1968.09.25: Letwin, Report on the Los Angeles CLEO Program

View in searchable PDF format: 1968.09.25 – Letwin, Report on the 1968 LA CLEO Program.OCR

=====
Raw text:

REPORT ON ‘IHE LOS ANGELES CLEO PROGRAM

(Legal Education Opportunity Program

of

Southern California)

June 24 – August 16, 1968

Sponsored by the Law Schools of

UCLA, Loyola and USC

Submitted for the San Antonio CLEO Conference,

September 20 – 21, 1968

by Leon Letwin, Director

(Final: 9/25/68J

/

, ~.

REPORT ON ‘IHE LOS ANGELES CLEO PROGRAM

(Legal Education Opportunity Program

of

Southern California)

June 24 – August 16, 1968

Sponsored by the Law Schools of

UCLA , Loyola and USC

(Final: 9/25/68)

Submitted for the San Antonio CLEO Conference,

September 20 – 21, 1968

by Leon Letwin, Director

Tbe objects of this report are to describe the major features

of tbe L. A. Summer Program; to attempt an analysis of some of its

strengths and weaknesses (indicating principal areas of agreement

and disagreement that have arisen within the staff); and to make

some suggestions concerning future summer programs and also as to

the role of national CLEO.

The discussion will be arranged under the following headings:

I. Admissions to the Su~er Program and to the Participating

Law Schools.

II. Program Publicity.

III. Academic Objectives and Curriculum.

IV. Staff.

V. Some Basic Criticisms of the Program.

VI. Problems of Financial Support.

VII. Recommendations and Conclusions.

* * *

I. Admissions to the Summer Program and to the Participating

Law Schools.

The Los Angeles CLEO Program was jointly sponsored, organized

and operated by the 3 accredited law schools in Los Angeles: UCLA,

Loyola and USC. The Program was physically located and administered

on the premises of the UCLA Law School. The summer sessions ran for

-~ ·flo 8 weeks, from June 24 to August 26.

The three schools came together out of an urgent sense of the

need to expand opportunities for legal education available to

members of the large black and Mexican-American populations in the

Los Angeles community.

2.

The proposal for the Los Angeles Summer Program was developed

independently of CLIO early in 1968 and was accepted b.Y CLEO in

February, 1968.

Student admissions to tbe Program were determined by the

3 sponsoring law schools, except for 4 students admitted upon the

request of law schools from outside tbe Los Angeles area (U. of

San Diego, California Western, U. of Washington).

Over 300 people applied for admission to the Summer Program.

42 were admitted–14 Mexican-American; 28 black. Of the 42,

one failed to complete the Program. Of the remaining 41,

34 were seniors, 7 juniors. All of the seniors .and 2 juniors–

a total of 36–were offered admission to law schools and accepted

the offers. (One bas since withdrawn.) This is a measure of

the direct impact of the Program upon minority admission to law

schools.

But the Program bad an additional, indirect impact. A

substantial number of CLEO applicants denied admission to the

SUmmer Program were nonetheless admitted to one or another law

school. While the precise figure is not known, it probably runs

as high as 45. Thus 80 or more minority students are today in

law schools, due in part to the activities of the Program. True,

~ some of these would have applied and been accepted to law schools

independently of any CLEO program. But it seems realistic to

say that the Program was a major stimulus to minority recruitment

on the part of the three sponsorin1 schools: It encouraged

3.

widespread minority applications for law school admission; it

acted as a clearinghouse for applicants and therefore helped

bring interested students and interested law schools into

contact with one another; and the very existence of the Program

stimulated several law schools to embark upon a more aggressive

recruitment effort than would otherwise have been the case.

The following statistics may prove helpful:

Applications to the SUmmer Program. In a little over two

months (between mid-March and mid-May) well over 300 applications

were received by the Summer Program. (The methods used in

publicizing the Program are discussed in Section II below.) A

detailed analysis of the ethnic background, sex, collegiate

standing, schools attended, and regional distribution of these

applicants will be found in Chart 1 (pages 4-5). Roughly two-thirds

of the applicants were black, and one-third were Mexican-American.

Approximately 60% were seniors, eligible for admission to law

school this fall, and the balance were juniors. Reflecting our

recruitment priorities, the overwhelming majority of the applicants

were from the California area and mostly from Los Angeles. (Over

40% bad attended one of three Los Angeles area colleges.) 261 of

the applicants were male; 53 were female.

t.

II.

III.

~·

·~

..

CHART 1

ANALYStS OF APPLtCANTS

Total 314

~NIC COMPOStTION

A. Negro 203

B. Mexican-American 93

c. American Indian 3

D. Japanese-American 4

E. Chinese-American 3

F. Other 8

JUNIOR-SENIOR

A. Junior (Students not eligible for law school thts fall)

B. Senior (Students eligible for law school this fall)

120

194

LAST SCHOOL ATlENDED BY APPLICANTS FROM WHICH THREE OR MQBI §TUDEHI~

HAVE APPLIED

CAL. psmBNCB

A. Cal State – Los Angeles 70 69

B. UCLA 37 36

c. usc 23 23

D. Southern University -Baton Ro~e, 19 2

E. Cal State – San Jose • 14 14

Fo Cal State – San Fernando Valley 10 10

G. UC Berkeley 10 7

H. Cal State – Long Beach 9 8

I. Cal State – San Diego 7 7

Jo Loyola- Los Angeles 6 6

IC.. Cal State – Sacramento 5 5

L. Cal State – Fullerton 4 3

Mo Cal State – San Francisco 4 4

N. Cal Poly, Pomona 4 4

o. Chapman College – Orange, Calif. 4 4

P. Occidental College- Los Angeles 4 4

Q. Roosevelt University – Chicago 4 0

R. University of Washington 4 0

s. Livingstone College -Salisbury, N£.4 0

T. Cal State – Hayward 3 3

u. UC Riverside 3 3

v. Stanford University 3 3

w • Mt. Sto Mary-Is – Los Angeles 3 3

x. Pepperdine College – Los Ange lea 3 2

Yo Tuskegee Institute-Tuskegee, Ala. 3 0

z. Fisk University -Nashville, Tenn. 3 0

A. UCSB 3 3

B’. University of Arizona 3 1

4.

:…

~

CHART 1 (cont.)

Analysis of Applicants

Page Two •

I.v. ~

A. Males

1. Negro

2. Mexican-American

3. American Indian

4. Japanese-American

5. Chinese-American

6. Other

B. Females

1. Negro

2. Mexican-American

3. Japanese-American

4. Chinese-AmeriCan

s. Other

v. RESIDENTIAL DISTRIBUTION

A. Los Angeles

B. Other California

c. Louisiana

D. Washington

E. Illinois

F. Georgia

H. New York

I. Alabama

J. Washington, D.C.

Ko South Carolina

L. Mississippi

Mo North Carolina

N. Arizona

o. Carribean

Po Arkansas

Q. New Mexico

R. Hawaii

s. Michigan

T. Texas

159

88

3

3

1

7

44

5

1

2

1

159

67

14

4

4

4

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

5.

261

53

6.

Admissions to the Summer Program. Chart 2 (page 7) provides

a summary of information on the 42 people enrolled intbe Summer

Program. 28 were black and 14 Mexican-American. 36 were male,

6 female. 34 were college graduates, 8 juniors. 36 had previously

attended California colleges.

Appendix 1 (pages 1A-3A ) provides detailed information as

to each Summer Program participant (tbe names and school affiliation

being deleted), including LSAT score and undergraduate GPA score.

~

.,

7.

CHART 2

·r·– LOOAL ED~cA;i~~ oPPORTUNirfi- PROGRAM oF -sc;uTHERN cALIFORNIA··- <-ciEo)··-··~

l SUMMER PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS

Total Enrolled: 42*

I. Ethnic Composition

Black 28

Mexican-American 14

II. Sex

Male 36

Female 6

III. College Status

College Graduates 34

Juniors 8

IV. Undergraduate Schools

Cal State – Los Angeles 14

UCLA 5

Cal State – San Diego 3

Cal State – SFV 3

Cal State – San Fran. 2

Pepperdine 2

Pomona College 2

Cal State – Long Beach 1

Cal State – San Jose 1

Morehouse College 1

Morgan State College 1

Univ. of Redlands 1

Southern University 1

Tuskegee Institute 1

Univ. of San Diego 1

Univ. of Washington 1

Western Reserve Univ. 1

Woodbury College 1

V. Law School Admissions of the Above 34 College Graduates and 2 juniors

School Total

UCLA 18

Loyola Univ. 10 usc 5

Univ. of San Diego 2

Univ. of Washington 1

Total 36

* One student withdrew 7/17/68, leaving 41.

Black

10

7

5

2

1

25

Mexican-American

8**

3

11

I

**After accepting admission, one found he could not attend, leaving 7.

·~————————~~’ ‘

‘~

8.

Minority students entering parti·cipating law schools in fall, 1968,

Univ. of Univ. of

–UCLA Loyola –usc Was b. San Dieso Total

Students wbo bad

attended the L.A.

Summer Program: 17 10 5 1 2 35

From other sources

(primarily CLEO

applicants): 23* 17* 8* ? ? 48

40 27 13 1 +? 2 + ? 83

In addition, a number of our CLIO applicants have been accepted

by other law schools, for example, Berkeley and Iowa, partly as the

result of the Program’s services.

Ethnic breakdown of the 83 students mentioned above

Black Mexican-American Indian Other

48 27 3 5

* These figures are rough approximations because of some

last minute changes, and because of some doubt as to wbo abould

be classified a “minority student·” within the terms of tbia

progrB.IIl.

~

•

9.

Comparison of minority enrollment (approximate) in first-year

class at three Los Angeles schools for years 1966 through 1968.

UCLA usc LOYOLA

1968 40 13 27

1967 14 2 10

1966 0 1 10

Based on these figures the combined enrollment for 1968 of

black and Mexican-American students ranges from about 7% to 11 ‘fo

of tbe entering class, depending upon the school.

Criteria and Methods of Selecting Students for the Summer

Program. In keeping with fundamental national CLEO policy, a

central criterion for selection was that the student not possess

the academic qualifications traditionally required for law school

admission. Reliance upon LSAT scores and undergraduate gradepoint

average was largely abandoned. Many of those who applied did in

fact qualify for admission under these traditional standards and

were admitted directly to law schools without benefit of the

Summer Program. The Program was reserved for those who did not

meet traditional admission criteria, but who were believed to have

the capacity to succeed in law school and who might be substantially

helped by the Program.

The LSAT scores of the 42 Summer Program students ranged

from 297 to 592. The average LSAT was about 425. The average

gradepoint average was about 2.5 •

(It seems likely that as such programs continue, greater

confidence will develop among minority students toward the law

schools. The experience of a IDs Angeles law school where e.

minority recruitment program is in its second year suggests as a

probable result a growth both in the number and academic quality

~

of applicants.)

10.

Beyond the policy described above, it is bard to speak of

admissions criteria of the Program in distinction to those of the

sponsoring law schools. These schools early agreed that the

Program was not to be used as a screening process, that they would

make their admissions decisions prior to the Program’s commencement,

and that (except in the case of juniors) the Program would be

reserved for those admitted to a law school. The admissions policy

of the Program then merely became the reflection of the various

policies of the participating law schools. In fact, the Program’s

admissions decisions were not made primarily by the Program Director,

but by the representatives of the sponsoring schools.

It may nonetheless be useful to discuss problems of admissions

criteria. When we depart from such “objective” criteria as LSAT and

GPA, as we all know, we are in the area of subjective judgments and

personal values. Perhaps two criteria are involved in the admissions

decision: the likelihood of the student’s success in law school;

and predictions as to the contribution he is apt to make to the

law school educational process and to the society at large. One

~ can, if he draws comfort from such exercises, identify a series of

factors that may bear on these issues, such as the student’s prior

history of educational or economic disadvantage, his academic record,

his LSAT, his seriousness of purpose, the nature of his commitments,

and his career objectives.

11.

But the process so transparently involves personal values,

it seems indefensible that the decisions reflect solely those of

white academics. Minority members should not be denied participation

due merely to their widespread absence from the law school structures.

Such participation might be achieved through minority faculty

members (where they exist), administrators, students, or even

lawyers. For those who regard strategic reasons as compelling,

this step is required in order to mitigate the “we”/”they”

dichotomy so pervasive and harmful in relations between majority

and minority groups.

Should the Program have accepted junior students? More

precisely, should the Program have accepted persons ineligible

for law school admission the following fall? Two of the three

cooperating law schools on occasion admit juniors, and there seems

no reason to deny a place in a summer program to a junior who bas

been admitted to law school. However, only one of the eight

junior students in the Los Angeles Program fell into this category.

Given the large pool of qualified senior applicants who were

rejected, there is substantial agreement in our staff that

enrollment should be limited to those who have been granted law

school admission, or at any rate that others be taken only if

spare seats are available.

12.

Restrictions of Ford Scholarships to CLEO Students. A

potentially serious problem was raised by the decision to restrict

the Ford scholarships to CLEO students. Academically better

qualified students, who were for that reason not admitted to the

CLEO programs, might have been unable to get financial aid

elsewhere. This could produce the spectacle of equally or more

needy students who were better qualified ending up without the

financial aid available to CLEO students. An alternate possibility

is that, confronted with this dilemma, tbe CLEO Program’s

admission policies might become distorted so as to admit students

not because of academic need but because of financial need. On

the whole, the Los Angeles Program largely avoided either result.

That is, those better qualified CLEO applicants not admitted to

the Program were directly admitted to participating law schools,

and these schools were able to provide financial assistance on

a par with the CLEO students, independently of CLEO funding.

The restriction of scholarship funds to CLEO students was no

doubt necessitated by the limited funds presently available. It

is an awkward and potentially unfair arrangement, however, and not

acceptable on a long range basis.

Acceptance of applicants with spacial financial problems.

~ Applications were received from some people witb large families

!”

and with correspondingly large financial needs. Several such

applicants were in fact admitted to the Summer Program and to law

schools, and substantially greater sums of scholarship aid were

made available to them than to others. If far greater funds were

13.

available it would be highly desirable to regard such factors

as size of family irrelevant in the case of otherwise qualified

applicants. But given the financial realities, what was done

has the effect of decreasing the number of people to whom

financial aid could be given. The question arises whether the

admission of people with unusually large financial needs represents

a sound policy in light of the realities. A number of students

and staff members felt it did not.

One staff member put it thus:

As we painfully discovered last summer

one of the areas of concern among the students

was tbe amount of financial support that was

to be made available to the participants.

Although this was the result of many factors

which are inherent in a new program plus the

fact that we are not dealing with individuals

from Beverly Hills, yet there is some connection

between the level of financial support to be

made available and the selection policies of

CLEO.

Essentially what I suggest is that in

evaluating the application of a prospective

participant attention should be favorably given

to those individuals who are not burdened down

with family responsibilities to the extent that

it is clearly apparent that they would suffer

acute financial stress in attempting to attend

law school •••• While individuals with many

dependents are not to be automatically ruled

out, their applications are to be very carefully

reviewed or the student should be told in no

uncertain~erms the financial stress which is

encountered in law school. In this connection

I again will mention that we have a large pool

of applications • • • who are eligible to

attend the program in terms of grades, etc. and

who have a minimum number of dependents. Thus

we should make the number of dependents a factor

in evaluating an application. (This whole

question presents, of course, a difficult

situation for the interviewer and for this reason

in the following paragraph I have stressed the

need for having minority representation on the

interviewing panels.)

Quotas between minorities. A pervasive issue in the Los

Angeles program related to the method of allocating seats

14.

as between various minorities, particularly between black and

brown. In point of fact, the Program had no policy of intraminority

quotas, and this factor was simply not taken into account

in allocating seats as between different members of the common

pool of minority applicants. Roughly 1/3 of those admitted to

the Program turned out to be Mexican-American and this proportion

corresponded roughly to the proportion of Mexican-American

applicants. (Actually the admissions rate for this group somewhat

exceeded the application rate.)

A number of Mexican-Americans in the Program and in the

community strongly advocated a quota under which at least half

the admittees would be Mexican-Americans. (Several articles

appearing in the UCLA Bruin [Appendix 2, pages 4A-6A], give some

feel for the viewpoint and intensity of feeling of Mexican-American

students on the issue.) Their arguments were as follows:

a) Mexican-Americans constitute the largest single minority

in the Los Angeles area and substantially exceed the other

minorities, singly or in combination.

b) The need for Mexican-American attorneys is acute and far

greater than that for any other group, there being only a handful

of Mexican-American lawyers throughout the entire state.

c) The educational and financial disabilities facing the

Mexican-Americans are more severe than those facing other minorities,

as evidenced by the relatively small percentage of Mexican-American

applicants to the Program. The very same considerations then that

15.

warrant prog~ams of this type, based as they are on a recognition

of minority problems in general, warrant a recognition of the

special and acute needs of Mexican-Americans.

