As the Martin Luther King Jr. weekend comes to an end, and as a new semester is beginning, I am thinking about how we talk about race, and how we handle race, both in the classroom and in the larger society. Clearly the events in Ferguson last year, the unfortunately not uncommon killing of a young black man by a police officer coupled with the all too common failure to criminally prosecute the police officer, is just one aspect of the larger issues in our society.
Following on the events in Ferguson, one piece published by CNN, gives a nice run-down of the problems of implicit bias, and how different communities in the United States speak differently about race: Racism without Race.
The article recounts studies that most of us are probably aware of. There is the employment study showing that whites just released from prison with felony records have greater success finding jobs than African Americans without a criminal record. There is the study where applicants with African American sounding names, such as “Jamal” were 50% less likely to get called for an interview than those with Anglo sounding names.
The article also discusses the different way that whites and minorities talk about racism. Whites tend to discount it unless it is personal—they don’t see the structures in our society that give whites advantages.
We have, fortunately, moved beyond a time when it was culturally acceptable to openly state racist beliefs. But, as this article and studies about implicit bias point out, we are far from being beyond racism and endemic bias. The challenge now is how do we talk about it? And, as legal educators, how do we teach it?
The CNN piece points out that “it’s even more difficult to get smart people to admit bias…the smarter we are, the more self-confident we are, the more successful we are, the less likely we’re going to question our own thinking.”
Law students can often fall into this trap, particularly as one by-product of the law school experience is that students learn to argue positions and changing a position can be seen as a weakness.
I have decided I need to do more to teach about implicit bias—as it impacts communication with clients, as it impacts decisions in negotiations, as it impacts policy decisions. The challenge is how to do this in a meaningful way.
Andrea posted an example of a wonderful classroom exercise that she used last semester here .
Are others incorporating new exercises into their courses? I think I’m not the only one struggling with how to do better and I would welcome any examples of what others have been doing that is working.
I also know we have a number of students (and former students) who read this blog and I would love to also hear from you about what your professors have done that you thought worked well.
Of the times in which racism and implicit bias were discussed in class the most notable for me were the race and incarceration discussion in Criminal Law, a discussion from Criminal Procedure in which the professor challenged the class to think about the diversity or lack thereof in their own circles and communities, and the discussion mentioned in Adam’s comment above. While I am not naïve to the existence of continued racism and implicit biases that exist in our communities, I found the information induced by all the discussions to be enlightening in different ways. For example, in Criminal Law the specific statistical data showing the disproportionate representation of races in incarceration was shocking. Alternatively, the challenge presented to the class by the professor in Criminal Procedure created an opportunity for self-reflection and an open forum for discussing the possible reasons for these biases. While both discussions provided information differently, I believe both were beneficial for providing useful information because the efficacy of a single type of discussion to engage the entire class is difficult with so many varying types of students in one classroom. I was in the classroom for the heated discussion mentioned in Adam’s comment above, and, though overall it was a meaningful discussion, I believe it is necessary to discuss racism and implicit bias anyway possible because the intolerance that transpired in the classroom that day effectively embodied the concerns of racism and implicit bias raised in this article.
One of my professors my 1L year offered extra credit to students who took an implicit bias test online. Found here: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html
The site offers many different tests on implicit bias, ranging from gender, age, sexuality, religion, race, and skin-tone. I believe we had to take three of the tests and write a response in order to receive credit. I loved the way the professor approached the idea of implicit bias, and thought it was an important thing to learn about myself as I began law school. I think a lot of people come into law school holding on for dear life to their previous beliefs and notions. It is one thing for the courses or professors to challenge those beliefs, but quite another to have a test backed by Harvard scientists inform you of areas you could improve in.
Practicing law will bring law students into contact with so many different types of people from many different backgrounds. I, for one, cannot hold tightly to any notion that could inhibit my representation of a future client.
As a white, semi Calvinist, Libertarian I agree with every word Adam said. I have over the last several months been involved in many conversations regarding Ferguson, Eric Garner, and most recently today with the horrifying video released depicting two DPD officers gunning down a mentally ill African American with a screw driver. (Kinda funny this shares headlines with open carry legislation being moved through our state legislature.) I have found there to be a real disconnect between what African American culture is saying about these things and what pro cop white culture is saying about it. The later decides to look at these incidents as individual occurrences, which they are. Whereas the African American community feels the injustice that is perpetrated since the end of segregation starting with the war on drugs and now coming to a head through the mass viewing allowed by social media of various incidents. I personally think it would be hard to prove Officer Wilson had a subjective racist intent, but from listening to the African American voices in politics and within the church the prevailing mantra is ‘how can we not even get an indictment, those are suppose to be the easy part.’ We would all do ourselves good to look at the systemic and systematic problems which allow subjective possibly latent racism to affect our society. I would think most cops would be open to this type of progress, as the Las Vegas PD has been.
