•  
  •  
 

First Page

233

Last Page

293

Document Type

Article

Abstract

For the last few years, a competing culture has developed on university campuses based on what the National Jurist called the “protest generation.” These developments have seeped into law schools, creating not only tensions with the administrations, but also tensions between student organizations seeking to participate in accordance with their mission and purpose. Given the importance of legal education and the role of attorneys in society, this article advocates for law schools to cultivate a culture of engagement and dialogue by establishing private forums where student leaders may work out their differences in a civil and constructive manner. Within these forums, I recommend three foundational commitments. First, a commitment to open dialogue across political and ideological lines, which requires a willingness to listen to the other side and to seek understanding and clarification of deeply held convictions. Second, a commitment to setting aside self-interest and sensitivities to create a more intentional space for the exchange of ideas and differences. This commitment comes attached with the need for epistemic humility, convictional elasticity, and a courageous disposition rooted in curiosity and marginal friendship. Finally, the third commitment is to work on something together. Common action is at the root of our constitutional order. With polarization and entrenchment rampant in our society, law students are uniquely positioned to overcome these tendencies by cultivating habits of democracy necessary for “confident pluralism” and meaningful compromise. Law schools must give them a chance to do so.

Download

Share

COinS