, one of the four former Vanderbilt football players involved in the infamous Vanderbilt rape case from June 2013 was retried alone. After nearly three hours of deliberations, the jury came to their conclusion and justice was timely served this awareness month. The jury found Corey Batey, a 22-year-old former Vanderbilt football player, guilty of aggravated rape and aggravated sexual battery.

According to a Washington Post poll conducted last year, 25 percent of women and 7 percent of men are victims of “unwanted sexual incidents” while in university. The Washington Post conducted the poll last year by telephone, which surveyed 1,053 women and men undergraduate students at a four-year college, between the ages of 17 to 26, living on campus or nearby. Sexual assault was defined as five different types of “unwanted contact: forced touching of a sexual nature, oral sex, vaginal sexual intercourse, anal sex and sexual penetration with a finger or object.” Using that definition specifically, “5 percent of men and 20 percent of women said they had been sexually assaulted in college.”

With sexual assaults on college campuses increasing and becoming an issue that needs to be addressed more urgently than ever, more colleges are joining the effort to put an end to sexual assault each year and are implementing “mandatory sexual assault awareness programs.” In addition to these mandatory awareness programs, “many universities have joined President Obama’s “It’s On Us” campaign, which is a nation-wide promotion aimed at putting an end to sexual assault on college campuses.” Though universities are showing a commitment to effectively address the issue of sexual assault on campuses, there are been results that indicate that these programs are not yet working. This last fall, Indiana University invited more than 7,000 undergraduate and graduate students to take a survey about their perceptions and experiences with sexual assault. It found:

Twenty-nine percent of the undergraduate women reported experiencing some form of nonconsensual sexual touching while at IU […] 35 percent of the undergraduate women and 34 percent of the graduate women reported being the victims of some form of sexual harassment while at IU […] and, 86 percent of the undergraduate women and 85 percent of the graduate women participants who reported experiencing some form of nonconsensual sexual contact did not report the incident to anyone at IU.

As these findings are similar findings with studies conducted at other universities, an answer on how to solve the epidemic of sexual assault on campuses remains to be solved. Hopefully, this recent court ruling against Batey will influence sexual assault victims to speak up and encourage universities to continue to make efforts with protecting and creating a safe space for sexual assault survivors, and putting an end to this horrendous crime for good.

Ashlyn Marquez

Ashlyn Marquez received her law degree from the American University, Washington College of Law and her Bachelor’s degree from The New School. She works in immigration law and has a passion for worker’s rights, tacos, and avocados. Contact Ashlyn at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Deja Vu: Former Vanderbilt Football Player Found Guilty of Rape appeared first on Law Street.

Sit-in protests continue at Duke University, where students are enraged by the actions of some of their school administrators. The protests began last Friday afternoon when nine students occupied the second floor lobby of the Allen Building, home to the school’s administrative offices.

Why are Duke students protesting? Uniting under the hashtag #DismantleDukePlantation, this group of students is reacting to recent allegations of administrators using racial slurs. One instance of this, which is at the forefront of the movement, is the story of how Executive Vice President Tallman Trask hit a parking attendant, Shelvia Underwood, with his car and proceeded to shout a racial slur at her. Trask released an apology after the incident stating:

I want to say a word to the Duke community about my interaction with Shelvia Underwood in August 2014, which has been a subject of much recent discussion.  While the details of what happened are a matter of disagreement and subject of civil litigation, I recognize that my conduct fell short of the civility and respectful conduct each member of this community owes to every other. I express my apology to Ms. Underwood and to this community and re-commit myself to ensuring that these values are upheld for all.

His apology has received a lot of criticism, especially given the contention over whether or not Trask used racial slurs during the instance, which he denies ever doing.

If my students had an assignment to write an apology & they wrote what Trask did, I'd make them do it over #DismantleDukePlantation

— Erin Parish (@erindparish) April 4, 2016

We won't stop at the apology, we want Trask's termination! #DismantleDukePlantation #DSWS

— Sydney Roberts (@hegelsbagels) April 4, 2016

Once stories about Trask began to unfold, even more employees came forward, reporting to the Duke Chronicle about what they describe as a hostile and discriminatory work environment and leadership. According to one staff member, instances of the administration using sexist and racial slurs against employees are frequently covered up by the administration.

What are the protesters demanding? The main part of their demand is for Trask and two other administrators to be fired for their abhorrent behavior towards staff members. In addition, the protesters are pulling for an increase in the minimum wage for Duke employees from twelve to fifteen dollars an hour, double the North Carolina minimum wage of seven fifty an hour. Graduate student Bennett Carpenter was quoted saying that the biggest goal is that they “want accountability” especially because “Duke absolutely has a culture of racism, deep structural racism built into the institution.”

A couple of nights ago, the nine students protesting were given amnesty by the administration, meaning they will not be punished for their demonstration. Footage of the night shows students cheering as they learned this news:

Occupying students have been granted amnesty and will not face administrative retaliation #DismantleDukePlantation pic.twitter.com/OEUGStm7jY

— Ultralima Bean (@ZoroastrianFunk) April 4, 2016

Although they aren’t facing administrative retaliation, there has been an attempt to cast this protest in a negative light by the university, as they closed the Allen Building, preventing classes from meeting and disrupting usual business hours. While the school claims this closure was to continue the open dialogue with the students and for safety purposes, the students protesting claim that there was no reason to shut down the school building, other than to cast the protest in a negative light.

Duke released a statement on Monday claiming the following:

The negotiations have continued today (Monday), and it has become clear that reaching agreement on all the remaining demands will require far more extensive conversation, likely to include other members of the Duke community. Closing the Allen Building while these negotiations go on has presented a significant disruption to students, faculty, staff and visitors, and cannot continue indefinitely.

Today, it was announced that the students rejected an offer of concessions from the administration that would improve some of the contested working conditions.

It is unclear how long this protest will go on, but, based on the continued uproar on Twitter, it looks like the protestors are serious about getting what they came for, and they are not alone in their goals on campus.

It's Day 6 on our way to #DismantleDukePlantation. We have been occupying Allen for over 100 hours. We shall not be moved. We will win.

— anastasia kārkliņa (@brdngresistance) April 6, 2016

#faculty forward shows support for #DismantleDukePlantation pic.twitter.com/IDULTwK0Xq

— Ashley D. Farmer (@drashleyfarmer) April 3, 2016

standing in solidarity with Duke students and workers occupying the Allen building! #DismantleDukePlantation pic.twitter.com/uhO5aSArWl

— Joe Stapleton (@joe_stapes) April 3, 2016

Here’s to hoping everything ends as peacefully as possible. Even if they don’t receive all of their specific demands, the students at Duke University have drawn national attention to an issue that likely affects universities all across America. They are bringing the country one step closer to #DismantlingtheDukePlantation and promoting equality for all.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post #DismantleDukePlantation: Duke Student Protests Continue appeared first on Law Street.

ITT Educational Services–the company that operates ITT Technical Institute–is the latest for-profit education company to be sued for misleading its students. A new lawsuit has been filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, claiming that the company used deceptive information about employment rates post-graduation, as well as about some of the aspects of its computer science program. Additionally, the for-profit education company is under federal investigation based on suspicions it may have defrauded the federal government.

According to Boston.com, when it came to the Computer Network Systems program:

ITT’s admissions representatives allegedly told prospective students that anywhere from 80 percent to 100 percent of graduates obtained jobs in or related to their field of study, but real placement rates were actually 50 percent or less, according to the suit.

The suit argues that when ITT categorized jobs as “in or related to their field of study” it included positions like working customer service at a big-box retailer, internships or short-term positions involving computers, and working for an airline checking passengers in for flights. Essentially, if someone used a computer for their job (which is pretty much everyone in this day and age) they were counted as employed under ITT’s metric.

The lawsuit also claims that ITT didn’t provide the kind of in-classroom education that it advertised; the accompanying press release stated:

ITT also advertised and promoted hands-on training and personalized attention through its program, but students said their experience involved the use of outdated technology, absent teachers, or being told to ‘Google’ the answers to questions.

This certainly isn’t the first time that ITT has had its day in court. ITT, and in some cases its top officials, have been sued by the Securities Exchange Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Attorney General of New Mexico, and has gotten into multiple scuffles with shareholders. Its stock has fallen, and its reputation is presumably taking a hit as more controversies continue to pile up.

However, ITT has promised to fight Massachusetts on these particular allegations. Yesterday the company released a statement claiming that the lawsuit was just an example of: “Massachusetts’ woeful record of hostility toward career colleges that train non-traditional and underserved students.”

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Fight Against For-Profit Schools: ITT Sued by Massachusetts Attorney General appeared first on Law Street.

A new bill moving through the legislature in Mississippi would require teachers in certain school districts to not only grade their students, but the parents of the students as well. House Bill 4, more formally known as “Parent Involvement and Accountability Act,” just passed the Mississippi House and the bill is now heading to the state Senate for consideration.

If the bill becomes law, it would add another section to students’ report cards that measures parental involvement in their children’s education. It would only apply to teachers and parents in school districts that have been rated as a “C” or lower by the Mississippi Department of Education–as of right now 88 of the 151 school districts in Mississippi fall below this marker. The teachers would rate the parents’ involvement as “satisfactory,” “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory.” How the teachers decide what grade to give the parents will be based on a number of factors–as Alex Holloway of The Dispatch sums up, it would measure:

Parental response to requests for conferences or communication, the student’s completion of homework and preparation for tests, the frequency of the student’s absence and tardiness, and the student’s overall grade per a nine-week assessment

There are of course, both critics and supporters of the bill. Those who support it say that in schools that are successful (both in Mississippi and in other states) there’s a high level of parental involvement. The bill would increase communication between parents and teachers to help up that level of involvement, and ensure that parents are working to prepare their children as best they can.

Critics claim that it’s not about parents “trying harder” it’s about cyclical poverty, and that placing additional pressure on the parents won’t necessarily help. Some critics also worry it will lead to strange social dynamics as students compare their parents’ grades, or read too much into what grade their parents received.

The bill doesn’t just add a provision about grading parents to the Mississippi education system. According to MississippiWatchdog.org it also will:

Assign each child mandatory homework; require all children be taught proper manuscript and cursive handwriting; require all children to have a daily reading and a separate writing assignment; require all children to read at least one book per month and write a book report on it; mandate participation for parents in at least one supportive function for the school, such as assisting at the bus stop, working a concession stand at an athletic event or serving in the Parent Teacher Association; establish dress codes for teachers; mandate school uniforms; initiate two parent-teacher conferences per nine-week term for students not performing up to grade level requirements at mid-term.

Mississippi’s public education system has not ranked well when compared to other states–for example, Education Week ranked Mississippi 51st in the nation last year (below the other 49 states and the District of Columbia). While it’s unclear whether or not House Bill 4 will pass, Mississippi is trying to take some steps to remedy that issue–it’s just unclear right now if these are the right steps.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mississippi Might Start Grading Parents on Report Cards appeared first on Law Street.

A new study confirms the fears of those who criticize the United States’ education system–we’re lagging behind. A Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) study by the Department of Education compares workers’ skills in various developed countries to the U.S., and discovered that Americans perform particularly poorly in basic reading, math, and technology skills. In fact, in some cases the results of our high school graduates were about on par with peer nations’ high school dropouts.

The PIACC tests adults’ skills over four areas. According to the report:

PIAAC defines four core competency domains of adult cognitive skills that are seen as key to facilitating the social and economic participation of adults in advanced economies: literacy, reading components, numeracy, and problem solving in technology-rich environments.

In the U.S., literacy skills overall were average, compared to other nations. But young people with a high school diploma or less scored well below average. Similar results held true on math tests–Americans who had high school diplomas were about on par with  high school dropouts in other nations. When technology skills were tested–things like using an email, naming a file on a computer, or buying and returning things online–Americans came in dead last.

Japan and Finland scored in the number one and number two spots in all three measures. Other nations consistently topping the charts included the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, and Belgium.

The fact that Americans who only had high school diplomas or less fared so poorly in comparison to individuals from other nations is particularly troubling given how expensive a college education is today. Students who aren’t able to afford college, or do not wish to go to college, should still be able to depend on their required 12 years of schooling to help them acquire the skills needed to be an active part of the American workforce. But according to the PIAAC, that simply does not appear to be the case. As Peggy Carr, the acting commissioner of the government’s National Center for Education Statistics, stated: “clearly, we have some work to do in this country.”

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Americans with High School Diplomas Don’t Have Same Level of Skills as International Peers appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama’s announcement of the 2017 budget has thrown people for a loop with its liberal cuts and additions. People are starting to realize that, in his last few months as president, liberal changes are on their way. Whether these changes will be quickly undone by a Republican president in the next year or furthered by another Democrat is unclear in this mess of a presidential race that we’ve been seeing thus far. But one of these changes that could potentially have a huge impact on our education system, at least from a health standpoint, is a $10 million dollar cut to grants for abstinence-only sex education. What does this mean for our country? We may finally be able to start educating all our teens nationwide about what it means to have safe sex.

What’s the current state of sex ed in America? Well, for starters, it depends on where you look. One of the biggest problems with our current system is the fact that individual states pick and choose their own curriculums, which leads to discrepancies in what kids are learning. Some states even let counties decide their policies, meaning kids in one school district may be learning all about safe sex while kids only a few miles away are learning exclusively about abstinence. If you have twenty minutes to kill, I highly suggest this John Oliver video on sex education and why it’s so important.

Oliver provides an important–albeit, comedic–analysis of what sex-ed looks like in our country today. In some states, teachers aren’t allowed to show condoms to their classrooms. In others, teachers are still showing videos that shame teens for being sexually active or are blatantly sexist in the way they explain consent. Oliver highlights the ridiculousness of states who try to force abstinence on teenagers and also points out just how polarized the differences in sex education can be from state to state.

The idea behind a lot of these abstinence-only curriculums is the concept that introducing kids to sex will increase the amount of teens having sex at a young age. The abstinence programs are thought to keep kids abstinent, but, in reality, they frequently just lead to unsafe sex because kids don’t know anything about protection against pregnancy and STDs. There are staggering statistics to back up the fact that, in states where there are abstinence-only programs, there are higher rates of teen pregnancy. One of the only states to still have an abstinence-only sex-ed policy (that is, if the schools decide to teach about sex at all, since they are not required to) is Mississippi, which, coincidentally, also has the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in the country. New Hampshire, on the other hand, provides students with comprehensive sex education, which teaches about contraceptives, safe sex, and abstinence. Its teenage pregnancy rates are some of the lowest in the nation.

How are people responding to Obama’s cuts? Some people are thrilled with the cuts. We will be saving millions of dollars a year, and ending up with more educated young people–what’s not to love?

Good news of today: Obama is removing ALL funding for abstinence-only education for his 2017 budget!

— ♡ little elf ♡ (@cherrycutie) February 17, 2016

Please hold my wand while I do the jumpy-clap dance. https://t.co/DLtygyMZ6t Abstinence-only is garbage. Goooodbye.

— Lyndsay Kirkham (@Lyndsay_Kirkham) February 17, 2016

Others are not so happy. To those people, I say: look at the statistics. Not teaching your kids about sex isn’t going to keep them from having it, it’s just going to keep them from being safe when they inevitably do. Some people have ironically tweeted angrily about the policy, to show just how ridiculous some of the anti-comprehensive sex-ed opinions really are.

Obama just eliminated federal funding for abstinence-only education so when my son gets pregnant he’ll be hearing from me.

— Alex Halpern (@HalpernAlex) February 17, 2016

Also in Obama’s proposed budget, along the same vein, is money for expanded access to HIV treatment and prevention for Americans as well as increased benefits under Medicare for pregnant women. Obama is really hitting a home run with the expansion of these programs and, hopefully, it will lead to a healthier and more informed American public. But, until these states start changing their policies on educating young adults about sex, I guess we’ll just stick to the golden rule about sex that we learned from “Mean Girls” and our abstinence-only fifth grade teachers.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post President Obama Cuts Abstinence-Only Sex-Ed Funding appeared first on Law Street.

The University of Missouri assistant professor who sparked nationwide controversy for yelling at a student reporter is in the spotlight and raising ethical questions yet again.

Assistant communications professor Melissa Click can be seen on a recently released Columbia Police Department video cursing at a cop who is attempting to clear a road for cars during the Mizzou homecoming parade in October. The footage was taken with two cops’ body cameras.

The footage, first published by the Columbia Missourian, shows Click as a part of a group of student demonstrators who were linked arms blocking the road. The cop can be seen trying to usher the group off of the road and onto the sidewalk in order to allow the parade to continue.

In November, Click, a communications teacher, was captured on video calling for a student journalist to be ejected from a protest site on campus. She requested “some muscle” to help her kick the student out. This incident caused many to call for her dismissal from the university.

So why are her actions especially troublesome and still being talked about now?

Well, what is increasingly frustrating while watching the 12-minute video from November is that the protest as a whole was completely overshadowed by the actions of the professor and the students that she didn’t wish to correct. Instead of a commendable peaceful protest being documented and praised, that message was lost in the actions of few.

Click, while not the center of the entire video, played a vital role in the fact that she did not aid the student reporters by allowing them to do their job. She of all people should have been able to understand their rights just as she understood the rights of the protesters.

All of a sudden the possible headline of “Peaceful Activists Protest for Black Lives Matter Movement,” turned into “Professor Needs Muscle to Block Student Journalists.” And that is really a shame.

The lack of trust of the media is understandable, but should you really shut out someone for trying to accurately document your protest just because they are a journalist? Is it worth the negative backlash from the country just to push a student reporter around whose ‘agenda’ is just to take photos from the event? Not only did the actions of those shown in the video hinder their cause, but it shed such a poor light on the university and the protesters, when it didn’t have to.

What is even more of a shame is the lack of understanding of basic rights. Students were screaming that the photographer, Tim Tai, had to back up and could not legally be there and photograph the event. He was surrounded and barricaded from what was going on and at times pushed by protesters. The right that the students were citing as to why they should be left alone to protest is the same right that allows the journalists to be there documenting what is going on. In addition, they were in public space–which grants the photographer and videographer the right to document freely.

What strikes me most are the ethical dilemmas that come with this debate. As a teacher who is up for tenure, a heavily sought-after academic position, Click will surely be hearing about these two incidents during her deliberations. I hope the board members ask themselves, can she be an effective communications professor if she has gotten herself into these communications conundrums? How can she teach a topic that she herself doesn’t seem to have mastered in her practice? It is certainly hard to support her in her communications endeavors when she curses at cops and calls for the obstruction of the media from a protest on public property.

Check out the November incident in full below (I highly recommend watching the entire video):

And check out the video of the October incident below:

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mizzou Teacher Melissa Click Seen Cursing at Cops, Raises Ethical Concerns Again appeared first on Law Street.

A recent study discovered something rather upsetting about our nation’s science teachers: roughly two-thirds are misinformed when it comes to climate science and change.

This revelation came from a survey conducted by Eric Plutzer of Pennsylvania State University, as well as collaborators from Wright State University and the National Center for Science Education. According to Vox:

The researchers mailed questionnaires to 1,500 science teachers, who taught disciplines ranging from biology, chemistry, physics, and earth sciences, since the study of climate change straddles fields and they weren’t sure which classes were paying the subject more attention.

The study participants included both middle school and high school teachers.

An overwhelming majority of scientists believe that climate change is being caused by humans–roughly 97 percent. It’s viewed as a consensus in the scientific community. However, about 30 percent of American science teachers teach their students that climate change is caused by natural causes, another roughly 30 percent instruct that it’s caused by a combination of human actions and natural causes. Both of these lessons are problematic, and inaccurate.

There’s some debate over why teachers are teaching climate change incorrectly–it’s no secret that in some parts of the country, teaching climate change accurately could be protested by parents and the community. While this recent study only found that only about 4 percent of teachers reported feeling pressured to teach climate science a certain way, earlier studies have put the number as high as 15 percent.

