 Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Roger Williams University Law Review annual symposium event. My name is Whitney Saunders and I am the editor in chief of the Roger Williams University Law Review. I will be co-hosting today's event with Katrina Eutman, who is the Justice for All editor for the Law Review. We are really looking forward to today and celebrating the Law Review's newest journal, Justice for All. Before we get started, I wanted to remind you all of a few things. First, since there is no chat feature, we will be posting any and all resources to our Law Review website and then emailing all attendees a link to the website so you can access any of the panelists resources as well as a recording of this event. Also, since there is no chat feature, we will be doing the Q&A. So if you have any questions, please put them in the Q&A box and we will be answering questions at the end of each session. I also want to thank a few special people before we get started. First, thank you to our speakers and panelists for participating today and to all of you for attending. Thank you to our moderators, Eliza Vorenberg, Suzanne Harrington-Steppin, and Nicole Dreslowski, not only for moderating today, but helping us plan and organize today's event. Thank you to Professor Hashway and Professor Gomez, our Law Review faculty advisors for all of their encouragement and support. Thank you to Chelsea Horne for making today's event possible. And lastly, I want to thank Professor Debbie Gonzalez for all of the support that she has shown the Law Review, not only with today's event, but for the creation of Justice for All. I am now going to turn it over to Professor Gonzalez, who is going to give you some remarks about the creation of Justice for All and give a little preview about what to expect today. Thank you. Thank you Whitney. Good morning everyone. Good morning Katrina as well. I want to thank everyone for being here this morning and attending our very first Justice for All symposium entitled, Demanding Accessibility for Underrepresented Communities in the Law. Roger Williams University School of Law Justice for All Law Review Journal is in its first year and was born out of concern that law review groups are generally not very diverse in their student body and its voices. In the fall of 2022, the Law Review Board began looking in the mirror to see what they could do to become more inclusive of many voices across our law school community. One of the measures implemented was this journal, which focuses on giving our student body a chance to be heard and published in some of the most important topics in our field today. We are here to celebrate the new law journal with the expectation that many scholars will share their thoughts and ideas on how to make justice more accessible to all. The mission of Justice for All Law Review Journal is to expand on the word all and to give voice and platform to issues of equality and justice for all regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, ability and social economic status. If you're working on a piece right now related to any of these issues, please do submit it to the Justice for All editorial board for consideration. Now on to today's events. I'm excited to hear from all our panelists today, who will be discussing why traditionally marginalized communities experience limited access to justice, and how we might be able to change this to make justice available to all. This morning we will hear from our keynote speaker, Professor Martha Minow from Harvard University, who will be introduced by our Dean Greg Bowman, and she will talk about the current situation relating to access to civil justice and how the situation can improve. For us to make justice accessible, we must first make attending law school more accessible to a variety of groups to shed some light on barriers faced by some minority groups and first generation students. We will hear from our very own Professor Monica Tixera de Souza, relating to the barriers that first generation law students face in law school, and what can be done to make their experience better. We will also hear from law students, Eden Urby and Makayla Thomas on barriers faced by transgender students when applying to law school or the bar exam. And admissions director Michael Donnelly Boylan and 3L law student Juliana Torres will talk to us about the barriers that minority students face when applying to law school, as well as the status of admission reform that is happening across the country. And our professionals and other professions are being asked to be more inclusive, not only in the courtroom and the board room, but also in their writing. It is important that when writing any type of paper, particularly law review articles and legal memorandum before any court, that we are inclusive of all groups so that we can make availability to justice for all a reality. In that, we will hear from Professor Heidi Brown from Brooklyn Law School, who will talk to us about the importance of using the pronoun they and legal writing to foster respect and inclusion and legal writing. In the afternoon, we will shift our conversation from inclusion to accessibility to law school and accessibility in the courtroom. As an immigration attorney and a clinician in this area, I am well aware of the importance of the use of proper interpreters and translation of documents to litigants, whose first and sometime only language may not be English. Today we are lucky to have Tamara Rocha from the Rhode Island Supreme Court to talk to us about the importance of language access in the courtroom. Tamara will share some demographics, the need for credentialing interpreters and best practices for attorneys who represent none or limited English speakers in the courtroom. Often pro se and self represented litigants who do not have the resources to hire an attorney appear at court clerks windows asking for legal and procedural advice. They are not allowed to provide this legal advice to self represented litigants self represented litigants are often unaware of what they must prove for their case, or how to go about proving their case. All teneter from self represented litigation network will discuss the importance of educating self represented litigants and others with the goal of making self represented litigants more successful in the courtroom. We will hear from Nellie large an RWU law student who has been volunteering at the self help eviction desk in the Rhode Island district court about her experiences working with self represented litigants. And also how to and she will also make suggestions and how to make the landlord tenant court, more accessible. Since about early 2021 all courts in Rhode Island have been online. This means that all litigants with or without an attorney must have the ability to file their pleadings electronically with the courts. The law center for state courts in 2021 issued a study which found that between 2017 and 2020, there were 127,000 litigants, we're in at least one party was self represented. That number is astounding, and it can lead to a host of problems, accessing a computer Wi Fi is a luxury that most of us take for granted. So is the ability to locate local to locate simple legal documents and court forms online. The online system is confusing, even for experienced lawyers who use the system regularly attempting to navigate a new interface independently creates a hurdle for self represented litigants. We'll hear more information on these types of issues in our last panel of the day bridging accessibility gap with technology. Dr. Jack Zarno, and Danielle Hirsch from the National Center for State Courts, as well as Lois Lupica from the University of Denver will talk to us and how law schools organizations and jurisdictions have worked to create solutions to access to justice technology gap. Well, I feel like I just spoke for five minutes, I probably did. We have a packed day full of great speakers who are here to help us melt justice accessible to all. I'm really excited to hear from everyone. So I'm turning it over to our very own Dean Greg Bowman, who will make some introductory remarks, and welcome our keynote speaker professor, Martha Minow from Harvard University. Thank you everyone let's have a great day. Dean Bowman on to you. Thank you very much Professor Gonzalez and welcome to everybody this morning. And thank you to Whitney and Katrina for putting together this very exciting symposium. And I'm very pleased that all of you have joined us today here online for our law schools first justice for all symposium this is very exciting stuff. Today, I want to read Roger Williams University School of Laws and Land and Labor Acknowledger. We read this statement for all events, and it is particular fitting particularly fitting that we do so for today's justice for all symposium. To begin today, I want to take a moment to reflect on the lands on which we reside. We are coming from many places physically and remotely, and we want to acknowledge the ancestral homelands and traditional territories of indigenous and native peoples who have been here since time and Memorial. And to recognize that we must continue to build our solidarity and our kinship with native peoples across the Americas and across the globe. William's University School of Law is located in Bristol Rhode Island. And so we acknowledge and honor the Narragansett and Pocanoca people, and so is the original name of the land on which our campus resides. We also acknowledge that this country would not exist. If it were not for the free enslaved labor of black people. And we recognize that the town of Bristol and the great 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 of Bristol was built from wealth generated through the triangle trade of human lives. During this time of 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 upholders of justice our hope is to become agents of change for members of our society who have been met with violence, physical, mental, emotional, through our privilege. And as upholders of justice we believe that our students who will soon be practitioners of law can be and indeed already are agents of change as well. So for those of you who are not familiar with this practice, why do we do land and labor acknowledgments. I want to share with you a statement from Northwestern universities Native American and indigenous initiatives, which explains it much better than I could. And I quote. It is important to understand the longstanding history that has brought you to reside on the land and to seek to understand your place within that history. So many of our developments and labor acknowledgments do not exist in a past tense, or historical context. colonialism is a current ongoing process and we need to build our mindfulness of our present participation. So folks we are facing many challenges in our country on so many levels politically economically culturally with a great deal of divisiveness and discord. In times such as these it is imperative that our that law schools step up and exercise their power and their influence. This symposium and our law schools justice for all law review are part of that effort, of course, only a part of our law school and all other US law schools must do more to strive for justice for all. So when some of our law review students came to me and asked for support for this new project. I gave it my full support, we all gave it our full support. We're both the right thing for us to do and the smart thing for us to do. And part of the reason it is both right and smart is that our students are the lawyers and leaders of the future. They are the reason that my colleagues and I teach. They are why we are here. They are our legacy as teachers and scholars, and it is their future that we are fighting for. When the students came to us and asked for our help and support in shaping that future and improving that future and defending that possible future. It is always our job as law schools to say yes, and to support and guide their efforts, which is what we have done. We've supported our students as they have taken center stage to put together today's symposium, and I am very very proud of them. All of my colleagues and I are proud of them and I am so pleased that they will soon be my colleagues in the long. So thanks again to all of the students who have made today's event possible and thanks again to everyone watching this event online. So, now it is my distinct honor and pleasure to introduce our keynote speaker, Professor Martha Minow. Professor Minow has taught at Harvard Law School since 1981. She is currently the 300th anniversary university professor at Harvard. And for those who may not know being named the university press professor is a big deal it is in fact the highest honor a university can bestow upon a faculty member. Minow is a graduate of Yale Law School. After law school she clerked on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, and then she clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the Supreme Court of the United States. She also served as Dean of Harvard Law School from 2009 to 2017 and during that time she strengthened the law school's public interest and clinical programs, increased diversity for the faculty staff and students at Harvard Law and increased the law schools interdisciplinary programs. So in short her career is truly impressive. She is a teacher and scholar of great talent, with a remarkable breadth and depth of intellect, intellect and expertise. She has taught an enormous range of courses, including civil procedure, constitutional law, family law, international criminal justice, jurisprudence, law and education, nonprofit organizations law, privacy law and other subjects to including but not limited to digital communications democracy, privatization, military justice and ethnic and religious conflict. With respect to her scholarship she is one of the world's leading human rights scholars with a focus on issues of race, identity, equality and reconciliation. She's the author of numerous scholarly articles and books, including serving the news, saving the news rather why the Constitution calls for government action to preserve the freedom of speech. When should law forgive. And in Brown's wake, legacies of America's constitutional landmark. Republic service is no less impressive among many other things she currently serves as co chair of the access to justice project of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. And she has served on the Center for Strategic and International Studies Commission on countering violent extremism. In her career, she has been the recipient of numerous honors, including at least nine honorary degrees. So I could go I could go on and on, but I won't because like you I'm here to listen to what Professor Meadow has to say. So Professor or rather, I should say Dean, because once a dean always a dean you've earned that. Thank you so much for participating in our justice for all symposium today. The virtual podium is yours. Thanks for being here. Thank you, Dean for that wonderful introduction to this whole symposium, and for your support for making justice for all, really a focal point for your school, your students, and indeed this whole community. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere were caught in an inescapable network of mutuality tied in a single garment of destiny, whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. And it's in that spirit that I am very grateful to be here to take part in this effort putting justice for all front and center. Here are some real stories of moments of justice. A senior citizen named you to playing who relied on fixed public benefits and rented an apartment for over a decade in Chinatown and San Francisco had the crisis when his landlord raised the rent beyond the limit set by law in the city. To move or be evicted or become homeless. The Asian law caucus brought his case to the city's rent board, and based on their advocacy the rent board not only lowered the monthly rent but also awarded him $12,000 for excess payments he had paid for the amount of rent above the mandated level. Garrett and David were born prematurely to a homeless mother who used methamphetamines during pregnancy. The two children experienced severe developmental delays and their motor coordination and learning to speak. Their adopted parents tried without success to gain early intervention services and without those services the boys faced really uncertain futures. After the parents found help through a legal aid organization they successfully secured speech, physical and occupational therapies. And while the boys have challenges they're improving so speedily that they actually were by kindergarten, needing no specialized services at all. The military veteran with severe mental health issues applied for disability benefits but was denied repeatedly over the course of a decade. Like many veterans she didn't understand why the claim was denied or how to appeal. So no one ever requested her medical records from the base where she served but she have finally found help from legal services attorneys who obtained the records. The records show that the military doctors failed to consistently to deal with her consistently reported symptoms and the new inquiry resulted in retroactive disability compensation with back payments totaling almost $250,000. These are stories of success. They reflect how legal help made the difference for people facing crises in education in benefits in access to just ordinary life. Americans who cannot afford legal help routinely forfeit basic rights because they cannot afford help and because the system is not designed to be self executing. And so people know about this when it comes to criminal law, but less attention is paid to unequal access and barriers to justice involving civil law contracts and towards employment law veterans benefits housing family law medical insurance debt collection, anything that's not criminal. The lives of people are affected, even when they do not know that they have rights that are not implemented and don't have the means to claim them. For every success story there are many, many more people who are turned away from help and still more who never make their way to seek help at a legal services office or a court or an agency. I do find a way to seek assistance in the federally assisted legal services organizations represent about 1.7 million civil legal problems a year, and about 62 to 72% received inadequate or no benefits that they had earned. When they hit problems, it can take a long time to try to recover if ever. Lawyers can help. One study showed that when veterans get help their success with claims is 144% higher than claims filed without assistance. During the global pandemic access to civil justice has been crucial to so many low income people dealing with the loss of jobs and secure housing access to educational accommodations, notably for students with disabilities, domestic violence exacerbated by the stress of living in those