The White Bias in Legal Education

July 16th, 2015 / By

Alexia Brunet Marks and Scott Moss have just published an article that analyzes empirical data to determine which admissions characteristics best predict law student grades. Their study, based on four recent classes matriculating at their law school (the University of Colorado) or Case Western’s School of Law, is careful and thoughtful. Educators will find many useful insights.

The most stunning finding, however, relates to minority students. Even after controlling for LSAT score, undergraduate GPA, college quality, college major, work experience, and other factors, minority students secured significantly lower grades than white students. The disparity appeared both in first-year GPA and in cumulative GPA. The impact, moreover, was similar for African American, Latino/a, Asian, and Native American students.

Marks and Moss caution that the number of Native American students in their database (15) was small, and that the number of Latino/a students (45) was also modest. These numbers may be too small to support definitive findings. Still, the findings for these groups were statistically significant–and consistent with those for the larger groups of African American and Asian American students.

What accounts for this disturbing difference? Why do students of color receive lower law school grades than white students with similar backgrounds?

“Something . . . About Legal Education Itself”

Marks and Moss are unable to probe this racial disparity in depth; their paper reports a wide range of empirical findings, with limited space to discuss each one. They observe, however, that their extensive controls for student characteristics suggests that the “racial disparity reflects something not merely about the students, but about legal education itself.” What is that something?

One possibility, as Marks and Moss note, is unconscious bias in grading. Most law school courses are graded anonymously, but others are not. Legal writing, seminars, clinics, and other skills courses often require identified grading. Even in large lecture courses, some professors give credit for class participation–a practice that destroys anonymity for that portion of the grade.

No one suspects that professors discriminate overtly against minority students. Implicit bias, however, is pervasive in our society. How do we as faculty know that we value the words of a minority student as highly as those offered by white students? Unless we keep very careful records, how do we know that we remember the minority student’s comments as often as the white student’s? These are questions that all educators should be willing to ask.

Another explanation lies in the psychological phenomenon of stereotype threat. When placed in situations in which a group stereotype suggests they will perform poorly, people often do just that. Scientists have demonstrated this phenomenon with people of all races and both genders. Math performance among White men, for example, declines if they take a test after hearing information about the superiority of Asian math students.

Legal education itself, finally, may embody practices that favor white students. Are there ways in which our culture silently nurtures white students better than students of color? I’d like to think not, but it’s hard to judge a matter like that from within the culture. Cultures are like gravity; they affect us constantly but invisibly.

Other Influences

I can think of three forces originating outside of law schools that might depress the performance of minority students. First, minorities may enter law school with fewer financial resources than their white peers. Marks and Moss were unable to control for economic background, and the minority students in their study may have come from financially poorer families than the white students. Students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds may spend more time working for pay, live in less convenient housing, and lack money for goods and services that ease academic study.

Second, minority students may have less social capital than white students. Students who have family members in the legal profession, or who know other law graduates, can commiserate with them about the challenges of law school. These students can also discuss study approaches and legal principles with their outside network. Even knowing other people who have succeeded in law school may give a student confidence to succeed. Minority students, on average, may have fewer of these supports.

In fact, minority students may suffer more than white students from negative social capital. If a student is the first in the family (or neighborhood) to attend law school, the student’s social network may tacitly suggest that she is unlikely to succeed. Minority students may also be more likely than white students to face family demands on their time; families may rely economically and emotionally on a student who has achieved such unusual success.

Finally, minority students bear emotional burdens of racism that white students simply don’t encounter. Some of those burdens are personal: the white people who cross the street to avoid a minority male, the shopkeeper who seems to hover especially close. Others are societal. We were all upset by the church massacre in Charleston, South Carolina, but the tragedy was much more personal–and threatening–for African Americans. How hard it must be to continue studying the rule against perpetuities in the face of such lawlessness and racial hatred.

What Should Law Schools Do?

I don’t know the causes of the racial disparity in law student grades. One or more of the above factors may account for the problem; other influences may be at work. Whatever the causes, the data cry out for a response. Even if the discrepancy stems from the outside forces I’ve identified, law schools can’t ignore the impact of those forces. If we’re serious about racial diversity in the legal profession, we need to identify the source of the racial grade gap and remedy it.

Law schools face many challenges today, but this one is as important as any I’ve heard about. It’s time to talk about the burdens on minority students, the ways in which our culture may aggravate those burdens, and the steps we can take to open the legal profession more fully to all.

, View Comments (4)

Derrick A. Bell, Jr.

January 9th, 2013 / By

Derrick A. Bell, Jr., started law school in the mid-1950’s, shortly after the Supreme Court’s momentous Brown decision. It must have been a time of hope for a talented black student, one who had already completed a successful tour in the United States Air Force. But it was also a time when rhetoric conflicted with reality. Bell was the only black student in his law school class, and one of only three black students in the school. He secured a spot in the Justice Department’s prestigious Honors Program after graduation, but the Department forced him to resign when he joined the NAACP.

Bell moved on to work with Thurgood Marshall, Robert L. Carter, and Constance Baker Motley on the difficult post-Brown tasks of dismantling segregation. He supervised more than 300 school desegregation cases, returned briefly to the federal government, and directed a center on law and poverty.

Harvard Law School invited Bell to join its faculty, and in 1971 he became the school’s first tenured black professor. He remained in the academy until his death, teaching at Harvard, Oregon (where he also served as Dean), Stanford, and NYU.

Bell was a controversial member of the academy. He wrote–and spoke–bluntly about racism. His views often offended white professors, but Bell persisted. Throughout his life, he flew at the front of the wedge in confronting racism and promoting integration. Bell’s tenaciousness, insights, and eloquence paid off. He changed, not only the face of the legal academy, but the way in which scholars, lawyers, and ordinary citizens think about racism and the law. On Sunday, the Association of American Law Schools honored Bell with its Triennial Award for Lifetime Service to Legal Education and to the Law.

When Bell began writing about racism in the 1970’s, his work was alien–and deeply unsettling–to white readers. Unease spawned rejection: Many early readers discredited Bell as someone who “complained too much” or “couldn’t get over racism, already.” Those are very mild versions of statements I heard throughout the late 70s and 80s, when Bell’s critical race theory was new.

Today, many more people–inside and outside the academy–perceive the deep roots and subtle shadows of racism. With that understanding, we have made more progress. But we got here only because people like Bell were willing to take us by the shoulders, shake us hard, and force us to re-think our assumptions.

Bell’s fight is far from over, but his victory lies in the truth of these words uttered by his widow, Janet Dewart Bell, when she accepted the award in his honor: “Derrick always worried that his work would die with him. But on this one thing, Derrick Bell was wrong.”*

* I paraphrase (and will update when the AALS tapes are available), but I’ve got the meaning. For more on Bell, please see this official site.

, No Comments Yet

About Law School Cafe

Cafe Manager & Co-Moderator
Deborah J. Merritt

Cafe Designer & Co-Moderator
Kyle McEntee

ABA Journal Blawg 100 HonoreeLaw School Cafe is a resource for anyone interested in changes in legal education and the legal profession.

Around the Cafe

Subscribe

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives

Participate

Have something you think our audience would like to hear about? Interested in writing one or more guest posts? Send an email to the cafe manager at merritt52@gmail.com. We are interested in publishing posts from practitioners, students, faculty, and industry professionals.

Past and Present Guests