The researchers also found, quite alarmingly, that many teachers didn’t even know they were teaching anything incorrectly, as only 30 percent of the middle school teachers and 45 percent of high school teachers even knew that there is such a thing as a scientific consensus on climate change.

Many of the teachers also answered that they hadn’t received much formal education on climate change, although the good news is that two-thirds would like to learn. So, if it’s possible to provide that kind of education to our teachers, we may soon see a change to way that climate change is taught to young American students.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Two-Thirds of American Science Teachers Misinformed on Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

Now more than ever, families need to seriously weigh the financial pros and cons of universities. But there are some tools that can help–for example, the development of College Abacus, a website that makes it easier for students and their families to compare financial aid packages before applying to schools. College Abacus has been deemed the “Kayak” of college financial aid, but it’s always been controversial, and some schools have not allowed College Abacus to use their information. Schools such as Skidmore and Oberlin have lifted their original bans on the site, but others such as Harvard, Princeton, and California Institute of Technology Schools still block the site from using their information. While some of the concerns are warranted, schools are doing a disservice to their students by blocking the site.

When it comes down to it, college is an investment. While the profitable gains of the college experience remain immeasurable, the amount of debt students incur can easily be measured by families and graduates alike years after memories have faded. Since October 29, 2011 the Higher Education Act (HEA) has required colleges to provide a net price calculator on their websites. The price generated by these net price calculators gives an estimate of what families will pay for college minus grants and scholarships. The calculator bases its information off of similar data from students at that institution from the previous year. College Abacus helps students easily see these net prices together, and cuts down the time of entering the same information into multiple calculators on school websites.

Image courtesy of [SemperDoctus via Wikimedia]

Harvard, Princeton, and Cal Tech are not alone in their refusal to participate in College Abacus’s services. Schools have a right to worry about the site’s accuracy. The service sometimes takes similar questions from the different schools’ financial aid calculators and groups them together for comparison. At one point, College Abacus made a mistake when rephrasing a financial aid question for Hamilton College, which the co-founder of Abacus sorted out within 24 hours after the financial aid director of Hamilton reached out. The staff at Abacus welcomes concerns from financial aid officers, and relies on the schools for accuracy. But by opting out, schools block the site from accessing their net calculators.

Truly, students and their families are hurt when colleges and universities block Abacus. It has simply created a platform for families to compare the financial investment of college. Money may be the most objective differentiate between two schools for an individual family. The debate goes on for hours about the right environment, professors, dorms, location, etc between two schools, but comparing the potential net cost does not need to be an additional ordeal. In this new age of technology, universities should welcome tools creating more transparency for their future students.

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post College Abacus: Hurdles in Financial Aid Transparency appeared first on Law Street.

This week, over sixty schools in Detroit were closed due to teacher absences as teachers went on strike against horrific conditions in the city’s schools. Teachers are outraged by both the physical conditions of the schools (mold, rot, etc…) and by the enormous class sizes that the school district was forced to adopt after major budget cuts. The school district is hundreds of millions of dollars in debt, and the state legislature has seemingly preoccupied itself with the bottom line rather than the conditions within the school district. So, teachers called in sick this week to protest their working conditions, effectively shutting down the school system for days.

The Detroit Federation of Teachers, the city’s primary teachers’ union, has not called for an official strike. However, its former President Steve Conn, who was ousted from the presidency in 2014, does take credit for organizing the “sickout.” This week’s empty classrooms frustrated many parents and lawmakers but the sickout did strike a chord with city leadership. Mayor Mike Duggan conducted an inspection of several schools this week and has announced plans for further health and safety inspections across the school district.

Some view the sickouts as a step in the wrong direction, arguing that the teachers’ actions will only further isolate decision-makers in the state legislature. Yet the sickout can also been hailed as a genius move to sidestep the bureaucracy and effectively protest non-violently. Organizing a strike through formal channels takes a great deal of time and formal procedures but the sickout was pulled together quickly and effectively because it required relatively little formal protest organization. By using their sick days, teachers were simultaneously protesting and using the personal time legally allotted to them, which may protect them from harsh retributions from anti-reform sympathizers. Every teacher is entitled to a set number of personal days and they can use them however they see fit.

Teacher strikes are devastating to any school district as they deny students crucial time in the classroom, but they are also a critical tool for reforming our nation’s schools. Detroit has now captured national attention, placing significant pressure on state and city officials to act quickly. As the teachers return to their hazardous classrooms, the city leadership and the state legislature have the responsibility to make health and safety a priority for the school district. Meetings have already been arranged (although no date has been set) to discuss health and safety reform. The sickout only lasted a few short days, and time will tell if it achieved the desired results, but it did shine a spotlight on conditions that few outside of the Detroit school system were aware of before this week. The sickout is an unconventional tool but it may be exactly what many organizations are looking for: a peaceful way to protest that does not impose on the quality of life of the protesters. Taking a sick day is an inconvenience, but for many it is preferable to going on a formal strike and forgoing wages and health benefits. The average teacher only has a handful of sick days every year so spending even one is a sacrifice, but the publicity that Detroit teachers have garnered may inspire other suffering school districts to follow in their footsteps.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post What Does Detroit’s “Sickout” Mean for the Future? appeared first on Law Street.

Schools have become a frightening place for parents to send their children. From the horrors of lives lost at Sandy Hook Elementary, to those mourned at Columbine, to the controversies faced with “No Child Left Behind” and the Common Core curriculum, there’s now the terror that the people who take care of and teach our children could sexually abuse such innocent and unsuspecting lives.

On December 23, 2015, St. George’s School, an elite Newport, Rhode Island prep school unveiled an investigative report recognizing that 26 credible witnesses/individuals have come forward “strongly suggesting” that there were six perpetrators, who were employees of St. George’s School, that “engaged in sexual misconduct” with a number of students. Firsthand accounts and corroborating evidence depict that there were a total of 23 victims. The scope of the scandal has greatly increased since the release of the report, as a rising total of at least 40 St. George’s alumni have since come forth with credible accounts of sexual misconduct, even allegations of rape, by a total of seven St. George employees.

While St. George’s sincerely apologized to the victims in the report it released and offered immediate counseling to the individuals that underwent traumatic events as a result of unreported sexual misconduct spanning several decades, victims demanded more. Some of the victims viewed the investigation conducted by St. George to be “a sanitized version of events and said it was not truly independent because it was conducted by a lawyer, Will Hannum, whose partner is the school’s counsel.” As such, a new, comprehensive, and independent investigation will be conducted into the allegations of sexual misconduct–it was just announced that Scott Harshburger, a former Attorney General of Massachusetts, will be the investigator.

The discrepancies in the total number of victims, as well as the number of perpetrators, suggest that there could be unchecked allegations pertaining to the longstanding reporting of the alleged incidents. Leslie Heaney, a 1992 graduate of St. George and current chairwoman of the school’s board of trustees stated, “the board is committed to a truly impartial investigation. There is nothing more important to us than that the review be thorough and exhaustive, and that its findings are found to be reliable and credible by all parties, particularly the victims.”

Reports suggest that the sexual misconduct took place from 1974-2004. Of the seven former St. George’s employees reported to have been involved in sexual misconduct, only four are still alive. Furthermore, the misconduct resulting in the termination of each former employee was allegedly never reported to any authorities nor were potential future employers, other schools and educational settings, warned about the sexual misconduct against minors done at the hands of the perpetrators that they potentially hired. The victims’ attorneys have noted that the Massachusetts legislature is currently considering what is known as the “pass the trash” bill–which refers to the practice of passing on teachers that have been terminated or dismissed for inappropriate conduct and behavior unbecoming of a professional in an education setting without reporting such problems and potentially putting others in jeopardy. The bill would work to criminalize a failure to report a complaint of sexual misconduct in private and public schools–maybe it would be worth considering a similar act in other states.

Victims are calling for the head of the school, Eric Peterson, to resign. They believe that he has played a part in covering up the incidents and being quite unresponsive to the complaints made against St. George’s former employees. However, the school has indicated that Peterson will not resign or be required to resign, that he has greatly supported the “vigorous investigation of alleged sexual abuse,” and has been very compassionate and empathetic toward all of the victims that have come forward about with allegations of sexual misconduct.

Sexual abuse of children in the education system, particularly in private schools that have the discretion to report such misconduct, is becoming the boogeyman of primary education concerns as media coverage of such incidents continues to increase. Even more frightening is the fact that the perpetrators of sexual misconduct of students and children tend to be individuals either employed or associated with schools–i.e. teachers, coaches, student aides and workers, as well as administrative staff. Additionally, state legislatures’ decisions can create very unsettling gaps in protection from sexual misconduct against students. For example, in New York State, where there are approximately 2,161 private schools attended by over 492,000 children, private school students are excluded from the State’s Education Law 23-B, entitled “Child Abuse in an Educational Setting” which only applies to public and charter schools, leaving private school students subject to sexual misconduct abuses without protection. Various organizations have taken on lobbying efforts to raise awareness of such gaps and mend the system to include private school students in the states that exclude such students from their laws.

The issue of sexual misconduct in a school setting has taken center stage in the media as the new, comprehensive investigation gets underway for St. George School. As the investigation continues and potential victims continue to come forward, St. George School will be under a microscope to see how the situation is handled and how schools in general react to their findings in providing greater protections for students. All we can do is wait to see how the tragedy in Rhode Island plays out, hope that justice is served for all victims who suffered great trauma due to the horrendous acts of school employees, and rally for a change in school policies relating to sexual misconduct and the protections offered to students.

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post St. George’s: Sex Abuse Scandal Rocks a Rhode Island Town appeared first on Law Street.

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUD) shut down schools across the county this Tuesday after members of the School Board received a threatening email that referenced explosive devices, assault rifles, nerve gas, and machine pistols.

LAUD is comprised of over 900 schools that educate 640,000 students. Tuesday marked the first district-wide school closure since 1994, when classes were cancelled during the Northridge earthquake. Students took to social media to document their day off, treating it almost like a snow day. Some students even joked that they would have preferred school closing on Friday so that they could go to the premiere of the new Star Wars film. However, the scene within the deserted schools was far from lighthearted. Police officers walked through over 1,500 school sites, scanning for bombs or any other evidence of a terrorist threat. The message had discussed attacking students in school, mentioning packages and backpacks, but did not specify which school would be a target.

The email threat was also made against New York schools, but they remained open for classes on Tuesday. By the end of the day, the email was revealed to be a hoax and schools reopened on Wednesday morning without incident. New York mayor Bill de Blasio called the threat generic and outlandish, arguing that closing down schools for the day would be a disservice to New York students. Neither city seemed to be aware that the other city had received the same threat when they made their respective decisions for the school day. New York’s dismissal of the threat has led to doubts regarding whether Los Angeles make the wrong call–was shutting down school an overreaction?

Multiple news outlets have compared Los Angeles in the wake of the San Bernadino attack to New York in the wake of 9/11. Los Angeles should not be deemed oversensitive when the aftermath of brutal domestic terrorism still weighs heavily on the state, and the nation as a whole. It is still unclear who made the threat and a member of the House Intelligence Committee has stated that the threat may have been designed to disrupt school districts or to test school district responses to threats in large cities. Los Angeles did not witness any attack on its schools on Tuesday but, as Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck has said, it is easy to criticize the decision in hindsight, with all the information that is now available.

New York and Los Angeles may have witnessed a peaceful day at their schools on Tuesday but that doesn’t mean that every threat will be a hoax. School closure should still be treated as an extraordinary measure rather than a casual occurrence, but that doesn’t mean school districts should be criticized for wanting to protect their students. Los Angeles was justified in shutting down the district on Tuesday. Even though it may seem overly cautious to us now, when there are thousands of young lives at risk, the adage “better safe than sorry” should always be at the forefront of our decision makers’ minds.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post School Closure in Los Angeles: Overreaction or Justified Caution? appeared first on Law Street.

Consider a scenario: the restaurant where you work is short-staffed and even though you are billed as a “part-time” worker, you are asked to pick up 34 hours in one week. This is completely legal–the Bureau of Labor Statistics considers a job that requires 34 hours or less in a week to be “part-time” whereas 35 hours or more in a week is considered “full-time” employment. But, before you accept the 34 hour week, consider another dimension: you are a college student and this is the week of your final exams. What comes first: your paycheck or your education?

According to a 2013 survey, 71 percent of college undergraduates work a part-time job. Out of that number, one in five were working at least 35 hours a week year-round. Among undergrads who weren’t full-time workers, more than half of them clocked in more than 20 hours a week.

The American Association of University Professors states that college students should be working total of ten to fifteen hours a week, based on research assessing retention rates for students who work part-time during the academic year. The College Board agrees that working more than 15 hours a week can lead to decreased success, which may in turn lead to dropping out of school entirely. During a presidential debate this fall, Hillary Clinton proposed that under her new education plan, college students would be expected to work 10 hours per week. Most colleges have accepted this 10 to 15 hour rule and attempt to limit the number of hours per week a student can work on campus, but that does not prevent students from seeking off-campus employment. In addition to part-time employment, college students spend an average of 17 hours per week studying outside of class. Students also have lives outside of the library and workplace. They make time to participate in clubs, play sports, act, play music, work on political campaigns, and go out with friends. In my experience, the young person who comes to college just to drink, sleep until noon, and build an insane Instagram feed is a myth.

Every student should have the opportunity to work during their academic career, either to finance their studies or to earn a little spending money, but the work-life balance many are expected to maintain is setting them up for failure. Unfortunately, without holistic reform of college tuition, students will have to keep working twice the number of hours they should be. The majority of students spend responsibly, sticking to budgets and depositing their earnings into savings accounts.

Several candidates in the 2016 presidential race have promised sweeping reforms if they are elected but in the meantime, I would like to appeal to the professors and employers of America’s undergraduate population: cut them some slack this month. Don’t make them choose between their education and their employment. Professors can give extensions on final exams and papers, and employers can assign their student employees fewer shifts during their final exam period. Higher education comes at a steep financial cost and these students are doing the best they can to balance their aspirations in the classroom with the realities of their checking accounts.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Textbooks and Time-cards: Working “Part-Time” in College appeared first on Law Street.

First Lady Michelle Obama and Jay Pharoah, a current SNL cast member and comedian–just released a rap video in which they encourage young people to “go to college.” The College Humor original video is  part of Obama’s ongoing initiatives to promote higher education for young people. Check out the video below:

The video is part of the Michelle Obama-led Reach Higher initiative, which seeks to drive young people to engage in higher education–whether it be a four-year, two-year, or community college. Part of that initiative calls for public awareness, hence the new Better Make Room public awareness campaign. Announced in October, it’s aimed at Generation Z; the generation that follows millennials, Generation Z is currently comprised of 14-19 year olds. According to the White House Fact Sheet on the campaign:

This campaign will leverage traditional and new media platforms to celebrate student stories in the same way that we often celebrate celebrities and athletes. With partners in the business, philanthropic, media, and education realm, this campaign will stretch across the country to inspire students and give them the tools they need to reach higher for college.

The Better Make Room campaign has partnered with a whole bunch of organizations besides CollegeHumor. Some are relevant to the educational aspect of the campaign, like Pearson, The Teachers Guild, and a non-profit called Get Schooled. Others appeal to the new media aspect of the campaign, including Vine, Mashable, Funny or Die, and the CW.

The rap video is silly, goofy, and doesn’t have a ton of substance but it certainly serves its purpose–getting people’s attention. It was all over the internet today, and many were applauding Michelle Obama for her willingness to play along and rap part of the message.

As Soraya Nadia McDonald of the Washington Post put it, that’s a big part of exactly why the video is so compelling and fun:

And this is why goofy Michelle Obama rap videos always make the Internet go bonkers: She’s not pandering, but she is making fun of herself. And she’s savvy enough to know the difference.

The Better Make Room campaign, as well as the Reach Higher initiative, are taking on lofty goals. But they’re certainly having fun and making headlines along the way.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michelle Obama and Jay Pharoah Want You to “Go to College” appeared first on Law Street.

The “Safe Campus” Act has been met with significant criticism since it was introduced into Congress this summer. There are a few troubling aspects to the proposed legislation, but one in particularly really stands out: unless rape victims report their assaults to the police, the school isn’t allowed to investigate them, or levy any sort of action against the accused. This bill was supported by much of national Greek Life–both the North-American Interfraternity Conference and the National Panhellenic Conference were on board. But one sorority–Alpha Phi–just broke from the NPC to say it doesn’t endorse the deeply problematic bill.

Alpha Phi released a statement obtained by the Huffington Post today that outlined the organization’s views on the bill. It explained:

We are writing at the request of many of our members and chapters to clarify Alpha Phi’s position on the 2015 Safe Campus and Fair Campus Acts which have been endorsed by the National Panhellenic Conference. Alpha Phi has not endorsed this legislation and has not committed to any financial support.

Additionally, Alpha Phi explained its position further, saying:

We believe our sisters who are survivors should have choices in how, when and to whom they go to for support or to report the crime. They should have their own voice and the support and encouragement they need to move forward including reporting as they choose to.

The issue critics have with the Safe Campus Act isn’t necessarily that police shouldn’t be the ones looking into a crime. Rather, the act would hamstring universities’ abilities to take any actions. Given that police investigations and convictions can take years, groups that oppose the act are arguing that a school should be able to work in the meantime to provide a safe environment for its students.

Additionally, requiring victims of rape to report their assaults to the police opens up a whole new set of issues–including the fact that rape victims often aren’t treated with respect or dignity. Dana Bolger, co-founder of Know Your IX, an advocacy group, explains:

Many survivors of color, who experience police surveillance and brutality every day, don’t want to go to the very people who have been agents of violence against them. And for male survivors and survivors assaulted by someone of the same sex, reporting to the police won’t do anything: Many states still don’t recognize rape against people of the same gender, or against men, as rape at all.

There are other arguments against the Safe Campus Act as well–for example, many other crimes (drug possession, alcohol violations, etc) are able to be handled with schools without involving the police.

It’s unclear exactly which reasons motivated Alpha Phi to clarify its position on the bill, but the organization’s executive director, Linda Kahangi explained:

Many of our members — both collegians and alumnae — had expressed concern that NPC’s endorsement of these two bills implied that Alpha Phi had endorsed them. We wanted to clarify to them that we had not.

It’s an important clarification, and will hopefully cause some of the other Greek Life fraternities and sororities under these umbrella organizations to question their involvement as well. While making campuses safe for all is a great goal, the Safe Campus Act falls too far short to fit the bill.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Alpha Phi Breaks From National Greek Life Organizations on “Safe Campus” Bill appeared first on Law Street.

Rene Hoover, whose son Alex suffers from a terminal heart condition, refuses to allow her son to return to school in fear that school officials will not allow him to die naturally. She’s now locked in a battle with the school over how to proceed and best care for her son.

Fourteen-year-old Alex Hoover is autistic and suffers from aortic mitral valve stenosis, which occurs when the aortic valve narrows and restricts blood flow. Hoover has endured years of hospitalizations, four catheterization procedures, and continues to receive hospice care twice a week for his condition. Alex’s mother told the Decatur Daily that she does not want to put her son through another procedure. Although doctors may be able to help prolong Alex’s life if he were to go into cardiac arrest and be revived, his mother believes that his quality of life would be greatly diminished.

Rene explained:

That would be the rest of his life, surgeries and treatments. As a kid with autism, it is very hard on him mentally and physically because he doesn’t understand. Just typical doctors’ appointments are extremely hard on him. For my son, I choose quality, peace and happiness over that.

Alex’s autism has hindered his ability to speak, and because of that his mother obtained an advance directive to guarantee that medical professionals “do not resuscitate” if Alex were to go into cardiac arrest.

