From
the President
It isn’t for everyone, but…
President Don M. Randel on what’s truly
Chicago about the University’s Law School.
The Law School has celebrated its 100th anniversary
this academic year. Events throughout the year culminated in reunions
and a festive dinner at the Field Museum, attended by about 1,200
people, in early May. Even the Wall Street Journal took
proper notice. Its eye-catching phrase was “a nirvana for
nerds” (May 23, 2003).
If we had a high-priced public-relations firm
on retainer, this is probably not the phrase they would have suggested.
But the Journal article did capture something essential
about the Law School—and, by extension, about the University.
“The University of Chicago’s reputation as a bastion
of intellectualism extends, naturally, to its law school, whose
graduates are snapped up by firms seeking people who can think on
their feet and say what they think, persuasively, on paper.”
Just as important, the Journal observed, “The University
of Chicago isn’t for everyone.”
There is much to be proud of deriving from the
fact that, in fundamental ways, we are not like anyone else. Professor
David Currie’s centennial toast to the Law School last October
(see “Just Cause,”
—Ed.) described its founding principles as follows:
President Harper had a different idea, based
upon the heretical premise that lawyers should know something
about the world around them. The laws, he said, cannot be understood
“without a clear comprehension of the historical forces
of which they are the product and of the social environment with
which they are in living contact. A scientific study of law involves
the related sciences of history, economics, philosophy—the
whole field of man as a social being.”
Along the same lines Chicago attorney Adelbert
Hamilton…urged the adoption of a curriculum that was ambitious,
international, interdisciplinary, and comparative—including
courses in jurisprudence, which he prophetically labeled elements
of the law, and “social economics,” embracing “principles
of economic production and distribution, principles of international
trade and taxation… [and] the correlation of law with principles
of sociology.”
The history of the Law School has been, and remains,
true to this idea. The Law School’s embeddedness in the fabric
of the University as a whole and thus its connectedness to other
disciplines continues to set it apart. And its commitment to vigorous
and serious debate from all quarters guarantees that its relationship
to other disciplines is not a function of the winds of fashion but
instead of the pursuit of ideas wherever they should lead.
For example, although the Law School created
the study of law and economics and remains well known for this field,
its faculty and alumni represent a wide variety of opinion on this
and other topics. The list of distinguished faculty and alumni is
long and their interests many. A visit to the Law School’s
Web
pages (which includes a history of the school, a bibliography
of current faculty, and much else) will inspire not only its own
graduates but anyone who cares about what the University of Chicago
as a whole is and must continue to be.
As the Wall Street Journal pointed out,
“Throughout its history, the Law School has focused on ideas
and avoided fads.” This approach has made it the home of liberals
and conservatives alike and has enabled contributions to a wide
range of topics affecting how society should function. The consequences
around the world, not merely in the United States, have been considerable.
This is not about just cranking out a stream of lawyers. It is about
being an intellectual community prepared to work very hard at thinking
what the law is and ought to be in a world where justice is not
a simple matter.
None of us can avoid thinking these days about
the meaning of justice, both at home and abroad. We have been through
a (“mercifully” does not sound quite right, but one
gets the idea) short war, but peace remains somewhat distant. This
fact compels us to think about justice for what and to whom, about
the nation’s responsibility to notions of justice abroad,
and about justice for people living in this country regardless of
national origin, political views, and economic circumstance. We
are compelled to think about what justice implies for a fundamental
right to privacy. And having witnessed the great tax-cut debate
and its resolution, we are bound to think about what justice means
or ought to mean across the spectrum of the nation’s income
distribution. These are just a few of the kinds of things that a
Chicago education is good for thinking about. And that is because
people at Chicago have been thinking about such things from the
start.
“Nerds” is not the right word for
us if it means people who are lost in pursuits that seem merely
goofy in relation to life itself. But if it means people who understand
and live by the principle that ideas matter and that only ideas
can change the world for the better, then let us all sign up for
it. And let us be proud that this is the kind of University we are
and that lots of people seem to recognize it.
|