The recent employment trajectory of Crystal Clanton has generated considerable discussion in the legal community. Once deemed “too racist for Turning Point USA’s taste”, Clanton has now secured a position clerking at the United States Supreme Court. This controversial transition propels the question: Has the Antonin Scalia School of Law at George Mason University secured its position as a top law school following this recent news?
Such a declaration, however, would be far-fetched and questionable at best. Context is key, and in Clanton’s case, her achievements seem more connected with her ties to Ginni Thomas, the staunch conservative, and wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, rather than her academic roots.
Yet, the narrative endorsing lower-tier but well-networked institutions like The Antonin Scalia School of Law prompts reflection on the broader issue – the decision-making process behind choosing a law school. Law students seldom enter law school expecting to fall into the median of their class, yet that is the spot a significant proportion will inevitably occupy. Thus, it might be wise for the prospective law students to choose a law institute that maximizes opportunities for those who end up being ‘average’ performers during their course.
However, this narrative seems to abruptly shift when it comes to discussions surrounding the choices of Black law students. The recent discourses, as exemplified by frank posts, seem to suggest that Black law students only choose lower-tier schools due to their inadequate LSAT scores, and not because of the genuine benefits these schools may offer.
This narrative undeniably needs to be challenged. The bitter experiences that students of color may face at some of the top law schools, such as “not being invited to law school house parties”, are unsettling and carry significant weight in deciding which law schools to attend.
In sum, the discourse suggests that individuals should be wary of simplistic claims that undermine complex realities and personal experiences.