But the problem is that Limestone County school board officials have refused to honor the advance directive. Do not resuscitate orders only apply to individuals 19 or older in the state of Alabama. With the lack of a state of federal policy on how schools should handle a situation like the Hoover’s, the school administration has decided to follow standard medical procedure. Rene Hoover requested that she attend classes with Alex for a few hours each week to ensure that she can make medical decisions for him, but the school declined based on a policy about how much time parents can spend on campus. Rene said in response:

My child has a right to be there just like any other child in that school … For him to not be able to go to school and finish out the last days that he has, it breaks my heart.

From a policy standpoint, the school administration is put in a tough position here. However, the administration could be doing more to protect Alex and his mother’s wishes for him as members of the school community. Obviously the nature of Alex’s situation is unique and devastating, and there is no question that he deserves to spend the remainder of his life happy with his friends in school. The school has an opportunity here to set the standard for how schools around the country respond to the unique needs of students (and their families) with illnesses.

Kui Mwai

Kui Mwai is a junior at American University, studying Law and Literature. She is from Nairobi, Kenya. Contact Kui at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Alabama Mom Battles School Over Treatment of Terminally Ill Son appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, when Mark Zuckerberg announced his new TechPrep project, my brilliant sister turned to me and said “Zuckerberg having a daughter is probably the greatest thing that ever happened to the world.”

That may seem like a hyperbolic comment but let’s take a look at Zuckerberg’s new project: a website designed to make coding a more inclusive field and teaching the next generation how to code while they are young. TechPrep aims at diversifying the tech world, reaching out to Black and Hispanic populations, women, and low-income communities. If it is successful, it may transform Silicon Valley from the stomping grounds of white twenty-somethings wearing stained hoodies into a cosmopolitan center that finally includes those who have been barred from the coding world in the internet age. The site is designed to connect with parents as well as their children, encouraging them to ask for computer science courses at their schools and asking them to support their children’s efforts. Zuckerberg’s past philanthropic efforts never emphasized parent participation. It’s hardly a stretch to think that Zuckerberg designed this project with his daughter in mind, hoping to make the coding world more inclusive for her as she grows up within it. Most parents want to make the world a better place for their children, and Zuckerberg is no exception.

Zuckerberg has spent the past five years donating generously to education–his infamous $100 million donation to Newark Public Schools has been dissected at length in Dale Russakoff’s “The Prize“—but this is the first time he has stepped forward to launch his own community outreach initiative. Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan are also launching a K-12 school in Palo Alto designed for low-income students (tuition will be free and healthcare services will be provided for all students). Like TechPrep, the school promotes parent involvement, offering parent-inclusive activities for infant and toddler students. Chan is the mastermind behind the project, with a passion for education and healthcare–she taught elementary school science, ran an after-school program in a housing project and worked as a pediatrician in a low-income area. Chan’s experience gives the project credibility while Zuckerberg’s commitment guarantees efficiency. A well-funded school with educated leadership? This is a fairy tale that could only come true in Silicon Valley.

Before TechPrep and “The Primary School,” Zuckerberg’s donations to education were massive and undeniably made with the best intentions, but lacking organization and creativity. Throwing money at the Newark Public School system, without oversight or active involvement, was a recipe for disaster. Zuckerberg had no experience with the administration or bureaucracy of the school system, therefore he had no idea which changes would be most effective and how long it would take to implement them.  He thought teachers would be the linchpin of educational reforms but had no concept of the power and obstinacy of teacher’s unions. The Newark project essentially crashed and burned because he jumped into philanthropy without sufficient research on the realities of the challenges he was hoping to solve. In contrast, TechPrep holds a greater potential for success because it capitalizes on Zuckerberg’s existing skill set–of course the man who launched the social media revolution should train the next generation of coders. Of course the person with the most knowledge on the subject should be in charge. TechPrep is the ideal successor to the Newark fiasco. Zuckerberg has learned his lesson about inefficient philanthropy and is going back to doing what he is best at: innovating in front of a computer screen.

Zuckerberg’s child will be tantamount to a First Daughter–celebrated as an icon, photographed like a movie star, and referred to on a first-name basis by complete strangers. With parents like Zuckerberg and Chan, it is almost certain that this child will be working hard and achieving from an early age. For all we know, the Zuckerberg baby may unlock the cure to cancer, undo global warming and make pigs fly. But even if she doesn’t do all those things, we are already in this baby’s debt. This child has her father-to-be thinking creatively about how to level the playing field in education–and nothing is more promising than a day when Mark Zuckerberg is on his A-game.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Mark Zuckerberg’s Baby May Save the World appeared first on Law Street.

It’s absolutely no secret that college is incredibly expensive. One of the biggest complaints about college costs is how exorbitant the prices of textbooks have become. But, if Senators Al Franken (D-Minnesota), Angus King (I-Maine) and Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) get their way, that will be changing soon. The three legislators just introduced a bill, the Affordable College Textbook Act, that will make some online textbooks free and ultimately help to cut textbook costs for college students.

An average student in 2013 spent roughly $1200 on books per year, or up to $1250 if just private universities are taken into account. The prices of textbooks have skyrocketed in recent years–increasing an average of 82 percent in the last 10 years. There was an 812 percent price jump between 1978-2013. Experts attribute the shocking jump in prices to a lack of competition in the market, but these high costs are certainly detrimental to students. Roughly 70 percent of students have foregone certain textbooks in an attempt to save money, even if they realize that doing so may affect their academic success. It makes a lot of sense–if you’re desperate to save money, it’s a lot easier to forgo textbooks than housing or food.

The bill was introduced last week and, if successful, will provide grants to institutions of higher education. Those institutions will then work on programs for “open” textbooks–essentially textbooks that are online and freely accessible to students. Franken explained why this program would make sense based on his experience in Minnesota, stating:

At The University of Minnesota they’ve started a program of open sourced textbooks and that is basically paying professors there to write textbooks and put them online and so that professors and teachers can use and students can use that material instead of a $150 textbook.

Durbin also explained his motivations, citing similar success in Illinois:

As I said, we did this at the University of Illinois. Now there are certain rules of the game. If you’re going to have an open text book, it really has to be open, available to everyone, for the public, and what were finding is there’s a lot of good response to it and I think its catching on.

This, overall, is a smart suggestion that alleviates a real problem for students. A corresponding bill has been introduced in the House by Representative Rubén Hinojosa (D-Texas) and Jared Polis (D-Colorado). But, it has a very long way to go before it becomes anywhere near a viable piece of legislation, and given the current Congressional climate, probably doesn’t have a good shot of being enacted. That being said, as more pressure is exerted on our government to address the rising costs of college expenses, these kind of common sense and intelligent proposals will become key. While the bill may not make it through this time, be on the lookout for similar proposals at the state and federal level moving forward.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will the Senate Take Action to Combat Rising Textbook Costs? appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, Houston-area mother Roni Dean Burren vented her frustration on Facebook over the wording of a passage in her son’s “World Geography” textbook. The book called African slaves in the United States “workers” and “immigrants.” Dean-Burren’s post and corresponding video have since attracted an immense amount of feedback, drawing millions of eyes on Facebook. McGraw-Hill has now responded to this outcry, concluding that the wording does not live up to the publisher’s standards.

Initially, McGraw-Hill released a statement saying that it intends to change the online version of the book immediately. Dean-Burren combatted this, arguing that most schools don’t use online versions, and the current print version if not changed will remain in libraries and classrooms for the next eight to 10 years. McGraw-Hill then issued a statement saying that it will in fact be changing the wording in the book’s next printing. The company is also offering supplements to be inserted in the current books.

There are so many issues with this wrongly worded passage. The classification of slaves as “immigrants” and “workers” not only completely diminishes the horrific nature of the malicious institution, but it incorrectly depicts the relationship between African slaves and the Europeans that had already settled in America–the very relationship that has resulted in the skewed perceptions and discrimination that African-Americans continue to struggle with today. The passage also goes into detail about the arrival of other Europeans who come to work as indentured servants “for little or no pay,” while there is very little mentioned about Africans’ status as slaves. Dean-Burren called this characterization of slavery within the passage as “erasure.” African slaves that “migrated,” as the textbook described, during the Atlantic slave trade between the 14th and 17th century, were not “workers.” They were brutally kidnapped and taken from their homes against their will, treated like animals and torn apart from their families, and brought to a foreign land as less than human. The were then physically and mentally abused and forced to do manual and degrading labor. The United States was built on the swollen and whipped backs of these slaves. To incorrectly communicate that in a textbook is a great disrespect to these slaves and the generations that have followed them.

The significance of this issue goes beyond honoring the lives of these slaves, and the generations that have followed them. Students needs to know what the world has been through in order to make informed decisions later in life. They need to know that we once lived in a world where being a person of color, or a different religion, or even being a woman, meant that you were less of a person. McGraw-Hill should be doing more to remedy this issue within this passage of its textbook–the ramifications could be a lot worse than it thinks.

Kui Mwai

Kui Mwai is a junior at American University, studying Law and Literature. She is from Nairobi, Kenya. Contact Kui at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post McGraw-Hill to Edit Textbook that Refers to Slaves as “Workers” appeared first on Law Street.

September 1 was just another day for most people around the world. For some students, it was the beginning of a new academic year. For others, it was just another Tuesday. In Japan, however, it marked a terrifying spike in suicides among young people. Seventeen-year-old Nanae Munemasa , who has struggled with bullying and resulting suicidal thoughts, credits this mysterious tragedy to the end of a jubilating summer break and a return to a school environment in which many students are emotionally and physically bullied.

In her interview with CNN, Munemasa revealed that this toxic academic environment resulted in her leaving school for almost a year, a decision that was supported by her mother, Mina. In her opinion, Japanese cultural “collective thought ” is prominent in schools, where students are encouraged to think and function in a unified manner. This dynamic results in the destruction of individualism, and promotes the ostracism of those who dare to march to the beat of their own drum.

Is this idea of “collective thought” detrimental to students? Although this cultural norm is found more dominantly in Eastern cultures, many aspects of Western educational systems include activities that embody and encourage an emphasis of the collective over the individual, like school sport teams, for example. As a member of a sports team, you are encouraged to replace your own individual needs with those of the collective team. You are encouraged and motivated by this sense of a team unit, a unit much bigger (and less important) than yourself. This concept is taken extremely seriously, especially within the United States where sports provide a chance to go to college for many American students. Other teams outside of sports and even group projects teach a similar mindset.

This isn’t the first noted case of “suicide clusters” in schools, nor is it unique to Japan. Over the last couple of years similar cases have popped up around the United States as well. In 2009, Palo Alto was hit with an unexpected curve ball when four teens jumped on the track of an oncoming train. Three years later a similar case was reported in Lake Forest, Illinois, catalyzed by the suicide of high school freshman Will Laskero-Teskoski. In both cases, psychologists and experts on teen suicides attribute this tragedy to teens looking at those who have successfully taken their own life and think that they can do it as well. They are inspired and influenced by others dealing with similar issues mostly caused by emotional and physical bullying.

Does this mean we are on our way to having a similar issue as Japan? How can educators preach the importance of working with others, while protecting the importance of the individual? The September 1 student suicides in Japan suggest a need for innovation in how to education future generations worldwide.

Kui Mwai

Kui Mwai is a junior at American University, studying Law and Literature. She is from Nairobi, Kenya. Contact Kui at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Suicide Clusters: Collectivism vs. Individualism in Education appeared first on Law Street.

The Texas legislature recently passed a bill that will allow licensed residents to carry concealed hand guns on public colleges and universities. With the bill currently on its way to Governor Greg Abbott, who is expected to sign it, it will soon permit the presence of concealed weapons on college campuses. But this raises some serious questions about the levels of danger the schools could potentially face as a result of the new law.

The final version of this bill allows private institutions to opt out, while public universities would be able to create gun-free zones in areas of campus. This new bill allows licensed gun owners to carry their handguns in classrooms, libraries, and other campus buildings. The law would be in effect in September for four year colleges and universities and by fall 2017 for community colleges.

Some key components of the law include a requirement for university presidents to adopt rules and policies regarding carrying a concealed handgun on campus. The university may also create rules on policies regarding carrying guns into dorms and the storage of guns. The bill does not change who can obtain a concealed handgun license. Any locations that have their own rules off campus, such as bars and hospitals, can keep those rules. Open carry on campuses remains prohibited.

As a student, and someone looking at law schools in Texas, I am not sure how I would personally respond to a bill like this being passed on my college campus. In addition to attending classes, campus is a place where students eat, sleep, and live. It doesn’t really seem fair to invade one’s home with a weapon without really asking. That sentiment is consistent with some of the reactions coming out of Texas and the country right now in response to this legislation.

Julie Gavran, the western director of the Campaign to Keep Guns off Campus, said she worries accidents involving guns, gun thefts, and suicides will increase. She also fears that if the bill is passed, colleges will have to invest more money into hiring security officers and buying metal detectors, which will be taken away from education spending. Gavran stated:

The legislators were more concerned with (concealed handgun license) rights rather than the quality of research and education that the state provides. This total disregard of the voice and concerns of the campus community is an insult to the State of Texas.

Despite these fears, Bill McRaven, chancellor of the University of Texas System does not seem to agree, stating:

It is helpful that the bill was amended to allow our campus presidents to consult with students, faculty and staff to develop rules and regulations that will govern the carrying of concealed handguns on campuses. I pledge to our students, faculty, staff, patients and their families and to all those who may visit a UT institution that, as UT System leaders, we will do everything in our power to maintain safe and secure campuses.

The bill’s House sponsor, State Representative Allen Fletcher explained his motivation for filing it, stating:

Currently, a student, faculty member, or other adult with a concealed handgun license may carry their concealed handgun throughout a campus as long as they remain outside, but the moment they step foot into a building on campus they become criminals.

Despite that point, the safety factor is still a large issue. Fletcher believes that the media, parents, students, and higher education officials exaggerate the bill’s consequences. He argues that the measure will just broaden current laws that already allows concealed handguns on campus outside of buildings. Those in favor of passing the bill also believe permitting gun owners to carry weapons on college campuses can help students and faculty members defend themselves.

The arguments in favor of this bill are extremely valid, but I feel like there could be a different solution that accommodates the needs of all people. An increased presence of weapons on campus still makes me and many others very wary.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Bill Will Allow These Weapons on College Campuses appeared first on Law Street.

Racist chants, hotel trashing, and naked photos of unconscious women. These things have become seemingly synonymous with college fraternities after a slew of scandals in recent weeks thrust Greek Life even further under the nation’s microscope.

First, the University of Oklahoma’s Sigma Alpha Epsilon chapter was caught on tape singing a racist chant referencing lynching. The scandal resulted in the chapter being shut down, and some of their members were even expelled.

Then news of the University of Michigan’s Sigma Alpha Mu fraternity racking up almost half a million dollars worth of damages at a northern Michigan ski resort in January surfaced. That’s one hell of a hotel party that would definitely put most rockers to shame. Their fraternity was also disbanded.

Michigan’s Sigma Alpha Mu frat has been permanently disbanded for ski resort rampage http://t.co/W0RmBkMyFI pic.twitter.com/Tv0E2efHwl

— David Nelson (@DavidNelsonNews) March 18, 2015

Now Penn State’s chapter of Kappa Delta Rho is following suit with its own form of debauchery. A secret “invite only” Facebook group was discovered that served as a hub for photos of naked and passed out women, hazing, and records of drug sales. Not good Penn State, not good.

Nude photo scandal rocks Penn State fraternity: http://t.co/3XVSdei1hI pic.twitter.com/yB79OldNFg — AOL.com (@AOL) March 17, 2015

The page had a total of 144 active members including current fraternity members and some alums. CNN reported,

The former frat member who tipped off police told authorities that a second Facebook page called ‘2.0’ allegedly had been created around April 2014 following complaints from a woman whose photo was posted on it, the affidavit said. The earlier version of the page was titled ‘Covert Business Transactions.’

The frat has been suspended for one year by the Penn State Interfraternity Council, while university officials continue to investigate the incident. Even with its suspension, some are still unhappy with the way Penn State is dealing with the scandal.

According to CNN, David Clohessy, director of the St. Louis-based Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, or SNAP, said in a statement the latest allegations call into question the university’s handling of sex crime reports. Clohessy said,

For years now, Penn State enthusiasts have repeatedly reassured everyone who’d listen that the university’s problematic culture about sex crimes had been reformed. The latest allegations — that a fraternity members posted nude pictures of women on Facebook, some of whom appeared to be sleeping or passed out — raise serious doubts about those claims

…The Kappa Delta Rho is a wake up call. But the Sandusky case should have been a wake up call too.

These scandals have Greek Life members nationwide worried what will be next. Organizations have even begun investigating their own chapters just to be safe. It is unfortunate to see the reputations of these organizations being tarnished by the actions of a few, especially when they were created to be pillars of leadership and philanthropy within the community. Instead fraternities are being referred to as offensive, discriminatory, and sexually abusive, or in other words, a PR consultant’s worst nightmare. Cleaning up this image won’t be easy, especially if more scandals continue to surface, but holding these boys responsible is a good first step.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Greek Fraternities’ Swift Fall From Grace: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

Sexual assault on college campuses has been one of the hottest topics for a couple years now. Many universities are being investigated by the Department of Education for Title IX violations. The recent Rolling Stone article about rape on the campus of the University of Virginia that was partially retracted and has landed the publication in hot water over concerns about its journalistic ethics has seriously reignited the discussion. There are a lot of moving parts to the debate about sexual assault on college campuses, and I think that one of the many, many reasons that the conversation gets so easily muddied is that we don’t all agree on definitions, or statistics.

While this is obviously an extreme example, watch this video of “Princeton Mom” Susan Patton who I’m still a little bit sure must be running the world’s longest satirical performance. She begins the video by talking about how rape is no longer just defined as a woman being held at gunpoint and assaulted, and then spends the next ten minutes pretty much going on about what a shame that is. She also thinks that rape is often women falsely accusing men after “regrettable sex.” Then she talks about how it’s women’s responsibility to protect themselves from rape by not drinking, making good decisions, and choosing better friends. It’s a charming exercise in a game I like to subject myself to called “Holy Shit, People Actually Think This Way.”

Now the Department of Justice (DOJ) has weighed in with statistics from a study it conducted, and it’s probably going to all get even more confusing.

The new DOJ report dealt with not just college students, but college-aged females more generally. The DOJ report included the statistic that six of every 1,000 college females are sexually assaulted, and now everyone who thinks like Patton is using it to prove that sexual assault on college campuses isn’t a thing we should be worried about, and that this talk of “rape-culture” is overblown.

First, what we need to do is remember that anytime this sort of study is undertaken–one that relies on people’s word, memories, and stories, rather than say, hard facts in a laboratory–is that it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

There have been other studies that indicate that the rate of college sexual assault is much higher than what the DOJ reports. A survey at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) concluded that 17 percent of female students and 5 percent of young men were sexually assaulted as students. Then there’s the Campus Sexual Assault Study from 2007 that gave us the now-infamous and oft-cited “one in five” statistic.

There are a few reasons why two studies can have such radically different numbers, and they’re excellently detailed here, by the Marshall Project. The main takeaway is this though: neither is necessarily right and neither is necessarily wrong. They asked different questions, they talked to different people, and at the end of the day, it’s really very much an inexact science. We’re not sure how many students are sexually assaulted; more studies to come might help us pinpoint that number, but probably not.

But we do know that at least some are. Furthermore, the same DOJ report stated that eighty percent of students sexually assaulted don’t report it. And 80 percent were assaulted by someone they know. Both of those statistics are deeply troubling.

No matter how many people are being assaulted on our college campuses–whether it’s one percent, twenty percent, or somewhere in between–it’s too many.

But that “less than one” percent is probably going to get thrown around for a while. Because, unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who, for whatever reason, don’t want to see change. They just got some ammunition, for now.

That’s why we need to keep having conversations about rape culture. Why we need to keep educating our young people, and for that matter, all our people, on consent. Why we need to stand up for rape victims when they’re accused of making up their stories. It doesn’t matter how many–any at all are too damn many.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DOJ Stats Show College Sexual Assault Remains Too Prevalent appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

You might have missed it with all the huge news events within the last week, but there was a Rolling Stone article published last week about a young woman who was the victim of a heinous crime. Seven (yes, SEVEN) young men at a fraternity party raped the woman over a three-hour period. The rape took place two years ago, but now that the story is out UVA President Teresa A. Sullivan has decided to shut down all fraternities until at least January 9, 2015. There will be an investigation conducted during the suspension.

I read the Rolling Stone article and the details are mind boggling. Not just of the before and after but of the rape itself. It was horrifying. After the victim, Jackie, was raped she was able to locate her “closest” friends and tell them about the incident, which resulted in a decision I do not understand. One friend wanted to take her to the hospital immediately while the other two were more concerned about her reputation at the school. I’m sorry but those two kids were NOT your friend, Jackie. When your friends are more concerned about your reputation than your wellbeing, you need to take a good hard look at those relationship. I realize Jackie was in a horrible state but the friend who said she needed to go to the hospital should have put her foot down and taken her. According to the report her dress was drenched in blood and she needed to see a doctor.

I understand that life on a college campus can sometimes be difficult but what is more difficult–having people talk about you for a few weeks because you were raped and reported it or walking around on campus knowing that at some point you will run into your rapists, knowing what they did to you and that they are just living their lives like nothing happened?

I respect the school’s decision to shut down the fraternities and investigate but all of the evidence that was needed to prosecute these scumbags is gone. All that is left is eye witness accounts that aren’t really that reliable, especially after so much time has gone by. I worry about students on any college campus who are more focused on their reputations than justice when a crime is committed.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post University of Virginia Suspends All Fraternities After Rape Allegations appeared first on Law Street.

The LSATs have rolled around again, and we here at Law Street want to wish the best to those who will be taking them next week. Over time, we’ve published a few different pieces on mastering the LSAT and doing as well as you possibly can. Now that LSAT time is upon us once again we figured that we would remind  you of some of those tips — call it a a good luck present.

There’s not a lot of time left, but here are some last minute things you can do to boost your score. For a full breakdown of your pre-LSAT preparation, make sure to check out: Countdown to LSAT: Last Minute Tips for the Home Stretch.  That being said, here are a few great tips that I think are worth repeating.

• There’s no need to psych yourself out. You have, presumably, been studying for the LSAT for a while. You’ve got this. Freaking out the day before and going over everything again probably isn’t going to help. You’re much better off taking a day to relax, recharge, and re-motivate.
• Get a good night’s sleep. I know that you’ll be nervous and tempted to stay up for a while just thinking, but make sure to take part in activities that actually will be relaxing. Keep the electronics out of your bedroom.
• Eat a good breakfast. If you’re not the breakfast type, I totally get it, I’m not either. But try your best to get something in your stomach. Our brains really are powered by food, and it’s important that you don’t get distracted by a grumbly stomach during the test. And make sure that you stick to your usual caffeine routine — if you’re a coffee drinker don’t deprive yourself, but if you don’t normally indulge, make sure not to get all hyper before the test.

Now, full disclosure, there is the possibility that something could go wrong test day. But here are some tips about what to do if you encounter any worst case scenarios:

• It could be loud at your test site. Make sure that you’ve done at least a little bit of practice in a loud environment, such as a coffee shop.
• Find ways to control your nerves. Whether that’s through meditation or the simple, tried-and-true method of deep breaths it can really pay off.
• Prepare to run out of time. If you start to run low on time while taking the test, make sure to be strategic about the way in which you answer questions. There are no penalties for guessing, so feel free to go with your gut!

The LSAT is scary, to be sure, but you all are going to do great! And if you need one last thing to de-stress, enjoy this video of St. Bernard who just really likes hugs.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The LSAT is Approaching: Be Ready! appeared first on Law Street.

Thousands of parents in California have recently done their children a great disservice by signing a petition to remove a sex ed book from the classroom called “Your Health Today.”

The book, which was slated to be used in 9th grade sex ed classes in Fremont, California this fall, takes a refreshingly new approach to sex ed by actually discussing things most 9th graders are questioning. It actually manages to go beyond clinical discussions of eggs, sperm, and vague references to how one reaches the other.

The petitioners claims that the book “exposes youth to sexual games, sexual fantasies, sexual bondage with handcuffs, ropes, and blindfolds, sexual toys and vibrator devices, and additional instruction that is extremely inappropriate.” With a description like that, you would think that the school district accidentally purchased a Cards Against Humanity deck rather than a textbook.

No one denies these topics are mentioned, but as pointed out by Slate, the book only provides definitions (students looking for anything more will need to sneak in to 50 Shades of Grey when it premieres next year. Or just use Google.) And on closer inspection, “Your Health Today” is actually a really informative book that provides information every sex ed class should: how to put on a condom, anatomically correct drawings of reproductive organs, and a myriad of topics affecting today’s youth that range from online dating to the idea of “hooking up” with someone.

But parents are seemingly up in arms over their teenagers being “exposed” to this information, as if talking about sex toys could do the same kind of damage as, say, a complete lack of information about preventing HIV. The parents are protesting even though school officials in Fremont say their own internal surveys show many students are sexually active.

I can’t say I’m surprised parents have had this reaction. As a culture, we regard sex as shameful and wrong, which has led to a lot of misinformation about sex and the topics surrounding it. Time after time we have heard about students who are uninformed about birth control, the importance of consent, and STIs. Sweeping sex under the rug and only talking about it in the most clinical of senses does not do anything to change that.

If we want children to develop healthy attitudes towards sex–ones that revolve around respect, emotional preparedness, and a working knowledge of the good and bad parts of being sexually active–we need to actually talk about it with teenagers. We need books that teach kids about their birth control options, that their sexual preferences aren’t wrong or unnatural, and that a lot of responsibility comes with being sexually active.

But we need parents to be on board, too. Mercury News reported one parent griping that: “there’s a section that tells you how to talk to your prospective partners about your sexual history […] How does that relate to a 14-year-old kid? I don’t see it at all.”

And therein lies the problem–that parent clearly doesn’t understand that this kind information could be invaluable for their child in just a few years. So I’m leaving it up to the rest of the parents in Fremont–the ones who are okay with their children learning about the great, bad, and everything in-between parts of sex–to tell the school board the support this book, and they support sex ed. We can’t get by with just teaching out kids “how sex works.” I promise, they already know that much. Let the school district teach an effective, comprehensive sex education class so your kids are as prepared as they can be. The more information they have, the better off they are.

[Petition] [Salon] [Mercury News]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hey Parents: Comprehensive Sex Education is Worth It appeared first on Law Street.

It’s official — there’s less than a week until the LSAT! By now you should all be feeling pretty well prepared — after all, you’ve gotten the chance to check out tips to master the Logic Games, Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension, and Essay sections. We also filled you in on what to do if everything goes terribly wrong the day of the LSAT. But as your prep probably winds down, here are some last minute tips to make sure that you reach your full LSAT potential.

The day before the LSAT, you should try to relax.

A lot of times, especially as an undergrad, it’s tempting to cram for a test until the very last moment. But for the LSAT, that’s not the best idea. This test is less about information, and more about testing skills you have learned, so you might want to give yourself the day before the LSAT off. At the very least, don’t spend all day studying. Instead do an activity that relaxes you, whether that is reading, having a quiet lunch with friends, or some sort of physical activity. Just make sure that whatever you do is actually relaxing and won’t affect you on test day — for example, consuming any sort of alcohol is probably a pretty bad idea.

The day before the LSAT you should also get motivated. 

In addition to getting relaxed, it might also be nice to remind yourself of why you’re going through the craziness that is LSAT prep. Do whatever motivates you. Some LSAT experts recommend going through the website and looking at pictures of your ideal law school. It’s easy to forget that there is a light at the end of the tunnel, and that light is going to the school you want and having the career in law that you’ve been striving toward. Or motivate yourself with something else — maybe a great speech, or a letter from a loved one. Just make sure that you do something to remind yourself why you’ve been putting in this great, crazy-hard work over the past few months.

The day of the LSAT warm up your brain. 

You don’t want the first thing you do that day to be to take the LSAT test. Instead, try to warm up your brain a little bit by doing an easy puzzle or something similar. Sudoku is great because it requires similar logic skills to ones used on the LSAT. You obviously don’t want to exhaust yourself with anything difficult, but if you can get back in the routine of thinking in a logical way before you actually get there, that’ll make sure that you’re prepared when you actually sit down to take the LSAT.

The day of the LSAT have a good breakfast, but still follow your routine. 

It’s really hard to eat breakfast, especially if you’re nervous about something. But there’s really a lot of value in making sure that you’re well-fed before you go take the LSAT. It’ll wake up your brain, of course. But more importantly, it will keep your stomach from making weird rumbly noises during the test, and it’ll keep you from being distracted by your hunger during the LSAT.

That being said, don’t deviate from your normal routine too much. If you’re not a coffee drinker, don’t decide to drink coffee just to get some extra caffeine before the test in the hope that it’ll make you work faster. If you are a coffee drinker, don’t deprive yourself of your morning cup of joe. Just do what you’re comfortable with, and add in a little extra protein if possible.

On the day of the test, be early. 

No matter how you prepare to take the LSAT, make sure that you do everything that day a little earlier than you normally do. Get up earlier, leave your house earlier, everything. Don’t be too early, obviously, you don’t want to be at the testing site before it opens. Just make sure that you leave tons of time to get where you need to be. That way you don’t have to rush and feel stressed right before the test.

Good luck everyone — it’s been a long countdown to the June LSAT, but I know you’ll all do a great job! We here at Law Street are pulling for you!

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jayneandd via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Countdown to LSAT: Last Minute Tips for the Home Stretch appeared first on Law Street.

June is quickly approaching and you know what that means — the LSAT is too. Now that you’ve learned all about the Logic Games, Logical Reasoning, and Reading Comprehension sections and how to deal if everything goes wrong on test day, let’s talk about another section of the LSAT — the essay.

You will have 35 minutes to write a persuasive essay based on a prompt, which will include a scenario and the choices of two options. The prompt will also contain two requirements that need to kept in mind when arguing your choice. There’s no prior knowledge needed — all you need to do is pick an argument, defend it, and then criticize the other side’s argument. The essay is just intended to test your ability to reason, argue, and persuade.

With that in mind, here are some important things to remember about the essay section:

It’s not scored: The essay section does not contribute in any way to your LSAT score, which is quite frankly rather frustrating given that you, of course, want to focus your attention on the parts that are scored. Instead of being scored, the essay will be photocopied and sent to any law schools to which you submit scores. Some admissions departments use them and some don’t. But just remember, because it isn’t scored, it’s nothing to stress about too much.

Remember, you already know how to write: If you’re at the point where you’re taking the LSAT, you have most likely completed (at least) a few years of college. You know how to write and make a convincing argument, otherwise you wouldn’t have made it this far. Rely on the skills that you already know and have cultivated for years.

It’s worth it to put in some effort: Even though the section isn’t scored, it is sent to law schools, which means you don’t want to do anything to hurt your chances. A wonderful essay most likely won’t make up for faults in other areas of your application, like a low LSAT score or GPA, or an inadequate personal statement. But a bad essay could convince a school not to admit you. If you really don’t try very hard, or just leave it blank, you’re showing the law school admissions officers that you weren’t putting effort into the essay just because it’s not scored.

Pick a strategy and stick to it: Because the essay section isn’t scored, it’s harder to figure out what goes over well. That problem is compounded by the fact that essays are subjective by nature. There’s no right or wrong answer. Some strategists think that essays that are flashy do better — Princeton Review recommends going for quantity over quality by filling up the entire area allotted for the essay, as well as using complex words and structures. Manhattan LSAT Blog, on the other hand, advocates simplicity, especially when forming your argument. Because it is that subjective, one of these strategies isn’t necessarily superior to the other — just make sure that whichever one you choose you’re consistent with it.

Plan it out ahead of time: The questions tend to require logic or analysis-based arguments, rather than moral or preference arguments, which means that you just want to focus on arguing what you think will be easier to support. Given that you only have 35 minutes to write a two-page essay, you’re probably going to better off planning it out ahead of time. Make some sort of chart or pro-con list just to make sure that once you start writing you can include everything you think is important.

And finally, make sure to proofread: Obviously, when you’re writing quickly and you’re in the middle of the LSAT, it can be easy to make silly grammatical or spelling mistakes. But make sure to go over your essay at least once to make sure it’s clear and not riddled with errors. In law school and as a lawyer, you’ll obviously have access to spellcheck, but it is important to show that you’re able to be detail oriented and organized when you need to be.

Overall though, the essay should be pretty easy for all of you taking the June LSAT. Just remember, it’s not worth anything in terms of points, so just relax and do your best.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jeffrey James Pacres via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Countdown to LSAT: The Essay appeared first on Law Street.

It’s easy to worry about everything going totally wrong when you take the LSAT. Take a break from studying (and from checking out our rundowns on Logic Games, Logical Reasoning, and Reading Comprehension) and check out this list of things that could go wrong and exactly how to fix them.

[wooslider slide_page=”countdown-to-lsat-worst-case-scenarios-how-to-fix-them” slider_type=”slides” thumbnails=”default” order=”ASC” order_by=”menu_order”]

Happy studying, and don’t worry, if anything goes wrong, remember this list. Because we here at Law Street totally have your back!

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Firesam! via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Countdown to LSAT: Worst Case Scenarios & How to Fix Them appeared first on Law Street.

LSAT prep marches on, and so does our quest to continue churning out tips and tricks until the big day. We’ve already covered Logic Games and Logical Reasoning, so this week we’ll look at Reading Comprehension.

The Reading Comprehension section tests your ability to glean important information from dense text. Often as a law student or lawyer you’ll be faced with a lot of dense material that requires analysis. Reading Comprehension will measure how quickly and efficiently you can read such material, and how much you can retain from the reading.

The Reading Comprehension questions contain a short reading — usually a few paragraphs – and then a few multiple choice questions. Each question has five possible answers.

I’ll be honest with you — the Reading Comprehension section is one of the hardest to improve; however, with some practice and hard work, it’s totally doable.

Get used to dense material: Most of the reading we do as undergraduates or for just fun is not nearly as dense as what you’ll be facing in law school. If you have time, try to get used to reading that kind of material. Good examples of the quality of articles you’ll find on the LSAT are those in The Economist. Most articles in the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times aren’t too far off either. Spending time reading just a few articles a day will help you learn to process tough material, and prepare you for doing so quickly when you actually take the LSAT.

Focus on your weakness: If after taking some practice tests you’re not scoring as highly as you’d like on the Reading Comprehension section, make sure to figure out where exactly you’re losing points. There are really three main ways to have problems on this portion of the test. Either you’re running out of time, getting the wrong answers, or a combination of both.

Figure out where you’re struggling, and then work based on that. If you’re having timing problems, you might just want to drill yourself constantly, but maybe you don’t need to focus on learning word patterns that make finding answers easier. On the other hand, if you’re having problems with comprehension but not timing, concentrate on learning tricks to more effectively analyze the readings.

Look for clues: As with other sections of the LSAT, you might be able to improve your score by learning some patterns inherent in the section. Lists (first, next, third) are often pretty easy to find, and the subsequent questions usually involve something included in that list.

Here are a few good lists that include phrases to watch out for: one from LSAT Blog, and one from LawSchooli.

Avoid red herrings: As with Logical Reasoning, sometimes it’s easier to eliminate answers first, then look for the correct selection. Make sure to look out for wrong answers that are tricky — sometimes a wrong answer will contain information from the paragraph that’s only slightly tweaked, or irrelevant information that seems useful but isn’t the main point of the paragraph. Don’t be scared to eliminate answers first — then you’ll have less to focus on when you actually need to select the correct one.

Be strategic in note taking: It’s not actually a very good idea to take extensive notes when you’re doing the Reading Comprehension section because it’ll take up way too much time. However, very strategic markings can be helpful — on the first read through it could be good to mark what you think is the main point of the passage with one symbol and a counter argument with a different symbol. Keep your markings consistent and then you won’t have to go back and search for information that you thought was important when you’re answering the questions.

As always, practice, practice, practice, check out our articles for more tips on LSAT prep, and continue your hard work. The June LSAT is coming up, and I’m sure you’ll all do great.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jayel Aheram via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Countdown to LSAT: Reading Comprehension appeared first on Law Street.

As the clock ticks down to June 9 — LSAT test day for the next crop of prospective law students — your stress level is probably increasing exponentially. I get it. Well, OK, I don’t totally get it. I went to graduate school and took the GRE, which is admittedly NOT the same. But I can certainly still feel your pain. We’re not just patting giving you a thumbs up and wishing you good luck as you march into the test room, though. We’ve got five actionable tips for you to incorporate in your preparation from our resident LSAT guru, Nick, who (lucky for you) has actually walked the walk.

If you’ve already been through the LSAT and have must-read tips to live by for your fellow budding lawyers, tweet us @LawStreetMedia with #LSATPrep. Let us hear ’em!

1. No prep book is as good as a prep test: Prep books can be good to know the basics, but often they don’t use actual past LSAT questions, and there just is no substitute for practicing on real LSAT questions. The LSAC sells previous LSATs by the bundle. There are now more than 70 previous LSATs to work through. Save the latest tests for last.
2. Start slow and build: Don’t worry about timing at first. I repeat: don’t worry about timing. It’s far more important to understand the fundamentals of logic first. And by ‘understand,’ I don’t mean that you generally know how conditional works. I mean: you can contrapositives, negations, and spot necessary and sufficient conditions practically in your sleep. Speed comes from not having to think too hard about the easy questions. That will free up time to tackle the harder questions.
3. Drill, drill, drill: Even though it seems tedious, and it is tedious, the more you practice, say, using the contrapositive, the easier it will be when you’re actually working through a game. Again, the goal is not to have to think about basic operations.
4. Set a schedule and stick to it: We don’t all have eight hours a day to spend studying for the LSAT. But if you want to improve your score, you need to set aside time to work, preferably at least an hour a day. Students, even very bright students, tend to forget the basics if they study sporadically. You can generally also squeeze a bit of studying into other parts of the day. For instance, consider doing a few LR questions on the subway during your commute to work.
5.  Hang in there: Studying for the LSAT is a long, hard slog for basically everyone. Your score will likely go through some ups, some downs, and some plateaus. So don’t get discouraged. To my mind, the most important skill on the LSAT is the one that they can’t teach in prep books: persistence.

—

Chelsey Goff (@cddg) is Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University in DC. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at cgoff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Dvortygirl via Flickr]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Five Things You Need to Know Before You Take the LSAT Next Month appeared first on Law Street.

It’s week two in our quest here at Law Street to help you with the LSAT. This week, let’s focus on the Logical Reasoning section. Our resident LSAT tutor Nick thinks that it’s a good follow up to last week’s post on Logic Games since they deal with some of the same skills and ways of thinking.

The Logical Reasoning section tests your ability to think critically and form an argument — a basic skill that anyone who would like to be a lawyer needs to master. Although the questions you’ll see in this section aren’t necessarily legal, they mirror the kind of logic and critical thinking that lawyers implement in real life everyday.

The format is pretty simple: you read a brief passage, and then you answer a question or two about it, selecting from five answers.

So how do you master the Logical Reasoning section? Well here are some tips to help you study, and to get a great score on test day.

Be detail oriented: The Logical Reasoning section is all about detail. After all, it’s used to test your recognition and analysis of a certain, very specific argument. Therefore some of the possible answers that they’ll give you will be sort of like red herrings. They may make sense, and they may even be true statements, but they will not be what the question is asking you. Make sure to read the prompt carefully so you know exactly the scope of the question, and don’t get tripped up by answers that are true but are not what is being asked.

