University of Missouri School of Law
Commencement Ceremony

Columbia, Missouri
May 13, 2007
Michael A. Middleton

Please know how honored I am and how grateful I am - to the Dean and the Faculty - to have been asked to give this commencement address at the law school from which I received my training some 40 years ago, the law school that trained two of my children, and the Law School at which I taught for 12 years. This is, indeed, a remarkable place with a rich history of strong leadership, talented students, and a consistently outstanding faculty.

And let me, of course, congratulate all of you graduates for your success in completing your studies here. You and your families can be justly proud.

It is interesting that the last time I addressed a graduating class, it was at my son Marc's high school baccalaureate ceremony. It was soon after the tragedy in Littleton, Colorado, and that address was built around the subject of school violence. Here I am again speaking at my son Marc's Law School commencement, and I feel compelled to speak on the same general theme.

I believe that Marc and Josh Devine (the son of my good colleague and friend, Professor Jim Devine), are the only two 1999 Hickman High School graduates in this graduating class of 2007. And I apologize to them if they feel that am repeating myself, - but some themes require repeating.

The tragic events at Virginia Tech several weeks ago make it difficult not to wonder whether there is anything that could have been done to avoid such a senseless sacrifice of human life in our society. Of course, to have the best chance of preventing such eruptions of violence, one must first determine the cause.

Preventative measures can be put in place - more security, greater scrutiny of potential suspects, increased mental health services, more gun control, but these measures do not really go to the core.

Various suggestions have come forward that purport to address the problem more deeply by suggesting greater regulation of the content of movies, music, video games and television; the assumption being that the violence we experience in our popular entertainment encourages such outbreaks.

I suspect that all of these proposed solutions combined could contribute to a de-escalation of violence in our society - and the costs of those solutions on our freedoms may well be justified. (You lawyers will, no doubt, have to find that balance in future years). But I would like to suggest an intervention a bit more fundamental- and one in which lawyers play a critical role.

The Violence that we see all over the globe is tragic, but in our society it is even more alarming because we view ourselves and our American democracy as an example for the rest of the world of how to coexist peacefully. We claim to have created a society that holds certain truths to be self evident, that all men and women are created equal and endowed by their creator with unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We claim to have formed a government of laws that recognizes these truths and guarantees justice, equality, fairness, freedom and security - binding us together as a nation. Our American experiment in democracy has seen success to date largely because it has the capacity to include and seriously consider all perspectives on any particular issue of national concern, and adjust itself within the bounds of the core values contained in our constitution, for a higher purpose - the common good.

Yet we see in our own society that our differences, the things that really define us as Americans - that body of huddled masses from around the globe, yearning to be free - we see the things that make us so richly diverse and inclusive - we see that these are the things that divide us. And we see that these differences appear to be growing more and more important to us and our feelings, more and more intense as radio and television commentators, politicians and other public figures become increasingly more disrespectful, harsh and hysterical in their criticisms and denigration of those with whom they differ or disagree.

It is as if we believe that public life is some sort of reality entertainment show or sports competition where the contestants are required to outdo each other in hurling insults, taking extreme and absolute positions, and defeating the opponent. We see a growing tendency to display public insensitivity to difference through conduct like the recent antics of Don Imus and Rush Limbaugh - efforts to inflame passions, gain media attention or to entertain.

Incidents of people "going postal" or displaying "road rage" are reported frequently. We see outright intentionally hateful public activity like that of our recent Neo-Nazi march here in Columbia. And we see the tragic consequences of outrageous conduct by individuals driven to such extremes by complexities of the mind and soul that we may never understand.

Our international, national and local conversations, which should be balanced, civil and productive have become one-sided, hateful and destructive arguments from the extreme edges.

Our popular culture has become so discordant that good and talented people avoid taking responsibility for addressing public issues for fear of having to deal with the inevitable barrage of caustic over-the-top reactions from whomever has secured the airwaves or the microphone to launch an attack.

Our courts are hardly able to keep up with the proliferation of litigation we have seen in recent years.

It seems to me that a kind of an arrogant, exclusive, dismissive, absolutist, fundamentalism (be it built around nationality, religion, politics, race, class, gender or otherwise) has infected our popular culture and severely limited our collective ability to reconcile difference and resolve disputes amicably.

Now, I confess that I am not aware of any empirical research that establishes a causal relationship between our growing inability to reconcile differences through reasoned civil discourse and the presence of violence in our communities, but I believe that the extreme divisiveness that has infected our culture, this arrogant fundamentalism, contributes significantly to the escalation of tension, intolerance, intractable conflict, hate, and ultimately, the violence that we see all around us.

So, what does all of this have to do with a law school commencement? Well, let me get to my point.

I believe that it is critical that we as a people overcome this pervasive divisiveness, that we focus our attention on the reconciliation of difference, and that we look, as did our forefathers, to the common good.

The original American dream was to bring people who were marginalized, rejected and oppressed by societies around the world to this place where freedom and peace would prevail in a context of respect for others and a binding together for the common good.

One of the deepest core values of our American tradition is the sacredness of the conscience and person of every individual. We are all different; we are all unique. We are all deserving of respect.

