Sometimes We Need to Let Go to Break Through

I didn’t think about how silly this was until I began my college semester abroad, at which time I was also using a white cane. One afternoon, one of my flat-mates sharply asked, “Why do you have that stick?” I was shocked at her bluntness but calmly replied, “I’m blind. I can’t see.” The girl responded, “Then why are you wearing glasses if you can’t see?”

Well. Why indeed?

I returned to my room and sat on my bed. I removed my glasses and looked around. Then I put my glasses back on and looked around. No difference. I was simply wearing my glasses from years of habit.

After considerable self-reflection, I decided it was time for the world to see my bare eyes. I would no longer hide who I was. I was blind. And I was going to figure out exactly what that meant for me.

What I learned during this life-changing experience is that even when a tool is familiar and comfortable, if it no longer serves a beneficial purpose, we need to put it aside and find a better tool.

Sometimes we need to let go to break through.

This became a tool I use in approaching a variety of life’s challenges. I regularly reconsider whether my approach is working and, if not, ask myself whether I need to let it go to find a new and better way to achieve my objective. I have been asking myself the same question about the tools the Law School Admission Council and the broader legal education community have been using to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion. Perhaps some change is due.

Standardized Testing

The LSAT serves an important purpose. The high correlation of .60 between the LSAT and first-year law student success is higher than the correlation of success with a student’s UGPA alone. For some minoritized candidates with lower UGPAs, it is a door opener that enables them to demonstrate their skills and capability. It is a tool that works. Still, I believe we can increase its effectiveness by ensuring that minoritized candidates have the appropriate resources and support to perform their best on the test. I believe we must expand our view of what can and should be assessed.

Reinforcing the Pipeline

We, as an industry and profession, need to stop doing stand-alone and feel-good programs, conferences, and events. Instead, we must focus on measuring and zealously pursuing positive outcomes. One way to do this is by creating strong links and connections between programs so that candidates are supported each step of the way and at each stage of their journey. We need to create intentional handoffs from one program to the next program. We also need to develop on-ramps for justice-impacted individuals, those with family obligations, and those who may have taken a detour on their path to a career in law. The Law School Admission Council is well positioned to lead, convene, and collaborate on these critical issues.

Intersectionality

Programs aimed at supporting minoritized students can no longer focus solely on race. An intersection of multiple identities is likely to reside within individual candidates. We cannot expect a Black man to go to one resource to be seen, heard, and understood and to a different resource if he is also gay. Likewise, we cannot relegate LGBTQ+ and disability access supports to different programs. Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs must be inclusive and holistic, and incorporate the needs of various marginalized identities.

There has been progress on DEI in the legal field, but a lot more must be done. To ensure that we achieve our goal of a just world where all may thrive, we must calmly and rationally eliminate programs, processes, and procedures that may be comfortable and familiar but that are no longer as effective as they once were.

Sometimes we need to let go to break through.

Angela Winfield takes a deeper dive into how her life experience informs her diversity, equity, and inclusion work in this interview with Editorial Board Chair Laura Possessky.