 Good afternoon everyone and welcome to today's pop-up installment of integrating doctrine and diversity speaker series. This one is moving beyond the box and reconsidering the criminal history question on law school applications. My name is Michael Donnelly Boylan he him is and I serve as the associate dean of enrollment and strategic initiatives here at Roger Williams. I want to begin this event the way we begin all events at Roger Williams University School of Law and take a moment to reflect on the lands on which we reside. We are coming from many places and we want to acknowledge the ancestral homelands and traditional territories of indigenous and natives peoples who have been here since time immemorial and to recognize that we must continue to build our solidarity and kinship with native peoples across the Americans and across the globe. Roger Williams University School of Law is located in Bristol Rhode Island. And so we acknowledge and we honor the Narragansett and Pocanoca people, as well as so homes the original name on the land on which our campus resides. We also acknowledge that this country would not exist, if not for the free enslaved labor of black people, and we recognize that the town of Bristol and the very land on which our campus resides have benefited significantly from the trade of enslaved people from Africa. The economy of New England of Rhode Island, and more specifically Bristol was built from wealth generated through the triangle trade of human lives. During this time of ongoing national reckoning with our history of slavery and the disparate treatment of black people. We honor the legacy of the African diaspora and the black lives knowledge and skills stolen due to violence and white supremacy. While the movement for justice and liberation is building, and we are witnessing the power of the people. Many are still being met with violence and even being killed. As up holders of justice, our hope is to become agents of change for members of our society who've met with violence physical mental emotional through our privilege. And as up holders of justice, we believe that our students who will soon be practitioners of law can be an already are agents of change as well. Thank you. With that, let me introduce our moderator for today's event, Nicole the slusky, who will be in and thank her for using her integrating doctrine and diversity platform to host this very important pop up conversation. Nicole. Thanks Michael. Welcome to our first pop up event. Today's event will be all about reconsidering the criminal history question on law school admissions applications. We're considering this a pop up event on one because it sounds fun. But two, because the topic isn't focused on pedagogy like the rest of our series, but we are so happy to be convening this important conversation today. I'm Nicole. I'm the director of special programs academic fairs here at Roger Williams. And today we have a star started panel from both posts. I'm going to take a minute to introduce them. This is a 90 minute session today, because it is going to take me a few minutes to introduce them in a way in which even begins to do our panel justice. So our first speaker or panelist is Karmia Caesar. And she is the associate dean for justice, equity, diversity and inclusion at the George Washington University law school. Karmia is the chair of the section for law school diversity, equity inclusion, and belonging profession. Gaila Jacobson is the executive director of admissions at CUNY School of Law. Gaila founded the national consortium of public interest law schools and is actively involved in the law school admissions council. Lorraine Lawley is the associate dean of student life and operations at Roger Williams University School of Law, where she works with senior university and law school administration to support law students in their academic professional and personal goals. Lorraine is active in a variety of organizations and is currently the secretary of Nelson. Mark Ramirez, who is not here yet, is a practicing attorney and likely the reason he is not here yet is because he is not an academic. And he's a public defender in the Bronx. For the last six years he's represented people accused of all levels of offenses in the Bronx. He advocates for his clients at every level of their criminal case from arraignment through resolution. Kristen Thies Alvarez is the dean of admissions and financial aid at the University of California Berkeley School of Law. She is currently a member of the LSA Board of Trustees and chair of the LSA diversity equity and inclusion committee. I want to start the discussion today by making it clear that today is not a debate with two sides. Rather, this is a conversation about a potential change law schools can make to their admissions process, which may have ramifications on schools and students. And also may have ramifications on diversity, both at the legal education level and in the profession of law itself. I don't want anyone listening today to think that the people in this discussion are being pitted against each other based on their school's policies or their role in the institution. Rather, this is just an attempt to have an open and honest conversation about policies which impact legal ed. And a further conversation about why it may be time to change that policy. So everyone here understands how importantly all of our panelists view these issues and the accessibility of legal education to all. Kristen, my first question is for you to start us off, I wanted to share a quote from a 2019 report titled, unlocking the bar, expanding access to the legal profession for people with criminal records in California. The report states, the moral character requirement has sorted origins. Its rise was motivated in part by nativist, ethnic and anti Semitic biases, and it has been used as a means of restricting the admission of black, Jewish and immigrant applicants. As late as the mid 1980s, it was being used by some states bar examiners to deny admission based on applicants peaceful protest activities and sexual orientations. Kristen, can you share some historical background on the topic. A 2021 study stated that 195 of the 196 schools surveyed make at least some inquiry into an applicant's criminal history. Why do law schools typically ask about criminal history on their applications. What why is this not just left to character and fitness questions when students attempt to pass the bar exam and become lawyers. Thanks, Nicole, and thanks, Michael. When I saw this question, my first response was, no, no, no big question there, Nicole. That's not challenging or broad or difficult. And so I thank you for the question I think it's an important one. I do think it's important to locate myself sort of squarely in the admissions and financial aid space I work in some other spaces too. I'm really thinking about this in terms of from an admissions perspective, but in terms of a broader frame and to address your question specifically about sort of the history and context. I do think there's a little bit of like a theoretical discussion to be had, which is sort of what is professionalism and what is competency, I'm not going to linger on that. I think it's important to place it there to me, we mostly agree that we don't want attorneys that aren't competent, but we also probably mostly agree that we could really critique the concepts of professionalism, and you see the need for things like the Crown Act to correct against hair discrimination and other kinds of expressions of deployment of professionalism in an exclusionary way that persists to this day. And it is true that anything that sort of sits between those two things like character and fitness is a subjective amorphous place, kind of based on old school ideas, rooted in concepts that most of us struggle with now like being moral corruption and attitude that in then have deeply racist sexist anti Semitic ableist homophobic and frankly, classist roots. So, I mean, I, we can go to the historical record. It's an interesting one. I won't go into it. But it but it is fascinating if you look at the history of the profession. So what I'm was super curious about is the second part of your question which is, why do we ask. I spent a lot of time thinking about that and also asking other people, why we ask, and I have come up with five general responses. And so this is a little bit of a thought experiment which I would encourage people to think about if you were in the admissions office and someone asked you why do we ask this question what would your answer be. What I have found is that it's usually some combination of these non mutually exclusive things. We, the admissions office need to be able to evaluate the applicants character and fitness to be a lawyer. We need to be able to evaluate the applicants character and fitness not just to be a lawyer but to be a member of our law school community. Third, we need to be evaluated the applicants ability or likelihood of being admitted to the state bar to which they apply. I'm sure candidate is being honest candidate complete in their disclosures because not doing so both concerns us generally and implicates the first two issues. And number five frankly is just I'm not sure, like I was told to ask that question it's been there for 10 years. The irony for me is that the admissions office is probably the most poorly positioned office in the law school to be able to assess the answers to any of those questions. We're not a state bar committee. Frankly, not all of us are members of the bar nor we trained as attorneys. We admit people from all over the country in the world we have no idea where they're ultimately going to apply to practice law nor what that particular jurisdiction might require to qualify for admission. We don't work directly with current students generally speaking in a role that provides us with significant insight into student behavior and conduct we are not the dean of students, usually. We actually can't tell if someone is being honest if they choose to omit information. And ironically, we do invite applicants to update