On Wednesday, I had the privilege of attending Judge Amul Thapar’s Story Lecture at the Heritage Foundation. The central theme of his lecture was the importance of originalist courts aligning with originalist classrooms, a sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately, originalism is often misrepresented or dismissed in most law school curriculums. There are only a handful of constitutional law professors in the United States who embrace originalism, leaving a significant gap in legal education. It is crucial for law schools to recognize the significance of teaching originalism, even if they do not personally support it.
However, Judge Thapar’s remarks on the role of money in promoting originalism garnered significant attention. He proposed that change in law schools will only come when taxpayers and donors demand it. This shift would ultimately better prepare law students for the realities of today’s courtrooms, making the high cost of a law degree more worthwhile.
“Make no mistake: money talks. Only when the taxpayers and donors alike demand it will law schools start to change,” Thapar said. “When law schools do change, the hefty price paid for a law degree might actually be worth it, because lawyers will leave law school equipped to practice in today’s courts.”
Several conservative-leaning states are reevaluating university curriculums, with some establishing classical institutes within colleges to offer alternative approaches to education. However, these initiatives are unlikely to impact the core curriculum of accredited law schools. Additionally, conservative donors have begun withholding donations from universities following recent events.
While divestment may lead to negative consequences for various stakeholders, including students and professors, Judge Thapar supports the idea of withdrawing support from institutions that do not prioritize teaching originalism. In addition to divestment, there is a growing trend of boycotts initiated by judges like Ho and Branch, who have chosen not to hire law clerks from certain schools based on specific policies.
During a Q&A session, Judge Thapar addressed the topic of these boycotts and emphasized the importance of encouraging schools to evolve rather than punishing students who may align with originalist principles.
Ultimately, judges may not have control over state budgets, but they do have the authority to select their clerks. Both divestment and boycotts have the potential to impact innocent individuals, highlighting the need to carefully consider the most effective approach to promoting change within legal education.
