I received an interesting comment this evening, to my post about Civil Rights Ed. for Jr. High and High School. I have thought about what I wrote in that post, and have examined my ideas. Public education in general was once a radical idea. I do not whether my ideas are radical or common sense. And it appears, I am not alone in considering these ideas either! In this post I'm going to examine 2 things: 1. the possible effects of proposed Civil Rights education in Jr. High and High School, and something new--2. a proposal for the option to enter law school directly from high school (the UK model), bypassing 4 additional years of undergraduate work and college debt, thereby enabling more students to enter public interest areas of legal practice, for the good of all.
Making Civil Rights study mandatory--how could ANYONE argue against it? The only area of "cost" would possibly be higher taxes to pay for additional instructors/lawyers and curriculum--but any parent or kid considering the benefits and alternative, would be convinced this is a wise investment and return on their money.
In fact, I believe it would make jr. high and high school a lot more interesting. By jr. high, one is able to think, argue, and examine philosophies and structures. As a tangent, I also would advocate teaching such a class with a combination of ages and grades, to more effectively model the real world and allow older kids to mentor the younger on such issues. I believe groups or classes should be formed from pulling kids from 7th, 8th, and 9th grade, and that in high school, classes should pull from 10th, 11th, and 12th. Or, if high schools are 9th-12th, a combination of these grades, and in jr. high a combination of 6th, 7th, and 8th, or only 7th and 8th, depending upon how a school is already organized by grades.
And while some kids complain about the practical application of trig or creative writing in "real life", I believe they would be inspired to study civil rights. For one example: some kids, by that age, are getting into trouble with drugs and are already entering "the system". By becoming involved, and interested in something at school, this would then provide incentive to stay in school, as a way to become socially and street smart as to their civil rights. The incentive to stay in school leads to decline in delinquent behavior. They are learning about something that not only means something to them, but is empowering. Sports keep some kids off drugs, who are motivated to play sports. But there are plenty of kids with no interest in sports who fall through the cracks and who would be the type to embrace civil rights studies. The incentive? Learn the system, outside of the system. If a kid screws up, they should be allowed to apply their mistake to their learning experience at least once.
The rest of the public school kids, as well as those at risk for drop-out, who may actually have less hands-on experience with the system, would learn about it through projects, debate, lecture, discussion, and practice organizing a protest or fundraiser or even legislative measure.
Other simple practical things could also be covered, besides structure of government and laws. Things like, "How to Write a Complaint" to an organization; how to document communications and "get" and "put" things "in writing; and other proactive and defense ways of protecting ones rights. Even practical advice like keeping a disposable camera in the glovebox in case of auto accident. Some basic things people who may not be able to afford an attorney, should know to minimize and prevent risk to their liberties and rights.
To prevent kids from being bullied and turning into Columbine shooters, examination of civil rights torts for harassment, no-contact orders, intentional infliction of emotional distress. To prevent sexual assaults, early education about definitions of assault and case law and examples as a warning and to inform others of their rights. Civil Rights should cover not only torts but criminal law as well, the distinctions, and ethics.
Examination of the government structure and how a person or group may introduce change, in a practical way, with application. Studies of the state Bill of Rights and federal Bill of Rights.
How else does the general public protect themselves against corporate interests that seem distant but will directly affect their personal lives? How else do they gain confidence and understanding of the system enough to make it work for them, and go to the polls in droves? The rich get a private education, parents, and mentors, at any early age, to teach them these things, and how to operate in their best interests, at sacrifice of public interest and common good. They learn how to manipulate and take advantage of others in order to secure and strengthen their family finances. They get people elected, and make laws, that are self-serving and harm the public, with little protest. How? Exploitation of the ignorance of the public.
By the time kids are adults, in the working world, some before they are 18 years old, they do not have the time or energy to learn the ropes. They don't have time to research laws, or find out what their rights are, or how to navigate the legal and social resources; they are simply trying to support themselves. Some kids go to college. It is inevitable that some will not. Knowing our civil rights is a must for either path.
This would also create public interest jobs, in education, for attorneys. I believe the class should be taught by a licensed attorney, or team of 2, who will devote their energies and knowledge to the students: free legal aid (not representing individual cases, but providing instruction) for prevention, protection, direction, discussion, and guidance. It should be a right for every public school student to have this class, not a priviledge. What parent or student wouldn't want this? As for exemptions, someone could opt out for religious reasons, but why? when the class would also cover religious liberties and rights?
I would go further, to say at least 1 out of 3 years worth of law school could be accomplished in high school, through this class and an added emphasis which would be optional. I am thinking of the Advanced Placement model already employed by high schools, where students may take AP classes in various topics to earn college credit in advance. In the 11th and 12th grade, special emphasis classes as electives should be available, in order to accomplish more specialized instruction in law. In that case, the fees should not exceed fees for participation in sports or music or other activities. Additional jobs for attorneys would be created for the special emphasis class, and 2nd year volunteers from private law schools could participate as mentors and add it to their "community service" portion of their resume. Those at private law schools may still retain their brand-name or "tier" designations, but at least those who cannot afford private school will receive a chance to learn and obtain info from a sort of extensive "pre-law" emphasis that each public school would provide. If private law schools don't like the idea of public school students getting a head start in jr. high and high school, they can also offer their classes to private jr. high and high schools, to stay competitive, if racing against the clock is a factor.
