Let Them Come Speak

One month ago, the British Parliament held a spirited debate on whether to bar Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump from visiting the United Kingdom, due to, amongst other statements, his call for a temporary ban on Muslims seeking to enter the United States.

This isn’t the first time authorities in the UK have considered denying travel privileges to controversial figures. In 2013, the nation’s Home Office, which oversees immigration and visa issues, forbade American bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, two vociferous opponents of radical Islam, from attending an event in support of murdered British soldier Lee Rigby. Several years prior, in 2009, the Home Office sought to bar Dutch politician Geert Wilders, another prominent critic of Islam (this decision was later overturned by a higher immigration tribunal).

                                                              Credit: Wikipedia

These efforts aren’t just limited to the UK, or, to those hostile to Islam. In 2004, Swiss academic Tariq Ramadan, a Muslim scholar who explores issues surrounding Islam and modernity, was scheduled to begin work as a tenured professor at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. Ramadan was issued a visa, which the State Department revoked shortly before his arrival.

Elaborating on this decision, a spokesman for the Department of Justice cited provisions of the Patriot Act, which allow the federal government to deny visas to people who use “a position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity.” At issue were claims by some critics (vigorously disputed by Ramadan) that Ramadan was a proponent of radical Islam. After a legal battle, a 2009 ruling by the US Court of Appeals (Second Circuit) permitted Ramadan to enter the United States.

Such battles aren’t solely a feature of Western democracies. In early 2013, Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses, announced that he had been blocked from entering the Indian city of Kolkata, where he was scheduled to attend the Kolkata Literature Festival. Rushdie claimed that Kolkata police informed him they were simply following the orders of Mamta Banerjee, the Chief Minister of the state of West Bengal, where Kolkata is located.

Rushdie, who was born in India but now lives in Britain, has been a lightning rod for anger in some quarters. Since The Satanic Verses, published in 1989, was viewed as blasphemous by many Muslims, Rushdie was the target of a death edict from the late Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, and the subject of deadly riots in India, Pakistan and other nations.

                                                           Credit: Times of India

  

Each of these cases raises an important question: Should a democratic government deny entry (for a stay of limited duration) to visitors from abroad, whose public pronunciations are in some way offensive, and/or potentially disruptive to public order? The answer is, with a few limited exceptions, no.

While every sovereign nation enjoys a basic right to regulate who enters it’s borders, unless an individual is shown to be actively inciting or promoting acts of violence or sedition, he or she should be allowed to enter another nation, and engage in core activities of free expression, for a limited period of time, and subject to appropriate security procedures.

Perhaps the biggest problem posed by speech-based travel bans, is that it empowers the state to decide what is and isn’t acceptable speech. This is a dangerous expansion of governmental power. If members of the British Parliament, powerful officials in the US State Department, or the leader of a state in India, choose to bar individuals whose speech is disfavored, they are setting the parameters for permissible discussion and debate. In effect, the coercive power of government is harnessed to impose subjective value judgments on the populace, and dictate whom their fellow citizens may or may not personally hear from and communicate with.

While it is reasonable to be wary of “slippery slope” arguments, really, where does this end? Could impingements on the speech of potential visitors, eventually lead to silencing inconvenient voices at home? Quite possibly. Freedom of thought and expression lies at the core of a free society, and abridgment of such rights is a dangerous path to ravel.

Of course, in the era of Google, Twitter, YouTube and Facebook, one doesn’t have to go very far to hear what Trump, Wilders, Ramadan and others are saying. What’s more, thanks to these websites, and blogging platforms like Medium, Wordpress and Blogspot, any person with Internet access, across the globe, may engage with these individuals online, and express support, opposition, or simply ridicule their positions.

Why, then, is it so crucial to let those who are magnets for controversy visit other nations, and offer their thoughts in person? Why can’t we simply conduct these discussions online?

                                                                Credit: Drupal.org

In any matter of communication, whether a discussion with a small group, a spirited public debate at a local college, or an impassioned rally before thousands, there is no substitute for physical presence. If this weren’t the case, presidential candidates, both in the United States and elsewhere, wouldn’t spend so much time on the road, hoping to make an impression on voters. Despite the growth of videoconferencing, business travel remains crucial for many types of meetings, and telecommuting by employees isn’t always favored, in part because of the value of personal contact.

