1Ls v. Socrates
74 U.Va 8 (2021)
Kulkarni J. delivered the opinion of the Court.
Once again, this Court is faced with a case brought by 1Ls against someone with higher authority than themselves. Today, these affected students have brought suit against the great philosopher himself, Socrates.[1] They allege a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress and are asking for a remedy in the form of an injunction against use of the Socratic Method within their classrooms. In effect, these students are calling for the end of the “cold call” system as we know it. They take issue with this essential feature of the Law School experience and are suing the creator of the system to gain some measure of compensation for their alleged loss.
The 1Ls allege that this very system causes their harm. The fear destroys their mental health. The embarrassment faced in the case of a ruined cold call is humiliating, they say. They point to stories of professors telling students to leave the class if they get the question wrong. They argue that the reputational hit taken by someone who messes up is career-ending. They go so far as to say that their stress-induced mistake will prevent them from getting the recommendation letter of their choice for a clerkship. In sum, these students are alleging a lot of harm after being in law school for seven weeks.
Before addressing these arguments and issuing a ruling, it is important to note some background. As is often the case in such contentious issues, I am sure that avid observers of the Court take clear notice of who is writing the opinion, what their past decisions on such issues have been, and adjust their expectations accordingly. For many such observers, they are astonished that I am writing the majority opinion in this case. Perhaps any 1L worth their salt who did the research and understood my past position on such matters may even be feeling hope at this very moment. I regret to inform you that such hope, like all hope in law school, is misplaced. This court has a categorical rule. It is simple. 1Ls always lose.[2] In past cases, I have argued against such a rule. Today, I do something that judges rarely do: admit my mistake.
My associate, the Chief Justice, often pointed out that I was biased, and I am here to admit that this criticism was appropriate.[3] I was a member of the very group that was repeatedly suing for expanded rights. We, on this Court, should be paragons of truth, justice, and the Law School way. It is incorrect for me to adjust my opinions based upon my status. I only hope that my newest colleague, Associate Justice Morse, may one day be able to see his own error in this matter.
With all of that out of the way, it is now time to address the merits of the case: absolutely nothing. The 1Ls of the Class of 2024 have chosen a terrible case substantively to combat the lack of rights that they have. They offer stories and rumors to substantiate their claims of emotional harm. “The truth will set you free” is a common expression. Well here, the truth is simple. These students fail to understand the importance of the Socratic Method. These students will not do their readings unless forced.[4] Their professors are using this tool to impose the habit of reading upon them. More than the benefit itself, the loss is minimal. The truth is that amici, in the form of 2Ls and 3Ls, remind us that no one in their classes remember any cold calls of their classmates. Thus, any of the cited “scary stories” the 1Ls provide to aid their case are undermined by this similarly circumstantial evidence.
These 1Ls have no standing to sue: they are always guaranteed to lose. Yet, they still filed this action, which can only be called frivolous. There is no true harm here other than a little discomfort to these students. The decision we are faced with, then, is no decision at all. These 1Ls must continue to “suffer” under the yoke of the Socratic method. Furthermore, the students have sued the wrong person; they should have sued their professors instead. Also, you can’t sue a dead person.[5] Here, the wrong group of people is suing the wrong person. It leads to a very clear conclusion.
Injunction denied.
Morse, J., dissenting.
“I know that I know nothing[6].” Arguably Socrates’ most honest utterance, this statement is often interpreted as Socrates’ humbly deferential response to the Oracle of Delphi calling him the wisest man living. A more reasonable reading of this statement would be its plain meaning: Socrates had no earthly idea what he was doing. Recognizing that the reasonable response to someone who admits to total cluelessness is awkward silence followed by a polite change of subject, the 1L class of the Law School has brought suit against the obsequious employment of the “Socratic Method” in their legal education. I dissent from the majority’s errant view in this case and applaud the 1Ls for seeking to abandon this pedagogical god who has pointed out his own feet of clay. I concur with the majority’s admission that they have made a mistake. I dissent on all else.
