Law Clinics, Universities and Liberal Thought: Finding Clarity in a Time of Chaos and Cacophony
It takes a particular type of mental energy to blend out the discrepancy between the practical circumstances in which the ICCL’s most recent guest lecture by University of Miami School of Law Prof. Dr. Bettinger-López came together on a sunny Monday evening (June 16th) at the Cologne International Forum – the University’s International House had kindly agreed to cooperate with us and the Chair for US Law, the talk was advertised through all major University communication channels, critical voices were welcomed during the discussion and this report will most likely be published uncensured on the University website – and the actual content of the talk: “Law Clinics, Universities and Liberal Thought: Finding Clarity in a Time of Chaos and Cacophony.”.
The space that we at the University of Cologne still take for granted – to hear from speakers from other countries, to compare and exchange ideas, to agree and disagree – is shrinking for Bettinger-López and her colleagues at US-American universities and law schools. To be sure: Law clinics such as the Human Rights Law Clinic which Bettinger-López leads at her university – like all organizations that speak truth to power – have met with persistent irritation from politicians and big business before. Even the law faculties themselves have sometimes made it more difficult, for example, by withholding status and tenure for clinicians. However, the most recent Trump Administration’s attacks on universities all over the country have heightened the stakes for critical engagement to an unprecedented level: In a country where both private and public universities depend – despite support from private donors – largely on federal government funding, withdrawing several hundred million dollars from a university (as has happened to Columbia University) – leaves an impact. So do new systems of post-tenure review (so far, for public universities only): Where lifetime employment as a university professor is no longer a guarantee and nationalist sentiments become mainstream, fearmongering and polarization in the faculties is the consequence. In a climate like this, publishing a simple student report – such as this one – might still be possible – but – university administrations and communications departments are increasingly scrutinizing the work of law clinics, balancing academic freedom and law clinic confidentiality with what words and concepts could land the university on a “blacklist” with the federal or state government. On the one hand, accepting a university’s new communications guideline might turn out to constitute just the right amount of flexibility to keep the peace (and government funding) while saving energy for more important political battles which may very well lie ahead. On the other hand, Prof. Bettinger-López described the unease with which university professors in the country of free speech direct their students to be careful what they say and write.
Many law clinics are working to alleviate the most drastic consequences of the first few months under Trump II: Immigration Law Clinics have been working to support migrants facing deportation with rapid response teams (such as at Cornell); another clinic at Northwestern supports protesters with legal advice. Still, the two US-Americans in the room, Prof. Bettinger-López and Prof. Junker from the University of Cologne’s Chair for US Law agreed that Trump II and its project 2025 took American universities and law clinics by surprise. The networks and strategies to protest and persevere are building, but slowly. Law Clinics and Universities as protective spaces for liberal thought? – for Prof. Bettinger-López and her colleagues, this idea has suddenly turned from a liberal democracy standard to an institution that depends on every individual’s willingness to fight for it.
Laura Midey