When Donald Trump is barred from the United Kingdom, or Tariq Ramadan isn’t allowed to teach at an American university, and Salman Rushdie can’t visit Kolkata, every Briton, American or Indian is actually somewhat less free. He or she may not sit in an auditorium or college classroom, contemplating what these men have to say, while observing body language and verbal inflections, and noting the reactions of other audience members. This citizen cannot offer a voice of encouragement or dissent (such as by demonstrating in a public space outside of an event), and partake in the age-old war of ideas.

Besides curtailing individual freedoms, such restrictions also harm society as a whole. While the right of each person to speak is immeasurably important, it is the full range of discussion available which makes for a truly open and vibrant nation. Books, radio and television, as well as digital and social media, are all important contributors in this endeavor.

Yet, there is simply no substitute for the public square (whether outside of the United States Supreme Court, or at a local museum or university), where those of varied outlooks can gather to voice their opinions, and must hear the viewpoints of others. Such gatherings might prove to be uncomfortable and tense, stretching the comfort zones of all who are present. Still, they can also serve as a source of learning and growth (as Kaddie Abdul, a Muslim-American women who attended a Trump rally, recently noted) , and a powerful reaffirmation of how a free society can withstand differing outlooks and vigorous dissent.

                                                                Credit: The Guardian

Quite often, those who press for bans on controversial speakers aren’t per se opposed to free expression, so much as they wish to avoid disruptions to public order. This is a valid concern. In 1991, a translator of The Satanic Verses was murdered, and another was stabbed but survived. 13 years later, Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was highly critical of Islam, was murdered in Amsterdam by a terrorist tied to a regional militant network. We all recall the 2015 massacre of Charlie Hebdo staff in Paris, slaughtered for drawing cartoons some Muslims found offensive, and followed by the murderous attack on Jewish shoppers at a kosher supermarket, all carried out by Al Qaeda operatives.

In the United States, protests outside of abortion clinics have on occasion turned violent, as have cartoon contests seen as blasphemous by some Muslims. Meanwhile, armed (although nonviolent) protesters have attended demonstrations against President Obama, as well as gatherings protesting gun violence, acts seen by many as clear intimidation.

In this highly charged environment, it is easy to understand why those tasked with overseeing security are wary of allowing visits by anyone whose presence might increase the risk of violence. Yet, in allowing the heckler’s veto to prevail, we empower those who seek to threaten or silence opposing voices. We hand a core principle of democratic governance, an appetite for peaceful protest and differing views, over to people ready to use violence and intimidation to silence others.

In such a world, the compatriots of the Charlie Hebdo murderers need only threaten bloodshed when Rushdie visits, or vow to raise Cain at the sight of Donald Trump or Geert Wilders, and they can supersede the basic freedoms of every person who wishes to hear what these men have to say, however disagreeable it might be to others. The same is true of a violent anti-abortion group which decides to disrupt a pro-choice rally, or really, any group of extremists which wants to challenge differing thought and speech through force. In effect, the preferences of extremists carry more weight than the values of a free nation.

                                                             Credit: The Age (Australia) 

Of course, one aspect of national sovereignty is the right to regulate immigration and borders. Those who openly call for violence and genocide, or actively incite violent uprisings, are not welcome in most places which recognize some variation of the French motto of Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité (liberty, equality, fraternity). Yet, that raises the question, exactly what sort of speech ought to be classified as violence, genocide, or naked incitement, such that a ban on travel is justified?

Should someone like Daryush Valizadeh (known as Roosh V), who has argued for the legalization of rape, be banned from visiting the UK and elsewhere? How about Anjem Choudary, a fiery British Islamist with ties to terrorists, who argues that Muslims are obligated to violently impose a version of Sharia law in the West? Should he be stopped from giving speeches in California or Minnesota? Or, let’s consider Thomas Dienel, a German neo-Nazi leader who threatens deadly violence against Jewish people and immigrants? Should he be allowed to visit other nations in Europe? What do we do about those who spew calls for bloodshed and hate?

As with so many matters of law and policy, the simple answer is, it depends. Delineating the boundaries of free speech is a famously difficult task (as the late Potter Stewart of the US Supreme Court famously noted in an opinion on obscenity: “I know it when I see it.”). At some level, every society will have to decide which sorts of utterances, however repugnant, are permissible, and what crosses the line into incitement of violence and rebellion, especially when a visit by a foreign national is involved.

