In 2013, the Pennsylvania State University Law School proposed splitting up its program into two separate, specialized schools–the Dickinson School of Law and Penn State Law. That plan has finally been approved by the American Bar Association and will be moving forward in 2015. Though the school’s law program had already been geographically divided between the State College and Carlisle, PA campuses, this change will establish two independently accredited law schools that are both still affiliated with Penn State.

After about a year of ABA review, the approval came with only a few, not-so-academic, suggestions. The ABA board actually offered construction and logistics advice, such as a suggestion to move the admissions office from the ground floor to the first floor, improving accessibility. In an interview last week, Interim Dean Gary Gildin remarked that he welcomed the constructive ideas from the ABA Board as an outside perspective that has had extensive experience with the creation of new schools.

The decision from the ABA was pretty unique. Unlike the accreditation of other new law schools, which typically includes a two-year probationary period, both of Penn State’s schools received “full and immediate” accreditation, according to Interim Dean Gildin. Back when Penn State originally chose to operate on two campuses, the ABA gave both accreditation. Therefore, the separation was not a very difficult process.

Both separately accredited schools will offer three-year J.D. and graduate law degree programs under The Dickinson School of Law of The Pennsylvania State University, and will draw on the unique location opportunities of each campus. What will be known as Penn State Law, located on the State College campus, will allow students to collaborate with the many different departments of Penn State’s liberal arts, science, education, nursing, and business schools. The Dickinson School of Law in Carlisle will retain its name but will use its proximity to Washington, D.C. and the Penn State Hershey Medical Center to focus on government and health care specialties.

Under Penn State’s old “one school, two campuses” theory, students were offered identical first-year curriculums at both campuses. In the following years, students had the option of continuing at their original campus or moving to the other in order to access different opportunities like special clinics or classes. While switching will become more difficult, the campuses will still be well connected. Penn State has long boasted how both campuses are connected by highly advanced communications technology. This has given them the ability to host audiovisual telecommunications between both locations; a characteristic that the interim deans have promised will stay the same even after the split.

This plan has seen little resistance from law societies, students, and faculty, despite the fact that each school will have a different dean and administration. According to my interview with the two interim deans, the catalyst for the split came from their appreciation of the rapidly changing legal market. According to Interim Dean James Houck, in recognition of rapidly declining admissions across the board, Penn State’s law program endeavored to “most effectively deliver what we have to offer students.” Dean Gildin explained that the separation of schools will be like a form of “home-rule.” Each one will have the opportunity to be more nimble, agile, and reactive.

It’s easy to see the merit in producing two more specialized schools that can easily adapt to the fast paced, constantly changing legal job market. Currently, there is just one administration, so any alterations or amendments must be checked and cleared between two different campuses. This “two schools” plan, which will begin in 2015, creates more independence for each program. And rather than being forced to find a academic middle ground between two schools, each program will be able to let its strengths shine.

This is yet another attempt among law schools across the nation to solve their waning enrollment statistics. While some schools like the Charleston School of Law are being bought out by corporate, for-profit, conglomerates like InfiLaw, others like Penn State are devising innovative alternatives. Not only is Penn State retaining its individuality in the face of a downturn in the law school market, but it is actually distinguishing itself in an industry that is definitely in need of such creative ingenuity.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Penn State via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law School Disruptor of the Week: Penn State’s Two Law Schools appeared first on Law Street.

It seems like every week we see a new headline about an incredibly insensitive theme party — usually involving a college Greek Life chapter. One of the greatest hits includes this incredibly racist “Mexican Party” by the lovely ladies of Chi Omega at Penn State University.

Or one of my personal favorites, this Duke University Kappa Sigma party. It was first called “Asia Prime,” but then got changed to “International Relations.”

I have good news though: racist fun isn’t just limited to Greek Life members! Check out this picture from a UConn Law School MLK Day Party dubbed “Bullets and Bubbly” back in in 2007.

These are by no means isolated incidents. When I googled “racist party” for this article, there were dozens of examples from which to choose. This is a rampant problem, no doubt, and every time a new incident makes it to the national press, I join the legion of outraged observers.

