Monthly Archives: January 1969

1969.01: November 8-10, 1968 Conference on California Law Schools on Minority Students and the Law Schools

View in searchable PDF format: 1968.11.08 – Minority Students and the Law Schools Conference.OCR

Raw text:



1 . 1


Conference of California Law Schools





UCLA Law School

November 810, 1968

.. , ,

b… ,. ·.-r· (

In May 1968, Dean Richard c. Maxwell proposed that all the

accredited law schools in California meet to consider the problems

that were emerging as various schools undertook efforts to expand

their minority enrollment. Such a conference was held at the UCLA

Law School on November 8-10, 1968, with representatives of 13

schools in attendance. Common problems were discussed and areas

of possible cooperation were considered, particularly in regard to

CLEO summer institutes and the raising of scholarship funds.

The conference authorized Dean Maxwell to submit a proposal

to CLEO requesting financing for 2 CLEO summer institutes in

California, one for the northern and one for the southern part of

the state. CLEO responded favorably and there will be 2 CLEO

institutes in California for the summer of 1969.

What is strikingly clear is the extent to which the problems

and issues encountered in any one school’s effort are duplicated

in others. For this reason, there seemed some point in making

available to whoever wished an abbreviated report of what transpired

at the California conference.

Los Angeles

January, 1969

Leon Letwin

Table of Contents

Participants ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• iii

Introductory Comments……………………………. 1-8

Summary of Discussion……………………………. 8

a) Remarks by CLEO Representatives ••••••••••••••••••

b) Methods of Selecting Students,

Standards and Special Supporting

Activity Once the Student is

Admitted •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

c) The State Colleges as a Source of

Minority Students ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

d) Finances •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

e) CLEO Summer Program ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Appendix A – A Proposal for California CLEO

Summer Institutes for 1969 ••••••••••••••

Appendix B- Dean Richard c. Maxwell’s Letter

of Application to CLEO for

2 California CLIO Summer Institutes •••••










u.c. Berkele~

1. Mr. Davi Helms (student)

2. Assistant Dean David Walkley

u.c. Davis

1. Dean Edward Barrett

u.c. Hastinfs

1. Dean Ar bur Sammis

2. Associate Dean Joe Munster


~Dean Richard c. Maxwell

2. Mr. Gerald L. Brown (student)

3. Associate Dean Robert L. Jordan

4. Professor Leon Letwin

5. Assistant Dean Anthony McDermott

6. Mr. Ricardo Munoz (student)

7. Mr. Thomas Sanchez (student)

8. Mr. Wallace Walker (student)

Cal. Western

1. Dean RObert Castetter

Golden Gate Colle~e

1. Professor Mic ael Golden


1. Dean Richard Vachon, S.J.

2. Professor Curt Garbesi

3. Assistant Dean Hunter Geer

4. Mr. Don Jones (student)

5. Mr. Lee Lucero (student)

6. Mr. Patrick Nave (student)

McGeorge College of Law

1. Dean GOrdon SChaber

2. Mr. Dennis Latimer (student)

3. Professor Claude Rohwer

Universit~ of San Diefo

1. Dianoseph Sine! tico

2. Professor Eugene Reynolds

3. Mr. Charles Ward (student)

4. Professor John M. Winters

University of San Francisco

1. Professor Raymond Coyne

2. Professor William Riegger

University of Santa Clara

1. Professor Dale Fuller

Stanford Universit!

1. Mr. Leroy Bobb tt (student)

2. Professor Jack Friedenthal

3. Mr. Thelton Henderson


1. Mr. James Foster (student)

2. Mr. John Long (student)

3. Mr. Ernest McKinney (student)

4. Mr. Joseph Porter (student)

5. Professor Michael Reiss

6. Mr. Howard Schaeffer (student)

7. Professor Christopher Stone

8. Mr. Edward Weise (student)

9. Assistant Dean Jerry Wiley


1. Mr. Derrick Bell

Director, Western Center on

Law and Poverty

2. Mr. William Eldridge

American Bar Foundation

3. Dr. Melvin Kennedy

Executive Director, CLEO

4. Mr. Robert O’Neil

Program Consultant, CLEO

5. Mr. Stanley Sanders

Attorney, Western Center on

Law and Poverty

6 • Mr. Kenneth Washington

Special Assistant for

Bducational Opportunity and

Human Relations, California

State Colleges

* Not all participants attended all sessions.



Introductory Comments

Leon Letwin

In 1967 over 5,000 studenty were enrolled in the 13 law schools

represented at this conference. The number this year is probably

larger. There are today, on the other hand, probably less than 200

black and Mexican-American students in these same schools. We can

view these figures from several perspectives. This does represent

a substantial increase–perhaps a five- or tenfold iDC:rease over the

past couple of years–but only because of the abysmal base we started

from. A more useful perspective might be to compare the proportion

of black and brown students enrolled in the law schools to their

proportion in the society at large, or to the extent of the need for

minority attorneys. To put the matter in a national perspective,

there were only some 1,250 black students enrolled in law schools

throughout the nation during 1968, according to a recent estimate.2

About 500 of these were enrolled in the Howard Law School and in the

other traditionally black law schools. So there were only 700 to

800 black students in all the remaining American law schools covered

by the survey. With respect to the Mexican-American enrollment,

there were only 180 enrolled throughout the entire United States-compared

to a population of about 5,000,000–and this 180 probably

represents a sharp improvement as compared to a year or two ago.

There today seems to be a broad consensus among law schools

about the need for dramatic expansion in the number of minority

students getting a legal education. People may differ in the importance

they attach to different possible reasons for doing so but

they probably include the following:

1. It is today recognized that it is not enough for the law

schools merely to sit quietly by and bemoan the profound inequities

which have in effect barred minority students from legal education.

Rather, affirmative steps are required to overcome them.

2. The infusion of minority students into legal education would

improve the quality of that education for the entire student body.

It would enable the rest of the students–and the faculty–to come

to grips with the sharply different attitudes and perceptions of

minority students and with the problems generated by racism in the


1. Berkeley 767; Davis 157; Hastings 1,006; UCLA 603; Cal Western 186;

Golden Gate 381; Loyola 674; McGeorge 489; USC 506; San Diego 397;

Santa Clara 234; Univ. of San Francisco 360; Stanford 441. This

totals 5,301 and includes day and evening divisions. An additional

3,000 students, roughly, were attending unaccredited schools.

20 Journal of Legal Education 179-80 (1968).

2. Newsletter of the Association of American Law Schools, No. 68-3

(October 7, 1968).

t ,..

3. There is a clearly recognized need for a sharp expansion

of the number of minority attorneys available to the community.

Candor requires the recognition that pressure from minority

students and community have contributed handsomely to the present

willingness to change. In any event, we have witnessed quite a

change in the attitude of many law schools. It would have required

a remarkable imagination to have predicted four or five years ago

that law schools would be prepared, indeed eager, to do many of the

things we are here today to discuss. Nor are we yet at the end of

the road so far as change goes.

Our efforts have opened up many more questions than have yet

been resolved. These deal not only with problems of minority education.

Rather, problems generated out of an immediate concern with

minority Eecruitment have tended to expand and caused us to review

our way of doing business with respect to the entire student body.

So we see changes in the areas of faculty selection, curriculum,

grading, and student participation in law school decision-making

which may work for the general good of the entire law school, not

only its minority students.

Among the issues that seem worth discussing at this conference

are the following:

A. What ought to be the scope of our goals with respect to

recruiting minority students?

B. Assuming that to achieve these goals we are prepared to

depart from our present standards (or techniques) of selection,

what standards (or techniques) ought to guide us in their place?

c. For those students so selected, what special academic

support ought to be extended in order to ensure success? This

raises issues such as the possibility of a stretched-out law program

in which the students carry less than a full load for a longer than

usual period of time; tutorial and counseling programs; and special

summer preparatory programs of the CLEO type.

D. To what degree and how should we go about making the law

school more relevant to the interests and talents of our minority

students (and in the process to significant numbers of white students

as well)? How can we best utilize the distinctive contribution they

are capable of making not only to their own education, but to that

of the entire student body and faculty?

E. Financial aid. Tbis involves questions as to tbe appropriate

level of financial support and how the money is to be raised.

To serve as a possible focus for some of the things we may want

to discuss, I offer these comments.


t (


It is my personal view that we ought to be aiming toward a

level of minority enrollment within a few years roughly proportional

to that found in the external community. What this figure

is may vary, depending on how one defines the community–whether

local, statewide, or national. (To a degree, the answer might

depend on where the given law school normally does its recruiting.)

If one takes California as the base, this suggests a rate somewhere

between 20% and 25% of the incoming student body. MY own view is

that we could and should achieve something in that range within the

next few years. A number of the law schools in this state are

already enrolling minority students at a rate over 10% of their

entering classes.

I do not propose this in a spirit of a rigid quota. I do not

think we sbould implement the goal inflexibly regardless of the

quality of the applicants, nor do I think that there should be an

impenetrable ceiling once a certain number is reached. But if one

is to embark on a program, it seems inevitable that he must have

some fairly defined objectives, and the figures I’ve mentioned are

those that commend themselves to me. If one agrees with such goals

or anything remotely approximating them, various questions are

raised •

. The first is whether it is realistic. Is there an adequate

pool of minority group college seniors to provide the base for a

major expansion of law school enrollment? There probably is today,

and the pool is undergoing rapid expansion. It exists in the

undergraduate schools in our respective institutions and in the

California State College system. (You will have occasion later to

hear from Mr. Washington on the minority enrollment in the State

College system.)


As this pool of students increases, there is little doubt that

a growing number will be found who comply in every way with regular

admissions requirements. It seems to me unwise, however, to restrict

our recruiting efforts merely to these.

First, for an indefinite period this would too narrowly restrict

the size of minority enrollment in the law schools. I regard this a

fully sufficient reason for departing from existing standards. The

need here is immediate and intense, and ways must be found to meet

it sooner rather than later.

While I think this is a sufficient reason, I would like to at

least speculate about the possibility that a departure from the

present methods of screening minority students might be justified on

other grounds.


( (_

1. Existing standards may not be a very valid way for

determining which minority students are capable of making it

in law school.

2. Even though our admissions criteria (such as LSAT and

gradepoint average) have some· predictive utility, other values

besides the mere likelihood of success ought to be weighed in

determining admissions. The personal qualities and perspectives

of the student might be adjudged relevant. What are his career

objectives? Is be a leader in the community? We have one

students in the UCLA law school today who was a Vice Chairman of

the Black Congress–a sweeping coalition of black organizations

in South Central Los Angeles. Prior to coming to law school this

same person ran an ACLU malpractice complaint center in one of the

Los Angeles ghettos. He applied to law school because he regards

the law a useful tool with which to serve his social and political

objectives. These made him a most attractive candidate to us. I

do not mean to say that we could or should take students who do not

have a reasonable chance of succeeding in law school. I only wish

to say that once it is decided that the chances are reasonable,

there are other factors to be weighed in addition to the strength

of his academic qualifications in determining his admissibility to

law school.

3. More fundamentally, however, it is not clear that the

standards used for determining who gets into law school (GPA and

LSAT) or who succeeds in it (grades) are valid in determining who

ought to become a lawyer and who not. However we define the skills

we are testing for in our examination procedures, “issue spotting,”

“verbal-conceptual skills,” or “analytic skills,” it is not clear

that these are the only or even the central skills or qualities

needed for practice. In weighing the likelihood of a person’s

success in practice, what about skills in client counseling or in

negotiating? Or what about factors such as hard work, tenacity,

devotion to the interests of one’s client or community, a feeling

for what is at stake in the case based on personal identification

with the problems experienced by the client? Perhaps there are a

variety of answers, depending on the type of lawyer one wants to

become. Different qualities may be important for one who aspires

to become a “community lawyer” than for one who aspires to become

a corporation lawyer.

4. Even if we were to agree that the law school is focusing

upon the critical skills and qualities needed by the lawyer, our

examination process may be far too mechanical and artificial to be

genuinely valid. Note the demands which an examination places upon

a person and then contrast these with those the practitioner confronts

in practice.


l L

a) Our examinations test the student in a written,

rather than an oral medium. In the actual practice of law, of

course, a lawyer depends on verbal as well as written skills.

b) Examinations are conducted under artificial time

limitations. Unlike practice there is no time available for

reflective contemplation of a problem before attempting an answer.

c) The student answering the examination is not permitted

to consult any research sources in solving the problem. He is

required to answer solely on his own reserves of memory and understanding.

Needless to say, this is not how it is in practice.

d) In the examination process, the student must answer

the question by himself rather than mull the problem over with

colleagues, in the traditional fashion of the practicing lawyer.

e) The examination questions are hypothetical rather than

real. Some students may have difficulty relating to these questions

in a way that they could in practice where the tangible significance

of the controversy is plain.

f) An examination question often does not give all the

facts. The student is expected to answer the question recognizing

the ambiguities of the situation. In real life, however, he would

be able to investigate the facts and eliminate many of the ambiguities.

It may be that different students react differently with respect to

their capacity to tolerate such ambiguities.

The point here is that the minority student might perform far

more satisfactorily in practice with respect to the various skills

we regard as crucial than he does in a highly artificial examination

system. Conversely, it is frightening to think what the practice of

law would be like if attorneys bad to do their work under the conditions

of law school examinations.

This is not to argue that the law school skills are irrelevant.

They may, however, be less central to the requirements confronting

lawyers, at least in many areas of law, than we think. It also may

be that our method of testing for these various skills is distorted

in a number of serious respects.

I do not think I exaggerate when I say that many people who

have dealt with minority students in law schools feel intuitively

that many of them would make not merely passable lawyers but very

good ones–if they could just get into the bar. This confidenee is

often not matched with the belief that the student will survive, or

survive any better than marginally, under our present examination



l (

I do not mean to suggest that a successful program of

minority recruitment first requires us to agree that our method

of evaluating students is all wrong. But we would be aided in

the endeavor by some humility and some skepticism about present

techniques of evaluation.

5. Even if our educational objectives are sound, even if

our testing methods are valid, we must keep in mind the possibility

that minority students with low academic credentials may

take longer to adapt to the law school setting than the rest of

the student body. For our regularly admitted students it seems

that the LSAT is about as good a predictor of performance for his

first year as for his second or third. It may be, however, that

the minority student with a low LSAT may end up performing better

in the second or third year than in the first. Put another way,

the LSAT may be a better first year predictor for this group than

it is a second or third year predictor. We do not know the answer

to this and, as I understand it, the Educational Testing Service is

undertaking a study of this question.

6. We should, finally, recognize that the curriculum is

undergoing change in many schools. The aim is to respond to demands

for more relevance. What we do not know is how the minority student

with low academic credentials will perform with respect to a

curriculum so enriched and altered. In evaluating the chances of

a student’s success, in other words, we ought not view the law school

as an immutable given, the demands of which the student must meet

upon penalty of instantaneous death. To a degree, the law schools

are changing and probably will continue to change in a way that

conforms them somewhat more closely to the interests and talents

of the minority students.