Courts are well-equipped to answer these sorts of questions, as are lawmakers. However, since the legislature can be swayed by public abhorrence of some types of offensive speech (as seen with laws against flag burning in the United States), it is important for the judiciary to act as a check on elected officials. Both elected officials and courts ought to err on the side of fewer speech restrictions, and citizens must hold their government accountable for protecting freedom of expression, even for disagreeable visitors from abroad.

                                                             Credit: Wikipedia 

As far as travel and visits by controversial figures, let’s keep in mind that such visits need not be indefinite in duration. Geert Wilders doesn’t have a right to make London his second home, and Salman Rushdie need not travel through Calcutta indefinitely. If, due to the nature of a visitor’s speech, a government believes that protecting public safety is a vital concern, it has every right to reasonably limit the time of his or her overall visit, as well as restrict the number of public appearances. But, it shouldn’t ban him or her outright.

Also, when there are serious security concerns about the sort of audience whom a particular speaker attracts, law enforcement agencies should allowed to observe who attends these gatherings, and take note of what is being said (though, given the potential for overreach and abuse in targeting those who hold unpopular beliefs, such surveillance must be subject to strict legislative and judicial oversight).

                                                          Credit: The Standard 

Ultimately, this whole discussion comes down to the true nature of supposedly free nations. Are we strong enough to tolerate the public presence of those whose views repel us, allowing them to offer their thoughts to audiences, and be vigorously challenged in the public arena, by those who strongly disagree? Are we eager to strengthen the ideals of debate, differing opinions, and free expression, which lie at the core of an open society?

Or, do we value our comfort over freedom, and insead hope to preserve the tidy illusion of democracy over the messy reality it often entails? If we don’t wish to allow controversial figures from abroad to speak, for how much longer will we really permit dissent at home? Donald Trump, Salman Rushdie, Tariq Ramadan, and thousands of others who stir the passions of others, will live to fight another day. The question is, will we?

   

In Defense Of The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative

(Note: This article was originally published on Medium). 

On December 1, Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, announced the birth of their daughter Maxine (known as Max). They also revealed their plans to give away, over the course of their lifetimes, 99% of the Facebook shares they own (which carry a value of $45 billion) to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (legally structured as Chan Zuckerberg LLC, referred to henceforth as CZI), centered around two broad themes: Advancing human potential, and promoting equality.

Along these lines, Chan and Zuckerberg noted the importance of reducing poverty and improving access to healthcare, the benefits of inclusive communities, the tremendous utility of personalized learning, as well as the need for strong civil rights protections.

CZI set forward several different strategies for achieving these goals. These included making long-term investments in projects with extended time horizons, developing and improving technology to better solve humanity’s most pressing challenges, and engagement with a variety of matters of public policy.

Not surprisingly, CZI has attracted quite a bit of attention, not all of it flattering. One widespread critique focuses on the tax benefits which Zuckerberg and Chan will enjoy through their contribution. As tax attorney Robert Wood noted in Forbes, by donating appreciated Facebook stock to CZI, Zuckerberg will successfully avoid taxes on billions of dollars in stock appreciation and income. These are monies which will never make their way into the public purse.

Jesse Eisenger of Propublica also wrote about this tax treatment critically, noting that if some of Zuckerberg’s billions were collected in taxes, society, through the elected officials who run various levels of government, would decide how to allocate these funds. On the other hand, with CZI, Zuckerberg alone would control fund allocation.

Additionally, Eisenger argues that charitable organizations often fail to direct their money or efforts towards everyday needs like healthcare or infrastructure (usually addressed by government); what sort of impact might Chan and Zuckerberg’s money have if used to solve problems in these areas, rather than the particular issues which Chan and Zuckerberg have the greatest interest in?

Jason Farbman of Jacobin raised similar concerns about CZI, arguing that placing billions of dollars outside of public control “presents real problems for democracy,” as it “gives even more control to capitalists” and places them in “positions to….shape public life for all of us.” Farbman, like Eisenger, also pondered how CZI funds, if collected in taxes, rather than held privately, could impact vital programs like public education.

Writing for the Washington Post, Jeff Guo quoted the German billionaire Peter Krämer, who argued that tax-exempt giving by the wealthy was really “a bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires.” Guo also observed that public spending on social support in the United States was relatively low, while private expenditures, as a percentage of GDP, were rather high. Like Eisinger and Farbman, Guo wondered how such substantial spending and decision-making power by billionaires might lead to “too much power to the rich, whose decisions may not align with what’s best for society.”