In bringing the dispossessed and diverse people of the world together and guaranteeing them protection of their freedom to be who they are and believe what they believe, we understood that we were embarking on a difficult experiment in democratic governance - an experiment that was destined to generate conflict. Some of that conflict was presaged by the inconsistency between the America that existed at the time and the America described in our aspirational founding documents. But, all of that conflict, I suggest, is a result of the inevitable tension between liberty and an ordered and peaceful coexistence.

To manage that conflict, we developed a system of laws designed to reconcile differences and resolve disputes in a rational, peaceful and orderly manner - the ultimate goal, of course, being to balance competing interests for the common good.

Lawyers played a central role in our founding.

Over half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were lawyers, over half of the citizens who formulated the Constitution were lawyers.

These lawyers assumed a role of leadership during the difficult formative years of our nation and crafted the system of laws that has maintained a relatively peaceful balance between and among many competing interests for almost 250 years.

Lawyers from the beginning were seen as essential to the survival of our democracy. Lawyers assumed this level of importance in society not just because of their technical legal skills, but because lawyers have historically directed their practical wisdom and persuasive powers toward helping clients serve the higher public interest. They were fiduciaries of the legal system itself - devoted to the common good.

This great university was modeled after Thomas Jefferson's original plans for the University of Virginia. It was the first public university established in Jefferson's Louisiana Territory. His tombstone sits on our historic quadrangle. We revere him (as does all of higher education) for his dedication and leadership in public education. He is known for the proposition that an educated citizenry is critical to the survival of our democracy. But Jefferson is also well known in legal circles for advancing the concept of the Citizen Lawyer, which he also considered essential to our success as a nation.

Before he founded the University of Virginia, Jefferson and his legal mentor, George Wythe, established the first American Law School at William and Mary. Their purpose was not only the training of law students to be skilled practitioners, but also to imbue them with a sense of responsibility for leadership for the common good at the community, state and national levels - to create lawyers who not only served their clients but were also faithful to the law itself - lawyers who were wise counselors with ultimate fidelity to the spirit and integrity of the law.

In 1835, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that lawyers in America "assumed a responsibility for the common good through public life" and that they were particularly well suited for this role by their "training and cast of mind."

In 1905, Louis Brandeis said "the paramount reason why the lawyer has played so large a part in our political life is that his training fits him especially to grapple with the questions which are presented in a democracy."

I'm certain somewhere in your law school experience you heard one of these remarkable professors say that "you must learn to think like a lawyer." That ability to think like a lawyer is what suits lawyers for leadership roles in this democracy. Abstract reasoning, clarity of thought, an understanding that every conflict can be viewed from a variety of legitimate perspectives, critical thinking, factual, respectful, civil discourse - these are the qualities of mind and character that are so necessary to the healing of our common societal difficulties.

And instead, we experience a barrage of caustic sound bites from the fringe.

Anthony Kronman, the former Dean of the Yale Law School, suggests in his 1993 book, "The Lost Lawyer," that specialization and billable hours has resulted in the gradual demise of the citizen lawyer. Specialization focuses us away from broader issues that affect the larger society. Billable hours make us treat clients as customers - customers who are always right.

This has led to a decline in concept of the lawyer as counselor and, instead, the lawyer has become the servant of his client; a mere "mouthpiece" (to borrow a phrase from old gangster movies).

Consider the lawyers who stood by as the managers of companies like Enron, looted their coffers. Consider the White House Lawyers during the Watergate scandal who stood by and allowed the President of the United States to commit impeachable acts. Consider the lawyers who stand by every day and fail to give wise counsel to those with whom they interact.

Kronman may well be correct that the increasing complexity of the "business" of law has distracted many lawyers from playing their historic civic/public role. It may be that the complexity of life in general, in this shrinking, increasingly diverse, fast-paced, high-tech competitive world has caused all citizens to neglect becoming involved in issues of public importance.

But that very complexity is what makes urgent the need for lawyers to restore the grand and noble traditions of the citizen lawyer.

I would implore you then, to understand how uniquely qualified you are, as graduates of the MU School of Law with its outstanding faculty and its internationally recognized Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution - how well prepared you are to play an essential roll in resolving the conflicts that will inevitably arise in our complex and diverse American democracy and, indeed, in our increasingly interconnected global society.

I implore you to understand that it is still essential to the survival of our democracy that lawyers embrace their role as citizen lawyers. I would urge you, therefore, to apply your skills and personal qualities not only in your practices and not just through the pro bono opportunities sponsored by your employers, but more importantly in your families, in your communities, and in all of your daily interactions with others, keeping paramount in your minds the urgent need for reasoned, respectful and civil reconciliation of differences for the common good.

The solution starts with each individual, and you, by your training and cast of mind, are particularly well equipped and professionally obligated to take the lead.

It may be that Kronman is correct - that the citizen lawyer is a relic from a day gone by. I sincerely hope you will prove him wrong and dedicate yourselves to restoring the tradition of active involvement in the affairs of your community for the common good.

Let me end with two of my favorite quotes that I hope will serve to inspire you as they have me. The first is from Martin Luther King, Jr. "Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction. The chain reaction of evil . . . hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars . . . must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation."

The second, from Mahatma Ghandi - "Be the change you want to see in the world."

May your personal and professional lives be dedicated to the improvement of the condition of mankind. And may peace be with you. Thank you

	Add to Favorites