Socratic Misogyny?--Analyzing Feminist Criticisms of Socratic Teaching in Legal Education

Remember those horror movies in which somebody wearing a hockey mask terrorizes people at a summer camp and slowly and carefully slashes them all into bloody little pieces? That's what the first year of law school is like. The professor has a black belt in an ancient martial art called "the Socratic method. ' After the professor completely dismantles a student for sheer sport and humiliates several dozen others, he then points out forty-seven different things in the two-paragraph case that you failed to see and still don't understand. [Many students] spend most of their time wondering what the hey is going on, and why don't the professors just tell us what the law is and stop playing "hide the ball" and shrouding the law in mystery/philosophy/sociology/nihilistic relativism /astrology/voodoo/sado-masochistic Socratic kung fu?1 I. INTRODUCTION If legal education were known for nothing else, its pedagogical claim to fame would undoubtedly be the widespread use of a unique method of classroom instruction bearing the cryptic moniker: "The Socratic Method" (or, if you prefer, "Socratic kung fu"). The Socratic method is so entrenched in modern American legal pedagogy that a law school just isn't a law school without the Socratic method.2 As the above tongue-in-cheek caricature attests, the popularity of the Socratic method in legal education has made it the subject of numerous jokes, parodies, and humorous personal anecdotes. Some, however, are not laughing.3 Among the unamused are a rising number of scholars who have challenged the methodological foundations of the Socratic method. These scholars claim that the Socratic emperor's clothes are in fact imaginary garments that have been fabricated and perpetuated by methodological swindlers.4 They have joined students who have "attacked the Socratic method as infantilizing, demeaning, dehumanizing, sadistic, a tactic for promoting hostility and competition among students, self-serving, and destructive of positive ideological values."5 In recent years, the liberated voices of feminist legal scholars have joined in the imperial exposure and have revived the debate over the continued vitality of the Socratic method in law school classrooms. These scholars have raised additional concerns regarding the method as it specifically affects female law students.6 This Comment explores the vitality of the Socratic method in light of the newly raised concerns of feminist critics. Part II defines the Socratic method and summarizes the history leading up to its adoption as the primary methodology for legal education. In addition, Part II sets forth the rationales generally proffered to justify Socratic teaching. Part III discusses the general criticisms leveled against Socratic teaching. Part IV focuses on women's entrance into the legal profession, with specific attention given to the implications of this entrance for legal education. Part IV also discusses the results of recent studies that probe accusations that the Socratic method creates or exacerbates gender differentials in legal education that adversely impact female law students. Part IV concludes with an evaluation of the Socratic method as viewed through the lenses of various feminist theories. Part V considers the continued vitality of the Socratic method in legal education and explores the contours of a "modified" Socratic methodology that accommodates feminist criticisms in a way that "humanizes" Socratic teaching without undermining the fundamental benefits of the method. Part VI provides a concluding summary of the analysis and recommendations addressed in this Comment. II. BACKGROUND A. What Is the Socratic Method?-Definitions and Descriptions 1. Origins of the "legal" use of the Socratic method The origin of the term "Socratic method," as used in the legal context, has generally been attributed to Christopher Columbus Langdell, Dean of Harvard Law School and (in)famous originator of the case method. …