These critiques largely overlook the many potential benefits of CZI’s unique approach. By placing a large amount of money in private hands, combined with a long-term outlook and flexible structure, CZI can focus on important undertakings which might not otherwise enjoy sufficient support from either government or private investors, and make crucial contributions towards a better world for all of us.

Let’s consider renewable and alternate energy. Through it’s Loan Program Office, the US Department of Energy has disbursed more than $30 billion in loans to a variety of clean energy projects. Despite prominent, highly politicized failures like Solyndra, it has proven profitable. Still, this initiative was in large part a brainchild of the Obama administration, and at times fiercely opposed by some Republicans. What happens if an administration with other priorities takes office, and decides to scale back on these programs?

Unreliable federal support isn’t an issue just for clean energy ventures. Since 2003, thanks to budgetary wrangling in Congress and the White House, funding for the National Institute of Health (NIH), has been rather stagnant,leading to a 22% drop in the agency’s purchasing power. This situation has grown so dire that more than a dozen medical school deans recently warned that financial challenges, in particular unpredictable federal funding, poses a major threat to the continued viability of “high-risk, high-reward research” and will lead to a “smaller biomedical research enterprise and slow clinical advances.”

CZI, and other similarly structured funds, can provide an additional, extra-governmental structure, in order to ensure some level of basic funding for impactful scientific and medical research. Since just a few people will make ultimate funding decisions for CZI, this organization can provide cover from the ever-shifting winds of funding battles in Congressional committees, which are a constant feature of today’s political landscape.

What’s more, since CZI’s structure as an LLC allows it to make equity investments in for-profit firms, it will enjoy the flexibility of using several different methods for backing a venture (either debt or equity investments), something which government and traditional nonprofits can’t really do. This could, in some cases, lead to profits which CZI could reinvest in it’s general funds, growing it’s base, and supporting additional worthwhile endeavors.

Given their stated interests, there is considerable reason to believe that Zuckerberg and Chan will fund the types of initiatives normally backed by the NIH, Department of Energy, and other government agencies. As ever more wealthy people give to philanthropic avenues (in part thanks to the The Giving Pledge), we can reduce the impact of governmental gridlock on technological progress.

CZI also opens up funding for the sort of innovation and discovery which can take decades, and offers at best uncertain payoffs. In recent years, the interval between an initial venture capital investment in a company, to a successful exit (that is, an IPO, or acquisition by another firm), has averaged around 7–8 years. What’s more, a large portion of these investments have been heavily concentrated in areas such as software, media and Internet-specific businesses, which sometimes carry a relatively shorter investment horizon.

Yet, private investment in areas like clean technology, with it’s greater technical uncertainty, and longer timeframe, has often been rather anemic. Venture capital firms, which are judged on the basis of annualized returns to investors, are understandably hesitant to commit large amounts of capital to technically challenging, sometimes decades-long propositions, especially if more conventionally attractive opportunities are at least sometimes available.

What’s more, not every socially valuable undertaking is financially profitable. Can we really expect profit-driven private investors to pump billions of dollars into funding long-term innovations which assist poor farmers, or to back large-scale, decades-long efforts to fight disease in impoverished regions?

As noted earlier, government funds, which are disbursed solely at the discretion of elected officials, are at best a questionable source of stable funding, for long-term initiatives with uncertain final outcomes. Much of today’s US Congress will look askance at directing taxpayer dollars towards such efforts.

This leaves us with organizations like CZI, which has stated it’s intent to support extended-horizon, high-impact investments, which carry some degree of financial risk. Chan and Zuckerberg view such endeavors as a vehicle for solving our greatest challenges. There is much good that could come from backing ambitious, lengthy initiatives in bioengineering, renewable energy, global health and farming.

Eisenger, Farbman and Guo all seem to fear that the creation of a private entity like Chan Zuckerberg LLC could lead to concentration of power; that is, just a few rich people (Zuckerberg and Chan) would decide how to allocate their organization’s billions, as compared to a democratic government, where elected officials collectively decide how to direct public monies. Over time, the theory goes, this would allow CZI and similar organizations to gain more and more clout, often at the expense of elected officials, who were chosen by the American public.

Rob Reich of Stanford University offers a compelling counter to this line of thinking. Reich notes that private, profit-driven firms aren’t very effective in providing public goods (that which any member of society can potentially use and benefit from, whether or not he or she individually paid for it, including parks, public education, national defense and the arts). Government, which marshals considerable financial resources, and facilitates collective action, is often far more effective in this arena.

