Words Matter

When I was in law school, I took a criminal trial practice class where the "final" was a trial. The case I had to try (as a prosecutor) for that assessment was a rape case (it was a different time) and the issue was whether there was consent (maybe not that different....). I made my opening argument, prepped, examined, and cross-examined witnesses, had evidence admitted, and then did my closing argument. After all the work that went into the trial, the jury (composed of undergraduates) decided in my favor and convicted the defendant. Was it the evidence or the skillful examination of witnesses that persuaded them? Nope. It was one line in my closing argument where I speculated that no one would chose a romantic moment in a car with the engine off on a cold February night. I hadn't even practiced that bit, it was impromptu, but the jury agreed that consent didn't seem likely under those circumstances. And that is when I learned that, in law, words really matter. An unscripted sentence could have changed things against me just as easily. 

Late last week I got an email from a frantic 1L. At their first TA "law school bootcamp" session, the teaching assistant had told an entire section of property about the "real reason behind the grading curve" and how it is requires that professors fail some students. They also explained the academic standards that lead to being put on probation.  I suppose if any of what the TA had said had been truthful, I would have been frightened too. Telling students that the curve is intended to prevent them from being able to transfer to another school because of a perceived low GPA was creative-- but entirely made up. Further admonishing them that the curve required professors to issue unsatisfactory and even failing grades was utterly false. And advising students that if their GPA was below a 3.0, they would be put on academic probation was just fake news. 

I cannot imagine why a TA would do this. Were they engaging in the ultimate flex by trying to make 1Ls impressed that they, the TA, had not fallen into any of these traps? Were they gatekeeping by making it seem as if 2L was only available to a chosen few? Were they trying to emulate a 'scared straight' session for 1Ls? Again, I will never know. But I do know that there are over 100 students in that class and certainly more than the four or five I heard from attended that session. If more students were frightened by this misinformation, I hope they are friends with the students I spoke to and were able to hear the truth. I did report this to our TA coordinator who in turn also gave our Dean of Students a heads up in case frightened students went there. 

It made me really look back at what I have said in orientation lectures and other classes. If you know me, you know I talk a mile a minute and attempt to be funny, but you never know what will actually come out of my mouth. I tend to avoid scripting my lectures and sometimes go rogue with improvisation. What if I inadvertently started a group scare? I hope I didn't and haven't heard that I did-but I am comforted to know that the students certainly received the message that I was someone who could speak truth to flexing in a pinch. 

In ASP, we sometimes deal with the most vulnerable students in law school. And while a glib turn of phrase can make all the difference in a mock trial, it won't always hit right.

Words matter.

(Liz Stillman)