LET US HEAR FROM YOU!
We welcome letters to the editor on issues presented in the magazine. Email letters to wabarnews@wsba.org. All opinions, statements, and conclusions expressed in letters to the editor represent the views of the respective authors and do not necessarily carry the endorsement of the WSBA or its Board of Governors. Publication of letters to the editor is not to be deemed an endorsement of the opinions, statements, and conclusions expressed by the author(s).
Reflections On Wokeness
Ms. [Vitalich] and Ms. Keene missed the point of the criticism of wokeness. (Bar News, Inbox, November 2023). Either you believe we are born equal with equal opportunity or you don’t. They don’t believe it and find reasons to allege systemic factors make us unequal from the outset. I disagree and believe each of us are agents of our own destiny.
[Ms. Vitalich and Ms. Keene] believe one is born into one of two camps from which there is no escape: oppressor or oppressed. Karl Marx introduced this concept in The Communist Manifesto. His theory has been tried and led tens of millions to death in the last 100 years. He was wrong and so are they.
In the woke world there are no individuals, only identity groups. The identity groups began as capitalists and workers and have morphed into as many identities as can be imagined. For example, what has been understood since the dawn of time as a binary of male or female has morphed into as many nonbinary genders as a clever woke person can imagine. The identity groups elbow each other to overcome the latest discovered injustice which, to adopt Ms. [Vitalich’s] odd metaphor, is said to allow some to start the baseball game on third base.
[Ms. Vitalich and Ms. Keene] claim the solution to these injustices is to abandon all notions of equality as a colonial vestige of whiteness and replace it with equity. Equity does not mean equal; the opposite is true. George Orwell’s Animal Farm explained how in setting out to make us equal some always become more equal than others. Equity means those at the end of the game must share equally in the win, which is determined by identity and without regard to what was, until very recently, called merit.
The woke emphasis on identity sets us against each other. That is the fundamental criticism, and it never ends well.
Michael J. Bond, Mercer Island
More Fundamental Than the Bar Exam
There were several articles in the November issue of Bar News which espoused changing the bar exam because there is little to no correlation between the exam and effective lawyering, and it presents a barrier to the legal field for a disproportionate number of people of color. If both of these propositions are true then modifying the bar exam might not have the desired effect of allowing entry to more competent and diverse lawyers to the Washington State Bar.
Entry into the legal field is not often a linear journey. Some enter directly from undergrad, to law school, take the bar exam, and then are admitted. Some enter after having had a non-legal or legal-adjacent career in between undergrad and law school. And some enter in a myriad of other ways not captured in the traditional bar admission route.
What changing the bar exam does not take into account is that before an applicant can even think of submitting an application to sit for the bar exam they must complete undergrad, take the LSAT, fulfill other admission requirements, and then successfully graduate from law school.
If the goal of the WSBA is to produce a more competent and diverse group of lawyers for admission, I would think the starting point would be to insist on the adjustment of the admission practices of the three state law schools to account for the inequities existing in society which also prevent entry into the legal profession for certain groups of applicants.
All three law schools in Washington state rely on the LSAT (with Seattle University accepting the GRE) and GPA as the primary indicators of law school, and by extension bar exam success. One of the studies the [Washington Bar Licensure] Task Force cites as indicating that the bar exam does not predict performance of lawyers that pass was done by the LSAC and surprisingly concluded that the LSAT, its test, is a better predictor. I am willing to bet that a standardized test such as the LSAT probably has the same racial biases that are lodged against the bar exam. And I know that better performance on the LSAT can be gained with financial resources channeled into exam prep. Additionally, maybe there are other lawyers in Washington who, like me, have never thought that anything tested for on the LSAT had any bearing on their ability to practice law. Therefore, the lack of competency and diversity the Task Force is seeking to rectify will not come about by swapping out one test for another with the same failings. Even with one [of] the three Washington state law school deans on the Licensure Task Force this was not apparent.
Additionally the entire November issue of Bar News discussed how entry into the legal profession was out of reach to some applicants and that this was due to inequality in society as a whole. I think there are many individuals who are prevented from entering the legal field because they cannot afford either financially or for another reason to take three years off and go to law school. Currently only Seattle University has a part-time J.D. program. Gonzaga does offer an executive J.D. program, which is completed in two years, but it appears to cram three years of full-time law school into two. This might be even more burdensome and resource consuming than the traditional three-year curriculum.