their materials post matriculation updates which we as admissions office might not ever even be aware of which creates sort of a strange incentive. And then it's not us who certifies students for the bar, nor do we generally keep abreast of year to year changes and that process or requirements across jurisdictions. So you can see that this is not a very good job for us to be doing and it immediately implicates to borrow from criminal law, a question of the probative value of the question versus the prejudicial effect of it. I have thought about this great deal and I do think there are sort of four reasons that often when you dig a little deeper people start to reach for when asking about why. And one is that they, they start to express concerns about faculty staff or students safety in law schools. Sometimes there's a strongly felt feeling about there being some act so egregious that no one who has committed them should ever be eligible to be an attorney. The third is that we think we have a consumer protection role and we shouldn't be admitting students who will then spend three years earning a degree in hundreds of thousands of dollars to go into debt. The fourth is that we think a bar will let them be an attorney, or for we think that we should be concerned about someone's sort of ability to follow the rules and laws of our society if they're going to be entering into a program that ostensibly prepares them to enforce the rules and laws of our society. And that's one of the reasons why each of those things if any of them resonates with you, because in fact, I believe that if we thought any of those four questions were really important we would actually be asking for different disclosures. If the concern was safety we would ask for a history of domestic violence including patterns of arrests without charges being filed assault or other violent crimes we'd ask about gun ownership. This has ever been the subject of a temporary or other restraining order. If the concern is a bright line at the extreme end of past criminal conduct, then we should ask about those issues specifically and not others, and we should say up front that no one with certain convictions is eligible to apply. If we think you have a consumer protection role to play then we should start asking our state bar to create a pre qualification process that someone who's just to see some impacted could avail themselves up before applying, which might result in a preliminary determination of eligibility for membership in the intended jurisdiction, and then we could accept that pre qualification letter as totally dispositive and not require any further explanation. Basically if we think we should be concerned about someone's ability to follow the rules and laws of society, then we should be collecting information about conduct, regardless of criminality, including compliance with orders for child and family support past debts, filing and so on, and in fact most state bars ask about those kinds of things, but schools don't, which I think is also suggestive of the sort of role that these questions play that is not actually directly related to any of the cited purposes for them. If I were forced to say why I think we do it, I would say that admissions offices willingly or unwillingly are one half of a candor trap. We collect the information in a high stake situation the students come and study and graduate, we then complete a certification process for them to apply to the bar and send those admissions materials. So I'm really excited, compares mission materials with bar application materials. And if there is a conflict or something that wasn't disclosed it triggers a, an additional process to me no other explanation given the structure of the system makes any sense. If we are not setting the trap, the bar cannot spring it. We might think this is a greatly to exclude people who really shouldn't be lawyers, or we might think this is a terrible way to extend and amplify the punishments of a crafted unjust system. But we should be acknowledging that that's our role, and we should be exploring how we might challenge it. Thanks. That was great. I have two reasons but one is that you talked about sort of a thought experiment, and I had a similar sort of entry into this as I was prepping for this, I thought about, hmm, I teach about mass incarceration. And the idea of like you're not judged by the worst thing you've ever done, the system is set up to allow for second chances you do the crime you pay the time, and then you get out and go live a life. At the same time, like the lawyers being such a big part of the criminal justice system, we're also like saying that's not enough. And here we need to have like another set of punishments for people. And I thought, wow, the same school who is teaching about mass incarceration and prison abolition is also sort of teaching is also sort of engaging in this practice. And it gave me sort of a, hmm, there are some things that could be reconsidered in all of us. Yeah, sorry, I just wanted to say that if people are interested the national inventory of collateral consequences of conviction is a great resource, and it currently catalogs about 40,000 official restrictions that limit or exclude people with convictions of missing employment education and more in the United States. Most of us would agree that that's egregious, and for a variety of reasons, and yet absolutely we are participants in it in a particular kind of way. And I literally teach that database in a required class here at my law school, and yet still it took me thinking about it in this way to think, hmm, maybe there's something problematic about this. So, according to two authors who reviewed this question in a 2021 Stanford law and policy review article, ABA standards do not require a criminal history inquiry on law school applications. Instead, the ABA mandates only that law schools notify applicants that are an incident in their past may prevent them from admission to the bar. So this isn't like a requirement. The requirement is actually something else. And so I'm going to add gala to the conversation at CUNY where you work. The school announced in May 2022. It was removing a question about criminal history from its admissions application becoming the second law school in New York to do so. Can you talk a bit about what led up to the decision at CUNY and at the state bar level, and why the decision was made. Oh, you're muted. I saw the sign. Thank you. Thank you. So, there was movement on this issue in both New York State as well as specifically at the law school so I will describe each of them. In New York it's question 26 on the bar application, and a group was formed in 2021 as part of the New York bar association to assess if the question ran afoul of the New York State human rights law that was at the request of the New York City Bar Association. And so preparing to publish an article in January of 22, discussing the committee's recommendation to actually limit the question. We received an email from the work group chair to confirm that CUNY still had not eliminated the question on criminal history. And it was quick for two to timing as I was currently writing up the agenda for the next admissions committee meeting. So, a year or so prior I had been approached by a member of our formerly incarcerated law student advocacy association, Philsa, to do an interview on demystifying the law school application process for justice impacted students. And we've been working together on some projects ever since. And in February of that same year 22 the UTB unlocked the bar, which Philsa members were a part of produced the case for abolishing the character and fitness process. So I asked our students to attend the next admissions committee meeting to discuss removal of the question. So understanding the racial implications that Kristen's laid out and the effective being justice impacted has on potential law students, but also knowing how important it as it is to have people who not just know how the system works on paper, but how it works in practice. We're actually defending people who are who are grappling and struggling with arrests or convictions. We really talked about the ramifications that removing the questions would have for our students and for our community. And they were interested in the practicality of removing the question of the application, not so much on the heartfelt side right we wanted to know what does this actually mean if we remove these questions. So we had a lot of questions which were what impact would it have on our students with the bar penalize them for not disclosing their history on our application, even if we didn't ask with the school run afoul of a ba regulations which you have assured everyone it is not. And with the school be able to adequately prepare students for the moral cleric or portion of the bar. And finally with their people potential for harm to our community. They actually got to work they contacted each of the appellate jurisdictions in New York state asking if students could be penalized for not disclosing prior criminal history to a law school, even if the law school had not asked. And three of the four jurisdictions confirmed that no they would not be penalized. One actually went into quite a bit of detail. And then one did not reply at all. And one of the constituents of the law school the bar support team registrar academic affairs, the dean. And one of the things that we learned is that even or that I learned is that even though Florida bar asked about mental health history we have a form letter, we send when our students apply that explains that we do not ask that question. And it seems to be precedent for trying to not trying to conform our questions to every possibility from every state and jurisdiction, as Kristen's mentioning. And so that kind of left our final concern which was would there be a potential harm to our community. I also spoke with the vice dean of admissions at Buffalo who would remove the question after governor Cuomo adopted a similar policy for government entities. To the newly passed New York City Fair Chance