In the special emphasis class, LSAT prep should be routine. No student of the class should be required to pay for a special LSAT prep course that runs into the thousands. It should be provided in the high schools, at minimal cost for perhaps books and a small registration fee.
The practice of law is specific. Bachelor's degrees may prepare students for scholastics, but they do not guarantee success in law school, or more importantly, in the real world. Law schools in the U.S. accept Bachelor's degrees in any major because they claim they are mainly looking for a foundation and proof of follow-through or dedication. However, law schools are corporations that are supported by other corporations. If a student comes into law school with college debt, and acquires further debt from law school, they are then obligated to take the job at the corporate firm which works for big business, in order to pay off their debt. This cycle eventually benefits law schools themselves...
Big Business rewards the corporate firm, and the corporate firm then gives big business a perk by making donations to the state Bar, and encouraging the corporate attorneys to win positions of influence within the Bar. When the Bar is in the pocket of Big Business, the corporate attorneys get a free pass or at least partial treatment when or if a complaint is alleged against said lawyers, for misconduct. Employees of the Bar, like Judges, are dependent upon votes for elections. Lawyers and the public vote for Judges, but only lawyers vote for Bar positions which influence the practice and regulation of lawyers. When corporate attorneys outnumber private practioners, or civil rights lawyers, with the potential majority of votes coming from corporate firms, those with authority within the Bar, and on the bench, have an incentive to pass judgments in favor of corporate firms and therefore Big Business, to benefit themselves and ensure their re-election.
Students faced with debt, "forced" into corporate law, benefits big business, which in turn eventually gives a return to the law school through the form of donations, contributions, and creation of law school alumni with deeper pockets.
In Europe, a student may go directly from high school (our equivalent of high school), to law school. They do not even call it "law school". In the U.K., students go to university where the "Law school" is simply the law department, like the science department, and department of social sciences, etc. It is a degree unto itself. Not only does this save money, where becoming a lawyer is possible in 3 years rather than 7 (4 years undergraduate and then 3 years law school), it gives students a head start on the practice. If a public school student takes advantage of AP law classes in their Jr. and Sr. years, they could eliminate the cost further to 2 years of law school, having earned credits for the 1st year already. Four years of undergraduate work may make a student "well-rounded" but it does not necessarily make a better lawyer. The LSAT is comprehensive and difficult enough to determine aptitude, and completion of high school with fair grades, should be sufficient for proof of stamina to the rigours of law.
I believe the U.S. should allow for both methods. The current U.S. way as an option, and the UK way as an option. Students from public high schools could go straight from graduation, to law school, with Civil Rights as a prep. If they want a brand name, or can afford to spend more money and time on college, they could elect to obtain a degree and then apply to law school.
Right now, law schools in the U.S. require undergraduate degree. In a few states, there is a "read-law" option where a student may study the law under the mentorship of a licensed attorney, without going to law school, and take the Bar. This option should also be allowed to continue. In the very few (5?) states that allow this, surrounding states have decided to apply pressure and discriminate. This creates a kind of monopoly on who is able to access the Justice System--benefiting law schools and Big Business. For example: In Washington state it is legal to aquire a license without going to law school. However, Oregon's state Bar passed a recent law (couple years ago) prohibiting such Washington lawyers from practicing in their courts. Therefore, while a law school educated lawyer has access to practice in various states, with very few additional requirements to obtain a license to do so, the "read-law" student is restricted from the same equal access.
The general public needs better education, through public schools, of civil rights. When many former lawyers enter politics, and serve big business and private interests, right under our nose, kids could be learning and discussing alternatives to counter these actions, and they can come up with ideas for change, before they acquire the legal right to vote as a citizen.
As the commenter to my last post on this issue pointed out, we are lacking civil rights minded lawyers. When students come out of 7 years of college, burdened with debt, their choices are restricted; far more students go into corporate law than not. This strengthens corporations. The few who choose or can afford to go into public interest, find fewer jobs. Making Civil Rights studies mandatory would create new and interesting public interest jobs for lawyers, at least in education. However, there is a serious need and shortage of civil rights/public interests attorneys who will litigate and enforce our rights. Out of the few civil rights attorneys, most require payment from their clients up front and as they go. The poor, the very same whose rights are trampled most, who cannot afford to pay these rates. Most volunteer lawyers organizations are stretched thin with resources, and take the easiest, most clear-cut and simple petty issues. No local volunteer agency will take on a case that, albeit with merit, and consequence, could cost them most of their time and resources in a complicated OR political battle. The general public is often oblivious to the cost of not getting involved. One citizens' seeming "personal" battle, unrepresented and defeated, may set precedent that affects the lives of many others in the long run. It is well known that some lawyers and firms will actually "create" battles with "opponents" who are on the same side for the sole reason of creating precedent in their favor (this happened in the case of Carrie Buck, at the turn of the century, who was sterilized without consent and brought to trial for the sole purpose of establishing the now overturned legal right of the state to sterilize those they deemed "unfit" for procreation). Where the purpose is not to set precedent, it may simply be a case of harassment--using the unequal provisions of the justice system to discriminate against a weaker party (poor, disabled, etc) for their benefit, interests, and sometimes even pleasure and satisfaction.
