Today has been a very interesting Thanksgiving. I woke up to news that a good friend of mine, John Jones, had passed away while caught in a tight passage in the Nutty Putty Cave down in Utah County. John and I served in a bishopric together, and he and his wife are some of the most amazing people I've ever known. They were both going places, and this is the type of thing that is not supposed to happen. In addition to his wife, John left behind a daughter, and an unborn child. John's unexpected and tragic death lead me to consider the things I'm most grateful this Thanksgiving.
For me, right now, I'm most grateful for my religion. My membership in the LDS church has given me nearly everything I have. Service in the church has taught me to sacrifice and to lead in the right ways (something I still need a lot of work on). It has given me my wife, or at the very least contributed to my finding her (since we met at BYU) and giving me comfort to know that we will be together again after this life. It has brought me closer to my Father in heaven, and has helped to create who I am.
That kind of knowledge certainly has to be great comfort to Emily, and to the rest of John's family at this time. Surely they have some hard times ahead-- Emily is a widow, and John's children will never know their father. However, they will see and know each other again. Additionally, their religion creates a giant support group. There will be people, wherever Emily goes, that she can personally and intimately lean upon. That is something else I am grateful for about my religion-- it is something every church should provide to its members, and to its friends who are not members.
I've also thought about how grateful I am to have my wife and my family. They mean everything to me. I can't imagine life without Cate, or what it would be to have to go on without her, or for her to have to go on without me. This has also led me to consider how i live my life-- what risks i take, and how i make my decisions. Today, going 45 mph on a road bike doesn't seem all that worth it to me. I certainly should be more careful riding in traffic, and I continue to question some of the other risks i take. None of this is to suggest that what John did was wrong or foolish-- there was absolutely no way he could have known the danger of his situation-- no one had ever died in Nutty Putty, although several people have been rescued from the area where he got stuck.
Now for my policy argument of the day. Close Nutty Putty Cave. It's time. I have been there before, and enjoyed my experience. It's fun, but it is too dangerous. There is no way to sufficiently warn people of the danger or to keep people out of those tight caverns where becoming trapped is so easy. The current permit system, implemented after the last rescue, has proved insufficient to avoid tragedy like what happened last night. That's it.
I will miss John Jones.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Wanda Barzee Not To Testify?
A witness list released today for an upcoming competency hearing in the Brian David Mitchell prosecution for the abduction of Elizabeth Smart does not include Wanda Barzee, Mitchell's wife and accomplice in the kidnapping who recently pleaded guilty to kidnapping charges in what appeared to be a plea deal that would likely require her to testify against Mitchell in competency hearings and at trial. While the terms of the plea were never actually disclosed, it still seemed likely that Barzee would be required to testify against Mitchell to establish his competency to stand trial. The list still includes twenty-nine potential witnesses, but Barzee's testimony would have likely been the most damning to his defense of incompetency.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Wanda Barzee Pleads Guilty
Wanda Barzee pleads guilty to kidnapping charges stemming from her helping her husband, Brian David Mitchell in kidnapping Elizabeth Smart in 2002. Congratulations to the Utah legal system and the Smart family on taking a big step toward wrapping this case up.
What remains to be seen is whether Barzee struck a plea bargain (likely), whether she will testify against Mitchell in his upcoming competency hearing scheduled for November 30 (likely), and whether it will result in declaring Mitchell competent to stand trial for the kidnap and repeated rape of Ms. Smart.
What remains to be seen is whether Barzee struck a plea bargain (likely), whether she will testify against Mitchell in his upcoming competency hearing scheduled for November 30 (likely), and whether it will result in declaring Mitchell competent to stand trial for the kidnap and repeated rape of Ms. Smart.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Rethinking Legal Education
There has been a bit of buzz surrounding the changes that the legal world is going through due to the economy, especially surrounding the possible end of the "Big Law" model of practice. Recently, The Conglomerate blogged about the potential end of the "Big Law School" model as well.
It seems appropriate to share a not-so-modest proposal for dramatically altering the legal educational process to more appropriately tailor it to prepare future attorneys to be, well, attorneys.