There are at least two patterns for recruitment. One is that

followed by many of the national law schools in which they culled

out the academically leading minority graduates from all ·over the

country, particularly from the historically segregated colleges in

the Deep South. This is, however, not the only possible pattern.

In Los Angeles, under the CLEO program this summer, we concentrated

heavily upon the minority undergraduate population in the immediate

area. As I’ve described in my report on the CLEO Summer Program,

we received over 300 applications for admission to the CLEO program,

mostly from the immediate area. MY own view, for the reasons stated

in that report, is that a community-focused recruitment pattern is

sound in principle. It may be useful here to note some recent

comments of John Gardner. He has accused many universities of being

“poor corporate citizens of their communities.” Many universities

large “in relation to their communities,” bavi not “asked themselves

what this implies in the way of obligations.”

3. UCLA Daily Bruin, Oct. 31, 1968, p. 3, col. 1.


It also seems appropriate that our recruitment focus not only

on the current college-senior population. There is in addition a

pool of persons who sometime ago completed their undergraduate work

and who would now be interested in coming to law school if the

opportunity were available. These tend to be somewhat older people,

generally married, with children, and engaged in various types of

professional and subprofessional work.

Financial Aid

The views of Dick Wasserstrom and myself have been presented

in a memorandum which was sent to you, and I won’t repeat them all

now. I’d like to focus on a few problems.

Level of Suptort. The level of support that we recommended was

$2,500 for a sing e person or a married person without children,

plus tuition. In the event the person had children, we proposed an

additional $600 per child. Obviously, whether these are appropriate

levels of support is a fit subject for discussion.

Should an individualized determination of financial need be a

prerequisite to financial aid? Given the great need almost all

minority students present, the administration of a means test as

a condition for financial aid will end up being more expensive than

the across-the-board allocation of a standard sum, even though the

occasional result may be that a student without need gets funds.

In addition, detailed and searching financial inquiries can be very

demeaning to the applicant. On the other band, if they are not

detailed and searching, they provide only a spurious basis for

precise determination of need.

If any means test were employed, in my view it should be an

extremely simple and “gross” test; i.e., if “need” is made out by

the applicant for substantial financial assistance, the standard

stipend should be awarded without any more detailed inquiry to

determine if only $1,500 or $2,000 rather than $2,500 is required.

Sources of Money. If the scope of recruitment is anything

approaching what I 1ve suggested, the financial need is astronomical.

I calculate that UCLA next year may need something on the order of

one-quarter of a million dollars to support the program of the type

I have in mind. This raises urgent questions about the sources of


1. There are presently no CLEO funds available except for

those who were admitted to law school for the eurrent year out of

this past summer’s program.

2. A principal aim of the CLEO Council is to undertake efforts

to raise money. How successful this will prove, nobody knows.


3. Dean Maxwell has suggested an effort to secure emergency

national support following the elections. A similar effort might

be made on a statewide level.

4. Conceivably, the State Bar might be a source of funds,

though as I understand it, that’s not very promising.

5. The local foundations and the practicing bar might be a

source of funds. They have proved to be a source on a limited

scale for the three schools in the Los Angeles area.

I think it would be very difficult and cumbersome to attempt

to organize fund-raising efforts on a statewide basis. But it may

be desirable to have cooperative efforts on a regional basis.

Thus, the three Los Angeles law schools have already agreed that

they are going to undertake some joint fund-raising efforts. other

areas might want to do likewise.

6. For the three schools in the University of California

system, the University itself probably remains the biggest single

source of funds. It did in fact allocate relatively large sums to

some of the UC campuses this past year to finance law school programs.

I’ve made these comments not to force discussion of these

issues, but only in the hope you would find them a helpful starting

point for discussion.


a. Remarks by CLEO Representatives

Dr. Kennedy: CLEO began last April and was going strong by the

end of the summer. Much of its effort is presently being spent on

finding financial assistance. We will not know whether, how much,

or under what circumstances we will have scholarship funding until

the last minute. Last year we did not know bow much we bad until midJuly

and when it came, a substantial proportion came with special

conditions attached.

CLEO should become a clearinghouse of information on minority

law students. We have more minorities than the two (black and

Mexican-American) represented in our program. There are women,

Eskimos, and many others. Last summer we did not emphasize work

with American Indians because there was already a special program

in existence for them. Present information on minorities is sparse

and unreliable and additional research needs to be done. Another

problem is career opportunities in the law. Finally, there are the

summer programs. We do not know where, when, or how many there will

be. Proposals are now coming in. In the summer programs, law schools


have been shown they can work together. This is a discovery.

Proposals for summer programs will be screened in December and

announcements should be made by December 15. Unlike last year,

we are asking schools this time to contribute something to the

funding of the summer programs.

Mr. O’Neil: We are only eight months old. In the area of

research, we have established a committee on evaluation and research

of which Professor Wasserstrom of UCLA is a·member. Among its

functions are to determine: First, what are the enrollments of last

summer’s students? We have tried to gather information but we need

much more. Second, we must learn more about the total minority

population nationwide in law schools. We have a 1250 figure but at

least 600 of those are in the four black schools. That leaves about

650 in all the rest. We know from the questionnaires sent to the

law school deans, of which most have been returned, that approximately

500 black students have entered law school this fall, but we don’t

know the precise number. OUr incomplete returns indicate that 467

black students were expected to enter, 100 Mexican-American (counted

on the Spanish-surname basis), and 35 Indians. This amounts to an

increase of 170 in black students, of 33 in Mexican-Americans, and

of 8 or 9 in Indians. The questionnaire was not sent to the four

black schools, so we must add 300 or 400 black students there. Just

as Mr. Letwin said, there are good reasons for optimism. There are

many factors leading to the conclusion that increase is a probable

result, but we cannot extrapolate too much from estimates. For

example, this year City College of New York bas about 19% black and

Puerto Rican students. And there were about 13% in the city university

system last year. But look at the high proportionate representation

in community colleges; and the rather low percentage in

four-year colleges. For example, Queens College has about 2.81;

Brooklyn 3%; and so on. But the impact of new programs of the last

four years is leading to big results. Upward Bound and other progr …

are helping and there are going to be new ones this year as there

were last year. So, with caution, our projections are very optimistic.

Some have spoken of a tentative goal of 10% minority student

representation in law schools by 1973. This would require an entering

class of 3,000 minority students by 1973. In other words, five times

what we have today. If you add only 200 a year as we did in the

last year, it would take much longer to reach that goal, so the rate

of addition must be increased steadily. For example, if we take

200 this year and double that next year, in other words go to 400,

and the year after that, 800, we would reach an entering class of

3,000 minority students by 1973.

Already where the law school aptitude test has been administered

without charge, eight times the number of minority students have

taken it as before, especially in the South. There is very good

potential in free administration of tbe LSAT.


The need for financial support in the future will be higher

than at present. The only trouble is we may not get enough money.

At any rate, tbe goal is correct. Sources of support may ask us

to rely on loans more heavily than grants. But there are good

reasons why we should not rely on loans. First, minority students

often have large debts already. In questionnaires of last summer’s

CLIO students, 36 bad debts of over $1,000 already, of which 11 had

debts of $3,000 and more. Second, other new programs provide grants.

For example, the Ford grant for black Ph.D. students, medical fellowships,

and so on. The competition suggests that grants may be

necessary. It may come down to a choice for a student as to whether

to accept a grant in medical or business school versus a loan in

law school, and that choice may force him into a career. And the

loan may later force a choice of a higher paying job after graduation-rather

than neighborhood or community work–in order to pay back the

loan. If there are loans, they must be allowed to ride without

interest for a long time; and we might build in a forgiveness element

as for teachers in the NDEA loans. Third, we are doing everything

possible to get financial assistance for those minority students

already qualified for law school admitted on traditional standards,

without a summer program. Circumstances made it difficult for such

students last year.

Mr. Portert Is there assurance of continued support for present

law students who went through last summer’s CLEO?

Dr. Kennedy: Yes, but it may be on a lower level in the second

and third year than in the first. We only have $410,000–that•s the

$450,000 Ford grant minus the earmarked $40,000. We must use this

for the 100 students admitted last year. Originally, there was talk

about $450,000 for each of three years, but now we have only that

amount for that whole three years. Of the 112 students given grants,

only 94 are still in school. Some are in the military, but there is

some attrition, so we may come very close to the $1500 level tor the

entire 3-year period. But we may have to reduce the level if we

cannot make it. It must be remembered that our main goal was to

finance the difficult first year so that the student would not have

to work. We know tbat it is easier to work outside in the second

or third years.

Mr. O’Neil: Assuming a 10% attrition, we should be able to

maintain the $1500 level.

Dr. Kennedy: It is very difficult to get money. Tbe Ford

Foundation indicated very little interest in giving grants, but

suggested tbat there may be other ways of getting money. They

never said what ways.

Dean Maxwell: Is there some hope?


Mr. O’Neil: Yes, but we were told it was a one-shot grant at

the time it was given.

Mr. Long: Who will be making the student selections for

summer programs?

Dr. Kennedy: Last year we had bad publicity leading to overapplications

bY people trying to get money. Last year’s directors

chose which students would be admitted. CLEO did not try to lay

down standards for each program. We felt there were different

conditions in different parts of the country and we allowed it to

be flexible at the local level.

Mr. Lonl: Is there a limit to single students or married

students wit out children?

Dr. Kennedy: We have no decision on that yet, but we will

probably recommend some limitations. Some programs have already

set limitations and some even as to age. This seems to be a

realistic approach. Some schools simply do not want older people.

For example, 36 or 37 years old.

Mr. Porter: Will students be in on the selection?

Dr. Kennedy: Students will be in all aspects of the program.

Mr. Long: Will students be involved in national CLIO?

Dr. Kennedy: I cannot answer that, but I can tell you that

many other groups are demanding a place on the Council.

Mr. O’Neil: One of the organizations presently represented

might possibly designate students as members. otherwise it would

require a change in the by-laws for students to be admitted per se.

Dr. Kenned~: The Council is not made up of minority people.

It is merely ma e up of organizations which are participating in

it. The President is naming students to committees.

Hr. Munoz: Is there an experimental basis to the program?

Dr. Kenned~: The programs will not be uniform and will not

necessarily beeld in the same places. For example, Emory most

likely will not have a program this year.

Mr. O’Neil: Differentiation is basic to CLEO’s program’s

approach and It must be allowed. The students especially felt so.

Mr. Sanchez: Was there national recruitment?



Dr. Kenne9y: No, recruitment was left to the directors. As

a result, publicity was spotty. Applications were encouraged

wherever possible. The proposal up to now is to use a form. We

do not call it an application. This form is to be made available

to interested students and the completed applications would then

be gotten to the proper law schools. This would not be a screening

process, but merely the clearinghouse which I mentioned earlier.

It would include name, address, and elementary information.

Mr. O’Neilt More than four programs next year, of really

varied sorts, will be held. For example, there was no program

last year in the Midwest. Next year we hope to bave a program in

every critical area. Proposals for consortia are exciting and are

coming in. For example, black and white law schools working together.

For another example, a program over a wide area done with little

money. And, finally, programs in all kinds of different areas–

New York, the Southeast, the Midwest, the Far West, and so forth.

Our problem now is, what comes after the summer programs?

Father Vachon: There’s lots of talks about programs, but the

need is for lawyers. Is the need for more programs greater than

for scholarship grants during the actual years of law school?

Dr. Kenned~: The OEO grant for summer programs is the same as

last year: $5o ,000, but none of it can be used for scholarships

or financial aid.

Father Vachon: Can it be used during the year in special


Dr. Kennedy: No, only for summer programs.

Mr. Sanchez: Are groups other than Ford participating?

Mr. O’Neil: Carnegie Foundation has given $150,000 to NYU for

that one law school alone, so we know that money is available.

Dr. Kennedy: The Mexican-American Legal Defense Educational

Fund was given money by the Ford Foundation.

Mr. McDermott: There are problems though there with distribution.

Mr. O’Neil: Also, the instit•tes should be restricted to those

students abOut whose success in law school there is some doubt. This

was tied on to the Ford money.


Dr. Kenned~: The explanation of the lump sum grant is that

Ford came in la e in order to rescue the CLEO operation. At that

time, both Ford and OEO felt that for CLEO, the largest ready pool

of minority law students was to be found in the marginal group

which could not meet the qualifications for admission, but now they

have changed their minds and they think there are plenty of available

people who can meet all of the qualifications but who need only

financial assistance.

Mr. O’Neil: Our original charter says that clearly admissible

students do not need CLEO’s help. But even people with 550 LSATS

and a high GPA may not be in the top group winning scholarships,

so we are reexamining the original assumption. But no one knows

the size of the available pool of minority students.

Dr. Kennegy: People popularly believe that law schools have

lots of scholarship money but they have very, very little. For

example, when the money was late this summer, the deans really cried.

They had no available money.

Methods of Selectini StudentQA Standardsa and

Special SUpporting ctlvity ce the Stu ent is Admitted


Dean Maxwell: What should we rely on in our admission of

minority students? The gradepoint average and the LSAT are easy to

administer and they can be rationally defended. That’s why we rely

on them. People denied a place in law schools demand explanations.

What can you put in the place of numbers?

Dean Barrett: If the standards are inadequate for minority

students, perhaps they should be suspended in all cases.

Mr. Garbesi: If all aspects of a law school are so bad,

examinations, and so on, then admissions should not follow that lead

and should develop different standards.

Father Vacbont Today many successful attorneys in all walks

of life could not get into law schools because the standards are

so high. We must think in terms of social risk. We’re taking a

calculated risk for the good of society.

Mr. Jordan: No matter what standards are used, we still must

ration our seats. Right now, are there enough seats to justify

bringing in a man with low numerical standards but with something

to offer in place of it, in place of a fellow with regular credentials?

Perhaps we should look to adding additional law schools as a solution.


Mr. Walklfl: Berkeley’s rationale in using the standards

are first, tha they are convenient and not irrelevant if you

accept that the best lawyers are those who do best in law school.

The goal of our admissions then is high grades in law schools.

But, second, other qualities are counted, such as those that

contribute to developing school spirit. For example, football

ability, newspaper experience. Additional needs should give rise

to new additional criteria. For example, Letwin’s criteria of

leadership, activity, and so on. Basically, these are goal-oriented

criteria. It should be noted that the LSAT can’t predict other

dimensions. For example, the success of married students versus

unmarried students.

Mr. McDermott: An example of what we do at UCLA is the

admission of student A with a 300 LSAT but a great desire to achieve.

Now be is in and seems to be making it. We have assumed we would

not use LSAT as a disqualifying factor. We use it as a plus when

it is high, and we use with it in-depth interviews. We even encourage

letters of recommendations from the community which we have never

done before. These are the important criteria which guide us. We

have done something similar with special white kids, too. For

example, Hungarian refugees, and so on. I’d like 15% to 20$ of the

incoming class to be selected without placing a premium on LSAT or

the GPA.

Dean castetter: Our rule of thumb is to take in about 15% of

the incoming class without reference to the LSAT or the GPA. Some

law students suggested that the LSAT scores were really signals of

white, middle-class standards and that a separate standard must be

used for minority students, for white Appalachian students, and so

on. The LSAT simply shows that the whole educational system must

be ·revised throughout the minority group areas. Then they can achieve

at the same level in college.

Mr. Walkltl: The rule today is selective admission. We cannot

afford to run ~e bloody-heap system, failing one-third of the

incoming class, so we have limited the number of seats. OUr problem

now is how to admit when three must be refused for every one admitted.

Mr. Brown: The standards must reflect goals of the isolated

people in the areas from which they come. For example, among Indians

there are few Uncle Tomahawks and an Indian standard must be used.

Father Vachon: With selective standards now, the whole law

school must be overhauled. The sink-or-swim approach to the minority

student is no good. The problem is to make sure that these guys

make it because we need lawyers. We have to get them there.


Mr. Bell: The problea is accented by the fact that the white,

middle-class student is used to doing well regardless of what his

teachers are like. Secondly, use of selective standards is not a

matter of grace or gift, but it is something that we are required

to do. We now have a lawsuit to revamp the whole public school

fund’s distributive system. The use of the same standard for all

applicants might lead to a due process or equal protection argument

against it.

Dean Barrett: As a given, we know that we do not have

sufficient public legal education in California, not even the

beginning of it. Our assumption is that for some, the LSAT and

GPA are a good predictor. But for the great bulk, numbers are no

help in determining. How should we do it then? S, drawing lots?

We cannot interview everybody, unfortunately, so we justify admissions

by looking for something special. For example, that a student is

black, that he is a Mexican-American, that he was the editor of his

paper, be was in the Peace Corps, and so on. And if be comes to

Davis to see me, I am very impressed. And if there is a substantial

risk factor with many because of the GPA or the LSAT, then we look

to these other cri~in order to justify their admissions.

Dean Castetter: I’m sold on personal interviews.

Dean Maxwell: I agree that the use of the interview is very

valuable but the use of standardized interviews would lead to the

same batch of blanks we are stuck with now.

Mr. Weise: The problem is one of redefinition of goals. If

you want able minority students, then get them. It is obvious that

LSATs are of no use.

Professor (unidentified): We must overcome the racist composition

of schools. one way of doing it is to go to the communities· and ask

the community organizations, the people in the communities, to get

students. If you want black and Mexican-American students, go to

the communities to get them.

Mr. Sanchez: You should be careful to use your heads in school

once the students are there and not treat them as inferior. More

tutorials and projects of that nature are helpful, however.

Mr. Munoz: The need for lawyers is great because the minorities’

revolution is here. We have come from the RAACP to this. As an

example, there are only 400 Mexican-American lawyers out of five

million Mexican-Americans in the United States; 20 Indian lawyers to

a million Indians. The Mexican-American population is moving and

we need lawyers.


Mr. Letwin: Regardless of our flexibility, our students will

still b&ve to face the bar examination and our statistics show that

the lowest 20% in the class do not do too well on the bar. The

examiners argue that they do not discriminate. They say, “If you

want more minority students, train them better. It’s not our fault

they fail.” But they may have to redefine their techniques. There

is room for optimism because we know the law schools used to say

the same things to the colleges, and the colleges said the same

things to the high schools. The bar examiners are no exception.

They must change too. The practical pressures for change, if not

the moral ones, may prove decisive. We should in effect be creating

a crisis for the bar examiners by graduating students we think would

be well qualified to practice law, even though the.y may have trouble

getting by the bar. As to the GPA and LSAT, we have largely rejected

them in the case of minority applicants in favor of “more sophisticated”

standards. But if they are really more “sophisticated standards,”

why should they not be applied to all students? We might respond,

first, by saying that the GPA/LSAT are valid predictors for white,

middle-class applicants but not for others, or, second, by saying

that it is worth the trouble and expense of applying these special

standards with minority students but not with others. I propose a

compromise: we could admit, say, 70% of our students in the standard

way as an economical, efficient way of doing things, and we also

guarantee the traditional scholarly qualities of the school in that

way. For the other 30% we can attempt to fill other goals of introducing

diversity of outlook into the school, and serving pressing

community needs. This would not be a minority enrollment device but

a general device for attempting to improve the mix of law school

students which would subsume the minority enrollment program.

Dean Maxwell: To change the bar approach in California is

extremely difficult. As of the present, we have no standards for

legal education in California. Today the bar thinks that the

examination is its only way of seeing if a man is prepared. So

we must clean up legal education, then revision of the bar may follow.

Mr. Stone: We must look to other than traditional standards.

For instance, at USC we seem to be getting to the point where an LSAT

is not very important, but we are not there yet. If we bad more money,

we could have doubled our number of minority students at USC. There’s

no need for the wild fear that we are bringing in dumb kids.

Father Vachon: Could the minority students suggest ways of

selecting students?


Mr. Munoz: We must listen to minority students in interviews

to discover their backgrounds and find what they have to offer in

addition to low LSATs. We must go beyond merely tolerating minority

students. We must recruit them into and help them through law

schools. There is a movement afoot and we have a choice between

untrained violent revolution and trained evolution. There is a pool

of available minority students in universities now. Many do not

think that they can make it, especially for money reasons. For them

it is tough even to get through college, but there are students

there and they are qualified. We must recruit, partly by using us,

minority students, to recruit and help select.

Mr. Walker: There is a great deal of difficulty among bright

black students in law school due to their ignorance as to the

assumptions underlying law school reasoning. You must help him to

understand the existing system in your terms. Allow him to help

you understand his criticism.

Dean Barrett: We cannot defend the use of the LSAT and the GPA

with minority students or with a large spectrum of all students.

For example, the bottom 10% of our admittees based on LSAT and GPA

often bas many students finishing in the top-half of the class.

Mr. Weise: Given the number of black college graduates in

Los Angeles (3,000 out of 500,000 or so?), it is remarkable that

they are even enough to apply. 99% were already eliminated.

Therefore we cannot treat them in the same way as the rest. Also

you cannot expect all of these students to go back to the ghetto or

the barrio. They are already getting good offers and they may want

to get in on the white peoples’ good thing. Finally, most black

students resent white interviewers: they are asking black applicants

what is wrong with the black community in effect.

Mr. Stone: The attitude that black students can get by only

with help is ridiculous. We don’t have counselors or special

programs at USC. They get by just by themselves.

Mr. Sanchez: But what if someone does need help? I think he

should have It. I think there should be tutorials.

Mr. Eldrid!i: I see law school as a closed society where

standards workcause administrations understand them. Today we

are talking about breaking down the closed society. There is no

need to fret. If you want minority students, get experts to get

them and if you want them, you can train them to pass the bar. For

example, the proprietary law schools in Illinois have a better record

on the bar than the University of Chicago, and so on.


Mr. Bobbitt: We could give a bar review course in the last

quarter of the third year. White educators are not qualified to

interview black applicants. There must be black people with LL.’B!s

doing it too. If you are to have counseling, let it be a black

counselor. We must have black, Mexican-American, and other minority

people on our staffs.

Dean Maxwell: Should something different be done in law schools

with respect to the minority students admitted?

Mr. Munster: Hastings figures that the problem goes beyond

mere recruitment. We have all minorities represented at Hastings

and they have no more trouble than the rest of our students. But

if some do have trouble, we do not want to pinpoint them because of

the humiliation involved. So we provide tutorials for all students

who want it following the general exam in midyear. The rationale

is that no one knows how he is doing until then. Minority communities

do not want a nurse, they want a doctor. So we provide the best

tutorials that we can for those who want it to supplement their

regular courses. They are staffed by the top 5% of the first year

class and the top 10% of the second year class.

Mr. Porter: I would not attend such a program. First, the

former cLIO students already get together in traditional seminars

and work it out on their own. We do not need tutors. Our motivation

and pride would lead us not to attend. Second, there are already

teachers and students who will help if we need it, and we can ask

them when we want. There is no need for organized programs.

Mr. Henderson: Minority students are not a monolith but are

highly varied. Some would be insulted by the help, some would be

eager for it.

Mr. Munster: The honor group of tutors are not merely WASPs.

All minorities are represented in the tutorials. It is purely

voluntary and there for all who want it.

Mr. Sanders: We must be sure not to confuse the person requiring

special admissions with the person needing compensatory education.

The first is discriminated against only by the admissions standards.

The second, needing compensatory education, has trouble when he is in.

Mr. Lucero: It is a non sequitur to speak of tutorials, and

think of thit as watered-down curriculum. They are remedial. In

class, the student is still responsible for the same answers as

the rest.

Mr. Porter: CLEO did much to overcome what Father Vachon has

described as the fear of the first examination. They were scared at

first in CLEO, but they learned enough to stop being scared.


Father Vachon: Of our 40 minority students, only 10 went

through cLio. What about the rest of the students?

Mr. Porter: The rest had the same fears as the CLEO students.

Let them be given the same type of insights as we received in CLEO

before they start and they’ll have no trouble either.

Mr. Munoz: At UCLA, law review members are working with

minoritY students and anyone may attend these seminars. They look

helpful to some but not to others. others do better on their own.

Therefore, a voluntary program is probably best and most valuable

for those who want, need or can use it.

Mr. Jones: A tutorial program for all who want it is enough.

Then you will not have to worry about minority students. As long

as it is set up, let it go and minority students will take advantage

of it as they will. There is no need for special worry.

Mr. Geer: About 100 of our students need help and over half

of the minority students do not. So it’s best to have a program

for everyone which can be attended on a voluntary basis. However,

since minority students do attend these things in big numbers, we

must adapt it somewhat to their needs.

Mr. Letwin: The LSAT is culturally loaded but so is the legal

education. If they are loaded in the same way, LSAT will predict

success in law school to a great extent. That is because the prejudices

of the LSAT are reflected in the prejudices of legal education.

This is no argument for the law schools staying the same,

but so long as they do, people with low LSATs will encounter greater

difficulty. So, until the schools are changed, help should be

provided in whatever way would be helpful. That is probably best

done in voluntary tutorial projects and whatever the students set

up by themselves.

Mr. Friedenthal: I disagree with everything that had been

said so far. There is room for tailor-made programs. We have a

special program for pe~le who cannot handle the competition and

they are forced into it. It is not elective. It is a four-year

program, at a slower pace. There is more chance to work with the

students who do not catch on to these skills as fast as others and

it involves direct counseling by minority group members. The LSAT

does predict general performance in the traditional law school.

Until the law school is changed, we must have a special program so

that the $10,000 expended per student will not be wasted.

Mr. Bobbitt: In the Stanford four-year program, we do not give

minority students too many concessions. The problem is solved b.Y us

b.Y taking two years for the first year and then the students go into

the second year with the rest of the students. They were not ready

to compete in the beginning but by the second and third years they


•, t

are ready to compete and they can tell their employers or prospective

employers that in the second and third years they did compete

on their own and therefore did not receive any sort of an inferior


Mr. Henderson: There is also flexibility in the system because

they can aaa courses and even accelerate.

Mr. Weise: Success is simply equal to taking the problem into

our own handS. As Professor Letwin learned this summer, we are hard

to handle. We know that CLEO tried to screen out the heavy black

power people, but even these people cannot be pinpointed. You cannot

really select. Therefore you must simply let the students in to

compete on their own. The problem is only how to let them in.

Admissions raises the only fundamental ethical question. Do you

have the commitment to let them in?

Mr. McDermott : It’s not true that we screen out black power

advocates. Our purpose in selecting for CLEO was not to keep out

the leaders but to bring in the leaders and that included black

power people.

Mr. O’Neil: A critical question today really is, what can we

do to make the education more relevant so that minority students do

not select themselves out? There are three themes in this discussion.

First, we should not have only minority programs, but we must respond

to the special needs and requirements of all students, and dealing

with minority students should make us sensitive to those needs of

all students with any problems. Second, we should try to design new

programs, tutorials or others, with built-in educational value, to

meet the demand. And, third, as to summer institutes, CLEO will

be expanded this summer. Then the need for in-service programs may

decline. In other words, we are optimistic.

Mr. Letwin: We ought to take into account the leadership and

commitments of students in the selection process but only to a

limited extent. We should realize the difficulties in predicting

people’s future course of action. Motivation and commitment may

change in either direction over the course of a student’s 3 years

in law school.

Mr. Bobbitt: We should have a very high priority for students

planning to go back to the community. The community needs lawyers

and minority lawyers communicate the best with minority folk. If

some do not go back to the community, we may have made a mistake,

but we must select those who seem most likely to be going back.

Mr. Garbesi: We should look at more sophisticated possibilities.

For example, I would like to see all minority students here today

in the District Attorney’s office subverting their system of injustice.


‘· ..,.

Mr. Lucero: Many students see those $15, 000 jobs and want to

get in on that, and they cool off a bit.

Mr. Walker: It may be just as important to place minority

lawyers in the D.A.’s office and in Loeb & Loeb. We must not

inquire into what all students are going to do when they graduate

but let them go through, decide, and do it, whatever it is.

c. The State Colleges as a Source of Minority Students

Mr. Washinfton: What is the present size of the black and

brown enro11men in state colleges? Like all others, they have just

begun to address themselves to ethnic problems. Progress is good,

but the results still are small. There are 186,000 students in

state colleges. Of those, only 3,000 are black, and since, in the

statistics, “others” include Mexican-Americans and all others, we

have no count of the brown students. There are legal reasons for

this. A few years ago there was pressure from civil rights groups

so that we could have no indications on our applications or records

of the ethnic background of the student. Federal funds then,

intended to recruit disadvantaged kids, were being used for some

middle-class kids. Now there is a compliance office in HEW to see

that the money is being spent as it was supposed to be spent. You

can write to HEW, 760 Market Street, San Francisco to send you data

from the ethnic surveys on campuses.

We must recruit, especially among people whose “heads are in

the right place.” For example, we must develop contacts in colleges

and ask each of our contacts to run down two or three others; UMAS,

BSU leaders, people dealing with minority people, and so on to be

used for this purpose. Don’t ask your contact for people with high

LSATs or particular political leanings. Let them come as they may.

Try to look at the experience you propose minority students to undertake

from their point of view. It looks like, for example, medical

schools want to assure themselves of heart transplant people before

they recruit. Take real risk people in and test yourself. Don’t

rely on the guy who will make it by himself regardless of the education.

Educate him yourself. You cannot have merely lower LSAT

requirements. That is offensive. You must do the whole thing. Do

not make corporation lawyers. There’s no need for those yet. We

only need dedicated people to return to their communities.

Mr. Henderson: Why is the low LSAT requirement offensive?

Mr. Washington: First, it defines students as inferior. Second,

if non-numerical criteria are used, the student may prove superior

on those criteria.

Mr. Lucero: But it is not offensive. It is simply saying that

other things make up for these lacks.


1. t.

Mr. Washington: I do not like tests. People discriminate

among human beings with selected tests. It’s fantastically awful.

Efficiency is merely a method for administrators to hide behind.

For example, a fellow who worked and had a 2.5 GPA versus a fellow

who did not work and had a 2.8 GPA shows you the type of selective

criteria you are going to have to evaluate. It is probably more

important to ask him what be wants from life, get statements from

his employers, and so on, so you understand what he is doing and

what he can do. You want him to have proper aspirations so that

the money will not be wasted. It requires insights, not mere

quantitative data.

Mr. Walklet: Cooperative recruitment efforts by a group of

law schools wou d be a very efficient method of getting lots of

students. What is your reaction?

Mr. Washington: Cooperative efforts are a grand thing, but there

are different financial charges for different schools. You should

probably merely say that “your expenses will be met.” That way

schools can go into the state schools recruiting together. In this

way we can develop lists of students with two or three schools to

which they want to go and the schools can then decide together who

gets where.

Black medics and law students nearly all came from Howard and

the other black schools up to just a few years ago. So it will be

far more believable if black and brown attorneys are doing the

recruiting. It is difficult, and we may even have to go to the

tenth grade to do our convincing. You must note that the large

bulk of minority students is only two or three years away. For

example, there are 1200 black and a large number of brown students

on the Los Angeles State College campus.

We hope that not only the same small group of students will be

recommended again and again. Do not indicate to any contact you

reach that you are looking for bright kids but rather for interested

kids. And until there is a sufficient cadre of black and brown

professors, we must now rely on the minority students who are

currently enrolled in law school. They can probably do a better

job than the professionals. Only a law student can really say what

life is like in the law school and other factors of that sort.

Already L. A. State lets UMAS and BSU make admissions decisions.

I recommend admissions of those guaranteed to be risks. It’s bold

but it’s a great idea. For example, BSU is allowed so many slots,

UMAS is allowed so many slots, and so far the kids that they’ve

admitted are surviving. And there is now a growing list of black


You should also pay the student recruiters. They are working

for the school.

Mr. Weise: If you use law students as recruiters, leave their

methodS to their own discretion. For instance, I would take you

some places but not others.


Mr. Munoz: UMAS can get a good long list of available

Mexican-American candidates. Incidentally, a Mexican-American

student demonstration bad originally been planned for this

conference but instead we decided to attend the conference.

Mr. Brown: There are 75,000 to 100,000 American Indians in

California and the Bureau of Indian Affairs does not have any

contact with them. So do not go to the Indian people with BIA

people for you’ll blow it.

Mr. Walker: How can a college professor or a law professor

reach a ghetto student who doesn’t want to go on?

Mr. Washington: This is a general educational problem. First,

we must add minority students to the campus but, second, when they’re

on, they demand relevant education. The black and brown ethos has

relevancy to the curriculum. There are third and fourth steps to

this too, but we’re still stuck at number 1, getting them here.

What Mr. Walker is talking about is number 2, first we have to get

them in.

Mr. Golden: In Northern California we have a small-scale

program. Five black students were selected during their senior year

who probably would not be admitted to any law school. Each of the

law schools in tbe area will take one of the participants upon his

successful completion of the program which is a year-long orientation

program of reading, briefing and discussing cases, writing examinations,

and so on. They sit as auditors and read for classes that I am

giving. Then the class is conducted again for the five students

together–first, to see what they got; second, to help them find

out bow the law school game works. Probably anyone can acquire the

skills to play this game with enough individual attention. If it

is demonstrated they can,througb our program and similar small-scale

efforts, we well might be able to obtain funding for large numbers of

students with full-time people doing the advance teaching at state

colleges. We have no final plan yet but it seems to be a good

approach to preparation for law school. What we do is to let students

select themselves. I worked with black students on campus who

recruited the students themselves. In this way we ended up with

five guys who are all heavy militants. We wanted militants; it is

our idea that it is ridiculous to train people who are going to end

up as D.A.’s or federal attorneys prosecuting black people so that

the prosecuting office is able to avoid accusations that they are

racially biased.

For me, I just do not think about the reaction of the students

to special help. A white liberal cannot run around worrying about

offending or not. Most of the efforts we make not to be offensive

offend everyone. So far there have been no “physical assaults.”


To a man, all five of our people have A’s and F’s. There are no

c•s. We did that on purpose because such people show that they

can make it if they want to, that they have lots of native ability.

Tbe answer to this whole problem may well be to work with them in

the senior year, a sort of headstart program even if people say it

is “demeaning.”

d. Finances — remarks by Curt Garbesi.


Our CLIO institute at UCLA last summer exploded several assumptions

which some of us harbored before it began. We had thought

that there would be difficulty recruiting qualified minority students

for law study. That one fell by the wayside rather early in the game.

The only issue left there is what we mean by “qualified”; and that

itself depends upon a lot of largely unvoiced and unquestioned assumptions

by law faculty members. These are much more fundamental than

those related to finances, which, however, come first in point of


I think it is fair to say that most of us involved in the

institute had assumed without reflection that the students selected

would be forever grateful for the largesse afforded them when we

arrived at an annual figure of 1 to 2 thousand dollars per year over

educational expenses such as tuition and books. This assumption was

also unfounded – we spent a great deal of time throughout the 8-week

period moving from crisis to crisis revolving around questions of

the level of support to be made available during their law school

careers. I was particularly dismayed at one point to discover that

they planned to burn their class materials on the steps of the law

school. The damage to the steps, of course, would be minimal, but

their dissatisfaction with our estimates of their need would be

painfully clear. Incidentally, I for one finally became convinced

that their assessment was more sound than our initial suggestions.

(As an aside, I might add that a major collateral benefit of the

summer institute lay in our increased appreciation of the necessity

of consulting closely with the students on all matters so intimately

involved with their own welfare.)

Just as finances lay at the heart of the problems of a successful

summer program, unless we are able to meet the costs of the vastly

expanded minority enrollment some of us deem necessary, all the rest

of our talk during this conference will have bad very little significance.



I shall make no effort to document the assumptions which I

make in this part, not because they cannot be documented but

because I have neither the time nor inclination to do the necessary

research. At any rate, I believe most of you will consider them

to be established beyond need of proof.

First, group economics is such that we can expect any particular

minority student to be in need of financial assistance at some

level while in law school.

Second, and this is closely related to our choice of skills

requisite to law school success, which are themselves, in my

opinion, largely culturally oriented, it is undesirable for them

to work while in law school.

Third, unless a plan for loan forgiveness conditional upon

certain types of postgraduate employment can be devised, that

method of financing should be avoided. Otherwise, students may find

themselves induced to work while in school to avoid increased

indebtedness and/or to base their selection of employment after

graduation upon considerations of rapid repayment rather than upon

some more altruistic motivation.

It can be concluded, then, that each student will require

substantial financial support which should be in the form of grants

or of loans which are forgiven upon compliance with certain conditions.

Tbe individual need will of necessity be dependent upon a variety

of factors. For example, a student with familial obligations would

require support at a higher level than one who had no.such obligation.

This opens up problems of selection. Do we select a mature married

man with children who will cost more than an alternative young man,

less expensive but possibly also less well motivated? And, so forth.


The problem of the cost of a program of the type under consideration

depends upon the vantage point of the viewer. The recipient

sees it as purely a question of bow much money_ he bas on which to

live while in school. The school administration, on the other hand,

sees each student as an additional tuition to raise somewhere. And,

of course, private institutions find him a greater burden than do

state universities. Among private institutions, some have higher

tuition than others, to that extent increasing their particular

burden. Thus, if reduction of cost per student were to be the sole

aim of this conference, all minority students in need of assistance

should attend state universities. However, I certainly am not

prepared to admit that the facilities of private institutions should



be closed to these people purely in the interest of efficiency.

If I were to make such an admission, I am sure my Dean would begin

to consider way·s of subverting my tenure. However, this is a

question obviously open to discussion both at this conference and


As for the level of individual support exclusive of direct

educational costs, we who were involved in the summer institute

arrived at a rather uneasy consensus that it should run to $2,000

to $2,500 for a single or married student without other obligations.

An additional $600 should be allowed for each additional dependent.

I might add that none of us felt that this was anything more than

the bare minimum essential to relieve the major burden of legitimate

financial concern of the student. Obviously, there may be a variety

of factors in any individual case militating in favor of a different

level from the average suggested. If inflationary trends continue,

these figures would require proportionate revision upwards.

Particular individual need may, of course, be less than the

norm suggested. This opens up the question of whether it is justifiable

and advisable to administer any kind of means test both ways.

In other words, should anything more than the statement of the

applicant be required to establish a need at, abovaor below some

arbitrarily set figure; and should be be required to provide independent

verification of the underlying factors? The cost of

administering anything more than the most superficial test imaginable

may well make it economically unsound. On the other band, anyone

controlling a source of funds might well require, for one reason

or another, that disbursements be justified on a need basis. If

that is the price of getting the money, it would seem unreasonable

not to comply. However, it is worth pointing out to people in these

positions that there is a certain indignity involved in the implied

challenge to the applicant’s veracity, and in the rejection of his

estimate of his own need in favor of another’s decision on that

subject. In order to avoid the situation, it might be desirable to

set an average minimum annual grant, below which figure the administering

authority would rely entirely on the applicant’s untested


Perhaps equally with the establishing of adequate individual

levels of support is the importance of informing prospective recipients

of the maximum amounts upon which they can safely depend in

making their career decisions. This was another problem which was

rather painfully brought home to us during the summer institute.

Without fault of the administration, participants already selected

were left in doubt as to what income they could expect after school

had begun. Completely aside from the additional administrative

problems which this can create, it is inconsistent with common sense

to require a person to make an important decision without providing

him with one of the more significant criteria upon which it must



Closely related to the question of the level of financial

support is the problem of bow it should be administered. It would

be unrealistic to expect school administration completely to relinquish

control over disbursement of these funds, but it seems unnecessarily

degrading to the recipient to dole it out from time to time

without regard for their possibly wholly legitimate demands. I

might add that any organization which bas committed itself to

assisting in the financing should do its utmost to avoid compounding

law school administration problems unnecessarily by withholding

funds beyond the beginning of the academic year.


The most obvious sources for the substantial sums of money

required for a program of the proportions which at least some of

us feel is necessary are those which universities have been tapping

some time, alumni, friends of the school, etc. For most schools,

these are probably the least dependable sources to satisfy a continuing

demand of the proportions envisaged. The foundations, with the

encouragement of the CLEO people are a likely source, at least for

some period of time. The legal profession could be, if properly

organized, a good long-term source of funding. Ultimately, however,

it seems to me that a major portion of the total cost of this

socially critical program should be funded on a regular basis by


Since the election, it may be considered naive to mention

statements attributed to Assembly Speaker Jesse Unruh by the Los

Angeles Times on October 30, but perhaps in another 2 years or so

the climate in Sacramento may be more favorable to suggestions of

this type. On the national scene too, it is perhaps not probable

that there will be any positive response, but this does not justify

inaction on our part.

Certainly, there is adequate precedent for federal subsidy

action in higher education to meet a high priority need of society.

We are all familiar with such statutory plans as the National Defense

Education Act. One which comes much closer to our needs, however,

is the authority granted by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe

Streets Act of 1968 to the Department of Justice. Justice bas already

begun soliciting applicants for educational assistance grants of up

to $600 per year and loans to $1800 per year. The loans are for

10-year periods, bear 3% interest and are forgiven at the rate of

25% per year spent by the graduate in “full time employment in a

public state, local or federal law enforcement agency.” It seems

to me that the analogy with our problems and needs is clear. We

could even have had our own similar student loan program logically

included as a rider to the same bill. The program we suggest, in


my opinion, is at least as relevant to the goal of “safe streets”

as many provisions of·the Act as passed. MY suggestion is that

we initiate the formation of a group of prestigious Deans from

law schools across the country, and leaders of the organized bar,

to converge on Washington as soon after the next Congress has

convened as possible for the purpose of soliciting parallel

legislation for minority group law students. Locally, a similar

approach should be made to the California legislature.


In addition to cooperation in seeking legislation, there are

other possible areas in which joint action may be indicated. If

application to a foundation not already contributing to the program

is to be made, it could be considerably more effective if all the

schools in the state which have similar needs were to join in the

effort. The same might be true of appeals to the profession. At

any rate, it certainly would be more efficient than if each school

were to duplicate the efforts of all the others. A group of students

representing the three Los Angeles schools, and “homebased” at

Loyola, have already formed an organization, one of the functions

of which is to raise funds for the 3 schools in common. A student

leader of that organization is in attendance here today. Their

experience in the actual joint fund-raising activity is, I understand,

still quite limited, to some extent because of inaction on the part

of school officials in working out an agreement as to their respective

interests in funds raised. That, of course, will be a problem in

any case of joint fund raising; but it is not one which should be


It seems to me that in fund raising as well as in areas such

as publicity and recruiting–which is another area in which the

student group to whom I referred earlier is heavily committed-cooperation

among the law schools of this state can result on marked

benefits to all concerned.

Dean Barrett: The Justice Department now has money for

January 1 through June 30, but for next fall we do not know because

Congress must pass the appropriations.

Mr. Garbesi: Cooperation among law schools in the country as

to cancellable loans might be a workable program which would be

similar to the.Justice Department’s omnibus Crime Control Bill which

Dean Barrett mentioned. We may be able to get legislation on this

matter in the next three or four years.

Dean Barrett: The new administration may be eager to brighten

their Image in this area. Therefore we may get a bill soon if the

right people are contacted.


Dean Maxwell: I agree. There are a number of people who are

about to start pushing in this area.

Mr. Garbesi: The state, however, may be reluctant to fund

programs siphoning funds to private institutions.

Dean Barrett: Gov. Reagan would be interested in just such a

program, I think.

Mr. Letwin: I am very enthusiastic about the possibilities of

getting money. Lots of people are willing to contribute for these

purposes. Although the bulk of the money must come from federal

and state governments, plenty is available in private places to

meet short-range needs if the law school is prepared to put sufficient

energy into getting funds. For example, take the results

our limited efforts at UCLA got last summer. Of course we have

University funds so we have a headstart, but a couple ~ luncheons

with interested businessmen also got us a commitment of $10,000 to

$15,000 annually. So, for instance, if Stanford went to some of

its alumni in the big firms, asking for, say, $2,000 each on a

continuing basis, perhaps it could be done. Some people will contribute

for this purpose who wouldn’t consider doing it for routine

law school purposes.

