|
Abstract: Oral argument is often described as a “rite of passage” for law students. As challenging and nerve-wracking as it may be for law students, it is also uniquely challenging for the person who evaluates it—usually a moot court judge or law professor. Oral argument is one of the few evaluations done in law school without the benefit of anonymity. Without anonymity, an evaluator can be subject to a number of biases. Some biases arise from the cognitive processes common to all evaluators. Other harmful biases arise from stereotypes based on the student’s identity, like race or gender. And these biases operate against students who already face additional burdens from the norms for presentation style that are rooted in classical tradition. When combined with the much-diagnosed problem of inconsistent judging, it is no wonder that evaluating oral argument is so difficult. After first identifying these challenges, the Article then discusses solutions for anyone evaluating an oral argument, identifying eight concrete steps they can take before, during, and after the argument. By identifying these steps, this article seeks to minimize the effects that bias, unfair presentation style norms, and inconsistent judging have on the students’ experience and ensure equity in the evaluation of their oral argument.
|