First, the LSAT needs to be rethought entirely. Law School is, as far as I can tell, the only type of graduate school that determines in large part qualifications of candidates based upon their ability to perform on a logic exam. The problem here is that the LSAT is no real indicator of how well someone will actually perform in law school. What makes it worse is that no one is in a hurry to change that. Changes occur slowly over time, but nothing has been substantial enough to make the LSAT accurately reflect a student's preparation for law school. The exam should be more practical, focusing on procedure, the structure of the legal profession, even particular areas of law that will be tested on bar exams more extensively in the future
Second, law school should be reduced to two years. The old adage is that in year one of law school they scare you to death. In year two, they work you to death. In year three, they bore you to death. This is largely true in all areas of education and life (remember high school senioritis?), but in law school, it is much more costly than a number of different areas because the cost for an additional year of law school easily tops $50,000 at a number of different schools factoring in tuition, books, and cost of living without a steady income. Law schools are big on teaching students to "think like a lawyer." However, the third year of law school does not do much in terms of increasing a student's analytical skills. The cost of an additional year of law school is far too great for the marginal benefits that are received, so it should be reduced by a year.
Third, law schools need to stop focusing on theoretical underpinnings of different areas of law and rather focus on teaching how to practice in that area. This would reduce the faculty requirements at all schools, which would obviously leave a lot of professors unemployed (I've got a partial resolution to this that you'll read below), by increasing the demand for adjunct faculty in the form of local practitioners with experience in the field. Decreasing full-time faculty would decrease the payroll, which could significantly reduce the skyrocketing tuition prices of law school. This would also benefit legal educations by preparing students to practice right from the get go. Firms would likely be less reticent to hire students straight out of school because they will be profitable much more quickly.
Finally, create a one or two year-long Judge School for those who want to qualify for consideration to be a judge. This would provide positions for many of the current full-time faculty at law schools that would be out of work by the transition to adjunct faculty. In addition, it would create some type of heightened standard for potential judges to meet prior to being elected or receiving an appointment to the bench. Additional school would also provide judges the theoretical background that is often necessary in determining the law. Lawyers don't need as much theoretical education because their job is limited to zealous advocacy.
Making these changes will do a number of things. First, it will make potential law students more prepared and informed about what their getting themselves into before making serious financial commitments to it. This will also make them weigh the very real possibility of a law degree not paying itself off very quickly or even at all. Second, it will make law students better prepared more quickly for legal practice. Third, tuition fees will decrease. And, finally, it will preserve the theoretical education important in developing high quality judges for our legal system.
It seems appropriate to share a not-so-modest proposal for dramatically altering the legal educational process to more appropriately tailor it to prepare future attorneys to be, well, attorneys.
First, the LSAT needs to be rethought entirely. Law School is, as far as I can tell, the only type of graduate school that determines in large part qualifications of candidates based upon their ability to perform on a logic exam. The problem here is that the LSAT is no real indicator of how well someone will actually perform in law school. What makes it worse is that no one is in a hurry to change that. Changes occur slowly over time, but nothing has been substantial enough to make the LSAT accurately reflect a student's preparation for law school. The exam should be more practical, focusing on procedure, the structure of the legal profession, even particular areas of law that will be tested on bar exams more extensively in the future
Second, law school should be reduced to two years. The old adage is that in year one of law school they scare you to death. In year two, they work you to death. In year three, they bore you to death. This is largely true in all areas of education and life (remember high school senioritis?), but in law school, it is much more costly than a number of different areas because the cost for an additional year of law school easily tops $50,000 at a number of different schools factoring in tuition, books, and cost of living without a steady income. Law schools are big on teaching students to "think like a lawyer." However, the third year of law school does not do much in terms of increasing a student's analytical skills. The cost of an additional year of law school is far too great for the marginal benefits that are received, so it should be reduced by a year.
Third, law schools need to stop focusing on theoretical underpinnings of different areas of law and rather focus on teaching how to practice in that area. This would reduce the faculty requirements at all schools, which would obviously leave a lot of professors unemployed (I've got a partial resolution to this that you'll read below), by increasing the demand for adjunct faculty in the form of local practitioners with experience in the field. Decreasing full-time faculty would decrease the payroll, which could significantly reduce the skyrocketing tuition prices of law school. This would also benefit legal educations by preparing students to practice right from the get go. Firms would likely be less reticent to hire students straight out of school because they will be profitable much more quickly.
Finally, create a one or two year-long Judge School for those who want to qualify for consideration to be a judge. This would provide positions for many of the current full-time faculty at law schools that would be out of work by the transition to adjunct faculty. In addition, it would create some type of heightened standard for potential judges to meet prior to being elected or receiving an appointment to the bench. Additional school would also provide judges the theoretical background that is often necessary in determining the law. Lawyers don't need as much theoretical education because their job is limited to zealous advocacy.
