Disc 2 Track 06. Continuation of Glendon Schubert to William Richardson to Tim McKesson
Title
Disc 2 Track 06. Continuation of Glendon Schubert to William Richardson to Tim McKesson
Subject
Disc 2
Source
Series 1: Memorabilia
Oral History/Testimony - A Law School for Hawaii
Date
10/20/1969
Identifier
CJWSROH:D2T6
Interviewer
Hawaii State Judiciary Committee
Interviewee
Glendon Schubert, William Richardson, and Tim McKesson
Transcription
Glendon Schubert:
(0:00-0:35) And take something that will improve the mind, like languages. Now that is horrible advice to give to a young man because it doesn’t tell him how to do anything in particular. I think it is possible to specify the kind of courses that are available within the rest of the university, not that anybody has to take this, just that it provides a basis for guidance that will permit people to who go on into law school to have the kind of an education that law school students in the past haven’t had, by and large, that will permit them then to work much more effectively as social scientists. So this is the way I think the interdisciplinary ought to be thought of.
(0:36-0:42) My other points will be briefer because I realize I’m taking more than the 5 minutes allotted to me.
(0:44-1:52)I’ll appeal a precedent therefore, which is of course, the first recourse of those who wish to make a point on irrefutable grounds. The precedent is a fairly good one it’s an article from the New York Times. A new law school which is being established at Brandeis University. And the headline is, “Brandeis Law School to Train Policy Makers” and then it goes on to describe how Morris Abram conceives the establishment of the law school which will rock much of the traditional curriculum, I’m still reading sub headlines here. And which will attempt to do, I think, the sort of things I’ve been talking about. He does say that they’ll eventually pass bar exams, he doesn’t explain how but it comes low in his list of priorities and I think it ought to come low in our list of priorities in talking about how to set up the school. I think it ought to be done, but I don’t think it ought to be put first because if it does, that’s the tail that’s going to wag the dog.
(1:55-4:25) My third point has to do with graduate programs. There's a statement here which talks about graduate programs and what it seems to imply is that there will be a graduate degree in law and the people having acquired whatever we call a J.D. or so on will let them take further work in an advanced degree in law. It happens I’ve had a chance to get to know a few people who are doing this sort of thing the last couple of years too. I think it’s the wrong kind of way to spend that time for people who already have a 3 year law degree. In a number of universities on the mainland now, most of them on the basis of Russell Sage money, and let me make the point because I probably won’t get a chance to make it later, that the course in law and society that Ian Matta is offering at Punahou now is, in social terms, a direct byproduct of the investment that Russell Sage made in the law and society programs at Wisconsin and at Northwestern beginning about almost 10 years ago now in the early 60’s. Otherwise I think there’s a high probability he wouldn't be doing it. And other people who are the products of those other types of programs wouldn’t be doing similar things throughout the country. So what I suggest is that people who want to take further graduate degrees ought to be getting joint education. They ought to be taking a joint degree so they get a PhD in sociology along with a J.D. or a PhD in psychology. Not many people have done that, the 2 or 3 who have, have had further numbers, at least, I think a considerable influence upon the development of legal theory in the last generation. And they ought to be taking joint degrees in sociology, in political science, and anthropology, and I would say biology and other fields. If we’re to talk about a graduate program, we ought to define it not as a further work in technical law, but further work in close relationship with other disciplines because it’s the people who have this kind of dual competence who are not only more scarce now, but the ones who are really critical in thrusting forward the advancement of knowledge, the ones who work in the interfaces between disciplines.
(4:29-5:32) My fourth point, about which I’ll be briefest of all, has to do with what’s the kind of data. There’s considerable talk in this booklet about libraries and about books and about where they’re going to be put. And I have no objection to that in the time being, this is the sort of thing people are working with. More or less, in doing the research. But I think that there ought to be considerable thought given before any plans are drawn up to house books in expensive custodial places. To the extent to which 10 years from now, the knowledge that is deemed relevant for either legal pedagogy or legal research is going to be stored in bits rather than books. Now this of course implies something about training because this means people to function at all as lawyers 10 years from now are going to have to be trained, not as computer programmers, but as the consumers of what computers will store so that they will know how to give directions to technicians to put information in and to get information out.