It’s also important to look out for certain buzz words. If you’re searching for the conclusion in a prompt, chances are it can be found after a word like ‘thus’ or ‘therefore.’ More evidence would usually be located after words like ‘because’ or ‘since.’ For more buzzwords, pay attention to what ‘except,’ ‘all,’ ‘many,’ and other quantifying words indicate.

Some of this does seem intuitive, I know — obviously anyone taking the LSAT knows what words like ‘therefore’ and ‘many’ mean. But when you’re trying to move through the test as quickly and accurately as possible, it’s important to look for those words that will help you locate what information you need efficiently.

Consider working from right to wrong: Some people find it more helpful to start with eliminating wrong answers. If you keep the parameters in mind, as I mentioned above, you can quickly cross out the irrelevant answers and ones that don’t fit within the scope. Narrowing down the question to two possible answers, and then picking out the best choice from there is always going to be easier than picking the best answer from five.

Know the format: The questions are usually arranged in a particular way. The first 12 questions tend to have a higher concentration of easier problems. As you move on, approximately numbers 14-20 will contain the most challenging questions. The last grouping of questions are more of a mixed bag.

So you should prioritize: All questions are weighted equally. You don’t get more points for the questions that are considered more challenging. So make sure that you get as many done as possible — and if you skip one that’s stumping you i order to answer two easier questions, that will benefit you. Prioritize getting as many done correctly as possible.

But do answer everything: At the end of the day, if you have no idea, guess. You don’t lose any points for getting one wrong, and there’s a 1/5 chance that you’re right. If you’re stumped between a few answers, the chances that you’re correct is even higher. Just make sure that you don’t leave anything unanswered as you would obviously have no chance of grabbing any extra points.

As always, keep practicing, keep studying, and use these tips to help you get that score you want come test day. Happy studying and check back next week when I break down the Reading Comprehension section.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Brian Hillegas via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Countdown to LSAT: Logical Reasoning appeared first on Law Street.

Are you in the final stretch leading to the June LSAT? Well first of all — we feel your pain. But more importantly, we can help. Over the next five weeks leading up to the test, we’re going to give you the last-minute tips you need to complete your study plan. For week number five our resident LSAT expert/tutor Nick recommends starting with the Logic Games Section (formally known as Analytic Reasoning).

Here are your basic parameters:

The Logic Games will contain four questions/games, each with a few different parts. There are three main types of logic games — ordering, assignment, grouping — although they’re pretty broad categories. A logic game begins with a story, then offers clues and conditions, and then poses questions.

That sounds intimidating, I know, but one of the great things about the Logic Games section is that it’s totally learnable. Practicing the different types of games can absolutely make a great score on this section attainable — it just takes a lot of work.

So here are some easy-to-follow tips to help you get a great score on the Logic Games section of the test:

Start with the basics: Some people are going to just naturally have an easier time with the logic games, and some people aren’t. There’s no need to freak out if you’re one of the latter, but it is important to identify your strengths and weaknesses.

A good way to start preparing for the Logic Games is to learn the basics. Even though you probably won’t have anything quite as simple on the test, these skills will be the building blocks for the real problems. In order to learn these basics, LawSchooli recommends The Logic Games Bible. Instead of going through it linearly though, they lay out a really great strategy to get those building block skills for basic Logic Games, then moving on to more difficult games. They also recommend studying by type, and making sure you master one type before moving onto the next.

Be consistent: One important thing to do with the Logic Games is to draw a diagram. Make sure that you’re consistent with your diagrams, even if that means creating one that makes more sense to you than prep books or classes recommend, like this 180-scorer did. Just make sure you find what works for you.

Practice your concentration and timing: This applies to studying for pretty much all of the LSAT, but the Logic Games are the area where people are most likely to run out of time. The best ways that you can do this is to take practice tests and try to slowly shave off your time. The more problems you get exposed to, the more quickly you’ll be able to accurately move through them.

Be Prepared to be Flexible: There are hybrid games on the LSAT Logic Games section, and some of these have been known to throw people off. For example, in 2009 there was a logic game that is now referred to as “the dinosaur” game. It was a hybrid and a lot of people walked out of the test upset by it. As basic as it sounds, the best way to prepare for possible hybrid games is to expose yourself to as many as possible. Here are some examples of hybrid games from ManhattanLSAT Blog, LSATBlog, and Kaplan.

These are just a good starting point for mastering the LSAT Logic Games section, obviously it’ll take a lot of practice and hard work — but this close to the test you’ve already put in a god chunk of time…right? Follow these tips, work hard, and you’ll be a Logic Games master in no time!

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Ofbarea via WikiMedia Commons]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Countdown to LSAT: Logic Games Section appeared first on Law Street.

What do income tax, credit card fees, salaries, and cars have in common?

They’re all negotiable, of course.

As a quick Google search will show you, there are lists on top of lists of things that can and should be negotiated – because who doesn’t like to haggle? Whether it’s furniture, jewelry, bulk purchases,  phone, TV, or Internet service, it’s clear that a “nothing is set in stone” mindset is applicable to, well, pretty much anything.

And anything, believe it or not, includes law school scholarships. While it’s no secret that law school is expensive, the fact that scholarships are negotiable doesn’t seem to be on most people’s radar.

Tuition may have been set in stone in years past, but over the last five years, law schools have become more open to haggling over money. That’s not to say students have never tried to negotiate price tags with law schools. Rather, it seems law schools are simply listening to student pleas now more than ever. Why you might ask? After the recession of 2009-2010, law school application rates have fallen, as many would-be law students have decided to opt out of a legal education due to hiring cutbacks.

Many law schools have resorted to new methods in an attempt to attract students and fill seats. Negotiating scholarships, along with tuition adjustments and accepting applications long after the official deadline, is one such tactic.

So, you were accepted into law school and received scholarship money. Congrats. But what’s next?

Scholarship negotiation is relatively simple. While it may be annoying to draft and send out all the emails, the juice is worth the squeeze, as they say. It’s best to wait until you’ve heard back from all the schools you’ve applied to – or at least all the ones you’re seriously considering – before starting the process. Once you’ve secured at least one scholarship, make a list of other schools you’ve been admitted to that are comparable in ranking and region. It’s important to be realistic – leveraging a top-tier school with a scholarship offer from a bottom-tier school probably won’t work. If the schools are in the same league though, you have a much better chance of success.

Now that you have your list of schools you’d like to haggle with, start drafting emails. Don’t rule out schools that haven’t offered you any money. This process can be effective in increasing scholarship offers as well as generating them. Although it’s not essential, it helps to make a phone call to the admissions office before sending out any emails. That way, the office will be at least familiar with who you are and your situation. Typically, the admissions staffer you speak to will not only tell you who to email, but will also provide some guidance regarding what exactly to say.

Once your foot is in the door with the admissions office, send out your emails. There are some good  templates and sample letters available, but the general idea is to be confident and assertive, all while remaining professional and polite. While LawSchoolAdvice will provide you with some very detailed instructions, here are the fundamentals of a solid negotiation email:

Dear Admissions Office (emailing a specific person is preferable),

Tell them you are an admitted student and give some basic information about yourself (Name, year in school, college you currently attend…). Say how thrilled you are to have been accepted and that this school is your first choice, even if that’s not entirely true. Tell them why you are writing – either to be considered for a scholarship or to have an existing scholarship offer increased.

List other scholarship offers you’ve received, if any. Also list the names of comparable schools you’ve been admitted to, even if no money has come your way yet. Some schools will ask that you send them your other scholarship offers as email attachments.

Write a little blurb about why this school is the right fit for you – whether it’s location, prestige, or job opportunities. Be careful here, you don’t want too much fluff – make your point and move on. Finish this section by giving the admissions committee a candid look at your decision making process. With law school as expensive as it is, you cannot simply ignore other offers from peer schools – even if this particular school is your top choice. 

Conclude by making it clear that finances are the only factor preventing you from accepting their offer of admission. Ultimately, you need to choose a school that makes sense not only personally but financially as well. 

Thank the admissions committee for their time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Prospective Law Student

You should hear back in a week or so from someone at the admissions office. Most likely they won’t offer you money right away – they’ll probably tell you that your application is being considered and that the review process is underway. Sure, some schools will flat out shut you down, but most will, at the very least, make a note on your application – and that can be the difference between being passed over and being awarded money.

Once you’ve sent your initial email and started a dialogue with the admissions office, sit back and wait. If you receive any subsequent scholarship offers, it’s worth it to let schools know. If it’s getting close to the day your deposit is due, send one last email – regardless of whether or not you’ve heard back – inquiring if what you’ve been awarded is the school’s final offer.

In the end, there’s no guarantee that negotiating scholarships will work for you, even if it has worked for other students in the past. But given the relative ease of the negotiating process, there’s really no downside to trying. After all, who wouldn’t want free money?

—

Matt DiCenso  (@mdicenso24)

Featured image courtesy of [2bgr8 via Wikimedia]

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Art of Negotiating Law School Scholarships appeared first on Law Street.

In a couple of months thousands of college students and recent graduates around the country will take the June LSAT test. Which means that right now, those thousands are trying to figure out how to prepare for the test. But if you’re one of them, have no fear, because we here at Law Street have your back!

You got this.

Without further ado, here’s a list of the top dos and don’ts when preparing for the LSATs.

Do: Take a class or get some tutoring

There are so many ways to improve your LSAT score, and classes aggregate them for you and then present those tips, tricks, and skills in a scheduled format. The problem, I know, is that these classes and tutors are super expensive. But remember how I said Law Street is totally here to help? Well, we’re giving away 3-hour sessions with an awesome, super-qualified LSAT tutor named Nick. The only thing you need to do to enter is like us on Facebook and like the contest post on our page, here. One-on-one tutoring is an awesome resource for something like the LSAT because it allows you to get targeted help exactly where you need it the most.

Do: Make a schedule and stick to it

It’s going to suck, I know. But the best possible way to do well on the LSAT is to work your ass off. Treat it like a part-time job. It will be time-consuming and insane, but it’ll pay off. Take practice tests, learn new strategies, the whole shebang. And make sure that your schedule is focused on you. Here are some examples, but make sure to tweak them so that they help you work on your weak spots.

Do: Learn how to relax

Studying for the LSAT can be completely overwhelming, and it’s possible to get lost in that stress and repetition. So you need to make sure that you still take care of yourself. Find something that helps you unwind – and make it a healthy habit. For example, our Resident Legal Post-Grad, Peter Davidson, loves to use yoga for stress relief. Although, most of us aren’t quite as talented as he is:

Casually editing my article.

You can find what works for you. I highly recommend random dance parties.

Don’t: Always practice in a quiet area

In a perfect, beautiful, ideal world, you would be able to take the LSAT in total peace and quiet. In the real world, however, you are going to take the LSAT in an unfamiliar environment, with a bunch of people you don’t know, and you have no idea what that’s going to be like. I’ve heard plenty of horror stories about people being able to hear sirens from outside, or a meeting happening a few rooms over. Now, this isn’t said to scare you, but realism is important. Take a few practice tests in a coffee shop or other loudish place to make sure that if the worst does happen, you’re prepared. Also make sure to check out this wiki — it contains reviews for LSAT testing sites. While it’s not all-inclusive, it may help you narrow down what environment would be the best for you to take the test in.

Do: Read Outside Articles

Seek out sources that will have articles that are similar to what you might see on the test. Here’s a great example of an article about attractiveness in the workplace from The Economist. Reading articles outside of your test prep book is great because it allows you to read something relevant and interesting while still getting some studying done.

Do: Get a Logic Book

Even though there are obviously specific books and classes for the logic reasoning section, there’s something to be said for getting yourself a background in the topic. This tip actually comes from Matt DiCenso here at Law Street, who just went through the whole law school admissions and choosing process. (After you ace the LSAT and get into a bunch of awesome law schools, make sure to check out Matt’s post on picking the right one for you.) He says that taking a logic class as an undergrad helped him prepare to wrap his mind around the logic problems and the strategies for completing them. If you have the chance, check out a free online class on logic, like this one, or pick up a book on the subject.

Do: Practice your timing

The various sections of the LSAT are, obviously, timed. So it’s important that you know how to watch that time and plan your test-taking accordingly. It’s also important to manage the anxiety that can happen for some people when they’re on the clock like that. If that’s something you’re worried about, check out this article from Manhattan LSAT blog on “time-shaving.” If you’re having a hard time getting your time down for a section, this article can help you plan out a way to take a few minutes off each week until you reach your goal time.

Don’t: Freak out about the writing section

The writing section, to be honest, really doesn’t matter at all. It’s not scored, and while it’s given to the schools, many don’t even really pay attention to it. Furthermore, while skimming over a list of possible questions can be helpful, you don’t know what it’s going to be. Usually the format is that someone has to make a decision between two different things, and your job is to write a persuasive essay in favor of one or the other. Honestly, if you’ve gotten far enough in school that you are taking the LSAT and considering law school, you should be used to writing anyway.

So now that you’ve got these tips down, head over to Facebook and enter yourself in our LSAT Prep giveaway. Remember, Law Street has your back!

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Dan Hancock via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The DOs and DON’Ts of Mastering the LSAT appeared first on Law Street.

Four days.

For most law schools, April 15^th is the assigned date for matriculating law students to fork over their first deposit. Still unsure of where I was going to end up, I hopped on a bus last weekend and visited each of the schools I was considering. For anyone who’s still on the fence about which law school is right, a visit, albeit last minute, is definitely worth the time, money, and hours of discomfort on a discount bus.

Why are law school visits worth the trip?

When I showed up at the admissions office of the first law school on my list, I was greeted by a friendly second year law student. She was overjoyed – over the past few months she had arrived to give tours and today was the first day any prospective students had actually shown up. Not a great sign, I thought. Barely able to contain her excitement, the perky tour guide led us out of the double doors and towards our first stop.

I should preface any advice I give with this: I’ve never been a big fan of tours in general, whether it’s law school or college. While I do think they have their value, I’m probably not going to pick a school based on the look of their classrooms or administrative offices. That being said, here are 7 tips for when you’re strolling through the halls of what could be your future alma mater.

1. Don’t expect to be blown away by a law school’s facilities or campus. That’s not to say law schools are decrepit – most are very nice. But don’t go in with the expectation of a beautiful sprawling campus with a quad and a football field. Compared to the majority of college campuses, law schools are tiny. More often than not, the entire school will be made up of about 4-5 buildings. If you’re like me and aren’t very fond of tours, fear not. Due to the small size of both the schools themselves and the actual tour groups, tours usually don’t last more than a half hour. Most likely, you’re not going to step foot on a law school’s campus and get that “this is the place I need to be” feeling.

2. Plan your visit during an “Accepted Students Day.” Not so much for the speeches by faculty and staff, but for the opportunity to talk with current students. Also, during most ASDs, schools will offer admitted students the opportunity to sit in on a live class. While class sit-ins tend to be pretty standard across the board, this experience will at the very least give you a feel for a real law school class.

3. Go for a stroll. Approach some law students around campus – you’ll be able to recognize them by the 4-inch thick red and black books they’re buried in. Sure, it’s awkward. But talking to actual students outside of an official school function can give you a genuine sense of law school life. And although some will act like you don’t exist, most are at least willing to talk to you for a few minutes.

4. Make an appointment to speak to someone in the admissions office and financial aid office. Some schools consolidate these departments into one office, others don’t. If appointments aren’t available, at least stop in and introduce yourself. From my own personal experience, the people working in these offices are very friendly. They recognize that law school is an investment – a big one – and more often than not they’re willing to speak with you. When you do introduce yourself, be charming. After all, these are the people who have a say in the allocation of funds, whether it be merit money or financial aid. First impressions are always important, and a face-to-face conversation with someone can, at the very least, give a face – hopefully a smiling one – to your application.

5. If you received a scholarship to law school, congrats – it’s not an easy thing to do. Be proud of your scholarship, but don’t simply accept a school’s initial offer. You probably just raised your eyebrows, and that’s understandable. When I first learned about negotiating scholarships, I was apprehensive too. But after sending out some emails, I’m convinced that it really does work. If a school has awarded you a scholarship, it’s clear they’re under the impression that you’d be a valuable addition to their institution. And they’re right – believing that you’re in demand is the first step. The second step is grabbing your laptop and launching your email.

6. Next, ask for more money – respectfully, of course. If you’re unsure of how to do this, do a quick Google search. You’ll find information, and even some sample letters, that can guide you through the process. If you’ve received scholarships from other schools besides the one you’re writing to, mention that. Law schools take offers from other schools, especially peer schools, very seriously. After all, if you choose School A over School B, School B is losing out on some serious cash. It’s best, if possible, to send out these emails before you visit schools in person. That way, the admissions office will already be familiar with your situation. Additionally, following up an email with an in-person visit shows the school you’re serious about attending. In the end, my best advice would be to leave your pride at the door when dealing with admissions or financial aid. Don’t be afraid to grovel. I’m not saying you have to get down on your knees and beg for more money, but I’ve learned firsthand that being politely persistent can go a long way.

7. Book a hotel room near the law school you’re visiting. If you’re like me and are doing visits last minute, this might not be possible. But if the option is there, stay in a hotel and experience the nightlife of the surrounding town or city, wherever it may be. After all, everyone needs a break from the library at some point.

—

Matt DiCenso (@mdicenso24)

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 7 Tips for a Successful Law School Visit appeared first on Law Street.

For anyone going to law school in the fall, that April 15 matriculation date is quickly approaching. As a senior in my last month of college, my workload is starting to thin. Instead of worrying about papers and exams, most of my time is spent trying to figure out where I want to study law for the next three years.

Before I even applied to law school back in January, one of the first things I did, like most people, was check the rankings. Earlier this month, U.S. News and World Report released their 2015 Best Law Schools rankings. At first glance, the new rankings maintain the status quo. The top 20 schools remain largely unchanged, with giants Yale, Harvard, and Stanford leading the pack. As you scroll down the list of prestigious schools, you’ll notice several ties. Columbia University and University of Chicago share the number four spot, while both UCLA and Vanderbilt occupy slot 16.

Anyone can view the schools’ rankings, tuition, and enrollment numbers; however, if you want to see any of the really useful data (LSAT scores; GPAs by percentile; acceptance and bar passage rates; percentage of students employed immediately and nine months after graduation; and peer and professional assessment scores) you’ll have to spring for the $30 annual membership.

Granted, these overall rankings certainly provide some valuable information. But you’d be crazy to base your decision solely on numbers. Here are five important factors, besides just rankings, to consider when choosing which law school is right for you.

1. Reputation both regionally and nationally

Rankings are only a piece of the puzzle, albeit a substantial one, when it comes to a school’s reputation. Another factor to consider is a school’s reputation on both a regional and national level. If you attend a law school in Boston, for example, odds are employers along the East Coast will  not only be familiar with your alma mater but more importantly will respect it. Conversely, a law degree from a Boston area school might not have the same clout in, say, California. While this isn’t as big a deal for those who plan to attend a top-20 law school, it’s definitely something to consider.

2. What type of law you want to practice

Talking to both peers and parents about where to go to law school, this is probably the most common question I have been asked. For someone like me, who’s not quite sure what type of law he’ll pursue, this question can be frustrating. Similar to when relatives ask you what you plan to do with your life after only one semester at college, this inquisition can leave you feeling lost, confused, and annoyed. While it’s impossible to know exactly how your career will unfold, it’s not unreasonable to have a game plan, or at least a tentative one. If you love the environment and want to change the way it’s treated, consider schools that boast strong environmental law programs. One reason not to rely solely on overall rankings is because they provide just what their name suggests – an overall rank. Take the time to do the research – a school may be ranked 80^th overall but might have the third best environmental law program in the country. For those of you, like me, with little to no idea where your law degree will take you, don’t fret. In your first year of law school there’s little room, if any, for electives. Your first year will focus more on the fundamentals – the meat and potatoes, as they say.