Then I stumbled across a Buzzfeed article yesterday called, “This is what American Parties Look Like Around the World.” Apparently American parties are a thing in other countries. They feature red solo cups, American Flags, popcorn, sports jerseys, and backwards hats. With a few exceptions, all pretty accurate and innocuous stereotypes. Well, except for the popcorn thing. I don’t get that. Do other places not have popcorn???

Here’s another one. They seem to like our solo cups, but I don’t think they’re using them correctly:

I found the Buzzfeed piece to be entertaining and charming. Most of the “American” stereotypes were funny. With the exception of a couple military references, nothing else, at least to me, was offensive. And then I scrolled down to the comments. Most people seemed to agree with me. They applauded the parties, and left comments about how the stereotypes are kind of accurate. A few others offered rather defensive explanations about why we use red Solo cups.

And then there were some commenters who were really offended. Some posed questions about how those same countries would feel if we poked a little fun at them. And one commenter really interested me, because he compared these parties to the very offensive ones I discussed above.

So that got me thinking, why am I so offended by Mexican, Asian, and MLK Day parties, but not really at all by the “American Parties?” And the reason is that these are apples and oranges; they are unequivocally, hugely different. And here are three reasons why:

3. We need to look at the context. 

At no point has the culture of the United States been the butt of offensive and destructive stereotypes. Part of this has to do with the relatively short history of our nation, or maybe our status for many years as a superpower. But with the very limited exception of perhaps political prisoners or POWs, I cannot think of a single instance in which an American has had his or her rights taken away simply for being American. Sure, we occasionally face prejudice or suspicion when we travel to other countries, and there are parts of this world that are not very safe for American travelers. But at no point has our culture been used to disenfranchise us.

That’s one of the main things that sets this party apart from the offensive parties above. Sure, the symbols at the “American Parties” are poking fun at us, but that’s all. I think you’d be hard pressed to see an American genuinely disenfranchised because he’s wearing a cowboy hat. That’s just not true with the symbols — sombreros, ponchos, and others — used by the girls at the Mexican Party.

2. The symbols they chose are pretty mild and pulled from pop culture. 

Red Solo cups? Basketball jerseys? Popcorn? Those aren’t historically important and engrained parts of American culture. In fact, all three of those things are relatively recent phenomenons. Fifty years from now, I bet we won’t even be using red Solo cups because we’ll have found a much more efficient and climate-friendly alternative. Contrast that with the clothing of the girls at Duke’s Asian-themed party. Those are historically-loaded garments. They have important cultural significance. Red Solo Cups, in the long run, do not. We have a silly song about them, for God’s sake. Go ahead and mock, world.

1. There’s no issue of race or culture.  

The U.S. is a melting pot. We don’t have historical clothing, one distinct religion, or defining racial characteristics. And that’s part of what makes this country great. I guess you could say that it’s also what makes us pretty hard to make fun of on a deeply offensive level.

But it’s possible. We do have symbols that are deeply ingrained in this culture, for example, the American flag. If one of these “American Parties” had cut up or degraded our flag in some way, I would probably be offended. Some of these parties do feature the American flag, but on a wall, the same way it would be in the U.S.. But that’s not what they’re doing. They’re not attacking us for the way we genetically look. They’re not making fun of the beliefs that we harbor, or historical events in our history. These parties are full of stereotypes that don’t put us down as people.

It’s doable to have a party about a nation that isn’t offensive, even if it is in jest. For example, I once attended a French-themed birthday party. It featured French refreshments, large pictures of the Eiffel Tower, and I believe we all said “c’est la vie?” and “voulez-vous couchez avec moi?” many a time. I see these “American Parties” in the same vein.

I’m not encouraging stereotyping, I’m not encouraging people to poke fun at Americans, but I think it’s important to point out that there is a real and concrete difference between malicious and innocuous stereotypes. Those first three parties, they crossed the line. Look at the girls in the first picture. In case you didn’t notice, one is holding a sign that says, “Will mow lawn for weed and beer” while adorned in a poncho and fake mustache. That’s a harmful stereotype, because it’s exactly that kind that propagates racism and prejudice in our country today.

On the other hand, this spread, from an “American Party” just looks delicious.

—

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 [hobvias sudoneighm 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 Stop Calling Blatantly Racist College Bashes “Theme Parties” appeared first on Law Street.