Act, which was basically banned the box in 2015. And they had not suffered any repercussions either with admitting students to the bar or with campus safety, though they did still ask the question after acceptance of people who are either intending to live on campus or when they were applying to clinics to eliminate conflict. So we reached out to the clinic dean as well and they indicated that they do not reference the admission application. So, ultimately, our admissions committee considered the student findings and voted to eliminate the question on our application at their final meeting in spring of 22. And I think there are a lot of arguments supporting removal that fall into really two categories in my mind, which are the implications on the individual applying to law school and the potential for impact on systems, both to the law school profession and the criminal justice system. So, we considered things like we're further punishing those who have already paid their debt to society which you have both just spoken about. You know, one of the things that I think we fear when we are talking about, you know, is this going to be a harm to our community to our campus, etc. Is that people are going to repeat these behaviors. But we find that recidivism is really connected to lack of opportunities lack of hope and taking away another opportunity and the hope for creating a better future seems to be counter to the idea that we could that we could make that change. And, you know, one of the reports that you put in here the Stanford report cited that for every one student who's denied admission at the undergraduate level due to character and fitness questions 16 individuals self exclude from even applying due to fear of being rejected to disclosing criminal history and knowing that the racial implications of our criminal justice system are so vast that obviously disproportionately affects people of color from being a part of the legal profession, and of being a part of transformation of the criminal justice system, which is so desperately needed at this time. I think it is a systemic issue that is experienced disproportionately by black indigenous and people of color. And I think part of me, like my personal experience and admissions as Kristen indicated we're told that we need to ask those questions we are given sort of a blueprint for what we say to students that have criminal history and are asking, you know, am I going to be judged by this today on the application. Our advice for so long has been, you know, take responsibility for your actions and indicate how you won't have this happen again. And like, what if you're arrested for being black, you know, like you're arrested for driving while black you're arrested for writing the subway while black you're arrested for walking down the street while black you're arrested for wanting to be called black. It seems short sighted to tell people to take responsibility for their actions when we have a system that we know is so intent on penalizing those who have not historically had power or have historically been excluded for power. So I know I've taken a lot of time but I just wanted to add that the students played an integral role in making this possible. And I'm so excited to see that now Phil said it's getting calls from student organizations across the country, asking to help them strategize and what are your how to use on moving this forward on our campus so there is a real appetite for this. And I think that one of the things that is felt the most exciting to me about working in law admissions and in my career has been to be able to make systemic changes from my vantage point and to be able to say I can be a part of the solution. I'm not just admitting law students so that they can be part of the solution I can be a part of this too. So I will end there. Thank you. I'm glad to hear that your students are open to talking to students from all over about making changes. I'm glad to hear that you all spoke to Buffalo. I mean I've seen sort of in reports saying, you know, nothing terrible has happened but I also like to hear it from you that you spoke to them and nothing terrible has happened. And I also like that part of your job can be that there was injustice compounding injustice, and you're able in your role at the law school to do something about that. Thank you. The criminal history question is one of gatekeeping. We need to ask ourselves who is being kept out by these questions. T Andrew Brown, the 124th president of the New York State Bar Association stated that the criminal history questions on bar admissions application quote, has driven away untold black and Latino students who are subjected to the scrutiny of law to an extent unimaginable to their white counterparts said another way. The 2019 Stanford report I mentioned before states, because applicants are screened based on their criminal records. The moral character review process will likely reflect the racial disparities that plague the US criminal justice system as a whole. Such screening is likely to perpetuate the under representation of racial minorities in an already exceptionally non diverse profession. From your perspective as associate dean for justice equity diversion and inclusion. Karmia, can you share a bit about your point of view on criminal history questions on law school applications. Hi, thanks, Nicole. So, I mean, obviously, I'm not directly involved in in the work of the selection, although you did ask for my opinion, which like most lawyers I'm willing to give on anything at any time. You know, Christian brought up a lot of like the compartment, the four compartments of why do we ask this question. And I think the sort of in class response to that in terms of analysis to me is, well, what are the alternatives, right, aren't there easier ways to accomplish, or are there other ways to accomplish the goals of an admissions committee that are not unduly burdensome and career administrator, right, is it administratively unfeasible right because that's so much when we sit in rooms and figure out policies, is it just too burdensome for us to pull this off. And I would say no, I would say that there are alternatives. And there's so much brainpower just on this call. I, you know, if it were an industry push, I think it is, I think it is doable. I think also that in so far as part of the purpose of the question is to keep the scoundrels out of our community. And one need to only open up the disciplinary page of a law journal to see that whatever we're doing is not working. And so you can do that. I can also tell you all of the war stories that are told at my high school reunions, because I attended schools of privilege my entire life and it's, it is, it is striking painfully striking to anyone who has done even like misdemeanor defense work. And see that people spend a lot of time in jail for things that are ignored. When someone has the power of privilege. And that's without even introducing a racial component to the, to the point of the quote that so many people are deterred. I mean, this question. I mean, to me it's really, to me, it is a straw, or something heavier than a straw on the back of a Campbell on a camel's back. There is so much else deterring black and brown perspective applicants, I think, from considering law school because of how insurmountable a task it could be. Right. And so, in counseling people who are interested in law school, the obstacles that they face that have nothing to do with the box even. So the fact that this is sort of added as almost a safety net for of exclusion, right, if we could not keep you down with this with all of these other things that compounded the racism and racialized capitalism and oppression and of our nation, we're just going to add this question, right, because we're going to reach back into the things that worked really well for us, right, like you having to carry your papers. I institutionalize that into a form. And so to me as someone, and I should probably have said first, I speak on behalf of myself and not on behalf of the institution for which I work. So many of the battles that we are facing now as people trying to make change trying to make progress. The battles against, not the vestiges of slavery but the components of slavery being being formalized in the institutions with which we deal. The last thing I'll say is Nicole when you mentioned that in your class you teach about these things and then we are discussing them here and it seems somewhat in Congress. I mean it's somewhat in Congress that we do land acknowledgments, right that we are saying we're grappling with this history. Yet here is this piece of the history at the center of the conversation that we're having right now. I would also actually that was not my last lease so I think that's that struck me, that struck me right when you said, oh my gosh this is happening in class and I said oh my gosh this is happening every time we open our mouths and say this land is not ours and this was, you know, improved by by uncompensated labor and this this this harsh racialized capitalism and isn't that what we're doing with the question. And lastly is in part of my work, I deal with a BA standard 303 C right that our mandate as law schools to give law students instruction twice on bias cross cultural competency and racism. Well, do we teach them about this. Do we teach them about the standard. The interpretations of the standards 303 B included speak about our need to teach law students as part of their professional identity formation right about these things. There are points in the ABA standards that speak to our obligation to teach students about eradicating bias and and racism within our profession. If that's the charge from our accrediting body, then perhaps we have to reconcile this this practice and ask ourselves, sort of globally, even, can we satisfy the standard. If we are taking an action that is that contradicts the standard as part of our admissions process. That was great it took me on a real journey. There are parts in what you said that made me so hopeful. Right, we are having this