The Program’s reaction was to recognize the validity of

claims as to the gross lack of Mexican-American attorneys and

the need for sharp expansion in this direction, but to deny the

quota as a necessary or desirable way of achieving the change.

Instead, it was proposed, the schools in cooperation with

Mexican-American students, should undertake large-scale recruiting

efforts in the future. These might produce a large number of

qualified applicants. Normal selection processes applied to

this group would then tend to bring admissions more in line with

the needs of the Mexican-American community without use of a

quota.

This issue, needless to say, is merely a specific reflection

of a general tension that bas arisen in communities dealing with

multi-minority problems.

With regard to the method of selection, the school

representatives had before them the college transcripts of

16.

the applicants, their LSAT scores, and a letter of recommendation.

All of the senior applicants in the Los Angeles area were, in

addition, interviewed by representatives of 1 or more of tbe 3

sponsoring law schools. Representatives of 2 of the sponsoring

law schools spent a total of about 10 full days (over a period of

a few weeks) interviewing about 175 applicants. A representative

of the other sponsoring law school preferred the technique of

interviewing a far smaller number of people in much greater depth.

Minority participation in the admissions process implies, of

course, participation in the interviewing process. Our staff

is strongly of the view that steps should be taken in this

direction at once.

Comments on expanding minority enrollment. The national CLEO

program is perceived by many of the minority students as a token

effort. A national program aspiring to put 100 minority group

students into legal education is scarcely an adequate response to

the needs of minority students, the law schools, or society. If

our efforts appear to have produced an impressive increase in

minority enrollment, this is so only because of the abysmal base

from which we start. Some 70,000 law students were attending

of minority enrollment

law schools during 1967. The need is for annual expansion/measured

not in the hundreds but in the thousands. The view of many of

the minority students in our Program was illustrated in an incident

that occurred during the first week of our Summer Program. A local

17.

CBS television channel had come to the law school to do a story

on the Program. (See UCLA Bruin article dated June 28, 1968,

Appendix 2.) Cameras were brought in to photograph one of the

class sessions. As the filming started, the Mexican-American

students walked out. Spokesmen for the Mexican-American students

and for the black students each subsequently explained their

action on television. The Mexican-American spokesman said

substantially the following:

This Program is wholly inadequate. They are

splitting up only 40 students between three

schools. It is a step in the right direction

but too little and too late. We need a massive

change. It is not a sincere effort; it is a

token effort. Only a very small percentage of

minority people are involved in relation to a

Los Angeles community population of one million

Mexican-American and 650,000 Black. It is just

a token program intended to put over the idea

that the wbite, middle-class community is really

concerned with the problem. If they were really

concerned, we wouldn’t have 40 students in this

Program but 400 in Southern California alone.

There are eight million Mexican-Americans and

20 million black Americans in the United States

and these programs are just a drop in the bucket.

The black spokesman agreed with these views and said the student

composition should reflect, ethnically, the community population.

The large volume of applications our Program received

demolishes the myth–shared by many, including myself–that

~ minority applicants would be hard to come by. In point of fact,

the number of potential applicants is virtually unlimited. Had we

publicized the Program more aggressively, had we established a

more effective network of contacts in the local colleges, had we

had more than two months in which to solicit applications, we could

18.

quite likely have secured 500 or 600 applicants in the State of

California. The problem is not lack of interest and desire on

the part of black and Mexican-American students. The barriers

are rather financial, traditionally rigid admission standards,

and widespread skepticism among minority students that the law

schools are genuiaely committed to making change.

The sums of money needed to adequately provide for subsistence

and tuition are enormous, compared to present perspectives.

While I do not yet have complete figures, a rough estimate would

be that some $200,000 has been committed by the participating

law schools (primarily the 3 Los Angeles schools) to meet the

financial requirements of approximately 60 students (of a total

of about 80) accepted by the 3 Los Angeles law schools, for the

current year. (This figure Lncludes the 35 CLEO students and

24 or so of those accepted to the law schools independently of

the Summer Program.) Of this $200,000, $45,000 was made available

from the CLEO administered Ford grant. The balance of $155.000

was raised by the 3 schools elsewhere. To provide similar

financial aid to the remaining 20 of the 80 students would have

required an additional amount well over $70,000, which was

unavailable. Given the same rate of minority recruitment in the

next 2 entering classes to the 3 Los Angeles law schools–not to

speak of accelerated recruitment–the financial need starting

in 1970 will run about 1/2 million dollars a year. The amount

needed on a national level for an analogous expansion would run

1Dto many millions. The sums presently available are of course

19.

wholly inadequate. Based on the experience of the Los Angeles

~ Program it is no exaggeration to say that, for tbe moment,

‘ the limiting factor upon the expansion of minority enrollment

is not the lack of students nor the unwillingness of law schools;

it is rather the lack of money. I would therefore regard it a

prime objective of the National CLIO office to help organize a

program for raising the necessary funds from governmental and

private sources.

Several aspects of tbe recruitment pattern of our Program

are probably distinctive and deserve comment.

1. We did not conceive of the Summer Program as a device

for screening students. Admission to law school was not made

dependent upon the grades or performance of the student in the

Program. As a matter of fact, each of the senior students was

guaranteed admission to a law school before the Program bad even

commenced. We viewed the Program purely as a device for enhancing

the prospect of law school success on the part of students already

accepted to a law scbool.

2. As statistics previously given reveal, our recruiting

effort had a rather narrow regional focus. A primary concern was

with drawing students from the black and Mexican-American ghettos

that constitute the backyards of the three Los Angeles law schools.

Furthermore, we did not try to disperse these students among law

schools over a wide geographic area. We rather provided the

opportunity for concentrated enrollment in the 3 Los Angeles law

schools. This we did for several reasons:

20.

_a) The law schools in this area normally recruit largely

from the Southern California comaunity. We thought it obligatory

to provide similar opportunities for minority members of the

community.

b) Coming from the community and in many cases intending

to return to or to serve the community in various ways, we thought

these students would inject a highly desirable quality into the

law school.

c) Placing a large number of minority students in a few

law schools would provide a more hospitable environment for the

students and enhance the likelihood of their success.

d) SUch a concentration would enable the minority students

to develop a more effective voice in the law school with respect

to a range of issues of concern to them.

In mr view, these efforts to provide a large number of seats

to residents of the community in which the schools are located

was a sound recruitment policy and perhaps a useful model for

other urban industrial centers.

3. Recruiting efforts were jointly undertaken bJ the three

participating law schools. A single application to the SUmmer

Program, if the applicant so chose, served also as an application

for admission to each of the three sponsoring law schools. A

copy of the application is attached as Appendix 3 (pagea7A-10A ).

This application also came to serve as an application for a special

LSAT exaaination, administered without charge through the courtesy

of the ETS in Los Angeles in May. Thus with one fairly short

•

21~

application and without any application fees whatever, the

student could apply for admission to the SUmmer Program, to each

of the three law schools, and for the special LSAT examinations.

Perhaps such joint recruiting efforts should be extended

over an even broader area. We might, for example, have a single

application for use throughout the State of California, or in

some other geographic area. Anyone working in this field can

scarcely avoid being struck by the need for national and regional

cooperation and for administrative devices which will provide

brokerage services between applicants and the law schools.

Without question there are substantial numbers of minority students

that wish to go to law school and law schools that would wish

to have them as students; but in many cases, the marriage will

not be effected because student and school are unaware of each

other. The development of national and regional programs for

recruitment sbould, I think, be another primary concern of

national CLEO •

•

II. PROGRAM PUBLICITY

Publicity took the following forms:

1. Newspaper publicity (Appendix 4, pages 11A-25A).

a) Los Angeles Times

b) Local legal newspapers

c) College newspapers

d) Advertisements in college press on two campuses

with large minority populations

2. State Bar Journal (Appendix 4, page 23A~.

3. Radio publicity,

22.

4. Announcements to local government officials, senators,

congressmen, municipal legislators, local bar groups,

community organizations, legal services offices and

miscellaneous interested persons (Appendix 5, pages 26A-29A).

5. Announcements to all accredited law schools in California,

all state colleges (20), all branches of the University

of California (9), various prviate schools–directed to

pre-law advisors and minority program coordinators

(Appendix 6, pages 30A-31A).

The largest single generator of applications was probably the

publicity through press and radio. Other major sources were college

pre-law advisors and those minority students already enrolled in

law schools. With the expansion in minority enrollment, it is

predictable that law school minority students will become major

sources of future applicants. Some of the law schools intend to

use their services in this regard on an organized basis •

23.

III. Program Objectives and Curriculum

The objectives of the Program were summarized in a Bulletin

of Information (Appendix 6, page 30A) as follows: (1) to provide

minority group college graduates an opportunity for “advanced

orientation work,” i.e., a “headstart” before beginning their

formal legal studies; and (2) to encourage college juniors who

had not yet made their career choices to consider law as a

possible career.

Though curricular emphasis might have varied somewhat had the

Program aimed solely at one group or the other, it was assumed

that these objectives were substantially compatible. For either

group it would be necessary to provide exposure to typical law

school work and skills; and for either group it would be necessary

to deal with certain problems of “motivation.” This last was

predicated on the view that some students might be hampered in

their law school efforts (and juniors might be disinclined even

to enroll) by a sense of irrelevance of the legal system-irrelevant

either because they did not regard it a significant

instrument for critically needed social change, or at any rate,

because they did not regard it a meaningful area for personal

commitment, given competing paths open to them.

The curriculum to a degree reflected each of these objectives.

The skills orientation was reflected in the 3 courses which were

the backbone of the Program, in writing projects of the traditional

law school sort, and in a mock trial which ran over most of the

Program. The “aotivational” concerns were reflected (1) in our

~

24.

effort to incorporate some subject matter in the curriculum that

we thought might more readily be perceived by the students as

“relevant” — one of the courses dealt with protection of the

voting rights against discrimination, and the mock trial revolved

around a criminal prosecution of students for conduct on a

college campus arising out of a racial issue; (2) we scheduled a

number of outside speakers who we hoped would raise sharply the

issue of the relationship of law to contemporary social change

(these included 2 minority lawyers and also Governor Reagan’s

counsel); (3) students were permitted, though not required, to

attend certain outside events, where the issues of “relevancy”

would prominently arise; e.g., the trial of Huey Newton, and

certain sessions of the National Lawyer’s Guild convention, each

of which took place during the Program; (4) we attempted to create

an atmosphere which recognized the legitimacy of questions about

the “relevance” of any matter being studied to the operation of

the legal system, or about “relevance” of the legal system as a

whole to the student’s values and concerns.

While there were these two goals, most of our programmatic

offerings in no way represented an election between them. The

course on voting rights, or the mock trial, for example, appeared

to serve both.

Details of the curriculum. 1) There were 3 regular law school

type courses, each taught by a full-time faculty member (one from

each of the sponsoring schools). Professor Wasserstrom•s course

(UCLA) dealt with voting rights; Professor Garbesi’s (Lo7ola), with

bailments; and Professor Stone’s (USC), with aspects of legal process.

25.

The courses were in most respects taught precisely as they would

have been taught by that instructor in law school. Traditional

legal materials, cases and statutes, were used. The method was

Socratic, though style, of course, varied between instructors.

The principal difference as compared to law school were: first,

that the courses were ungraded and not for credit (though one

instructor gave a “final exam” and graded it to illustrate how the

student’s work compared with normal law school requirements); and

second, that the subject matter of these courses was not coextensive

with that of any traditional first-year course.

The students were divided into 2 sections of about 20 each,

and both sections of each course met 3 hours a week. A schedule for

the typical week is found on page 26 •

2) There was a mock trial which extended over most of the

8-week period, patterned after the trial in the Harvard Special

Summer Program. It was a criminal case dealing with the prosecution

of students for conduct on a college campus arising out of a racial

issue. Part of this course consisted of a preliminary hearing and

a jury trial, presided over by out~ide judges. Students performed

the role of the attorneys. The student body was divided into a

prosecution and defense sections, each of about 20 students. Mr.

Bell was the instructor in one of the sections. Mr. Jones and I

shared in the instruction of the other.

3) Written work. A major aim was to give the student the

opportunity to do written work and have that work closely evaluated

by instructorso The writing projects included library exercises,

MONDAY

9:“0 0 Class

Sec. 1 – Room 1411

Mr. Wasserstrom

Sec. 2 – Room 1425

Mr. Stone

10:00 Coffee

Conunons Room

10:30 Class

· Sec. 1 – Room 1411

Mr. Stone

Sec. 2 – Room 1425

Mr. Garbesi

:\.2:00 Lunch

1:30 Class

Sec. 1 – Room 1411

Mr. Garbesi

Sec. 2 – Room 1425

Mr. Wasserstrom

3:00 Special Project

Sec~ A – Room 2143

Mr. Wasserstrom

Sec. B – Room 1410

Mr. Stone

Sec. C – Room 312SB

Mr. Garbesi

,,.

TUESDAY

9:00 Class

Sec. 1 – Room 1411

Mr. l-lasserstrom

Sec. 2 – Room 1425

Mr. Stone

10:00 Coffee

Commons Room

• 10:30 Class

Sec. 1 – Room 1411

Mr. Stone

Sec. 2 -Room 1425

Mr. Garbesi

12:00 Lunch

1:30 Class

Sec. 1 – Room 1411

Mr. Garbesi

Sec. 2 – Room 1425

Mr. Wasserstrom

SCHEDULE: WEEKS 2 • 8

Field Trip· 9:00 Class

Sec. 1 – Room 1411

or Mr. Wasserstrom

Sec. 2 – Room 1425

Other Special Projects Mr. Stone

10:00 Coffee

Commons Room

10:30 Class

Sec. 1 -Room 1411

Mr. Stone

Sec. 2 -Room 1425

Mr. Garbesi

12:00 Lunch

1:30 Class

Sec. 1 – Room 1411

Mr. Garbesi

Sec. 2 – Room 1425

Mr. Wasserstrom

FRIDAY

8:30 Seminar with

student instructors

or

Individual writing

critique

12:00 Lunch

2: 30 ··Trial

Sec. 1 – Room 2143

Mr. Bell

Se~. 2 – Room 1410

Mr. Letwin

27.

a case synthesis problem, a research problem and several practice

examinationse Two instructors, Mro Wiener and Miss Magee, were

specially retained to read the papers, criticize them, and discuss

them with the studentso

4) It was planned that each of the three full-time faculty

members would work together with one-third of the students on a

special project running the eight weeks of the course. The object

was to take a particular problem, e.g., consumer fraud, a small

aspect of land use in a poverty area, drug addiction, etco, and

explore it in a multi-faceted way — the doctrine, the procedures,

and the viewpoints of the various participants in the process.

This was to involve class-room work as well as field study. The

point was to show the possible role of the lawyer in the solution

of contemporary, specific and urgent problems. After a few weeks

it was concluded that the student’s schedule was too cramped and

that this was a not too successful portion of the program. It was

accordingly discontinued.

5) There were several field trips.

a) To the criminal courts. These were designed to

permit the students to observe arraignments,

preliminary hearings, and trials. Some students

had the opportunity to talk to judge who had

participated in the cases viewed.

b) To lawyers’ offices. This permitted students who

wished to visit a large, conventional law firm

and to talk to some of the attorneys. Some of the

students similarly went to the office of house

counsel for a movie studio.

Field trips of the following type had also been considered:

a) A night shift in a police car

b) Visiting a juvenile court or a small claims court

c) Touring the Chino prison complex, including the classification

treatment center, the narcotics treatment

facility, etco

28.

As the program unfolded, it was felt that the value of these

additional tours would be peripheral and the time spent on them

excessive. The tours were therefore discontinued.

6) Talks on current topics. We designated the speakers for

only the first few of these, leaving it to the students to decide

what direction to move thereafter. Three such talks were given:

one by a blaCk attorney, one by a Mexican-American attorney representing

a group of people on criminal charges arising out of high

school demonstration in the Mexican-American community, and one by

Governor Reagan’s counsel, who served generally as his advisor and

also as pardon counsel. The decision was thereafter reached by

the students to schedule no additional speakers.

There was a substantial consensus that the central components

of the Program were and ought to be the courses and the writing.

Sentiment was divided as to the value of the mock trial and the

field trips, rather more people regarding them useful than not. In

general there was a sentiment for dispensing with “frills” and concentrating

on the intellectually demanding work of the courses and

the writing and of providing opportunities for individual work for

29.

students needing it.

