Oregon State Bar Bulletin — JULY 2002
| Letters |
Diversity Requirement
As chair of the OSB CLE Committee, I would like to respond to two letters
to the editor in the June 2002 Bulletin criticizing the bar's recent
CLE seminar entitled 'Cultural Competency.'
Mr. Howser's letter ('Has P.C. Taken Over?') addresses the
decision by the Board of Bar Governors to support mandatory CLE on diversity
issues. Ms. Gruber's letter ('What's the Goal?') expresses
strong dissatisfaction with this particular OSB seminar as well as questioning
the new MCLE requirement.
While neither the staff of the OSB CLE Seminars department nor the CLE
Committee was responsible for the new requirement for mandatory CLE
on diversity issues, the CLE Department has the responsibility for providing
seminars to satisfy the new requirements. The CLE staff put considerable
effort into presenting a quality initial seminar. The presenter for
the 'Cultural Competency' seminar had been highly recommended
by corporations and law firms for whom she had made similar presentations.
Although there have been other comments somewhat similar to the ones
made by Ms. Gruber, the written evaluations received from the April
11 'Cultural Competency' seminar demonstrate a wide range
of positive as well as negative evaluations of the seminar and the presenter.
Of the 34 written evaluations that rated the seminar overall, 71 percent
rated the seminar 'excellent,' 'very good,' or 'good.'
Of the 45 evaluations that rated the featured presenter, 78 percent
rated her substantive content 'excellent,' 'very good,'
or 'good' while 94 percent rated her speaking style 'excellent,'
'very good,' or 'good.' Clearly not all the attendees
shared Ms. Gruber's negative reaction to the seminar. The evaluations
show that many attendees thought the seminar provided good information
on an important topic in an effective way.
The CLE Committee recently discussed the seminar and the letters from
Ms. Gruber and Mr. Howser with members of the CLE staff. That discussion
led to several suggestions for ways in which seminars satisfying the
new diversity requirements can be improved. One suggestion was for focus
group discussions among practitioners to explore concrete ways that
diversity and cultural issues can be addressed in practical contexts
that directly impact individual law practices.
The CLE Seminars department has always carefully reviewed seminar evaluations
and used the evaluations to plan for future seminars. The department
will similarly use the evaluations of the 'Cultural Competency'
seminar, including other comments it has received such as the letters
from Ms. Gruber and Mr. Howser, in planning for future diversity related
seminars. As with all other seminars, the CLE staff will work to adjust
and improve the diversity related programming using the information
and feedback from OSB members.
The CLE Seminar department's goal is not only to provide seminars meeting
MCLE requirements, but also to sponsor topics and speakers that contribute
to the knowledge and professional development of individual Oregon lawyers
and the improvement of the legal profession as a whole.
The comments of Ms. Gruber and Mr. Howser are appreciated and will be
carefully considered. However, readers of the Bulletin should know that
these comments do not represent the views of all the members who attended
this seminar.
David C. Culpepper
Chair, OSB CLE Committee
The Board of Governors passed, and the Oregon Supreme Court approved,
a requirement for three hours of mandatory diversity education/training.
This requirements sets a new course where this bar has not gone before.
Should the bar engage in this kind of 'training?' Is it the
proper role of the bar to require lawyers to attend 'training'
that is politically oriented? I hope this letter may start a discussion
among the members of this bar, a discussion that has not yet occurred
among the membership.
OSB enacted the requirement of continuing legal education to ensure
the competence of lawyers whose learning and skills needed to be updated
with the passage of time. Diversity training does not fit within this
original purpose. Diversity training is more political orientation than
legal education.
The bar should honestly recognize and admit that it has made a substantial
change in direction with this type of program. The question that should
then be asked is should we, as a bar association, be going in this -direction?
I am sure diversity training will have many supporters within the bar.
It is on the list of politically correct items. Does the bar have any
business teaching political correctness? According to William Buckley,
'We have substituted multiculturalism for God.' I can imagine
the cry from the ACLU if the OSB had required us to take a course of
legal ethics based upon the Ten Commandments. If the OSB is going to
go leap into requiring politically correct training in order to remain
licensed as a lawyer, then at least the membership should consider this
carefully before we take that step. If we allow diversity training,
what is next on the agenda?
