Students retreating to their own corners is not good for legal education, the broader legal community, or society as a whole. At numerous law schools there have been controversies over who can speak, to whom, and under what conditions. At the University of California at Berkeley, nine student groups said they would not invite any speaker who supports Zionism (regardless of the topic of the event). In addition to the polarization caused by Fed Soc and ACS students, professors, and judges generally staying in their own lanes, the unwillingness of law students (of all people) to hear from people with different views than their own is getting worse every year. Moreover, my understanding is that both conventions are attended almost exclusively by folks whose values are consistent with the leadership of both organizations so that neither convention provides a good environment for across-the-aisle talk. But these folks are usually a distinct minority and rarely make an appearance at the galas and other big celebrations. For example, I was invited to Fed Soc this year for a panel on affirmative action. Some will respond that both groups invite a few folks from the other side to their national conventions. Although at the student level, these two organizations often work together to put on panels and debates, at the national level where it counts the most, both organizations put on highly partisan programs that increase polarization where the two sides barely speak to each other….

These two organizations, one conservative/libertarian, the other liberal/progressive, reflect the divisions in our larger society as well as our two-party system of politics. One of the the largest causes of this problem is the binary choice offered by the Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society. But if there's no one in the room arguing for different positions, compromise becomes much more difficult and stubbornness runs rampant.Įvidence of this polarization is all around us….Īs to legal education specifically, there are a number of factors increasing polarization inside law schools making it more difficult to break through the echo chamber. This development is troubling because echo chambers produce, well echoes, not meaningful attempts at compromises and solutions palatable to broad constituencies. But in a recent blog post, he makes some valuable suggestions on improving cross-ideological dialogue and reducing the harmful effects of polarization in the legal world:Įflecting society-at-large, America's law schools are becoming increasingly divided along political lines with both sides retreating to their respective corners. I rarely agree with prominent liberal legal scholar and blogger Eric Segall (see, e.g., our debate over originalism and my 2022 appearance on his podcast).

Berkeley dialogues