UNM Law School Built on Honest, Professional Debate
By Suellyn Scarnecchia
Dean, UNM School of Law
A recent commentary by Christina Hoff Sommers ("Liberal Bias Rules UNM Law School") offers me a welcome opportunity to describe my vision for the only law school in New Mexico.
Since my arrival at the school in 2003, I have worked with my faculty colleagues to shape an agenda that challenges individuals like Sommers to shift their focus away from divisive political name calling.
Building on a tradition of open inquiry at the School, the agenda is straightforward: Make the law school a place where learning and public debate occur in a professional and respectful atmosphere, open to multiple and contrasting viewpoints. Our goal is to train leaders for the 21st century, helping them to move beyond old stereotypes and stalemated politics.
When Sommers spent the afternoon at the law school, I welcomed her warmly and the students treated her with respect. She did not, however, take the time to interview me or survey the faculty or attend our classes. She saw what she wanted to see, reported facts inaccurately, and did not fairly portray the nature of this institution.
Contrary to Sommers' suggestion, this administration brings conservative voices to the law school as speakers, teachers, staff and students. We support student organizations, like the Federalist Society, both financially and with our time and attention.
We invested financially in the continuation of the District Attorney Clinic after its director retired until we were able to develop a new course (beginning this spring) that will keep students working and learning in the DA's office. Our Career Services office, run by a former assistant district attorney, places graduates with judges and law offices with divergent political views and affiliations.
Our Economic Development Program promotes investment of talent and energy into the future prosperity of New Mexico. Our Utton Transboundary Natural Resources Center promotes peaceful resolution of conflicts over natural resources to avoid litigation. Far from an intolerant place, the law school fosters respectful and open debate.
Also, contrary to Sommers' statement, we have never hired faculty members based on party affiliation. Rather, we recruit from the broadest possible spectrum of potential applicants, including direct outreach to the American Enterprise Institute, which employs Sommers. And we hire professors who will challenge students to broaden their views and perspectives, to move beyond narrow thinking.
We are busy challenging ourselves and our students to find a new, respectful form of public discourse, one that welcomes a variety of views and works to find common ground and new solutions in a civil and professional way.
In 2006, the School of Law is an exciting place to be because our community welcomes social and intellectual differences. The Difficult Dialogues series is designed to help students learn to have public conversations about controversial issues in a professional and civil way.
The series grew out of concern over the red state vs. blue state world into which our students were graduating, motivating us to help them find a better way to solve problems. At the same time, the fact that the law school is diverse in so many ways (religion, ethnicity, age, geography, socio-economic, political) made it a real challenge to keep debate open, honest and professional.
One might assume that diverse viewpoints breed lively debate, and they can. On the other hand, diversity can close down debate when everyone just wants to try to get along with each other and fears conflict. The Difficult Dialogue Series takes this problem on directly: How do we use our diversity to improve legal education? How do we use our different world views to provide clarity, honesty, and solutions?
Contrary to the report of Sommers, the dialogues are not screaming matches. The most recent dialogue focused on how last year's student election became contentious and divisive. Rather than letting the conflict fester, the students chose to talk about it in an open meeting, where many of them acknowledged lessons learned from the conflict and how they might handle their disagreements more professionally next time around.
The object is to learn to disagree clearly, civilly and with an eye toward finding common ground.
Through dedication to our students and the people of New Mexico, and by holding ourselves to high standards of professionalism, we hope to move beyond name-calling and stereotyping to a legal profession filled with lawyers who can easily step across political, religious, racial and other lines to find solutions.
opinion 
...go to bookmarks
E-mail Story
Print Friendly
