Students, faculty and staff of the University of Idaho College of Law were required to attend a mandatory diversity program Tuesday, which created controversy within the college.
The training was held in response to the American Bar Association’s suggestions to improve focus on professionalism toward diversity in particular, Don Burnett said.
Burnett, dean of the UI College of Law, said he and the law faculty took the suggestion seriously and created an obligatory program titled “Dialogues on Professionalism and Diversity.”
Dean Blake D. Morant of Wakefield University School of Law was asked to hold dialogue sessions for each law class in Moscow and Boise.
Burnett said he was optimistic about bringing Morant to the UI Law School. He emphasized the importance in the “global marketplace” of being educated in professionalism and diversity. Burnett informed students the training was mandatory. This obligation was met with resistance by some of the law student body.
According to the letter Burnett sent to his students, “In order to assure that all voices and viewpoints are represented, the law faculty voted unanimously to make the sessions mandatory for students, staff, and faculty alike … Attending students will have a certificate of participation placed in their student record files. Any student who does not participate, and has not been excused, will have a memorandum to that effect placed in his or her student record file.”
Some students interpreted this letter as threatening, said first-year student Stacey Haase. After the dean’s declaration, a group of students contacted legislators in hopes of reversing the decision to place a letter in an absent student’s file.
Senator Monty J. Pearce wrote in a letter to the dean, “Though this is an event of importance to the… College of Law… using the threat of a memo suggesting clearly that a student is unprofessional, bigoted, or both for not attending an extracurricular activity not part of the university’s course catalog is simply unacceptable.”
After receiving attention from legislators, Burnett wrote a response that said, “…I have apologized in two open forums with students with the seemingly harsh tone… My intent was to simply be open and transparent, but I could have chosen my words more carefully.”
Though apologetic, Burnett cited several sections of the UI Law Student Handbook that allow him to keep the program mandatory. He clarified that the memo would not affect graduation or raise a bar admission issue.
“The privacy of student files is protected by university policies and federal law,” he said.
Morant also wrote to UI law students to clarify his intentions.
“Sessions… do not constitute training with any political agenda,” he said. Morant said students may stay or leave during the dialogue.
“It was truly surprising to see the amount of negativity that came from students,” Haase said. “It’s just a little blip in reality. Experienced students understand that it’s a part of life. Opposing feedback overshadows the good intentions of the program.”
The law school, Haase said, has been an unpleasant environment since the creation of the dialogue program.
“The student body is literally divided in half,” Haase said. “Some students believe that we as law students should be well-versed in the matter and support the dean. Others agree with the sentiments of learning diversity and professionalism, but don’t agree that it should be mandatory.”
The exchange between Burnett and members of the state legislature was reported on by the Spokane KREM news station, Moscow-Pullman Daily News, Lewiston Tribune and abovethelaw.com, a blog.
“This ordeal reflects poorly on our law school,” Haase said. “Attention from the media has been alerting the legal population of our division.”
Each class attended a 75-minute session throughout the day of the dialogue event. Morant shared his personal experience with professionalism and how it impacted his career. After his presentation, he opened the forum to discussion among the students.
“I saw ‘Dialogues…’ as a vital tool for upcoming attorneys,” said Kendra Lotstein, a first-year student. “With education on professionalism, we will be able to recognize strengths regardless of race, gender or religion. I could not imagine seeing an attorney that could not communicate with their clients because of diverse views.”
While students like Haase and Lotstein feel optimistic about the influence the dialogues had on the college, others remain skeptical.
“Morant was a great person to listen to,” said True Pearce, a first-year student. “But I wasn’t aware of any hostility before the dean sent out his initial letter. Hostility arose as a result of the disagreements of the dialogues’ mandatory nature.”
According to Helen Albertson, Associate Dean of the College of Law, 10 students obtained excused absences and five were absent from the program out of the 360 law students. Morant held a final optional session from 4 to 5 p.m. Wednesday for students who were not able to speak because of time constraints during the dialogues.