On Monday, incoming first-years at the University of Utah were rounded up into court as part of their five-day orientation to the wonderful world of law (see the Salt Lake Tribune). There they participated in a ceremony similar to the lawyer's oath,
swear[ing] to "obey and defend the Constitution," "discharge the duties of law student and future attorney with honesty and fidelity" and "strictly observe" the school's code of student rights and responsibilities.
It's not like they won't eventually swear to the oath as attorneys. Don't get me wrong, they should. I'm not about to argue that lawyers don't need to uphold the Constitution.
But I don't like it one bit. Public oaths like this one (i.e., totally unnecessary) breed a culture of suspicion and distrust, especially when someone chooses not to participate. Although I'm not even sure if students were even able to opt out of the oath in protest -- the ceremony is described as mandatory.
Why would you want to opt out of something that seems so benign? The students swore before a judge to not participate in any activities that would disrupt the workings of the university [i.e., campus protests] (University of Utah Law School Student Handbook, III.A.2) and not to break any laws of the state of Utah while on University Campus (III.A.10). I'll concede that the University of Utah is probably not an exceedingly activist campus.
But, many graduate students live on campus. I figure already at least a few students are breaking some of the laws of the great state of Utah (which, as I hope you realize, do have a particular bent to them). I'm actually surprised that nobody figured out (or if they did, refused to participate in the oath) that they were swearing not to engage in any premarital or homosexual activities in their own graduate dorm rooms.
It's one thing to get a student handbook in your orientation packet, but it's quite another to swear to obey it. I'm rather certain I haven't a clue what's in my student handbook, and I am absolutely positive I wouldn't swear to anything attempting to regulate my morality (morality, mind you, not ethical standards).
Perhaps I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. But if the point of law school is critical thinking (and sometimes that's a big "if"), students should truly reflect upon what they are doing and not participate if they can't adhere to the oath. The real danger is that the people who cook these things up don't consider the unintended consequences. When we pledge and pledge and pledge, it becomes lip-service instead of a thoughtful promise. When it comes to the really important ones (e.g., pledge to keep client confidences; uphold the Constitution; love, and honor &c.) the response shouldn't be automatic.
In my own first undergrad year I made the mistake of actually reading the handbook. Later, I was flunked in one course for non-attendance: when I pointed out to the Dean's office that I had done the work and taken the tests and maintained a 98-of-100 grade and that the Uni had, according to the handbook, no policy on cutting classes, the response was that the Uni did indeed not - each professor made up his/her own.
Of course, I was not in Law or I might have recognized implied-vs-stated jargon when I encountered it in the book...
© 2002, 2003