quarters. Ensuring access to the machinery of law should be a bigger part of the equality agenda for the United States. People think that access to justice is just a problem for lawyers to solve, but it's not. It's for everyone to someone without money without legal training, asserting legal rights can be a mystery. The system is inaccessible to so many people despite the words engraved on the front of the United States Supreme Court equal justice under law. Disaster survivors struggle to get back on their feet small business owners are stymied by debt, even knowledge that the law can help is often inaccessible. The communities have responded with innovations, such as self help kiosks in housing and municipal court to assist people without lawyers legal advice hotlines legal services staffed by law school clinics lawyer of the day programs, in which people can volunteer even for one day and make a difference. This focus on civil justice here should not though deep take away attention from criminal law and indeed the connections between criminal and civil law. Many people face the risk of jail due to unpaid civil fines and fees debtors prison is supposed to be banned in the United States but in practice inability to pay a fee produces loss of liberty to thousands of individuals every year. In which fines and fees do not efficiently raise revenues for the government. Some states suspend drivers licenses for unpaid fines and fees imposed by the legal system. This increases economic distress emotional distress and puts jobs school attendance transportation to medical appointments, all in jeopardy. So here's the big picture, nearly one in five Americans now qualify for federally supported civil legal assistance, which means that they live at or below 125% of the poverty level, but by a conservative estimate fewer than 20% of the legal people to experience by low income individuals receive legal recognition. One office I visited when I served on the board of the National Legal Services Corporation closed intake after two days of each month. Why they just didn't have capacity and who's turned away victims of financial crisis innocent tenants whose housing fails. People with disabilities people vulnerable to domestic violence legal advice and advocacy can indeed make the difference. The funding to enable legal services whether it's federal or state or in local communities has never been sufficient. There's a justice gap that's ever larger in light of increased legal needs in the face of our challenging times. One creative solution is interest on lawyers trust accounts where ordinary lawyers hold funds and trust for their clients and interest earned on those accounts is contributed to strengthening the justice system. Despite the enormous needs though. Even that kind of innovation is not adequate. What seems to me so striking is that it's easy to demonstrate the value of access to justice not just for the people involved but for the entire community. Think about the situation in Boston where 90% of the landlords have lawyers and housing court and 90% of the tenants do not. In a study. Tenants and Quincy, Massachusetts were given the opportunity to have representation. And they fared on average twice as well in terms of retaining possession, avoiding homelessness and almost five times the success of those without access to lawyers in terms of the rent waived and monetary awards. And for the landlords, it's better to have a stable environment rather than churning and having repeated evictions. The variations in access to justice across the country are stark. And there are real opportunities here to innovate and do better. There are opportunities to use technology opportunities to integrate students retired people. Agricultural workers Native Americans are in particular need for legal services. Women are about 70% of the low income clients served by legal services program. The United States has a poor showing compared with other countries when it comes to access to civil justice. United States is ranked 36 internationally behind other high income countries such as Rwanda, Poland, Malaysia. We are far from the exemplar that many claim this country to be the benefits to others are what is often not understood. For $1 spent on legal services, Boston Bar Association found $5 is a return to the Commonwealth and savings to the foster care system to emergency housing, emergency health care, and other social services. And the victories keep kids in school prevent homelessness domestic violence, reducing the sadness and trauma for even one child improving health care isn't this worth the money. So it seems like it's obvious that this is an area where there should be public commitment. Why is it so hard. I've tried to understand myself. What are the reasons that access to justice is so far from the promise. I think there are a couple that are worth considering. One is that people don't really like lawyers, and the idea of spending more money on law and lawyers is not high on on many people's agendas. But you know that we spend more money as Americans on Halloween costumes for pets than we do for legal services to support poor people adjusted for inflation. The federal allocation for civil legal assistance is lower than it was in 1976, when the program was founded. Some of the contradictory reasons for why we don't invest more in this area are worth talking about. Besides the dislike of law and rights enforcement lawsuits. There's also sometimes oddly at the same time the view that injustice is too large, and it's too much to tackle tackle. I think that the objection to lawyers is understandable and familiar. The classic author Voltaire supposedly said I was never ruined but twice once when I lost a lawsuit and once when I won one. The France Kafka, the lawyer who turned into an author wrote a parable called before the law depicting a person told by the doorkeeper not to enter and waiting for years for the court door to open before dying before the closed door. But I think that these images of law, it really reflect not what has to be just what have been frustrations many have experienced with the burdensome red tape delays and arcane language. There are big fights over whether there should be support for legal services for low income people come every couple of years and shortfalls in law enforcement fall disproportionately on those who have less power and less political resources as well as financial resources. As Lewis Powell who said, it's been correctly noted that respect for the law is at its lowest with underprivileged persons. There's a natural tendency for such persons to think of the courts as symbols of trouble and lawyers as representatives of creditors and sources of harassment. There are ways in which law can strengthen the entire community. There are groups of businesses met with a group of the business leaders in New Hampshire, for example, who said they understood that access to lawyers and to justice were critical for ensuring respect for the rule of law, upon which all of their businesses depend. Now, ironically, some people resist actually investing more on access to justice because they want more radical and more systemic reforms, I understand that. And there is this just problem called in the meantime. In the meantime, many in many jurisdictions, a tenant can defend non payment of rent by proving that a landlord is failed to live up to the housing code. But without some help. This argument is often not easy for the tenant to make. And as well as it would be valuable to try to improve the entire housing system to prevent housing code violations, making sure that individuals can make the arguments that they are authorized to make in law is a way to achieve justice one by one by one. So is renovating the courts and agencies to be more navigable for people who don't have a lawyer and doing so either with non lawyer helpers or with electronic guides with interactive software that can be provided in the courthouse or in a library. These are innovations that are within reach. There can be even deeper problems, a sense of compassion fatigue, some people say, there's too much to handle. We're overwhelmed by the scale of all the problems that we encounter, but the civil justice gap is a problem that can be solved. And there are reasons for hope, and I'll just close with a couple examples of promising initiatives. Tennessee's access to justice commission has developed partnerships with churches and other religious organizations to offer legal clinics community legal education and recruitment of lawyers and paralegals and are now successfully assisting low income individuals and families who never had access before. The Texas courts have devised a fill in the blank form for divorce matters for consumer and other civil matters to assist those litigants who do not have a lawyer, and their public libraries are offering access to such forms for free, and have trained the librarians to assist and experiment allowing trained and supervised non lawyers to guide low income litigants and housing court is underway in New York. It's demonstrating really impressive results underscoring how in vixen cases results depend less on the details of a case and more on access to legal assistance. The West Virginia legal aid staff work with the city's largest law firm to bring pro bono lawyers into a law clinic based in a public elementary school in an area was some of the highest concentration of poverty in the state. And the project enlist volunteers to bring the legal assistance to low income people right where they live so they don't have to find out where to get help or be turned away. Maine's pine tree legal assistance developed an interactive website that assists military veterans across the country and their families as they try to access veterans benefits programs child support and deal with other legal issues. Suffolk law school houses a lab to devise uses of artificial intelligence and machine learning and develop apps and other digital tools, including interactive court forms to help individuals resolve their legal problems. During the pandemic courts and agencies devise remote access tools and demonstrated that systems that had seemed immovable can indeed innovate and enhance access for someone who can't take a day off work to enforce their legal rights. Other lessons outside the United States can be instructive England cut its public support for legal aid, but also spurred innovations, including developing advice centers that are located across communities residential communities, even shopping malls. Such developments are not permanent and full solutions, but there are steps that can be take. There are examples. An expert in the field of civil legal assistance to Nina Rothstein says tools for intermediaries that address housing employment or consumer debt problems can be embedded in a range of community institutions such as churches, libraries, tenant associations, nail salons. These are the kinds of innovations that are underway and law schools can play an important role here through clinics through partnerships with legal services organizations to lawyer for the day programs through public education, helping others in the community understand how to get access to law and why they ought to support efforts to improve access to justice. A very football coach Jim Harbaugh spoke out in support of funding for legal services and some people asked him why do you care. And this is what he said. Some people say why is a football coach concerned and I explained I'm an American first, and all Americans should care about justice. The idea, as you learn about our legal system. It's not being able to have access to justice. And from what I can see is that if you have money, you have access to justice and if you don't. It's less and less possible. I mean to have a society that has liberty and justice for all it's right there in the Constitution in recognizing the humanity of our fellow human beings. My former boss justice Thurgood Marshall once said, we pay ourselves the highest tribute. That is true, I believe, if we make access to justice of reality and make justice for all within reach. Thank you. Thank you, Professor minnow. We are a little bit ahead of schedules if anyone has any questions for Professor minnow please put them in the q amp a while we have her here. My question that did come up was, you know, besides clinics and lawyer of the day programs. Is there anything else that you think we can do or should be doing as law students to help, you know, make a change and make a difference. Well thanks for that question. I actually think there's a lot that law students can do law students can work on law reform to make laws more simple. Law students can work on these kind of technical solutions you are all digital natives and no more than I do, but it is really inside of law schools that some of these very exciting tools are being creative interactive tools that allow anyone who has access to a smartphone, which is actually about 90% of Americans have access to a smartphone to be able to find a court form file a pleading to get answers to questions about eviction about special education. In addition, I do think that developing your own skills so that you can practice law wherever you plan to do it but incorporate pro bono service and service to those who don't have access to, to lawyers as part of your daily work. And you can do that while you're in law school. I have another question for you. So, since this is America, our political system is beholden to the electorate. What is being done to broadcast this message to the masses. Of course we can expose the ethical or even moral dilemmas but I think they get missed by most Americans who struggle to pay for their own bills. There's obviously a massive disconnect between academics acting and good faith and regular working class folks. How are we effectively communicating the economic benefits of funding legal services. Well, so far we clearly are not because the, the, the justice gap continues to grow. I do think that there are ways that better communication on the subject can be advanced and one is to actually find advocates who are likely like the football coach from University of Michigan. What's very powerful I think is to see people in your own community who don't seem to have any self interest, be able to explain why $1 spent on legal services actually can bring $5 back to a given state, or why you can halt what would be otherwise disastrous if you keep people in their homes, rather than allowing the downward spiral into homelessness. And I think a lot of people are moved by those kinds of topics and just don't know that enforcing legal rights can make a real difference. So I think there's more to be done but the story is a is a good one to tell and again this is a fixable problem. Thank you. So we have another one. Hi Professor minnow thank you for this wonderful presentation in terms of law reform, what is the number one thing you would like to see change about Massachusetts landlord tenant law that would allow tenants to have greater access to the court system. To some states Massachusetts actually has laws that are pretty reasonable for the tenants, but again, many tenants don't know that or don't have an ability to make the arguments. So I think the number one change that I would make is to make sure that there is something like a lawyer for the day or some available service to assist every single person who comes to housing court in Massachusetts. And 90% of the landlords are represented 90% of the tenants are not what is wrong with that picture. Do you think that state licensing requirements for lawyers such as the bar exam impede access to justice, and kind of going off that question if so what do you think we can do to improve that requirement and make, you know, licensing not such a significant barrier. So there is a long standing view that only people who have studied three years in law school and passed a bar exam can give any legal advice. I think the problem here is not licensing but it's the very rigid view about the unauthorized practice of law. Disciplinary actions brought against paralegals who offer legal advice against some of these apps that I've described some of these interactive algorithmic tools, as if there's somehow competition with lawyers who would otherwise provide their services. The bar itself took leadership and said, where there are community needs that are unmet, we will not pursue unauthorized practice of law charges. Yes, there's issues about quality and making sure no one has taken advantage of, but there can be even certification of what's reliable information what's a reliable alternative. What challenging as legal education is, there are many people who don't have three years of legal education, who can nonetheless become very, very knowledgeable and effective in one specific area and become a guide for others. And the bar ought to be leading rather than resisting initiatives of that nature. Thank you. So access to lawyers is important, although it's better to not need one in the first place. How can the law shift the structural inequities so that people are not pushed into positions of vulnerability in the first place. What role does law play in distributing opportunities from the start. And of course, you know, I discussed that one of the barriers to doing anything about the access to justice problem is that the why, why do people need lawyers in the first place. And I work on many issues of systemic injustice in my own life, my own professional world. But in the meantime, why should these be at odds with each other. The big challenges that you're alluding to the structural inequality, the, the ways in which the economic disasters fall most heavily on those who are least advantaged. Those are huge problems and let's work on them but in the meantime, people have rights on the books that are not enforced and their lives could be made much better if they were. These should not be goals and odds with each other. I'm not aware of any good programs to help pro say parties and appearing before administrative agencies versus in court. Any suggested actions that state agencies can take to be more accessible to pro say parties. Such a great question. I mean, and it's related to the prior one because I do believe that if some of the agencies would make their rules and their procedures more navigable. There wouldn't be such a problem or a need for legal representation. And I do know some examples for example the federal Department of Housing and Urban Affairs HUD actually has a legal assistance program and very good evidence that providing that legal assistance makes a real difference again and ensuring continuity of stable housing. There are examples of agencies that partner with the legal departments of corporations to provide representation in administrative settings so it's an important point because administrative settings are often even more comprehensible to non lawyers than the court is and finding a way to help them navigate what our claims and defenses is very important. Thank you. A personal question that I have for you. You know, more and more law schools are creating courses and curriculum to help educate law students on the systemic inequalities of our legal system. What do you think should be included in those types of courses to really make sure that as we continue throughout law school and enter the legal field that we are well versed and educated on the issues that you know many of the people that we're going to be representing are facing or have faced. That's a really terrific question and I'm excited to see a lot of curricular reform some of it spurred by the Black Lives Matter movement some of it spurred by COVID to integrate inside of mainstream courses inside of civil procedure contracts. I would like to mention to the disparate effects of the economic inequalities structural failures but also of the failures imposed by the law itself. It is stunning to see that it's possible to graduate from law school and never have to heard about fines and fees that are imposed by the legal system itself. But I think that there are impressive efforts to make sure that you can't get out of law school without encountering those kinds of problems. I think specialized courses that are really powerful in connecting the dots and showing how failures to provide an economic safety net can lead to a snowballing of problems. Showing how student debt itself is a product of a lot of unscrupulous practices by for profit educational institutions and for profit loan institutions. I think that the best thing that a law student can do to become equipped to work in these areas is to develop analytic tools to be able to actually understand empirical evidence as well as legal materials and to be able to listen really well and be able to persuade and developing those skills will be I think the critical toolkit for providing assistance, not just the individuals but tackling some of the systemic injustices. Thank you, Professor. If anyone has any additional questions for Professor Mano, please put them in the Q&A. What is your advice to students with massive amounts of debt who want to be public interest lawyers but could instead enter the private sector? It's a super question. There are some individual programs for loan forgiveness for people who enter, for example, the legal services that are funded by the federal government. If you take a job doing that, there's a loan forgiveness program. So one thing is to research which kinds of public interest jobs actually offer loan forgiveness. And another is, look, I do think that lawyers who are in jobs where they get paid pretty well can be very critical to solving the justice problems in America. Whether it's through their pro bono work or I've worked with large corporate law firms that have devoted the time of their associates and partners in developing proactive plans for communities, for example, that face natural disasters, floods, fires, to be able to leverage the legal resources that are available and the non-legal resources. I mean, that's a pretty great thing that a corporate law firm donated the time of their partners and their associates to develop really usable plans that are making a difference in communities right now. So whatever career path you pursue, you can take part in this very important work. Thank you. We are going to be touching on technology later in the day and I was just wondering if you could share your overall thoughts on how you think technology can help the justice barrier but also how it can hurt you because there are a lot of people that don't have access to internet or cell phones or any sort of technology. Well, it's a really perceptive point. I was in visiting one state where I asked people what technology helps you access justice, and I never would have thought about this. The legal services organization had created a helpline, but they were so swamped that people would be put on hold. And in a low income community, many people said being on hold and using up their minutes was something they simply could not afford. And so I hadn't thought about a helpline as technology. I hadn't thought about the difficulties of a minutes plan for your phone. Based on this, we were able to help the legal services organization come up with a system of callback. So rather than being put on hold, the individual will get a callback and not use any of their minutes waiting. There's an example of just being sensible in using technology and above all listening to those that's supposed to help about what the barriers are. Even people who don't themselves have a smartphone are most likely to know someone who does. And public libraries are a tremendous resource or refer to them several times. You know, they're in just about every community and libraries have Wi-Fi and libraries have access to the internet and libraries increasingly have information about accessing justice. And that's one way to deal with the problem you're describing. And another, you know, as I made reference to programs that are offered even in elementary schools or in community centers, you know, bringing the materials of justice out into the community. I know one portable public library that went into communities, you know, like the library van that would also give people, you know, the information about how to find legal services. So being proactive is one way to deal with what might be barriers from lack of access to technology. You know, if the community doesn't have Wi-Fi doesn't have broadband, that's itself a major problem. What I'm discovering is that there's plenty of money to actually pay for it. And the problem is actually follow ups really due to failures of antitrust enforcement and municipalities that haven't negotiated their broadband licenses with universal service in mind. So there's another topic where some lawyers could get involved and try to make a difference. Kind of going off this idea of, you know, technology, a lot of states are moving towards an e-filing system. What are your thoughts on e-filing? You know, is there anything that we can do as law students and soon to be attorneys to kind of advocate for having e-filing but also still being able to file things in person? Because as you just mentioned, you know, that is a huge barrier for a lot of people. Well, totally. And, you know, if you have access to a smartphone and you can take a photograph of the mold in the apartment and submit that rather than having to hire a lawyer, find a lawyer, put it into a document. I mean, it's within reach. We know how to do this. We're doing this in other domains. Why can't we do it in the legal system? I think that for my money, actually having promising innovations and then pointing to it is a way to make advances. You know, people say you can't do it. You can't do it. You can't do it. Well, show people it can be done. It reminds me of a time I was teaching a group of judges and we got onto the subject of the kind of catch 22 problems that often arise for low income people. And one judge says, yeah, I had a before me someone who had lost custody of her children and couldn't get them back until she had housing, but she couldn't get access to subsidized housing if she didn't have her children in her custody. And this was a catch 22. And so then the judge said, so you know what I did? I ordered the Department of Child Protective Services to actually find a motel room so that this woman could have housing and then get her children back and then apply for the subsidized housing. And as we sat in this room, the other judges one by one said, you can't do that. Where's it say you can do that. And the initial judge said, well, I did it. And I just know that that conversation, you know, sparked the possibility of yes, you can make a difference, even if you don't see it written down about how to how to do that how to fix the problem. What are your thoughts on civil getting as a solution to the justice gap. So civil getting is to develop in the civil side the same kind of idea that we have with the Supreme Court's ruling on the criminal side which is people who can't afford a lawyer. Initially it was only felonies should have a right to one. I think in many areas, the issue of the jeopardy that people face, even though it's called a civil case can be as significant how about the risk of losing parental rights or custody of your child. Why isn't there a right to counsel there. So I'm a supporter of civil getting, but I am not a supporter of making that the enemy of experiments in non lawyer representation. And unfortunately in many communities that's what's happened. It's dividing the access to justice community saying you have to pick. Do you want to make civil getting, or do you want to have these alternatives where non lawyers can represent people in housing court. Why can't we have both. Thank you. What gives you the most hope about our ability to solve or at least improve the access to justice crisis, how can this generation of law students do better than prior generations. The fact that this symposium is happening and that justice is now front and center at Roger Williams. That's that gives me hope. And, although I don't think technology is a cure all, I do think it's a game changer. I mean the fact that you can go to Amazon and easily navigate and get something and have it next day. We could use the same kind of technology in real time justice. Why can't we do that. I think that the courts that had no clue about technology pivoted within a week during coven to go to zoom hearings to have some feelings to figure out ways that people who couldn't get into locked courthouses could none that let's get justice. This was a jumpstart for a set of innovations that I really have hope will continue. I've talked a lot about investing in lawyers. Is there a good way for local communities to raise money for investing in some of the resources that you've talked about, or is most of the money coming from the state and federal level. Great question and in many communities, it is a three way mix federal state and local. So I think the local community play a real part. The Chamber of Commerce that I met with in New Hampshire it was clearly the leadership of the local community that was making the difference in terms of supporting legal services. And that was the business people who said directly this is in our self interest, because we want people to respect the rule of law, and in our system. So I do think that the local businesses and local governments can play a real part. I made a reference to IOLTA these interest on lawyer funds. I mean that was a great innovation operating using both state, federal local all all three systems because the lawyers are operating locally. In other kinds of ways, can there be dedicated funding. The Chief Justice former Chief Justice of the New York Court of Appeals was very effective in convincing New York City to actually have a line item of dedicated funding for legal services by demonstrating the money that was saved for the city, when people had the ability to enforce their legal rights. Thank you. If there's any other questions please put them in the Q&A we have about 15 minutes left with Professor Minow. Well, let me ask a question back. Have you explored the possibility of making your law journal available to non lawyers. Because if you do, there might be some ways to use that as a vehicle to communicate the kinds of topics that we're talking about to people who don't normally know about them. That is something that we have been talking about and our, at least our hope for our inaugural edition and for the years to come. We want to, you know, publish less scholarly pieces and more practical pieces, you know, and pieces that are highlighting various resources that are available to litigants. And so that is our hope, obviously, you know, with our journal just being created. There's a lot of work to be done. And it's never going to, you know, not be evolving, but we are hoping to really make the journal accessible and the information in the journal be something that, you know, can be helpful and just not filled with legal scholarship that most lay people don't understand. Well, I think that's great. And even if it's just adding an accessible abstract, or take away five, you know, two minute take away on top of something that is more scholarly, that would be an accomplishment. You know, I'm fascinated to see so many law schools and law students now expanding with podcasts and with blogs. And I think that it's just really promising as a way to reach people who are not in law school. We have another question for you. I think I'm going to butcher this name, but I'm going to try justice strago light developed a non adversarial approach to the Cambridge homeless court. Do you see opportunities for similar approaches that could be applied in the near term. And I think that's a great example of the kinds of innovations that are possible. And these are a hint about what people call problem solving courts, and there's a growing number of them where, you know, nobody is benefited by just the adversarial arguments that don't solve the problem. And I love it when I see that there are judges who are directly involved as this true of justice lift. I think that similarly the restorative justice experiments in many parts of the country, coming out of usually criminal law but sometimes a civil law certainly juvenile justice. There are other examples where non adversarial approaches depend on everyone explaining what their perception is of the problem and also everyone explaining what they can do to solve it. So I think there's great promise there. Thank you. So right now in Iran women face discrimination in law and practice, including in relation to marriage divorce employment inheritance and political office, thousands of people are being interrogated unfairly prosecuted and or arbitrarily detained solely for peacefully exercising their human rights and hundreds remain unjustly imprisoned. Because you were formerly affiliated with the Iranian Human Rights Documentation Center, I wonder how current law students could contribute to the movement for change in Iran. Well it is a, you know, appalling situation. I did have the good fortune to work from its founding with the Iranian Documentation Center Human Rights Documentation Center and it's based on the premise that even if justice is not possible right now inside the country, preserving the records of what's going on is a goal in order to achieve justice when it is possible. I think that the State Department of the United States was a remains a very active participant in that work. And one way people can help is to directly or indirectly support actually the work of the United States government and non governmental organizations that are trying to shed light on the abuses going on in Iran. What do you think are the best ways for legal practitioners to actually help encourage a system that allows non lawyers to provide legal aid services. And do you think the industry itself creates artificial barriers to this goal. I do believe that the the unauthorized practice of law rules enforced by local bars is an unnecessary barrier to developing alternatives and equipping people who are not lawyers but can make a real difference. You know, we're, we're headed into a period where my generation the baby boomers are going to retire. And there are many, many people who have skills and abilities but aren't lawyers, and with some training could be very valuable guides to people in housing court, dealing with domestic violence, navigating the veterans administration. And I think that the experiments that range from the housing court navigators program in New York City. Experiments in Utah experiments in certification of a role or simply immersion in training for a week, even a day can can provide someone the ability to help others work their way through a bureaucracy. So, I think that the bar can lead I think that law schools can lead I think that it one way to lead is to come up with a better word than non lawyer. It's so legal centric to imagine that they're lawyers and then everybody else is a non lawyer, there are people who can become civic aids to make justice real. And partnering with individuals who are not lawyers so that they can get that knowledge that's one reason I asked you the question about finding ways to share what you're doing in the law review to people who are not lawyers finding ways that we can share the knowledge that lawyers have is would overcome what are artificial barriers to knowledge. As a 1L in a first gen, a lot of law school is very foreign. I know that a lot of journalism schools are filling in the void left by local newspapers disappearing. Do you have an idea of what a law journal would look like that is more accessible to the ordinary person. Because I think a great direction to actually challenge your law journal I think that one of the messages my parents said to me when I went to college was please don't come back unable to talk to us. I just hung in my mind over and over again as I was learning all kinds of jargon. So I do think that it's just a really good practice to constantly be thinking how can I explain this to my grandmother. How can I describe this problem and this solution and this technique to people who are not lawyers. And I think that that is if you put that front and center as an element of your law review. So that's a skill that will serve everybody. Very well for life. And our last question for you. Can you talk a bit about your work with the Academy of Arts and Sciences is there access to justice work continuing. Thank you for that. It really was with the view that lawyers can't be the only ones who care about the access to justice problem that john john Levy lawyer in Chicago can Frazier great business leader and I proposed this project with the American to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, which is made up of people in every walk of life and field business journalism medicine, every discipline in a university are represented there. This is an organization that was founded by, you know, the founding fathers. It's really it's hundreds of years old as a way to honor people who have distinctions in their careers. And what we have been able to do is to use the auspices of the Academy to educate and share the kinds of information I have shared with you today with people who are architects people who are doctors people who are in other areas. And yes, many of them are saying are coming on board and saying we care about this. The work does continue we have about two more years in which we will build on a report that is publicly available you can Google it access to justice American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Very practical recommendations, unfortunately they came out in the middle of coven. So we are now at trying very hard to make progress on those recommendations, including by working with people in Congress and working with local communities. And the last recommendation is to build a sustaining initiative of this nature. And so I confess my own focus is right trained on that. One more dimension is to sponsor and support some of the kinds of innovations using technology and non lawyers that I've described, and to evaluate them, because for those who won't give any money until they see an evaluation. Well, let's do the evaluation. I live we actually have one more question for you to end off your talk. What inspired you to devote your career to access to justice. Oh gosh, I'm just incredibly lucky I have I had the good fortune to have parents who cared about justice who took me to civil rights marches as a kid. And I was, I came of age in the 1960s and saw that people championing for change could make a difference. And so that's why I went to law school and I've been able to pursue those kinds of questions ever since very lucky. Thank you so much Professor minnow for speaking with us today we really are so lucky to have you for our attendees we are going to be taking a break from 1015 to 1030 probably at 1030 will begin our accessibility and legal education session so please join us at 1030 for the next session. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for the great questions. Good morning everyone. Welcome back to our symposium event and thank you for those of us who just joined. I'm your co host Katrina you today and I'm pleased to announce our first panel of the day, which will focus on accessibility and legal education. I'm operated by Roger Williams own professor Suzanne Harrington step in and feature a mix of students and professionals. Please feel free to put any questions you have in the q amp a box, so that way we can discuss it at the end of the panel. And with that, I will pass it over to you Susie. Thank you so much Katrina and thank you, Whitney as well for your vision and your effort and planning today is symposium, which I know is not an easy feat for anyone, let alone to law students so thank you so much. Professor minnows keynote this morning was absolutely wonderful I think my panel and all of you joining us would agree and I especially loved her emphasis on the need for vision and creativity in addressing the access to justice crisis. So I'm thrilled to talk about how we can attract and retain creative brilliant diverse future leaders of our profession. So in this first panel of the day, our focus is going to be on accessibility in legal education for underrepresented applicants and accessibility in law school once those applicants become students. We'll also discuss issues related to access issues with the MPRE as well as the bar exam. So as is true with all of today's panels, we could really probably spend a week focusing just on the issues around access to legal education and access to issues in law school for underrepresented students. So just as a disclaimer our conversation today will really focus on the professional experts expertise and scholarship of our panelists, as well as their lived experiences. You know by no means do I suggest that today's panel represents the full diverse array of perspectives and experiences around access to legal education. So I'm going to briefly introduce our panelists and then when I'm done introducing them I'll have each of them discuss the perspective that they bring to today's conversation. So Dean Michael Donnelly Boylan is the associate dean of enrollment and strategic initiatives at Roger Williams University School of Law. He has become a leader on issues relating to the inclusion of lesbian gay bisexual and transgender students in legal education. He is a member of the Law School Admissions Council Board of Trustees and shares the schools and candidates committee. He has been a member of LSAC diversity committee services and programs committee and test development and research committee. Professor Heidi Brown is a law professor at Brooklyn Law School. Professor Brown just released her third well being book entitled the flourishing lawyer, a multi dimensional approach to performance and well being. She's also also the author of untangling fear and lawyering a four step journey toward powerful advocacy. The introverted lawyer, a seven step journey toward authentically empowered advocacy, and she's the author of the legal writing series, the mindful legal writer. Professor Monica Tech Sarah de Sousa is a professor of law at Roger Williams University School of Law. She teaches property family law and race and the foundations of American law. Prior to joining our faculty, Professor Tech Sarah de Sousa was a tenured professor at New England law, where she created and served as the director of the first generation students program. She serves on the board of directors of the Kate Verdean American Lawyers Association and the board of justice at work. Juliana Torres is a third year law student at Roger Williams University School of Law and admissions ambassador. Juliana has been invested in fighting social justice issues her entire life and is excited to use her law education to uplift her community. This is also a third year law student at Roger Williams University School of Law. Michaela currently works as a law clerk for Motley Rice. Before law school Michaela was in plaintiff's personal injury as a senior litigation paralegal. Michaela is the current president and previous vice president of the students for civil justice, where she organized a mentorship program between the Rogers Association for justice attorneys and our law students. And finally, Eden Yerby is also a third year law student at Roger Williams University School of Law. Eden plans on pursuing a law career in environmental or land use. She is passionate about diversity and inclusion and serves on the diversity and inclusion steering committee, as well as the LGBTQ plus subcommittee at Roger Williams School of Law. With that, I will let each of our panelists again describe the unique perspective that they bring to this morning's conversation. So I'll start with Michael. Thank you, Susie. Welcome, everyone. My name is Michael Donnelly Boylan my pronouns are EMS. And I will also say I should probably update my, my, my profile online I am no longer a member of the Board of Trustees of LSAC. I phased out about a year ago and why that's important is I no longer have a fiduciary responsibility and can speak my mind which is particularly helpful in these kinds of situations. So I'm a first gen queer want to be lost in one of the things that makes me different than probably almost anyone you're going to hear from today. I am not a lawyer. I come at this from the perspective of a first gen student who has always wanted to be an attorney. As I say first gender myself out of the process. I arrived in college at Notre Dame with very little information, and frankly was surrounded by very, very few first gen programs, first gen students and first gen programs weren't even a thing. So I'll set because one of my friends told me I should. I got a score that I thought was really lousy, because most of my friends were heading towards Ivy League law schools and I assumed that my score was pretty poor. And in fact, it's actually a really good score. I wasn't sure who to go to for information and I was getting really bad information so this is my perspective of what I bring to the table is I work really hard to try and level that playing field and demystify the process as much as humanly possible. I know what it's like to not think you can afford this. I know what it's like to look at that sticker price and say there's just there's just no way like my family couldn't possibly come up with that money and not know about the student loan programs. So this is what led me into admissions I fully intended to go to law school that's why I ended up working in law schools and 27 years later. I don't think I have the illusion that I'm ever going to go, but I continue to see the world through the eyes of a potential law student. So that's all about me. Thanks Michael Monica. Good morning everyone. Well for me, similar to Michael Donnelly Boylan. I also was the first gen. I was first gen college student and then in law school as well. And it was a very intimidating experience for me, culturally it was very difficult to adjust. I grew up I was an immigrant here in the United States and I grew up in working class communities and Patek it and then Providence. I went off to schools where I wasn't able to find many other students who had similar backgrounds and one of the things that has become important to me over the years is to emphasize that I actually am quite aware of all the privileges that I had. And so I feel as though I'm a very privileged member of my group, even within those who are of the first gen identity. And so for me it's become almost a personal passion in my academic life to really point out to people that on paper. When you meet all of these boxes. Yes, I'm first gen my parents work in factories they didn't have more than a high school education. But in a lot of other ways, I had so many advantages and so for me my concern is, what about all of those other young people, children, students, etc. are less fortunate less advantaged. What are the opportunities that they're getting because I think if it was so hard for me. I think it's even harder for for others and that is what I really became aware of in the second, you know, part of my life now working in law schools, no longer as a student but now as a professor, and basically having many students for the years coming to me with their own stories, and with the feelings and emotions that they have being in the setting, not feeling like they belong not feeling like they were able to adjust to some of the norms and some of the expectations and so that's hopefully what I will be able to bring today. So thanks so much. Thanks Monica. Heidi. Thank you so much for having me today I'm so happy to be here. Similar to what others have said, I went to law school. Well I went to law school straight out of college I was 21 when I stepped into the first, my first law school classroom and it was at the same university and I loved college I thought law school is going to be exactly the same educational as college but we all know that's not true. I grappled with extreme anxiety, extreme public speaking anxiety throughout law school, and I also felt that everyone seemed to understand this secret code or this language or vocabulary and I felt like I had no idea what was going on, but I also was terrified I was afraid to ask, and I got through law school fine not great I didn't excel in law school, but I got a good job and, but really for the next 15 years of my career I grappled with and with extreme performance anxiety. So when I became a law professor, thankfully, I teach legal writing, and I grade anonymously and every semester, or every assignment when I reveal my grades, I'm always, it blows me away that my top grades every assignment are the students who are in the class and who aren't the ones with their hands in the air. And when I meet with them one on one I realize they also are grappling with a lot of the things that we're going to talk about today just feeling like they don't belong feeling like they don't know who to talk to, but they absolutely deserve to be here and have these amazing thoughts and insights and ideas and their change makers, and they just need help finding their voice. So that's what I'm really passionate about and it took me really two decades to find my voice and I aspire to help our next generation of lawyers happen to that earlier and realize we need you in our profession. Thanks Heidi, Giuliana. Good morning everyone and thank you so much Suzy. So I am the child of two immigrants I was born and raised in Rhode Island. And there was no one really my family who was in the legal field aside from a cousin and we decided to go into law school around the same time. So I came to law school with the perspective of someone who knew what the Rhode Island culture was like that was really invested in their community but didn't really know a lot of people who are my same situation. Now as a student admissions counselor I also get to get the perspective of prospective students and students as they come in and it's really great to check in on them during your law school journey and see how they're tackling those barriers and what new barriers may face and how we could help. Thank you, Michaela. Good morning my name is Michaela Thomas my pronouns are she and hers. I'm originally from California but I went to college in Boston. I'm a first generation law student, my grandmother immigrated to the US in the 60s. I started in the legal field a long time ago and I focused on plaintiff personal injury specifically in litigation. I'm a cisgender straight woman and I'm an ally and advocate for diversity and equality. Thank you, Eden. Thanks Susie. Good morning everyone. My name is Eden Herbie. My pronouns are she, her, hers. I'm a very proud transgender woman here that is a student at Roger Williams University in my third year. I was born in Georgia and Atlanta and I grew up primarily in South Carolina, so I have a very unique perspective of being a trans woman from the south. Before I moved here to Rhode Island for law school. I attended the University of South Carolina before coming here, I focus primarily on environmental and sustainability things but since coming to Rhode Island, I've stepped more into the idea of advocating for LGBTQ individuals and minorities and that's a big part of my experience here at Roger Williams University. As far as my perspective that I can bring to this discussion, Michaela and I have worked on a paper for transgender people and the barriers that transgender people face in the legal community. So I can bring a perspective of my personal experiences and just the experiences that transgender people face specifically when entering the legal community. Thank you. So let's get right to it. Let's begin this morning's discussion with barriers to legal education for students coming from underrepresented communities, which obviously this is a timely discussion in light of Monday's Supreme Court oral arguments. So let's start with Michael and again this conversation can be really broad thinking about admissions are really sort of the more traditional or untraditional view of access to legal education. Michael. So let me start at least us from a more traditional way of thinking about this and we can start to break it down into individual groups and things like that. What I would say that I think the four things I want to focus on our lack of information, lack of resources, a sense of lack of belonging, and a real lack of knowledge of whether they're worthy of being in these spaces. So from my perspective, which is now, you know, almost 25 years of working in law school admissions at two different law schools, 20 years here at Roger Williams. I can tell you that one of the things I find from underrepresented folks the most is a sense that they're uncomfortable asking the questions. They're not even sure whether it's appropriate to ask the questions, because they're afraid that everyone else already knows the answer. And so I find oftentimes my job is to make sure that people feel comfortable asking the question. I find it ironic because the folks that are comfortable asking the questions. Or I should say are asking the questions have carry with them a lot of privilege but the students that have less privilege feel like it's not they don't have the privilege to ask the question if that makes sense. Some of that comes from a lack of family connections. Some of that comes from a lack of access to pipeline programs that exists out in the world to help students in these situations navigate this process. So while there's many, many, many good programs from Clio to plus programs put on by LSAC and so many programs are designed at the earliest stages of even middle school and high school to bring people the information that they need. Those programs still are only hitting a small percentage of students and not allowing them access to the information. Also, a good many of the people were talking about don't know lawyers and therefore they don't even know what lawyers do. What lawyers do is what they see on television. And so if you've ever watched how to get away with murder, that would be seen as an accurate depiction of law school when in fact, it's not right. When people were of my age were looking at it, it was all about LA law. And years later it was the practice and what TV shows is what lawyers do. And as we all know now, lawyers don't spend the majority of their time sitting in a courtroom at least most lawyers don't. And so the perspective is skewed and there's a lack of understanding about what they can do with their law degree and how that law degree actually can be a quite powerful tool to change their environment to change their world to change their family's lives. Resources very similarly. This is extremely expensive process. It's not foolish enough to believe that it's just about when they apply to law school. It's about evening the playing field from the very beginning when they're applying to law school when lots of students are hiring a consultant these days. When lots of students are paying for Kaplan courses and Princeton review courses. And the playing having those those things in place creates a very uneven playing field. And I think everyone's hypercognizant that including the students, probably most importantly, the students that don't have access to those resources. And law school is expensive. I mean the sticker price on most US private law schools right now starts with a 56 or seven. That's a lot of money and that is an amount of money that if you don't have parents that have made six figures consistently in your life blows your mind at the idea of how you could possibly afford it. And so you don't even ask the question if you can, because you know you can't, despite the fact that there are some programs in place and scholarship programs and things like that, but you don't even believe that that is a possibility and we hear that all the time in my office. So so much of what we do is trying to educate students on the resources that are out there that help to lower those barriers. You know, students who come from first gen backgrounds, or more underprivileged backgrounds carry a lot of student debt before they even walk into this process. And we've already borrowed pretty consistently throughout college at a level that many of their peers have not. And so again when they look at those numbers, they're already looking at what they see as a student loan bill that already seems like they can't afford it. So it's hard to think about adding more, more resources or more money to that for these students it's not just funny money. I know for many of the people I knew in college and even some of the students I know here at Roger Williams. It seems like funny money and I mean by that there's no understanding of what that amount of debt means. When you don't have as much money, you understand it more than most that those numbers are real. And those numbers are really can be life changing in a negative direction. There's a real sense of will I belong in these spaces. I think for me, anyone who's coming from a background that makes them feel other in a community is thinking about different things than my traditional applicant is looking at. They're asking us questions that are just different. They're asking us about how they're going to be perceived in a classroom how they're going to be perceived by the classroom by their classmates. And the rights they may have as a student that are going to be different than other students I'm sure later on, we'll talk about things like what is the health care cover, and doesn't cover my specific needs as a student. These are all things that we don't necessarily think about as barriers and legal education, but all of these things are barriers to it this real sense of belonging means that fewer people, not only can walk in the door, but want to walk in the door and be spending three years in a space that wasn't built for them. And finally, I think a lot of applicants struggle with, can I even get in. Do I have the background to be there, did I go to the right school did I major in the right thing is my GPA going to be a problem for many, many first gen students in particular. Their first semester of college first year even or more of college is a true adjustment, their GPA is not necessarily a really great prediction of their overall success, while they first get acclimated to the, the experience of being in a place where they have no friends or family who've already been there and walk them through it so it's a real adjustment for first gen students and that may cripple their GPA in their minds and expect that we're only looking at the final GPA and the overall GPA and not the trends. That's the kind of information that I think creates real barriers. Now, I'm going to talk about the standardized test, I know, and I will talk about it more in a little bit, but the LSAT itself is its own barrier. Whether that's the courses which we've already talked about, or whether it's just the idea of a standardized test in this day and age, when so many colleges undergraduate institutions have moved to test optional. So this for many students is the first time they've taken this kind of test with this much pressure. So those are my early thoughts Suzy. Thanks Michael. Juliana, can you tell us from a student's perspective what are the barriers to getting into law school and deciding to attend as well as what you're hearing from perspective students in your role as an admissions ambassador. Of course Suzy. I think Michael, excuse me, it's that time of year I guess. I think that Michael hit it on the head when he spoke on resources and belonging. For a lot of students when you're going to law school, you're already thinking about working, you've probably worked all through undergrad and so personally and from what I hear from perspective students is that covering your own study materials for the LSAT, covering your own applications can be such a burden. The sense of belonging when you're from a background that doesn't match the majority of your peers, especially being in a predominantly white institution as a student of color. It can feel really difficult to fit in, and especially because you see people form those really tight support groups and those are really needed to get through law school, but you're also struggling through making this new support group here with these people that share your experiences and trying to split your time back home for a lot of students of color, they have a lot of responsibilities back home that a lot of their peers might not share. That is a concern that I hear from a lot of prospective students and something that I personally went through as well. Something as little as going to the point of belonging something as little as I got in trouble a little bit when I was younger and now I don't think that I can apply or, you know, I've had some bad experiences with the police or the law and I don't know if I want to make a change in that field and not knowing where or which area of the law, someone can really find their niche and make the change they want to see. These things aren't really expressed to students that are looking to go into law school. And I feel like those barriers resources and belonging are two of the biggest that I personally experienced and that I hear from prospective students. Thank you. And Monica I know Michael Dudley Boylan just mentioned some first generation barriers but I'd love to hear more in terms of your personal experience as a first gen law student, as well as your research and scholarship in this area. Thank you so much Susie one of the aspects of this that I think it's is really important for us to keep in mind is that there's a you know this word has become a buzzword recently but there is an intersectionality component here in terms of looking at the various identities that many first generation students are bringing with them and so for instance we know the research shows that first gen students are disproportionately also BIPOC students. They are disproportionately likely to come from a lower income background. They are likely to be older. They are more likely to be caretakers for children other family members. And so when we think about that juxtaposed with the model of law school that has traditionally historically been the model where you really are expected as a student to almost check out of your life for three years. Well, that's not a possibility for people who are grappling with all of these various obligations and commitments and so when we think about wanting to have a legal profession that is actually representative of all sectors of our society. We need to see if we're making it possible for all of those individuals to actually enter this field right so that's one one thing I would say the other and ties back to what others have already said, in terms of the access to information that different generations may or may not have the research actually demonstrates that as much as 60% of undergraduate students who are considering a law degree, they report that their primary source of information is a parent or a relative. Well, how do we address the fact then that our first generation students by definition are not going to have that parent or family member who has had this experience and so it's not surprising then or it shouldn't be surprising that fewer first generation students would consider this as a viable pathway and, you know, I say this as someone who was in the upward bound program and I know Michael Donnelly Boilin is familiar with the trio program some of you may or may not be, but these are programs that are at the upward bound at least at the high school level to let first generation students know exactly what's going to be expected of them in the college setting helps with applications to college. But that level of support is not typically going to be present for that student once they're already in the college setting now looking at graduate schools. So what are we doing again to try to provide that continuing support for this demographic I think that's important. The other piece is transparency. You know, to two other panelists so far have talked about the cost right the sticker price. And it's interesting. When you've been working in law schools for a while you start to realize that the sticker price is not always the actual price that a student pays. First gen students don't know that, for the most part. Okay. What many students are doing these days as they will get an acceptance letter and I'm saying that everybody now who's listening because everybody should know you get an acceptance letter, and you're told this is what you're going to have to pay. Okay, great. What is the other acceptance letter say to you, how much do they want you to pay. Can you use one school's offer against another school to try to get a better price. Yes, you can. And oftentimes it is the students who may need those resources, the least, who have again others in their circle who tell them, this is what you need to be doing to try to negotiate basically a better deal for yourself. I think at every stage we need to be transparent, and it's even something as small as and this is an experience that I had as a director of this program at my previous institution, where there was an event for incoming students it was basically an orientation event. The student told me later she did not attend, because she was not sure what she should wear to that function. And there are all of these anxiety sometimes that are associated with just the not knowing, not knowing what the expectations are. And so the more transparent we can be, the more we can help these students to feel comfortable on day one to eliminate those anxieties. Thanks Monica. Eden, can you discuss the specific barriers faced by the trans community in taking the LSAT and applying to law school. Thanks, Izzy. And yes, of course. So bear with me a little bit. I'm going to be a little bit more technical than my co-panelists right off the bat. So transgender people face many barriers outside of the context of applying to law school, just an existing, but specifically within applying to law school, the issues start before they even get into the doors of whatever law school they hope to attend. Whenever you start applying to law school, you have to register for an account through LSAT, who's the organization that administers the LSAT, which is the law school admissions test that every student has to take in order to actually apply to law school. When a student is able to make their account, LSAT has made some progress where they allow students he's preferred or chosen names on their account in addition to their legal names. However, the problem comes when you're actually registering for the LSAT test itself. In order for a student to register for the LSAT test, you have to use your legal name, which is in some cases for transgender students, not the same as your preferred or chosen name. So in order to actually register the test, you have to put that down. You have to input your gender markers and everything like you do for typical forms. And those gender markers are typically only going to be male or female, and they don't allow for any sort of variations in self identification. The big issue comes when it's actually test day though. So on test day, LSAT requires that applicants and test takers have two forms of government ID, and these are photo IDs, and they have to match identically to the name that you've used for your LSAT registration, which is your legal name. If you're a transgender individual, a lot of times you don't present as your birth sex or in accordance with your legal name. Then the acceptance terms that every student has to accept in order to take the LSAT, there are certain subsections that say that the administrators who allow you into the actual tests are the people that make the determination if you are who you say you are with your government identification. So if you come into the LSAT exam, hoping to take the test, already nervous because it is a very stressful examination, you have to hope that if you are presenting as your true self, as your preferred person, that you're not going to have an administrator who will reject you based off of any difference from your photo identification, or you have to suppress your identity and go with your legal name and birth presentation for the examination and suppress yourself. And the problem there is that there's no way for an individual to appeal this decision that the administrator makes when you're going into the examination. Within the terms that you accept, LSAT specifically states that there's no appeals process and any decision that the administrator makes is a final determination. While the student could potentially be out $150 that you have to pay to actually take the LSAT test traumatized from the whole event, and you didn't actually take the exam, and now you're having to potentially start this whole process all over again if you can pull yourself up and bring yourself to do it all again. Now assuming that the student has made it through taking the test, we can go on to actual admissions. Also, is where students put all their information together and compile all their application materials and send it off to whatever law schools they would hope to do. In the United States, there's roughly 190 ABA credit law schools. There's no standards for what law schools ask on applications, they can ask anything that they want, they can put it in any format that they would want to, and there's no requirements for what they ask you. So some law schools, just like with the LSAT, only offer to gender markers for when you're doing applications. They typically only allow you to do your legal name, some law schools will allow you to have a preferred name. So there's different variations within the actual admissions process where students can potentially disclose their transgender status because a lot of the issues for transgender people are numerous accounts of forced disclosures of their gender identities. And part of the process with admissions is students getting in contact with a lot of admissions officers to potentially get more information on the climate of the actual law school of the surrounding area to make sure that it will be a safe environment for them while they're undergoing their legal education. A lot of times administrators will be the first point of contact for students at law schools and hopefully they need a great admissions officer who can give them the information that they need and hopefully not reject them for their transgender status which again can depend on the individual and where the student is regionally politically applying in the area. There's a lot of different types of disclosures that can happen in this process with direct and indirect disclosures for their gender status. A direct disclosure would be something like identifying on applications that have male, female, other transgender non-binary markers where the student can actually identify and state that they're transgender. You can do it and different diversity statements where you can disclose your status by disclosing to the actual admissions officers or potentially the indirect disclosures where students can point out where they're potentially alluding to admissions to transgender without wanting to have that conversation and that's where admissions officers are critical in this part where they can kind of point students in the direction of resources that they think they might need. So an example of this would be if the undergraduate student went to a specific university that was all same sex. So it's an all male institution or all female institution and then you have the applicant applying under a name that does not necessarily match what was on the actual transcript, but there's a note attached to it. Then hopefully the admissions team can piece together a few things and kind of help the student with pointing them in the directions of the proper resources that they need. And these are where a lot of questions kind of come to light for individuals who are applying to law school to hopefully try to start building their network and having a happy healthy environment for their law school experience. Thank you, Eden. Before we move to solutions to some of these barriers, I'm just curious if anyone else in the panel wants to identify either specific or broad barriers that we haven't touched on yet in terms of admission. All right, let's talk solutions. So, so let's talk about solutions remedies again to the barriers that we've just identified in terms of getting diverse individuals to apply and be admitted to law schools. Juliana, why don't we start with you again students perspective what can we do to reduce the barriers for underrepresented students applicants. I'm really glad to highlight something that I have experienced being at our law and that is creating spaces for underrepresented students specifically to express their concerns with the law school ideas they have for the law school and other major decisions such as hiring committees and stuff like that. There have been multiple opportunities for students who are already in the law school to really address these barriers with administration and with faculty directly. And I feel like when I share my perspective in those areas they are taken very seriously, and I'm followed up on. And I think that's very valuable for a lot of students to know that when you are here, you can share what made it difficult for you to get here and hopefully the faculty and everyone involved in the law school implements that. In other ways, I feel like we can reduce barriers and I know that Michael and I have a bit of a different perspective on this. I think the LSAT specifically is a huge barrier for a lot of students to Heidi's research and a lot of her work on wellness, a lot of BIPOC students from my experience might not have the same access to mental health resources and that makes taking the LSAT so much harder. A lot of us have grown up with immense pressure from our parents and our family members and our own personal pressure because we feel like so much has been sacrificed for us, and now we have to do better and work harder and get the best score. And that can be very difficult when the things that you're studying, you just spent way too much money on and you've never been exposed to them before in your life. So I know that Michael has some thoughts on the LSAT, but I am a staunch LSAT denier. I would love to never see an LSAT use ever again. Thank you. And with that Michael, let's hear. You know, the LSAT is a pretty easy target and it's a space that we can all relate to, right? Anyone coming into law school has taken the test, but it's sort of important to remember what life was like before the LSAT. The LSAT exists and was created as a way to reduce barriers to law school, but the barrier that existed at that time, you know, I hate to use this phrase, but you still hear this phrase, you know, that's back when a Harvard man meant something, right? And what that meant was it was your breeding, it was your background, it was where you went to school. And the LSAT was designed that everyone could come at this and prove their level of intelligence at the same way. On a quote unquote level playing field. And we can discuss all of what that level playing field means, but the idea of the LSAT from the beginning was a way to break the tyranny that existed of white men from certain families, reproducing over and over into the profession. It's not a perfect tool, and I won't say that it is. But what it does in itself is reproduce the inequalities and inequities that are already built into our system, right? So what we see is, well yes, anyone can sit for that test and anyone can spend the same amount of time doing it and we'll do just as well. Well, not everyone has the same amount of time and so the inequities that begin at headstart and go all the way through our educational system end up getting reproduced in some ways. So people can rise above those barriers, but it still does reproduce them. One of the lessons of the pandemic that I found fascinating was admissions professionals around the country were really concerned. So even was talking about walking into the LSAT. I hate to tell you even we've all aged a little bit. There's no walking into an LSAT anymore. The LSAT is a digital experience completely on your home computer. And as a result of that, and the result of the lockdown, all of this happens, we start to see scores jumping on the LSAT tremendously jumping on the LSAT. And so the question started to become, was it because they were in their home space? Was it because anxiety was reduced? Was it because the test was easier because it went from five sections to three sections? Had the LSAT suddenly became easier? And what time was spent trying to figure this out? Because we were all worried about what our bar passage rates would show in three years of the LSAT was no longer a good predictor of success in law school. As we looked at it, and as the time has worked out, the LSAT didn't get any easier. We can, we now don't see those jumps anymore. What we did see and what we've studied in that period was the number of hours that people put into studying for the LSAT doubled during the pandemic, the early part of the pandemic. And what was that about? It was this rare moment where not everyone, but a much larger percentage of our population all suddenly had plenty of time. It was a great equalizer in some ways. Now, trust me, I'm not being naive to the fact that the people who had the least amount of time during the pandemic were people who were working at supermarkets and in places where they had to work. But a larger portion of our population suddenly had this much more equal playing field where everyone had time to study and buckle down. And as a result, scores jumped. It's a really interesting tale that got told about what time means for preparation and what, how in the inequity of time in preparation for the LSAT and how much people can afford. Time is money and money is time, right? It really, it truly is. It's a real lesson in privilege. I'm much more interested in talking to you about why the LSAT exists and why it has to exist in what I consider a racist system. And that racist system, in my opinion, is the bar exam. I will ask all of you and I mean, this is not, I'm not a genius. This is, you know, pop academia here. But if you ever have the opportunity to listen to Melton Gladwell's podcast on standardized testing and specifically on the LSAT, I ask you all, this is not my own thing. I ask all of you, if you were going to hire a lawyer, is it more important that that lawyer did the job quickly or the lawyer did the job right? The bar exam is designed to be a test pressured exam to make sure that you can get the questions right as little time as possible. There's a time pressure there. It's not about whether you can solve the problem. It's how fast you can do that. And your average client, your person on the street, your person who's suing their company for discrimination or who's going through a divorce or going through an immigration proceeding, they want you to get the answer right. The place that wants you to get it done fast and right is corporate America. It's not your average person on the street. The LSAT has to exist because the American Bar Association, in fact, does require law schools that over the course of two years, three quarters of every school's graduates must pass the bar exam. To pass the bar exam, you have to be an expert in a standardized test that requires you do that within a time, a particular amount of time. There's not going to be the kind of accommodations that are going to make that change. As a result of the bar exam, the LSAT has to exist. And why does it have to exist? It has to exist so that people like me who sit behind these desks and have the awesome responsibility of admitting people to law school don't have to deal with the guilty conscience of knowing we're admitting folks. They're putting out $200,000 sometimes. And they can't actually benefit from why they came to law school. The LSAT is us testing whether the bar is a possibility for you. Lots and lots of schools have studied the bar exam and they all come back with a very similar set of results. The LSAT is a predictor of the bar, I should say. The LSAT's a really good predictor of your first year of law school. Your first year of law school is a very good predictor of what your grades will be in your third year of law school. And your third year of law school is a very good predictor of how well you're going to do on the bar exam. However, the LSAT is not the best predictor of how you're going to do on the bar exam. It's all of those pieces along the way. And every school that studies it seems to find the exact same thing. And so the LSAT is important because the system that's set up, the system which I think is in fact racist, in order to protect consumers in this, I believe it really does have to exist. The bigger issue I see. And again, this is another piece of the system that's completely broken is the value of the LSAT placed by U.S. News & More Report. And the value U.S., the value the American consumer puts in that magazine and that magazine's value system, right? Very few people think about what the values are that go into making the rankings. But if you look at it, it's going to be the amount of money that is being spent and it's going to be the median LSAT scores and the median GPAs. It's not going to be how diverse and representative that school is, how equitable its scholarship programs are. It's all about factors that may not be what's important to you as a candidate. And as a result, law schools overemphasize the median LSAT score because it's important to what their perceived value in the marketplaces. And so there's this corporation, this business entity that's really driving why schools misuse the LSAT. I can talk, I can go on and on about the LSAT. It's currently, right now the ABA is taking a hard look at the LSAT. I would much prefer the ABA be doing even more, they are working on reforming the bar, but even more to reform the bar exam first. What I would hope for from the ABA's reforms is the ability to have more flexibility for all of us to be able to make decisions which are on more candidates without using the LSAT, but not to completely eliminate it from consideration. Great, thank you, Michael. And again, we could probably be an entire week on the LSAT and the bar exam. Monica, let's hear some solutions, some ideas again to these admission barriers from your perspective and from those of first generation law students. Absolutely. One of the points that I really wanted to make today is that there are programs currently at Roger Williams University that target this very issue. Susie, you run street law programs and you help to get our law students out into the community, meeting with school children, high school students, etc., throughout the state. I think this is incredibly important and it's something that we don't necessarily need larger systemic reform before we begin to implement, which I think in just the landscape that we are living in at the moment, it's really important for students to know that there are steps they can all take to help with the situation. And so if you think about, for instance, students who are attending school in certain communities and maybe they don't have anyone in their family who they can turn to for this type of all of a sudden having somebody visit the school teaching a class, letting them know, listen, I had a very similar background, I may be attended this particular elementary school or middle school or high school. I'm now in law school and this is what I'm planning to do. That student hears that, that stays with them, right? That doesn't cost a lot of money. Like, we can do that. That is something we can do now. And, you know, I'm really proud to be at a law school where those efforts are underway. There are so many students who are participating in this type of work. And it really matters. So that's one piece that I would mention. I think in terms of trying to make sure that we have an environment that is then welcoming once the students arrive. I think we need to make sure that, for instance, when we are going out to do presentations about what law school is, what it isn't, what college students should know as they're considering this as a potential pathway. And we are modeling. We are modeling in a lot of really important ways. And I want to just give this example because it made quite an impression on me this year when I attended the orientation program at Roger Williams and Michael Donnelly Boylan went up there and told the entire class, listen, this is my background. I'm a first gen student. I think the more that we can come out as law professors, as administrators, as admissions counselors, and basically we're letting those college students know you're represented here. Don't think of this as some type of alien environment that you don't have entree to or should not have entree to where here, and we're working on making it an inclusive space for you. That messaging, that signaling is incredibly important because tying it back to some of what Michael had said earlier, in terms of just the cognitive load that this has in terms of students ability to then just do the work, the academic work that we're assigning in law school. And not to which we can remove or minimize those anxieties. That's actually going to enable them to be more successful students, academically, if they don't have those other worries those other anxieties about their fit or lack thereof with the law school environment. Monica. Michaela, can you talk about some of the solutions and remedies to the barriers that Eden identified earlier with regard to transgender applicants to law school? Yes. So as a husband said there needs to be a sense of belonging for all applicants which includes transgender individuals. The LSAC has created web pages and guides for members to identify as LGBTQ plus. One of the guides is to help candidates navigate their law school searches. In this they have surveyed law schools and asked them to go over each of their policies. The survey is optional, so not every school has responded. Guides like these are necessary for applicants, sense of belonging. Across the board there should be options for gender identity that must be expanded on applications and documentations. So the LS, as Eden said the LSAC does not control the applications. The schools create their own individual applications and some schools still have gender with only male or female and identifications. If schools provided a more expansive range of identifications for students there would be alleviation of stress for gender non conforming individuals. It also gives a sense of belonging, providing more options also allows more accurate information for their reports. Allowing students to be identified by their preferred names on applications and on test days. And also registering with their legal name so that it matches their legal documentation. This small change would alleviate much of a person's stress and anxiety and not require them to disclose or explain that they are gender non conforming. Allowing students to use their preferred names when going into testing allows the students to feel comfortable but also allows the testing locations to be aware and they can still be identified with their legal documentation. Thanks, Michaela. So let's shift from admissions getting folks to see themselves in law school to once underrepresented students find themselves in the classroom in law school. Let's talk about the specific barriers that those students face once they begin their law school journey. Monica, let's start with you. What are some of the challenges that you can identify related to first gen and underrepresented students once they start, you know, day one. Absolutely. So I want to just reference what Professor minnow said this morning because I found it incredibly powerful that she cited her own parents as telling her, please don't come back unable to talk to us. That's such a common refrain I think that you will hear from first generation students in terms of, unfortunately, this divide that can occur between their experience in the law school setting, really their attempt to try to cultivate to this new environment. And then the distance the growing distance between their home community their family community. And this creates a very difficult psychological state for these students, because now they're trying to fit into an environment that they may feel well I'm not really quite fitting in yet. And then they go home, and they feel as though maybe they don't fit in there, either. I think historically part of this problem has been, you know, when Michael and I were going to law school. As he mentioned, there were no programs like this that I was aware of, at least for first generation students. The first generation identity in some ways is a hidden identity right you walk into a classroom you don't immediately know if there are others who are also first generation. And it takes some risk to try to find that out in other words you really need to have some conversations and you need to reveal a lot about yourself. Before you find out who else is first gen, and that's hard for students at that beginning when you're trying to just fit in, and you don't want people to hold any potentially negative views about you whether you belong, etc. So, what we, I think can do in the law school setting is, we can create spaces where first generation students can find one another. And they can then start to build this new community, which isn't the home community. It's not entirely the new law school community, but it's really this group of students with a shared identity who can basically talk about all of these issues that they're experiencing the issues with fitting in to the new setting, but also then going back home and wanting to be able to communicate with their families and friends that they have from growing up about what they're doing in the law school setting. So I think, you know, that's one of the big issues. There's also a way in which, you know, in the research supports this, the extent to which students are feel as though they belong in that law school setting, and then their ability to actually take advantage of the classroom opportunities but also extracurricular opportunities that are available to them in law school. So for instance, first generation students have been shown to be much less likely to actually consult with their professors during office hours. This is true for me in my own law school experience as a student. I don't think I want to see a professor once in my one L year. Why I don't know why exactly the research says it's because we feel as though we're taking up their time maybe that's not what they're there for. And once again, we have some type of transparency around why it's important to cultivate these relationships. And the fact that the research also shows that those students who are establishing these opportunities or relationships with professors, they are experiencing more academic success. And these are relationships that can also help them later on as they get their careers established in the legal field. So, as a professor, I know that I may say things in the classroom, it may resonate with certain students in a positive or a negative way. The first gen student, most likely isn't always going to come and tell me either how they were positively or negatively impacted by it. So it's a lot of responsibility, I think for us as professors and I want to give this one example, because sometimes, you know, examples will stay with you in a way that just talking about the research won't. But when I was a one L one of my professors was Gary Peller. Now those of you in the racing the foundations course know Gary Peller was one of these founding fathers of critical race theory. I didn't know any of that as a one L student right I wasn't reading his law review articles I don't think at the time I knew law professors wrote law review articles you know what I know about him. I know, and this is 2223 years ago that I was a one L. He taught the Williams of you Walker Thomas case, which one else students will remember has to do with renting to own, including a stereo from this furniture store defaulting and having all your personal property then taken. And Professor Peller at the time, got the sense that the classroom was not getting it and I was at Georgetown it was a very, I would say it was a more affluent type of community, you know, certainly then had been my experience growing up. I had a sense people weren't really getting this and use this example that I remember all these years. He said, imagine now being that parent, having your child invite their friends over. And the only sound is the hum of the radiator. Right because the stereo has been taken everything's been taken. That was two decades ago, and I remember that I never told him I never went to office hours and said, Oh my gosh, Professor Peller that really meant a lot to me, but it made me feel seen and heard. And I think it's something small. You know that's the thing I want I want people to see. This is not requiring tremendous financial resources. He said that in class, and it made had this lifelong impact on me. So, yeah, so those are a few things that I would say just at the outset. Thank you, Monica. Heidi, can you talk a little bit again about barriers in the classroom and it's fine if you sort of merge the solutions as well, whatever makes sense. Okay, sure. I'm so glad you mentioned the concept of safety and safe environment. One thing I've experienced. I teach one a law students and often I find myself on receiving emails from incoming one else who are expressing fear, they are saying in their email to me, I'm afraid that I'm not going to belong on campus because of my background or my current status. And they're unaware talking about transparency like we some of the panelists spoke of before they don't even know that groups exist student groups exist, where they can find and and get to know students who are are similar similarly situated to them. But they're coming to school expressing fear and and I experienced fear in my law school experience to and in researching fear. A lot of times we're given these messages of kind of slogany messages like just face your fears you know do something every day that scares you. But if you're a student coming to law school stepping through those doors for the first time. It's science you're in a fight flight or freeze response and your brain cannot process all the complex concepts that we're we're throwing at you and so that's a barrier I think from the get go this this sense of fear. My trans and non binary students have have come to me and expressed that they also experienced fear and frustration and and anxiety over professors just not educating themselves well enough or not being well versed enough and not paying attention closely enough to students chosen or preferred names their pronouns, maybe sticking to out of tradition or, you know, tradition of calling students Mr or Ms but not paying attention to that how that affects students. Also in the classroom when other students or or professors mistakenly use language or terminology that is improper or outdated or inappropriate. These students feel the pressure they feel put on the spot to say something in the moment if the professor isn't trained enough or hasn't focused enough on how to intervene in that moment, or lets the moment pass and doesn't circle back to the moment or or hesitates and our students feel they need to say something and that that as Monica mentioned earlier that adds an incredible cognitive load onto the student that I think a lot of professors aren't realizing we're either inadvertently doing or doing without enough care and thoughtfulness to how we could do better in the classroom. Students have also expressed a feeling of deep isolation and loneliness in the classroom if they perceive, even even misperceived but but perceive that they're the only person in that classroom with that background or that particular status and so I think eventually when we get to more solutions we can talk about how to foster an inclusive classroom environment, be very transparent as professors on to how you know we might not always get it right but we have, we would like to and we want to learn and do a better job and create a safe, as you said, a safe educational experience for our students so they can really grow and flourish. Thank you Heidi. Eden other barriers that you want to add for transgender students once they start their law school experience. Yeah of course so Professor Brown actually brought up one of the big things I was going to talk about with preferred names and those policies that a lot of law schools actually have. So something that students look for specifically transgender students might look for when they're applying to law schools are these chosen preferred name policies that not every institution has but a lot of them are making progress towards having these policies. But within the actual application of the chosen preferred name policies, it's critical that the law schools are actually making sure that these policies are working and are being implemented. So a lot of like the behind the scenes of law schools and how all the administration works. They have a lot of different systems between all the different offices and they sometimes don't always connect. So the student is given their preferred name on the administration's verse our documents it might not transfer over to rosters for professors that might not transfer over to medical or whatever other department you want to talk about. So making sure that these like policies are actually working together and the systems are all connecting or that the students that are using these policies are not being left behind and that they're not going to have to be put into those. Those are the course conversations of correcting someone of their name or their preferred pronouns when it should hopefully be implied that the information is already readily there. It prevents the students from being put into really awkward situations if they're being misnamed misgendered in the classroom, because that in and of itself if you're being cold called is terrifying let alone being misnamed or misgendered. So that was a really big thing that I wanted to talk about regarding the actual law school experience. The other thing that we focus on primarily in our paper is the actual process of how to be a lawyer so part of that is a super fun MPRE exam. This is very similar to the LSAT with the issues that there are, but instead of looking at LSAT we're now moving on to the NCBE. So the NCBE is now this organization that essentially administers the MPRE and a lot of the different character and fitness and bar exam applications for all the different jurisdictions within the United States or for like the few jurisdictions that do the character and fitness through them. So the MPRE exam you have to sign up just like you do for the LSAT for an account. However, the NCBE account I will say has potentially a slightly better platform for students who are identifying their names and preferred names. They have various different clickable options where you're inputting your legal name and your preferred name where they ask if you've been known by any other name. If you're able to have the option instead of just clicking other for gender identification, they're able to actually explain their gender status if they would like to. It's not required that they do that so it's up to the individual to actually disclose that information if they would choose to do so. However, the problem is still there with the course disclosure for the actual test day of the MPRE because one a student actually signs up for the examination. You still have to bring those two forms of government ID to the testing center, and you're still having to undergo the same issues that I talked about earlier where you're looking at taking the LSAT exam, where all the others are going to have to look at your identification again, and you're essentially having to disclose again your identification, like your gender identity, and hopefully going to be admitted to the MPRE exam so you're undergoing yet another force disclosure to complete strangers yet again. Thanks Eden. So let's turn to solutions how can we make the law school experience more positive for all of our students specifically are underrepresented law students. Heidi, what are some of the solutions that you've identified and that you're using. So from a professor standpoint as we design our syllabi and our curricula either over the summer before we're starting a new semester. I want to encourage us to really explore the concept of cultural humility and how we can work in the concept of cultural humility as as a as a teaching moment for ourselves and our students and a collaborative let's get the semester off to a good start. I think in the past we talked about the concept of cultural competence but but the literature saying you know, we can't become it's presumptuous for us to think we're going to become competent in someone else's background and so instead we should. I joke with my students that I was kind of mad at Socrates for 20 years for inventing the Socratic method that when I started studying Socrates, I learned that he actually embraced the concept of intellectual humility, not pretending like we know everything already but being humble, wanting to learn and cultural humility is is that we and we can establish a culture of cultural humility within our classrooms by having these conversations with our students from day one and encouraging students to to, you know, experiment with amplifying their voices authentically and talking about these issues in a safe way. One thing I've tried with my students to is because I teach legal writing and words are so important to us as as lawyers, talking about what words like respect and inclusion and humility mean in the classroom from the beginning and maybe crafting as a writing to emphasize a mission statement for the classroom, but also how, when we make mistakes in the classroom because we are learning this is a learning environment we're not always going to say the right thing. But what do we do about that from a from a position of respect and inclusion, some concrete educational or pedagogical things we can do. We really tried over the years to create writing assignments or assignments classroom assignments where the parties are with or witnesses and the hypothetical come from diverse backgrounds have have names that maybe some of our students aren't used to saying or don't know where to place the accent or misspell them all the time, pronoun usage, gender identity, and having students write about these, these different individuals and and get used to speaking about them respectfully. The one thing I'll caution those we don't want to do that in a performative way. So it has to be something that we've really given a lot of thought to and that has has a has a purpose has an educational purpose and it's meaningful. Also, I wrote an article with the help of my trans and non binary students, I really wanted to explore inclusive legal writing, especially using the singular they as a law as a writing professor for many years I used to always correct my students when they would refer to singular institutions like the court or the government or the company and they have used they and and and I would circle it and say no that singular so you should use it. But when it comes to people we should be including the singular they and and so with students I did a lot of research and found examples of of of pleadings and briefs and judicial opinions, in which litigants and judges were used intentionally in the singular they and it was clear the writing was clear. So showing students examples of really of modern pleadings and real legal writing, where we are using these these terms and pronouns in a clear and and an excellent way. In law school a lot we tend to teach cases from decades ago and or centuries ago and that and that serves a purpose, but the language in those cases is can be jarring for students and I think it's really important for us to choose cases that add in cases that are using proper terminology, proper scenarios that are going to educate everyone in the classroom the professors as well about about marginalized communities and and choosing inclusive language, and and setting an example for how we can continue that trend and and and do it right and and articulate legal situations about people who have not been represented as well as they should have been over the years and those are just some other examples one thing I'll throw in there to talking about being cold called again even mentioned being cold called. That is just something that I've actually researched and written about a lot and we really need to create alternate communication channels for students who are not yet ready to speak about the law, it doesn't mean they're not prepared it doesn't mean they haven't done the reading, they've probably, you know, really done the reading have charts and outlines and flow charts and and flashcards, but in the moment, they can be very rattled for a multitude of reasons, and we can't keep keep clinging to this tradition of this the method or cold calling, without teaching students how to stay in the moment, even if, even if we're feeling anxiety and fear, help students stay in the moment, get to be able to talk about things that they do know, and help them through the rise and fall of that fight flight or challenges, but also creating alternate communication channels not putting everything put every emphasis on speaking in class. One thing I noticed teaching on zoom even though you know I'm so happy to be back in the live classroom but speaking teaching on zoom, having the chat feature and the hand raising feature. I saw my quiet students really coming to life and having an alternate channel to be able to think and write things down in the chat and and and editing and testing their ideas before they clicked the you know the post button, and also being able to raise them then electronically and not feel like they have to interrupt somebody or be interrupted that that can be very anxiety producing for some students to feel like they have to interrupt somebody to get their voices heard. And now that many of us are back in the classroom we can create situations like that, allowing students to participate through discussion boards or communicate with us over email, or creating a safe feeling that they can come to our office hours which we know can be very intimidating, even if we think we're the most approachable professor in the world. Still, if a student has never had that one on one experience with a professor before. It's up to us to create that channel of communication. So I would encourage alternate ways of allowing students to participate in class. Thank you Heidi, Michaela we talk a little bit about solutions in terms of in the classroom. So as previously mentioned, there should be more options for gender identity. This is the same for all applications tests and within school systems. As Eden already said that NCBE has already stopped requiring individuals to provide their gender identity, and has only requested it for research purposes. So NCBE preferred name policies within the schools. This allows the students to be identified by their preferred names and will give them a sense of affirmation and acceptance. This is something that I've never had to think about but after researching and writing this article. I now understand that transgender individuals look at these applications and test much differently than I do. They already are extremely stressed on the day of testing however they have a big layer added on top of that. They within the policies, the person that's actually checking their identification has a discretion to allow them in to actually take the test, or not allow them in. So, another thing as professors should have a disclaimer prior to classes that there will be something potentially controversial, or something that can make others feel uncomfortable. The classroom needs to feel safe for every individual in that room. If faculty and staff added their pronouns to their signatures and on their zoom it allows gender non conforming individuals to know they're in a safe space. What the remedy is it is critical that organizations and individuals alike begin addressing issues to prevent further harm being done. Discrimination is something that is socially constructed. There are real consequences that we can't ignore. We should be judging people by their characteristics not their race gender identity or preferences. And having diverse people brings different voices into the legal field. It would be a shame not to bring those different perspectives into something as important as legal field. Students will bring in unique perspectives due to their experiences with diversity and to be a part of the road to equality start listening to people's stories and narrative, which are helpful means to for ensuring greater inclusion. With that being said, everyone's story is different and we are evolving and we should learn together. The only way to do that is talk about it and listen. It has been repeated to me while meeting with people for our article and at a conference I attended last week on diversity. Other people need to advocate for diversity and equality. You cannot just expect diverse individuals to fight for themselves. We all have different audiences, which means that we have different years listening to us while we're advocating. If we all fight together, if we all fight for equality together, it will come sooner rather than later. Thank you, Michela and I'm watching our time I want to make sure that we leave room for questions. But Monica, can you quickly and I don't mean to rush you but again this is my job as a moderator. Just discuss the what you started at your former institution in terms of making, you know, underrepresented communities, students feel comfortable in the law school. Absolutely. And what I did was I worked with I partnered with a clinician, a woman named Barbara bow who worked for lawyers concerned for lawyers in Massachusetts, and the model was such that she and I would co facilitate regularly sharing groups of first gen students, and we would conduct it in a way that people may be familiar with where you go around the room, and we were in person at times and then because of coven we were also on zoom, but we would check in with the students. It was incredibly powerful to just have that space where the student could come in and tell us they were doing we sit as an opportunity to let students tell us both about challenges they were experiencing but also to celebrate each other's successes. And there were friendships formed by students in this group that I know are still existing to this day. And it was an incredibly powerful experience, I think for the students were there but also for Barbara and for me, being there able to facilitate or facilitate these groups and I think it's something that could really be done across law schools. It really just takes identifying the people who you want facilitating the group. You know, interestingly enough, in addition to the expertise that the license clinician brought in, having a professor who's visible to students is helpful. So if you teach in the one L curriculum, many students will know you because you were their property teacher, you know, in my case, and that becomes an easy again way to get students to sign up, or buy into this type of offering. Thank you. Before we turn to questions I just want to make sure I know we had to like rush through so many important topics but if any of the panelists feel like I really want to mention this, please speak up now I don't want to, again I'm sorry we only, like I said we could spend a week. Anyone before we turn to questions. I can just do a really quick thing just to kind of finalize our points. So our last thing we were going to talk about was character and fitness and the bar exam. There's yet again another disclosure shocker to no one. So essentially that was our last big thing was each jurisdiction has the ability to ask it's essentially like the most inclusive background checked an individual go through when you're becoming a lawyer. So with that students and applicants are having to disclose their name that they go by currently any previous names or aliases that they've gone by. So that's an intrusive process that transgender people are forced into a lot of very uncomfortable conversations with these examiners, but the NCB is trying to work with individual applicants who have different names and aliases that they may have gone by preferred names or anything. So that's when reaching out to confirm their work history or things like that. So that way they're trying to help alleviate some of the stress but it's still not a fun time for people to yet again have to disclose their entire life story to complete strangers. Thanks Eden and again we could do an entire session on character and fitness and I wish I'm sorry I don't mean to be so cursory. There is a session this law school is running in a partnership with Berkeley and George Washington and Cooney law school and jurist on character and fitness questions in the application to law school. Because law schools in some ways see themselves as looking at your character and fitness before the bar and whether law schools that's law schools roles or not. Because those questions do create a barrier to admissions for many many students from underrepresented backgrounds, who as we all know, are disproportionately represented in the legal system and so that is a