The journey to admission to the bar does not begin when an applicant sits for the exam; it begins when they apply for law school. Even with the alternate pathways to admission discussed in this issue, some if not all of a law school curriculum is required. If the Licensure Task Force desires meaningful change in the population of lawyers admitted to the bar in Washington state it should really start with the law school admissions.
Michael Farrell, Seattle
Editor’s note: Washington’s Law Clerk Program is an alternative to law school authorized under Admission and Practice Rule (APR) 6.
Alternate Pathways > Rigid Old System
I am responding to “In Support of Other Options in Addition to the Bar Exam” and how to make the practice of law more diverse and inclusive as appears in the November 2023 Bar News. There is no conjecture about one point. Either mechanism—law school or the bar exam—does not prepare students to practice law. These mechanisms do disproportionately favor those who have a fortune in the form of relatives in the business or a job already made upon his/her graduation with an actual mentorship as part of the package. Not every attorney deserves to be admired or respected, but when an attorney through his/her life experience represents the best, the legal profession simply needs honest mentoring and that kind of leadership.
“Good character” is a standard that weighs heavily on honesty. Honesty includes self-restraint against the apparent push to expand ethical boundaries. As to character, just because someone hasn’t been in trouble with the law doesn’t mean they haven’t broken the law or bent the code (“cast the first stone”). The equalizer for nontraditional members or prospective members of the bar is that sort of mentoring or supportive environment that currently is met with UNMET NEED. If there is interest, then individuals can form their own support groups. The alternate pathways, as proposed, will make newbies from nontraditional backgrounds (ex.: American Indian, Black, women who place family first) less reliant on the same old rigid system, which is to complain like $*# while nothing ever improves. These alternate pathways are the best way to ensure that all graduates who practice law will measure up.
The practice of law isn’t intended to be an elitist club. It should be more about knowledge and concern for what most ails society. Corporate interests and deep pockets aren’t more important than the average citizen who is least able to protect themselves. Remember that equity merged into the law and weighs on the scale equally. As for me, I say the legal profession needs “more the merrier”!
Helen Nowlin, Glenoma
The Problem With DEI
The American Bar Association’s (ABA) suggested changes in the bar exam process prompt this letter. These changes replace equality, merit, and colorblindness with the ideology of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), a stepchild of Critical Race Theory (CRT).
Private corporations, educational institutions, and banks are on board with this ideology. Conversely, many states have or are in the process of taking legal action to ban DEI—but just not Washington state and just not the ABA or the WSBA.
There is an abundance of commissions and committees related to the WSBA which are “all in” when it comes to DEI: the DEI Community Listserv, Access to Justice Board, Washington state’s Alliance for Equal Justice, Equal Justice Coalition, Bar Structure Work Group, Alliance for Equal Justice, JustLead Washington’s Leadership Academy (formerly known as Equal Justice Community Leadership Academy), Judicial Institute’s Fellows Clinic, and the Gender and Justice Commission to name a few.
DEI in theory means acceptance of a wide variety of groups of people. But in practice it produces discrimination by tipping the scales in favor of certain identities and against other identities. The resulting discrimination reminds me of the reverse discrimination which led to the passing of I-200 decades ago.
DEI creates the very racist environment it seeks to eradicate, leaving me and I hope others to seek a return to the principles of equality, merit, and colorblindness. This is the true path to anti-discrimination because it tips the scales fairly in favor of ALL identities, something DEI simply cannot do.
Inez Petersen, Enumclaw
Letters to the editor published in Bar News must respond to content presented in the magazine and also comply with Washington General Rule 12.2 and Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1 (1990).* Bar News may limit the number of letters published based on available space in a particular issue and, if many letters are received in response to a specific piece in the magazine, may select letters that provide differing viewpoints to publish. Bar News does not publish anonymous letters or more than one letter from the same contributor per issue. All letters are subject to editing for length, clarity, civility, and grammatical accuracy.
*GR 12.2(c) states that the WSBA is not authorized to “(1) Take positions on issues concerning the politics or social positions of foreign nations; (2) Take positions on political or social issues which do not relate to or affect the practice of law or the administration of justice; or (3) Support or oppose, in an election, candidates for public office.” In Keller v. State Bar of California, the Court ruled that a bar association may not use mandatory member fees to support political or ideological activities that are not reasonably related to the regulation of the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services.