By: James G. Apple, Editor-in-Chief, International
Judicial Monitor
I subscribe to several U.S. magazines, and receive others
as a result of memberships in organizations. I find them valuable, as they fill
the gap between daily journalism offerings found in newspapers, and books which
come along months or years after a particular event or movement. This year to
date I have received two magazines each of which contained an article that is
especially thought provoking to me as a lawyer and writer about courts, judges
and international law. One of the articles noted that it was being written “in
the summer of our discontent,” a reference to the many political and social controversies that have been provoked by the President of the United States and his followers.
Both of these articles were written by women. One is Dean of
the Yale Law School; the other was at the time of the article's publication in April of this year, President of the American Bar Association. I touch on this fact of authorship
parenthetically, not in the sense of indicating surprise that women could
express the kind of thoughts and opinions given in the articles, but to reveal
once again that women in the United States are continuing to break the glass
ceilings that have prevented or hampered them in their quest for leadership
roles for too long, and to note the source of different perspectives about the controversies sparked by commentary coming out of the White House.
The article by Dean Heather Gerken of the Yale Law School published in a July issue of Time magazine was titled: “One campus arena where
free speech is not up for debate: law schools.” It was written in response to
two recent incidents that had occurred at U.S. colleges, Middlebury and
Claremont McKenna “where demonstrations disrupted controversial speakers.” Dean
Gerken observed that Yale Law School had hosted several times in the past few
years the same speaker that had caused the disruptions and interference with
the speaker at Middlebury College, and that the Law School had done so without
disruptions. Dean Gerken commented:
There may be a reason why law students haven't resorted to the extreme tactics we've seen on college campuses:
their training. Law school conditions you to know the difference
between righteousness and self-righteousness. That’s why lawyers know
how to go to war without turning the other side into an
enemy. People love to tell lawyer jokes, but maybe it is time for the
rest of the country [and the rest of the world] to take a lesson
from the profession they love to hate.
Dean Gerken went on to discuss further the effects of law
school training on law students, and how those lessons carry out into the world
beyond academe. She notes that Thurgood Marshall, before he became a justice of
the U.S. Supreme Court, traveled throughout the southern states in the U.S. defending African Americans in
criminal cases in courthouses without provoking the kinds of oral and physical
violence that would have been displayed in other venues. That experience
demonstrates the “ritual of respect” that the law carries with it.
The second article to which my attention was directed was written
by Linda A. Klein, who is now the immediate Past President of the American Bar
Association (a private bar association that is the largest bar association in
the U.S.). President Klein’s message to the Association’s membership in the
April, 2017 issue of the ABA Journal was a plea for members to join in the
celebration on May 1 of Law Day throughout the nation. The plea was specific;
this year’s celebration was directed to honoring the 14th Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States, its role in protecting American
democracy, and its importance “in securing and protecting so many of the rights
we enjoy today.”
There was no mention in her article about the turmoil
generated by the new officials in the White House and other agencies of the executive
branch of the United States government. However, the
focus on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provided a clear message to U.S. political leaders that the 14th amendment “was primarily intended to establish equal civil rights for former
slaves,” an issue that is again being raised in the current U.S. political
discourse.