Disc 2 Track 04. Jamie Hunter to Glendon Schubert
Title
Disc 2 Track 04. Jamie Hunter to Glendon Schubert
Subject
Disc 2
Source
Series 1: Memorabilia
Oral History/Testimony - A Law School for Hawaii
Date
10/20/1969
Identifier
CJWSROH:D2T4
Interviewer
Hawaii State Judiciary Committee
Interviewee
Jamie Hunter and Glendon Schubert
Transcription
Jamie Hunter
(0:00-1:03) That’s just within the law school and I’d like to mention one or two things that people have talked about where I’d like to add my two cents, beyond the law school. Germany has perhaps the most far-reaching public internship program in the world for lawyers. Everyone who graduates from a German law school goes into government service as an internship for a year or so and other nations such as Australia feed law students support in return for a contract to work for a year or so afterwards. You can get a tremendous influx of young energy into the community by such programs and I want to state my wholehearted support of them. (0:00-1:03)
(1:05-1:12) I think I better just cut it off there, I’ll go on forever, I’m used to the 50 minute limit.
(1:15-2:27) Ladies and gentlemen at this point originally we had thought that we might have others participate in this discussion but Rick and I ran into two persons who, two distinguished persons, we thought you might want to listen to. At least we thought we wanted to. So that this time I would like to ask first, Professor Glendon Schubert to address us for a while, he is a political scientist by profession, which is fine for us non-lawyers. His major work has been in studies of judicial behavior and he’s visited Hawaii many times. He’s been a senior scholar at the East-West Center and I understand he’s quite an authority in the area of the judiciary as it relates to the social sciences. Now I, at this time, ask you professor Shubert to...
Glendon Schubert:
(2:27-2:31)Thanks very much. I’m humbled over there.
William Richardson:
(2:31-2:33) It’s alright
Glendon Shubert:
(2:45-4:06) For a good many years, it was possible for me, in most discussions of this sort, to be able to predict with simple confidence that the point of view that I would articulate in a panel of this sort would be immediately perceived as the most radical statement on the subject. In recent years, I’ve undergone the experience of becoming continuously outflanked by persons under 30 and I’m afraid it may have happened again. On the other hand, what I wish to talk about, as I understand it, can perhaps best be conceptualized as what I think is a necessary means in the direction of operationalizing the realization. The kinds of goals that were posited for us by the last speaker. So that at least I’ll assimilate myself with that end of the spectrum and should be understood as pointing in that direction.
(4:07-4:25) I was asked to talk about the relationship between the possibility of a law school at this university, which now seems to be an excellent possibility in the light of what’s been said this morning, and the rest of the university.
(4:28-5:16) I guess I ought to emphasize what Chief Justice already has said. I am not a lawyer. I hope I am a social scientist of the sort and I don’t see any contradiction therefore and my talking about training of lawyers because in my opinion, lawyers really ought to be thought of not as lawyers, but as social scientists too. In fact, I think they can’t avoid being social scientists. The real question is, is it possible to provide, as we’re beginning to do with the present and increasingly I hope in the future, training that will make them better social scientists.
(5:22-6:05) Along the same lines, although I’m not a lawyer, I’ve spent the better part of two decades involved in some aspects of training lawyers. More recently, last year or so, in attempting to work directly with the faculty of the law school, which is in the process of attempting to integrate itself with a university, it happens that it’s across the border on the upper part of North America, in Toronto where you all are but the problems I think are precisely the same as those that would arise here, in Hawaii.
(6:05-6:43) I thought that I would talk about four aspects of this and I found it convenient to relate them to this booklet, the report on the school of law at the University of Hawaii. Some copies of which are there in front of Mr. Schultz which have already been mentioned and which represents, I take it, the principle published statement that has appeared thus far which sort of spells out the ways in which plans might be developed for the creation of such a school.
(6:45-7:56) I think this is an excellent statement, so far as it goes. And I guess what i’m going to say is, primarily, is we ought to have even more emphasis along three or four selected directions that are the ones I’d like to talk about. These four, I think, we might summarize as being what should be the positing of priorities. Then I’d like to talk a little bit about what interdisciplinary relations really mean in practice as I understand it. And then third, very briefly, a little bit about the graduate program that some of my predecessors have mentioned, that is mentioned also in this report. And finally, just a word about what sort of data would the school be working with in terms of both research and pedagogy because what kind of data one is concerned with, seems to me, has a great deal to do with what kind of facilities are appropriate for arranging to acquire it, arranging to store it.
(7:59-8:52) On the first point, the report suggests that there are three significant advantages that could be derived from the establishment of a law school in Hawaii and it says that first there should be...but I’ll summarize as “the development of the competence and skills to make possible technical legal change” It’s expressed here in terms of emphasis in law school research and legal writing in ways in which constitution statutes and government regulation should be modified. That’s the sort of thing I mean by the facilitation of technical legal change.
(8:54-9:17) The second point that’s made is one which was the theme of the speaker who preceded me, and that is law as a parameter of social change. That is as a limit upon, or as a means of facilitating a change in society.