Yet, Reich argues, production of many public goods tend to reflect the preferences of voters. As an example, if citizens tend to favor funding for police over the arts, then more dollars will flow towards the FBI and local law enforcement, and less towards the National Endowment for the Arts, or smaller creative organizations. Yet, foundations can counter this trend, by providing alternative public goods, which are of particular interest to a fund’s backers.

An individual philanthropist who backs research into a particular disease, or who cares about supporting modern performance artists, or agitates for the expansion of a promising, creative approach to math education, can fund such causes, even if government lacks interest. As a result, an increasingly diverse array of public goods will be produced, which, as Reich puts it, will “decentralize the definition and production of public goods” and help ensure “pluralism” and temper “government orthodoxy.” CZI can play an important part in this process.

We can find examples of this idea in today’s philanthropic landscape. Elon Musk, Sam Altman and several other prominent Silicon Valley investors recently announced the creation of OpenAI, a nonprofit venture which will direct as much as $1 billion in funding towards transparent, open-source artificial intelligence research, with a goal of preventing artificial intelligence from being exploited by those with ill intentions.

It’s difficult to imagine such an undertaking receiving much government support at this time, however beneficial it might turn out to be in the long run. Yet, the presence of nongovernmental sources of funding,, helps make such ventures possible, and creates a range of approaches to understanding and addressing the needs of society.

To be sure, the United States, like every nation, needs a functional, effective and fair government. This demands sufficient tax revenue, allocated equitably amongst the nation’s population. There are clearly aspects of the US tax code which disproportionately benefit the very wealthy, and so ought to be reformed, in order to function more equitably. Inequality is at historically high levels, and while it’s causes are hotly contested, Neo-feudalism is hardly a promising path forward into the future.

Yet, in a world where American corporations hold over $2.1 trillion in offshore tax havens, and Warren Buffett apparently pays a smaller portion of his income in taxes than his secretary, should the tax implications of Mark Zuckerberg’s philanthropic efforts really be the focus of such ire? Large-scale ventures like CZI can have a substantial positive impact on our world, often treading where government and private industry won’t. Viewing CZI and it’s counterparts as simply lost tax revenue is shortsighted. If favorable tax treatment encourages the growth of such ventures, that’s a worthwhile price to pay.

CZI offers a new, important source of backing for many promising initiatives that often don’t enjoy enough support. It compliments, not undermines, the role of a democratic government (and some private, profit-driven firms) in building a more livable world. We should stand behind such endeavors, and be supportive of their growth and success.

Holding Law Schools Accountable

(Note: This article was cross posted on Medium.com).

For anyone who just graduated from law school, the last several months of the year can be an anxious time. These aspiring attorneys find out whether they passed the bar exam, and, if they haven’t already secured a post-graduation job, will scramble to figure out what their next steps are.

In 2015, bar exam passage rates continued to plummet across the nation, including in some of the country’s largest legal markets. In California, the overall bar passage rate fell to a dismal 46.6%, which was the lowest level in nearly three decades. In New York, while the overall bar passage rate was a somewhat stronger 61%, 2015 brought the poorest results recorded in the state in 35 years.

What’s behind this national plunge in bar exam performance?  Erica Moeser, president of the National Conference of Bar Examiners, has argued that a drop in the skill levels of recent law school graduates is to blame. Moeser points to a decline, beginning in 2010, in the 25th percentile of LSAT scores for entering law students, across the vast majority of law schools (median scores have fallen at most schools as well). As students with lower scores (and impliedly lower academic ability) are admitted, the argument goes, bar passage rates have decreased. Some law school deans, most notably Nick Allard of Brooklyn Law School, have vociferously challenged Moeser’s arguments, although there has been little actual refutation of the data and statistics underlying her assertions.

Lower LSAT scores are a product of decreased law school attendance. The 2014 entering class was nearly 30% smaller than in 2010, and was the smallest crop of new law students since 1973. As interest in studying law has fallen, in order to maintain comparable class sizes, many schools have reduced admissions standards.

Driving this exodus from legal education are the rather dismal economics of today’s legal industry. According to the National Association for Law Placement, from 2008 to 2013, the overall employment rate for recent graduates fell every single year. Numbers for 2014 graduates were slightly better, though in part due to a smaller graduating class.