(5:40-6:53) Well, I’ll close on a personal note. There’s also some talk about appellate cases here and appellate cases I guess still are the stock of what’s supposed to be relevant knowledge in most american law schools but here I’m completely with the speaker from Oregon in what’s the relevant source of legal data. I happen to have a son who’s a third year law student at Wisconsin and who’s already got a job beginning in June. His job is to be a community relations, that’s the title, specialist on, it’s a law job, on the staff of the chief of police of an Ohio town. It’s a job I think I’m too old for and I don’t know if I’d have the courage to assume, but it’s the job which is worth mentioning because this is characteristic of the kinds of law job that students who will be attending the University of Hawaii Law School will want to do and this is the kind of job they ought to be equipped to do. And I hope that we move somewhat along these directions so that it will be possible for them to do it. Thank you very much.
William Richardson:
(6:55-7:14) Thank you. The other distinguished visitor that I told you we would be hearing from is Mr. Tim McKesson, who just returned from 3 years as general counsel of the new asia development bank located in Manila. I thought perhaps you would want to hear from him because of his experience in business in a foreign country. Sir.
Tim McKesson:
(7:25-8:27) Thank you Mr. Justice Richardson. I come as a lawyer who’s been working for 3 years with one of the newest institutions of regional cooperation in this area. The asian development bank was set up in 1966 as a regional development bank for the developing countries of asia. As Mr. Justice Richardson has pointed out, it’s headquartered in Manila but it’s operations have already brought it into contact with most of the countries of the pacific basin. As a lawyer working in it’s program, I have had opportunity to come in contact with the law schools of most of the countries around the pacific and with a great number of the young lawyers. I thought it would be interesting to make a few points from this experience that might have a bearing on the need and opportunity for a law school in Hawaii.
(8:28-9:03) In the process of talking to the young lawyers and recruiting them from a great variety of countries I found that there is an expectations that in the next 10 years there will be enormous changes and that there is an enormous need for the training of lawyers who will be development oriented and who will have a sensitivity to the cultural and the traditional differences of the various countries…
(0:00-0:35) And take something that will improve the mind, like languages. Now that is horrible advice to give to a young man because it doesn’t tell him how to do anything in particular. I think it is possible to specify the kind of courses that are available within the rest of the university, not that anybody has to take this, just that it provides a basis for guidance that will permit people to who go on into law school to have the kind of an education that law school students in the past haven’t had, by and large, that will permit them then to work much more effectively as social scientists. So this is the way I think the interdisciplinary ought to be thought of.
(0:36-0:42) My other points will be briefer because I realize I’m taking more than the 5 minutes allotted to me.
(0:44-1:52)I’ll appeal a precedent therefore, which is of course, the first recourse of those who wish to make a point on irrefutable grounds. The precedent is a fairly good one it’s an article from the New York Times. A new law school which is being established at Brandeis University. And the headline is, “Brandeis Law School to Train Policy Makers” and then it goes on to describe how Morris Abram conceives the establishment of the law school which will rock much of the traditional curriculum, I’m still reading sub headlines here. And which will attempt to do, I think, the sort of things I’ve been talking about. He does say that they’ll eventually pass bar exams, he doesn’t explain how but it comes low in his list of priorities and I think it ought to come low in our list of priorities in talking about how to set up the school. I think it ought to be done, but I don’t think it ought to be put first because if it does, that’s the tail that’s going to wag the dog.