There were no major criticisms of the courses as such (though

there were some general criticisms, presented below, bearing partly

on their conduct). The principal weakness in the writing program

was that with all our man power there was considerable confusion of

responsibility, and we did not find the way to attend efficiently

to individual problems that appeared in the written work. Moreover,

the student often did not get the critical feedback as to one paper

before commencing the next. He therefore derived less benefit from

some of the exercises than he might. These were significant shortcomings

but of an administrative type which should be remedied fairly

easily in the futureo

IV. STAFF

Director: Professor Leon Letwin — white; faculty of UCLA Law

School. Participated as instructor in Harvard Special

Summer Program for Negro Students in 1966.

Law School Faculty: (full time)

30.

1. Professor George c. Garbesi — white; faculty of Loyola

Law School. Formerly, associate counsel of New York City

Legal Aid Society, Criminal Division.

2. Professor Christopher Stone — white; faculty of USC

Law School.

3. Professor Richard Wasserstrom (professor of law and

professor of philosophy) — white; faculty of UCLA Law

School. Formerly, attorney, Civil Rights Division,

Department of Justice; Dean, College of Arts and Sciences,

Tuskegee Institute.

Other full-time Faculty:

1. Marilyn Magee — white; social case-worker for Department

of Social Service. Formerly, instructor in writing,

Tuskegee Institute; teaching assistant, Department of

English, Syracuse University.

Part-t;me Faculty:

1. Derek Bell — black; Executive Director, Western Center

on Law and Poverty (OEO funded Legal Services activity).

2. Charles Jones — black; attorney for Western Center on

Law and Poverty.

Paid Student Assistants:

1. u.s.c.

school

John Long, white, completed first year law

school.

Howard Schaefer, white, completed first year

law school.

2. Loyola — Berryneice Powdrill — Negro; recent law

school graduate.

3. UCLA —

Charles Lieb, white, completed first year

of law school.

a) Lupe Martinez; Mexican-American, completed first

year of law school.

b) Wallace Walker; black, completed first year of

law school.

31.

c) Steve Wiener; white, completed first year of

law school. Had extensive experience in teaching

English composition and writing as an English

Department teaching assistant.

(A major portion of the cost of the student assistants

was not borne by CLEO. Some of the students worked

on a volunteer basis and some were substantially paid

out of work-study funds.)

The size of the staff, particularly the student component, was

attributable at lease in part to these considerations: First, it was

desirable to have student assistants from each of the sponsoring law

schools so that when the CLEO students went to their respective

schools in the fall they would have some useful, personal contacts;

Second, since our full-time teaching staff was entirely white, this

represented a way of achieving some ethnic balance in the administration.

Views varied as to the most appropriate staff size. Mine is

that with tighter organization and well-defined responsibilities, a

instructors

smaller number of student/might have worked more efficiently and

better.

The principal recommended change in future staffing is that

minority members be made part of the full-time teaching and/or

administrative staff so as to be centrally involved in the planning

and administration of such programs. As put by one of the staff members:

I believe at least half the faculty should be black

or Mexican. The value of having experienced law

professors teaching the courses cannot be underestimated,

but some of their views with regard to

minority group students should be filtered through

a greater number of minority:group faculty personnel.

Moreover, if the present pitifully small number

of minority group law professors is to be increased,

likely prospects for such positions could

obtain valuable training and experience themselves

in such courses. All in all the greater number of

black and Mexican faculty would further the aims of

the CLEO program.

32.

Similarly, there ought to be a large infusion of minority

participation in the top policy bodies of CLEO. Program consultants

should in substantial measure also be drawn from the minorities.

Our problem in the leadership of these programs is not with

underrepresentation of the views of white academics.

V. Some Basic Criticisms of the Program

I now wish to consider a number of sharp, widely held,

and probably interrelated criticisms of the general management

of the Program:

1) That a confusion of goals hampered the Program;

2) That not enough attention bad focused on cultivating

those basic law school skills vital to law school survival;

33.

3) That students were not exposed to the typical law school

disciplines, sanctions, requirements, and expectations, and

therefore did not derive maximum benefit from the Program; and,

moreover, that they were given a false sense of the law school

reality they were about to confront.

It is important to take note of the fact that a number of

the black staff members interpreted these deficiencies as

reflections of subtle white racist attitudes. It was suggested

that white administrators lacked confidence in the student’s

abilities, hence patronizingly demanded too little of them; o~

sometime~held an idealized view of them and failed to take

adequate account of their special needs, hence demanded an

unrealistic degree of self discipline exceeding that required of

regular law school students.

1) £onfusion of goals. Illustrative of the view held by a

number of staff members is the foll,owing comment:

[A] major problem resulted when • • • it was decided

that the program had two major objectives. One was

that of preparing the students for the rigors of law

school, the other, seemingly of equal importance, was

to convince students of the usefulness of the lawyer

and the law in our society. The approach to this

latter goal was, in effect, an attempt to “sell” law

to tbe students, and to create a rapport with the

“militant” blacks. This is an admirable goal and

34.

should be pursued; however, to realize a success in

such an endeavor it is necessary to have a long-range

program devoted to just that alone. An eight-week

summer session which is also preparing students who

feel the need to bring blacks and Chicanos into the

legal profession is not going to do it. Establishing

two goals rather than developing the single goal of

preparing the summer students for law school affected

the entire program, causing such confusion and tension

that it was not possible to reach a satisfactory

intellectual atmosphere necessary for an effective

orientation to a legal education.

As was earlier noted, most of the Program’s offerings were of

the traditional sort normally encountered in law school rather than

aimed at “motivation” in any distinctive sense. This is true of

the three courses, of the moot court project, and of the writing

projects which constituted the bulk of the Program.

TO the degree that there was a concern with issues of motivation,

my own view and that of a few other staff members is that such

a duality was justified, for the following reasons:

Firat, it seemed to us that many of the people in the Program

were confronted with both problems of a narrowly academic sort and

of “motivation.” A constant undercurrent in the case of many of

the members of the Programwereexpressions of profound skepticism

as to the significance of the legal system to their goals. We

thought it our responsibility to provide opportunities to consider

such doubts through a few lectures and special programs, but

especially through the creation of an atmosphere recognizing the

legitimacy of such inquiries.

•

35.

Second, it seemed to us that the suggested sharp distinction

between motivational problems and traditional academic problems

was, as a matter of educational reality, often a false dichotomy.

2) Not enough emphasis on traditional skills. To the extent

that this is a criticism distinct from the one above, it is perhaps

intended to suggest there are easily identifiable, fundamental

techniques indispensable to law school success that might have

been but were not adequately taught. It may also reflect the belief

that our course offerings should have focused on the material of

the traditional first-year courses.

I am certain that some of our academic work was not as successful

as might have been. The writing projects particularly were

organized ineptly and a substantial part of their value was therefore

undercut. But with reference to the failure to teach

“particular” skills, I find it no easier to determine what they are

or how they are to be successfully taught in this context than in

the regular first-year curriculum.

It takes an experience such as this to make one fully appreciate

how little a theory we have as to the ways of overcoming

special educational handicaps, and for that matter, how intuitive

our whole approach to educational technique is. OUr system is

presently set up for those students with a certain set of conceptualverbal

habits. It has paid little attention to the problems of how

to help educate those whose difficulties may be precisely in this

area.

If the suggestion is that our courses should have dealt with

l

36.

the subject matter of the first-year curriculum, I would not regard

that a significant change or an improvement. It is the systematic

exposure to cases and doctrinal development that matters, not the

specific subject matter.

Raving suggested the difficulties in knowing precisely how to

overcome certain academic difficulties, it may be useful to indicate

the sense in which the Program might nonetheless be resarded as

having performed a useful service. A staff member commented:

‘~hen I say the program was a success, I mean that

it provided a generally well-conceived and structured

exposure to the work of the law student: the course

materials, the varied classroom approaches of the

three professors, the work of case briefing, the

library work, the written assignments and moot court.”

It is also possible that in some cases the Program reinforced the

student’s confidence in his ability to do the work and therefore

better enabled him to compete in law school. There may also have

occurred some positive changes of atmosphere and attitude (which are

exquisitely difficult to gauge), including the growth of friendships

between the students and an element of understanding between some

faculty members and some students.

3) Lack of sanctions and discipline. There is no question

but that our Program was virtually devoid of sanctions. Absent was

the ultimate sanction found in other programs: non-admission to law

school. Here the student had already been pledged admission. Nor

was the student graded on his course work, which in any event did

not count. Nor was he docked a part of his stipend for non-attendance,

or for failure to turn in work. As a consequence about 20 to 25

of the 40 students attended the Program with regularity and performed

37.

substantially all of the assigned work. For them, the absence

of sanctions was perhaps of no harm and even a feature of

distinct value. The balance of the students shaded off from

partial performance to wholly inadequate performance, and

perhaps, for this group, sanctions may have been helpful. Even

for tbis grou~ some of the staff were of the view that there was

great value in permitting students to utilize the Summer Program

for their own advantage witbout having to worry about failure

or making grades. A number of students felt this approach was

sound. A far larger number, however, and a majority of the staff

felt that it undermined the value of the Program. The reasoning:

a) The student comes from 16 years of education where

everything he did was backed up by sanctions (particularly grades

and promotions); be is about to go into a similar environment

(grades, promotions, the bar exam). It is highly unrealistic

to carve out an isolated 8-week period from what will be a total

of 19 years of education and operate it on a different set of

values, Whatever their theoretical merit.

b) It gives the student a completely distorted view of what

law school life is really like. A summer program should simulate

as closely as possible the real thing, to improve the student’s

chance of success.

I am persuaded that the Program would on the whole have

benefited from a less lax atmosphere. This might be achieved by

making the summer courses count for law school credit (perhaps

11

‘

2 units) on a pass-fail basis. Or conceivably a grade could be

given. (In an.v event the student should have the opportunity

38.

to be graded on strict law school standards, whether or not the

grades count, so that he has a realistic view of how his work

compares with law school expectations.) Lastly, to give adequate

credit to the point the critics are making, a number of students

may have come to the view that the Program bad no expectations

one way or another as to the extent of his work or participation.

This was not due to any casual or indifferent attitude on the

part of the instructors, but rather the general educationalphilosophic

views of some, and a deep concern with avoiding a

patronizing attitude toward the students. Nonetheless, I think

the adoption of a stricter attitude on the part of the Program

leadership, of a clearer expression of expectations, of an attitude

less tolerant of student irresponsibility was warranted and would

have been helpful. Perhaps no ”sanction” greater than .that is

needed. There was general agreement (with 1 or 2 dissents) that

the s,ystem of advance admissions not be abandoned.

The above criticisms might be taken merely as expressing a

point of view on how to improve the utility of the Program to

those enrolled in it. It may, however, represent for some of

the critics a more fundamental point. It may express a viewpoint

regarding the student selection criteria for the Program. This

viewpoint might be expressed as follows:

Resources are scarce. Many qualified minority students are

available, ready to throw themselves without ambiguity or

reservation into the effort to succeed in legal education. They

39.

are willing to make a wholehearted effort to succeed in law school

as it now is (whatever their criticisms or disenchantments with it).

These students are most likely to make it. On the other hand, if

a student has motivational hang-ups, if he’s not sure he’s

prepared to do what it takes to make it, if he’s not prepared to

accept tbe discipline imposed by law school requirements, then

his chances of success are minimal and he is merely frittering

away a scarce and precious resource. He should not be admitteJ

to the Program. Once the appropriate selections are made, it

follows that the program should single-mindedly focus on the

acquisition of skills, in a highly disciplined way, that will

enable the students selected to succeed.

This viewpoint was expressed by several staff members. It

rests on several assumptions: 1) that the relative likelihood

of law school success is the only relevant consideration in the

admissions process; 2) that the likelihood of law school success

for a given individual is easily predicted; and 3) that tt.e law

school must be taken as a given, unwilling or incapable of making

any changes to accommodate to demands for “relevancy” so widespread

among students. MY view is that each assumption is ill-founded and

that an admission policy which bad as a principal plank eliminating

those who question the status quo, or their relationship to it, in

the most urgent and profound wa~ would be exceedingly bad.

a) In order to make the necessary determination we would be

forced to make a central issue of the applicant’s political

40.

activities and associations and searchingly inquire into his

attitudes, outlook and personal perspectives. We would be

willy-nilly imposing a political-ideological test for law school

admission.

b) These attitudes and associations are scarcely reliable

indicia of law school performance. We do not know bow solidly

the attitudes are held, how they will change over the course of

a law school career, or for that matter how they relate to the

learning process. Nor is an eight-week program an adequate

opportunity to answer these questions, both because of the

shortness of time and because of the artificiality of circumstances

compared to regular law school.

c) Such a policy would be exacting a degree of conformity

for which the law schools would be paying a substantial price. Students

with the sharpest, least compromising attitude to the

established machinery are capable of making important contributions

to legal education (as well as are those who are more flexible

and more willing to defer their challenges to a later day). The

problem with legal education lies not in the high volume of

challenges to our most fundamental assumptions about society, social

change and legal education. It would be the crowning irony if having

just arrived at the point where many law schools are attempting

to evaluate and respond to demands for “more relevant education:’

we were to exclude those who most urgently were concerned with

such change.

•

41.

For myself, I would shrink from confident predictions as to

what classes of people are apt to succeed or to make the most

useful contributions to society or the law school. I would

employ, as was done this year, a wide variety of criteria in

making the admissions decisions and would regard it highly

desirable if the admissions technique produced a student body

representing a wide range of views, attitudes and commitments.

•

VI. PROBLEMS OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT

1) The Summer Stipend

42.

Should the summer stipend have been paid in weekly sums or in

a lump sum at the conclusion of the program? The original plans

of Los Angeles CLEO called for the payment to be disbursed in

equal weekly amount. The basic stipend was to be $550.00 per

student plus $10.00 per week for incidental expenses–a total of

$630.00–for those living in the UCLA dorms. For those living

off campus an additional $100.00 was to be provided for incidental

expenses–for a total of $730.00. At the end of May, we ·learned

that national CLEO held the view that about $500.00 of the total

should be withheld from the student and disbursed to him in a

lump sum at the Program’s conclusion. This was intended to help

the student meet his living expenses the ensuing school year.

It would, of course, have been highly desirable had each

student emerged from the summer with $500.00 saved. We opposed

this formula, however, for the following reasons:

a) We thought it demeaning to mature adults to appear

to be suggesting that they were not to be trusted

with such sums of money and that they would probably

fritter it away if it were disbursed in weekly amounts.

b) Many of the students needed the money for current living

expenses and simply were not in a position to get along

financially if they were forced to save most of the

summer stipend. The allowance for incidental expenses

which they were to receive weekly (which ranged from

$10 to $22.50 a week, depending on whether the student

lived in UCLA dorms or in his own housing), was patently

•

inadequate to support them. Fifteen of the students

were living off campus, most of them maintaining

apartments. Seventeen were married and supporting

families. Nor were we prepared to say that those

living in the dorms could get along on $10 a week.

43.

It should be remembered that we were not writing

on a clean financial slate when these students came

to the Program. Some might have incurred debts over

the school year, intending to repay them out of

anticipated summer earnings. They may have needed

clothes or medical care. They may have had obligations

to their family. Surely allowance would have been made

for such special need, even if we had generally -been

operating under the national formula. But we did not

think we should have to sit as a board of review on

students’ expenditures to determine when they had shown

adequate cause for wanting to spend money today that

CLEO bad determined they should spend later. The

students bad in fact given up summer earnings (not just

for 8 weeks but in mauy cases for as .long as 12 to 14

weeks) and they were entitled to these funds as replacement

income, not as forced savings.

c) Finally, we had already notified all the CLEO students

of the fact that the summer stipend would be paid in weekly

installments. To then reverse ourselves, as was suggested,

would have compounded our problems many-fold.

The solution eventually arrived at was that we would

encourage the students to leave the stipend with us, on a

voluntary basis, until the end of the summer. This would

facilitate, but not compel the saving. The students were

informed the first day of the Program of this option. They

were permitted to specify withholding of whatever proportion

of their regular weekly installment they chose. About 1/3

decided to avail themselves of the opportunity, and their

final checks ranged from $200.00 to $560.00.

2) Financial Support for the Student During his First Year in

Law School

44.

Issues connected with financial support were the biggest

single problem that confronted the Program throughout the summer.

It occasioned student walkouts from some of the classes,

negotiations, threats, and more negotiations. It exercised the

students, the Program administration, and, no doubt, the national

CLEO administration. A goodly number of people–members of the

staff, some students, and others–felt the issue was mishandled

and, as a result, magnified out of proportion to its actual

importance. Perhaps so. As I see it, however, the issues were of

considerable complexity and the sound solution not always selfevident.

Nor do I believe the experience in trying to resolve

the issue was wholly negative, either for the students or the

Program. Since some of the issues may be of general significance,

I shall discuss them in some detail.