3. Where you want to practice

This is the second most common question I’ve been asked. While I may not know exactly what I want to do, I do have a general idea of where I see myself living and working. I mean this in both a geographical and organizational sense – both the location of where you want to work and the type of company or firm you want to work for. If you want to live and practice in New York City, go to school in the big apple. If you want to live and practice in New York and work in “Biglaw,” then a New York school is an even better fit. If you see yourself working for a smaller firm in a less competitive market, a top-tier school might not be the right place for you. To reiterate my first point, always consider reputation – both regionally and nationally.

4. Where you want to live for three years

Law school is tough, no one is denying that. During your three years as a law student, you’ll undoubtedly spend a large portion of your time in the library. But eventually you’ll leave the library and, hopefully, have some semblance of a social life. If nightlife is important to you, a school in Boston, Chicago, or New York might be a good fit. If you absolutely abhor the cold, a school in Florida or California may be the best match. I realize that yes, you are first and foremost a dedicated law student. But after an exam or a marathon library session, you’re going to need to blow off some steam. Whether your idea of a break is a bar or a beach, go to a school where you will be able to enjoy yourself outside of class.

5. How you’re going to pay for your education

Scanning tuition prices, paying for law school can seem daunting – and that’s because it is. Like your undergraduate education, law school is a big investment. But unlike colleges and universities, law schools are sometimes stingy with merit money or financial aid. Without a full ride, a sizable scholarship, or a hefty financial aid package, paying for a $45,000-a-year education can look pretty bleak. Many law students inevitably graduate up to the their necks in debt, but the hope is that you’ll have worked hard enough to secure a job with a salary that will make paying off loans bearable. In an ideal world, money shouldn’t deter students from attending their dream schools. In reality though, educational debt can’t be ignored. Most law schools have similar price tags, but here are some things to consider:

• Schools located in major cities will cost more, with regard to both tuition and living expenses.
• Keep in mind that many law schools offer an in-state tuition discount. Decide if the state school where you live is the best fit for you, and if it isn’t then figure out the eligibility requirements where you do want to go.
• If money is very tight, attending law school part time might be a better fit. The more flexible class schedule allows you to work while you’re in school.
• If you’re dead set on being a full-time student, be sure to apply for financial aid and scholarships – though most law schools automatically consider every applicant for merit money.
• Research different types of loans – many law schools offer low-interest loans through the university itself.
• In the end though, the best way to pay for law school is to build as strong an application as possible. A high GPA and LSAT score will not only get you into a good school, but will provide you with the best possible chance at receiving a scholarship.

—

Matt DiCenso (@mdicenso24)

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rankings Aren’t Enough: 5 Important Factors to Choose the Right Law School appeared first on Law Street.

Somehow, I only recently encountered Adam Liptak’s scornful treatise of American law reviews in the New York Times (and, I must confess, my Law Street Media colleague Peter Davidson’s indignant response to it). Frankly, I agree with the criticisms of many judges and attorneys and even some law professors: law reviews really do produce far too much intellectual masturbation with precious little useful application in legal practice. It is rather odd that law reviews, unlike journals in other professional fields, are compiled and edited by relatively untutored, inexperienced students rather than by seasoned practitioners. I would add that much of the content of the average law review is—like so much else in the legal field—unconscionably dull. I remember having an easy time deciding whether to try out for a journal or Moot Court as a 1L: all I had to do was peek inside back copies of my school’s various journals and see how long it took for them to put my lights out.

Yet I see all of those complaints as reasons for law students to think twice before trying to claw their way onto Law Review, not reasons for journals not to exist (or to be edited by students) at all. Ultimately, in my mind, those flaws take a backseat to different questions. I fear that law review membership does too little to prepare students for legal practice, and that law firms are too preoccupied with journal membership as an indicator of student applicants’ potential to be great lawyers.

What, after all, do students on law reviews do? Not having touched a journal with a ten-foot pole myself, I have only secondhand familiarity with this question; but I’m confident that research and interaction with schoolmates who were on journals have led me to the right answer. Typically, journal members edit and cite-check articles that the editors have decided to publish, ensuring that references actually provide proper support for authors’ claims and that footnotes are properly Bluebooked. They also write “notes” or “comments” of their own that may end up being published in the journal alongside law professor’s contributions. The journal editors generally review submitted articles and select them for publication and supervise the editing and note-writing processes.

Perhaps such endeavors would help make real lawyers out of law students if either the content of law review articles or the process of writing and editing them bore much resemblance to what most attorneys do on the job. Unfortunately, that resemblance is scant at best. The system gives professors no incentive to write articles — and gives student editors no incentive to publish pieces — that are consistently relevant to real-world legal practice or useful to real-world practitioners. For professors, law reviews serve primarily as expositions of academic mettle in the quest for adjunct and tenured professorships. For students, journals serve mainly as signaling mechanisms to law firms, padding their resumes with credentials that they know employers want to see.

Therein lies the problem. It makes no sense for law firms to put as high a premium on journal membership as they do, especially in these times, with competition so stiff and clients demanding so much more — and more experienced — bang for their bucks. Firms seem to view the challenging process of making law review as an effective way of separating the academic wheat from the chaff, and the research, writing and editing that journal members do as critical to their development into lawyers. Yet this view is largely mistaken, if only because it doesn’t apply to all journal members. 1Ls in the top five, ten or 15 percent of their classes who grade on to law review do so due to their skill at spotting and analyzing issues in turgid and fanciful exam fact patterns, not because they are skilled at doing the kind of research, writing or editing that academia and legal practice require.

More importantly, although law review editing definitely hones students’ proofreading, Bluebooking and cite-checking skills, in terms of formatting and content, it is a far cry from the kind of day-to-day work attorneys do. Editing treatises of groan-inducing intellectual abstractions — such as “the influence of Immanuel Kant on evidentiary approaches in 18th-century Bulgaria, or something,” as Chief Justice John Roberts once wittily put it — bears little or no resemblance to performing pretrial discovery, negotiating plea bargains, drawing up contracts or doing real estate closings. Perhaps law firms themselves deserve much of the blame for the unpreparedness of so many law school graduates for actual lawyering. What do they expect, when they so strongly incentivize students to participate in a painstaking and time-consuming extracurricular activity that does precious little to teach them how to practice law?

Law firms would be wise to look further and wider for extracurricular experience in their prospective law student hires. Any number of other activities available to law students would inculcate real lawyering skills in them far better than editing law reviews’ tedious treacle would. I’ve already written in this blog about how my Moot Court experience disabused me with the idea of practicing law, but those misgivings were due to my own skills, interests and idiosyncrasies. Anyone who decides, for the right reasons, to become an attorney — and particularly a litigator — should eagerly welcome the opportunity to learn the vagaries of brief-writing and oral argument. Certainly no law review teaches how to format and structure briefs for maximum persuasive effect, how to give straightforward answers to judges’ questions, or how to keep one’s cool when being bombarded with hostile questions from a “hot bench” (or, for that matter, how to fill up 15 minutes of allotted speaking time in front of a quiet, “cold” bench).

Nor does any law journal editor learn experientially how to negotiate deals and mediate disputes or how to exonerate wrongfully convicted prison inmates and secure their release. Yet a number of my classmates were able to do so, through bar association competitions and clinics like Cardozo Law School’s Innocence Project. These tournaments provide the opportunity to be judged by experienced lawyers and judges and to win accolades, and clinics like the Innocence Project involve providing support in real-life cases. Such advantages only makes these activities even more deserving of prioritization over the glorified grunt work one is relegated to doing on even the most prestigious law reviews.

The moral of the story is that many extracurricular activities can prove far more valuable to a law student’s training as an attorney than journal membership. Law firms and other employers ought to take note. In this jarring period of change and adjustment, it’s not only law schools that need to think outside of the box.

Featured image courtesy of [Nic McPhee via Flickr]

Akil Alleyne

Akil Alleyne, a native of Montreal, is a graduate of Princeton University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. His major areas of study are constitutional and international law, with focus on federalism, foreign policy, separation of powers and property rights. Akil is also a member of Young Voices Advocates, which connects students and young professionals with media outlets worldwide to facilitate youth participation in political and social discourse. Contact Akil at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Law Firms Take Note: Law Reviews Aren’t All They’re Cracked Up to Be appeared first on Law Street.

I spent much of this past holiday season mulling over a sob story about a JD who got screwed by the law school racket. Though the media landscape of the past several years is strewn with such wreckage, this particular tale of woe stood out for me. For one thing, the victim went to an unspecified top-20-ranked law school and yet is still struggling on a $45,000-a-year salary, living with his parents and staring almost $200,000 of debt in the face. For another thing, he met with this fate after spending two years working at “miserable small law firms” for one abusive, larcenous boss and for another who made him work for nothing for 3 months, for a paltry $1,000/month for the next 3 months, and for a measly $2,000/month for another 3 months after that.

Though this poor man ended the article on a self-blaming note — “At the end of the day, it’s my own fault for being a sucker” — the gist of the piece is that his dire straits are really his law school’s fault. The school fed him a slew of misleading, half-true statistics about his post-graduation employment prospects, never informed him about the demoralizing nature of much legal practice work or the non-transferability of legal skills in the job market, etc. The tireless law school detractor Elie Mystal at Above the Law agrees: “If we’re going to blame the guy for something, blame him for believing the hucksters who were selling him on legal education. It’s fine if you want to look down on the fool who buys the snake-oil thinking that it will cure cancer, just don’t forget that the real culprit here is the snake-oil salesman.”

As an underemployed 28-year-old who also wonders whether law school was the right choice for him, I sympathize with my compatriot’s quandary. Yet I must confess that I’ve never felt that kind of resentment toward my law school, and never felt as if anyone were to blame but myself for the challenges I’ve faced in the job market. More broadly speaking, I’ve never joined wholeheartedly in the chorus of condemnation being directed at the legal academy.

Admittedly, it may be because I haven’t yet suffered quite the same misfortune as the subject of the article. My status as an international student (I hail from Montreal, Canada) slammed the federal student loan door shut in my face when I applied. While this had the obviously detrimental effect of saddling me (oh, hell, who am I kidding — on my mother, really) with a vastly heavier up-front tuition burden, it also required me to rely on my school for its modest financial aid grants and loans. As a result, I’m facing maybe a third of the student loan debt that the average law school graduate has to shoulder.

Also, my extracurricular activities and my post-2L summer internship plugged me into a network of public-interest and public policy organizations and foundations inside the Washington, D.C. Beltway. Those connections have so far netted me two back-to-back legal internships with nonprofits in the nation’s capital that have kept me employed since I graduated last May. I obtained the first position through an internship-stipend program that paid me $10 an hour during the summer — $1,600 a month. Last fall, I did a stint at a prominent D.C. think tank that was able to pay me a stipend of $1,400 a month. Each sum was too stingy to enable me to do much more than scrape by, especially after taxes…but scrape by I’ve so far managed to do, and without having to work for any bosses from hell, either. In those respects, I’ve been luckier so far than the hapless JD from the Business Insider article.

Yet I have a broader reason for steering clear of the “damn law schools” bandwagon. It is the applicants’ responsibility to conduct thorough research into the academic programs to which they apply and the careers to which they grant access, the better to ensure that they’re investing their time, tuition/loan money and work in the right places. More specifically, I think applicants have always borne that responsibility, since even before it became fashionable for pundits to pillory law schools for their purported racketeering.

Consider, for instance, this Business Insider interviewee’s own story. He rightly advises prospective law school applicants to “work for a law firm for at least a year before going to law school and see if it’s something you want to do.” (Sound familiar? I sure hope so.) Yet he seems to have learned this lesson the hard way, since at the interview’s outset, he answered the question, “Why did you decide to go to law school?” with “Because I wanted to be a lawyer. I also wanted greater career opportunities than my BA offered me.” Left unmentioned is the issue of what made him want to be a lawyer, or why he thought that a JD might be a ticket to any careers beyond just practicing law. It’s a pity the interviewer didn’t ask about it, for the answer might have shed some light on whether he had any business going to law school in the first place, regardless of the current state of the legal job market.

He further mentions, “I believed the legal education industry’s sales pitch circa 2007-08 that lawyers will always be in demand and that bankruptcy will be a hot practice area when the economy is poor.” Insofar as this pitch was misinformed or even downright dishonest, I sympathize — but only so much. These claims were certainly plausible and believable, especially from the vantage point of that period, when the economic crisis was just taking off and the arguable folly of law school wasn’t yet obvious. Nonetheless, these were law school officials leading our man astray — not actual lawyers. While he can be forgiven for listening to this advice, given its supposedly reputable source, it’s fair to blame him for falling for it hook, line and sinker. He shouldn’t have believed the hype without consulting some practicing lawyers who could have set him straight. They would have been much less biased sources of advice; after all, as he himself puts it, “law grads do not have an economic interest in your attendance at law school. The law school always does.”

Could he have been expected to know any of this back in his younger, more callow days? I think so. Anytime a school that mires its students in debt to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars paints a glowing portrait of its program, without mentioning any caveats or sounding any cautionary tone, one should always take its cheerleading with a grain of salt. Is his naiveté nonetheless understandable? Certainly it is…but there is a more general principle here, one that applies to the analysis of whether one should apply to any academic program. The people running these programs have a vested interest in getting you in their doors; what they tell you isn’t necessarily to be trusted. You should never base your decision entirely on their word.

None of what I’ve said here should be taken to mean that law schools themselves don’t deserve a hefty share of the blame for so many of their graduates’ predicaments. It’s only right to criticize them for their lack of transparency, which can and does have destructive consequences. Yet that doesn’t absolve applicants of their own responsibility to do their homework before jumping in with both feet. That principle holds truer than ever these days, with law school enrollment plummeting and law school-bashing so popular. I salute all those who continue to warn young people of the perils of going to law school unprepared, or for the wrong reasons, or at all; they are performing a valuable service to the public. I just hope that the intended beneficiaries of these warnings continue to be smart enough to listen up — before it’s too late.

Featured image courtesy of [Michael Fleshman via Flickr]

Akil Alleyne

Akil Alleyne, a native of Montreal, is a graduate of Princeton University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. His major areas of study are constitutional and international law, with focus on federalism, foreign policy, separation of powers and property rights. Akil is also a member of Young Voices Advocates, which connects students and young professionals with media outlets worldwide to facilitate youth participation in political and social discourse. Contact Akil at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Are Law Schools to Blame for Graduates’ Struggles? appeared first on Law Street.

Shame on me. I only just stumbled upon the paper published in the Journal of Legal Education by University of Michigan law professor Sherman J. Clark last month, arguing that one of the perks of law school is that it helps each student “to thrive, to live a full and satisfying and meaningful life.” Through the Socratic method of lecturing, by training students to look at legal issues from the viewpoints of both parties in each case, by forcing them to confront the reality of uncertainty in both legal doctrines and empirical knowledge, and by teaching students certain ethics, law school helps students “explore the range of possible ways in which one might find meaning in or give meaning to life.”

I agree with Professor Sherman’s basic point, but I would have made the case for it rather differently. An otherwise well-written piece is riddled with highfalutin’, mealymouthed abstractions like, “Thinking well about what people care about and what things mean to them calls upon us to imagine more broadly what might matter and what it is possible for things to mean.” Upon closer inspection, these passages actually do seem to mean something, but they’ll probably strike the average prospective law school student as pretentious gobbledygook.

Nonetheless, I do find that my legal education comes in handy, and not only in, say, knowing my constitutional rights in case I get hassled by the police or knowing that oral contracts are legally binding, too. Mind you, I actually learned that last tidbit on TV when I was a child:

I think that doctrinal and practical legal knowledge proves useful in philosophical contexts, such as in discussions about what is the morally right thing to do in a particular situation. Certainly, the ability to navigate these often treacherous waters — the better to inform one’s ethical choices— is a skill that can help people to live life more meaningfully.

For example, among the basic doctrines that all first-year law students learn are the four elements of a negligence tort. In order to sue someone who’s harmed you through careless behavior, you, the plaintiff, have to prove that the defendant had a “duty of care” — i.e. that the defendant was legally required to take steps to avoid harming others. You also have to prove that the defendant breached that legal duty; that you suffered some form of harm that the law can correct; and that the defendant’s carelessness caused that harm. In later conversations and arguments with my fellow politics and philosophy geeks, the knowledge of those elements has served me in good stead. It’s a very philosophically sound way for the legal system to provide redress for people’s private grievances against each other.

Consider, for example, the duty of care requirement. It makes sense for the courts to require a plaintiff to establish that the defendant had such a responsibility before even proceeding with the lawsuit. Not every situation in life in which your behavior could affect others adversely should require you to spend resources guarding against such harm. Some situations in which people can get hurt are unforeseeable to everyone involved; sometimes it’s not within the alleged wrongdoer’s power to prevent them; sometimes the wrongdoer’s carelessness was only one factor that helped do the damage. The breach of duty criterion makes sense, too; if you’ve done everything the law requires you to do to avoiding hurting anyone, and someone gets hurt anyway, you arguably shouldn’t be liable. Similarly, if you’ve breached your duty of care, but there was miraculously no harm done, or if some harm occurred, but it isn’t clear that your carelessness actually made it happen, then the government shouldn’t force you to compensate the defendant.

The same can be said for the doctrine of “consideration,” which helps determine whether a contract will hold up in court. It basically means that courts can generally enforce agreements that involve some exchange of favors or benefits. Each party to the deal has to give up something of value to the other(s), be it money, products, services or what have you, or the court may not provide satisfaction in the event that one party doesn’t hold up his/her end. This general rule makes sense in light of nineteenth-century English philosopher John Stuart Mill’s “harm principle,” which essentially holds that the government should only restrict personal freedom when it’s necessary to prevent individuals from harming others. In the contractual context, if I make a deal with you that doesn’t require me to sacrifice anything to you in order for you to fulfill your obligations, you probably won’t make me any worse off if you break the agreement. In that case, the government has no business forcing you to pay me back.

These underpinnings of legal doctrines can be helpful in larger philosophical exchanges. In arguments over when government intervention can and cannot be justified, I often refer to certain aspects of tort law to bolster my position that Mill’s harm principle, as I understand it, is a better general rule than the more dogmatically libertarian non-aggression principle. Aggression, as I understand it, involves inflicting harm on others on purpose, whereas negligence entails mere carelessness rather than intentional harm. Yet people can do a world of damage to each other without going out of their way in order to do it. In my view, government has a role to play in trying to prevent negligent as well as deliberate harm.

It’s not only legal rules and doctrines that can serve useful purposes outside of a purely legal context. The nitty-gritty realities of legal practice offer their own useful insights to non-lawyers. My 1L Civil Procedure professor had the whole class read the novel A Civil Action, about a 1980s toxic tort lawsuit in Massachusetts gone tragically awry. One point that the novel drove home for me was the fact that personal-injury lawyers like the protagonist in the book are not charity workers. They’re profit-seeking businesspeople who earn their bread and butter by suing defendants with deep pockets, ones who can actually afford to cough up large sums of money in damages. This issue came up in a recent Facebook discussion, when I threw cold water on an intriguing proposal to abolish criminal law and leave the righting of interpersonal wrongs to civil courts. I pointed out that many heinous acts are perpetrated by low-income people whom ambulance chasers are not exactly in a hurry to sue. And anyway, what restitution could even willing lawyers hope to extract from poor defendants?

Of course, it’s no secret that legal knowledge and training can be helpful in any number of obvious public policy-related ways; Professor Sherman seems to have had a different set of advantages in mind. Nonetheless, although lawyers aren’t exactly known to the general public for being great philosophers, legal education does teach certain ways of thinking that should be appealing to anyone seeking to live a rational as well as a moral life.

