View in searchable PDF format: 1968.11.08 – Minority Students and the Law Schools Conference.OCR
=====
Raw text:
-1
I ‘
1 . 1
r‘
Conference of California Law Schools
on
MINORITY STUDENTS AND THE
LAW SCHOOLS
at
UCLA Law School
November 8– 10, 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 •••••
-ii-
8-13
13-21
21-24
24-28
31-34
35-38
39-41
Participants•
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
UCLA
~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
Loyola
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
u.s.c.
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
Other
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.
-iii‘
.(
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
country.
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.
-2-
t (
Goals
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.)
Standards
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.
-3-
( (_
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.
-4-
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
technique.
-5-
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.
Recruitment
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.
-6-
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
money.
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.
-7-
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.
SUMMARY OF 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
-8-
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.
-9-
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?
-10-
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?
-11-
t
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
programs?
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.
-12-
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
b.
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.
-13-
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.
-14-
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.
-15-
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?
-16-
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.
-17-
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.
-18-
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
-19-
•, 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
education.
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.
-20-
‘· ..,.
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.
-21-
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
professors.
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.
-22-
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.”
-23-
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.
INTRODUCTION
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
time.
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.
-24-
THE NEED
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.
LEVELS OF SUPPORT
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
-25-
!-
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
hereafter.
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
veracity.
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
turn.
-26-
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.
SOURCES OF FUNDS
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
government.
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
-27-
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.
COOPERATION AMONG LAW SCHOOLS IN FUND RAISING
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
insurmountable.
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.
-28-
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.
-29-
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
fund.
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
-30-
L
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
participation.
-31-
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
now.
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.
-32-
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.
-33-
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.]
-34-
,_
APPENDIX A
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.
c)
schools:
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
fee.
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.
-35-
‘·· _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 –
III –
a) Director
b) 3 Instructors at 2/9 annual
salary
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.
supplies
IV – Travel
For recruiting and for student travel
V – Miscellaneous
VI – University overhead
$ 5,000
14,000
3,000
500
4,500
$27,000
30,000
3,000
2,000
500
500
2,000
4,000
TOTAL: $69, 000
The per student cost would thus be about $1150 coapared to over
$2000 for last summer’s CLEO program.
-36-
L J
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
schools
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.
-87-
.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
school.
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
expenses.
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.
–LL
-38-
J I
r_ _t
APPENDIX B
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
BERKELEY • D~VIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE· SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ
Dr. Melvin Kennedy
Executive Director
COPY
Council on Legal Education
Morehouse College
Box 105
Atlanta, Georgia 30314
Dear Dr. Kennedy :
OFFICE OF THE DEAN
SCHOOL OF LAW
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90024
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.
-39-
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
institute.
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).
-40-
J.
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.
RCM:lr
Sincerely,
/s/ Richard c. Maxwell
Richard c. Maxwell
Dean
cc: California accredited law schools
Participants in Calif. Conf. of Law Schools,
November 8-10, 1968
-41-
Leon Letwin (1929-2015) 