Two aspects of the financial arrangements troubled a substantial

number of the students: (1) The uncertainty, until late in the summer,

as to the amount of financial support each of them would receive;

45.

and (2) the adequacy of the amount when it was eventually pledged.

Uncertainty. The Program made no definite commitments to

the students as to the precise amount of financial aid for the forthcoming

school year until July 19. At that time each student was

notified by letter of the precise amount he would receive. A

sample letter is reproduced on pages 46-47. The scale of financial

support thus provided substantially exceeded the average level

of $1500 per student provided under the CLEO-administered Ford

grant. B.Y agreement of the deans of all the participating law

schools, the amount the students received was uniform, 1D no W&¥

dependent on what school he happened to be going to. Upon a

showing of need, the basic stipend was $2,000. The need was shown

in every case but one. If a student were married with one child

he received $2500, and for each additional child, $250. These

amounts were in the range of scholarship support provided in

standard University of California scholarships, a little better

than some and a lot worse than others (particularly some vf those

that are federally financed).

The reason the student was not earlier notified of the amount

be would receive was that we were not certain of the amount we

would have to distribute. This was due to several reasons:

(1) We were unable to learn from the national CLEO office until

July 11 the precise amount that was being committed to the participants

in our Program; (2) the financial resources of UCLA was dependent

on the level of support provided for the University of California

by the State Legislature. The state budget was not adopted until

the very end of June and not until the end of the first week were

the UCLA scholarship funds definitely assured.

Dear

Legal Education ‘Opportunity Program of Southern California

Located at

The UCLA Law School

405 Hilgard A venue

Los Angeles, California 90024 ‘

Telephone: 478-9711, Ext. 2791

July 19, 1968

I am authorized to make the following statement by the law schools

of UCLA, Loyola, USC, San Diego and California Western regarding financial

aid for the forthcoming academic year.

Students from the CLEO pr·ogram attending each of these schools this

fall will receive fi~ancial aid os follows:

a. Tuition paid in full

b. In addition, if needed, a fellowship as follows:

For a single person

For a student married but without children

For a student married with one child

For each ~dditional child

$2,000

2,000

2,500

250

46.

B3sed on the information available to us, this means you will receive

a tuition scholarship st and a cash fellowship of·

$ for the year.

The funds come partly from the Ford Foundation and partly from the law

schools. The total amount, houever, will be disbursed throqgb the.law school

which you attend. You should hear from your school in the near future as to

the distribution of these funds. Any questions as to the dates on which the

money will be paid or other terms of the grant should be directed to the appropriate

persou at your law school: ·

a. For UCIA, contact Assistant Dean McDermott

b. For Loyola, contnct Dean Vachon

c. For USC, contact Associate Dean Miller

d. For San Diego, contact Dean Sinclitico

e. For California 1-lestern, contact Dean CDstettcr

SfJOTISorcd by the {.’CI.. \. l.oyola, awl l’SC taw Scbuols

July 191 1968

Page Two

47.

It is recognized that in many cases the above amounts will prove

inadequate, in themselves, to support the student for,the entire year, and

we regret we do not have the resources to cover the entire cost. It is assumed

that the difference between the total need and the fellowship aid will

be made up from loan funds, personal sources, and summer employment.

LL:eb

If you have any questions, please get in touch with me.

Sincerely,

LJ~

Leon Letwin

Director

48.

This uncertainty had presented a dilemma in our recruitment

efforts from the beginning. We were reasonably confident t.hat

substantial sums of money would be available. We wanted to

indicate this fact in our publicity in order to encourage people

to apply for the CLEO and consider entering law school. On the

other band, we were not prepared to make definite commitments.

We resolved the dilemma by publicly announcing that CLEO students

would “receive substantial financial assistance toward the payment

of law school expenses throughout the law school enrollment.” In

addition,in our discussions with the students we tried to point

out the uncertainty and the reasons for it. Also in some case we

indicated the range of probably support without promising any

specific amount. (See Bulletin of Information, Appendix 5, page 28.)

On July 11, during one of the regularly scheduled class hours,

35 to 38 of the students assembled and read me a statement expressing

their concerns about the financial uncertainty and the level of

financial support. That letter is reproduced as Appendix 7,

pages 32A-35A.

thus:

Stated in its strongest light, the student case could be put

‘~ou have encouraged us to leave summer jobs

for the CLEO Program, to abandon other careers, and

re-orient our lives in the direction of becoming

lawyers. You have promised us financial support.

Many of us have extreme financial needs and must

make our plans for this coming fall. Law school for

most of us is only a month and a half away and still

we have no word as to the amount we will receive.

‘~ou have explained to us all the reasons for your

uncertainty. But either the amount from CLEO is

definitely committed or it is not. If it is, you

ought to tell us now so we can rely on it. If it is

not, if there is a risk the money will prove unavailable,

why should we be saddled with it? The law

schools are far more capable of shouldering the risk.

Let them make the necessary commitments and then raise

the money.”

‘

49.

The Los Angeles Program should have been more sensitive that

it was to the students’ financial needs and the difficulties created

by the uncertainty. Though no flat commitment had been received

from national CLEO, the figure commonly mentioned was somewhere

between $1000 and $1500 per student. Based on this, the participating

law schools could have taken the risk of making commitments

even though they had not yet received such commitments themselves.

Having recognized the inadequacies of our response to the

situation, I also wish to observe some aspects of the approach

of national CLEO toward the administration of the Ford fund which

were not entirely satisfactory. I do not, of course, have a full

appreciation of how the problem looked from the national level. But

for what it’s worth, I’d like to describe how it appeared from

below.

Our Program had on numerous prior occasions requested national

CLEO to make a definite commitment, because we had some senae of

the urgency of the proQlem. We were told the decision could not

be made until sometime in August. But when the fact of the student

protest was communicated to CLEO, scholarship funds were released

to us within a few hours.

To view the problem from the vantage point of the minority

student, it appeared as though there were an excessive concern

on the part of the administration with routine and an inadequate

sensitivity to the pressing needs and feelings of the students-until

student pressure was brought to bear.

50.

This is not to say that there is no need for orderly procedures,

but rather that too high a priority may have been placed on that

value in relation to meeting urgent needs of the students. To

• many of them, it may have appeared as though they were the victims

of an unconcerned bureaucracy. Whatever the degree of alienation

of white students from academic and governmental bureaucracies,

in a certain sense, it is their bureaucracy, run by their parents

or people much like their parents. To the minority student such

bureaucracies are wholly alien and viewed primarily as structures

whose central mission has been to find ways and reasons to deny

their rights. TO respond with the explanation that this is the way

we treat everybody is not sufficient.

How one views the student reaction partly depends on one’s starting

point. One may conce~ve of this Program as a favor to minority

students for which they should be duly grateful. On the other

hand, one may believe that these students have rights which have

not been previously attended to, that educational institutions have

not been sufficiently sensitive to their potential contributions and

to the reasons for such academic deficiencies as they may have,

that such Programs are not the result of noblese oblige but

something the student is entitled to.

Level of support. After the letters of commitment of July 19

were distributed to the students, issues were raised as to the

adequacy of the amounts. After a prolonged period of negotiation

which it is impossible to describe within the confines of this

report, the participating law schools agreed to raise an additional

$11,500 and distribute it aaongst the most needy students, largely

as determined by the students themselves. The reasons for these

,

51.

demands and for the strength of the feeling of many of the students

(see the student letter, Appendix 8, pages 36A-37A) are complex.

I think they include:

(1) A sincere belief that some of their number did not have

an adequate sum to make it through the first year of law school.

Superimposing these financial difficulties upon the special academic

problems they anticipate~might well spell disaster. (This raises

the question as to whether certain individuals with very large

financial requirements were unwisely admitted to the Program.

(See discussion, pages 12-13 above.»

(2) There was a strongly felt need on the part of some students

to have a hand in shaping the decisions vitally affecting their

lives. T.hey wanted to strike out againstaDatmosphere in which

the financial support might be viewed as largesse from above rather

than a product of mutual discussion.

(3) A number of students felt they bad been misled b.J some

of the earlier publicity surrounding the CLEO program. Some of

this may have been attributable to national publicity. Most of

the confusion, however, was probably due to the vagueness of some

of our local pronouncements on financial aid. “Substantial

financial aid” can mean entirely different things to different

people. While we, in our lawyer-like precision, thought this

promised nothing specific, students in good faith may have interpreted

it otherwise. This underscores the need to speak with far greater

precision and clarity than we did on this occasion.

(4) Contrary to the statement in the student letter of Jul~ 12,

loans had been mentioned during original interviews with many

students. But a number of them were intending to become laWJers

52.

in their own communities rather than going into more lucrative

branches of the practice of law. Many were already heavily

burdened by debts. If, they argued, they were further burdened

by additional thousands of dollars of indebtedness over the

course of a law school career, it would be exceedingly hard for

them to go into the type of community law practice that had motivated

their coming to law school. They would rather be compelled to seek

fairly high-paying work in order to meet loan obligations. Loan

requirements would thus pervert the purposes of the Program. This

suggests the possibility of federal loan arrangements of the type

now available for public school teachers, which provide that the

loan amount is excused if the recipient goes into a poverty

community upon graduation.

While there were undoubtedly negative features connected with

the financial issues as they emerged in our Program–principally

the interference with the academic work of the Program–the

experience was by no means wholly negative. Out of it grew a

recognition that the students were not wholly powerless, that they

were capable of having an effect upon the decisions affecting their

lives. They learned, and I think so did we, in the process. I

would hope our ability to handle problems that will inevitably

arise in the future are improved as a result of this experience.

83.

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

A. Regarding the Summer Program.

1) Should the Program be conducted again next year?

~ an extent not easily determined, the CLIO Program had two

useful aspects:

a) It contributed to expanding minority enrollment in

participating law schools;

b) It imparted skills and insights that boost the

likelihood of academic success on the part of some

of the participating students.

For each of these reasons I think it would be useful to continue

the Program next year. It should, however, run only for six

weeks, a period that seems adequate for most purposes given the

non-evaluative purposes of the L. A. Program. The six weeks should

run from, say, mid-July to the beginning of September to permit

students to work the first part of the summer. (There was

sentiment on the part of some faculty members that they only got

to know the students fairly well during the last two or three

weeks of the Program and onthatground questioned the soundness

of a six-week limit.)

The Program could probably be soundly operated on a less

costly basis by admitting a greater number of students without

enlarging the staff; and by encouraging people to live at home

rather than in University dorms; etc.

I am uncertain whether there is a long-run future for such

programs. They have a number of negative features: the cost,

which might better be used for direct support of students in

‘

.54.

law school; and the demeaning aspects that inevitably attach,

to one or another degree, to such programs (thongh several black

staff members felt this turned out to be less of a problem than

they had anticipated, owing to prevalent attitudes of racial

pride).

We should, however, defer long-range decisions until after

we’ve had a better opportunity to evaluate the academic impact

of the CLEO program in the next year or two.

2) Ways should be found to insure minority group participation

in the selection of students and generally in the operation of

such programs.

B. Regarding the national CLEO.

There is wide support among the law schools for the work and

objectives of the CLEO program. I received requests from a large

number of law schools seeking cooperation with and participation

in the Summer Program. The experience was no doubt duplicated

by other directorso

While the law schools’ interest is great, there is, it seems

to me, a great need for national leadership and coordination in

a number of areas.

a) Finances: CLEO could be particularly useful as an

agent for developing national sources of funding.

b) Student recruitment: The need here is to bring system

out of chaos that now prevails in the efforts of

interested students and interested law schools to

come together. Perhaps 10 or 20 regional coordinating

centers are needed. In any event, some system of

pooling information and resources is needed.

55.

c) Most importantly there is need for development of

national goals and methods for implementing them.

What is the tempo at which we should aspire to bring

minority group students into legal education? My

view is that an adequately organized national endeavor

could in short order put 2,000 to 3,000 minority

students into legal education annually. If this is

sound, the effort should be organized. CLIO may be

a useful instrument for doing the job.

Regarding resource people for CLEO, I urge that a major effort

be made to involve black and other minority group scholars and

lawyers with an academic bent as consultants and in the leadership

of CLEO. Much of our discussions inevitably involve questions

as to what black students think, how they will react to various

efforts on our part, which special academic efforts would be

useful and which harmful, how to better develop rapport,

motivation, etc. We should seek out black educators, psychologists,

professors and lawyers to help grapple with these problems.

APPENDIX 1

Following is a table with detailed information of the Summer Program

enrollees. The GPA 1s ere computed on the last two years of college

work, but omitting courses deemed of little academic si~nificance such as

military science or athletics. ·

lA

,.

COLLEGE

/1 ~m ‘ MINORITY SEX STATUS UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOL LSAT w B GPA SCHOOL ADMITTED TO ·- 1. NEGRO 1-1 BA’6/68 2/68 427 37 ·36 2.00

2. NEGRO M BA 6/68 2.20

3. H-A M lolA 6/65 11/62 481 46 52 2.77

4. NEGRO M MS 6/65 4/67 365 34 34 2.70

5/68 345 34.42

5. M-A M BA 6/67 2/67 440 53 46 2.06

2/68 409′ 43 45

5/68 483 44 35

6. M-A 1~ BA 6/67 8/67 422 40 37 2.50

].. M•A M BA 10/67 5/68 345 29 42 2.20

8. NEGRO M BS 6/68 1.98

9. NEGRO M .JR. 5/68 393 . 39 48 2.73 ~ :g

10. 1-1-A M BA 8/68 : 5/68 386 44 41 2.64 B

11. NEGRO F BA 6/68 · ….

H

12. M-A 5/68 538 43 ~ M JR. so 2.82

~ n

13. NEGRO F JR. 3.12 0

tJ

t+

14. M-Ai . M BA 6/68 2/68 2.14 •

‘-‘

15. NEGRO M JR. 1.94

16o NEGRO M JR. 5/68 538 54 49 1.54

17. NEGRO F JR. 11/67 441 60 42 1.85

18. NEGRO M BA 6/68 4/68 398 42 48 2.55

19o M•A M JR. 1.98

20. M-A M BA 6/f>8 5/68 439 50 47 2.31

21. NEGRO ~ BA 6/64 4/65 439 44 58 3.40 t-) .. …

22. NEGRO M BS 6/60 5/68 357 37 35 2.29

L _l!t.~~-m

2•3.

24.

25.

26.

27.. :

t28.

29.

30.

31·

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

ss.

39.

40.

41.j

42.:

COLLEGE

MINORITY SEX STATUS UN~ERGRADUATE SCHOOL LSAT W B ·GPA SCHOOL Am·ITTTED TO

NEGRO

M-A

M-A

NEGRO

· NEGRO

M-A

M-A

M-A

NEGRO

NEGRO

NEGRO

NEGRO

NEGRO

NEGRO

NEGRO

NEGRO

F

M

M

BA 6/68

BS 1/66

BA 6/68

M BS 3/68!

M BA 6/68!

I

M JR.

M BA 12/67

M BA 6/64

M BA 6/67

M BS 6/68

M BS 2/63

M MA 6/68

F BA 6/56:

M MA 6/67

M BA 6/68

M BA 6/66

~~GRO M BA 6/68

NEGRO M MSW 8/68

NEGRO M BA 8/68

NEGRO M BBA 8/63:

‘5/68 459

4/68 592

5/68 426

2/68 49S

5/68 297

2/68 486

4/68 425

2/68

5/68 375

2/68 459

5/68 568

2/68 381

4/68 415

53 44

I

3.261

43 59 2.50!

I 2.611

I

I

3o 37 2.so 47 48 2.63 i

35 41 2.04

60 43 3.08

34 48 2.85

2.45

1

37 38 2.23 i

2.36

46 54 3.09

58 .44 2.75! I

42 41 3.32

42 55 2.29 !

5/68 501 . 37 43 2.09

2/68 380 33 55 2.75

4/68 452 42 50

2/68 421 43 43 2.88

5/68 445 34 41 2.17

8/67 511 57 40 2.85 ‘

i

.~…

H ….

~ n

0

ts

.c+

‘””‘

“;.‘.

a I

APPENDIX 2 4A

Chicanos protest

law school tokenism

By Mike Levett

.. DB Editor-In-Chief ~ . .L June 28, 1968 United Mexican American Students (UMAS) members walked

———————– out of their UCLA Law School preparation class yesterday to

dramatize their belief that the minority recruitment program is

“a token gesture to build up a facade of middle-class whites

trying to do something,” according to Henry Lopez, chairman

. of the Ad Hoc Summer Program Committee.·

KNXT television reporter Saul Halpert and his camera

crew had just started to mm the class for a. news program when

one UMAS member said, “Vaminos” and the entire chicano

membership of the orientation class walked out, leaving 10 black

students find Loyola Law frof. George C. Garbesl.