Featured image courtesy of [Pedro Szekely via Flickr]

Akil Alleyne

Akil Alleyne, a native of Montreal, is a graduate of Princeton University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. His major areas of study are constitutional and international law, with focus on federalism, foreign policy, separation of powers and property rights. Akil is also a member of Young Voices Advocates, which connects students and young professionals with media outlets worldwide to facilitate youth participation in political and social discourse. Contact Akil at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Law School and the Unexamined Life appeared first on Law Street.

Remember the advice I always give younger friends and acquaintances of mine about whether they should go to law school or not? Well, one of those very same people recently announced on Facebook that he’s submitted his first two law school applications. In the comment thread, he went on to explain that he’s only applying to five or six schools in all, since he wants to stay in Colorado, where he currently lives and works. Needless to say, I was devastated at the news, not to mention ashamed of my own failure to dissuade my young, callow, impressionable friend from taking the broad and crooked path of legal practice.

I kid, I kid…as I mentioned in my earlier article, I never tell advice-seekers that law school is an absolute no-no, only that they should think long and hard and do a lot of research before taking that plunge. As demoralizing as the profession can be, the world does need some people to enter it (alas), and for all the talk about the wrong people going to law school, a great many students are right to go there. I suspect that my friend will fall into the latter category once he starts 1L — but why? How does one distinguish people who are cut out to be lawyers from those who have no business even taking the LSAT, let alone actually attending law school?

My friend, as it turns out, got a few very important ducks in a row before even applying to law school. For one thing, when we first became friends while participating in the same internship stipend program two summers ago, he actively sought out my advice on the law school question. If this approach sounds like a no-brainer for any freshly minted college graduate considering his academic and career options, it’s because it is — yet not every college grad takes it. While I got plenty of advice as a youngster about what I should do when I grew up, that counsel was all unsolicited. My friend was savvy enough to sound out people who’d been through the law school crucible before trying to enter it himself. Smart boy.

Second of all, he’s currently in the midst of a several-year-long gap between college and law school. Since graduating in the spring of 2012, my friend has worked for several organizations that do advocacy in the field in which he wants to build his career, namely drug policy. A staunch opponent of the so-called “War on Drugs,” he has interned or worked with The Colorado Marijuana Initiative of 2012 (where he helped stump for the legalization of marijuana in that state’s Amendment 64 ballot initiative) and the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation. He currently works at a law firm that represents legal marijuana dispensaries in the Centennial State. As a result, he’s getting priceless hands-on training working with lawyers and gaining at least some solid experiential idea of what to expect from the lawyer’s life. What’s more, he’s building an extensive list of contacts and potential future clients in the field of law in which he’d like to practice a few years hence, which is all but guaranteed to make him maximally employable once he graduates from law school. (Thanks to his work, he was also able to give me some very helpful advice on a marijuana policy-related research memo I had to write in my current position. Sweeeeeeeeeeet.)

Third, he’s already used his college experience to acquire expertise in fields outside of law or conceptually similar fields like political science. Having studied economics in university, he has a certain advantage over a great many lawyers — and even judges — that will serve him in good stead when he begins his desired career as an attorney representing legal marijuana businesses and otherwise advocating for drug decriminalization. His knowledge of economics will give him a perspective on legal issues that many (perhaps most) of his competitors in law school and legal practice will lack. I still remember reading a U.S. Supreme Court case — I forget the name — in my Federal Courts class a year ago in which then-Justice John Paul Stevens argued in dissent that anytime the government gives a business a tax exemption, its operations will be stimulated and society will end up with more of whatever it produces. I asked my professor whether that argument didn’t assume too much, such as that the market demand for the firm’s output was relatively price elastic (meaning that people will buy more of it when its price falls and less of it when the price rises). A good or service with relatively price-inelastic demand (they do exist, apparently) would not necessarily become more popular in the marketplace even after being subsidized. My professor — who was no economist but, like me, had taken an econ course or two over the years — smiled, nodded, and admitted that I might be on to something. Yet this possibility was lost on one of the most brilliant minds in the American legal field.

In all, my young Padawan learner seems to be doing it right: developing a broad practical and intellectual skill set, working immediately after college to discern what he wants to do with his life, working at a law firm to find out what lawyers really do and whether it’s right for him, and networking in the field of law in which he’d like to practice. There’s no better way to approach going to law school, believe you me.

—

Akil Alleyne, a native of Montreal, Canada, is a graduate of Princeton University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City. His major areas of study are constitutional and international law, with focus on federalism, foreign policy, separation of powers and property rights. In his spare time, Akil enjoys reading works of historical fiction and watching crime dramas.

Featured image courtesy of [TempusVolat via Flickr]

Akil Alleyne

Akil Alleyne, a native of Montreal, is a graduate of Princeton University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. His major areas of study are constitutional and international law, with focus on federalism, foreign policy, separation of powers and property rights. Akil is also a member of Young Voices Advocates, which connects students and young professionals with media outlets worldwide to facilitate youth participation in political and social discourse. Contact Akil at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Applying to Law School: This is How You Do It appeared first on Law Street.

Leave it to an actual lawyer to give decent advice to young people thinking of applying to law school. On the U.S. News & World Report website, Shawn P. O’Connor, a Harvard-trained attorney and the founder and CEO of a test-prep and admissions counseling company, has penned a bang-up article about how prospective law students should decide not just whether, but when to apply. When I stumbled upon this article through a link over at Above the Law, I almost cheered out loud when I read the four main questions that Mr. O’Connor says would-be applicants should ask themselves before taking the plunge: 1. Will time off between college and law school hurt my odds of getting in? 2. Am I ready for law school classes? 3. Should I take my parents’ advice? And, 4. When should I take the LSAT? Having gone through the whole brutal, three-year slog myself, I was especially gratified to see people in the know encouraging college kids to consider questions two and three in particular.

Of the four questions, the final one is of the least interest to me, but I’ll happily defer to Mr. O’Connor’s advice — that it’s a good idea to take the LSAT while still in college — which rings true enough. If you’ve followed my commentary here at Law Street Media at all so far, you already know my answers to the first and third questions. So let me turn my attention to the question that I found most important, and that I think has gotten nowhere near enough attention in the recent discourse about the wisdom of law school: the nature of law school classes. Think of my existing advice as the “Alleyne doctrine” — people should learn as much as they can about lawyers’ work before applying to law school — and of the following as the corollary: People should learn as much as possible about the law school curriculum before applying.

A recent article at Salon.com has put American law schools on blast for adopting a “hyper-capitalist” approach both to the law itself and to teaching it. I don’t buy the piece’s central thesis, if only because of my own law school experiences (but that’s a story for a later article). Author Benjamin Winterhalter did, however, have me nodding through most of an early paragraph that describes the Socratic method of lecturing as “a mode of instruction whose sole discernible purpose is to torture students through the elaborate belaboring of obvious points” and that bemoans “the end-of-semester exam, a three-hour rite of passage that is graded anonymously, covers an entire semester’s worth of material, and counts for 100% of one’s grade.” These are two critical aspects of law school classes that distinguish legal pedagogy from most other forms of higher education, and for which many law students (most definitely including yours truly) are insufficiently prepared.

Actually, I’m not sure where or when Winterhalter attended law school, or what else possessed him to write about “three-hour” final exams. The briefest exam I ever took in law school — my 1L Torts final — lasted three and a half hours, and it was obvious that the professor only cut it that short to make it artificially harder, thus making it easier for him to grade it on a curve. (Bastard.) Otherwise, in 3 years of law school, every in-class exam lasted either four or five hours. I remember my Property professor saying that he used to give his students six-hour exams until the Registrar made him stop. Three hour exams seemed long and torturous to me in college, all right, but law school certainly disabused me of that delusion.

Then again, as much as I dreaded each four-or-five-hour ordeal beforehand, once in the classroom I found myself wishing the exams were actually longer. Many law school exams, you see, are based on lengthy, implausibly convoluted “fact patterns” — which is weird legalese for “hypothetical” — full of countless juicy legal issues just waiting for you to spot them and sink your teeth into them. Skilled professors, however, are adept at hiding these issues in fact patterns in ways that make it hard to spot them, to do them analytical justice within several hours and to avoid second-guessing one’s own analysis of them. (This is especially difficult for naturally ungifted test takers like me.) Combine these factors with the incredible dryness of most of the subject matter involved and the fact that each single exam will probably count for the entirety of the respective course, and you’ve got quite a challenge on your hands.

I’ve always strongly doubted the wisdom of this approach to teaching law. The competitiveness of the system isn’t the problem; legal practice is a highly competitive field, and the more law schools prepare their students for the struggle to stay ahead of the curve, the better. Yet I do question the intellectual usefulness of the byzantine hypos to which many of my professors subjected us. The facts in real-world cases, mind you, are often very complex, but in all the legal research I’ve done, I have yet to encounter a case with a factual history that approached the pretzel-like contortions that characterize law school exam fact patterns. Real-life lawyers certainly don’t have to decipher these cases and judge the legal claims within them in a matter of several hours. And at the end of the day, making an entire course grade dependent on one exam is a recipe for inaccurate evaluations of each student’s true lawyering potential. Test-taking aptitude is one thing; lawyering skill is another. The insistence on assessing the latter according to the former may very well contribute to the inadequate preparation of students for legal practice that plagues law schools today.

I don’t have much to say about Socratic dialogue, other than that I greatly appreciated my Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure professor’s practice of not calling on students at random in class. I forget his rationale for that policy, but I agree with Benjamin Winterhalter’s criticism of Socratic dialogue for its “belaboring of obvious points.” While I sympathize with professors’ desire to maximize class participation, Socratic interrogation generally consists of professors asking students for answers that are obvious to the questioners but painfully elusive to the hapless respondents. Undergoing the exercise often feels like being asked to read professors’ minds, a process that encourages students to second-guess themselves even when they actually know the right answers. That sort of professor-student interaction works splendidly in class discussions in which there is room for debate about what the law is or should be. In the context of larger lectures designed to teach basic, indisputable legal doctrines, however, students could probably do without it.

All of this advice may be wasted on the legal academy, of course. God alone knows how likely professors and administrators will ever be to change their ways. For the time being, at least, the law school curriculum as we know it is probably here to stay (with modest variations, of course, from school to school and from professor to professor). As long as the status quo prevails, anyone thinking of becoming a lawyer should first try to learn not only what it’s like to practice law, but also what it’s like to study it. Visit law schools, sit in on lectures, ask current students or graduates for copies of casebooks or old exams — do whatever it takes to make sure that once you walk through those doors, you’re not flying blind.

—

Featured image courtesy of [George Serdechny via Flickr]

Akil Alleyne

Akil Alleyne, a native of Montreal, is a graduate of Princeton University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. His major areas of study are constitutional and international law, with focus on federalism, foreign policy, separation of powers and property rights. Akil is also a member of Young Voices Advocates, which connects students and young professionals with media outlets worldwide to facilitate youth participation in political and social discourse. Contact Akil at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Law School Classes and Their Discontents appeared first on Law Street.

My most recent assignment at my current think-tank internship was to write a report on the 2008 book,The Execution of Willie Francis: Race, Murder, and the Search for Justice in the American South. In it, journalist Gilbert King told the story of Willie Francis, an African-American teenager who was convicted of the murder of a Caucasian man in the small Louisiana town of St. Martinville and survived a botched execution attempt in 1946. The book recounts the dark history of race relations in southern Louisiana, the murky circumstances surrounding the murder of popular local pharmacist Andrew Thomas, and the gross travesty of justice that was Willie Francis’ trial (particularly his lawyers’ refusal to provide him with any real defense). After Francis was scheduled for a second date with the electric chair, an idealistic local Cajun lawyer and a crusading Creole civil rights attorney intervened to try to save him. In the end, the Supreme Court affirmed his sentence, and the boy was finally put to death in 1947.

Frankly—and sadly—I found the most sensationally sordid aspects of the Willie Francis tragedy, namely the ugly racism and nauseatingly biased criminal justice system of mid-twentieth century America, to be old time religion. As an African descendant myself, I’ve been spurred by both upbringing and personal interest to familiarize myself with Black history in the United States and worldwide. Nothing about Francis’ treatment at the hands of the courts surprised me. As a student of the law, however, I was most struck by the middle section of the book, which detailed the backgrounds and deliberations of the Supreme Court Justices who ultimately put Willie Francis back on the path to his demise. What really seized my attention was the lamentable fact that when Willie’s case—Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber—reached the Court, the nation’s highest tribunal had not yet seen fit to “incorporate” the fundamental constitutional freedoms entrenched in the Bill of Rights against state and governments.

The law graduates among you will remember “incorporation” as the process by which courts have ruled that portions of the Bill of Rights constrain the states as well as the federal government. If this development has been a “process” rather than an obvious tenet of American constitutional law from the beginning, it is because the Framers drafted the Constitution with a view to limiting the power of the federal government, not the states. (Mind you, the Framers didn’t make this especially clear in the text of the Bill of Rights. Of all the pre-Civil War individual-rights Amendments, only the First explicitly targets Congress.) Yet the bloodshed of the Civil War and the intransigence of the former Confederate states in resisting equality for the freed slaves revealed the need for limits to the state governments’ powers as well.

One might think that the Fourteenth Amendment’s ringing declaration that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” would have addressed this problem adequately. Alas, one would be mistaken. The Supreme Court’s 1873 decision in the Slaughterhouse Cases held that the above-mentioned Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied only to the rights of U.S. citizenship and not of citizenship in particular states. This effectively foreclosed the use of the Clause to prevent state and local governments from riding roughshod over fundamental individual constitutional rights, right up to the present day. (Notably, Justice Hugo Black argued in 1947’s Adamson v. California that since the Slaughtehouse Cases addressed the unenumerated right to economic liberty, the cause of incorporating textually enumerated rights through the P-or-I Clause actually could have survived Slaughterhouse.) Although, as Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar has written, “Virtually no serious modern scholar—left, right, and center—thinks that [Slaughter-House] is a plausible reading of the [Fourteenth] Amendment,” the Supreme Court has never mustered the gumption to overturn this misbegotten precedent.

Some may dismiss this nicety as negligible, especially since the Supreme Court did eventually get around to incorporating most of the Bill of Rights through other, due process-based means. The story of Willie Francis suggests otherwise. As author Gilbert King writes, “Not once, not twice, but many times, the U.S. Supreme Court had held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to states. Thus, most of the rights in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, rights citizens decades later would take for granted, simply did not exist for litigants in a case originating at the state level—cases like Willlie’s. In other words, one’s right not to be tried twice for the same crime, for instance, could only be invoked if one was being tried in a federal court.”

So when Willie Francis’ lawyers prepared to argue his case before the Supreme Court, they had to face the daunting prospect of urging the Court to reconsider and overturn its previous rulings—rarely a promising strategy. The legal deck, then, was heavily stacked against the hapless youth from the beginning. Had the Court not stood the Fourteenth Amendment on its head a mere five years after its ratification—even in the face of statements from Congressman John Bingham, its principal framer, to the effect that it did incorporate the first eight Amendments to the states—Willie might have stood a real chance. Yet thanks to the obstinacy of the Slaughterhouse Court and the cravenness of succeeding generations of Justices, Willie Francis and countless others like him were subjected to grotesque miscarriages of due process—and suffered the ultimate injustice as a result.

When I was still but a lowly law student, I diligently read the online evaluation feedback for every course I contemplated taking before enrolling in it. I remember reading one evaluation from a student who opined that all constitutional law courses should be elective. The Execution of Willie Francis has reminded me why I have always held such attitudes in the utmost contempt—and why I carry a pocket copy of the U.S. Constitution with me in my bag daily. No matter what field of legal practice one wishes to take up, constitutional issues—including seemingly arcane matters of constitutional interpretation—affect all of us as citizens of a democratic society. It’s not only a matter of right and wrong, or of justice and injustice; sometimes it’s a matter of life and death.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Nesnad via Wikipedia]

Akil Alleyne

Akil Alleyne, a native of Montreal, is a graduate of Princeton University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. His major areas of study are constitutional and international law, with focus on federalism, foreign policy, separation of powers and property rights. Akil is also a member of Young Voices Advocates, which connects students and young professionals with media outlets worldwide to facilitate youth participation in political and social discourse. Contact Akil at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Why Constitutional Interpretation Matters appeared first on Law Street.

Anyone who’s nerdy enough about legal issues to read this blog has probably heard of a paper published last summer entitled “The Economic Value of a Law Degree.” It revealed the conclusions of a study by Seton Hall University law professor Michael Simkovic and Rutgers Business School economics professor Frank McIntyre. It’s the paper that caused quite a stir by purporting to burst the bubble of the haters who’ve been heaping scorn on law as a worthwhile course of study for today’s college graduates. In a nutshell, the authors examined official statistics about the earnings of law graduates and found that, hey, maybe law school is a good deal after all. Apparently—among other findings—the average JD can expect to earn about one million dollars more than he or she would have earned without having gone to law school.

Of course, the talking heads who’ve been making the biggest stink about the pitfalls of legal education for the past several years wasted no time putting the Simkovic and McIntyre study in their crosshairs. Above the Law’s Elie Mystal was particularly harsh, dismissing the report as an “advertising piece for law schools still hoping that they can trick prospective law students into making bad choices.”

Frankly, I share at least some of the misgivings about the validity of the study. Like Mystal, for instance, I think it makes no sense to compare law school grads’ earnings to those of college graduates who never pursued any postgraduate study. I think your average college student today is painfully aware that a bachelor’s degree by itself won’t give him or her enough coinage in the job market. I imagine that most of them probably contemplate law school as one of at least several other postgraduate study options, among them being journalism, business, accounting, economics, and any number of scientific and humanistic disciplines. So it doesn’t strike me as very meaningful to point out that today’s average college grad can expect to make a lot more money by going to law school than by simply diving headlong into the workforce and never leaving. It would be much more helpful to compare law school graduates’ earnings with those of people who’ve gone to business school, medical school and what have you.

Even so, I’ve always been a lot more sanguine about the study’s findings. While I habitually caution young people I know against charging headlong into law school, I’ve never done so for mercenary reasons. It would think that it would go without saying by now that earnings potential isn’t the only factor worth considering when choosing a career path. It’s critical to take other issues into account, such as job satisfaction, work-life balance and overall sanity. By those metrics, it seems, legal practice scores rather poorly. A 2007 survey by the American Bar Association found that almost half of the respondent lawyers were dissatisfied with their careers. They complained about long hours and dwindling civility among lawyers, as well as increasingly cutthroat competition and the poor work-life balance that comes with it. In the end, only 4 out of every 10 of them were willing to recommend a legal career to young people. (Remember what I wrote last month about none of the lawyers I’ve known ever encouraging me to study law?)

Keep one thing in mind: these results were gleaned in the late 2000s, before the so-called “Great Recession” and the squeezing of the legal industry (along with so many other professions, Lord knows) that it’s engendered.

So anyone tempted to dismiss warnings about lawyering based on the McIntyre and Simkovic study should take heed. As its title makes clear, the professors were only considering the monetary value of a law degree; the question of whether legal practice is worth its non-financial costs was beyond their ken. A college graduate who takes my advice, gets to observe lawyers’ daily toil and doesn’t develop any kind of passion (or at least a high tolerance) for it would be ill-advised to study law anyway simply because of the pay.

What’s more—as I learned the hard way—it’s damned hard to do well in law school if you have a hard time focusing on the turgid, deadening prose that you’ll find in most casebooks. Actually, I should have included this insight in my first article about advice for prospective law school applicants. When I was in high school, people who encouraged me to go into law—again, always non-lawyers—typically cited two facts: that I was a pathological bookworm and that law school involves a lot of reading. Dear God, if only it were that simple! You should never, ever listen that advice from a non-lawyer…at least not without asking, “But what kind of reading would I be doing?” When your advisor stares at you blankly (or has the decency to admit that he or she doesn’t know), that should tell you all you need to know about how valuable his or her advice really is. As for the actual substantive answer to the question, let me put it this way: Rare is the judge who knows how—or is inclined—to write an opinion in a way that won’t make you feel like your brain is melting and spilling out of your ears.

