Introduction
I distinctly recall our ASP colleague Brittany Raposa’s call for collaborators from (checks e-mail archives) five years ago for what would become the just-released compendium that is “Fostering First Gen Success and Inclusion: A Guide for Law Schools.” The early drafts of interested contributing authors read like a Who’s Who of ASP luminaries; it is heartening to see many of our colleagues as creators of finished works in this long-awaited book. To their voices, I was delighted to hear others outside of the ASP world who share in the critically important task of supporting first-generation law students. I came away from reading the entire guide with new knowledge and fresh inspiration for this sacred charge. While I cannot possibly do justice to each chapter’s much-needed insight, I hope to play the role of “help tour guide” to some of the books’ points of interest. I also realize this impossible effort necessitates that I proceed in multiple parts; I’ve humbly gotta start somewhere.
Part One: Defining Your Terms
Throughout the guide, its authors do an excellent job reminding us of the importance of defining terms. It is important whether we consider a first-generation law student the first in their family to go law school, or whether we extend the breadth of the identity marker, and its accompanying challenges, to being the first in their family to go any sort of post-secondary education. Raposa herself notes that her co-contributors can and do use different definitions. In addition, the book’s authors do a careful, thoughtful job of noting which groups of law students tend to have larger amounts of first-generation students, with important contributions addressing these needs among Black[1], BIPOC[2], Hispanic[3], Chinese[4], and LGBTQIA+ students.[5] I came away from these sections with helpful knowledge on statistics, perspective, and cultural phenomena – but also a greater sense of what connects the first-generation experience across identity markers. With our institutions under immense pressure to support first-generation students while balancing the challenges to diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging efforts across many levels of government, identifying commonalities of challenge, efficacy, and support is a required competency in today’s legal education.
To that end, the book does an excellent job giving shape to other key terms critical to programming that supports first-gen students. The first is the “hidden curriculum” – squarely addressed by Chapters Three (Fiedler, Shah, Talai, & Fiedler) and Fifteen (Shah & Basick), and helpfully referenced by several others. These chapters are powerful reminders to readers not to assume we all know as educators and lawyers. Chapter Three’s authors implore us not to waste eager first gen students’ “young, scrappy, and hungry” energy while channeling it towards realistic goals, mentor pairing, and all-purpose strong credentials[6]. Chapter Fifteen’s veteran ASP authors wisely and repeatedly hammer home the theme of transparency in “unhiding” that curriculum for first-generation students while providing both programmatic application sections and appropriate one-pager templates that one might distribute to students.[7]
The second is “imposter syndrome”. From the jump, the books’ first two chapters[8] remind us that every first gen story comes with that feeling of sense of not belonging, which can surface as quickly as a negative faculty assessment on week one of 1L year[9] or the dismissive comments of peers well before law school[10] and exists as a pervasive phenomenon that infects society well beyond the legal community[11]. These authors remind us that we can mitigate or eliminate imposter syndrome with adequate diversity and representation[12], numerous genuine examples of how first-generation students have shaped the field of law[13], and preparation for the realities of the individual and structural struggles that still face under-represented groups in the law.[14] Chapter Two’s authors effectively lay bare the differences in first-gen experiences at Predominately White Institutions (PWIs) and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and include helpful illustrations of how much intersectionality exists in the first-gen law student population across racial background, caregiver status, socioeconomic status, and preexisting network. Chapter Four reminds us that resources level the playing field[15] – representative staff, mentors, student organizations, cultural celebrations, food banks – all efforts that, for our ASP community, provide a welcome reminder that we need not be alone in the mission of first-gen support.
The third is “stereotype threat”, which posits that negative stereotypes toward a person’s particular social group negatively impacts their ability to perform.[16] The ASP and Diversity and Inclusion educators who authored Chapters Twelve (Hale) and Thirteen (Benigno, Bonnet-Laboy, & Dantley) remind us law schools must address this as early as possible – that means before and during Orientation.[17] Folks who aren’t new to some of our colleagues’ past insight on how to counteract this devasting phenomenon know that carefully formed feedback is critical[18]; Chapter Nineteen’s authors (Berman, Croskery-Roberts, Duhart, & Mikkor) rightfully center this line of pedagogical scholarship in describing how legal writing classes can support the first gen cause.[19]
Coming Attractions
All great law review article roadmaps are four-part affairs. While no one is going to mistake this little old book review for one of those, I’d like to proceed in that vein: Part Two will note points of interest in Fostering First Gen that illuminate spaces for programming that are often off our radar screens as ASPers. Part Three will highlight my favorite quotables from the book. Part Four will conclude with how go we forward – and, most importantly, how we get this valuable contribution to the world of legal education in front of stakeholders that can implement its suggestions and properly value and support those in the legal education community who can provide them to our students.
(Shane Dizon)
[1] Chapters Two (Blackburn, Canzater, & Wondwosen) and Six (Braxton). I identify each chapters’ authors in order to, as the kids say, “give everyone their flowers.”
[2] Chapters Four (Bailey) and Five (Coley & Vernon).
[3] Chapter Nine (Doval, Gugerli, & Lohman).
[4] Chapter Eight (Song).
[5] Chapter Seven (Dodge).
[6] Fostering First Gen, at 37, 40. It’s as if the authors, like me, have had to explain countless times to students why judicial positions and law journal membership are always strong credentials in any market for any job seeker.
[7] Id. at 247-268.
[8] Chapter One (Vaughan-Thomas); Chapter Two (Blackburn, Canzater, & Wondwosen).
[9] Id. at 10.
[10] Id. at 17.
[11] Id. at 17-18.
[12] Id. at 12 (noting that representation protects against the stigma of low performance)
[13] Id. at 29.
[14] Id. at 316.
[15] Id. at 63.
[16] Claude Steele, Whistling Vivaldi: How Stereotypes Affect Us and What We Can Do (2011).
[17] Fostering First Gen at 204 (Chapter 12); 215-216 (Chapter 13).
[18] Paula J. Manning, Word to the Wise: Feedback Intervention to Moderate the Effects of Stereotype Threat and Attributional Ambiguity on Law Students, 18 U. MD. L.J. RACE, RELIGION, GENDER & CLASS 99 (2018); Russell A. McClain, Helping Our Students Reach Their Full Potential: The Insidious Consequences of Ignoring Stereotype Threat, 17 RUTGERS RACE & L. REV. 1, 13–20 (2016).
[19] Fostering First Gen at 316.