Guinea ·pigs

“This is the first time in the history of the area that there

has been such a legal assistance program,” Lopez said. “The

first thing they want to do is make us guinea pigs-we don’t

want to be put on public display.”

But Lopez stressed that it was not the TV camera that caused

the walk-out. “Basically what we have is 40 minority openings

in UCLA, USC and Loyola (the three schools comprising the

Council on Legal Education Opportunity) and only 13 are for

chicanos, the other 27 going to blacks.”

‘Majority of minority’

While stressing that he held nothing against the black students,

Lopez said, “We are a majority of the minority in the

area QY two to one yet we have only 13 students. The Negro is

a national ethnic group while we are only in the Southwest; here

are the schools for us and we should have the majority

in them.” ·

After walking out of the class, the UMAS members held a

conference to develop a statement for Halpert. The reporter confronted

the students and told them, “We won’t be used-I’m

going to take the camera out so that you can come back in.”

The group refused to return and Lopez told Halpert that

“now that we’ve walked out, we are going to stay out till the

end of class.”

Unification

During the 30 minute r,,eeting, the member~ talked of unifying

behind one spokesman (Lopez) and one statement. They

also discussed tokenism, and the fact that the walk-out would

have occurred even without television.

As the meeting ended, the UMAS members, without Lopez

and second year UCLA law student David Ochoa, returned to

the classroom wh~re Halpert waited with the camera.

The two went into the adjacent room where the black students

had called a meeting.

While waiting for Lopez, Ochoa and the blacks, UCLA Law

Prof. Leon Letwin, who heads the summer program, said, “1

had no particular reason to suspect the walk-out, but I’m not

surprised. It is against us and not against the television.”

“There is a need for far more Mexican Americans in higher

education. The Law School and the community will have to

undertake the expansion of efforts in recruitment in this area,”

Letwin added.

After 20 minutes the two chicanos and the blacks entered the

room and Lopez and Ayuko Babu, spokesman for the black

students, prepared to answer Halpert’s on-camera questions.

Babu. afte~ tellln~ Halpert that he would answer no questions

about the walk-out, said, “The program is only a start. First,

we must have a student population that reflects the community.

· Then the Law School curriculum must be made to deal specifcally

with problems that the blacks and browns face in this

country.”

APPDDIX 2 (cont.)

2 UClA DAilY BRUIN Friday July 12 I 968.

Problems of minority groups

in law school program aired

By Dan Ritkes

DB Staff Writer

On June 27, 1968, in the face of a KNXT

News television camera, a group of Chicano –

students walked out of their law school preparation

class. According to spokesmen for all’

parties involved, the walkout was indicative of

the many grievances which have long been ignored

by the white community. · ·

The basis for the Chicano walkout, according

to law student David Ochoa, was the fact

that out of 40 students selected for the summer

program, only 13 were Mexican-American.

Moreover, the token number of students picked

for the program was glorified by the television

cameras.

Ochoa, who has worked to recruit many of

the Mexican-American students into the program,

said, “the ‘Man’ is displaying us to the

community to show the people that everything

is alright But 13 Chicanos out of 2 million is

no indication that things are alright” .

The summer law program, which involves

13 Mexican-American students and 27 black

students, is designed to interest minority group

members in pursuing a career in law. It is

headed by Prof. Leon Letwein.

Lack of finances

Although there were some 320 applicants

for the program, only 40 were admitted due to

lack of financial support

Reactions to the walkout from Letwein, the

Chicanos and the black students were all favorable,

and all were cautious on how much to expect

from a minority program which has accepted

only a limited number of students.

Ayuko Babu, spokesman for the black students

warned that “we must look at this program

from the perspective that it wasn’t until

our brothers and sisters· died in the streets that

this program was brought about” Babu was

referring to what he termed the “rebellions” in

Watts, Newark and other cities.

Need for support .

“I urge all people of goodwill, who are concerned

with black self-determination, to support

the financing of additional programs such as

this,” Babu said. He cited the pro b 1 em of

financing the program as a stru~gle between

“liberal ·and humanitarian people ‘ and “conservatives.”

Babu praised the Chicano walkout, saying,

“For once the Chicanos pointed the direction

for us to follow. Where traditionally the black

man has acted first, the Chicanos have pointed

the direction.”

Ochoa, who is one of the Chicano spokesmen,

said that the program was extremely feeble,

and not even a first step in the direction of

equal opportunities. “It is only the beginning

of a first step in the right direction”

Selection pr()Ce&s

Ochoa cited the disparity of black and Chicano

students as one of the major weak points ·

of the program. “The selection process favored

the blacks. This is not condemnation of the

black students on our part, but merely a statement

of fact And we’re not blaming the blacks,

for there wasn’t a single black man who had

any say about who was selected.”

/Ochoa also said that by selecting such a

small number of Mexican-American, the white

man was, in effect, “giving the two minorities

a small piece of pie and letting them fight for

the bigger piece. One wonders if it was not intentionally

planned to split the two groups or

whether it was a great coincidence that such

small numbers of Chicanos were selected.

“It’s the same old thing of dividing the two

groups and letting them fight for the same dog

bone,” Ochoa added.

“Because blacks have become more of a

threat to the ‘Man’, they usually get more of

what they demand than the Mexican-Americans.

This leaves us with a problem: Should the Chicanos

resort to violence in the streets? I think

that by now the white community should already

be awakened, and I don’t think we have

to resort to violence.”

Numerical disparity

In emphasizing the disparity between the

number of Mexican-Americans chosen for the

summer law program and the number of M~ican-

Americans in Los Angeles, Ochoa swd,

“There are more Mexican-Americans mowing

lawns, cleaning toilets and in construction !ln

this campus than there are enrolled in the Uruversity.

This was part of the contempt involved

in the walkout”

Both Babu, spokesman for the black students,

and Ochoa would not predict further action

on the part of their respective groups. Both

agreed that when the sih:Iation of whether. to

act arose, it would be deaded by the respective

group at that time.

“I think that the walkout demonstrates the

strength of the feelings on the part of both the

blacks and Chicanos. And they have a right to

be concerned,” noted Letwin.

Purpose of walkout

“The purpose of the walkout was partly to

make it clear that while they are participating

in the program, the blacks and Chicanos are

not necessarily endorsing its adequacy,” he

added. ·

The projected goal of the summer law preparation

class, according to Letwin, is to “expand

minority enrollment, as well as interest

them in law.

“Many black and Mexican-American students

are deeply skeptical of our legal system,

and are concerned with changing it.”

Much to learn

While Letwin said that the program is useful

and that “we still have a lot to learn in this

area,” he suggested that “what the l_aw school,

higher education and I should do, 1s to ~ove

more aggressively to open the door to higher

education for minority groups.”

5!

AJPENDIX 2 (cont.) 6A

2 UCLA DAilY BRUIN

Chicanos’ plight in

By Dan Rltkes

DB Reporter

After a recent walkout of Chicano law students

dramatized the bnmense needs of the Mexican-American

community, the question has arisen among

many white students as to what they can do to help

the Chicano.

David Ochoa, second year law student here, offered

his ideas about the problems of the MexicanAmerican,

and what concerned members of the community

can do about them.

Ochoa stressed that in order for whites to be

meaningfully involved in a program to help the Chicanos,

they must understand the background of the

Mexican-American in California. ·

“We must examine the Chicano unlike we would

· any other minority in this country. Unlike the Negro

and other minorities, the Chicano is not a product

of the American society. The black man wakes up

one day and he communicates, and his communication

is in English. The value system under which

he is raised is also a product of American society,”

Ochoa said.

Two cultures

“The Chicano is different. The Chicano is a pro-

T uesdoy, .:July 16, 1968

‘occupied · California’

duct of two cultures- Mexican and Anglo. He is also

bi-lingual. Whereas I have no allegiance to Mexico,

I am constantly reminded of my Mexican ancestorsSan

Francisco, Los Angeles, San Bernadino, are

all Spanish names-this is occupied California!

The major problem concerning the MexicanAmerican

community, according to Ochoa, is education.

“The average rate of education for blacks is

10 years of school, while for the Chicano it is 8

years, and 12 for the Anglo,” he said.

As illustrated by the walkout of minority students

at some East Los Angeles high schools several

months ago, the educational needs of the MexicanAmerican

community are not being met at those

schools. However, Ochoa said that bussing students

to better high schools would not solve the problem.

Bussing not solution

“I don’t think that bussing will solve the problem-

taking a Chicano kid from a little old school

on the East Side and sending him to Hamilton High

here on the West Side will do nothing but remind

him and reinforce him of his inadequacies.

“The Chicano will not be able to compete with

the Anglos, will not be able to keep up socially, and

will be humiliated when he opens his lunch and pulls

out his burritos and the Anglos are eating in the

cafeteria.

“Bussing is not the answer. Theeducationsystem

has to be revamped, and more Mexican-American

teachers should be made available,” he added.

Nothing against activists

In proposing a plan for white students to follow,

Ochoa made it clear that he has nothing against

activists, but, ~’they are easy to attack because they

claim to be our friend and do not act.”

Ochoa said, “First, white students can establish

a committee to look into admission standards, you

can have student groups and ad hoc student groups

say, ‘Look, there is something wrong with the admission

standards because the few Mexican- Americans

that we let in succeed.’

“You can have a recruiting program that can

be made up of students. Certainly you can have a

group of students involved with financing. That is

to say, the university can have a pool of money,

private money, that can be converted into scholarships,

and let the Chicanos distribute these scholarships

to youngsters who are qualified.”

APPENDIX 3

APPLICATIC.~ FOR ADMISSICN . TO .

THE LEGAL EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM

OF SOUTHERN CALIFO~IA

for the Summer of 1968

sponsored by the law schools of u.c.L.A., Loyola and u.s.c.

located at

PLEASE PRlNT OR TYPE:

1. NAME:

U.C.L.A. Law School

405 Hilgard Avenue

Los Angeles, California 90024

Telephone: 478-9711 Ext: 2791

(Last) (First)

2~ In June of 1968 (Check appropriate box):

(Middle)

J’

D

D

I · wil·l have completed my junior year of college.

I will have graduated from college.•

3. This question to be completed only by those students who will have

graduated by June, 1968:

This application also serves as an application for regular admission

in September, 1968 to any of the following law schools:

(check the appropriate box for each school you wish to ~pply to)

D U.C.L.A. Law School

CJ Loyola Law School

CJ u.s.c. Law School

I have applied to the following additional law schools:

………………………………………………………….

I intend to apply to the following additional law schools:

………………………………………………………….

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .

4. Current Mailing Address: 5. Phone:

…………………………………

7A ·

APPENDIX 3 (cont.)

6 • Permanent Address:

……………………. · …………………………… · …….. .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7. Have you taken the Law School Admission Test?* ………………

8. If answer to (7) is yes, please indicate date(s) •

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –…………………………… .

9. Date of Birth:

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

……………………….. . ……………. . . …………… .

Month Day Year

Place of Birth:

………………………………. . …………………….. .

City State

Citizen of what country? . ……………………………….. .

Marital Status: . ………………………………………… .

Ages of children: …………………………………………

List all educational institutions attended since high school:

Institution

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • till •

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dates of

Attendance

. ……….. .

. . . . . . . . . –…

. ……….. .

Major

…….. ., ..

. ……… .

. . . . . . . . . . .

Degree received

or to be received

and date

. ………….. .

. ………….. .

* All applicants for admission to law school must.take the Law School Admission

Test (LSAT) before enrolling in September. However, it is not

a requirement for admission to the Summer Program that the student have

taken this test. If a student plans to attend law school in September,

1968 and has not taken the LSAT, there will be an opportunity to take it

in August. For further information check with the Legal Education Opportunity

Program of Southern California Office at the U .c .L.A. Law

School.

SA

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

APPENDIX 3 (cont.)

Name and location (city and state) of high schools:

…………………… ~ ………………………………….. .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ·.

Name and location (city and state) of grade schools:

…………………………………………………………..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Have you ever been denied admission to an other law school?

. ………………………………………………………… .

If answer to (17) is yes, give·name of law school(s) and dat~(s):

. ……………………………………………………….. .

Extracurricular activities in which you were engaged in co~lege·

(list in order of importance to.you):

1. . ……………………………………………………. .

2. ···························~···································

3. . ……………………………………………………. .

4. . ……………………………………………………. .

s. . ……………………………………………………. .

Explain why the activity you list first in (19) was important to you:

. ……………………………………………………….. .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part time work while in college (include type of work, duties and

approximate number of hours worked per week):

……………………… ” ……………………………….. .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . … . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9A

22.

23.

24.

APPENDIX 3 (cont.)

What are yo~r career objectives? ……………………………

. . . ~ …………………………………………………….. .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

What other careers have you seriously considered? . ………….. .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In this space please set forth any additional information which you

feel the Admissions ~ommittee should know about you in order to

properly evaluate your application: …………………………

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Date of Application Signature of Applicant

This application should be sent to the Legal Education Opportunity Program

of Southern California. The address and phone number is found at

the top of Page 1 of this application. Of.ficial transcripts of all college

and professional work must also be sent by the Registrars to this

office. This application, ALL transcripts through the fall semester or

winter quarter, and a letter of recommendation from one of your college

professors, must be received prior to May 15, 1968.

lOA

Vol. XII No. 5

APPENDIX 4

c

Monday, March 4. 1968

New Program

to Begin Here

In an effort to increase law

school enrollment of Negroes,

Mexican–Americans a:nd ot’her

minority group students, three

Los Angeles universities will

conduct a joint summer pro·

gram this year to interest such

students in legal education.

June college graduates and

those entering their senior year

next fall will be eligible for

the program, which wall be

staffed by UCLA, Loyola, and

USC and held at the UCLA

Law School from June 24 to

August 16.

Known as the Legal Educatlon

Opportunity Program of

Southern California, the proj·

ect wUl be funded by a $76,000

grant from the national Council

on Legal Education Opportunity.

Financial aid will also

be available to student partici·

pants who subsequently enter

law school.

Forty minority students will

be given an introdu~lon to leg&

l education and method in

such areas as criminal law,

constitutional law and torts,

according to Professor Leon

Letwin, director of the pro·

gram.

Field Trips

The students will also take

field trips to civil and crl.minal

courts, to legal aid offices, and

to lawyers’ offices “to give

them the feel of the practice

ot law, as well as practical

exposure to some of the problems

being studied .In the classroom,”

Prof. Letwin e xplains.

Meetings will be arranged

with police personnel, judges,

prosecutors, lawyers, and minority

group leaders to discuss

the lmportanco! of careers In

the law and the opportunities

in practice. The students, who

will be selected by all three

s~hools: will be quartered in

UCLA res idence halls during

the program and will receive a

stJpend to compensate for lost

income thLo; summer.

Also at Harvard

The Los Angeles program

will be one of four in the nation

this year; the others are

to be held at Harvard University,

Emory University in Georgia,

and the University of

Denver. The Council on Legal –

Education Opportunity was established

in January, 1968, by

the American Bar Association,

the Association of American

Law Schools, the National Bar

Association, and the Law

School Admission Test Council

following year-long discussions

on ways to increase the supply

of lawyers from disadvantaged

and minority groups in the

United States.

Its chairman is Dean Page

Keeton ot the Law School of

the University of Texas. College

seniors and juniors Interested

in participating ln the

program may apply to the

Legal Education Opportunity

Program of Southern California

at the UCLA Law SchooL

llA

I —·; ~\ ·‘

APPENDIX 4

(cont.)

[– rl

~··=:; .. ,’:.~–., r·:–.u

U 1.1! ~ . ! •J ‘ ll …..‘.. .<..J ~ l·

~P))L,1 ‘ )n … rl l . n … -. ‘J ~. }1 : .(–‘I·· ‘ f, ~.:– •..~ ..l ,‘ . .,.·..–: –“:‘I\ ,; j 1-~~~

<..–.:–,–.~. •; l .:.. …• ) ·., \~.,.,,..:. .J ‘,. .‘..·. ~. ~. .~ J a: ,., j~ oc·,.)

In an cffo1t to increase law school cnrolln1ent of

Negroes, i\iexlcan-Amcricans and other n1inority group

students, three Los Angeles universities \viii conduct a

·· ·joint sununer program this year to interest such students

in legal education. o————-

Jun~ college graduate.:; and I’ to compensc:te for lost ·income

those entering their senior vear this smnrncr.

next fall will be eligible for· the Th~ Los Angeles program will

program, .. ..-hich will be staffed’ be one .of four in the nation this

by UCLA, Loyola and USC and year; tnc others are to be held

which will be held at the UCLA at Harvaru UnivN:;ity, Emory

Law Sc·hool, l.:J:JO \V. Ninth St., I University in Georgia and the

from June 2-1 to Aug. 16. University of De1wcr.