Making these changes will do a number of things. First, it will make potential law students more prepared and informed about what their getting themselves into before making serious financial commitments to it. This will also make them weigh the very real possibility of a law degree not paying itself off very quickly or even at all. Second, it will make law students better prepared more quickly for legal practice. Third, tuition fees will decrease. And, finally, it will preserve the theoretical education important in developing high quality judges for our legal system.
An Open Letter to the Brigham Young University Administration: Professor Hiring
As we've discussed starting this blog, I have thought long about what I would like my first post to be about. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to attend a memorial service for Professor Michael Goldsmith, who recently passed away from Lou Gehrig's disease. He made an unbelievable contribution to the law school, and I thought I'd write something about him. The following letter is what I've come up with.
Dear Brigham Young University,
I write this letter partially as a tribute to Professor Michael Goldsmith, and partially to question the university's policy, from a religious standpoint, of hiring professors belonging only to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I do not question the policy based on our outward image, the ability to attract top faculty members, ability to attract diversity, or any other criteria, although I think good arguments can be articulated in these areas. I am a graduate of the Political Science department at BYU, and am currently a third year student at the law school. I have had several fantastic professors, but two that stick in my mind are Michael Goldsmith and David Dominguez at the law school. The experiences I have had in both of their classes leave me convinced that it is good for the students, and good for the university as a whole for non-LDS professors to have a presence at BYU.
I believe I understand the university's reason behind the policy. One of the aims of BYU is to provide a spiritually uplifting environment throughout the university. Essentially, professors of all subjects should also be, at least to some degree, religion professors. This has been evident at some point in every class I have taken at BYU, and I appreciate and support that goal. It certainly creates the type of experience that students could not receive at other schools. I do not argue that this is not a positive aim, or that we don't need religion in every class-- I think it is one of the most important parts of an education from a religious institution. The problem is this: I don't believe that non-LDS professors cannot accomplish the same goals. In fact, Professor Goldsmith and Professor Dominguez have done a better job of strengthening my faith in my own religion than many of my LDS professors (and I dare say even some religion professors) have.
Consider Professor Goldsmith. As I'm sure you are aware, he was a star member of the law school faculty. He was born in Israel, grew up in Queens, was a prosecutor, an assistant US Attorney, a member of the New York Organized Crime Task Force, and a member of the Federal Sentencing Commission. And he was Jewish. He recently died of Lou Gehrig's Disease after fighting it for more than three years. Even when his health was failing, he continued to teach although it required him to ask students for help with nearly everything. He humbly asked students for rides to and from his home in Heber, for help carrying his books to and from his office, and even for help adjusting his microphone during class when it was bumped out of place. Through his example of humility, we learned greater humility. By continuing on, even when it required so much effort from him and for him, he taught us courage and commitment to a cause. Indeed, that was his final message to us on the last day of the last class he would teach-- we needed to be committed to our causes. He exhorted his students to always do our best, and to creatively and passionately work for whatever cause we desired. Those are messages that will stay with me for life-- regardless of Professor Goldsmith's passing. We would be lucky if many of our LDS professors had such a profound positive effect on their students. I can think of few who have come close in my experience (again, not to say that I haven't had great professors).
Professor Dominguez is another example. His story of success is inspiring. He grew up in the gang riddled neighborhoods of Los Angeles. He attended Yale through affirmative action, and later graduated from Boat Hall Law School at UC Berkley. He went on to work as an attorney for the National Labor Relations Board, and has been another star faculty member at BYU Law School. He is also Catholic. His example is one of compassion and charity. He leads a group that works with the juvenile justice system here in Provo, and devotes a considerable amount of his live to aid underprivileged and underrepresented groups with legal problems. He is an example of what diversity should accomplish in academia. I am currently in his labor law class, and his views regarding unions are vastly different from any of the students in the class. He doesn't force his views on us, but has helped us understand another side of the argument, and has broadened our understanding of how others in different situations view unions. We need more professors like him.
Professor Goldsmith has left us, and Professor Dominguez will one day retire. My fear is that students will be cheated if they do not receive similar experiences. It is not in the school's best interests to pass up talented and devoted professors, who can help us increase our own faith and better exercise our religion, simply because of their personal faith. A key attribute for BYU professors, rather than religious affiliation, should be the ability and devotion necessary to inspire students to better live their faith. Certainly, there are too few able to do that outside the LDS Church, as well as in. We would be lucky to find another Michael Goldsmith anywhere in academia, and we should not restrict ourselves only to members of the LDS Church.