conversation we are talking about this in class the ABA is requiring us to do some of this. And at the same time, I feel so deflated and like the incremental change is not enough. At the same time, it's just so self reflexive we just keep looking at ourselves and finding that we are lacking in different ways, but the work is to keep on going. I'm going to kind of sort of ask the same question to Lorraine Lorraine you are up next because criminal history questions are different at different institutions. It's helpful to call applicants to law schools, or the bar justice involved or justice impacted. According to one LSA see report justice impact individuals, quote, include those who have been incarcerated or detained in a prison. In the detention center local jail juvenile detention center or any other carceral setting, those who have been convicted but not incarcerated, those who have been charged but not convicted, and those who have been arrested. And quote Lorraine. The criminal history question on law review applications is a gatekeeping question. It serves to keep some students in and some students out. As we as Kristen mentioned, one common reason for keeping those who are justice impacted out is by excluding or discouraging students who are justice impacted from applying to law schools, law students professors and administrators may be safer. Can you share from your perspective as an associate dean of student life and operations, why these types of questions may be important for an institution. You're muted. For some muted. So thank you Nicole and first I want to just thank you for convening this discussion because it's a really important one. I took it for granted that we asked these questions and Kristen started us off in the right direction, why do we ask these questions and when I started prepping for the session I said, Well, I'm not sure, or it is about being a lawyer or what does it mean to be a member of this community. I'm a administrator and as dean of students I find myself squarely in this administrative space with lots of responsibility to lots of different bodies and so I put this question where we have a responsibility to the institution. And I'm not just referring to justice here in terms of what the community is like, who are we inviting into the community and I'm not just referring to justice impacted individuals but when we think about admissions and I've been on the admissions committee at Roger Williams for over 15 years. What do we invite into our community what is the atmosphere that we're creating and that's more than just safety but I will say that there is some feeling among admissions professionals that this does relate to safety on campus. Not saying I agree with that but at least that's an argument that's been made. The other institutions that I think we consider when we look at these questions are, what is our relationship to the ABA. And we've already gone over the two relevant standards so 501B and then 504 and I think we've taken it for granted as law schools that we have an obligation to ask these questions as part of our application process that somehow the ABA requires us to ask these questions of our applicants. And that's not the case so we can see two law schools in New York are not in fact asking those questions. And also I pulled out we went through an ABA accreditation process pretty recently and I pulled out what information did we provide what was asked as part of that accreditation process, and there's not a requirement that we ask specific questions. The third institution that I want to say that we have this relationship with is the bar examiners themselves in terms of we are part of the process. In the gatekeeping or asking the history of record about candidates pass and I love that Kristen pointed out that we're complicit in that process in terms of gatekeeping, or the questions that we ask. This discussion is the first time that I've thought quite differently about these questions. Several years ago, probably about six years ago as a law school admissions council we did look at our questions and comprehensively evaluated each question decided what we were going to ask what we're going to change. We made our questions much more limited, but it was never even an option or never even consideration that we could not ask those questions. And so I just want to applaud you for bringing us together for this discussion because I feel like I'm complicit in this pandemic process that needs to be evaluated much more closely in terms of who we're keep who we're excluding by even asking the questions. I will say anytime we have serious conduct issues not small ones but serious conduct issues. One of the things we do is we look at the admissions file and what did it say what did we miss. We look at who we shouldn't have been led into our community and I have to say it's not there that the questions that we do ask about character and fitness are really not relevant to the conduct or don't don't forecast the conduct problems that we do that do are raised throughout enrollment and also after they're admitted to practice so I think you said we weren't going to have a debate but I wonder if I was put here to kind of defend this status quo in terms of keeping these types of questions as part of my as part of the application but this discussion really pushes us as an institution certainly to think about what we're asking. One other thing that I wanted to add that I thought was quite interesting was, I'm unfamiliar with our undergrad admissions process and so in prepping I emailed our Dean of admissions for the full university to see, do they ask these types of questions and they do in fact ask character and fitness questions at the undergrad level for non law school admits and they, they asked specifically about school discipline, but then they do also ask questions about whether or not an individual is justice involved and so I think that this is a discussion that we certainly need to have as law school administrators, but also even just more broadly as educators. Thank you. Thanks. I'm at the same institution as you. It is not for you to explain or defend. I just like sort of came to the same thing you are like, whose work are we doing. Like, if we're not required to do this, then why are we doing it or why are we still doing it. There was a good reason, which arguably there wasn't but even if there was is there still one. And you sort of couple that with Karmia's. There's already so many things in place with systemic racism or systemic inequality. Why add one more. So, I'm just really glad that someone from the Dean of students is here to like talk about from from was that knowledge base to talk about some of these issues. My next question is for Mark, who has joined us. This is not a theoretical conversation we're having. It is a very real one for many Americans, according to statistics cited in an LSAC report titled justice impacted individuals in the pipeline, a national exploration of law school policies and practices, which Morgan is going to share in the chat. Approximately one in three adults in the United States has some form of criminal record and basing a determination of the risk justice impacted individual may pose in the future. And in our context, using this understanding to determine who should be excluded from law school and the profession is largely a function of how recidivism is measured and may rely more on policing patterns than on actual criminal activity. Mark, we're so happy to have you here today. Your perspective is likely different than someone in an admissions role or student services role, or even a diversity role in a law school. Your biography states that while in college, you were arrested for drug charges. The outcome of that case was an almost 20 year sentence for a nonviolent first time drug offense committed at 18 years old. While in prison you vowed you would not let the sentence destroy you or your spirit. You ultimately earned your JD from CUNY school of law with a concentration in social justice equality and civil rights, and now you work as a public defender. Can you please share about your own perspective on criminal history questions on law school admissions applications as someone who was justice involved. Sure. Good afternoon everyone sorry I was a little late. And I'm so happy we're having this discussion and I was invited to participate. I mean, you can't imagine how many people are going to be deterred just by the fact that the question is there, even in undergraduate admissions right I was part of a program called the college initiative, where we talked about this very often because so many people just don't ever want to discuss it think of you know, the worst decision or decisions in your life. You know, having to discuss those over and over and over again you know on job application on school and you think to yourself like I'm trying to do the right thing I'm trying you know why. Why does this keep coming up why do they want to use this against me and that's, you can't imagine how many people that's going to deter. So, you know, and if you're in that position you're thinking like why am I still being punished why you know, and that's the only reason you can think of why schools would want this information to use it against you again right. It's not going to be to your benefit it's not like the school that thinking well, this person may need more support because they have this background or anything like that right, they're going to use it against you right so. What are we really why we really asked this question which has been asked by several other panelists already right. Somebody used the word, some of the scoundrels to you would see on the discipline records right so it is just asking this question really helpful I mean does it actually determine the. The real risk or harm to clients or anything like that and again if you look at those disciplinary record you would probably say no to these people who have no criminal history, who are constantly going through that process right. Someone else said a few minutes ago that are are kind of a view