I too was in the Con Law class with Adam, I personally found the experience to be very fruitful. Also throughout the entire semester in my Crim Pro class we discussed the issues as they evolved. Even beginning one class with video of an instance of police brutality targeted at an African American earlier that day. In this class the professor expressed their opinion but allowed others to speak, but there was not to much push back. One of the students Adam mentioned did discuss some with the professor at this time. But the professor did a very good job of showing the current events within the context of the issues we were studying that day. This semester I have this professor for another class and they entertained an hour long conversation after class with several students about this issue, which I was able to stay and listen for about 15 minutes, again they did a very good job of discussing while defending their position. I think in the forum of a law school the quality of the discussion is more nuanced and much more fruitful than it can be on CNN, or Facebook, or even among friends because the depth of the arguments has a fully understanding of the issues at play. From both the Con Law and Crim Pro experience I think that type of well thought out discourse was certainly evident.
Professor Alkon asks for law student input regarding best practices they have seen in the classrooms where professors have helped students wrestle with issues of racism, bigotry, and implicit bias. I have only one such experience to share, but I believe that it sheds light on the need for law schools to find appropriate means inside the classroom for discussing issues of racism and bigotry.
Before I relate the story, I want to emphasize that, while there may have been better ways for the professor to lead the class through considering these issues, the professor deserves much credit for inviting the discussion in the first place.
The event happened last fall, shortly after the Michael Brown shooting and just as the Supreme Court was deciding whether to take up the issue of gay marriage. My Constitutional Law professor opened class by showing headlines about the possible SCOTUS action. In the context of Constitutional Law, with the possibly historic SCOTUS decision nearing, the professor asked the class to discuss the possible arguments that could be made for both sides of the gay marriage debate.
As Socratic conversations can go, this discussion went in many directions. Because relevant case law involved laws prohibiting sodomy and interracial marriage, soon the narrow issue before us widened into a discussion of society’s treatment of minorities.
During this conversation, I realized that the only people who were speaking were white and, to my knowledge, straight. Somewhere along the way, one of my classmates made a comment–though now I do not remember what that comment was–to which I wanted to respond with what I thought would be a rather benign comment.
I am a conservative white male, but I was bothered by the tenor of the conversation and wanted to share a piece of advice that I received years ago with my fellow students. I wanted to say that we needed to learn to listen to those about whom we were discussing. I wanted to share a story about how, years ago, while I was an undergrad, a professor taught me a valuable lesson: “Whenever a black person tells you about their experiences, just listen.” I wanted to tell about how my view of the world changed by listening to the experiences of those who see the world differently than do I. I wanted to invite the class to listen to the minorities who had thus far been silent through the conversation.
When called upon, however, I began my comment with what I thought would be a simple, benign statement. “I think we can all agree that there is an underlying bigotry in our country.” I could not finish my next sentence before the person sitting next to me (a white, conservative male) literally stood up and announced, “Professor, you can count me absent. I will not stay here after he just called my country bigoted.”
Later, after the professor convinced the student to stay, I was able to share my originally intended thought. Shortly thereafter, a black woman finally spoke up from the back of the room and shared an experience from the prior summer when she had been subjected to ill treatment by an overtly racist police officer. Before she was done, however, another of my white conservative friends raised his hand. He wanted to share about a time when he was profiled for his race when dropping off a friend at night in a predominately black neighborhood. He wanted to point out that white people are also subject to racial profiling.
In the days and weeks that followed, I encountered two types of comments from my classmates about the incident. One type reflected a disbelief that my comment–about the underlying bigotry–would be found controversial. The other type reflected a deep frustration with the “illusion” of white privilege.
For me, the entire event revealed the need for our law school classrooms to be places where issues of race, bigotry, and bias are discussed openly and regularly. My worldview was changed years ago by making the decision simply to listen to those who would share their different experiences with me. If for no other reason, law schools need to be preparing future attorneys to listen to clients with whom they often will not be able to relate.
These issues must be addressed in the classroom. If they are discussed only by student organizations, panelists, and other extracurricular events, then students who prefer the status quo can choose to avoid taking part. Moreover, the discussions must be moderated by professors who are prepared to ensure that all voices are heard.
This week’s revelation of the racist chants by Oklahoma University’s SAE fraternity is a stark reminder that racism is not far beneath the surface of our society. Hopefully our law schools can become places where even covert racism is changed by shared experiences.