All other lawyer educational requirements are tied to specific learning
requirements, such as statutes, rules, cases or techniques. All lawyer
education is directly related to the law or the practice of law. The
diversity requirement is neither based upon legal training nor specifically
connected with the practice of law. Several CLE vendors have attempted
to offer courses fulfilling this requirement, but the contents have
been laughably devoid of any real content. The Harrang, Long firm recently
provided a three-hour session, but when asked to provide an outline
of what they intended to teach, they couldn't do so. I do not intend
to be critical of CLE vendors, but there simply is no substance here
to be taught.
Continuing legal education has proven itself to be a good program over
the last decade. It is too bad that political activists on the Board
of Governors want to use this program to further their own agenda. I
suggest they reconsider this decision or, at a minimum, put it to a
vote of the entire bar.
James D. Vick
Salem
Although I do not believe in 'mandating' diversity training,
a majority of our bar representatives did, and it is a reality. I don't
view this as 'the bar' imposing something on us. We, the individual
lawyer members, are 'the bar.' Many of our fellow members
started working over eight years ago to create the diversity credits
requirement and felt strongly enough to make it happen.
It is unfortunate that the diversity credit, minimal as it is, has generated
such a visceral response, which in large part may be due to perceived
poor programs experienced by the attendees. 'Diversity training'
is not about being 'PC' nor does it have to take the form
of some 'touchy feely' session or self-righteous lecture with
an underlying presumption that we have done something wrong. Rather,
it should be as varied and wide-ranging as the people in our bar and
the greater community, giving us tools to better understand our clients.
For example, CLE featuring litigators experienced in representing clients
of different cultural and language backgrounds can offer hands-on training
on issues such as effective client and witness interviews, issues with
using interpreters in preparing for depositions and trial, preparing
the non-English-speaking witness for deposition and trial or presenting
racial, cultural, language, gender or sexual orientation issues to a
jury, etc. The examples we can find of ways to better educate ourselves
on cultural, racial, sexual identity, gender and disability issues are
limited only by our imaginations.
For me, learning about and dealing with cultural competency, diversity,
racism, sexism, and other types of prejudice is an ongoing process,
and a sometimes painful one, but essential nonetheless. My years of
representing hundreds and hundreds of non-English speaking farm workers
and persons of color prosecuting civil rights and fair housing violations
in state and federal court have taught me a great deal, and it is this:
The more I meet and work with people who are different than I am, the
more I need to know to make me a more effective lawyer.
I do not believe it is possible for us as lawyers to be truly effective
advocates for our clients unless we are willing to face our limitations
head on, and to embrace the challenge of constantly striving to understand
better the community in which we live. Indeed, we have an ethical and
moral obligation to do so.
Lisa LeSage
Portland
Over the past several months I have watched the debate regarding the
new CLE diversity component with much interest and some confusion. My
confusion stems from the disparity between who we are, what we do and
what we think we need to know - reflected in the many letters to the
editor I have read to date.
We are engaged in the people business. We interact with people on a
daily basis; we speak for them; we educate them; we translate what they
want into what they can achieve under the law.
How is it then that so many of us appear unreceptive to educating ourselves
about people? What is so difficult about getting to know more about
people? Why should any of us think we know it all; that our small communities
will not change and grow along with the rest of the world, that new
immigrants from foreign lands will not continue to impact our profession
and our humanity?
It would be easy for me, an African American attorney, to say I don't
need diversity training - after all I am diverse. Yet there is so much
to learn about others that I find I could not and would not attempt
to exempt myself. In fact, I cannot wait to experience diversity training.
Not only is there a possibility that I will learn what all the fuss
is about, and share my experiences with others, but most importantly
I want to learn about others.
As I understand it, diversity, true diversity, does not end or begin
with African Americans, women, Hispanics or Asians; rather, diversity
embraces everyone and everything. I have lived in Oregon since the late
1960s. I have watched my community change and grow to embrace people
of Russian, Nigerian and Hmong descents (just to name a few). I am not
arrogant enough to pretend that I could ever know enough about any other
group of people to be resistant to learning more; rather I have many
unanswered questions.
Hopefully, my questions will continue to evolve and adapt to the ever-changing
cultural landscape in which we live and work. Hopefully, the diversity
training itself will continue to evolve and adapt as we collectively
attain more knowledge about the people we live, work and play with.
So, let the diversity training begin. And perhaps those of you who do
know everything about everyone will share your knowledge with the rest
of us.
Renee S. Moore
Portland