Sincerely,
Reasonably Prudent American
Dear Brigham Young University,
I write this letter partially as a tribute to Professor Michael Goldsmith, and partially to question the university's policy, from a religious standpoint, of hiring professors belonging only to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I do not question the policy based on our outward image, the ability to attract top faculty members, ability to attract diversity, or any other criteria, although I think good arguments can be articulated in these areas. I am a graduate of the Political Science department at BYU, and am currently a third year student at the law school. I have had several fantastic professors, but two that stick in my mind are Michael Goldsmith and David Dominguez at the law school. The experiences I have had in both of their classes leave me convinced that it is good for the students, and good for the university as a whole for non-LDS professors to have a presence at BYU.
I believe I understand the university's reason behind the policy. One of the aims of BYU is to provide a spiritually uplifting environment throughout the university. Essentially, professors of all subjects should also be, at least to some degree, religion professors. This has been evident at some point in every class I have taken at BYU, and I appreciate and support that goal. It certainly creates the type of experience that students could not receive at other schools. I do not argue that this is not a positive aim, or that we don't need religion in every class-- I think it is one of the most important parts of an education from a religious institution. The problem is this: I don't believe that non-LDS professors cannot accomplish the same goals. In fact, Professor Goldsmith and Professor Dominguez have done a better job of strengthening my faith in my own religion than many of my LDS professors (and I dare say even some religion professors) have.
Consider Professor Goldsmith. As I'm sure you are aware, he was a star member of the law school faculty. He was born in Israel, grew up in Queens, was a prosecutor, an assistant US Attorney, a member of the New York Organized Crime Task Force, and a member of the Federal Sentencing Commission. And he was Jewish. He recently died of Lou Gehrig's Disease after fighting it for more than three years. Even when his health was failing, he continued to teach although it required him to ask students for help with nearly everything. He humbly asked students for rides to and from his home in Heber, for help carrying his books to and from his office, and even for help adjusting his microphone during class when it was bumped out of place. Through his example of humility, we learned greater humility. By continuing on, even when it required so much effort from him and for him, he taught us courage and commitment to a cause. Indeed, that was his final message to us on the last day of the last class he would teach-- we needed to be committed to our causes. He exhorted his students to always do our best, and to creatively and passionately work for whatever cause we desired. Those are messages that will stay with me for life-- regardless of Professor Goldsmith's passing. We would be lucky if many of our LDS professors had such a profound positive effect on their students. I can think of few who have come close in my experience (again, not to say that I haven't had great professors).
Professor Dominguez is another example. His story of success is inspiring. He grew up in the gang riddled neighborhoods of Los Angeles. He attended Yale through affirmative action, and later graduated from Boat Hall Law School at UC Berkley. He went on to work as an attorney for the National Labor Relations Board, and has been another star faculty member at BYU Law School. He is also Catholic. His example is one of compassion and charity. He leads a group that works with the juvenile justice system here in Provo, and devotes a considerable amount of his live to aid underprivileged and underrepresented groups with legal problems. He is an example of what diversity should accomplish in academia. I am currently in his labor law class, and his views regarding unions are vastly different from any of the students in the class. He doesn't force his views on us, but has helped us understand another side of the argument, and has broadened our understanding of how others in different situations view unions. We need more professors like him.
Professor Goldsmith has left us, and Professor Dominguez will one day retire. My fear is that students will be cheated if they do not receive similar experiences. It is not in the school's best interests to pass up talented and devoted professors, who can help us increase our own faith and better exercise our religion, simply because of their personal faith. A key attribute for BYU professors, rather than religious affiliation, should be the ability and devotion necessary to inspire students to better live their faith. Certainly, there are too few able to do that outside the LDS Church, as well as in. We would be lucky to find another Michael Goldsmith anywhere in academia, and we should not restrict ourselves only to members of the LDS Church.
Sincerely,
Reasonably Prudent American
Let There Be Blog
Welcome to Reasonably Prudent American! We hope to toss another few hats into the ring by using both our education and our experiences in life to voice a different opinion on a number of different issues. We will primarily blog about politics and legal issues, but we will probably deviate from that often because we have a number of different interests. So sit back and enjoy the ride. Oh, and feel free to comment freely and openly. Although if it's spam, it's getting deleted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)