Mr. Walkley: Imagination is needed. The picture in traditional

places, for instance Ford Foundation and so on, is bleak but, for

example, student tutorials, neighborhood legal services, work study

funds, and so on are available and I’m sure there are many others.

ay using a number of sources, we can possibly fund many people.

Mr. Friedenthal: The problem at Stanford is that we solicit

regularly for other matters. Contributors might be induced to give

more, but it is not like it is in the University of California where

they’re going asking for the first time. Also, we have different

positions. The optimism in University of California schools is more

justified in terms of the figures. For instance, we have $1,920

tuition to begin with which must be paid for by someone to the

University. This leads to immense amounts. Therefore, we would

prefer a cooperative effort to get a program of any size at Stanford.

Mr. Walklel: There seem to have been three areas of discussion

during the meet ng: (1) fund raising in limited areas was mentioned;

(2) we spoke of recruiting individuals, student or faculty to recruit

other people; (3) we spoke of a common clearinghouse as Dr. Kennedy

and Hr. Washington supported. This clearinghouse, as you recall,

was not meant to replace but to supplement individual school efforts.

We probably cannot agree today on what we want to do, but we should

lay tbe groundwork for it.


Mr. Munster: Cooperation among the law schools in soliciting

funds at least would lead the potential contributors not to fear

multiple requests. However, many foundations are limited to funding

non-tax supported institutions which may mean that we might have

to sequester some funds for the private schools only.

Father Vachon: Cooperative efforts could benefit all of legal

education, but Litwin speaks of $20,000 a year. However, we were

only able to get $22,000 and that was with an immense effort. And

it’s nowhere near meeting our needs. And this makes up the totality

of the scholarship program. Second, there is a $50 million drive

for Loyola – Marymount. Loyola Law School cannot compete with this


Dean Barrett: Another problem is that it may not be a viable

program if it looks too permanent. The state and the federal

governments do not want to permanently fund only minority students.

Dean Maxwell: Without a consortium effort, we will have lost

at least some of the funds which we might have gotten. Therefore

the consortium really is a necessary thing. What we must decide

now is bow we launch such a group.

Mr. Shaber: Perhaps if we cannot get the funds we need, the

students could consider night school together with work and loans.

Mr. Lucero: I don’t think that is necessary. Most of us only

want acceptance into school. We seem to assume that minority students

need pampering–dormitories, and so on. But let them in and they

will make it with or without scholarships.

Mr. Jones: I agree. Many will work and therefore will only

need $500 or $600 or a loan. I would have considered it myself.

Mr. Sanchez: Many students will accept the need to get a job.

Mr. Bell: That’s all right to consider but only if fund raising

fails. DO not depend on isolated stories of such successes. Many

fall by the wayside under those conditions. The whole idea of CLEO

is to make available the best legal education possible, as free as

possible of monetary burdens. We must not try to escape by the

traditional routes.

Dean Sammis: The financial problem with us could be alleviated

by a compromise. We used to have an open door policy which was properly

and popularly dubbed a revolving door policy. Presently, our

admissions standards are such that we accept about 1/4 of our applicants.

But we are open to revision of our admissions policy in the



case of minority students. We will not permit part-time employment

for first year students, but we do have part-time employment for

second and third year students who can handle it. This is janitorial

work, work in the library, and so on. As a compromise, some of our

students then would be allowed to work part time with some assistance.

In addition to that, we also have work study and some other programs.

If you permit the.student to work while in a full-time school, the

ABA and the AALS will strenuously object. However, I think they

are wrong, and I think that they will be shown wrong. A recent

survey shows that 22% of our students are working part time. Lots

of others have working wives.

Dean Maxwell: I think we can say to begin with that we will

need at least $1 million in california annually and study will

probably prove that the need is even greater. Such study is needed.

However, from this rough figure. we can then begin to form a consortium

to conduct a study, to search and solicit funds, and so on.

The first thing we should do is to get the representatives of our

schools together without any fancy organization but with lots of

good ideas. I move that the sense of the meeting be that we should

meet together to solve this problem.

[Motion seconded and passed.]

e. CLEO Summer Programs (discussion based on Appendix A)

Mr. Letwin: Now we must figure out where we stand with respect

to CLEO for this coming summer. Let us begin by considering the

arguments pro and con on the summer programs. Against it, it might

be argued first that it is a misuse of the one-half million dollars

of scarce funds presently intended for summer CLEO programs. Second,

it might be argued that it is demeaning to single out minority

students in this manner. Third, that it is unclear what the summer

programs contribute to the student. And, finally, that better ways

are available for doing the same job.

On the positive side, first, the money in question has already

been earmarked for CLEO and cannot be used elsewhere. Second, the

past CLEO participants are 100% in favor of further summer programs

and to a man thought that the Los Angeles CLEO program had helped

them. Now this may simply be the result of their being ahead in the

first few weeks of law school. However, the self-confidence that

this produces in and of itself may be very valuable, however much the

academic value of the program may be uncertain. Third, CLEO is an

ideal vehicle for cooperation among law schools. For instance, a

common application form used by all law schools, with one set of

supporting documents, could lead to immeasurably easier application

processes for students. Fourth, I have a hunch that if CLEO raises

scholarship money, that that money will go first to those who have

passed through a CLEO summer institute. Therefore, abandoning the

summer program may be abandoning scholarship support tied to CLEO



The admissions standards for the summer program should be the

same this coming year as last year. We should admit those who would

not get into law school without CLIO. Since there is some uncertainty

about the funding of the program and since commitments must be made

by law schools in advance of the availability of the money, schools

must take into account in granting admissions that there may not be

sufficient funds available.

Dean Maxwell: Plenty of loan funds are now going begging and

there is still work study.

Mr. Munster: And many banks require merely an account in the

family for a loan.

Mr. Golden: We will have to make it clear that money is or is

not available at the time we admit the students.

Father Vachon: One of our solutions may be to take students

into the night division with work until the funds are freed and then

switch them to day session.

Mr. Golden: Another problem which will arise if we are uncertain

about scholarship money when the program commences is that applicants

will have to commit themselves to a school at a time when public

schools will at least be able to guarantee no tuition expenses while

private schools may not yet be able to. It is obvious what the

students will do.

Mr. Weise: I frankly will tell friends to go to non-tuition

schools if private schools cannot commit themselves to the student

at the time. However, I know many of our students started in 1967

with no promises of support.

Mr. Walker: We bad the promise that some money might be coming.

I would have gone to Stanford, however, if they had offered admission

without money and I would have made it somehow. Our wives can work,

some of us are vets, and the G.I. Bill has been extended to 36 months


Mr. Golden: Would any of the students prefer to enter a fouryear

program with work at a night school?

Mr. Weise: If I had a choice, no, but if there was nothing else,

I would do it. People will work it out, but only a few of us would

prefer to go four years and work. All of us would rather go full

time and for the first time in our life go to school without working

too and do what we were supposed to be able to do in school and that

we’ve never been able to do.

Mr. Porter: Make no mistake. We would make it somehow, at

Southwestern or whatever, but you make it easier to do it and you

make it easier to do it the right way.


Mr. Munster: The sum of the comment seems to be that you

should put the program on, but simply not lie to &QYone about the

funds, to be completely honest, to lay it on the line.

Mr. Golden: We must decide what is the real reason for having

a summer program. If the reason is simply to get money, then let’s

do Type 2 [see Appendix A], but if it truly is of academic merit,

then let’s do T,ype 1.

Mr. Weise: I believe that eight weeks is too long and that it

creates a financial disaster for the student. Five weeks seems

about right. It seems to be the time directly before apathy sets

in. It’s a good transition. However, I have these two suggestions.

Since it is such a valuable experience, I know that, for example,

non-minority students at USC would have paid to get into the program.

Finally, I would suggest that you give credit for the course.

Mr. Letwin: Perhaps we should have given some credit. We did

not grade the student because we wanted to provide an educational

experience for its own sake. However, this position has been .

criticized as unrealistic. For the rest of the student’s educational

experience, the 16 years before the summer program and the three years

of law school following it, is based on a grading system.

Mr. Jordan: There should be grades in order to keep it within

the bOunds of normal law school education.

Mr. McDermott: There was no desire to make a rat race out of

the summer session or to evaluate the work of those who were not in

a place to be graded yet. For example, students are not graded for

months when they enter the first year of law school.

Mr. Letwin: Moving on to a second point, if the idea is accepted,

is there any dissent to the idea that there should be a northern and

a southern institute?

Father Vachon: I think it is mandatory.

Mr. Weise: If only Northern California had a program, this

would give uSc an excuse to get out of this effort. They have money,

although they say that they do not, and they were originally committed

to 10 students. That number was cut back to two and then up to four

students. We don’t want to see USC out of the picture yet.

Mr. Letwin: CLEO is a good vehicle to increase minority student

acceptances in law schools.

There are some other problems about the program. First, I

suggest that the program not be used as a screening instrument, but

acceptance should be guaranteed for anyone accepted into it.


Mr. Walkley: However, we should be worried about unfounded

commitments to students at that early date when it may be difficult

to plan bow much money will be available and bow many acceptances

actually can be made on that basis.

Mr. Munster: All we can do is tell them the truth as it is

at the time.

Mr. Bell: We must indicate that grades in the courses do not

determine acceptance. However, we must require regular attendance

and satisfactory completion of the program by some standard in order

to enter law school in the fall.

[It was agreed that Dean Maxwell would submit a proposal to

CLIO on behalf of tbe conference for two CLEO institutes in California,

one in tbe northern and one in tbe southern part of the state. A

copy of the proposal is attached as Appendix B.]




A Proposal for California CLEO Summer Institutes for 1969

Under this proposal there would be 2 institutes, one iD Los

Angeles serving Southern California, one in San Francisco serving

Northern California. Each would be separately organized and

financed by the schools participating in tbe respective institute.

Below is a description of 2 different ways such an institute might

be organized, using Southern California as an example.

Type I

a) The institute would be of 6 weeks’ duration (rather than

8 weeks as this past summer), full time, situated on the premises

of one of the participating schools.

b) It would run from about ~d-July to the end of August,

permitting the student to work the early part of the summer.



The southern institute would serve primarily the following

Cal. Western, UCLA, Loyola, u. of San Diego, usc.

d) Just as last summer, the institute would not be designed

as a screening instrument: only students already accepted by a

law school would be admitted to the institute. Its sole function

would thus be to assist the student prepare for law school.

e) The institute would be designed for those students whose

academic credentials did not conform with those normally required

by the law school to which be was admitted.

f) The institute would take in 60 students.

g) The application form to the institute would also constitute

an application form for each of the participating law schools and

for a special, free, LSAT examination. There would be no application


h) Staff: 1) There would be 3 full-time faculty members, each

from a different one of the schools identified above.

2) A director from one of the schools, preferably

not one of the 3 schools referred to in “1”.

3) Three full-time student assistants.


‘·· _c

i) Budget: The institute would be run on a substantially

lower per student cost this year than last. The reduced costs

would be attributable to 3 factors:

a) The program would run for 6 weeks, rather than 8.

b) Students would be encouraged to live at home rather

than, as this past summer, on campus.

c) The institute would take in 60 rather than 40 students,

with attendant per student savings.

The budget would be roughly as follows:

I – Salaries

II –


a) Director

b) 3 Instructors at 2/9 annual


c) 3 student teaching assistants

8 weeks at $125 per week

d) 2 students to assist in recruiting;

10 hours per week, each, for

8 weeks (160 hours)

e) Secretary – Jan. 1 – Oct. 1

(9 months)

Student su22ort

a) Stipend at $500 X 60 students

b) Dorm expenses for 10 students

Su22lies and egui2ment

a) Printing and reproduction

(for recruiting, and for

teaching materials)

b) Phone, equipment, and misc.


IV – Travel

For recruiting and for student travel

V – Miscellaneous

VI – University overhead

$ 5,000













TOTAL: $69, 000

The per student cost would thus be about $1150 coapared to over

$2000 for last summer’s CLEO program.



j) Funding

It is hoped that 50% of the needed funds would be forthcoming

from CLEO. This would leave a balance of about $35,000 to

be raised locally. This might be raised as follows: each of the

participating law schools could assume the cost of paying for their

respective faculty member and studentsinstructor participating in

the program. Thus, for example, the director who would presumably

come from one of the 3 Los Angeles school and would be paid by that

school. Two of the 3 faculty members would probably be supplied by

the other two of the Los Angeles schools. A third faculty member

would be supplied by a non-Los Angeles school. The 3 student

instructors would probably be supplied and paid for, one each, by

the 3 Los Angeles school•.

The above budget figures as to the faculty salaries are given

as an estimate to show the extent of the financial contribution of

the participating schools. The actual cost to the schools, however,

might be somewhat less. First, the actual salary paid to director,

faculty and student instructor would be determined by negotiation

between the individual concerned and the school financing him. A

lower figure might be agreed to. Second, the cost for the student

instructors might be partially defrayed by federal work-study funds,

if these are available to the school. If they were, the school

would be paying only 20% of the student instructor’s salaries.

The salary item in I(d) would be paid for by the school attended

by the student.

Assuming a CLEO contribution of $35,000 and assuming the schools

were to defray the expenses indicated above, this would leave $16,500

unfunded. This would have to come either out of a jointly raised

pool of money, or from the participating schools on the basis of an

equitable allocation of financial responsibility.

k) Allocation of places in the Institute as between different


It would be initially agreed bow many seats would be allocated

to each of the participating schools. The allocation would be

applied with some flexibility by the director, as the circumstances

of a given school changed: its financial circumstances bettered

(or worsened) and as the number of acceptable applications it received

turned out to be greater (or less) than initially expected.

1) Manner of selection

The applicant would indicate on the joint application form

each school he would like to have consider him for admission. The

director would forward copies of the application and all supporting

documents to each school indicated. Bach school would independently

interview the student, determine whether to accept him, and whether

to require the taking of the summer program as a precondition to

admission. It would independently notify the student of its decision

to accept. If more than one school offered to accept the student, he

would of course have the normal option of selecting the school of

his choice. Each school could place whichever of its admittees it

wished in the summer program, up to the limit of the number of seats

allocated to it.


.Jl ,_ J

m) Cooperation between north and south

The institute directors and admissions deans throughout

the state would maintain informal contact with each other so that

if a given school were unable to accept a worthy applicant, effort

could be made to find a place for him in some other California


n) Content of the Institute

Bach institute would develop its own academic materials

and approaches, making such use as it wished of the experiences

of last summer’s L. A. CLEO program. (See Letwin’s Report on the

L. A. CLEO Program.)

Type II

A far less formal, less expensive type institute might be tried.

