9-27-89 I’m associated with three very different UTA clubs. The Alliance for Animals consists of dedicated, conscientious students. They’re idealistic in the best sense of the word. Knowing that they are fighting a powerful farming, hunting, and medical establishment, they choose their targets carefully and work diligently to hit them. It doesn’t matter that the odds of making a difference are overwhelmingly against them; the pleasure and satisfaction lie in the struggle. The Maverick Cycling Club consists of fun-loving and in some cases dedicated students. The atmosphere of the meetings is always informal, even jovial, like the few weekend rides we have had. The raison d’etre of the club is to promote and enjoy bicycling. The Pre-Law Society consists of serious, ideological, and in most cases brutally practical students. Many of them see law as a means to financial independence and security. Others see it as a chance to change the world for the better. What disturbs me about the Pre-Law Society is that so many of its members are politically and socially conservative. This dawned on me when one of the members was described as a “Young Republican”. These are clean-cut, traditional students whose main objective is to spread the gospel of conservatism to other students. They idolize such politicians as Ronald Reagan [1911-2004], Newt Gingrich, and Alfonse D’Amato and believe that the free market and traditional values are the saviors of this country.
The speaker at today’s meeting was a local defense attorney who had been a prosecutor for many years. She described her background, including her years at the University of Houston Law School, and sketched a typical day as a lawyer. I found myself shaking my head in acknowledgment almost constantly, for her experience was much like mine. We had the same overbearing law professors, the same anxiety about bar exams, and the same feeling of immersion in and suffocation by the law. During her talk, the attorney said that Houston’s admiralty-law firms were not hiring women when she got out of law school. Had they been open to a female associate, she would have been interested in taking such a job. When her talk ended and she threw it open for questions, I raised my hand from the back row and said “Is there sexism in the legal system? If so, is it pervasive?”. Who better to tell budding lawyers what the legal system is really like—on the inside? This woman has been there and should know. As I asked the question, a clean-cut male student in the front row scowled at me, as if to say “What a stupid question! Of course there’s no sexism in the legal system; it’s illegal”. The attorney proceeded to describe several incidents in which she had been treated differently (invariably worse) simply because she was a woman. It was as if I touched a raw nerve, for she went on and on about how sexist and oppressive law practice can be.
Other students asked questions about law school and criminal law. As I reflected on the male student’s scowl, it made perfectly good sense. To this young white male, law is clean, pure, and noble. He sees it as a tool not only for social change, but as a chance to make a solid—even remunerative—living. My question did not concern the upside of law, however; it emphasized the downside, the dark, dirty underbelly of prejudice, bias, and discrimination. This is a side of law that he refuses to believe exists. As a white male, he will never know what it is like to be treated as a second-class citizen in virtue of his sex or skin color; nor will he have to struggle to make his way in the legal world. It’s a white man’s world, after all, and he’s a white man. I have no doubt that other students felt the way he did when he scowled at me. As an informal advisor to the society, this leaves me in a dilemma. Should I continue in this role, knowing that I may be grooming future oppressors? Or should I ignore the fact that these budding lawyers are also conservatives? The philosopher in me says to ignore it, but the concerned citizen and radical feminist in me says that it can’t be ignored. I’ll attend a few more meetings of the society and see how things develop. For now, suffice it to say that I’m disturbed by its demographic and ideological makeup.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 