What’s more, many of those who obtained jobs ended up in positions which didn’t even require passage of the bar exam, raising serious concerns about the value of law school. Additionally, some of those who were reported as employed were actually in temporary, unpaid positions, funded by stipends from their law schools.  

Far fewer recent graduates are working in private law firms, which tend to pay higher salaries, compared to their counterparts of decades past. Hiring of temporary contract attorneys has become quite common; most of these positions offer modest compensation and minimal job security. Many of today’s graduates are likely to face subpar employment prospects, while carrying high levels of student debt, for years to come.

These troubles aren’t just confined to those beginning their careers. Since 2008 (when the Great Recession began in earnest), incomes for partners at law firms (across all sizes) have dropped by 9%, adjusted for inflation, while the legal industry contracted by more than 50,000 jobs from 2008 to 2013. Large, storied national law firms have gone bankrupt, while revenue growth at many larger firms has been at best lackluster, despite a rebounding economy.Things were even worse for the quintessential everyman lawyer, the solo practitioner, whose earnings were reduced by more than 30%, adjusted for inflation, between 1988 to 2012.  

It is hardly shocking that so many who once might have considered law are now moving towards alternate career paths (although Steven Harper, author of The Lawyer Bubble, argues that enrollment hasn’t fallen enough relative to job availability). At the same time, law schools face large fixed overhead costs, especially in terms of paying the salaries and benefits of longtime tenured faculty.

Law school administrators thus face two choices. One approach is to maintain admissions standards, slashing class sizes thanks to fewer applicants. The other option is to lower acceptance requirements, and prop up student headcount, preserving overall tuition inflows, while delaying hard choices around downsizing and restructuring.

Many institutions have clearly selected the later approach. To some extent, those considering law school must hold themselves accountable, using the sort of data cited here to thoughtfully assess their bar passage and employment prospects. A competent attorney must be meticulous in his or her research. It’s not unreasonable to demand the same of those who hope to one day be lawyers.

Yet, that isn’t enough. While the concept of students as customers remains a subject of heated debate, it is inescapably true that individuals select law school from an array of viable career and educational paths, and in doing so, face opportunity costs. In terms of both personal impact and monetary costs, attending law school is much like making a major purchase (buying a home comes to mind). Basic consumer protections, ensuring transparency and accountability, ought to apply.

The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) offers a useful case study of the sort of approach which might work here. Initially passed in 1968, and expanded since, TILA requires lenders to offer detailed written disclosures prior to extending customer credit, including credit cards, auto, student, and mortgage loans. This information helps paints a clearer picture of the actual costs and responsibilities faced by borrowers, allowing them to make more wiser decisions in accepting loans.

While law school employment reports have become somewhat more accurate and representative over the past few years, more work is needed. Each institution should be required to provide prospective students with an electronic disclosure statement that lays out, in detail, bar passage rates and employment outcomes for graduates from each of the previous 5 years, encompassing the 12 months following a graduate’s completion of law school.

Included in this employment data should be the firm or agency size where a graduate obtained employment, his or her annual salary, and notations to indicate whether such employment was permanent, or on a contract basis. This information should be displayed in an interactive format, indexed with each graduate’s LSAT scores and law school grade point averages, to better explain how various individuals fared. Of course, disclosures must be implemented in a manner which protects individual privacy, which seems quite feasible.

Those considering law school must also review a snapshot of broader income and employment data for the legal profession as a whole, across geographic regions and practice areas. This paints a fuller picture of the road ahead. Each potential student will then be required to affirm that he or she has reviewed and understood all of this information, prior to committing to a particular school. Engaging in this exercise can help individuals reach more informed decisions as to whether studying law actually makes sense.

Having graduated from law school in 2010, I am quite familiar with the challenges that newer attorneys face in today’s legal landscape. Yet, I’ve also come to believe that there is real value in a legal education. In the right circumstances, the practice of law can be meaningful and fulfilling. Some observers, most notably Paul Campos of the University of Colorado Law School, and Jordan Weissman at Slate, have argued that in at least some cases, law school is still a worthwhile undertaking. I agree.

However, that is ultimately a decision for each individual to make. Since entering the legal profession is such a substantial commitment in terms of time, money, and effort, those who wish to become attorneys must be fully aware of what awaits them, and provided with the data to make a well-reasoned decision as to whether law school is indeed the right path. For a profession whose very existence is based on the deliverance of justice, this is the only fair thing to do.