Over time, we recognized that classes that seemed to work shared certain features.

Motivation

Students threw themselves into the class with an enthusiasm and commitment that was rare in our experience. Their energy transcended the classroom itself. They devoted many hours preparing for the class and continued talking even after class with classroom participants and others. The issues raised in class gnawed at them, pushing them to explore ideas in new ways. Even after the semester ended, many students continued to work on projects begun in the seminar as they connected their passions with an intellectual agenda.

They began to look to each other as resources both inside and outside the classroom. From these relationships three things emerged: the trust necessary to take intellectual risks, the ability to learn from people who are different, and a sense of responsibility for the classroom dynamic.

Students learned how to identify underlying assumptions and surface alternative frameworks. They also began to focus on the dynamics of communication, including the meaning of silence, how to listen for what is actually intended to be said, how to create a discussion that includes diverse participants, how to engage conflict, how to persuade without closing out alternative viewpoints and how to marshal different types of narrative format.

Participants surfaced and dealt with areas of disagreement that they reported as having been avoided or neglected in other law school settings. People took risks in the classroom that exposed their vulnerability and showed a willingness to learn from challenging previously unexplored preconceptions. These included issues of race versus class, the relationship between white women and women of color, the relationship between the adversary process and problem solving and the role of law itself.

Both in the classroom work and in the group projects, we were often surprised by the innovative approaches students took. We as teachers were continuously learning from our students. The groups often developed their own set of questions and vocabulary, becoming an identifiable and dynamic entity. Students often reported a renewed sense of moral agency and a deeper understanding of their own political and personal identity. Many connected this learning to their formation of a professional identify.

The seminar does not always work. Indeed individual class members may experience dissatisfaction, may not change, and may hold onto the negative emotions associated with recurring conflict. Unresolved conflict between two class members, however, does not necessarily mean the overall seminar has failed as a multiracial learning community. Indicators of a problem that affects the class as a whole include evidence of sustained polarization or disaffection of a sufficient number of students to suggest a discernible pattern. When conflicts recur that prevent risk-taking and critical rethinking, student motivation wanes and trust is suppressed. In particular, the seminar often does not gel when it is too large; when students’ prior relationships outside of class constrain in-class interaction; or when a few individuals dominate the classroom discussion, are unresponsive to classmate’s dissatisfaction and are resistant to different formats. People who are unaccustomed to sharing power or who are wedded to their initial position and who respond to intellectual challenge with resentment rather than openness pose a distinct challenge to faculty facilitators.