It would be operated on a part-time basis, meeting, say, one evening

a week and on Saturdays, over an 8-week period. Each session might

consist of 2 class hours (50 to 75 minutes each) covering 2 different

subjects. This would require a smaller teaching staff, and virtually

no student stipend. The total cost for 60 students would probably

run under $30,000 (the major costs would be the recruiting expenses,

salaries and administration). If the law schools paid for the cost

of staffing the program with director and faculty, as in the preceding

proposal, a 50~ contribution from CLEO would cover all the remaining


The sole advantage of this method is financial. The disadvantages

are numerous: a) it is a less intense educational experience

since it is part time and sandwiched into the student’s other responsibilities,

including his job; b) there is less opportunity for the

students to learn from each other since they would be spending little

time together; c) there would be less opportunity for students and

instructors to develop rapport; d) it would be harder to implement

a legal writing program with adequate opportunities for criticizing

the student work.

Nonetheless, such a program would serve the purpose of providing

the student with an advance exposure to legal study. And it would

contribute to bolstering his self-confidence in law school. It may

turn out that the development of the student’s self-confidence is

one of the most important contributions any summer program can make.

This device should therefore be considered especially if the financial

burdens of a type I institute prove too great.




r_ _t




Dr. Melvin Kennedy

Executive Director


Council on Legal Education

Morehouse College

Box 105

Atlanta, Georgia 30314

Dear Dr. Kennedy :




November 15, 1968

As you know, thirteen accredited California law schools met at UCLA

over the weekend of November 8-10 to consider problems of minority

legal education. The schools were UC Berkeley, UC Davis, UC Hastings,

UCLA, California Western, Golden Gate, Loyola, McGeorge, USC,

Santa Clara, University of San Diego, University of San Francisco

and Stanford.

Discussion centered on ways of revising law school admissions technique

so that qualified black and brown students could get into law

school; on the means of providing financial aid for such students;

and on the desirability of organizing a CLEO summer program.

With respect to the last point, the conference has authorized me to

submit the following proposal for two CLEO summer institutes in

California during 1969.

1. One institute would be located in Northern California

to serve the following schools: UC Berkeley, UC Davis,

UC Bastings, Golden Gate, McGeorge, Santa Clara, University

of San Francisco and Stanford. The other

institute would be located in Southern California to

serve the following schools: UCLA, California Western,

Loyola, USC, and the University of San Diego.

2. Each institute would be of six weeks’ duration, full

time, situated on the premises of one of the participating

schools. It would operate from about mid-July

to the end of August, permitting the student to work

the early part of the summer.


Dr. Melvin Kennedy: -2- November 15, 1968

3. Just as in the case of last year’s Los Angeles CLEO

Institute, these institutes would not operate as

screening devices. Only students already accepted

by a law school would be admitted to the institute,

and their subsequent entry into law school would be

automatic upon successful completion of the CLEO


4. Each institute would aim at an enrollment of approximately

60 students, concentrating on applicants within

its immediate geographical area. Some spaces would

also be available for use of non-California law schools.

5. The application form to each institute would constitute

an application form for each of the participating law

schools in the given geographic area (i.e., an application

to the southern institute would be an application

form for the five schools in Southern California, if

the student chose to so use it).

6. The participating schools would determine between themselves

how many seats would be allocated to each school

participating in the given institute. This allocation

would be applied with flexibility by each institute

director in accordance with the changing circumstances

of the schools participating in the respective institute.

7. Each institute would have its own director, staff and

academic program. Cooperation between the two institues

would be effected through the institute directors.

8. A steering committee will be established for each institute.

It will include at least one administrative

representative and one student representative from each

school served by the institute, the students to be

minority group members. Minority law students will be

involved in all aspects of the summer program planning

and execution. (It should be noted that about one-third

of the participants (or about 15) in the Conference of

california Law Schools were minority law students.)

9. Each institute will develop its own academic materials

and approaches, making such use as it wishes of the

experience of prior institutes. Staff members would be

selected with an eye toward broad participation by

sponsoring schools and by minority group members.

Staff and Financin8 (on the assumption that each institute would

include at least 6 people).



L ·-~


Dr. Melvin Kennedy: -3- November 15, 1968

The staff needs will be a director, four full-time faculty and

five full-time students, as well as an administrative staff.

Based on the experience of last summer’s Los Angeles CLEO Program,

and assuming the per student cost can be substantially reduced

this year, it should cost about $80,000 per institute for 60 or

more students. (This is roughly analogous to operating an institute

for 40 people on a budget of about $53,000.)

The total cost for two such institutes would be about $160,000.

Maximum financing from CLBO is critically important, since the

schools would have to independently seek scholarship aid for 120

CLEO students, not to speak of financial aid for those accepted

independently of CLEO. If the total number of minority students

taken into California law schools in 1969 is as low as 150, and

if the average level of support is as low as $3,000 per student

(a very low figure indeed considering the high tuition of the

private schools), this would require a gross of $450,000 to be

raised locally, plus the amounts necessary to continue financing

those accepted in previous years.

It is our intention to comply fully with the guidelines on page 3

of the CLEO announcement of October 30, 1968.



/s/ Richard c. Maxwell

Richard c. Maxwell


cc: California accredited law schools

Participants in Calif. Conf. of Law Schools,

November 8-10, 1968


1969.05.00: Some Perspectives on Minority Access to Legal Education, 2 Experiment and Innovation (1969) – OCR

View in searchable PDF format: 1969.05.00 – Letwin, Some Perspectives on Minority Access to Legal Education.OCR


Raw format:

Some Perspectives

on Minority Access

to Legal Education


Professor of Low

UCLA Low School; Director,

Los Angeles CLEO Program, 1968

Reprinted from


May 1969 Volume II • Number 2

Some Perspectives

on Minority Access

to Legal Education


Professor of Low

UCLA Law School; Director,

Los Angeles CLEO Program,1968

•o[!] MoRE THAN 5,000 students are currently enrolled in 14 accredited

law schools in California.’ Fewer than 200 of these, as well

as can be determined, are black or Mexican-American. These figures

can be viewed from several perspectives. On the one hand, this does

represent a substantial increase over the past few years-an increase

of perhaps fiveor tenfold-but only because of the abysmal base

of comparison. A more relevant perspective would be to compare

the proportion of black and brown law students to their proportion

in the community at large, or to the critical and unfilled community

need for minority attorneys. A judgment reached from these points

of view would show fairly wide agreement that legal education has

failed to meet its obligations. This failure, of course, is not confined

to California law schools or to legal education. It is nationwide,” and

1 California Legal Education Opportunity Program.

The 1967 totals were: Berkeley 767; Davis 157; Hastings 1,006; UCLA

603; Cal Western 186; Golden Gate 381; Loyola 674; McGeorge 489; USC

506; San Diego 397; Santa Clara 234; University of San Francisco 360; Stanford

441. This totals 5,031 and includes day and evening divisions. An additional

3,000 students, roughly, were attending unaccredited schools. The

number probably increased in 1968. [20 Journal of Legal Education 17980

( 1968) .]

There were only about 1,250 black students enrolled in law schools

throughout the nation during 1968, according to a recent estimate. About

500 of this total were enrolled in the Howard Law School and in the other

traditionally black law schools. So there were only 700 to 800 black students



it is shared by most branches of higher education, professional and


The underpinnings of the consensus about the need for rapid

acceleration in minority group enrollment in legal education may

vary with the observer, but it will probably include the following


1. Law schools are now more willing to accept institutional responsibility

for bringing about meaningful change. It no longer

seems adequate merely to bemoan the profound social inequalities

which have in effect barred minority students from legal education.

2. The infusion of minority students into law schools is increasingly

seen as a way to improve the quality of education for the

entire student body. Recognition is developing that there are values

to be served by making it possible for students-and faculty as

well-to come to grips with the sharply divergent attitudes and

perceptions of minority students, and with the problems generated

by racism. So viewed, a change in student composition is not merely

a way of helping “disadvantaged” black and brown students. It is

a way of helping combat a severe form of educational disadvantage

suffered by the predominantly white, middle-class student body and

faculty that constitute the principal constituencies of the law schools.

3. There is a clearly recognized need for expanding the number of

minority attorneys.

To be sure, there are other factors that contribute to this consensus.

Pressures from minority students and other members of the

minority community, reflecting their manifest unwillingness to

accept the status quo, have contributed markedly to the present

openness to change. Whatever the reasons for it, the will to change

exists. The problem now is how to implement it.

Problems of Implementation

As law schools have become concerned with developing appropriate

programs for change, various characteristic problems have

arisen: How can a sufficient number of applicants be attracted,

given the historic inaccessibility of law schools to minority students?

in all the remaining American law schools covered by the survey. With respect

to the Mexican-American, there were only 180 enrolled throughout the

entire United States-compared to a population of about 5,000,000-and

this 180 probably represents a sharp improvement as compared to a year or

two ago. [Newsletter of the Association of American Law Schools, No. 68-3

(October 7, 1968).]


Assuming the schools’ willingness to depart from present admission

criteria and techniques, what criteria and techniques should replace

them? What special forms of academic support-e.g., tutorial and

counseling programs-will students admitted under these new

techniques need? What type of financial aid program is required:

what are the appropriate levels of support, bow should such a program

be administered, and, above all, how can it be financed?

The Special CLEO Summer Program

It may be useful to discuss some of these problems in the context

of an experimental law school program, designed at least in part to

deal with each of the problems. In the summer of 1968, three law

schools in the Los Angeles areaUCLA, Loyola, and USC-in an

unusual act of cooperation jointly sponsored a summer institute for

some 40 pre-law students, black and brown. The instructional staff

consisted of three faculty members drawn from the regular staffs of

the sponsoring schools, six or seven law students currently in

attendance at these schools, and several practicing lawyers. The

institute ran full time at the UCLA law school during an eight-week

period from June 24 to August 26. Students admitted were granted

a stipend of $600 to $700 to replace lost summer earnings. Most of

the students, prior to the Summer Program, had already been

accepted for admission to law school in the fall of 1968 and had been

promised substantial financial aid over the three years of their law

school careers. This scholarship aid was made available out of a

$450,000 national Ford Foundation grant.

The academic objectives of the Summer Program were to give

minority college graduates an opportunity for advanced orientation

work, a “headstart” before beginning their formal legal studies, and

to encourage a number of college post-juniors who had not yet made

career choices to consider law as a possible career. The Program was

one of four sponsored by the Council on Legal Opportunity

(CLEO)’ which was established in January, 1968, by the Association

of American Law Schools, the American Bar Association, the

National Bar Association (an organization of black lawyers), and

the Law School Admission Test Council, whose present chairman

is Professor Frank Sander of the Harvard Law School.

‘The other three were located at Harvard, Emory, and Denver Universities.

All were funded out of a grant of about half a million dollars by the Office of

Economic Opportunity.


It might be noted that two CLEO summer programs or institutes,

in somewhat altered form, will operate in California during the summer

of 1969, one in Los Angeles available to the five law schools in

the southern part of the State, and one in San Francisco for the nine

northern California law schools. Each will accommodate about 60

students. Admission will be restricted to college seniors or persons

otherwise eligible for admission to law school in the fall of 1969.

Stipends to compensate for lost summer earnings will again be available,

through the extent of scholarship aid to be provided the students

once they are in law school is uncertain at this time.

Applicants to the Summer Program

Is there an adequate pool of minority group college seniors to

provide the base for a major expansion in law school enrollment?

In a little over two months-from mid-March to mid-May, 1968-

well over 300 applications were received, shattering the widely held

myth that minority applicants would be hard to come by. The

number of potential applicants is presently large and growing rapidly

because of the recruitment policies of many colleges in recent years.

The barriers to law school enrollment are not lack of interest or

desire on the part of black and brown students; they are financial

need, traditionally rigid admission standards, and widespread

skepticism among minority students that the law schools are

genuinely committed to making changes.

The principal vehicle for stimulating applications for the CLEO

Program was press publicity, both community and collegiate, stressing

the schools’ willingness to take steps to overcome the traditional

barriers. Other major generators of applications were college prelaw

advisers and those minority students already enrolled in law

schools. With the expansion of the law schools’ minority enrollment,

it is predictable that the students will themselves become major

recruiters, a role they are eager to perform. Announcements of the

Program were widely disseminated among governmental ·officials,

bar groups, community organizations, and public and private


Roughly two-thirds of the applicants were black, and one-third

were Mexican-American. Approximately 60 percent were seniors,

eligible for admission to law school in the fall of 1968, and the balance

were juniors. The overwhelming majority of the applicants

were from California, mostly from the Los Angeles area. Over 40


percent had attended one of three Los Angeles area colleges. Two

hundred sixty-one of the applicants were male; 53 were female. A

detailed analysis of the ethnic background, sex, collegiate standing,

undergraduate schools attended, and regional distribution of the

applicants is found in Table 1.





A. Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

B. Mexican-American . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

C. American Indian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

D. Japanese-American . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

E. Chinese-American . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

F. Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8


A. Junior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

B. Senior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194



A. Cal State-Los Angeles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

B. UCLA ………… . . …. . .. . ………… . ….. . ….. 37

c. usc……………………………………… ... 23

D. Southern University-Baton Rouge, La. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

E. Cal State-San Jose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

F. Cal State–San Fernando Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

G. UC-Berkeley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

H. Cal State-Long Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

I. Cal State–San Diego . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

J. Loyola-Los Angeles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

K. Cal State–Sacramento . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

L. Cal State-Fullerton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

M. Cal State–San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

N. Cal Poly, Pomona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

0. Chapman College-Orange, Calif. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

P. Occidental College-Los Angeles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Q. Roosevelt University-Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

R. University of Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

S. Livingstone College–Salisbury, N.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

T. Cal State-Hayward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

U. UC-Riverside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

V. Stanford University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

W. Mt. St. Mary’s-Los Angeles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

X. Pepperdine College-Los Angeles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Y. Tuskegee Institute-Tuskegee, Ala. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Z. Fisk University-Nashville, Tenn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

A’. UC–Santa Barbara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

B‘. University of Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3



A .. Male ………………•..•………………….••• 261

1. Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

2. Mexican-American . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 88

3. American Indian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

4. I apanese-American . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . 3

5. Chinese-American . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 1

6. Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

B. Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

1. Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . 44

2. Mexican-American . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S

3. I apanese-American . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . 1

4. Chinese-American . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

5. Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1


A. Los Angeles ……………………. 159

B. Other California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

C. Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . 14

D. Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . 4

E. lllinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . . . . . 4

F. Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 4

G. New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . 3

H. Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 3

I. Washington, D.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . 2

I. South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . . 2

K. Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . 2

L. North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . 2

M. Arizona • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . 2

N. Carribean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . 2

0. Arkansas . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . • . . 1

P. New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . 1

Q. Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 1

R. Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . • . . • • 1

S. Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • . . . • • 1

Admissions to the Summer Program

Of the more than 300 people who applied for admission to the

Summer Program, 42 were admitted-14 Mexican-Americans; 28

blacks. Thirty-four were seniors, eight juniors. All of the seniors

and two juniors-a total of 36-had accepted offers of admission to

and subsequently enrolled in various law schools, principally UCLA,

Loyola, and USC, the sponsoring schools. This indicates the direct

impact of the CLEO Program.