of this is kind of like well we've some schools have removed this question, and nothing terrible has happened. Right, but what about the amazing things that have happened right you know how many people now who are formerly incarcerated are practicing attorneys you know, and they're teaching at, you know, law schools Georgetown or Washington or some part of the legislature, or other state government agencies, several of us practice here in New York right so it's it's. I just think that the perspective, you know it's like what hadn't gone wrong is kind of still the long perspective even on, you know, with people who want to do better who are thinking about the question intelligently and. Really, but I still think that it's, it's the same way we internalize the people who are formerly incarcerated have histories are going to. As I said earlier not want to discuss the worst part of their lives, but I think it's it's that's just the way it's framed too often for us right and as you know, I mentioned a moment ago with it hadn't gone bad or this impacted us in a negative way yet I'm sure is part of that tube. And it just, you know, it's, it's just very unsettling and disappointing. As far as my experience, I knew going into law school, going into the bar. When I applied for for a job, my first job out of law school, it was at an organization had given me a shot right off right out of prison so they knew me they knew me very well. But in applying for the bar and applying for law school, I knew that I had to do more than anyone else right I had to do better I had to be better right because I'm not starting at the same level as everyone else right I'm starting at a position where I'm looked down upon, just because of the conviction, you don't have to know anything else about me. Just if you know that I have this conviction, and I'm applying to law school you want to know more about the conviction you want to know less about why I'm applying to law school. You want to know why I got in trouble, you know, and you want to be reassured that it's not going to happen again and you know, I'm sorry I'm kind of all over it's good. It is very personal and you know it's frustrating that it's such a big deal but I do very much appreciate that it's starting to change and as I said, so many more people are getting access to law school and a law school legal education and the like. And what we bring to the table though is that, as Glenn Martin said for a long time, and still says is, you know, people closest to the problem are the solution. You know, me having had this experience I approach my clients probably differently than someone who has never had this experience who's never seen the inside of a jail cage right or a prison or had cuffs placed on their wrist or any of that right I've, you know, live that and I don't necessarily share that with most of my clients for different reasons but my approach is very different than I think a lot of my colleagues. Trying to get back to where we were to question that. No, I'm going to jump in one. Do not apologize. You are here you're whole full self and whatever way that manifests. And if you are feeling like this is personal. It is right like you're invited here today because it is and you can share what you can and choose not to share what you don't. The second thing is I think it was great that you pointed out my the sky is falling thing like there is this feeling like if we make a change the sky is going to fall that you know nothing's going to go wrong or everything's going to go terrible and I think changing that mindset to, but what could go right, but how many opportunities are we now allowing that we didn't allow before. How are we providing opportunities of all of this right yes. Especially if we lean more into online education. There are opportunities for people who are currently incarcerated to be able to attend law schools remotely. You know, things are changing so quickly right now. Why don't we check ourselves and have the perspective change of what are ways that we could make our profession more diverse, and it's not about what it costs. It's about how much benefit it brings. With the cost of incarcerating people. I mean, it's a savings it's a huge savings right. Yeah, we should be looking at how we can make things better right because denying people opportunities is what's going to create the recidivism right that's that's the problem right. We should be looking at people education or opportunities to grow right that's going to increase recidivism so we should be looking at you know how we can reduce recidivism how we can provide opportunities, because it's not just helping the individual right it's helping a community it's helping a family right so, and I think that's that's the perspective we want to have. I think providing opportunities also provides or reinforces people's essential dignity as a human. And I think that that like should be the business that law school is in my next question is for everybody if everybody wants to hop on. Let's suppose law schools stop asking criminal history questions, and more justice involved individuals enroll in law schools. The Stanford report lists some suggested student services school should employ like developing best practices to ensure that students who are formerly incarcerated or have criminal records are adequately supported while enrolled in law school and providing professional development to faculty and staff to ensure they're equipped to sensitively and more effectively respond to the particular needs of students with criminal records. From your perspective in your various roles. How does a law school need to change to better support those for justice impacted as law students. Kristen I'm going to start with you and kind of go in order, and you know if you don't have anything to say you can pass. It's a great question. I'm very curious to hear what others say specifically from the student services perspective. I'll just say this from the admissions perspective. I think there's a useful self study that could and should be done. I have a whole laundry list of what that looks like from a previous presentation that I did, but a couple of the questions would be thinking about process factors, like how are you reading these applications and in particular doesn't affirmative response to the character and fitness questions lead to a change in the typical review process like referral to the dean of students or faculty committee, and if yes why and is that necessary to continue. There's a written policy to refer to when evaluating these applicants. If you have the question, like that includes what factors are relevant and should or may be considered or may not be considered and are these evidence based. You have a non discrimination statement that includes justice system impacted or similar language, do you train reviewers of applicants to identify encounter bias, and does that include system impacted applicants. I have a written description for what people should say in an addendum that you're requiring for these affirmative responses, because frankly that is that we haven't talked about it we don't necessarily need to. But that is a minefield for people because we do not tell them what to say and then we absolutely judge them based on whether they quote unquote took responsibility, whether or not they revealed enough detail and so on and so forth. But maybe the one thing that I would say, if you're going to have this question you want to do anything useful with it. Do you collect this data in a way that allows you to track and report on aggregate trends. So for example like do you know how many people are applying like you do with how many women are applying. How many of those people get what's the admit rate, how many of them come how many are going to aid how many of them are matriculating, and also do you are you looking carefully at what I would call amplification of bias so one of the things that we found is that a social justice oriented school, which I think in some ways all of us on this call are that sometimes white wealthy candidates actually get a benefit from having criminal record, for example for something like protesting, where someone looks like they have made a positive contribution by trying to stand up against injustice and other people it looks we treat it like a different thing. So being able to juxtapose those two systems. So I think there are very specific things in admissions context that you could do. And if you aren't going to ask the question which I think is your next part we can talk about that. I think I should weigh in as a student affairs professional because I've been thinking about this and we never want to make someone reduce them to their worst mistake. And so it's difficult to decide what information from the admissions office should be shared with student affairs about justice impacted individuals. So there is some information through the admissions process that's really relevant in terms of the direct support of students but I'd really have to give some more thought as to criminal history and how that would impact my ability to give the students what they need to have opportunities. It does come up in a couple of contexts so one context is definitely our student practice eligibility. And so our local state kind of delegates authority for the character and fitness review to the law school so we certify whether or it's a good moral character. And so some of that information is certainly relevant. I would say, arguably it's relevant if we're making a determination, or do we need to ask the question there I think could be another whole panel discussion. The other part where I work closely with law students is as they're applying for the bar exam and making sure that they have the guidance that they need or we can provide appropriate guidance for the character and fitness process in terms of how to like you were saying Kristen how to make an affirmative disclosure, how much information is enough but not too much what documents do you need to find and so that's where having more information about criminal impacted