Guest Post — Kevin Washburn: The LSAT’s Key Role in Native Legal Education

THE LSAT’S KEY ROLE IN NATIVE LEGAL EDUCATION

By Kevin Washburn

In this morning’s post on Turtle talk, Mr. Jay Rosner asks what would it mean for Native Americans and law schools that seek to increase their numbers of Native students if the LSAT lost its leading role in legal education.

The answer: it could be bad. Very bad.

Indeed, it could kill the PreLaw Summer Institute (PLSI) at the American Indian Law Center located the University of New Mexico School of Law, which helps Native law students succeed in law school — and helps law schools recruit Native students.

The PLSI program, which is about to celebrate its 50th anniversary, began out of a desire to meet the federal trust responsibility to tribal nations in part by developing more Native lawyers.  It was supported originally with federal funding. It takes a couple of hundred thousand dollars each year provide travel and living stipends to the 25 to 35 students who attend the two-month PLSI program each summer and to pay the professors and staff who run the program. The professors are excellent and it can be a life changing experience for the students. Professors Matthew Fletcher and Wenona Singel have taught in the program, as have many of the other leading law professors in the field.

For years, the program existed at the whim of federal officials, some of whom were supportive, and some who were not. Its funding has tended to vacillate over the years and, indeed, for a couple of years in the 1980s, the program did not exist at all.

At least twice in the PLSI’s history, the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) has come to the rescue when the PLSI program lost federal funding. For decades, the LSAC has annually directed modest revenues from its reserves toward various pipeline programs for law schools, to help poor and minority students gain access to a legal education.

In times of crisis for the PLSI, funding from the LSAC has literally saved the program. In total, during the last three decades, the LSAC has provided more than $3 million in funding at various times to keep the PLSI program alive.

Most of us are ambivalent in legal education about standardized tests, especially the most important one of all, the bar exam. It is true that standardized tests can produce disparate outcomes in scores. No one who sees inequities in society will be surprised by these disparities. Psychometricians who design the LSAT work very hard to identify raw analytical ability and to minimize the advantages that “wealth” might contribute to test scores. But inequality in education surely exists in our society, and none of us are terribly surprised that it cannot be entirely eradicated from tests.

We should keep working on the perfect test that can find a way to eradicate any influence, even indirectly, that socioeconomic factors play. In the meantime, in light of the fact that the bar exam will always be an obstacle to be overcome for anyone seeking to become a lawyer, I am grateful for the pipeline programs supported by the LSAT, and I do not want to see them disappear.  Because of my own personal interest in pipeline programs, I have served within the volunteer board structure of the LSAC and am currently a member of the board. I also recently joined the board of the American Indian Law Center, which runs the PLSI. I am writing today not on behalf of either of these two organizations, but only myself.  From my perspective, the collaboration between the LSAC and the PLSI program has dramatically improved the number of Native American lawyers in the United States. Indeed, the PLSI program is sometimes called the single most successful program in Native American education. That program changed many lives, including my own.

I am glad that Mr. Rosner has asked what it might mean for Native American law school applicants and law schools seeking more Native Americans to lose the support of the LSAC as a leader in legal education. It is important that we all understand the answer: a program that has helped more than a thousand Native Americans succeed in law school in the last 50 years might be at risk. In sum, the answer is that it could be devastating for Native Americans seeking a legal education.

D.C. Circuit Materials in Butte County v. Chaudhuri

Here:

Butte County Opening Brief

Federal Answer Brief

Mechoopda Response Brief

Butte County Reply

Lower court materials here.

National Indian Law Library Bulletin(3/10/2017)

Here:

The National Indian Law Library added new content to the Indian Law Bulletins on 3/10/17.

U.S. Federal Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/federal/2017.html
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water District (Tribal Water Rights – Groundwater)
Desert Water Agency v. U.S. Department of the Interior (Standing; Indian Lands – Taxation)
In re Money Center of America, Inc. (Bankruptcy; Tribal Sovereign Immunity)
United States v. Marwan Sadekni (Indian Health Service Hospital; Jurisdiction)

Tribal Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/tribal/2016.html
Escalante and Lopez v. Sells District Council (Sovereign Immunity; Due Process)
Stoplman, et al. v. St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Tribal Council (Enrollment)
Father J. v. Mother A. (Child Custody; Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act)
Carter v. Creek Casino Montgomery (Civil Procedure)

State Courts Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2017.html
Rice v. McDonald (Indian Child Welfare Act – Application)

News Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/news/currentnews.html
We feature over 30 articles. One, in the Land & Water section, relates to a court victory regarding tribal water rights.

Law Review & Bar Journal Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/lawreviews/2017.html
Here are the articles featured this week:
Conceptions of Indigenousness in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
Money, mortgages, and the conquest of America.
Dignity as (self-)determination: Hopi sovereignty in the face of US dispossessions.
Make no bones about it: The need to reform the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
What about the children? Extending tribal criminal jurisdiction to crimes against children.

U.S. Legislation Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/legislation/115_uslegislation.html
Seven bills were added:
H.R.1274: State, Tribal, and Local Species Transparency and Recovery Act.
H.R. 1455: To provide for the restoration of Federal recognition to the Clatsop-Nehalem Confederated Tribes of Oregon, and for other purposes.
H.R.1417: To amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to provide that Alexander Creek, Alaska, is and shall be recognized as an eligible Native village under that Act, and for other purposes.
H.R.1404: To provide for the conveyance of certain land inholdings owned by the United States to the Tucson Unified School District and to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona.
H.R.1306: Western Oregon Tribal Fairness Act.
H.R.1476: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit individuals eligible for Indian Health Service assistance to qualify for health savings accounts.
H.R.1369: To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to revise and extend that Act, and for other purposes.