Known c:s tli~ Legal Educa· The Council on Legal Educa.

tion · Opporhmity Progra:11 of 1 !ion Opportunity was establiS’hcd

Sout}lern Cc:lifo:::nict. the p:o- m January, 193S, by the Amerijec:

t w!ll }:;s iu~dcd hy a 573,- can Bar Association, the Associ· I

(IJO grar..t fr::>:n t.l}; nat~o;.}al ation of American Law Schools. 1

Council en Legal Ed”.lccction o,,_ th~ National Bar Association, a:1d

po:tunity. Fin.~r:.-=1~1 c:id wlll the Law School Admission Test

also be o\•a!lc·.ble to student Council fol1owing year-long di~parlic!

pants who subsequent- cussions on ways to increase the

ly enter lc.:\’T school. s’upply of lawyers from disad-

Forty minority students will be vantaged and minority groups in

given an introduction to }cO’al the United States. Its chairman

education and method in s{~ch Its Dean Pag~ Keeton of the Law·

–

1

area; as criminal law, con~titu- I School of the University of Texas.

tlonal law and torts, according College seniors and juniors in- I

· to UCLA Prof. Leon Lctwin, di- tcrcsted in participating in the

rector of the progre1m. ·program may apply to the Legal

The stuclent3 will also take Education Opportunity Program

field trips to civil and criminal of Southern California at the

courts, to legal aid offices, a-:1d .UCLA Law School.

to laÄÄ~’ers’ offices ••to gi\•e them •••••··••••’0111 ·11 ·•U•·t· ••~:l~l~’tfllf’lr;I~JI’I””I”‘I’I”’h”ll:f”‘”l”l11’t’UI”Itf”‘5tU••u:mt•tt•!l .. tr’

the feel of the practice of law,

as well as practical exposure to

some of the problems being studied

in the classroom,” Prof. Let·

win· explained.

l\tacting5 will be arrang~cl \Vith

police per:-onnel, judges, prosecutors,

lawyers, and minority

group leaders to cliscuss the im

·oorta.nce of careers in the la\v and

the opportunities in practice.

The stu-:lents, w!’!o will be

£Elected i’Jy all t:ue~ sdv::vl5,

will b~ oumbr~’l in UCLA

te.~idCl!CC hC’illS du:in~ tho p!’O·

gtcnn end will receive a st!~·;::n-:1

~&s. ~.s ~~I’~ ~uAO ~ \lUAo… ‘rnoA&! 1, llf’l

APPENDIX 4 (cont.)

———-·· ,.

3 L(lw Schools

Slate Minority

Ä~~-t·~d ~:.: .. ,.!. n~”n.rl~..,c~~ ..n ~..,I .1~0! ~ ; 1 u::;J h J

Three Los Angeles universities

will conduct a joint summer

program to interest minority

students in legal education, it Y;as

announced today.

June college graduates ar.d those

‘ entering their senior year next fall

will be eligible for the program,

which v.~ill be staffed by. UCLA,

USC .and Loyola.

Classes will be held at the UCLA

· law school from June 24 to Aug. 16.

Known as the legal education

opportunity program of southern

California, the project will be

funded by a $76,000 grant from the

national council on legal education

opportunity. .

Financial aid will also be J

available to student participants

who subsequently enter law school. I

Forty minority stud~nts will be

given an introduction to legal

education and method in such areas ·

as criminal law, constitutional law

and torts, according to UCLA

professor Leon Let·.=.·in, director of

the program.

The students will also take field

trips to civil and criminal courts.

legal aid offices and to la\”r)’ers’ •

CCuntin:uul nn 1’~1!:0 t•utecn)

(CONTINUED i=”P.O:A PAGE ONE)

OffiC~S .. tO g!ve thC!ll the feel Of the

practice or law, as well ns practicnl

exposure to some or the problems

being studied in the classroom,”

Letwin said.

· College seniors and juniors

interested in pnrticipating in the

j program may :.pply to t.he Legal

: Educ~1tion Opportunity Program of

I Smuhern California ar the UCLA

l..n,… w__ s c–hool .

13A

APPENDIX 4 (cont.)

Ctl.\ Sto1e .-: l.A:–

coLLEGEttMES March 7,1968 3

0-/ “”-‘ – – vv· Law Educatio ·

For Minorities

To Be Offered

To Increase law school enrollment

of Afro – Americans, Mexican

– Americans anc;l other

minority groups, three Los Angeles

universities will conduct a

joint summer program this year

to interest such students 1n legal

education. .

June college graduates and tbos

entering their senior year ne

tall wlll be eligible for the pr

gram, which wm be staffed b

)UCLA, Loyola and usc and bel

, at the UCLA Law School fro

· June 24-August 16.

Known as the Legal Educatlo

Opportunity Progr~m of Souther

California, the project wlll be funded

by a $76,000 grant from the

national CouncU on Legal Education

Opportunity. Flnanclal aid wUl

also be available to student par ..

ticipants wbo subsequenUy enter

law school.

College seniors and juniors interested

in participating 1n the

program may apply to the Legal

Educatlon OpPortunity Program oy Southern Callfornia at the UCLA

Law Schoota •

–… ~

14A

APPENDIX 4 (cont.)

\ Friday, March– –29–,– 1–9–6–8– —————-U–C–LA DAILY BRUIN 35

1 UCLA to host instruction

-on minority problems, law

A class on minority problems and a summer

program designed to interest minority students

in legal education have been initiated by the

School of Law here.

The class,”Race Relations and the Law,”

will be led each week by a different professor

who will focus on one particular problem of

race relations and the law. Topics will range

from law enforcement in the ghetto to preferential

treatment of minorities. Employment discrimination,

freedom of speech and demonstrations ana

family law will also be focused on.

Auditors invited

The course is open for credit to law students

only, but other students and faculty members

are invited to audit the course or visit any of

the sessions. The class meets 7-10 p.m. Tuesday

evenings.

A schedule of professors and topics is available

at the admissions and records office of the

Law School. ·

The Legal Education Opportunity Program

of Southern California is a summer program

to interest minority students in legal education.

Joint summer program

The program, conducted jointly by UCLA,

Loyola and the University of Southern California

(USC), will be held at the Law School

here from June 24 to Aug. 16. June college

graduates and those entering their senior year

next fall are eligible for the program.

The 40 students selected for the. program will

be housed in the residence halls during the program

and will receive a stipend to compensate

for lost income during the summer.

The course, an introduction to legal education

and method, will include field trips to civil and

criminal courts, to legal aid offices and to lawyer’s

offices as well as classroom lectures, Leon

Letwin, professor of law here and director of

the program, said.

Meetings· with police personnel, judges, prosecutors,

lawyers and minority group leaders

will be held to discuss the importance and opportunities

of law careers.

Grant funds project

The project is funded by a $76,000 grant

from the national Council on Legal Education

Opportunity (CLEO). Financial assistance will

be available to student participants who subs~

quently enter law school. ·

CLEO was established last January by the

American Bar Assn., the Assn. of American Law

Schools, the National Bar Assn. and the Law

School Admission Test Council. These groups

conducted year-long discussions on ways to increase

the supply oflawyers from disadvantaged

and minority groups in the United States. ..f

The program here is one of four such pro-1/

grams this year, the others being held at HarfL

vard University, Emory University in Georgia

and the University of Denver.

Applications and information are available

in the Legal Education Opportunity Program of

Southern California at the Law School here.

15A

APPENDIX 4 (cont.)

10 UCLA DAILY BRUIN Friday, March 29, 1968

Summer law program

for minority _students

In an effort to increase law school enrollment of Negroes,

Mexican-Americans and other minority group students, three

Los Angeles universities will conduct a joint summer program

this year to interest such students in legal education.

June college graduates and those entering their senior year

next fall will be eligible for the program, which will be staffed

by UCLA, Loyola, and USC and held at the UCLA Law School

from Jun:e 24 to August 16.

Known as the Legal Education Opportunity Program of

Southern California, the project will be funded by a $76,000

grant from the national Council on Legal Education Opportunity.

Financial aid will also be _available to student participants

who subsequently enter law school. ·

Forty minority students will be given an introduction to

legal education and method in such areas as criminal law,

constitutional law and torts, according to UCLA Professor Leon

Letwin, director of the program. ·

The students will also take field trips to civil and criminal

courts, to legal aid offices, and to lawyers’ offices “to give them

the feel of the practice of law, as well as practical exposure

to some of the problems being studied in the classroom,” Prof.

Letwin explains.

Meetings will be arranged with police personnel, judges,

prosecutors, lawyers, and minority group leaders to discuss

the importance of careers in the law and the opportunities in

practice.

The students, who will be selected by all three schools, will

be quartered in UCLA residence halls during the program and

will receive a stipend to compensate for lost income this summer.

The Los Angeles program will be one of four in the nation

this year; the others are to be held at Harvard University,

Emory University in Georgia, and the University of Denver.

The Council on Legal Education Opportunity was established

in January, 1968, by the American Bar Association,

the Association of American Law Schools, the National Bar

Association, and the Law School Admission Test Council following

year-long discussions on ways to increase the supply of

lawyers from disadvantaged and minority groups in the United

States. Its chairman is Dean Page Keeton of the Law School

of the University of Texas.

College seniors and juniors interested in participating in the

program may apply to the Legal Education Opportunity Program

of Southern California at the UCLA Law School. ,

16A

APPENDIX 4 (cont.)

COLLEGE TIMES April3, 1961 Cal State at L-.A.

~~::::::::::;:;:;:::::::::::::===~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:;:::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::.:::::::::::::;::::::;.-::;::i

I LEGAL EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY i

~~~ PROGRAM OF SOUTHERN CALIFORN.IA,. I · S

::::: Announces ::~ I A Program for I

Minority Group Students

Interested In A

Career In Law

* The program is open to students who wUl complete their

junior or senior year of college this June.

* The program wUl be held at UCLA th1s summer from

June 24 to August 16. ·

* UCLA residence hall tacntties wUl be avaUable.

* All expenses – tuition, room and board, and a living

allowance – wUl also be paid. Students wW rece1Ye a

stipend to compensate for lost summer work.

* The program, open to 40 students, wUl provide an op..

porbJnl~y to study legal method and practice in such

areas as criminal lfl.w, constitutional law, and torts.

* Students wW also take field trips to civil and criminal

:·:· courts, to legal aid offices, and to lawyers’ offices. :<:!.

N * . ~

:::~ * Meetings wW be arranged with pollee personnel, judges, I

::~~: prosecu~o.rs1 1:-\wyers and commurai~y leaders to discuss :ll

:::: the importance of careers 1n the law and the opportunities :::.:

.•.. ·- ti ~·

:::: .r.u prac ce. ~=

.~ . ~

~~~ DEADLINE MAY 15, 1968 J w ~

APPLY IMMEDIATELY

Further Information -Applications Forms

May be obtained From

Dr. Thompson Black

Cal State Gov. Dept. NH· C-3104

or from

The Legal Education Opportunity Procram of Southern California

UCLA School of La’W

405 Hllgard A venue,

Los Angeles, Calif. 90024

::::: Telephone: 478-9’711, Ext. 2791 ::~

~~ . . i

I~ SponS(JTrd by l”CL,1; LliJyr.~/a, and t·sr: Lau SrborJis lz:

1111tler .. a j!,Tt111/ jrr1m tbr C()Uilcil on l.(‘j!,td EducrltirJ_n (Jppr~rtunity

17A

APPENDIX 4 (cont.)

LEGAL EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY

PRO LIFORNIA

RAM FOR MINORI

STUDENTS

IN ERESTED IN A CAREER IN

• The

ofc

• The

uc

• All

paid.

• The

rogram is open to students who will complete their junior or s

ege this June.

rogram will be held at UCLA this summer from June 24 to Aug t

residence hall facilities will be availabfe.

penses – tuition, room .and board, and a living allowance – will als

udents will receive a stipend to compensate for lost summer work.

program, upen to 40 students, will provide an opportunity to study I al

od and practice in such areas as criminal law, constitutional law, and torts.

nts will also take field trips to civil and criminal courts, to legal aid offi es,

and lawyers’ offices.

• Meet gs will be arranged with police personnel, judges, prosecutors, Ia

and c munity leaders to discuss the importance of careers in the law and th

s in practi~e .

DEAD NE MAY 15, 1968 APPLY IMMEDI

• Further in motion and application forms may be obtained

Hayes CSLB from

—~he legal Education Opportunity Program

of Southern California

UCLA School of law

405 Hilgard Avenu

24

Telephone: 478-9711, Extension 2791

Sponsored by UCLA, Loyola, and USC Low Schools und.r • .,., “-t#te Council on Legal Educq!ion Opportunity

f

w ….. ..,,.,.~, 1961 TMI fOaTY-NINia

18A

•

APPENDIX 4 (cont.)

,. . .. …. .. .

..

Tlll(EE LA 1¥ SCI fOOLS

VIILL AID B11IJORITIES · “i

LOS ~NGELES .~-The Uni· .

