cases occurs in a quite singular linguistic-institutional context, which I have endeavored
to convey in this volume. There are certainly levels of authorizing hierarchy in most fields,
but the role of the state in monitoring and ratifying interpretive sequences in law, in com-
bination with the particular canons used for contextualizing written texts, give to legal
language a flavor all its own. (French and Italian, for example, share many features, and it
is important to take note of them. However, speaking French is not the same thing as speak-
ing Italian. See Morris, “Not Thinking Like a Non-Lawyer,” for a similar argument.) This
is not to exalt the form of legal reasoning as superior (in fact, I have indicated ways that it
closes and limits possibilities as compared with other, arguably similar discourses). But it
is to argue that one must not transpose an apparently similar semiotic form (analogy) from
one discourse to another, assuming transparency, without a careful look at the institutional
and metalinguistic contexts that give it meaning in each. I should add, lest the reader think
that I have singled out legal discourse for criticism, that social scientists who attempt to
study law without attempting to grasp the internal mandates of legal discourse can be no
less guilty of fundamental misreadings. It is, in fact, ironically possible that the very fact of
an open-textured semiotic style in fields like anthropology can blind its practitioners to
the strictures of a field like law when they attempt to make their own analogies in efforts
to analyze and understand legal practices.
- Weinstein, “The Classroom as a Social Context.”
- Id.; Gurin et al., “Diversity and Higher Education”; see also Hue-Pei and Mason,
“Social Organizational Factors in Learning to Read”; Barnhardt, “Tuning In”; Tharp,
“Psychocultural Variables.” - Orfield and Whitla, “Diversity and Legal Education,” 164. This study, which
achieved an 81% response rate, essentially replicated findings of an earlier study by the
authors that had a much lower response rate but also looked at more schools. The Michi-
gan and Harvard students in the later study agreed in substantial numbers that their legal
education had benefited in important ways from racial diversity in classrooms—and this
included white students as well as students of color. The students felt that diversity had
enhanced understanding of the kinds of legal or community issues they would encoun-
ter as professionals, of rights, of criminal justice, and of conditions in various social and
economic institutions pertinent to the legal issues they studied. Diversity in the class-
room was found to enhance how topics were addressed in a majority of their law school
classes. In addition, they reported an enhanced ability to work and get along with mem-
bers of other races and agreed that conflicts over race ultimately had positive or neutral
effects on their learning experiences. The idea that racial diversity and any hypothesized
accompanying need for “political correctness” on the part of white students stifled class
discussion found little support in this study, where no more than 9% of students in ei-
ther school agreed that classroom diversity had any kind of negative effect on class dis-
cussion. - One student commented that “cultural and ethnic diversity is more important
in law school than many other studies.” Id., 167. On the strength of numerous studies as
well as other arguments pointing to the beneficial role of diversity in education, the Su-
preme Court recognized the importance of diversity to education in general and law school
in particular in the Grutter case. The majority opinion took notice of
numerous expert studies and reports showing that... diversity promotes learning
outcomes and better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce, for
society, and for the legal profession. Major American businesses have made clear
that the skills needed in today’s increasingly global marketplace can only be devel-
oped through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints.Notes to Page 222 275