U.S. Regulatory Bulletin
http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/regulatory/2017.html
We feature a notice from the Bureau of Indian Affairs regarding an updated list of designated tribal agents for service of notice for Indian Child Welfare Act compliance.

Arizona Attorney Bar Journal Article on UPL and Indian Country

James D. Griffith has published “Tribal Jurisdictions and UPL” in the March 2017 issue of Arizona Attorney.

Federal Court Enjoins Arbitration in Employee Claim against Diné Development Corporation

Here are the materials in Diné Development Corporation v. Fletcher (D.N.M.):

3 Motion for PI

12 Response to Motion for PI

13 Reply

15 Motion for TRO

21 Response to Motion for TRO

23 DCT Order

Haudenosaunee CCTA Defendant May Not Use Indian Law as a Defense to Cigarette Trafficking Charge

Here are the materials in United States v. Tarbell (N.D.N.Y.):

24 Motion in Limine re Indian Cigarettes

29 Response

47 DCT Order on Motions in Limine

Federal Court Allows Tribal NHPA Consultation Claims to Proceed in Freeway Challenge

Here are the materials in Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California v. United States Department of Transportation (N.D. Cal.):

68 Federal Motion to Dismiss

69 State Motion to Dismiss

73 Tribe Response to State Motion

74 Tribe Response to Federal Motion

76 Federal Reply

77 State Reply

94 DCT Order Partially Granting Federal Motion

Guest Post — Jay Rosner: The LSAT vs. the GRE: May They Both Lose

The LSAT vs. the GRE:  May They Both Lose

The monopoly that the LSAT has enjoyed for decades in law school admissions appears to be eroding.  What does that mean for Native American law school aspirants, and for the law schools that desire to increase their number of Native students?

Up until yesterday, the fight to be able to use the GRE in law admissions instead of the LSAT had been led by the University of Arizona Law School, which had accepted a small number of students with GRE scores.  A few other law schools had been studying the possibility, but no other law school joined Arizona until yesterday, when Harvard Law announced that they too would consider the GRE from applicants.

For the foreseeable future, the impact on law admissions will be symbolic only.  Arizona and Harvard will each only accept a small number of applicants based upon their GRE scores, and until a few dozen more law schools join them, the total number of applicants affected may be a few hundred out of tens of thousands.  So, while the current discussion may have substantial implications years down the road, today’s applicants will find this a niche play at best.

The LSAT vs. GRE discussion will likely generate more heat than light.   Folks will look at their differences, which are worth noting:

  • The LSAT is a pencil and paper test, while the GRE is delivered on computer;
  • The LSAT is offered only 4 times per year, while the GRE is offered almost continuously throughout the year;
  • ¾ of the LSAT’s bubble sections, generating its score, are verbal, and only ¼ (one section, informally called “Games”) involves some math-related sensibilities, while fully ½ of the GRE bubble sections are straightforward math, and 1/2 are verbal; and,
  • Under the current rules, a student must report an LSAT score to a law school if he/she has taken it, so only students who have taken the GRE and not the LSAT will have their GRE solely considered.

What most LSAT vs. GRE comparisons will miss are the profound and important ways that these two tests are similar, and both deeply problematic.  Both are created by psychometricians using the same methods, so they share these significant characteristics:

  • They both generate significantly disparate results by gender, race and ethnicity, with Native Americans, Latinos and African Americans scoring much lower on both, on average, than whites and Asian Americans, and females scoring lower than males;
  • The foundation for these disparities could be revealed by item level data, which are statistics on individual test questions that test developers routinely refuse to release because they would expose the way that tests are designed to solidify and maintain those disparities;
  • Scores for both are affected by inequitable access to high-quality, often expensive, test prep, with groups like Native Americans penalized because Native students often can’t afford to pay for test prep courses; and,
  • What equity activists need to do is try to reduce, and even eliminate, the weight that any bubble test is given in any competitive admissions (or financial aid, etc.) decision.

While the last concept may seem fanciful in the law school admissions world, we now have many highly selective undergraduate schools, like Wake Forest, Wesleyan, Mount Holyoke, etc., that have years of successful experience with test-optional admissions policies that serve to reduce the bubble-test burden faced by URM students.

Any Native educators supporting either the LSAT or the GRE are, I contend, missing the forest for the trees.   Bubble tests are designed in a way that Native students are placed at yet another disadvantage in admissions, and these tests should be made optional until they are eliminated entirely.

It should be noted that multistate bar scores will tend to correlate with LSAT (or GRE) scores, since all bubble tests have high correlations with other bubble tests.  That’s not a reason to keep the LSAT; that’s a reason to make sure that all Native bar takers have the benefit of high-quality bar-prep courses to leverage their ability to get their best score on the multistate.

 

2017 Indigenous Law & Policy Center Fellowship Announcement

The Indigenous Law & Policy Center welcomes applications for the 2017–2018 Fellow position.

Position Summary

The ILPC Fellowship is a flexible position that offers one new law grad each year the chance to work in a setting that is both academic and clinical in nature. Depending on the particular interests of the Fellow, there may be more time spent developing academic articles, researching and writing briefs, interacting with students and legal professionals, or attending conferences centered on Indian law. Continue reading

Richard Wagamese Walks On

A talented author who used his gifts to draw attention to the intergenerational trauma faced by his family and many others as a result of the Residential Schools in Canada. Such a loss at only 61 years old. Our deepest sympathies to his family and friends.

Here is a link to the CBC article about his passing.