The Program had an additional, indirect impact. A substantial

number of those 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 entered law schools, in part

because of the Program’s efforts. Some of these no doubt would have

applied to and been accepted by law schools independently of the

CLEO Program. But it seems realistic to say that the Program was a

major stimulus to minority recruitment, at least on the part of the

three sponsoring schools: It encouraged widespread minority applications

for law school admission; it acted as a clearinghouse for

applicants, putting interested students and law schools in touch with

each other; and the very existence of the Program stimulated several

law schools to embark upon more aggressive recruitment efforts

than they otherwise might have undertaken.

Several aspects of the recruitment pattern of the Los Angeles

CLEO Program deserve comment.

1. The Program was not conceived as a device for screening students.

Admission to law school was not made dependent upon the

student’s performance in the Program. As a matter of fact, each of

the senior students had been guaranteed admission to a law school

before the summer course of study even began.

2. A distinctive feature of the recruiting pattern of the Los Angeles

CLEO Program was its narrow geographic focus. This was in contrast

to the technique pursued in recent years by many of the

national schools, in which academically qualified minority graduates

have been culled from all over the country, particularly from the

historically segregated colleges in the Deep South. Primary concern

in the Los Angeles CLEO Program centered upon students from the

black and Mexican-American ghettos that constitute the backyards

of the three Los Angeles law schools. Furthermore, no effort was

made to disperse these students among law schools over a wide

geographic area. They enrolled primarily in the three Los Angeles

law schools participating in the Program. There were several reasons

for this emphasis:

(a) The three sponsoring law schools normally recruit largely

from Southern California. It seemed essential to provide

comparable opportunities for members of the minority community

in the same area. In part this was in recognition of a

condition recently emphasized by the events at Columbia

University, and commented on by John Gardner, in an obser8


vation that many universities are “poor corporate citizens of

their communities,” accepting their importance in relation to

their communities without asking themselves what this

implies in the way of obligations.

(b) With their community perspective, these students gave

promise of injecting a highly distinctive and valuable quality

into the law schools.

(c) Placing a large number of minority students in a single law

school would create a more hospitable environment for the

students and would enhance the likelihood of their success.

(d) Such a concentration would also enable the minority students

to develop a more effective voice within the school on issues

of vital concern to them.

3. Recruiting efforts were undertaken jointly by the three participating

law schools. A single application to the CLEO Summer Program

could serve also, if the applicant chose, as an application for

admission to any of the three sponsoring law schools. The application

also came to serve as an application for the Law Schools

Admissions Test (LSAT), the analogue of the College Boards and

the Graduate Record examinations. The LSAT was administered

without charge in the Los Angeles area in April, 1968, by courtesy

of the Educational Testing Service. Thus, with one fairly short application

form and with no application fees whatever, the student could

apply for admission to the CLEO Summer Program, to each of three

law schools, and for a free LSAT examination.

Such joint recruiting efforts might well have been extended over

an even broader area. A single application form could be adopted for

use throughout the State of California or major parts of it. Anyone

involved in such efforts can scarcely avoid being impressed by the

need for national and regional cooperation and for brokerage services

between applicants and law schools. Without question there

are substantial numbers of minority students who wish to go to law

school and law schools that wish to admit them; but in many cases,

an effective way to bring student and school together does not exist.

The Issue of Inter-Minority Quotas

A pervasive issue in the Los Angeles Program related to the

method of allocating places among various minorities, particularly

between black and brown students. In spite of certain pressures, the

Program did not adopt a policy of inter-minority quotas. Roughly


one-third of those admitted to the Program turned out to be

Mexican American, a proportion somewhat exceeding that of their


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

strongly advocated a quota under which half the admittees

would be members of this group, arguing that Mexican-Americans

constitute the largest single minority group in the Los Angeles area,

that the community need for MexicanAmerican attorneys is acutefar

greater than that for any other group–and that the educational

and financial disabilities facing Mexican-Americans are more severe

than those that confront other minorities.

The Program’s administration felt, however, that quotas, even

though benignly motivated, tend to evoke substantial concern, and

believed that it would be more desirable for the law schools, in cooperation

with Mexican-American students, to undertake large-scale

recruiting efforts which could increase the number of applicants from

that community and tend to bring the number of admissions more

into line with community needs without the imposition of a quota.

Criteria and Techniques of Selecting

Students for the Summer Program

A substantial expansion of minority enrollment presupposes

broad, flexible standards and techniques of admission. National

CLEO policy in fact required such flexibility. The Summer Program

was reserved for students who did not possess the traditional

academic qualifications required for admission to law school. Some

of those who applied did in fact meet traditional standards; they

were admitted directly to law school without passing through the

Summer Program. Those admitted to the Program therefore were

characterized by two conditions: they had already been assured of

a place in a law school for the forthcoming academic year, and they

Jacked the paper credentials traditionally required for admission to

law school.

Admission Standards and Legal Education

When one adopts a policy of “broadening” or “altering” admission

standards, or of applying them “more flexibly,” one must sooner or

later face up to the charge that these are merely euphemisms for

lowering standards. But this seems too facile and uncritical an

acceptance of the sanctity of the traditional norms that underlie


selection of students. In this section, an effort is made to consider

some of the student qualities that might best contribute to the development

of a sound academic environment, to suggest some criteria

other than conventional academic achievement that might legitimately

be brought to bear on the selection process, and to compare

these criteria with those presently in use.

Who Should be Eligible? The Argument of Need

The need for a vast increase in the number of black and brown

attorneys is critical. The need is immediate and intense, and ways

must be found to fulfill it sooner rather than later. If this requires

selection of students with markedly lower academic credentials than

is customary, this course is fully justified. Certainly a central function

of a professional school is to serve community needs for professionals.

There is, however, not one community but several; and the

needs of some, as we have been recently made aware, have been the

subject of notorious neglect. The minority community is entitled to

an adequate pool of minority lawyers. The law schools have the

obligation to help create it. Equally to the point, a law career in this

society is a vital pathway to positions of power. To deny effective

access to the profession is to deny totally access to judgeships and to

limit severely access to government, business, and politics.

It might well be agreed that these are sufficient reasons for departing

from present methods of screening minority students. To meet

these needs, the principal criterion for admission would not be

whether the minority applicant is as “qualified” academically as

those normally accepted, only whether he stands a “reasonable”

chance of success.

Are the Traditional Criteria Valid?

The argument thus far, it will be noted, has not put in issue customary

notions of academic excellence. It merely offers reasons why

other values might be entitled to great deference in student selection.

But it is surely appropriate to speculate about the validity both of

current notions of academic excellence and the techniques used to

measure it. This raises issues that are hard to get at and complex,

because one’s views about the appropriate criteria for selecting law

students rest ultimately on premises, often unexpressed, about the

nature and obligations of legal education, of lawyers, and of the

society in which they function. The solution is not made any easier


by the biases law professors inevitably bring to the subject. In addition

to the usual array they share with other mortals, they have a

unique bias borne of their position as academics. They have mastered

the system as it now stands. Indeed they owe their faculty status to

their outstanding success as students in the system. It has certified

them as persons of considerable distinction. They are children of the

system, and it would be a thankless child who now questioned the

very standards that proclaim his virtue. The effort nonetheless may

be worthwhile.

Central to the going standard is some notion of intellectual competence.

Measured how? At the point of law school entry, primarily

by two “objective” criteria: the scores received by the student on the

Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) and his undergraduate gradepoint

average ( GP A). Other qualities may also be taken into

account, but there is little doubt about the primacy of these two. A

principal justification for the weight attached to them is that they

prove to be excellent predictors of law school grades. In turn, grades

in law school are a reliable predictor of success in the bar examination.

These admission criteria, so the argument goes, therefore

facilitate the rational allocation of scarce resources: law school


That these predictors prove reliable should surprise no one. They

each test for many of the same qualities. If there are cultural biases

in one, they faithfully reflect those found in the others. This in itself

establishes only that the hurdles the student must surmount are

roughly similar at the various stages of his odyssey from college into

the bar, not that they are an adequate basis for determining whether

an individual embodies the cluster of qualities appropriate either to

law student or practitioner. What is needed is, first, a scrutiny of how

well the various tests, when applied to minority students, do in fact

predict success as traditionally defined; and, far more fundamental,

whether this is an adequate definition of “success.”

Existing admission standards may prove a highly inadequate way

of determining which minority students are capable of success in law

school. It should be noted that the Educational Testing Service itself

makes no exaggerated claims for the predictive validity of the LSAT.

There will be a great number of cases where prediction misses the

mark by a moderate amount and a sizeable number where actual performance

will be directly opposite from predicted performance. This


should be a sobering lesson to anyone tempted to think that the test

scores offer an easy and complete solution to his admissions problems.15

Because the test does not measure motivation or maturity, or perhaps

for other reasons, its validity may be a good deal lower for

minority group members than, say, for white, middle-class students.

National studies of the test are presently under way. If diminished

reliability is established, this would furnish a telling argument for

departing from existing admission criteria. Such a departure would

presuppose alterations neither in the law school, its faculty, its curriculum,

its value system, nor in the legal profession. All that is put

in issue is the validity of conventional methods for predicting conventional


A far more fundamental issue turns on one’s views about what

constitutes quality in the educational process and about which student

characteristics would most contribute to it. This of course raises

the most difficult issues of educational theory and policy. But surely

a process worthy of the name “education” presupposes an atmosphere

marked by challenge, skepticism, and critical inquiry. And

just as surely, the addition of black and brown perspectives would

enrich, indeed in contemporary America are indispensable to, the

process. Legal education is centrally concerned with understanding

some of the principal institutions and techniques of conflict resolution.

The perceptions of these institutions and techniques on the part

of the victims of historic discrimination are an indispensable ingredient

to better understanding of the most explosive area of

conflict in American life. The educational dividends flow not

merely from the different “views” of minority observers–that

understates the point. Minority members may not only hold different

views on issues of traditional concern, they may incline to challenge

the relevance of the issues as conventionally defined. A classic issue

of legal theory, for example, is whether certain powers should be

allocated to judge or jury. The black man’s insight may be that the

distinction is of trivial importance, so long as both are white.

To take account of the diversity in life perspectives and outlooks

in the student selection process, of course, represents no innovation

for the many academic institutions in which it has long been the

established practice to aim for diversity in geographic origin,

6 Quoted from the LSAT Handbook in Winterbottom, Comments on “A

Study of the Criteria for Legal Education and Admission to the Bar,” An

article by Dr. Thomas M. Goolsby, Jr., 21 J. of Legal Ed. 75, 78 (1968).


religious and cultural background, and so forth. Sometimes narrow

academic achievement is “sacrificed” to the interest of these institutions

in rich variation in their student input. If this is desirable in

general, it is of unparalleled importance in the case of the discriminated-

against minorities.

Another aspect of educational value should be noted: students

learn about the law, in the deepest sense, not only through their

study of formal legal mechanisms, but also from the demonstrated

concerns and values of the law school, a highly significant legal institution

in its own right. The school may profoundly and lastingly

mold student attitudes as to concerns and values appropriate to

lawyers by the example it sets. A school’s demonstration of concern

for expanding minority educational opportunity advances this

value also.

Consider now some specific dangers in over-reliance on projected

law school examination performance, the conventional method of

student evaluation, as a basis for determining law school admission.

However the skills tested for in these examinations are defined,

“issue spotting,” “analytic skills,” or otherwise, it is far from clear

that these are the only, or even the central, skills or qualities needed

in practice. In weighing the likelihood of a person’s success in practice,

skills in client counseling or in negotiating may be of critical

importance; so also his capacity for hard, detailed, tenacious, tedious

work; his devotion to the interests of his client or community; and

his capacity fully to comprehend the interests at stake for his client,

because of personal identification with those interests. Perhaps

somewhat different combinations of qualities are essential for a

lawyer, depending on the type of lawyer he wants to become. The

needs may differ for one who aspires to become a “community

lawyer” as compared with one who aspires to become a corporation


Even if it were agreed that the law school is focusing upon the

essential skills and qualities, the artificialities of the examination

process may introduce biases irrelevant to the demands of practice.

Note the requirements the typical examination places upon a person,

in contrast to those confronted in practice.

1. Examinations test the student in a written, rather than an oral

form. The problem is aggravated at those law schools which follow

the practice of “blind” grading, under which the instructor does not

know whose paper he is grading. He therefore is unable to take into

account the student’s classroom performance, which may be excel14


lent, in his evaluation of the student’s examination paper, which may

be poor.

2. Examinations are conducted under highly speeded, artificial

time limitations. There is little time for reflection about the problem

before attempting a solution.

3. The student is not permitted to consult any research sources.

He is required to answer solely on his unaided reserves of memory

and understanding.

4. He must answer the question by himself, rather than mull the

problem over with colleagues in the fashion typical of the practicing


5. The examination questions are hypothetical. Some students

have a low toleration for the unreal and may experience far greater

difficulty comprehending these questions than they would if the same

issue arose in practice where the tangible significance of the controversy

were plain.

6. An examination question is often calculatedly ambiguous. The

student is expected to tolerate, indeed thrive, on the ambiguity. But

students may differ in their capacity to tolerate such ambiguities,

many of which would be eliminated in real life by adequate investigation

and preparation.

The point here is that the student might perform far more satisfactorily

in practice with respect to given skills than he does in a

highly artificial examination system. Put another way, not only may

the examination processes be culturally biased, the bias may be

irrelevant in terms of the requirements of practice.

To exaggerate the point for emphasis, the law student who possessed

only those skills tested for on law school examinations would

conform to the following profile: he would be proficient at providing

rapid answers in writing, independently arrived at, without research-

and he could be quite lazy, altogether indifferent to his

client’s interests, an incompetent negotiator and an insensitive


This is of course no argument that traditional law school skills

are irrelevant. They may, however, be less central to the requirements

confronting the average lawyer than is frequently believed.

Adherence to this examination process reflects, in part at least, the

judgment that there is no better way of doing the job, rather than a

conviction that it is immune from serious criticism. This may (or

may not) have been an adequate justification so long as the process

was merely selecting from among a relatively homogeneous group of


white students. It is wholly impermissible-a faculty cop-out-if the

effect of its shortcomings is to screen out the vast majority of minority

students in large volume.

Even if law schoolsobjectives with respect to skills training are

adjudged sound, even if the testing methods are believed valid, it is

unsound merely to exclude those for whom the chances of success

are relatively low. The job of the teacher is to teach. A variety of

forms must be developed to help the student with special problems to

meet the academic demands. Moreover, students with low academic

credentials may take somewhat longer to get in the swing of law

school work than others. The minority student with a low LSA T

may end up performing better in the second or third year than in the

first. We do not know. If so, and if the need is sufficiently urgent, this

argues for giving such students the opportunity to repeat work performed

unsatisfactorily on the first round rather than denying them

the opportunity in the first place.