(1:55-4:25) My third point has to do with graduate programs. There's a statement here which talks about graduate programs and what it seems to imply is that there will be a graduate degree in law and the people having acquired whatever we call a J.D. or so on will let them take further work in an advanced degree in law. It happens I’ve had a chance to get to know a few people who are doing this sort of thing the last couple of years too. I think it’s the wrong kind of way to spend that time for people who already have a 3 year law degree. In a number of universities on the mainland now, most of them on the basis of Russell Sage money, and let me make the point because I probably won’t get a chance to make it later, that the course in law and society that Ian Matta is offering at Punahou now is, in social terms, a direct byproduct of the investment that Russell Sage made in the law and society programs at Wisconsin and at Northwestern beginning about almost 10 years ago now in the early 60’s. Otherwise I think there’s a high probability he wouldn't be doing it. And other people who are the products of those other types of programs wouldn’t be doing similar things throughout the country. So what I suggest is that people who want to take further graduate degrees ought to be getting joint education. They ought to be taking a joint degree so they get a PhD in sociology along with a J.D. or a PhD in psychology. Not many people have done that, the 2 or 3 who have, have had further numbers, at least, I think a considerable influence upon the development of legal theory in the last generation. And they ought to be taking joint degrees in sociology, in political science, and anthropology, and I would say biology and other fields. If we’re to talk about a graduate program, we ought to define it not as a further work in technical law, but further work in close relationship with other disciplines because it’s the people who have this kind of dual competence who are not only more scarce now, but the ones who are really critical in thrusting forward the advancement of knowledge, the ones who work in the interfaces between disciplines.
(4:29-5:32) My fourth point, about which I’ll be briefest of all, has to do with what’s the kind of data. There’s considerable talk in this booklet about libraries and about books and about where they’re going to be put. And I have no objection to that in the time being, this is the sort of thing people are working with. More or less, in doing the research. But I think that there ought to be considerable thought given before any plans are drawn up to house books in expensive custodial places. To the extent to which 10 years from now, the knowledge that is deemed relevant for either legal pedagogy or legal research is going to be stored in bits rather than books. Now this of course implies something about training because this means people to function at all as lawyers 10 years from now are going to have to be trained, not as computer programmers, but as the consumers of what computers will store so that they will know how to give directions to technicians to put information in and to get information out.
(5:40-6:53) Well, I’ll close on a personal note. There’s also some talk about appellate cases here and appellate cases I guess still are the stock of what’s supposed to be relevant knowledge in most american law schools but here I’m completely with the speaker from Oregon in what’s the relevant source of legal data. I happen to have a son who’s a third year law student at Wisconsin and who’s already got a job beginning in June. His job is to be a community relations, that’s the title, specialist on, it’s a law job, on the staff of the chief of police of an Ohio town. It’s a job I think I’m too old for and I don’t know if I’d have the courage to assume, but it’s the job which is worth mentioning because this is characteristic of the kinds of law job that students who will be attending the University of Hawaii Law School will want to do and this is the kind of job they ought to be equipped to do. And I hope that we move somewhat along these directions so that it will be possible for them to do it. Thank you very much.
William Richardson:
(6:55-7:14) Thank you. The other distinguished visitor that I told you we would be hearing from is Mr. Tim McKesson, who just returned from 3 years as general counsel of the new asia development bank located in Manila. I thought perhaps you would want to hear from him because of his experience in business in a foreign country. Sir.
Tim McKesson:
(7:25-8:27) Thank you Mr. Justice Richardson. I come as a lawyer who’s been working for 3 years with one of the newest institutions of regional cooperation in this area. The asian development bank was set up in 1966 as a regional development bank for the developing countries of asia. As Mr. Justice Richardson has pointed out, it’s headquartered in Manila but it’s operations have already brought it into contact with most of the countries of the pacific basin. As a lawyer working in it’s program, I have had opportunity to come in contact with the law schools of most of the countries around the pacific and with a great number of the young lawyers. I thought it would be interesting to make a few points from this experience that might have a bearing on the need and opportunity for a law school in Hawaii.
(8:28-9:03) In the process of talking to the young lawyers and recruiting them from a great variety of countries I found that there is an expectations that in the next 10 years there will be enormous changes and that there is an enormous need for the training of lawyers who will be development oriented and who will have a sensitivity to the cultural and the traditional differences of the various countries…
Time Summary
9 minutes 3 seconds
Citation
“Disc 2 Track 06. Continuation of Glendon Schubert to William Richardson to Tim McKesson,” The Archival Collections at the University of Hawaiʻi School of Law Library, accessed September 8, 2024, http://archives.law.hawaii.edu/items/show/19358.