One would be forgiven for having difficulty in following the logic of the majority’s opinion, but no one should be surprised that the defense of such an untenable and intentionally obfuscatory teaching method requires Simone Biles-level mental gymnastics. I will endeavor to clarify the tortured logic put forward by this Court, in the hopes that the shortcomings of the status quo will pave the way for future, more enlightened minds.
The majority’s reasoning (such as it is) appears to proceed along three prongs. First, that 1Ls have insufficient experience with which to appropriately evaluate the efficacy of the Socratic method. Second, that ruling in the 1Ls’ favor would violate a supposed categorical rule barring 1Ls from any victory. Third, that the 1Ls fail to grasp the true purpose and ultimate benefit supposedly conferred by the Socratic method. Finally, my esteemed colleague Associate Justice Kulkarni seems to have some quibbles about “standing” and “suing the right party.” I must admit that these objections sound reasonable but unfortunately, these concepts haven’t been brought up yet in my free-for-all education under the Socratic method. As such, I will confine myself to the first three semi-substantive points.
The first point begs the question – at what point will 1Ls have enough experience to decide for themselves that they can trust their own faculties when they conclude a painful and confusing experience is best avoided? Assume for example, that each day, as I wait for the bus, a man walks up and slaps me in the face with a day-old slice of deli ham. How many ham-slaps do I need to tolerate before Justice Kulkarni is satisfied that I really know that I don’t want to be slapped in the face with old ham? Perhaps just more than seven weeks of ham-slapping? The truth is, the harms alleged by the plaintiffs are ones that any reasonable person would want to avoid – and some might even reasonably prefer a slap in the face from a lukewarm slice of ham than being subject to the reign of terror which is a Friday morning 8:30am cold call in Criminal Law.[7]
The majority then argues that no matter what the facts or common sense should imply, Plaintiffs lose because “1Ls always lose.” I would like to applaud Justice Kulkarni from the sheer chutzpah displayed in borrowing a page from classic 1950’s parenting methods, and basically telling 1Ls to shut up “because I say so.” Okay, Dad. Perhaps all us 1Ls should just go grab the collective 2L and 3Ls another beer from the cooler and be just grateful to be here.
Lastly, the majority’s argument that “1Ls fail to understand the importance of the Socratic method” is so faulty and forced that it gives me flashbacks of the sadness and mild embarrassment of listening to any of Kanye’s last three albums.[8] The argument fails in two respects: 1) it assumes that 1Ls are not taking into account the relative value of an otherwise painful teaching method and 2) it ignores the other reasons 1Ls would have to complete assigned reading. The second point is particularly interesting, since there are so many obvious reasons that 1Ls would not want to waste their time by going to law school without doing any readings (some might even say hundreds of thousands of reasons).[9]
And this bring us to the crux of the plaintiff’s argument: that students, professors, and the Law School community as a whole have precious little time and the Socratic method has been shown by research[10] to be an inferior method of teaching (not to mention yes, super stressful) and should thus be abandoned for everyone’s sake. The majority opinion argues that this Court should be a paragon of truth, justice, and the Law School way. It is self-evident that a prerequisite for these conditions is that logic exists—and logic demands that when you can’t come up with any good reasons for torturing 1Ls other than the intellectual equivalent of a half-hearted shrug, then you should probably abandon that torture pedagogy.
---
omk6cg@virginia.edu
cpg9jy@virginia.edu
[1] Ed: pronounced səʊkreɪts for all of you uncultured philistines
[2] 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va 22 (2019).
[3] Chief Justice here, just wanted to say, “I told you so.”
[4] Evidence of that comes from the fact that 2Ls and 3Ls refuse to do their readings.
[5] I think this is true but honestly, this is a fake court and I can just make that the rule now. So I guess we are creating a new categorical rule if it doesn’t exist: you can’t sue dead people.
[6] As quoted in Plato’s account of Socrates’ teachings. Not a great look.
[7] Just an example. Definitely no need to read into this.
[8] To save you the Google, those would be Ye, Jesus is King, Donda. I just mean, woof.
[9] https://www.law.virginia.edu/financialaid/annual-cost-attendance-budget.
[10] This one you are going to have to Google. But I swear it's probably true.