students justice impact individuals is really helpful. Kayla, did you want to jump in. I do actually just a couple quick things. One is that one of the things that we were really intent on doing in removing this question was to talk to the admissions committee and do some training on implicit bias and racial bias because one of the findings from one of the reports that I think you've already put in the chat though I don't remember which one exactly was that when the box was removed from employment applications in several states. I found that employers were more likely to discriminate based on assumptions about race and ethnicity, primarily associated with names. And so it's really important that when you were taking away one piece of information to try and eliminate discrimination and bias that you do some training and have some education surrounding what for implications can come up from that removal because the assumption in those cases was oh this person is a person of color they're more likely to have this but we don't know so I'm going to assume that they have been justice impacted or they have had involvement with the criminal justice system so we really tried to make sure that there was some training around that or at least conversations around that with the people who'd be making these decisions. And then the second thing that we've really discussed as a school and have not made progress on is supporting people financially and creating a scholarship for people who are justice impacted and what does that look like and and I think it was Kristen like how do we collect this information and how do we assess for scholarships if we're not asking the question on the application anymore and at what point do we reach out and have these conversations. And there's a question in there as well about when do you reach out and start to have these conversations. Is it orientation in order to prepare for what it might look like to disclose on a bar application. At what point do we sort of intervene and have these continuing conversations that we're going to need to prepare for near the end so those are the areas that I would add to this piece of the conversation. I read this statistic that I sent to you all in the LSA report justice impacted individuals in the pipeline. All schools who participated in the study responded. They provide justice impacted students with resources and or assistance to navigate the state bar application and licensing procedure. However, most schools 71% do not provide justice impacted students with any other specific student services or resources. And that to me was astounding. So we're asking the question. And then, when we admit these students we are not. What are we doing with that information and how are we helping the students that we've sort of now added. And then, galey your comments sort of made me think about one of the questions in the chat that we can eventually get to about stigma. Well, you know, if we're not asking the question, or we are asking the question, either way, how do we sort of deal with the stigma of some of this. Karmia, did you have anything you wanted to add on the original question about what might law schools need to change to better support those were just as justice impacted as law students. I mean, I could, and I would just be opining, of course. So right now I'm in the process of growing out a first gen support program. And so I wonder to what extent, just the underlying theme of first gen support, the demystification, the creating a place where people can ask questions that they might not want to ask in other spaces. I just, I just keep thinking about the the elitism of our institutions and you know who makes it and who doesn't and, and if you think a certain way and you have certain resources and have the ability I mean I went to a lot of us went to the hospital before externships were a thing it was more that you walked, you know, to an internship uphill both ways in the snow to volunteer someplace which someone might be able to do with resources or someone might just bite the bullet if they didn't have them. So, so I guess, all I think about is demystification and as a former civil legal services attorney obviously I know that anyone returning to the community has an intersection with probably every aspect of civil legal need, and I So, so figuring, you know, I think I would. That's where my heart is actually that like the web of things and the connectivity of the web of legal needs for people who are in a certain demographic socio economically and not being compounded by being a returning citizen. I know that infrastructure would be built, but I think that's the infrastructure the reentry infrastructure that we need and maybe that should be an office in law schools. Right, we didn't have a McKinney vento person in schools for homeless children unhoused youth until we did. And maybe it's time to have someone that focuses if we get to this point of getting rid of the box who focuses on reentry at a law school or at least a university level. Nicole, I just wanted to call out at least two other areas where I think this issue comes up in terms of support, and that's in the classroom and in the career development office. We could talk with a million perspective I just wanted to highlight those in particular. There are numerous students who have expressed in particular discussions around the criminal justice system that take place in your very first semester and criminal law. And that students have said to me felt a nuanced where the students have felt insecure contributing their perspective, which then obviously can inform an impact negatively your sort of participation and engagement. And a student who said quote she wish to professors demonstrated more sensitivity to the fact that formerly incarcerated law students like herself and other students with prior involvement in the criminal justice system might be present in the classroom. And another student who talked about attending private law school in California, and who didn't disclose his criminal record when he interviewed for an internship with a law firm, nor once he received that offer after graduation he was unsure if he should tell the law firm about the criminal record before undergoing the moral character review by the California State Bar and when and how to discuss it. So I would point it to find that no one at his law school could advise him on that issue. And so that getting people who are going to go out regardless of whether we have a box or not right we're going to have people in our classrooms that this comes up for who we're looking for jobs because our role is to help them enter the profession. And if we don't have someone I think the McKinney Vento is an interesting example who's just, it's part of their job title that they're a resource and advisor. And I think it was really challenging. We've seen this a lot too in California with students who were, for example are undocumented, where, of course, there are many, many resources, but it requires first you to tell someone who you don't know anything about or their politics or the background or their sensitivity that you are undocumented, and then to sort of figure out which office to talk to and perhaps to speak to a number of different offices and a number of different people, and all of whom you might be the first and only person they've ever counseled, who was undocumented looking for a job and trying to figure out if they should talk about that and so on and so forth. So, I think this isn't the only place it's coming up and I think it's time for law schools to have a discussion about sort of the role of identifying key people with this in their name, or they're in their title, and making it much more explicit for folks where they can go. So much for sharing that, especially the example about the student and the professors. I think that there is such an otherness of the criminal justice system. And there is the shock and off like what do you mean like we have one in our midst. And that is so incredibly harmful. And, you know, you're right I think like a, not only acknowledging it, but celebrating it that there are people with different backgrounds and different levels of experience you may have a closeness to the subject matter that we have yet to learn in these three years and beyond, who could provide valuable insight. So that's a wonderful way of looking at it and thinking about how we could restructure some of the people who work here to be more inclusive and welcoming and not cut the conversation off before it starts or put the onus on the person. Mark, your perspective on specific student services or resources law schools could provide. Let's just go back to what was just said, I think that goes back to the whole thing about changing how we think about people who are impacted right and just from personal experience I remember talking to a lot of my friends my friends parents and hearing over and over again, you know, like, well, that's not for you that's for those other people they belong there you don't belong there when I was in prison. And it's, I think so many people are impacted by by the legal system at this point that everyone knows someone everyone has a family member or friend. And I think that the vast majority of us believe that our friends or family members are the exception, right, that all the other people belong there but this person just made a mistake right and I think that's part of it that's where we're conditioned to believe right that only someone that I know and have a close tie to it can can be wrongfully imprisoned or prosecuted or whatever else. So I think it goes back to trying to change the narrative and how we look at each other and treat each other. In terms of support services, you know, it took I went into law school very humble. I figured I would just go and try to learn but there was a lot of unlearning I had to do, right, having lived my experience right and it wasn't just in criminal law or my criminal law classes. Just understanding the law the first couple of years the first year I'd say the first three semesters. You