I asked once why it was a right for someone accused of a crime to have a public defender, but not someone who had their civil rights violated. I never got an answer. But I think I know. Both the rich and the poor have historically been accused of crime. It is more often the poor that are discriminated against or abused, with regard to civil rights, than the rich, which is perhaps why the laws, which were written by wealthier men, are empathetic in the right to a public defender for crime, but not civil rights. At any rate, for a lawyer to defend those who most often need a civil rights defense, he or she needs to be paid. And if their client is not paying them, and the adversarial party is the corporation or individual with money (which is practically always the case), how will they support themselves, or their practice? Quite often, there is even discrimination against the poor by a jury and usually Judge, so, knowing this, very few cases are brought to trial or even taken up for settlement. A lawyer usually requires a fiery personal passion for the cause to be willing to risk a civil rights case, and better than average requirement for evidence. How can a civil rights attorney support themself? and fight the good fight for the public interest? Few organizations receive funding to do this: the ACLU perhaps, and a few others. Some "public interest" groups such as government attorneys for the FBI or other agencies, are crippled by bureacracy and politics.
That said, with no provision for the right to an attorney for violations of civil rights, even police and those within "government" will continue to violate these rights with impunity. The rich and the corporations continue to strengthen, unchecked. There is no accountability and they have nothing to fear. No check or balance against harassment of the poor, civil rights abuses, discrimination, or unequal application of the laws. The unequal provisions in the law serves the rich. The rich grow richer and stronger, and the poor grow poorer and weaker, victims of the system and defenseless as some lawyers, who may wish to assist, are also paralyzed with the fear that representing such a group will be taking on a war against Goliath, and know it is unlikely they will be victorious. These lawyers do not have the resources to fight the big dogs, and have already seen the "examples" made of "silly" idealistic attorneys who put principles a priority over "business" sense. Law schools enforce this idea, teaching students they are fools if they try to fight this, and that the cost will be bankruptcy and failure. Public school students are not the only ones prepared to be "grist for the mill", the very students who may enter law school with a dream of helping others are brainwashed and deconstructed to be this same "grist", lawyers who will not challenge the status quo or are afraid of doing so. Because so many attorneys have gone to the side of private interests and are corrupt themselves, the public loses faith in the ability of lawyers to create change and protect their rights. The lack of support for the rights of the poor and middle class, from attorneys, leads to lack of support for lawyers to fight a good fight and vice versa. If the public does not realize that even lawyers are being brainwashed by the system, they are unsympathetic and blind to the problem, making them less likely to organize together with attorneys, and less likely to make contributions to the public interest causes some lawyers may wish to defend or fight. Citizens and good lawyers are then isolated from one another, which is exactly what the rich minority, which holds 80% of land and monies in the country, want. Without trust between citizens and attorneys who wish to help, nothing will change. It is true that many attorneys serve their own interests and even "make deals" with the richer adversary, to benefit themselves rather than their clients. But citizens must be on the active look-out for lawyers who do show promise to create change, who have ethics, and find ways to support them so they are empowered to serve us. Even the middle class, if they can afford to pay for a lawyer when needed, are affected by the imbalance of powers when the poor are oppressed. When the rich gain power and use the current system to bully the poor, this strengthens the rich, and eventually makes it more difficult for even the middle class to fight their own battles against the rich or private interest. Additionally, that "private" and "personal" battle leveled against a poor person by the rich, may be an attempt to set precedent through the weakest link. Knowing this, the middle class could be looking for opportunities to support public interests by making donations and supporting civil rights lawyers.
Therefore, we the people, finding ourselves without protection against such schemes, and subject to continued violations of our civil rights; having witnessed the increasing powers of private interest at cost to public good, by unequal distribution of resources, should demand every public school to serve the public interest and level the playing field by improving the position of the public school student through education on rights and how to effect change. Secondly, we should demand a change in law, to provide the option for direct entrance from high school into law to alleviate the burden of debt and involuntary servitude of law students to corporate firms which serve Big Business, and free students to work for public interest.
Finally, someone needs to start providing incentives and grant monies for the EQUAL defense and protections of civil rights, and the law should be changed to either provide for the RIGHT of representation for civil rights cases for the indigent or poor, where it is clear the other party, Plaintiff or Defense, is monied and has an unfair advantage and access to the courts, simply because of a great disparity of resources and political clout.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment