202 Difference
Summary
We find some support for the overall patterning by race and gender that has been
documented in other studies. In addition, this study introduces some nuances and
complexities that will be important considerations in any thorough examination
of these problems. For example, attention to the effects of context emerges as a
vital part of understanding these phenomena, from differences among law schools
to variations in teaching styles commonly denominated simplistically as Socratic.
One interesting result of comparisons among our classrooms is a more com-
plex definition of inclusiveness; it is clear that inclusiveness is not a uniform char-
acteristic across different dimensions. A classroom can be quite inclusive along lines
of gender but not race, and vice versa. For example, Class #8, with among the larg-
est gender disparities against women, is the most inclusive for minority students
overall, with a 43% disproportion in favor of students of color in terms of turns
and a 51% favorable disproportion in terms of time. This, of course, immediately
raises the question of intersectionality, for when we separate out the categories of
gender and race in this way, we create ambiguity in one arena even as we gain clar-
ity in another.^101 Another arena worthy of further study is a more fine-grained
approach to issues of racial and other social identities; this would call for extensive
and systematic interview work in addition to the observational research.
As we add more observations and studies to the foundations already provided,
we will be able to point with increasing specificity to the constellations of condi-
tions that create more inclusive, participatory, and effective law school teaching.
The complexities involved should not lead us to throw up our hands and settle for
comforting oversimplifications. Rather, they provide the more realistic, respect-
ful, and nonessentializing ground from which real understanding continues to
emerge.
Behind the nuances and complexities, however, we have also identified some
patterning that is consonant with the findings of a number of other studies. This
patterning continues to link increased class participation and classroom presence
with traditional insiders in the legal profession; that is, white male students tend
to predominate. Among the classrooms of this study, male students dominate in
the classes taught by white male professors and by a female professor in a higher-
ranked school. Women students have more of a voice in classes taught by women
in the nonelite classrooms of this study, and students of color are dominant speakers
only in the classes taught by professors of color. There are some interesting fluc-
tuations in the patterning, warning us against overly essentialist thinking: students
of color also had some positive participation ratios in one regional law school class
taught by a white male, as well as in a local law school class taught by a white fe-
male. As I’ve noted, it is important to remember that silence can have many mean-
ings for individual students; we cannot assume that differential silence always
proceeds from insecurity or fear. However, differential silence on the part of stu-
dents of color or white women raises a different, institutional kind of question about
cultural invisibility and dominance. We first considered this issue in examining
the content of law school pedagogy; now we turn to the question in terms of the
structure of law school teaching. If students of color and female students tend to