Questions for John Breen on his Critique of Jesuit Legal Education

I agree with Mark – if you’re interested in this topic, John Breen’s latest essay is a well-researched terrific read.  If you’ve read my “Why Rock the Boat” musings you’ll see that we fundamentally agree – our diagnoses of Catholic legal education are similar, and we agree that it’s not enough to sprinkle the Jesuit law school literature with rhetoric about a commitment to justice which arises from “contact” with injustice (through clinics and service components); instead it is crucial that we develop the intellectual “concepts” which can foster a deeper and more solid understanding and commitment to justice.

That said, I do have a few questions for John, and also for our larger group.

First, on John’s characterization of clinical education.  I agree that the commitment to justice needs to pervade the entire curriculum – but I wonder if the division between the “affective” work of the clinic and the intellectual “rational scrutiny” of the more doctrinal classes isn’t a bit too strong, and perhaps a bit afield of the Jesuit tendency to bring analytical reflection into every educational experience.  Perhaps this is a more feminine take—(eg, feelings and the emotional dimensions of empathy can and do lead to significant analytical work)—but I have the sense that there is quite a bit of room for deeper groundings in the Catholic intellectual tradition to extend into the clinical context as well.  A couple months ago during our regular conversation about Jesuit values and the law school, our Jesuit guest from the Graduate School of Education sparked a fascinating discussion about the parallels between the Ratio Studiorum and clinical education.  I think here there would be much to explore. 

Second is an observation about history.  On p.405, he notes that many sincerely claim to be unfamiliar with the Catholic intellectual tradition – but then explains that it is not some “new fangled academic trend.”  OK, it’s clear that the roots are 2000 years old. To be fair, shouldn’t we admit that what we are trying to do in the professional school context is in many ways completely new?  For example, if we dig into Fordham’s history, we won’t find courses and developed arguments about the connections between the Catholic intellectual tradition and juridical categories and systems.  And I don’t think Fordham was the only law school whose mission could in a sense be described as providing access to otherwise excluded ethnic groups.  The sense of Catholicism that did come into the picture was largely ethnic or even tribal, characterized by expressions of personal piety, but not a whole lot of work in bringing the Catholic intellectual tradition to bear on legal education.  If this is true, there is no golden age for Jesuit law schools—we are carving the path right now.  I think that brings to our endeavor a certain humility and patience—and I know it definitely softens my own critique quite a bit.  If we ourselves are just starting to work this out now, it’s understandable that the intellectual connections are not completely clear for our colleagues.

I’d also be curious to hear people’s reactions to John’s idea of a mandatory first year jurisprudence course which includes significant study of major figures in the Catholic intellectual tradition.  Maybe Richard Meyers and Greg Sisk could give us a sense of the experience of schools starting from scratch on curriculum.  For those of us at religiously diverse schools in large metropolitan areas (eg, Fordham has a large Jewish student population), how would this play out? 

And back to Mark’s point for a sec—about how others are not open—I was edified by Cardinal Ratzinger’s observation in response to a question about the public image of the Church as a severe and ossified tribunal—that instead of just piling on in a critique of the media, “one must also ask how the Church herself, instead of simply scolding the media, can properly adapt her public presentation.” (Salt of the Earth 171).  Similarly, I think our task is to focus not so much on what have been the reactions to perceptions of the project, but to consider how we can do better in how the life of faith and its connection to the intellectual endeavor is presented.  The very process of working harder on the presentation often leads to a new trust that in itself generates a more open conversation.   

On the question of hiring for mission.  Not that Georgetown doesn’t have work to do—but as an alum, I’ll just throw in that I learned enough about justice from my first year torts professor—who is Jewish and not particularly religious—to fire me up to a commitment to work for justice for the rest of my life.  In considering the current configuration of faculties at Jesuit law schools now, I wonder if some of the hope lies in finding ways to respectfully help all the faculty, including those of other or no religious traditions—to connect up (with “concepts”) how they are actually already furthering the mission—and the intellectual endeavor—in very substantial ways.

Finally, personally I’d deeply discount the extent to which “website” research can capture what’s really going on at any given school.  Fordham’s deeply intellectual conversation with the faculty has been going on for four years and BC has a similar endeavor – but that’s not going to show up in a website, because that’s not within the website genre.  I think it would be more productive to talk with each other to see how the issues are complex and hopeful at the same time.  The web is a wonderfully anonymous way to try to capture mounds of information—but ultimately it can do it's own injustice by giving the impression of getting inside an institution while remaining very much at a superficial level. 

Thanks for listening, and sorry to go on.  But this is important stuff—and I think really at the heart of our reason for existence in the blogosphere.      Amy