Beyond that, it should be recognized that curriculum is undergoing

change in many schools. The aim is to respond to the

ubiquitous student demands for “greater relevance.” What is unknown

is how the minority student with low academic credentials

will perform in a curriculum so enriched and altered. In evaluating

the chances of a student’s success, in other words, law school should

not be viewed as an immutable given, the demands of which the student

must meet on pain of exclusion. Law schools should change, are

changing, and probably will continue to change, in ways that will

shape them somewhat more closely to the interests and talents of the

minority students.

To the degree this is achieved, present standards of admission may

be rendered substantially less relevant. As such changes occur, it

may well turn out that not only the minority students but the general

run of students and faculty as well are the beneficiaries. Surely all

engaged in the educational enterprise are victims in varying degrees

of bureaucracy, insensitivity, and irrationality. The re-examination

of some of these methods of student evaluation may be immediately

triggered by concerns with the problems of minority students, but

the benefits of change will not be restricted to these students.

Participation in Decisions about Admission

A word may be in order about who should participate in the admission

decisions. Perhaps two central criteria are involved in these

decisions: predictions of the probability of the student‘s academic


success, and predictions of the contribution he is likely to make to

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

process transparently involves personal values. It is indefensible that

the decisions should reflect solely the values of white academics.

Minority group members should not be denied a voice merely because

of their meager representation in the academic structure, itself

a result of the very condition such programs are designed to overcome.

Appropriate participation should be guaranteed through

minority faculty members (where they exist), administrators, students,

or lawyers.

With respect to the mechanical technique of selection for the

CLEO Program, the selections committee had before it the college

transcripts of the applicants, their LSAT scores, and letters of

recommendation. All of the senior applicants in the Los Angeles

area were interviewed by representatives of one or more of the three

sponsoring law schools. Representatives of two of the sponsoring

law schools spent a total of about ten full days interviewing about

175 applicants. The other school preferred the technique of interviewing

a smaller number of people in greater depth.

The Curriculum and Academic Objectives of the Summer Program

Three courses of regular law school type were offered, each taught

by a full-time faculty· member (one from each of the sponsoring

schools). They dealt with voting rights, personal property, and the

legal process. The courses were in most respects taught precisely as

they would have been in law school. Traditional legal materials,

cases and statutes, were used. The method was Socratic. Style, of

course, varied with the instructor. The principal differences as compared

to law school were that the courses were not for credit and

that their subject matter was not coexistensive with any of the traditional

first year courses. The students were divided into two sections

of about 20 each. Both sections of each course met three hours a


A mock trial extended over most of the eight-week period. Among

its highlights were a preliminary hearing in a criminal case and a

jury trial, each presided over by an outside judge. Students performed

the role of the attorneys. The students were divided into

prosecution and defense sections, each numbering about 20.

A major object was to give the student the opportunity to do written

work and have that ·work closely evaluated. Two student instrucPERSPECTIVES


tors were specially retained to read the student papers, criticize them,

and discuss them with the students.

There were several field trips to the criminal courts and to large

law offices.

The academic objectives of the Summer Program were twofold:

to provide exposure to typical law school work and skills, and to

cope with certain problems of “motivation.” The latter purpose was

predicated on the belief that more than a few students would be

highly skeptical about the relevance of the legal system-either because

they did not regard it as a significant instrument for critically

needed social change, or at any rate, because they did not believe

it a meaningful arena for personal commitment, given competing

paths open to them.

The curriculum reflected each of these objectives to a degree. The

“skills” orientation was reflected in the three courses which were

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

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

Program. The “motivational” concerns were reflected in an effort

to incorporate subject matter in the curriculum that might more

readily be perceived by the students as “relevant” -one of the

courses dealt with the protection of voting rights against discrimination;

the mock trial revolved around a criminal prosecution of students

for conduct on a college campus arising out of a racial issue;

several outside speakers sharply raised the issue of the relationship

of law to contemporary social change (these included a number of

minority lawyers and also Governor Reagan’s counsel); students

were encouraged to attend certain outside events in which issues of

“relevancy” might prominently arise, e.g., the trial of Huey Newton,

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

which took place during the Program; and efforts were generally

made to create an atmosphere which recognized the legitimacy of

questions about the “relevance” of any subject under consideration

to the actual operation of the legal system or to the student’s values

and concerns.

Criticisms of the Program

It may be useful to consider a number of criticisms that were

leveled at the Program by some staff members and students:

1. That it was hampered by confusion of goals. A number of staff

members felt that the Program’s two objectives–to provide expo18


sure to typical law school work and skills, and to cope with certain

problems of “motivation”-could not both be successfully pursued

within the brief scope of the Program. One staff member commented,

in part, “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.”

Many of the participating students, however, had serious problems

of motivation as well as of academic preparation. A recurrent

theme in the comments of many students was a profound skepticism

about the relevance of the legal system to their personal goals. It

seemed desirable to create an atmosphere that recognized the legitimacy

of such questions. Furthermore, it seemed to some of us that

the sharp distinction between problems of motivation and traditional

academic problems suggested by this criticism was, as a matter

of educational reality, often a false dichotomy.

2. That not enough attention was focused in the Program on cultivating

those basic skills vital to survival in law school.

This implies that there are easily identifiable, fundamental techniques

indispensable to success in law school that the Program might

have taught adequately but did not. The faculty members of the

Program found it no easier in this context than in the regular law

school curriculum to determine what these techniques and skills are

and how to teach them successfully. It takes an experience like the

Program to make one fully appreciate how little educational theory

we have and how intuitive is our approach to educational technique.

The system is presently set up for those students who have a certain

complement of conceptual-verbal habits. It has paid little attention

to the problem of how to help educate those whose difficulties may

lie precisely in this area.

3. That students were not exposed to the typical law school sanctions,

requirements, and expectations and therefore could not derive

the maximum benefit from the Program; that, indeed, they were

given a false sense of the real experience they were about to confront

in law school.

It is true that the Program invoked no threats to compel satisfactory

performance. The student was already assured of admission to

law school. He was not graded on his course work, nor docked part

of his stipend for non-attendance or for failing to turn in work.


Under these circumstances, about 20 to 25 of the 42 students attended

regularly and performed substantially all of the assigned

work. For them, the absence of sanctions seemed to be an educational

feature of distinct value. The performance of the other students

shaded off from spotty to wholly inadequate. Sanctions might

have improved the performance of this group, though some members

of the staff believed there was great value in permitting students to

experience the Slimmer Program on their own terms without external


The Problem of Financial Aid

The financial support which the student might expect during his

first year of law school was the biggest single problem that confronted

the Los Angeles CLEO Program. It was the cause of student

walkouts from classes, negotiations, threats, and more negotiations.

It exercised the students, the Program administration, and, no doubt,

the national CLEO administration. The issue was very complex and

the solution not readily evident.

Two aspects of the financial arrangements troubled the students:

They did not know until late in the summer how much support they

would receive, and they challenged the adequacy of the amount

once it was known.


The Program made no definite commitment to the students about

the amount of financial aid for the forthcoming school year until

mid-July. Each student was then informed that he would receive a

full tuition scholarship and a cash fellowship (if need for the latter

was demonstrated, as it almost invariably was) in the following

amounts: The basic stipend was $2,000. A married student with a

child received $2,500 and for each additional child an additional

$250. These amounts are comparable to those provided in many

standard scholarships for graduate students, a little better than some

and a lot worse than others (particularly some of those that are federally

financed). One thousand five hundred dollars of this total per

student was provided out of the CLEO-administered Ford grant; the

balance, by the respective law schools.

The student had not been notified earlier of the amount he would

receive because the amount available was not known earlier. The

national CLEO made no definite commitments until July, and the


separate financial resources in the case of UCLA, which is dependent

on the annual operating budget provided for the University of California

by the State Legislature, was not known until the beginning

of July.

This uncertainty had presented a dilemma in the recruitment

efforts of the Program. We were reasonably confident that substantial

sums of money would be available. We wanted to indicate this

fact in our publicity in order to encourage applications. On the other

hand, we were not prepared to make definite commitments. The

dilemma was resolved by publicly announcing that CLEO students

would “receive substantial financial assistance toward the payment

of law school expenses throughout their law school enrollment.”

In early July, during one of the regularly scheduled class hours,

35 to 38 of the students assembled and presented the Program

administration with their concerns about the financial uncertainty.

Stated in its strongest light, the student position amounted to this:

You have encouraged us to leave summer jobs for the CLEO Program,

to abandon other careers, and to re-orient our lives to become lawyers.

You have promised us financial support. Many of us have extreme financial

needs and must make plans for this coming fall. You have explained

all the reasons for your financial uncertainties. 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 now rely on it. If it is not, if there is a

risk the money will prove unavailable, why should we be saddled with

the burden of uncertainty? The law schools are far more capable of

shouldering the risk. Let them make the necessary commitments, and

then raise the money.

When the fact of the student protest was communicated to national

CLEO, the scholarship funds were released within a few

hours. To view the problem from the vantage point of the minority

student, it appeared as though there were an excessive, bureaucratic,

concern on the part of the administration with its administrative

convenience and an inadequate sensitivity to the pressing needs of

the students–until student pressure was brought to bear. Whatever

the degree of alienation of white students from academic and governmental

bureaucracy, in a certain sense it is their bureaucracy,

run by their parents or people much like them. To the minority student,

such bureaucracies are alien and viewed primarily as structures

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

them their rights. To respond with the explanation that this is the

way we treat everybody-that we are evenhandedly inhumane-is

an argument of limited appeal.


How one views the student reaction depends ultimately on one’s

starting point. One may conceive of such efforts as a favor to minority

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

hand, one may believe 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 noblesse oblige, but rather a matter of


The Level of Support

Once financial commitments were finally made, the issue shifted

to the adequacy of the amounts. After a prolonged period of negotiations,

impossible to describe within the confines of this discussion,

the participating law schools agreed to raise an additional sum over

the amount already pledged and distribute it among the most needy

students, largely as determined by the students themselves. The reasons

for these demands and for the strength of the feeling associated

with them are complex and include:

1. A belief that the amounts provided, particularly for those with

family obligations, were inadequate to carry the student through the

first year of law school. To superimpose these financial difficulties

upon the special academic problems already anticipated would

invite academic disaster.

2. The students’ desire for a hand in shaping decisions vitally affecting

their lives. They rejected an atmosphere in which financial

support might be viewed as largess from above rather than a product

of mutual discussion.

3. The feeling of a number of the students that they had been

misled by earlier, vague references to “substantial financial aid.” This

phrase could mean entirely different things to different people. The

Program, in lawyer-like precision, thought this promised nothing

specific; students in good faith often interpreted it otherwise.

4. The fact that a number of CLEO students intend to become

lawyers in their own communities rather than to seek out more lucrative

arenas of practice. Many of these students were already

heavily burdened by debts. If they were further burdened by additional

thousands of dollars of indebtedness to finance their law

school careers, 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 be compelled to seek fairly high-paying


work in order to meet loan obligations. Loan requirements would

thus pervert the purposes of the Program.

The sums of money needed to provide adequately for subsistence

and tuition are enormous if compared to the amounts presently

available. While figures are incomplete, a rough estimate would be

that some $200,000 was committed by the three Los Angeles schools

to meet the financial requirements of approximately 60 students for

the current year. Of this $200,000, $45,000 was made available

from the CLEO administered Ford grant. The balance of $155,000

was raised by the three schools elsewhere. Given the same rate of

minority recruitment in the next two entering classes-not to speak

of accelerated recruitment-the financial need in 1970 will run

about half a million dollars a year, just for the three Los Angeles

law schools. The amount needed for an analogous statewide expansion

would run into many millions. The sums presently available

are, of course, grossly inadequate, though thus far they are relatively

favorable in the case of the University of California law schools,

because of the availability of educational opportunity funds. Based

on the experience of the Los Angeles Program, it is no exaggeration

to say that, for the present, the limiting factor upon the expansion

of minority enrollment is neither the lack of students nor the unwillingness

of law schools,· it is rather the lack of money.

A soundly conceived financial aid program would, I believe,

include the following features:e

Since the overwhelming majority of minority group students came

from families unable in any way to assist them financially, and since

a large number will enter law school having already incurred substantial

debts in the course of obtaining their undergraduate educations,

the sums provided should be sufficient to enable a student to

pursue his academic work with a minimum of distraction from financial

pressures. On the average, the minimum amount provided

a single student should be about $2,500, in addition to tuition. The

amount should, of course, increase for the student with dependents,

perhaps at the rate of $1000 per child.

Because of the financial condition of most minority group students,

the financing of any portion of their legal education through

0 What ensues represents proposals made by Professor Richard Wasserstrom

and myself to the national CLEO. National Goals for Expanding Minority

Group Entry into the Legal Profession: Some Proposals to the CLEO

Council, October 1, 1968 (unpublished).


loans should be avoided. However, to the extent to which a loan

program may become necessary, it should provide interestfree loans

which do not become payable until a substantial period of time (say

five years) after graduation from law school. More importantly, any

such loan program should contain forgiveness provisions if the recipient

chooses to employ his legal skills on behalf of the minority

community or in public service generally.

Should an individualized determination of financial need be a

prerequisite to financial aid? Admittedly, failure to make a detailed

scrutiny may occasionally result in a student without need getting

funds. But, given the great need almost all minority students present,

administration of a detailed means test as a condition for financial

aid will end up being more expensive than across-the-board allocation

of a standard sum. Moreover, detailed and searching financial

inquiries can be most demeaning to the applicant. On the other hand,

if inquiries are not detailed and searching, they provide only a spurious

basis for precise determination of need. If any means test is

employed, it should be an extremely simple and “gross” test, so that

if needis demonstrated by the applicant for substantial financial

assistance, the standard stipend should be awarded, without more

detailed inquiry to determine whether a smaller amount would


To Sum Up

In any efforts to improve the access of minorities to legal education,

we must grapple with a number of problems, some of them

difficult even to understand, and one of themthat of financial

aid-simple enough to understand but difficult to resolve. The Los

Angeles CLEO Program demonstrated that the anticipated problem

of attracting a sufficient number of applicants for legal education

need perhaps cause little concern. There remains, however, along

with the problem of providing financial aid at the needed levels, the

tangled area of devising appropriate admission standards and criteria;

of learning what constitutes validity in the educational process

and what student characteristics would most contribute to it; of

gauging the adequacy (or, rather, the inadequacy) of our educational

theory and technique as applied to students who lack the particular

pattern of conceptal-verbal habits for which the present system

is set up; and of discovering how to motivate students who have

little or no stake in the system-or perhaps more importantly, of


discovering how to change that system to make it more relevant to

valid motivattions that already exist in such students. If the CLEO

Program provided no final solutions, it was a useful experiment, and

helpful in illuminating the problems. • D f!l