· vcrsity of Cnlifornia at Los An- ·

~~~des, thr. University of South· ·

6.l~rn Cnhfornia iti’ld Ln’ml~

.. t::Univcrsity will conduct. a JOint

b;ummer program to mcr~ase

~:ninority enrollments. in thrir

law schools. I

The Legal J~ducat.ion Oppor-

. · g~~i~Krn~ro~mmbc 0hct~0~~”~f,~~ ·’

tu.c.L.A. I…aw School .llme 24 to

F·\ug. 16 anu ~tarr(‘u hy racut-

1t~ iP.!’t rrnr.t the lhr·~c lnw !-ichool!i: .

. .Att~nding will he Negro and

· Mcxican-Amcrkan .Tune gradu-

1atc~ find lho:m r.n:.cring their

:l;>CJ”lior )’CilT ,leXt f<t11.

t ThP. m·ogmral Is tund~d oy n

. $76,000 S!l’ililt from 1hc N(\Ut>nill . ·

1 (.;ound.i 011 I:.~f4•11 l~<!ucil~ir:n 0;1-

.po.-tumty. •’m:mc1al atd :1J:;o

wili be mnde availablE’! tn tho~c

~~ho subsequently cntcr Jc1.W.

CchooJ.

‘· 1-‘ort.y minority st.udcnts will · te given nn introduction to

i~cgnl cduf.ntion in such area!\

· ~~s criminal nnd constitutional

law, accordi.1g ‘to the program

dir~ctor, _Profl’ssor Leon Letwin

of U.C.L.A. .

The student~ will take field

trips to civil and criminal

C()Utts, legal aici and Ja~-yers’

ofticcs ‘\o give them the feel

oi the l)ractic~ of law, as well .

‘tt:i practica; ex posurc to ~nmt

o-.• tno probi~nts being studied

in the classroom,” Dr. Lelwin

salti. Jl..:L.1jf\’1l=s ‘i/”l/1.!~. l …

19A

JJ;A. SUMMER PROGRAM APPENDIX 4 ~}$ M®~R~~ li~S

Minority Studentsnto Get THURSDAYMORNING,MAY9, 1968

,~ Preparatory Law Course

BY JOHN DREYFUSS

Tlmes Slalf wrner

Take 100 lawyers, line them up,

and the chances are about even

you’ll see one black man.

Mexican-Americans and American

Indians also count a dismally tiny

fraction of their members in the

legal profession.

CLEO-the Council on Legal Education

Opportunity-is trying to

improve the situation.

One of four CLEO programs this

summer will be in Los Angeles. In

it, members of minority groups will

be able to prepare for Jaw school or

study to see if they are interested in

becoming attorneys.

Thirty college graduates and 10

students who will be seniors in

September will be accepted in the

program jointly s p on sore d by

UCLA, USC and Loyola law schools.

Tests Await Applicants

Deadline for application is Saturday

when, at 8:30 a.m., applicants

will be given a test at USC law

center.

Applications can also be made

today and F’riday at the CLEO office

at UCLA law school.

:Most college graduates in the

program will be accepted at one of

the three sponsoring schools.

They do not need grades which

would qualify them for law school,

and the test on Saturday need not be

the deciding factor of their acceptance.

Admission will depend on an

John Lone:

————-——

applicant’s capacity for successful

performance in law school, regardless

of past grades.

CLEO is better than free.

All tuition for the June 24 to Aug.

16 program will be paid by the

council. So will room and board and

$10 a week for pocket money.

At the program’s end each participant

will receive $550 in cash to

make up for lost summer earnings.

Foundation Gives $450,000

And CLEO participants who go to

law school can expect substantial

financial assistance while they are

there. ·

The Ford Foundation last week

g~nted $450,000 to the council, all

but $50,000 of which will go toward

sciolarships.

. .At UCLA, Martin Stone, president

o( Monogram Industries, Inc., heade~

a group of local businessmen who

c~tributed $13,500 for scholarships.

:-The McCarthy Foundation of Los

Angeles, the Beverly Hills Bar Assn.

and the Rabinowitz Foundation

adJied · $8,000. University regents are

expected to make a ‘ substantial

coptribution.

: ~EO students will spend their

eight weeks in the program in

various ways.

Classroom work will focus on such

subjects as criminal law, constitutionallaw

and torts.

·Trips will be taken to civil and

criminal courts, law offices, police

stations and Community Action

Patrol headquarters.

Conferences With Officials

Students will meet with policemen,

judges, prosecutors, public

defenders, attorneys in general practice

and community leaders to

discuss the importance and opportunities

of law careers.

A major project is a moot trial that

will take partieipants from the

beginning to the end of a simple

lawsuit.

.Students will play all the roles in

the trial which begins when the

lawyer meets his client and ends

with a final appeal after trial.

Leon Letwin, 38, a professor of law

at· UCLA, is directing the summer

program.

Full – time instructors will be

George C. Garbesi, 40, of Loyola law

scbool; Chistopher D. Stone, 30, of

USC law center and Richard A.

Wasserstrom, 32, of UCLA law

school.

Letwin and other professors will

teach part time, bringing the equivalent

of at least four full–time men

to the CLEO program.

Students from the three schools

will act as teaching assistants.

20A

“We want to give CLEO students

extra practice at skills on which law

schools place the. greatest premium

-written analysis and criticism of

concepts,” Wasserstrom said in a

recent interview.

“Many students in the program

probably will have been trained, not

educated. ·

“They will have been taught to

amass information, but not to analyze

it.

“In law school the greatest emphasis

is on analysis.

“Also, we want to give participants

a chance to survey the legal system

and see both the negative and

positive aspects,” Wasserstrom said.

Letwin pointed out that the program

will benefit the legal profession

as well as minority group

students.

“We expect to learn a lot about

how social defects appear to minority

members,” he said.

Recruiting for CLEO in Los

Angeles has been successful. Letwin

has 146 ·completed applications and

60 more are ou\standing.

Among those who have applied to

the program are 88 Negroes, 53

Mexican-Americans, three Orientals,

an American Indian and a U.S.

citizen of Lebanese extraction.

Viewed as ‘Tokenism’

Student recruiters have run into a

few unexpected problems.

“For one thing, we’ve found many

Negro students skeptical. They see

the CLEO program as tokenism,”

said John Long, 23, a first-year law

student at USC.

“And many Mexican-Americans

can’t see how law degrees would

benefit them.

“They’re afraid no good jobs would

be available after graduation, so

they would have to return to the

ghetto,” said the Long Beach law

student who is also student activities

director for the American Bar

‘ Assn. in California, Arizona, U tab

and Nevada.

Despite skepticism and fear on the

part of many minority group members,

Christopher Stone sees them as

having an advantage over their

middle-class counterparts in at least

one area. .,

“A good law school is going to

demand that its students learn far

more than the present set of statutes

and rules that make up the legal

order,” he said.

“And that’s where the minority

groups may have the edge.

APPENDIX 4 (cont.)

Basie Values Stressed

“W~ continually ask students to

raise and deal with the ve_ry sort of

questions that some of, our applicants

from down and out neighborhoods

seem to have been hearing all

their lives:

“Does the law have to be the way it

is now? Whose interests is the legal

system serving? What basic values

should· the law be advancing?

“Most middle-class students are

not in the habit of asking these

questions. With minorities it’s a way

of life.

“And white middle-class applicants

usualy consider our legal

property system as an eternal fact.

“The disadvantaged are · apt to

understand it a’s the outcome of a

series of power struggles. A series in

which they have been the losers,”

Stone said.

In the main, inquiries have come

to the Los Angeles CLEO program

from the greater Los Angeles area.

Some have been sent from as far as

New York.

National CLEO headquarters are

at the University of Texas law

school.

Three Summer Programs

The council was established by the

Assn. of American Law Schools, the

American Bar Assn., the National

Bar Assn. and the Legal Services

Program of the Office of Economic

Opportunity.

Dr. Melvin D. Kennedy, a professor

of history at Morehouse College

in Atlanta, is executive director of

CLEO.

The council, which was es~blished

last January, will sponsor

three programs this summer besides

the one at UCLA.

. The others are at Harvard University

law school, Emory University

school of law in Atlanta and the

University of Denver college of law.

At Denver the program will cater

mostly to students of SpanishAmerican

descent. The other CLEO

centers are expected mainly to serve

Negroes.

The Harvard program is for

students who have completed their

junior year of college. At Em·ory and

Denver the programs are for college

graduates.

Funds for the summer institutes

will come from the Office of Economic

Opportunity and the Department

of Health, Education and

Welfare. Grants will total $392,352,

of which the Los Angeles program

will get about $85,000.

CLEO administrators anticipate

success. They are already planning

eight summer programs for next

year~

21A

..

APPENDIX 4 (cont.)

Thursday, June 13, ·1968

LOS ANGELES, CALIF. THE PICO POST – THE BEVE~LY POST

IIIIUUU!IHIIai!IIHIIIIllllli!UUIIillllliiiiW”””P’II!!”III”IliHIIHiiliiUI!lUilll

For Minority

Law Schools,

Set Summer I

Program

Councilman Thomas Bradley I

. ann o u n c·e d that the Law 1,

;Schools of UCLA, Loyola andl

:USC are operating a summer

i program for Negroes, Mexli

can-Americans and other mi·

‘nority group students designed

to sharply increase law school 1

enrollment~ of minority group,,

students. I t

The three schools are spon·; c

l soring a Legal Edu~ation Op- ‘,

. portunity Program of South· II;

: ~rn California under the direc- ,

I torship of Leon Letwin whose

dffice is at the UCLA Law

School, 405 Hllgard A venue, :

1478-9711, ext. 2791. l

! Bradley reported that ac- ~

cording to a Jetter lie re· I s

ceived from Mr. Letwin, thlA i v

‘ program will be operated on 1 n

the UCLA campus from ,June ! r

24 to August 16. It Is open ! c

to all minority group stu· i

dents who are completing ; 1

their junior or senior years 1

In college. ! 1

Bradley al~<? indicated that 1

financial aid will be made . ,

available to students partici-;;

pating in the summer program 1 ,

as well as for tho~e who sub- j

sequently enroll in law schools.

Councilman Bradley urged ·~

third and fourth year college 1

students who may be interest-\ c

ed in this program to immedi· •

ately contact his office at MA.

1

1

4-5211, ext. 3323, or Mr. Letwin I

directly at 478-9711, ext. 2791, •

so that arrangements can be r

made for participation in this

special su–m–m–e–r p–r.–o..g. ram.

BEV~RLV HILLS, CALIF.

22A

•

APPENDIX 4 (cont.)

May-June 1968

402 J,n,uNAL <W ·a·m·; ~hwn; llAu 01•’ CALWUUNIA

n1an, associate professor of law and assistant director of

the Institute of Government and Public Affairs; Richard T.

Morris, professor of sociology; Ira Michael Heyman, professor

of law, U.C. Berkeley; Peter ·Kamnitzer, associate·

professor of archite~ture and urban planning and head of

urban and regional planning program with Moderator Professor

Harold W. Horowitz, professor of law. The Dedication

Ceremonies began last September with an address by

the Chief Justice Roger M. Traynor on “What Domesday

Books for Emerging Law?”

f f f

In an effort to increase law school enrollment of Negroes,

Mexican-Americans, and other minority students, three Los

Angeles universities will conduct a joint summer program

this year to interest such students in legal education. June

college graduates and those entering their senior year next

fall will be eligible for the program, to be staffed by UCLA,

Loyola, and USC and held at the UCLA Law School from

June 24 to August 16. This Legal Education Opportunity

Program of Southern California will be funded by a $76,000

grant from the national Council on Legal Education Opportunity.

Financial aid will also be available to student participants

who enter law school. Forty such students will be

given an introduction to legal education and method in such

areas as criminal law, constitutional law and torts, according

to UCLA Professor Letwin, program director.

The students, who will be selected by all three schools,

will be quartered in UCLA residence halls during the program

and will receive a compensation for lost income this

summer.

Other similar programs are to be held at Harvard University,

Emory University in Georgia, and the University

of Denver.

The Council on Legal Education Opportunity was established

in January, 1968, by the American Bar Association,

the Association of American Law Schools, the National Bar

Association, and the Law School Admission Test Council

following year-long discussions on ways to increase the

supply of lawyers from disadvantaged and minority groups

in the United States. Its chairman is Dean Page Keeton of

the Law School of the University of Texas.

College seniors and juniors interested in participating in

the program may apply to the Legal Education Opportunity

Program of Southern California at the UCLA Law School.

23A

‘

•

~· … : :. ·. . • .. :~ … · :. ·. · .• · ~ … :.i i\ !~ ,, l

~ … ~·: .. ::·::::~y ~1? c;·,:,r~·o:UIIA

:. !’ ‘ . ‘ ….. ,

4 I A e t •, : l ;·~ ~~

.. … ·.ill! ~ .. ,, …… • ……… ..a

5~xrcen Pa~os

90024

24A

;r I ~~~_,..__.._ ….. ..,, …

Los Angelos. Californi4, Wednesday, August 14. 1963

Minority Group Dr!ve ln. Legal Profession .Nears EEC

As Education Council Puts Stude.nts In law Classes

A drive to recruit min01ity group members -into the Los Angeles legal proft.: ..; .. ;i(m is

the goal of CLEO-the Council on Legal Education Opportunity-which is now ·wa!l.!n\’a,\·:

at locai law schools. ·

Thirty college graduates and 10 studentswho will be seniors in September m·<.· :lth·nding

classes· at USC, UCLA and Loyola law schools with the tuition being paid hy tlw J))’o-

– . · . gram.

In addition, at the conclu~io:1 or , 1 the program each partkip~mt w;:: ·policemen, judges, prosecutors, 1

receive $550 in cash to nHtkc u;-1 ~o:- ·public defenders, general practice I

lost -summer earn:ngs. E~,r.:1 attorneys and communi.ty leaders.

par.ticipant receives free room ;,;:·.: Directing the summer program is

board as well as S10 a week pCJc~:,.:t ·Leon Letwin a professor of law at:

money. : UCLA.

The program, schcau:cd fo:- The council was esta.blished by

completion Aug. 24, is allowin~ t:lr.! . the Assn. of Ame~1can Law

minority group ~tudents to ~•!:c ii _Schoo!s,. the Amencan. Bar

they are interested in goi!1~ on ~o a :Assoc!at!on, the N a t 1 on a 1

legal career. .AssociatiOn and the Legal Services

Past grades are not the key to Program .of the Of·f.ice of Economic

admission to the progr~m. sine~ Oppor-tumty. . .

. attention is focused on the p~:~o:1’s Funds for the s~mmer mstJtutes I

· successful performance in li.lw come from the Offtce of Econo-mic

school. Opportunity and -the Department of I

If the student does go on, si1.~ablc Health, Education and Welfare.

funds have been ailocatcd for . _

scholarships.

The Ford Foundation has gran~~t!

$•150,000 to the council aE !1~1t

$50,000 of which will go ~ow:lr<!

scholarships; a group cf !:;,~<;.:

businessmen has c o rt t r ; ~. t: ~ ~ c’

$13,500 at UCLA, nnl! ~l!10~::r!· ~-‘/:’·

has come from th~ 13cvrr:\· ::::-:

Dar Associa:ion, t~t~ ~,: .. ~i.::;:-:·.::

Foundation of Los An~'”·~cs :1:;·:: ~;~:Rabinowitz

Founda~lot~.

Full – time inst:-uctlo~: !:t ::~e

program is being giv~o•n by Gccrt~

C. Garbesi. of Lorol.\ t:w s.:!”:~o::

Christopher D. St~l!W. (lf l1 ~L: ~~~·.·:

center and R : c h :1 r ~ :\.

Wasser5lrom of the LCL.\ !aw

school.

Not all the work will be <.·c::t~:·c.:!

In .the clas~room a I t ~ 0 ;.: ; :;

Instruction will be .~!Ä’C:l in .:ri::1i~:1:

1~ÄÄ’1. CtJt1$!itutillil:tl law ;1;~,: :.~~·:;-;.

T1·ips arc ~>dng t~i1h’:1 to “·i,·i.: :1:~·.!

ct·iminal ~·ourts, taw of!h.·~-:. :h)::..:~.:stutions

a~,u Col~i!ll~l:~it.y :Äc::~:-.

Pnu·ol hcauqtt~tr: ~~r:i. :.~.~Ä.’: ~=-.~;~

h~wc b~~n at’ r ;1 n g ~,.. . ·,: ,. .. i~··

Dean Joseph A. Sinclitico Jr. of Uni·

versity of San Diego School of Law.

briefs scholarship recipients Charles

USD Issues 5 Scholars.hips

For Minority ~aw Studen~s

The Sc~ool of Law, Univers.ity f”” =· r . ~ ~ ==- • · ·• ::··:-· =•:. “: = ··=···~

of San D1ego, has awarded five ( · .. · ·: ~:·. :v·, iiV-:·-~·–~ · ~ ·

full tuition scholarships for the ~:· ; a·.~f1~-~. ;.:’=:·. ·’ :_·:. .·_ :_:.=::::_: ..· .:.·.>_;’ ·.·~. . . :· ·•. · .:·:·:: ){;:~},:: . ·. :

1968 69 d i . . .. ~’ ·.·t·• .,.,…._ … : ,..,.._c~ …. ·.·•.c. . · aca em c year. . . ·'””~: : .. · .. ,,_.;.-.:·~·–:~: · ~– ·,::::~~ t:/’ ·•· · · – ·

These scholarships which, in- : : f::<· ·–.~–~.:~:-<.;’;.~~;:~<~-~. ( .~r·f.~ . ./:··:< {.;;;),:,~y··.,:{~;~<t~t~ ::<

eluding book_ allowance, are . ;.-..~:-·.:/~;<~– · ‘ ….. ·:~;.·!,~}:Ä._ -~ .. _:_~–. . :·( ,;~:.’,C_·.~.·~-~-~-· · .

worth about $1.300 apiece, were f!/::.:· .. =:~=.;.l · · .·_··. :-;_’::·!_).’)J· ~-·. ~· .,·– .· ~~

cr.e hat ed b. y UCSLDE Oin conj·un.c tion t.v:_·. ?.;...:._., .. :… _.· _•. ~ ~:-~-:.::;’!·.~~–:·· ;-… r:;.-l~ .. ~.’- -t.·tr.t·.’~”‘-··.,;;_g ,…-..::’1..- r -,, ~,· ,.. … . ‘,…. “” -·’\·or..

:wlt project (Councll on . t-::~~-, :·.:~ · ‘.~<~- -·- •· t;Ä.:~;~_;,;;; ~

Legal Ed.uca~ion Opportunity): ·..~ ,.;, ..;;~:h.’~r.:,... ~ _4 ..’ .. •• •. ‘.,.··- .. ~.— •.. .:.> ‘.t..~.·~.·.,~.?;~.~ Äi~’ …. \ .~)’ . t·~f;_./’ f~, .

The objective of CLEO, wh1ch · :·/~:~· .:· i# · · ·. · ..- ,(··,(t Ji r~~ ]>~.:r::t~;Ä~

is sponsor~d .bY the _American ~-:r1· … ~··. …. i:~~.-.~~·;.~i t~. … ,~·o.’i”‘;;~_, ·:.-:r ·

Ba r As soc1at1 on, Na 1t 0na 1 Ba r .. ~t::-‘– Ä.;.-.“* ” “”.. ‘4_... ….. ~. ‘ . . jl•: ·L ...! .4.} ~.–….J,$‘· ,•. ….• • ··4~ .~·~·p:’ f.·.>.. ·‘:ll.‘!;‘£<~··,

AA5m50ecrl~caatinonL, a\v AS5c5h0ocoilastioannd th0ef ; (, .Ä:~ :~L~~·~’ /Y. ·· ;’,~. :~:;~-~·1 ~. . · .~ ~~_-J:_),~.~.:.~~-;·

Office of Economic Opportunity, :_ Ä~·-·>_-<~:·~·- . ~~·> ·f~ ~~~ ; t· . ; · .,.,….,ift:::~ .i:~:=-~~f.:

is to increase the number o( : J;.~·~.:.–‘:-:··:··’t~:;· · · · · J ·• · ~ ~.:. -.· ~ .\ ·::.j~4

minority gro~p members in the ·.r’:· ·,·’_Ä~. • ~·-. :;.:~::,, … _· .· · · ‘ · · Ä.,~ ., -:.;. .< ,$(~1

legal professiOn. /’ . / .· ~:::-:::>Ä . ,. Ä~ .. .;.•~.~ ~-Ä · / “‘”‘ ••· . ~ .• .;: … -~,,.,~,

USD schoJars, seJected from •… ·.=• •.4 ·:: ·.·) .•: •. : ___ .. ~.. l. ….·_> :l ~· :;· •. .. ··-…… ~· ,, ~~ ~ .- -··’ … ;~-· ·:’-‘~- ~<f ~ 11 applicants. are Roger _Caz- _ ·:·;: · ~l· \· .. :.. · ~: · ; _. ~r- ~.:;:~,y J

:a~es, 615 Rae~~~ Ave .• National .:. :· · ;_-\ ·i ~– .•. -~.i-i·~· ::\

Ctty, a San Du~~o State gr~du- SHIRLEY GISSENDANNER . TED FIELDS .

ate; Theodore F1elds, 5512 R1ley ‘

St., a USD graduate; Shir1eylcnts Fields and· Miss Gissen- guidance and assistance.

