In last Tuesday’s Daily Journal (Sept,
25, 2018), Professor Frank Wu wrote another one of his thoughtful columns. I have long championed his views about the value
of a liberal arts education as an integral component of legal education. Professor Wu wrote: “Legal education is regarded as a culmination
of the liberal arts.”
Unfortunately, there is the well-founded
notion that a liberal arts education is often the less traveled road to a well-paying
job. Professor Wu wrote, acknowledging
the “current jargon,” that some diplomas are perceived as “‘not a great’ return
on investment.” This would include a
liberal arts education. I list within the
rubric "liberal arts," not just literature, but philosophy, history,
music, dance, and the visual arts. Yes,
a 36-hour day would help. And there is
the argument that a study of the “arts” is imprecise, subjective, and of little
or no utilitarian value.
Of course students are entitled and
should be encouraged to pursue careers that could lead to lucrative
employment. But the point Professor Wu
makes is that a liberal arts education enhances and contributes to a legal
education‑‑“above all it is preparation as a critical thinker.” And, I would add, it opens the minds of
lawyers and judges to better evaluate and assess credibility of witnesses and
to question one’s initial impressions. I
base this premise partly on logic, as I see it, but to a large extent on
experience. Thanks, Justice Holmes. And I acknowledge that the benefits that a
liberal arts education may provide, including aesthetic pleasures, do not
necessarily make a good judge or lawyer.
In my September 2018 column, I wrote
about Judge Woolsey’s opinion in which he found James Joyce’s “Ulysses” did not
violate the obscenity laws. (United States v. One Book called “Ulysses”
(S.D.N.Y. 1933) 5 F.Supp. 182.) Some
might ask, how does stream of conscious literature have anything to do with
practicing law or judging cases? I
suggest whether one is willing to take the time to struggle through some works
of literature or not, the more one knows, the more he or she is likely to be
professionally successful. As far as I
can determine, Judge Woolsey did not major in English Literature. He is reported to have read “Ulysses” several
times and written several drafts of his well-reasoned literate opinion, praised
by literary critics. It proves a judge
or lawyer can be highly qualified in all aspects of his or her profession without
studying literature.
Of all writers, James Joyce’s stream of
conscious style is a struggle for anyone, including Ph.D.’s in English Literature. And when it comes to “Finnegans Wake,” I
think, maybe, I might do better with our Determinate Sentencing Law, or even…
the Internal Revenue Code.
Speaking of literature and its value
to the legal profession, pardon this strained segue to the recent film “The Children
Act.” English poet Yeats’ poem “Down by the
Salley Gardens,” binds a judge and a minor over whom she has jurisdiction. The screenplay and novel were written by Ian
McEwan, and the film stars Emma Thompson and Stanley Tucci.
The setting is London. Hard working, conscientious family law judge
Fiona Maye must decide whether to allow doctors to give a blood transfusion to
a minor, age 17, who suffers from leukemia and will die soon if he doesn’t
receive the transfusion. The boy and his
parents will not consent to the procedure.
They are Jehovah Witnesses and their religion forbids blood transfusions.
The boy is just shy of his 18th
birthday, when he would be able to make his own decision. The boy and his parents do not want the
transfusion. Counsel for the boy argues
he is mature and so close to his 18th birthday that he should be allowed to make
his own decision now. In an abundance of
poetic license, the judge visits the boy in the hospital and they hit it off. The boy is bright and engaging. She takes his guitar and strums a few chords,
while singing the words to Yeats’ “Down by the Salley Gardens.” Well, this is a movie. The judge returns to the court and orders the
transfusion. It is in the best interest
of the child and is what the law requires.
Friends wanted me to see the film because
I happen to be a judge, and, like the judge in the movie, we both own and play
a Fazioli piano. I have also read Yeats
and had a similar case. Many other
judges have had similar cases. Some of
us had a liberal arts education. Some of
us did not. We all came to the same
decision. Some of us, however, were more
terse in stating our rationale.
Sometimes a code section and a case citation are sufficient.
Is Judge Maye any better or wiser
because of her upper class education, her knowledge of Yeats, and her facility
on the Fazioli piano? Wonder how Judge Woolsey
would answer that question.
But that question may be beside the
point. Professor Wu expressed one of the
most profound insights in the third paragraph of his column: “At all levels of education, from high school
to college to beyond, the capabilities once deemed necessary to function as a
citizen in a democracy have come under existential doubt.” Take a look around you. Consider what is occurring throughout the
country. An uneducated citizenry and one
predominantly educated in solely technical skills put us and our democratic
institutions at risk.
No comments:
Post a Comment