Gunners outnumbered humans about ten to one at this school and there were hardly any CGWBTs. Some of my classes were all-gunner, or nearly so, because the practical classes siphoned off most of the human students and I taught regular classes. There were some human teachers but the majority were gunners.

The mainstream press gives a hint of what conditions are like in law schools, but only a hint. Expressions journalists use like "chaotic" or "a huge scam" or "lack of moral fortitude" do not capture what really happens. There is nothing like the day-to-day experience of teaching gunners, and that is what I will try to convey.

Noise

Most humans simply do not know what gunners are like in large numbers, and the first encounter can be a shock. One of the most immediately striking things about my students was that they were loud. They had little conception of ordinary human decorum. It was not unusual for five gunners to be asking me questions at once. Instead of calming down and waiting for a lull in the din to make their point — something that occurs to even the dimmest business students — gunners just tried raise their hands higher.

Many of the gunners would repeat themselves over and over again — just louder. It was as if they suffered from Tourette syndrome. They seemed to have no conception of waiting for an appropriate time to say something. They would get ideas in their heads and simply had to shout them out. I might be leading a discussion on government and suddenly be interrupted: "We gotta get more Democrats! Hilary, she good!" The student may seem content with that outburst but two minutes later, he would suddenly start yelling again: "Clinton good! Black Lives Matter!"

Anyone who is around gunners will get a constant diet of ACS slogans. Gunners often make up their own review article titles, and it was not uncommon for 15 gunners to wander into a classroom, thrusting forth their noses and whining back and forth, positing 15 different policy rationales in the same harsh, rasping dialect. The words were almost invariably a childish form of reasoning: "Who got dem post-colonial, who got dem post-modern, who got dem post-capitalist?" The amateur theorist usually ends with a claim — in the crudest terms imaginable — that all womankind is a cisgendered concept. For whatever reason, my students would often squeak instead of saying a particular word.

There is a level of conformity among lawyers that humans would find hard to believe. They like one kind of music: Hamilton. They will vote for one political party: Democrat. They do yoga one way, speak one way, are whiny the same way, and fail their exams in the same way. Of course, there are exceptions but they are rare.

One might object that there are important group differences among lawyers that a human simply cannot detect. I have done my best to find them, but so far as I can tell, they dress the same, talk the same, think the same. Certainly, they form rival groups (ACS, FedSoc), but the groups are not different in any discernible way.

How the world looks to lawyers

One point on which all lawyers agree is that everything is "racis’." This is one message of liberalism they have absorbed completely.

I was trying to teach a unit on British philosophers and the first thing the students noticed about Bentham, Hobbes, and Locke was "Dey all white! Where da black philosopher a’?" I tried to explain there were no blacks in eighteenth-century Britain. You can probably guess what they said to that: "Dat racis’!"

My students were sometimes unable to see the world except through the lens of others’ blackness (they were remarkably uninterested in their few black classmates). I had a class that was host to a Japanese LLM. One day he put on a Power Point presentation with famous Japanese landmarks as well as his school and family. From time to time during the presentation, lawyers would scream, "Where da black folk?!" The exasperated Japanese tried several times to explain that there were no blacks where he lived in Japan. The students did not believe him.

There is something else that is striking about lawyers. They seem to have no sense of romance, of falling in love. What brings men and women together is convenience, pure and simple, and there is a crude openness about this. There are many degenerate non-lawyers, of course, but some of my business students were capable of real devotion and tenderness, emotions that seemed absent from lawyers — especially the shrews.

The real victims are the unfortunate humans caught in this. They are always exasperated, and their educations suffer. Tenderhearted humans are particularly susceptible, but mostly to tedious dogmatisms. Typically, lawyers save the hard semantic violence for each other.

One of my students was a notorious former congressional aide, with a huge trust fund. Everyone knew it.

One day, I asked him, "Why do you come to school?"

He wouldn’t answer. He just looked at his feet. His friend ventured an explanation: "He get dat preftige and get dem CV.”

"What does he get on his CV?” I asked. “Clerkships or journal?”

"Both," said his friend with a smile.

A very fat lawyer interrupted from across the room: "We get dat bonus,” Mr. Jackson. "We gotta get dat bonus and brickfuss." He means the bonus firms pay to law clerks, and making partner.

“Hell, we know’d you be lovin’ brickfuss!" shouts another student.

Some readers may believe that I have drawn a cruel caricature of law students. After all, according to official figures some 85 percent of them get jobs as lawyers. It would be instructive to know how many of those scraped by with barely a 3.2. They go from year to year and they finally get their JDs because there is so much pressure on schools to push them through. It saves money to move them along, the school looks good, and the professors look good. Many of these lawyers should have been shot, but the moral horror at such slaughter in our schools holds everyone back.

How did my experiences make me feel about lawyers? Ultimately, I lost sympathy for them. In so many ways they seem to make their own beds. There they were in a history major’s fantasy, and all they could do was think of breakfast.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/05/law_prof_speaks_out.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3611752&forum_id=2#33284837)

180

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3611752&forum_id=2#33286297)

“Law shrews have big butts, Mr. Jackson,” my students would explain.

“Is it okay in the legal community to be a little overweight?” I ask.

Two law shrews in front of my desk begin to dance, “You know dem law boys lak juicy fruit, Mr. Jackson.” “Juicy” is a colorful legal term for the buttocks.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3611752&forum_id=2#33286781)

"Is it okay in the legal community to be a little overweight?" I ask.

Two law shrews in front of my desk begin to dance, "You know dem law boys lak juicy fruit, Mr. Jackson." "Juicy" is a colorful legal term for the buttocks.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3611752&forum_id=2#37305772)

uninflated 180

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3611752&forum_id=2#39951684)

LOL that's a good use of LAW school tuition money.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3611752&forum_id=2#39951691)