know, there was a ton of unlearning and it took me a little while to kind of figure that out and then be able to go talk to some of my professors, and I was, I was, I'm very comfortable talking about my background, sharing about my background with my classmates and all. So I felt comfortable doing that but I think I'm sure a lot of other people would not feel that comfortable so we have to create those spaces. And if we ask questions, or make them optional, you know, reassuring the students or potential students that it's not going to be used against them it's going to be used to help them, and maybe explaining a little more about how that can be. So many of us are, you know, worried about the box right, you know, because from our experience, you know it's not used to help us in any way so it's kind of going to be a culture shift to really see that the schools to reassure students and potential students that answering this question can be a benefit to you know answering it. And if you don't want to answer that's fine too, right. There was some. I'm going to move on to the next question, because this is going to be for everybody anyway and mark I'll start with you. Let's say that law schools eliminate the criminal history question on applications. What impact do you envision this having on law schools the legal profession and justice. I think we're going to get a lot more diversity. I think we're going to get people who, as I said are closer to solutions people who have lived in the communities that very often we're trying to help and of course I'm a criminal defense attorney but I mean this goes to so a lot of other things you know whether you're talking about housing or urban development or, you know, just, we can have such an impact, you know, just from our experiences, and what we've worked to and that, you know, I worked at the law schools before I went to law school helping people with public benefits. And I realized very early on that the same people I lived while I was incarcerated the same people I was helping, not because they had criminal history had actually been incarcerated, but people who are existing under crushing system bureaucracies and the like so I think we would have people who have a better understanding of how to help people you know. And of course, maybe we'll get less corporate lawyers, which, you know, might be a good thing I feel. And, but yeah, I think we were going to certainly increase diversity, and we would have a lot more creativity or we have additional diversity. Yeah, I definitely think the profession would benefit from it. And think about, you know, all the research tells us that people who are seeking an education are much less likely to recidivate so once you've gotten to the point where you go to law school, you know your chances are far more diminished in terms of any recidivism. And you're, you're, you're looking to better yourself better society so I definitely think that I know that it's certainly going to improve the profession. So we'll narrow the gap between lawyers and criminal justice, or the criminal justice system, and particularly people who are currently incarcerated the conditions of incarceration. I think that having more people with more experience in the classroom will enrich all of us, and I think we'll have more success at more human dignity in the long run. Did you want to talk at all about how you envision this having an effect on law schools, the legal profession and justice? Yeah, I think my thoughts are similar to Kristen in terms of the example that she used in terms of how classroom dialogue will change. The law is really interesting because the people who need it the most, you're furthest away away from it. So we have this real in and out exposure where, you know, the common people, regular people will say, layman's, don't understand how the law functions or what it is or even how we learn in law school and how could you pick up, you can't just pick up a book off the shelf and start reading it. And all of that is intentional in terms of how we've structured legal education, how we've structured admissions to the bar, and so we don't evaluate these systems because we don't let others in. And so I'm actually excited about the prospect of having more justice impacted individuals in the classroom because it's the changing demographics that forces the change of the discussions in the classroom. So we've seen it certainly at our institution with the changing racial demographics, like you have to change how you teach based on who's in the class. And so as we invite more people in either as students as lectures or as professors in whatever capacity we can, the discussions will naturally have to change. Thanks, Karmia. You're muted. I think what I keep thinking and especially with the last thing that Lorraine said is, gosh, and maybe this is just an immature view of the way the world should be. Do we really have to change just because of who's in the classroom. Right, if, if we're teaching correctly. Shouldn't we be teaching that way, irrespective of who is in the classroom. Is there something that I'm saying that I should not be saying because I don't know that mark is in my class. Right, like, how am I creating the next generation of attorneys if, if, if there's that much restructuring that needs to occur and then if there is then. We need to like re examine the standards again. Right, that we have to shift the baseline, so that if we are in a place if we are in a homogenized classroom, then the ideal is that we are. Is it just that we comply with these standards or we teach fairly and we teach honestly, because there's someone in there to hold us accountable. I would just think that the profession is better than that I would like to think that the, that the, our means of educating the people who go into the profession are, are better than that. And that, and that is people who teach that we have a desire to get to that place. Right, that it's not just because there's someone in front of me that I can identify as someone who fits into whatever category. But that I am teaching truly to everyone and teaching for everyone. And not that someone who doesn't fit my everyone slipped through and so they're going to have to take it or leave it. I don't know if that's what you were looking for in my response that's that's where that was the best response ever and I'm tempted to just press the leave button and be like okay we're done here. Because where you and Lorraine are is how we ended up with our book and how we ended up with our speaker series, because I want to be, I want our profession to be where Karmie is that, but I find our profession is where Lorraine is that. And there is this distance and until we can, you know, fix this, we're going to keep having these sessions, and you all are going to keep getting emails from me about them being scheduled and we're going to keep asking you to speak, because we can't, we all know, well, many of us know that we should be where Karmie is at but we find herself where Lorraine is at, and I think that's the value of what we're doing. So thank you for saying that. Yeah, I mean I, I appreciate the actually the really strong case I think Karmie just made for universal design in general which you should do a topic of discussion on right, because that about accommodating individuals about designing systems in a way that empowers everyone to participate. But I just wanted to like highlight what I feel like Mark keeps very kindly trying to bring us back around to which is this sort of reframing away from a deficit model. So I work at admissions and admissions is deeply pragmatic, like let's be real right like we're trying to achieve certain goals and they're measured in very practical kinds of ways and most of us are not that you know deeply engaged in what's going on in the classroom. Although we're certainly aware of it. So, so let me just give you a little some statistics and I think, you know, make that maybe make the practical argument here. First of all, you know, massive numbers of people in the US of criminal records about over 70 million individuals that's about a fifth of the US population. According to the Brennan Center justice report, as many Americans have criminal records as college degrees. So to risk exclusion of massive numbers of people who might be, you know, amazing probably are driven passionate focused resilient high achieving is just really bizarre, right from the outset, but also, this is, this is not there's no sort of trade off here and I feel like sometimes it comes up with a lot when we talk about diversity that people see diversity intention or in a zero sum game with things like quote unquote merit. So, according to pot project rebound which is a California state funded program that serves formerly incarcerated students at Cal State University is between 2016 and 2020. Their program participants earned an average GPA of 3.0, none returned to prison and 87% found full time employment after graduation. Umford found that half of the formerly incarcerated students studying at community colleges with support programs achieved a 4.0 GPA during the time of the study, and that more than 80% of other students had a GPA higher than 3.0. So we are also just very strange for us not to be interested in recruiting talented academically hard working focused creative, you know, passionate individuals to come to our law schools these are precisely the people we should be interested in admitting. Um, and so thank you Mark for sort of your gentle, you know, nudge along the way, but I do think it's helpful just to keep those numbers in mind because if you're like me, you're practical and you're an administrator. I mean I have appreciated both Lorraine and Karmia's sort of definitional positioning of us as administrators and the kinds of things we do like looking at efficiencies and, you know, administrative ability of things and our policies. There's every reason in the world to be interested in lowering the barriers and removing the chilling effect that is created by having these questions. I also just want to add from that I