conversation this law school will be engaging in and I look, look into your email over the course of the next semester to see if you can join in on that session as well. Thanks Michael that was important I appreciate that. Okay Katrina. So we do have some questions, I think, specifically the Elsa talk sparked a lot of them but before we get there. Somebody asked how do we stand up to law professors who are not inclusive. As an example, I had one professor at Roger Williams who told my class and this is a quote that using the singular they is incorrect and marks you as unprofessional. I'm an ally when I see micro aggressions but professors hold such power over all of us and I don't know how the best to best approach these conversations. Heidi I saw an aggressive nod so I'll have you start but others can jump in. I'm excited to jump in on this because that's, that's what I faced as well when when I was initially speaking with my students about the singular they to refer to individuals. We needed to figure out a way to speak to grammar traditionalist who say singular days in grammatically improper for it to refer to it a singular human being. But the research shows and my article get with the pronoun if you need something to show someone. There are so many pleadings and briefs and judicial opinions in which lawyers and judges have used the singular they in a grammatically proper way to to refer to a singular human being without creating lack of clarity without muddy muddying the the phrasing. We can do it and we have to do it and we're going to do it but I think by showing law professors examples of of other aspects of our society that in journalism and other areas where writing is is really important. The article are using the singular they it is being done it's the correct thing to do and here's some examples about how the legal profession has embraced a singular they it works it's not a problem and it's the right thing to do. The article also highlights a couple instances in which lawyers and judges have refused to use it. It has not gone well so I think that's also something to show that if you refuse to use it out of clinging to tradition outdated tradition or lack of lack of education or whatever the reason it really isn't going to be the best piece of legal it's going to make people lack, you know, respect for you. It causes the writer to seem less credible, they can seem almost, you know, incredibly disrespectful also but also foolish and not representing the party's interest as they should be so the article has a ton of examples so I'm happy to provide it to you I think I think I've made it available in the resources but that's a good thing to show or some of those briefs would be a good thing to show the professor and say wait look you know this week we can do this it's not improper and it's not. We need to start doing this now. I think from the writer's perspective I completely understand how it can be incredibly intimidating to talk to a professor about something that you feel so passionately about. And I think this goes to this question that I saw as well that if you don't want to disclose your pronouns individually, how do you support or call out a professor or another professional. I think I've been very fortunate to have an experience at our will where I felt like if I did feel uncomfortable listening professor said I could go to them privately I could write them an email. This isn't advised, but I did on an assignment right I'm not answering this question I think it's very inappropriate and this is why I won't I don't, I'm not saying to do that. If you and a bunch of other students feel the same way you can talk about. Okay, what's the best way we as a group can make this known can we write a group email can we all go together during office hours. I feel comfortable. I've had really great experiences with the deans at our law school Dean Bowman Dean Lawley, and Dean Brown, as well as Kathy Thompson the director of academic success they've all been really helpful just talking about, you know when I don't feel comfortable when I need more support or resources and I'm sure that if you went to them privately, they could give you a more clear path of action in that situation I'm really sorry that you had that experience in the classroom. Even admissions counselors are here to talk to you if you want to drop by the office and then we're always there for you. Thanks, Julia another question Katrina we've got a few minutes maybe. Yeah, if we run a little bit over that's okay. So, turning to the outside debate. Somebody says I'm a person of color and my undergrad life was chaotic so I had a very low GPA. When I turned my life around and dedicated myself to my academics it was too late for my GPA. None of the less I still wanted more than anything to be a lawyer. I wasn't the best writer and did not have much writing experience so I knew my personal statement wasn't getting me into law school. Even grace was the LSAT without it I wouldn't be in law school today. In my experience without the LSAT equalizing my undergraduate experience. I really don't think I would be here. This is a question for Juliana. For people who have similar experiences as I described above how do you recommend they get into law school. Thank you for that question I want to say congrats for getting the law school are so happy to have you. I'm really happy that your dream came true that was all on you. So, in a situation similar to yours. I would feel like yes, your personal essay would be really important to show off your writing skills. Arwoo's application specifically does have a supplemental writing section where you don't have to be the best writer it doesn't have to be Hamlet. You can really show your personality and show your drive and why you want to be in law school something else I found was really helpful and something that I felt like boosted my application. Personally what I tell other students who have this question is to really get great personal recommendations and personal references if you can build relationships with people that have experience with your work ethic experience with your goals and what you want to get out of law school and they can see you achieving that. That's a really great indicator that you can work hard and that in the setting that you're getting into you can be the best you can be you can meet those goals. And I think that those parts of the application can be a lot more helpful than a test score that might not be completely reflective of your ability or even how you were feeling that day. So I hope that answers your question. Thanks Juliana. And I just wanted to tell the audience to please put questions in the Q&A box if you have any. I know that we're running a little bit over time but I think the conversation is pretty good so definitely ask questions if you have one. To sort of combat what was just asked I think somebody else said isn't just the else at a good indicator because it measures how well someone is willing to prepare for that particular test. Can't it be said for other exams? I'm not sure if Jean Donnelly Boylan wants to answer that or if anybody else on the panel wants to. No I think in a way that's accurate. Although not everyone can have the ability to put even if they put all the full preparation time in master that test unfortunately. What I would say is I think a test that what's important is not that it be the LSAT. What's important to me is that it be a test that's designed to think about actually what the first year of law school or what law school is or what a good lawyer is, as opposed to what we're seeing with the GRE. I want to give you some background on the GRE and what schools have found is most of it, the parts that you would expect would be predictive of your success in law school, aka not the math is not as predictive as the math. And one of the things that traditionally is true in law schools is your math and science grades are the ones that we all overlook. I mean, it's really crass to frankly say that any standardized test would be a good predictor of performance in law school so I do hope that whatever comes about with the test if it was another test that it would be a test that was specific to law school and the second thing I would say back to that first question. Because that's exactly for many people why the LSAT does exist, right? It is hard without a hard piece of proof in a numeric piece in a numeric portion of your file to prove that you have what it takes. What I would prefer to see is not that in your situation that a standardized test with the LSAT go away, but there would be more pathways for students to enter law school. So one thing Roger Williams has signed on to, or one of the pilot schools that's entering into a new program with LSAC that's looking at right now it's for undergrad institutions where their students are taking specific courses, and we're starting to figure out what their performance in those courses is like and whether that's a good predictor of their performance in law school. In other words, not needing in the future, this is still years away, to take the test because they did really well in these six courses that turns out are pretty predictive at that institution for your performance in law school. So we are looking at those kinds of pathways and frankly we are participating as a law school and trying to make those things happen. This is a question for the students on our panel. Can the students share an example of a time where the institution was supportive of their identity and it made a difference? Personally, I feel incredibly supported in the building. Some of the professors on this panel have experience with me, just me personally, and I just have gotten a really great opportunity to be involved and to get to know a lot of our faculty on a more personal level because this is law school. It's not like undergrad where you're with a bunch of different students you're shuffling in and out you really get to form personal relationships with these people. During my time in law school, I've been on the Board of Alliance and now I'm serving as the president of the Latino Law Students Association. I also try to make it to any other affinity group events I can, and I cannot remember a time that I didn't see at least one of our deans there. And that means so much to know that the people who are basically running your law school, who you see as the top of the top of the food chain here, I don't want to call it a food chain, it's not what it is, we're very nice to each other, are always there to show up for the affinity groups, are always there to learn more about our perspectives at the school and what we're trying to achieve at the school. And I've had conversations with each of them afterwards about about those topics and I think that's really valuable to know that they're there and they're listening and that they care. Eden. Yeah, so I can also talk about a little bit of personal experiences here so. As I was on the discord, the diversity inclusion steering committee. I kind of made it a personal mission to do a little revamp to the chosen name policy that Roger Williams has. We had some issues with the different systems not connected together but because I brought it up and I was able to communicate with everyone that was in charge of all those different systems were able to get that fixed so I'm able to do it with all these upper level administrators at the University now and at law school, where they actively listen to the students if you have those communications with them if you are able to actually come to them and talk to them they will listen to you. And they're very supportive and understanding of whatever it is that you're bringing to them, and they will try to work with you to actually have all of these different problems that you're facing, addressed in the best way that they can it might take time. on that can just be waived and everything will be fixed. But they're definitely willing to be that support system for you and be there for you to help whatever a situation it is that you're going through at the time. Mikayla, do you have anything to add? Okay. Katrina, do we need to wrap it up or I know there's more questions, you're in charge. Yeah, I think we have time for maybe two more questions. I know Professor Brown had to step off unfortunately, but I really appreciate her taking the time to be here today. One of our last questions can be what resources currently exist to train professors on how to respond to an in-class situation. I am thinking of when a student uses improper terms or expresses harmful views towards gender non-conforming students. I've been present in a situation like that and I feel pressure to disclose my background and speak up, but I wish I didn't have to feel that way. I can actually talk about this one a little bit because I was on a panel for this before. So this will actually puts on a diversity doctrine series where it's based off of the book, I think that Nicole and I could be wrong, but I think also Susie worked on it where they do a whole discussion on how to address and deal with these type of situations where professors need to kind of like learn how to go and navigate through these systems as well as students. So it's kind of a very intense process of having to take a personal stock as to how you actually address these situations in the moment because it's a lot of deer and headlights where you think you know what you're gonna do until it actually confronts you, but being able to take stock in those moments and actually think through and not make the matter worse. So I know that's a good plug to potentially for that book as well in that series. I think all of those discussions are published on the school somewhere, I don't know where, but someone can get that, I'm sure. Yeah, I would love to just also second what Ian said, there's a lot of incredible resources. Sometimes it's like, oh, there's no lack of information, there's a lot of information. I think it's a great question whether law schools mandate certain types of training. I know Roger Williams has some wonderful programs that are voluntary for staff and faculty. I leave that to the audience to think through. There's a lot of issues around academic freedom and what you can and can't force a faculty member to do once they are teaching their class. And those can be tough conversations, but they have to be had. And I think we're lucky at least at Roger Williams that there are a core group of faculty who wanna talk about these issues, wanna talk about when we make mistakes and screw up because this requires a very supportive teaching environment. It takes a lot of humility, as Professor Brown mentioned, and courage to be willing to recognize when you've made a mistake, when you're unsure about something, when you feel like maybe you should have said something but you didn't. So that's just one of the ways I want to address that question. Thank you. I will actually ask two more because I think that these offer a good kind of wrap up to our discussion. The first one is what resources should students seek out if they don't feel supported by their institution? I would try first and foremost to find affinity groups that align with your interests or any identity that you feel most comfortable sharing with other people. Odds are that the people in those affinity groups will have a lot of the concerns that you, the same concerns that you do. And back to Eden's point, if you have a large group of people that share the same concerns and you have that power and that backing through an affinity group, that affinity group has a faculty advisor that's assigned to be your person. And that can be a really great stepping stone to addressing any problems that you might have. If there's a faculty member that you do have a good rapport with or trust with, that's also a really great resource to go to. We're also a good resource. If you come to the admissions office and you want to talk about any concerns that you have, we might be able to point you in the right direction with specific feedback because we do have that unique perspective being students ourselves and having this relationship with faculty. So I hope that's helpful and thank you so much for asking. I would also, and I'm sort of underlining what Juliana said in some ways, I don't ever underestimate your value and your voice as a student and especially in groups of voices as a student. So much reform over the years that I've been here have come through the Alliance, have come through Balsa, have come through organizations. And I would love that we could always know in advance when there's going to be a pain point. But remember that the faculty and staff entered into this profession because they want to teach and they love students. And so when we hear something that's causing you extra stress, especially when there's, there's strength in numbers, I can't tell you enough how much that makes a difference at this institution and at many institutions. Thank you. Okay, our last question for our panelists is what do you think is the best way or some ways for current RWU law students to provide support to other law students who come from different backgrounds or maybe don't feel like they belong as readily both in the classroom and personally throughout law school? One of the things if I could to say about this is that there are formal ways and there are informal ways. So there's a formal program right now that exists and that Christopher Garrilica had created which actually pairs two L and three L first gen students with incoming first generation students. And so that type of mentor-mentee relationship can be incredibly helpful. Even if you're not participating formally in that program being able and willing to talk to those incoming students is incredibly beneficial I think for both parties because one of the messages that we wanna send to incoming students is that when you do start to feel anxiety, when you start to feel stressed, when you think to yourself, what did I do? Right, what have I done by coming here? You wanna hear from students who've gone through this before and gone through it recently and you start to get a sense that it's not you. There's something about the legal education experience that has been challenging for students particularly for Chen students, BIPOC students, any underrepresented communities that are in the law school setting and knowing that and hearing that can then make everyone's experience a little bit better. I'd love to wrap it up on that positive note, Monica. I wanna thank the panelists, Eden, Makayla, Michael, Monica, Juliana, Heidi, who had to jump off. Thank you so much for really a wonderful discussion and I look forward to this afternoon. Katrina, our directions. Yeah, thank you everyone for speaking with us today. I thought this was a wonderful panel. We're now going to take a lunch break. Our next panel will be at 1 p.m. We're going to focus on a study about self-represented litigants. So please be back in about 45 minutes for our next session. Thank you.