188 Difference
earlier studies, such as those conducted by Guinier and by Krauskopf, contained
accounts of direct harassment based on gender.^65
In addition, there have been a number of survey studies that did not focus on
classroom participation per se, but that tracked attitudes and responses to law schools.
Many of these studies found no reported difference in performance (grades, etc.)
between men and women; indeed, some found that women and men were equally
content. However, other studies found higher rates of distress among women than
men even when their actual performance was comparable to the men’s.^66 One over-
all conclusion to be drawn from these studies is that the particular climate and fea-
tures of a specific law school (and at a specific point in time) may have a strong
influence on the degree to which gendered differences in experience emerge. Another
lesson is that there are significant aspects of student experience not well mapped by
tracking performance alone. Finally, the persistent evidence of women’s diminished
confidence in law school—and of their lower class participation—seems to indicate
problems that continue into postgraduate education.^67 It is against this backdrop that
we look to patterns of silence and speech for clues about gender as well as racial in-
tegration in law schools.
In addition to survey research, there has been some observational work in law
school classrooms. In an early study in 1972, which relied on participant observa-
tion as well as interview and survey methods, Alice Jacobs reported, “Although
women perform very well academically, it was observed that they consistently in-
teract less frequently than men in the classroom. They volunteer or are chosen to
answer questions much less frequently than the men.”^68 Similar disparities were
found in moot court trials, and Jacobs recounts her impression that women used
supplicatory and questioning intonation for oral argument, whereas men used more
assertive verbal styles. Despite their generally high level of actual performance,
women in this study gave indications of lower self-esteem and career aspirations
(although there were obviously multiple factors affecting this pattern at the time).
If differential experiences in law school do contribute to lower self-esteem, how-
ever, then here is another way these experiences could affect students even if ac-
tual law school performance remains unaffected: they could conceivably affect
women’s sense of their abilities and therefore their career goals and trajectories.
There have been five more recent observational studies of law school class-
rooms at Yale (2), Harvard (1), and the University of Chicago (2). Four of the five
studies were conducted by students who were also taking the classes they were
observing. There have been two such efforts at Yale. In the earlier research during
the 1980s, students in 19 different classes coded each time a male or female stu-
dent had a turn.^69 In 15 of the 19 classes, male students spoke more than would be
predicted by their proportions in the classes, with ratios ranging up to three times
more than the women in the class. Averaging all of the classes, men spoke 63%
more frequently than women, proportionate to their numbers in the classes. In the
one course in the study that was taught by a woman in this elite law school, men
spoke almost twice as much as did women. This is of interest because of questions
about the impact of female teachers on women students. One hypothesis is that
the presence of female teachers should have an encouraging effect on women stu-
dents’ class participation, and that this effect should be especially strong among