Gissendanner, 4053 Gamma St., dan~er, are attending a spcciaJ CLEO, established in Janu•

·a State graduate; Napoleon summer preparatory course at ary, has headquarters at Unl·

1Jones, 2966 L St., a State gradu- UCLA 1 f CLEO versity o£ Texas law school The

ate, and Charles L. Ward, 2958 on gran 5 rom · Ford Foundation has gr~nted

Ocean View Blvd., a graduate Each of th~ students selected $450,000 to the council:

of California Western Univer- for scholarsh1ps by USD has a .. __

sity. minimum quaJifying grade of

Financial need was a consid- 2.0 or better from college.

eration in selection, but, ac- While studying at USD Schoo]

cording to Dean Joseph A. Sin· of Law, they will be required to

clitico Jr., but consideration meet schoJastic standards appliwas

also given to serving the cable to all other students.

local community and to diversi- However, each will be assigned

fica lion. to one faculty member, who

Two or the scholarship recipi- will be available ~or personal

25A

.Ju It ‘l.iJ”‘

Dte~D

; ~~~J ..

APPENDIX 5

LEGAL EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY

PROGRAM OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Sponsored by UCLA, Loyola, and USC Law Schools

under a grant from the Council on Legal Education Opportunity

Announces

A PROGRAM FOR MINORITY GROUP STUDENTS

INTERESTED IN A CAREER IN LAW

• The program is open to students who will complete their junior or senior year of

college this June.

• The program will be held at UCLA this summer from June 24 to August 16.

• Students will live in UCLA residence halls and will receive a stipend to compensate

for lost summer income.

• All expenses -tuition, room and board, and a living allowance- will also be paid.

• The program, open to 40 students, will provide an opportunity to study legal method

and practice in such areas as criminal law, constitutional law, and torts.

• Students will also take field trips to civil and criminal courts, to legal aid offices,

and to lawyers’ offices.

• Meetings will be arranged with police personnel, judges, prosecutors, lawyers and

community leaders to discuss the importance of careers in the law and the opportunities

in practice.

• DEADLINE FOR APPLICATIONS: May 15, 1968.

• Further information and application forms may be obtained from:

The Legal Education Opportunity Program

of Southern California

UCLA School of Law

405 Hilgard Avenue

Los Angeles, California 90024

Telephone: 478-9711, Extension 2791

26A

•

APPENDIX 5 (cont.) 27A

BULLETIN OF INFORMATION

Purposes

The number of Negroes, Mexican-Americans, and other minority

group members now practicing law is exceedingly small. There is

need for greatly expanding the number. In the assertion of equal

rights and opportunities for minority groups and in rendering

counsel and advice in disadvantaged communities, there is a vital

role for the lawyer. Moreover, legal training in this country

has traditionally been an important avenue for entry into politics,

public administration, and management of business.

The chief purposes of the Summer Program are (1) to provide

minority group college graduates who are planning to attend law

school in September of 1968 with the opportunity, if needed, for

advance orientation work before beginning their formal studies;

and (2) to encourage college juniors who have not yet made their

career choices to consider law as a possible career.

How to Apply

40 students will be taken into this program, about 10 of whom

are presently college juniors and 30, graduating seniors.

Because the procedures to be followed by the two groups are

somewhat different, application procedures for each group are

described separately below.

A. For students who are graduating in June of 1968:

Applications for the Legal Education Opportunity Program

can be obtained from your faculty advisor or from the Director,

Legal Education Opportunity Program of Southern California, at· the

UCLA Scbool of Law, Los Angeles, California. Because the program

is designed primarily for students who will be attendin~ law school

in September of 1968, it is important that you make app !cation,

if you have not airead{ done so, to any law school or schools that

you wish to attend in he fall. The application form that you

complete for admission to the Summer Program will, if you check

tbe appropriate places, automatically entitle you to consideration

for regular admission at the three sponsoring law schools: the

UCLA Law School, the Loyola Law School, and the USC Law Center.

Admission will depend largely on the school’s judgment as to your

capacity for successfully performing legal work, rather than on

your undergraduate grade average or test scores. There will also

be room in the program for some college graduates who have not yet

definitely decided to go to law school.

In order to qualify for admission to the Summer Program, each

applicant who is a graduating senior should submit a completed

Summer Pro1ram application form, a letter of recommendation, and

a copy of bis college transcript. Applications, letters of

APPENDIX 5 (cont.)

recommendation, and transcripts should be sent to:

Legal Education Opportunity Program of

Southern California

UCLA Law School

405 Hilgard Avenue

Los Angeles, California 90024

All these materials should be sent as soon as tossible and in

no event later than May 15, 1968. It is advan ageous to send

in applications at the earliest possible time, since some may

be acted on shortly after they are received.

28A

B. For students who will have completed their junior year

of college in June of 1968.

Applications for the program can be obtained from your

faculty advisor or from Director, Legal Education Opportunity

Program of Southern California, at the UCLA Law School. Because

you are only juniors this year, it is not necessary that you

have applied to law school anywhere, or even that you have

decided to go to law school when you graduate. It is sufficient

that you have a genuine interest in the study of law and interest

in considering legal education seriously when you graduate.

The application form for the program, together with one

letter of recommendation and a copy of your college transcript,

should be sent to:

Legal Education Opportunity Program of

Southern California

UCLA Law School

405 Hilgard Avenue

Los Angeles, California 90024

All of these materials should be sent in as soon as possible

and in no event later than May 15, 1968.

Financial Arrangements and Scholarships

A substantial grant from the Council on Legal Education

Opportunity will provide all the expenses for participants for

tuition, room and board, and incidental expenses. In addition,

each student will receive a cash grant of $550 at the end of the

Summer Program to make up for lost summer earnings. Thus,

students may attend the program with no expense to themselves

and without loss of summer earning opportunities.

Students who attend the Summer Program and who subsequently

attend law school in September of 1968 will also receive

substantial financial assistance toward the payment of law

school expenses throughout their law school enrollment.

– 2 –

•

29A

APPENDIX 5 (cont.)

Tbe Nature of the Program

Students selected for the Summer Program will be in residence

at UCLA for 8 weeks, from June 24 to August 16, 1968.

The program will have several aspects, all designed to

familiarize the participants with the nature of legal education

and method and to develop some of tbe skills appropriate for

legal education. Classroom attention will focus on subjects such

as criminal law, constitutional law, and torts.

In addition, all students will participate in a “special

project” which will illustrate the evolution of a simple lawsuit

from the moment the lawyer and client have their first interview,

through the final appeal after trial. Students will handle all

phases of the case as it moves along to trial and appeal.

There will be substantial field experiences, including trips

to civil and criminal courts, to neighborhood law offices, to law

enforcement personnel, and to lawyers’ offices. These are designed

to help the participant get the feel of what tbe practice of law

entails, to decide whether the practice of law interests him, and

to give a practical exposure to some of the problems that be is

studying in the classroom.

Finally, meetings will be arranged with police personnel,

judges, prosecutors, lawyers and community leaders to discuss the

importance of careers in the law and the opportunities in practice.

* * •

Remember: Time is short. Applications and supporting materials

must be received by May 15, 1968. Apply now.

– 3 –

APPENDIX 6

Legal Education Opportunity Program of Southern California

Located at

The UCLA Law School

405 Hilgard A venue

Los Angeles, California 90024

Telephone: 478-9711, Ext. 2791

In common with many other law schools, the law schools of

UCLA, Loyola and USC wish to increase substantially the number

of minority group students in legal education. To facilitate

this goal, the three schools have organized a program to be

operated this coming summer on the UCLA campus. It is intended

(a) for June college graduates and (b) for those entering their

senior year of college next fall. The program is described in

detail in the enclosed brochure.

30A

Its adoption presupposes that the participating law ·;chools

will modify their admissions standards to accommodate deserving

students whose paper records do not comply with going admissions

requirements. It also presupposes that financial aid will be

made available to support the student in law school so as to

eliminate the need for outside work during the academic year.

Substantial funds will be made available by the national Council

on Legal Education Opportunity both to operate this Summer Program

and for general scholarship assistance to the student, once he is

admitted to law school.

The fact that this program is sponsored by these three law

schools is in no way intended to “lock in” the student to these

schools. He is free to apply for admission to law schools of

his choice anywhere in the country, and scholarships will be

available to him on a similar basis wherever he goes. We wish

only to emphasize the fact that the three participating law

schools are among those that have made the policy decision to

facilitate the entry of minority group students.

31A

APPENDIX 6 (cont.)

-2-

We would deeply appreciate your help in making this information

known to Negroes, Mexican-Americans, and members of other minority

groups in their junior or senior year of college, who might be

interested in pursuing a legal career. We would be very happy to

discuss this program with you further in person if you should like

and also with any students you recommend or are interested in

considering it.

We are operating under a tight time schedule and while applications

for admission to the Summer Program will be accepted until

May 15, we would very much like to get applications together with

the supporting documents–i.e., a letter of recommendation and a

college transcript–at the earliest moment.

We include application blanks and descriptive brochures for

distribution to interested students. Additional copies can be

obtained either by you or by the student directly. We also enclose

posters describing the program, for bulletin board mounting. There

is space-at the bottom of the poster for you to give the name of

the advisor the student should contact at your school.

Further information can be obtained, and applications for

participation in the Summer Program should be sent to:

Legal Education Opportunity Program of

Southern California

UCLA Law School

405 Rilgard Avenue

Los Angeles, California 90024

It is advantageous that applications be sent in at the earliest

possible time, since it will be possible to act on some shortly after

they are received.

LL:ep

Encs.

Sincerely,

i….-ltt-..

Leon Letwin

Director

APPENDIX 7

July 12, 1968

To: CLEO Directors

From: CLEO Participants

, ~

1. The CLEO Program has certainly pointed out the great need for

maximum study time with minimum hindrance. It has crystallized the absolute

necessity for·full-tiGe dedication, intense concentration; and the

importance of the maintenance of a constructive, resilient attitude.

2. In short, the Program bas pointed out that it is impossible for

us to d~vote less than full-time to our lav studies — and complete those

studies successfully.

3. We, therefore, must conclude that our academic success depends

primarily on the adequacy of our financial support. This has been told

to us constantly, and probably appears ridiculously obvious to those who

have experienced law studies; but the Program has convinced even the most

buoyant optimist of the stark reality of this relationship.

32A

4. Upon entering the Program, the participants had been definitely

assured of the availability of all necessary fina~cial aid -· i.e. tuition,

boo~~, and all living expenses.

S. However, it is the consensus of the participants that tbere is

ENTIRELY TOO }ruCH arnbivalence and uncertainty concerning the financial

support which bad been promised. The assurances thus far made have been

vague and nebulous promises; the delays and apparent procrastination are

seriously affecting the effectiveness of everyone involved.

6. The constant uncertainties are creating criticnl problems end attendant

anxiety. Individuals — and whole families — are unable to proceed

on the fundamental assumption of basic financial security. Consequently,

formerly high morale and an attitude of growth are waning with the passage

of time.

. 7. It is, therefore, difficult for us not to· view our present situation

as another example of the W3y those in the ~mite majority deal with the

needs of thooe in the Black and Brown communities. Any progress which has

been made is clearly in jeopardy.

8. The areas causing greatest anxiety are these:

— WHEN? This is the 3rd week of the Program. By now con~

crete arrangements — meeting our needs ·

should have been made.

•

CLEO Directors

July 12, 1968

Page Ttlo

— LOANS

APPENDIX 7 (cont.) 33A

Loans were not mentioned in our original discussion.

To ask us to assume further indebtedness

would place inordinate burdens upon alreadystrained

situations. ·

9. This Program is not fulfilling the promises which prompted our

interest. The evidence of sincerity and response is sorely lacking. We

are considering alternatives to·law school if funds are not, in fact, made

available.as promised; our continued participation depends upon those funds.

10. As Friday, July 19, is the mid-point of the Summer Program, it

is imperative that our financial arrangements be concretized by that date.

11. If the funds arc not forthcoming in sufficient amount, we will

be left with no alternative but to forsake this endeavor, and to devote our

energies to other pursuits, as our consciences and community needs dictate.

The CLEO Participants •

,

APPENDIX 7 (cont.)

APPENDIX

Estimates of average monthly expenses in Los Angeles ate listed below:

EstiMATED EXPENSES·

Rent

Utilities

Phone

rood (in & out)

Clothing·

Medical (incidental)

Dental

Insurance (life & health)

Misc. Recreation, etc.

Laundry & Dry Cleaning

‘toiletries

Car Insurance

Car Repairs

Car Gas

Car Parking

Total

SINGLE

OPP’ CAMPUS

$125.00

18.00

12.00

100.00

30.00

s.oo

8.00

30.00

so.oo

15.00.

s.oo

18.00

10.00

40.00

7.00

$473.00

$20.00

20.00

10.00

s.oo

a.oo

13.00

s.oo

s.oo

s.oo

$91.00

CHILD

$10.00

20.00

s.oo

s.oo

4.00

7.00

—

$51.00

Note: The above excludes car payments and outstanding bills. These vary too

much to be included.

,.

APPENDIX 7 (cont.)

APPENDIX II

The expenditures listed on the preceding page do not take into account the

summer earnings of the student and/or the annual earnings of the spouse.

An appropriation of these earnings are as follows:

Student

Wife

Total

Gross

$1,500

5,000

$6,500

,

$1,200

3,600

$4,800

Using these approximations, the net result for a student, his wife, and one

child would be as follows:

Expenses

Income

Balance

Avg. books

Total Necessary

$7,380

– 4,800

$2,580

+ 170

$2,750

35A

It is ·herein emphasized that these are only estimates, and individual situations ·

will vary upwards and downwards, in some cases greatly.

APPENDIX 8

July .23, 1968

To: CLEO Directors

From: CLEO Participants

We the brothers and sisters of the CLEO Program resolve that the recent

financial aid ste.t ments presented to us are totally and ccmpletey

unrflilistic.

Every brother and sister, prior to entering this program had financial.

responsibilities and committments which we were fulfilling without

detaul.t.

Many of the brothers and sisters gave up comfortable positions and potentially

high-paying summer jobs but the sacrifice appeared to be well

worth it since the CLEO Program Directors had instilled high expectations

and assurances that all participants would be substantially financed.

36A

Loans were not mentioned at the interviews or in the letters.of acceptance.

We do not want to finish law school and face thousands of dollars in loan

debts; furthermore, many of the brothers and sisters already have consid-·

erable debts incurred fran undergraduate loans. ·

The additional debts from law school and prior mentione·d debts will place

an intolerable burden upon all brothers and sisters, especially those

dedicated to working directly in low income ghettoes and barrios. This

burden will strain our effectiveness within the communities since our

financial returns will be very low

We brothers and siters re·solve that the minimum acceptable financial aid

is as follows:

1. Single first-year law students,

$3,000.00

2. Married first-year law students,

$4,000.00

(a) $500.00 for each additional

child

The above monies does not include books and tqition or the incidental

expenditures which are normally incurred during the first year of law

school..

APPENDIX 8 (cont.) 37A

We the brothers and sisters resolve that if the m1n1mum financial

assistance as defined above is not met by Tuesday July 30, 1968

at ·11:30A.M. the following shall occur:

1. Indefinite boycott of all classes will commence.

2. On Wednesday July 31, at 12:00P.M.

A. A press conference will be called.

B. A formal statement will be issued.

c. A massive rally in front of the

UCLA Law School shall occur and the

Black and Chicano communities will

be encouraged to participate.

D. All class materials will be burned

Further action will be dependant upon the response of the

CLEO staff and Directors.

The CLEO Participants