appreciate the pragmatic standpoint and the like, let's talk about how, how admissions actually works in some ways is that we are facing a time when we're expecting national design and applications on a grand scale. We're doing these things to try to ramp up the number of people who can apply to our schools like taking the GRE or eliminating the outside all together as a qualifier. And wouldn't it be great if we actually just found an untapped body that would help us to create these amazing lawyers that can transform systems because they are so close to them like this almost seems like a no brainer to me. I have a follow up question sort of based on where Kristen and Gaila, we're just talking about, and kind of from the admissions perspective but all of you as administrators, and Mark to, should it be part of the mission of law schools to create a pipeline from those who have been in justice impacted to the law school. Yes, and I think that includes not just people who are formerly incarcerated but people who have been directly impacted in other ways. Think of the law student going to school, because their sibling or parent is incarcerated or, you know, who has lived in a household with someone who was incarcerated or removed from the family or community or just people in those communities where a number of people have been removed due to incarceration and the like so I think we have to look at it broadly but definitely I think we should be trying to get those people into the school. I think it's complicated in some ways, as well, you know, working for CUNY for over a decade, I get to wear a hat that says, yes, absolutely, let's do this. We have an obligation to bettering our communities and to bettering our country and to creating opportunities for children, I think I was reading that, you know, one in nine black children are likely to have a parent incarcerated or as for white children it's one in, you know, 36 or something I mean the numbers that we could go into here are staggering and so if we are already in the business of trying to create pipelines for those who are lacking privilege either educational privilege or skin privilege or any other types of privilege why would we not include this. And in the interest of having this be a balanced discussion that has no sides. I think there are some law schools that are not interested in that and that are not should not have to be. Which kind of pains me to say but you know I won't get too specific but I saw a law school ad that was like we are one of the most conservative and I just thought oh that's something you're proud of oh I'm sorry I'm confused. And but I need to make space for that to be a part of our experience here as well. I don't know that it's the obligation of every law school to be involved in creating pipelines but I do think that for those of us that are interested in access missions that for those of us who are interested in social justice. For those of us that have, you know, commitments to diversifying the law school profession or the law legal profession. Yes, absolutely. Kristen Lorraine or Karmia. Do you want to jump in on this one. It's interesting because I would say that we, you know as an institution do have an interest in working with those that are criminally that are justice impacted. And you know I can think of students, you know, right off the top of my head who have served significant amounts of time time in prison or criminal histories who've come to our law school and we've embraced them. You know that's part it's not always a negative thing it might be something that makes us want to have a member of someone in our community. But I'm struggling with how that is not does not square with us asking the questions and the deterrent effect. And so our intentions and our desires to be inclusive does not match with what we're doing with our admissions questions and so we need to reconcile that. As an institution. Okay, does anyone have any final thoughts. Yeah, so you cited the Stanford study, a couple of times and fun fact I was actually at the round table at Stanford law that you're referencing that resulted in that report. I think one of the most surprising and alarming things for me that took place there was a very casual statement that someone who was a leader in the state part bar said which was not a negative thing but they basically said, Yeah, well, I mean, eventually everybody gets admitted. It was so nonchalant. And there were attorneys right who this is their whole area of practice, helping people who are system impacted navigate the bar process. But it was, it occurred to me that like, you know, yeah, because you could they tell people like wait for a year and don't have any problems and then reapply or they have a committee and there's a back and forth and they take a holistic review or you might need to understand that we've certainly seen people who had to take it all the way up to the California or to the state Supreme Court, for example, I mean where the fight was fierce, but basically that like, we just make it really, really hard and expensive for some people. But if the result is that anyone who's willing to like sort of suffer and persist through that, ultimately does like how strange of me to be an additional layer, which only serves to make it slightly harder given how hard it looks at the end and how likely someone is to ultimately overcome it anyway. But also certainly there are people who are way more qualified than me, making these assessments, according to accordance with their rules and that I don't even know those rules particularly well and I'm sort of not asking questions that would help me understand them. The other thing is just on a personal note, you know, I think a lot of this came to a head for me gail and I talked a lot about raising our children. A lot of this came to a head for me because I have three sons and the middle one is difficult in a variety of ways and, you know, not that long ago. I got a call from the local target that he'd been caught shoplifting and I say caught and not arrested on purpose because the security guy called me up asked me to come down and get him said he was a good kid. He said he didn't need to call the police not like some other people went through his backpack found a bag of weed said hey to get better weed and put it back in his backpack, send us on our way and then I got a demand letter a week later for a $500. Penalty that we had to pay civil penalty would if we didn't pay within five business days it would be referred to the police. So my son doesn't have a criminal record because he looks like a good kid he's from the suburbs we have financial resources, access to mental health care services at school, a parent with a lot of great and so on and so on and so on. I've never referred to this as students who have as individuals or children of a safety net, but I prefer to think of it as an airbag effect because let's be real, a lot of kids crash, a lot of our students are abusing at or altering finals. A lot of our students have engaged in conduct that we know nothing about it would be horrified by, but only some kids get to walk away unscathed without lifelong injuries. And that's, I think that the difference that we're trying to address here that combined with the clear statistics that show that just having the question is enough of a reason for someone not to apply to me makes this a very easy case. I would just say to anyone that's considering removing the question. Number one, reach out to me or to our student organization or, or anyone else but the one piece of advice that I do want to give you in going through this process is that you are going to have a pushback. But what I found, which was really interesting is that for many of the departments that I met with many of the people that I met with it on an individual level. There was like almost a disconnect between what they wanted to believe and their initial reaction to the removal of the question like I know this is the right thing to do. I'm not to do it, but I'm scared or I'm fearful or I'm concerned about these impacts that it might have. And going back, giving space to go back to them later. So many people were like, you know, I sat with it and now I feel good about it. Or, you know, I consider these issues and I questioned why I was having that reaction and I'm so excited that we were able to do this. Understanding that initial setbacks or initial reluctance is not is not a roadblock or is not going to prevent it from from happening altogether. I think there's there's always room for hope that there will be progress and changing of minds. And if there are not. Ibra max candy has said that following policy change people realize that nothing bad has happened and they don't care. Thank you so much. I want to close. Oh, Karmia had. I was just going to say that if our strongest argument is that it disproportionately impacts black and brown people then that's not our argument that's not our winning argument because I think our history. Really shows that that's not compelling to decision makers and that we really do need to look at sort of places of interest convergence that that don't rely on the hearts of good people. Because I think those hearts often do the wrong thing. And on that sobering note. I want to announce our final session for this academic year is happening next week. Yes, we are doing this in back to back weeks. It is a one and one sit down with Dean Erwin Chimerinsky on the topic of responding to classroom controversy. It will be the 10th at 2pm Eastern. Thank you so much to our panelists. Thank you so much for joining us today. I'm Gail Lorraine Mark and Kristen. We started planning this in the fall, and we finally got it together right before school ends because everybody has the busiest schedule. Thank you so much for being able to do this today and allowing us to record it so it can live on. Thank you to our sponsors. Thank you to our faculty law and jurist. Thank you to our behind the scenes team of marketing and promotion and technology, especially Chelsea and Morgan. And we hope to see everybody next week.