Richardson R. Lynn^*

Every law school has a mission. The most fortunate law schools know what their real mission is. And, a smaller number of schools consistently carry out the mission in admissions, curriculum, and faculty hiring. Because the faculty ultimately controls both admissions and the curriculum, faculty hiring is the key element in protecting the mission from dilution and irrelevance. The many colleges, universities, and law schools that began as church-related institutions, but evolved over the years into purely secular places, did so because the faculty evolved into a faculty that believed in a different mission. Law schools that began as places of practical instruction for practicing lawyers, but changed over the years into theoretical hotbeds of one kind of legal philosophy or another, did so because the faculty changed.

Although I’ve spent most of my career at Pepperdine, I’ve seen a few other law school missions in action, through visits and service on ABA site inspection teams. It is an awe-inspiring sight when the faculty is committed to a single vision and implements it in virtually every aspect of law school operation. When I visited for one semester at Campbell University School of Law, the mission was to produce excellent trial lawyers for North Carolina. An elaborate and well-planned curriculum was devoted to that goal. They did not solicit students from outside the state, although they certainly did attract some, nor did they attempt to place them in jobs outside the state, although their graduates could, and do, practice successfully anywhere in the county.

George Mason has been known, for some time, for its superb, single-minded focus on law and economics. While it has added other centers of excellence over the years, law and economics is the first label that comes to mind when most academics think of George Mason. Religiously affiliated schools are especially conscious of the centrality of mission. One of the answers to the question, "Why study law at BYU?," is:

Brigham Young University exists to provide an education in an atmosphere consistent with the ideals and principles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. That atmosphere is created and preserved through commitment to conduct that reflects those ideals and principles. Students and faculty at BYU are committed to maintain the highest standards of honor, integrity, morality, and consideration of others in personal behavior."

Your school may be one of the fortunate few whose mission is clear and pervasive.

Today’s lesson is about hiring for mission. While it may fit this issue’s sub-theme regarding religiously affiliated law schools, the general principles apply to any law school with a well-defined mission that wants to be serious about it. Whatever the character of your school, it will change unless faculty hiring focuses largely on the mission. Each year, hundreds of lawyers apply to teach who have excellent credentials in every area of subject need. When the applicant pool contains an assortment of diverse candidates with virtually fungible qualifications, law schools should choose those who best support the mission of the law school.

The instinct to be all things to all people exists even at law schools with a distinctive mission, resulting often in mission statements buried in a sea of generalities and aspirations that would apply to every law school in the country. Although the appointments committee cannot control how the mission is presented in the catalog or the web page for other audiences, it should communicate the real mission to prospective faculty members in a forceful and intentional manner. By including it prominently in letters or materials from the appointments committee, applicants are put on notice that the mission is important and that they should consider how their interests and attitudes mesh with it.

Remember that your mission may be the subject of myth and hyperbole among others in the academy and profession. Often, the faculty appointments committee is the first to learn that the school’s image differs from the faculty’s understanding of its mission. In addition to stating formally what the mission is, it may be helpful to state informally what the mission is not. Rumors about law schools outlive faculties, deans, and law student loans. Forcefully denying the rumors may not do much to dispel them, but it will make you feel better.

It is then necessary to ask the faculty prospects about their understanding of the mission and their interest in supporting it. How do their teaching and research interests correspond to the mission? What ways do they see to advance the mission beyond what the school is currently doing? Their responses, even if awkward or ill informed, will demonstrate whether they have thought about the mission, at least indicating that they respect it and take it seriously.

Pepperdine is one of the few law schools that asks serious faculty candidates to fill out an application form. Many of the questions on the form duplicate information on the accompanying resume and most candidates so indicate on the form. However, the mission question requires an original response. Whether your "mission question" is written or oral, interpreting the response is not as easy as it might seem. First, many applicants who are supportive of the mission are surprised by the question and give a misleadingly superficial answer. For example, an applicant who responds to the mission by saying, "I am a person of the highest moral and ethical beliefs and will convey that to my students," is not telling us much. We assume that most people who want to teach in law school share those values. But, there may be other clues in the resume or from references or mutual friends that this applicant would give a more thoughtful and responsive answer if prompted gently.

A second caution is that some applicants may be so eager to teach anywhere that they will tell you what they think you want to hear. A good fictitious answer may result in an interview, but a philosophy invented for purposes of an employment application will not hold up well in discussions with the committee. The committee and the faculty, if the candidate gets that far, will look for evidence that the candidate’s life is consistent with the claimed interest in the mission. For example, it is more likely that a professor who is active in a church, synagogue, or mosque will enthusiastically support the mission of a religiously affiliated school. Remember, however, that just as a proud member of the N.R.A. and the Republican National Committee might strongly support the mission of an urban law school interested in outreach to the poor, making inferences based on group memberships and stereotypes is a risky business.

The candidate will quickly learn during interviews that the mission means different things to different faculty members. The candidate may be surprised, but this is normal. At many schools, the mission succeeds precisely because no one talks about it in detail. The strong consensus, it turns out, is for the mission as broadly defined, not narrowly applied. Faculty members are free to interpret it differently, but the fact that they are thinking about how to apply it to the life of the law school keeps it alive.

It is useful for the university’s president, provost, or another academic officer also to interview prospective law school faculty members. That interview should ask, among other things, what the prospect understands the law school’s mission to be, how clearly it was communicated, and how enthusiastic the prospect is about it. The university view of the prospect’s support of the mission will not be clouded by other items on the agendas of those pushing for or resisting the hiring. If the university view is credible and is accurately reported to the law school, it furnishes a valuable perspective on how this person will fit into what the university believes the law school to be.

Of course, the dean reinforces the mission in numerous ways, ranging from the dean’s message in the catalog to CLE speeches to lawyers. One of the dean’s primary jobs is always to maintain and strengthen the mission. If the institution has grown away from its original mission, the president may charge a new dean with its restoration, a tricky and difficult job that only succeeds when faculty hiring during the next few years is driven by mission. If the law school is drifting without a clear mission and the university is unconcerned, the dean should lead the effort to define the mission and organize the law school around it. Whatever the status of the mission, the dean’s involvement in faculty recruitment as the protector of the mission is crucial.

While the dean has several opportunities to ask the candidate’s view of the mission, perhaps beginning with the initial interview at the AALS hiring conference, the final step is that meeting in the dean’s office when the offer will be made. The dean always hopes that the candidate is an inspired choice for the position. The air is full of nervousness, fear of rejection, intimidation, stress, and undifferentiated anxiety. A few sentences in this setting about the mission, its importance to the future of the law school, and its effect on the students and future lawyers are more memorable than the earlier posturing. Like good voir dire that commits jurors to be fair or open-minded, the dean gives the candidate a final chance to respond to the mission and to commit to it.

Faculty hiring at a mission-oriented school can be eroded by overemphasizing landing more Supreme Court clerks, Ph.D.s, or narrow specialists. While it is legitimate to change the mission of the school to fit the needs of society or the interests of the university or the law school faculty, change that results merely from drift does not inspire confidence about the vision of the school and its leaders. Whether the task is to change the mission intentionally or to protect against drift, faculty hiring for mission is the greatest responsibility of the faculty and the dean.