(9:18-10:06) And then finally, third, the emphasis given in this report is upon interdisciplinary research. I’d like to turn that around and suggest that the appropriate way to posit priorities in establishing a law school is to say that first and foremost, should be the problem of working out how interdisciplinary work between the law faculty and the rest of the university can be established. And secondly, I really consider the social activism to be a part of this and so I’ll posit another second goal, one which I think Mr. Atkinson I think is going to talk about in a minute which some of the other speakers have mentioned, and that is the development of a cross-cultural…
(0:00-1:03) That’s just within the law school and I’d like to mention one or two things that people have talked about where I’d like to add my two cents, beyond the law school. Germany has perhaps the most far-reaching public internship program in the world for lawyers. Everyone who graduates from a German law school goes into government service as an internship for a year or so and other nations such as Australia feed law students support in return for a contract to work for a year or so afterwards. You can get a tremendous influx of young energy into the community by such programs and I want to state my wholehearted support of them. (0:00-1:03)
(1:05-1:12) I think I better just cut it off there, I’ll go on forever, I’m used to the 50 minute limit.
(1:15-2:27) Ladies and gentlemen at this point originally we had thought that we might have others participate in this discussion but Rick and I ran into two persons who, two distinguished persons, we thought you might want to listen to. At least we thought we wanted to. So that this time I would like to ask first, Professor Glendon Schubert to address us for a while, he is a political scientist by profession, which is fine for us non-lawyers. His major work has been in studies of judicial behavior and he’s visited Hawaii many times. He’s been a senior scholar at the East-West Center and I understand he’s quite an authority in the area of the judiciary as it relates to the social sciences. Now I, at this time, ask you professor Shubert to...
Glendon Schubert:
(2:27-2:31)Thanks very much. I’m humbled over there.
William Richardson:
(2:31-2:33) It’s alright
Glendon Shubert:
(2:45-4:06) For a good many years, it was possible for me, in most discussions of this sort, to be able to predict with simple confidence that the point of view that I would articulate in a panel of this sort would be immediately perceived as the most radical statement on the subject. In recent years, I’ve undergone the experience of becoming continuously outflanked by persons under 30 and I’m afraid it may have happened again. On the other hand, what I wish to talk about, as I understand it, can perhaps best be conceptualized as what I think is a necessary means in the direction of operationalizing the realization. The kinds of goals that were posited for us by the last speaker. So that at least I’ll assimilate myself with that end of the spectrum and should be understood as pointing in that direction.
(4:07-4:25) I was asked to talk about the relationship between the possibility of a law school at this university, which now seems to be an excellent possibility in the light of what’s been said this morning, and the rest of the university.
(4:28-5:16) I guess I ought to emphasize what Chief Justice already has said. I am not a lawyer. I hope I am a social scientist of the sort and I don’t see any contradiction therefore and my talking about training of lawyers because in my opinion, lawyers really ought to be thought of not as lawyers, but as social scientists too. In fact, I think they can’t avoid being social scientists. The real question is, is it possible to provide, as we’re beginning to do with the present and increasingly I hope in the future, training that will make them better social scientists.
(5:22-6:05) Along the same lines, although I’m not a lawyer, I’ve spent the better part of two decades involved in some aspects of training lawyers. More recently, last year or so, in attempting to work directly with the faculty of the law school, which is in the process of attempting to integrate itself with a university, it happens that it’s across the border on the upper part of North America, in Toronto where you all are but the problems I think are precisely the same as those that would arise here, in Hawaii.
(6:05-6:43) I thought that I would talk about four aspects of this and I found it convenient to relate them to this booklet, the report on the school of law at the University of Hawaii. Some copies of which are there in front of Mr. Schultz which have already been mentioned and which represents, I take it, the principle published statement that has appeared thus far which sort of spells out the ways in which plans might be developed for the creation of such a school.
(6:45-7:56) I think this is an excellent statement, so far as it goes. And I guess what i’m going to say is, primarily, is we ought to have even more emphasis along three or four selected directions that are the ones I’d like to talk about. These four, I think, we might summarize as being what should be the positing of priorities. Then I’d like to talk a little bit about what interdisciplinary relations really mean in practice as I understand it. And then third, very briefly, a little bit about the graduate program that some of my predecessors have mentioned, that is mentioned also in this report. And finally, just a word about what sort of data would the school be working with in terms of both research and pedagogy because what kind of data one is concerned with, seems to me, has a great deal to do with what kind of facilities are appropriate for arranging to acquire it, arranging to store it.
(7:59-8:52) On the first point, the report suggests that there are three significant advantages that could be derived from the establishment of a law school in Hawaii and it says that first there should be...but I’ll summarize as “the development of the competence and skills to make possible technical legal change” It’s expressed here in terms of emphasis in law school research and legal writing in ways in which constitution statutes and government regulation should be modified. That’s the sort of thing I mean by the facilitation of technical legal change.
(8:54-9:17) The second point that’s made is one which was the theme of the speaker who preceded me, and that is law as a parameter of social change. That is as a limit upon, or as a means of facilitating a change in society.
(9:18-10:06) And then finally, third, the emphasis given in this report is upon interdisciplinary research. I’d like to turn that around and suggest that the appropriate way to posit priorities in establishing a law school is to say that first and foremost, should be the problem of working out how interdisciplinary work between the law faculty and the rest of the university can be established. And secondly, I really consider the social activism to be a part of this and so I’ll posit another second goal, one which I think Mr. Atkinson I think is going to talk about in a minute which some of the other speakers have mentioned, and that is the development of a cross-cultural…
Duration
10 minutes 6 seconds
Citation
“Disc 2 Track 04. Jamie Hunter to Glendon Schubert,” The Archival Collections at the University of Hawaiʻi School of Law Library, accessed November 29, 2023, http://archives.law.hawaii.edu/items/show/19356.