Even if Simkovic and McIntyre are right, and any college student not sure what to do after graduating would be several kinds of stupid not at least to consider going to law school, the inquiry doesn’t end there. It would be even stupider to dive into law school, chasing the almighty dollar, only to belly-flop into frigid, unforgiving waters. You’ve got to learn more about the profession than just the pay before deciding to pursue it. I think renowned actor Tom Hanks put it best during an appearance on Inside the Actor’s Studio, when asked what profession he wouldn’t like to try. His answer: “A lawyer. That’s doing homework for a living.” Heed well his wise words!

—

Featured image courtesy of [Andy via Flickr]

Alexandra Saville

Alexandra Saville is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

The post So What if Law School is a Good Financial Deal After All? appeared first on Law Street.

Seeing as how I’ve already argued that law schools should put more emphasis on teaching law students how to practice law, it’s only fair that I respond to a certain contrary viewpoint circulating on the interwebs. Above the Law blogger Elie Mystal—whom I’ve seen speak and whose commentary I enjoy—has dismissed as a “myth” the idea that students can graduate ready to practice sure-footedly right out of the law school gates. “I think the pedagogical infighting over ‘theory’ courses versus ‘practical’ courses,” Mystal writes, “is irrelevant when people are graduating from lower-ranked law schools with $100,000 (or more) in student loan debt.” In this critique, Mystal echoes University of Maryland law professor Robert Condlin, who in a recent research paper called the practice-ready concept a “millennialist fantasy.”

As Professor Condlin writes in the abstract to his paper, post-graduate job placement “is a function of a school’s academic reputation, not its curriculum, and the legal labor market will rebound only after the market as a whole has rebounded (and perhaps not then).” It’s the shortage of legal jobs out there that has got current law students and recent graduates (like me) at such a disadvantage, he points out, and “producing more ‘practice ready’ graduates will have no effect on the supply of jobs.” At any rate, “legal practice” itself is a multi-faceted thing, one that cannot be fit into a simple package that law schools can teach to all comers: “There are as many different types of practice as there are levels of readiness for it, and proponents of the proposal do not say which of these various possibilities (and combinations of possibilities) they have in mind.”

The problem with Mr. Mystal’s and Professor Condlin’s position is not its substance, which seems pretty sound to me. Rather, they go wrong in their choice of target: the notion that training law students to have at least some clue of how to practice law is meant to be “a panacea to the problems with legal education,” as Mystal puts it. Now, I’ve done a great deal of (highly worrisome) reading on this and related subjects over the past three-odd years. (Warnings about the follies of law school—including a lot of pretty snarky and entertaining ones—have been circulating widely through media both old and new since at least my 1L year.) In all that time, I’ve never heard or seen anyone suggest that more vocational legal schooling will be a cure-all for the problems in the legal job market.

Perhaps one shouldn’t blame Mystal, Condlin and their sympathizers for thinking otherwise. Many observers calling for law schools to operate more like trade schools don’t make it clear enough that they’re only addressing one particular problem with legal education, not all of its problems. Yet even if correcting this systemic error won’t boost the post-graduation employment rate by itself, that correction is still an inherently worthy goal. I always remember with amusement the early scene in the 1992 blockbuster My Cousin Vinny in which Joe Pesci’s titular character tells his long-suffering fiancée that law school teaches you what the law is, but not how to make use of it in the courtroom. As John Marshall Law School professor Alberto Bernabe has written, “Vinny is terrible at the things we do teach in law school, but very good at the things we don’t…[such as how to] interview clients, to gather facts, to prepare a theory of a case, to negotiate, to know when to ask a question and when to remain quiet, to cross examine a witness forcefully (but with charm) in order to expose the weaknesses in their testimony.”

Without exactly being an expert on the subject myself, I gather that Mystal and Condlin are essentially right on the facts. Common sense alone suggests that no greenhorn can emerge from any school already knowing exactly how to get the job done. At least some experience is a must for success in any position; there’s no reason to think that lawyering would be an exception to that rule. Even professional schools that focus on teaching practical skills can do only so much to prepare their students to hit the ground running after graduation day. As for law specifically, there are also many different kinds of legal practice, and law schools would be logistically hard pressed to teach all of the skills that are needed for work in all of those fields. Moreover, Mystal is right when he caustically points out that “Seton Hall could produce the most ‘practice ready’ graduates in the country, and those students still aren’t going to do as well as Columbia law students.”

Nonetheless, too many students nowadays graduate not really knowing how to be lawyers—including many who actually get jobs after graduating as well as the ones who don’t. This fact is problematic for overcharged clients and overworked attorneys who need even rookie associates to be able to walk and chew gum. Even if more practice-oriented education won’t magically conjure up a cascade of new law jobs, the legal academy should still adopt a more vocational approach, if only for the sake of productivity. It may not be possible to prepare students to practice with 100% competence when they’re hot and fresh out of the law school kitchen, but they can be made readier than they typically are today. Newly minted lawyers should not be put to shame by a Vincent LaGuardia Gambini.

—

Featured image courtesy of [UBC Library Communications via Flickr]

Akil Alleyne

Akil Alleyne, a native of Montreal, is a graduate of Princeton University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. His major areas of study are constitutional and international law, with focus on federalism, foreign policy, separation of powers and property rights. Akil is also a member of Young Voices Advocates, which connects students and young professionals with media outlets worldwide to facilitate youth participation in political and social discourse. Contact Akil at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post So What If Law Schools Can’t Produce “Practice-Ready” Graduates? appeared first on Law Street.

This morning, I opened up my Facebook account only to be swamped by a flood of bar-exam-passage-celebrating statuses from my former law school classmates. What better occasion can there be to reflect on my own decision not to take the bar exam (at least not yet) and to pursue a career outside of legal practice — as well as the idea of going to law school?

As my blogger spotlight hopefully shows, I’ve never been completely sold on the idea of being a lawyer. My experiences in law school only solidified my goal of putting my substantive legal knowledge to use in another field — legal analysis at think tanks and media outlets, if I have my way. If your life experience is anything like mine, then this goal should remind you of another piece of advice that you’ve probably heard a million times: “You can do lots of things with a law degree.”

It’s hardly a myth that law degrees are versatile; Lord knows plenty of lawyers go on to make their marks in business, politics, banking, and sundry other occupations. The question is whether this versatility makes it a good idea for someone who would rather not become a lawyer to go to law school.

I’ve already gotten a very blunt answer to this question from an actual lawyer, and an Ivy League-trained one at that. Almost three years ago, I met a fellow alumnus of my alma mater who had graduated from Harvard Law about six months earlier and was working — surprise, surprise — as a highly-paid corporate lawyer in Manhattan. When I inquired as to how work was going, he said, “It’s funny you should ask that. I actually just gave my two weeks’ notice last Friday. I can’t take it anymore.” Taken aback, I asked why, and was treated to a litany of the horrors of corporate practice: the grueling (billable) hours, the grinding tedium, the office politics, the pressure to make it rain. Having gotten just a taste of the lawyer’s life, he already wanted out.

Presently, the conversation turned to my motivations for going to law school. I explained that, while I still considered public-interest litigation a goal of mine (I was still a 1L, young and foolish), I was exploring career options outside of legal practice as well. I mentioned that I had gone to law school in large part out of sheer intellectual interest in legal issues, primarily constitutional and international ones. With a rueful laugh, he interjected: “That’s a terrible reason to go to law school. If you’re smart, you’ll go to law school only if you really, really want to be a lawyer — period.”

Other 1Ls, faced with this advice from this high-achieving graduate of one of the two or three best law schools in America, would have seen the handwriting on the wall and left law school for sunnier climes. Though I wouldn’t have blamed them, I saw it through to the end, since I knew that much of the politically-oriented analysis that I wanted to do professionally would require firsthand familiarity with the laws of the land. As a general principle, however, I eventually had to concede his point — for the most part, at least — based on what I learned during the rest of my legal schooling. Given the stress and hard work that it entails and, above all, the sheer cost of enrollment, law school generally really is best suited to those who go through it in order to do the one kind of work that one absolutely needs a law degree to do: lawyering.

As law schools gravitate toward more practice-oriented instruction, traditional J.D. programs are less and less appropriate for people who want to know what lawyers know without necessarily doing what they do. Yet as University of New Mexico law professor Carol Parker recently noted, legal knowledge comes in awfully handy for people throughout the whole workforce. Law schools are now churning out thousands more new graduates than there are new legal practice jobs each year, with countless graduates ultimately putting their legal knowledge to use without actually practicing law. This development is unsurprising given the overall climate in the country. As the regulatory state continues to grow and governments and courts continue to pile rule on top of law on top of regulation, there is less and less reason for familiarity with this tangled web to be the exclusive preserve of attorneys, judges, clerks and law professors.

Professor Parker advocates “creating exciting programs that combine legal information with the arts, sciences, and other professional programs.” This idea makes sense to me. I would have been delighted to find a non-J.D. academic degree program — in a political science department, for instance — that would have focused on a more intellectually-oriented study of the law. The deal breaker for me, however, would have been that the program provide the same depth of familiarity with constitutional and international legal doctrines law that actual attorneys have. The ideal setup would have taught me fundamentally the same material that I learned in the constitutional and international law-oriented courses that I took in law school, but in a very different style, one more similar to the kinds of study — independent as well as course-based — that one finds in graduate school programs. There should especially be less emphasis on courses in which the entire final grade is based on one final exam result (a topic on which I plan to comment at greater length in the future).

In my last post, I argued that J.D. programs should focus more on training students to practice law and less on teaching them abstract values like “educated citizenship” and “leadership for the future.” In addition, either law schools or grad schools should consider offering “Master of Law” programs that would take the approach I advocate above. Let those who want to be lawyers learn just that, and let those who want to learn about the law for other purposes do likewise. To each, his own.

Featured image courtesy of [Marc Baronnet via Wikipedia]

Akil Alleyne

Akil Alleyne, a native of Montreal, is a graduate of Princeton University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. His major areas of study are constitutional and international law, with focus on federalism, foreign policy, separation of powers and property rights. Akil is also a member of Young Voices Advocates, which connects students and young professionals with media outlets worldwide to facilitate youth participation in political and social discourse. Contact Akil at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post We Need to Educate Non-Lawyers in the Law, Too appeared first on Law Street.

About four years ago, one of the professors who gave me recommendations for my applications to law school described the institution to me as “trade school.” I imagine that my professor completed his legal studies quite some time ago (a hunch supported by his shock of white hair), because fewer and fewer legal beagles out there seem to share that assessment these days. Consider, for instance, the American Bar Association’s ongoing Task Force on the Future of Legal Education. The ABA formed the Task Force in the summer of 2012 to ascertain how law schools, and the Association itself, should address recent problems in the economics and the delivery of legal education. In comments submitted for the Task Force’s consideration, legal practitioners have frequently raised the issue of whether law schools presently do a good job of preparing students for legal practice. A consensus seems to be emerging that the answer is no.

As The Economist magazine recently noted, American law schools don’t exactly strive to teach practical legal skills, since firms traditionally train new attorneys themselves. Many in the legal academy believe in principle that the doctrinal approach that law schools generally take is a positive good. Syracuse University law professor Kevin Noble Maillard, for example, has argued that “law school is not a trade school,” that “people go to law school, pay tuition and graduate to become many things: educators, business leaders, politicians and, yes, attorneys,” and that law school “prepares people to become leaders in our society, which makes it imperative that they be rigorously trained as thinkers.”

Yet in these belt-tightening times, law firms are increasingly loath to pick up the academy’s slack (if only because clients are getting tired of footing the bill). I, for one, can’t say I blame them. My application referee may not have been quite on the money when he described law school as “trade school,” but more’s the pity. The constant refrain I hear from practicing attorneys is that they learned little or nothing about legal practice in law school, which defies common sense. Lawyering involves a lot of hands-on work that can’t be taught in the abstract, from drafting contracts to persuading clients of the right pleas to enter or claims to file. Given that an increasingly expensive legal education is almost universally required of anyone who wants to enter the profession, it’s only logical that law school should put greater emphasis on practical skills.

Professor Maillard’s position strikes me as rather misguided. He tellingly prefaced his statement with “at the risk of sounding ‘liberal artsy’”—which is exactly the point. There is no logical reason why law schools should consider it their mission to “emphasize educated citizenship.” That goal seems much better suited to undergraduate programs, which in any case cast a much wider net than law schools do and will thus reach more of the societal leaders of tomorrow. Training those leaders to have certain knowledge and to think in certain ways is desirable—but not all such budding public figures go to law school, and American law students have to go to college first anyway. It would make more sense to let them learn “educated citizenship” while earning their bachelor’s degrees and learn how to practice law in law school.

Some schools have already begun getting with the program, establishing practical skills courses and requirements. The ABA’s own Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar has received a petition to amend law school accreditation standards. In addition to requiring J.D. students to earn 15 academic credits in experiential courses, the proposal would also require each student to take at least one law clinic or externship in order to graduate. This seems like an eminently wise proposition. Every time I’ve heard a lawyer tell me that he or she didn’t learn anything about legal practice in law school, I’ve wondered, “Didn’t you do any clinics?” Lawyers themselves seem to agree that clinic work is one of the main means by which law students can learn how to be attorneys while still in school. In a 2004 ABA study, lawyers who had been practicing for two or three years rated clinical courses their third most useful law school experience—behind legal jobs during summers and the school years, and ahead of legal writing courses and internships and traditional doctrinal courses.

So if clinics have so much potential to prepare law students for legal practice, then why are so many of them graduating from law school so operationally clueless? After a bit of digging, I found that—as I suspected—clinical training isn’t as widely accessible as it could or should be. According to data from the ABA and the Law School Admission Council (LSAC), only 15% of law schools presently require or guarantee legal clinic experience to all students. Yet according to Robert R. Kuehn, a professor at the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, the same data indicate that 84% of law schools have the resources to offer clinical opportunities to all of their students at little or no additional cost in higher tuition.

So I look favorably on the proposal made by the aforementioned petition submitted to the ABA. Requiring all law students to get at least a taste of what lawyers actually do on the job will help make sure that graduates are ready to do what they are studying to do. It can also help give prospective law school applicants a better idea of what they may be getting themselves into—when they still have a chance to avoid it.

—

Featured image courtesy of [walknboston via Wikipedia]

Akil Alleyne

Akil Alleyne, a native of Montreal, is a graduate of Princeton University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. His major areas of study are constitutional and international law, with focus on federalism, foreign policy, separation of powers and property rights. Akil is also a member of Young Voices Advocates, which connects students and young professionals with media outlets worldwide to facilitate youth participation in political and social discourse. Contact Akil at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Should Law School Be More Like Trade School? appeared first on Law Street.

As luck would have it, the nonprofit work I’ve done since graduating from law school last spring has situated me among hordes of college students and recent graduates a few years younger than I am. The question I’ve gotten from them most often has been “Should I go to law school?” Without answering the question definitively for anyone, I gladly offer the advice that I wish I’d been given as a youngster. “Whatever you decide,” I tell them, “know this: being a skilled communicator or arguer, by itself, does not a lawyer make.”

I’ve had a knack for writing and oratory since I was young, excelling in public speaking and debate competitions and Model UN conferences throughout high school. In law school, I joined the Moot court Honor Society, participating in tournaments that simulated oral arguments before appeals courts. Over the years, I also became a decent writer (though of course, you can be the judge), contributing to student newspapers, opinion journals and online blogs. I’ve also been a history and politics buff since childhood, and many of the issues that enthralled me required legal knowledge to do them justice.

So what career development advice did I get from countless grownups around me? “Do law,” they said. “You’re good at speaking, writing and arguing; you’re into politics and history; you want to make a difference in the world. What better career could you have?”

From a young age, then, I leaned toward law as the most sensible career path for me. The fact that I developed a genuine interest in constitutional and international legal issues in college only further steered me in that direction. So after struggling to find other decent work for two years after graduating, I bit the bullet and went to law school.

A rude awakening awaited me. I found most of the course material—particularly during 1L—mind-numbingly boring; the four- or five-hour final exams, punishing; and the overall cost, staggering. What I learned about legal practice in summer internships and Moot Court didn’t shine much light at the end of the tunnel, either: demoralizing Bluebooking; poring through reams of cases, statutes and regulations written in stultifying prose; the endless formatting that goes into any halfway decent brief. Scandalously for me, even oral argument proved a letdown. You have no idea how aggravating it can be to argue with someone who outranks you and can crack the whip over your head at will. After years of debating my peers, I balked at the almost slavish deference that lawyers have to pay judges in court.

I also found that making losing arguments perfunctorily is not my strong suit. I know, I know—debaters are supposed to be good at that, no? Unlike academic debate, however, the law straitjackets its practitioners with binding rules that may have little actual merit. Together with real-world facts, these rules often require lawyers to make downright ridiculous arguments on their clients’ behalf. I still remember with annoyance my last Moot Court tournament, in which I had to argue with a straight face that my client, a fictional Pacific country, had somehow not violated international refugee law by apprehending boatloads of people who had gotten lost at sea while fleeing a series of natural disasters, detaining them for years without processing in an overcrowded, grimy facility with asbestos in its walls, and then transferring half of them to a neighboring country with a horrific human rights record. In the real world, although such lawyering is a dirty job, someone has to do it; I just increasingly doubt that I am that someone.

Once disillusioned, I remembered the days when elders urged me to study law because of how articulate and argumentative I was. Only then did it dawn on me that none of them were lawyers; none of them were especially qualified to recommend it as a career. I also realized that none of the actual lawyers I had known had ever encouraged me to follow their lead. Although they didn’t mention what a stressful, expensive bore law school is, none of them ever suggested that because I was a skilled writer, speaker and debater, law was the way to go. They knew better.

It’s not the fault of the first group that my decision to go to law school was so uninformed. They gave me the best advice they could (deluded as they were by television and films, which conceal the sheer mundanity of lawyers’ work). What’s more, I have no excuse for not contemplating the humdrum nuts and bolts of legal practice from the beginning. In the eleventh grade, my high school let me spend a day shadowing a high-powered attorney while she and her colleagues defended a tobacco company in a civil trial. The experience didn’t get my juices flowing. A bailiff had to admonish me to stop slouching and sit up straight; later on, I actually dozed off and had to be nudged awake by one of the attorneys. Yet I unforgivably missed this chance to learn a critical lesson the easy way. One necessary attribute for success as an attorney is, quite frankly, a very high tolerance for tedium—a quality I’ve never possessed in abundance.

The moral of my story is that students should find out what lawyers actually do daily before deciding to become one. Succeeding in law takes a lot more than an argumentative streak, a golden pen and a silver tongue, and not all attorneys even need those qualities. Drafting contracts and wills, doing real estate closings and other transactional legal tasks don’t require a gift for the gab. Moreover, lawyers aren’t the only ones who get paid to write, speak and argue well, or to advocate for deserving causes and people. The earlier prospective law school applicants are alerted to this reality, the less the workforce will be plagued by the scourge of mismatch—and the happier and more fulfilled a lot of people will be.

Featured image courtesy of [Flickr]

Akil Alleyne

Akil Alleyne, a native of Montreal, is a graduate of Princeton University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. His major areas of study are constitutional and international law, with focus on federalism, foreign policy, separation of powers and property rights. Akil is also a member of Young Voices Advocates, which connects students and young professionals with media outlets worldwide to facilitate youth participation in political and social discourse. Contact Akil at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Law School Daze appeared first on Law Street.