Last week I was riding a train into New York City on a family vacation when my cell phone rang and an Associated Press reporter interviewed me about my unique experience with a Supreme Court nominee. This might have been a shocking set of circumstances had it not been for the prior week when the Washington Post called while I was making my children dinner at home. I was growing accustomed to these questions about my time as a student at the University of Chicago Law School.
Most students at Chicago Law in the early 1990s strove to take the classes of the most renowned professors there. Some professors were judges on the 7th Circuit and others had published famous books. I was more interested in the content of the classes, and selected an obscure public policy seminar offered by a man with an unfamiliar African name. Barack Obama was just a law lecturer at the time who had recently graduated law school himself. Many students snickered at my choice to enroll in a class with an unknown person.
Obama seemed to spend much of that year holed up in an office writing a personally revealing auto-biography. I was one of about ten students in Obama’s 1994 seminar, his first time teaching. I doubt he had any plans to run for public office at that time, and we would have laughed at the notion that he could become President. When he entered our small basement seminar room, he would smile brightly and say, “How’s it going, guys?” Then we’d quickly get down to business by exploring public policies and ways to improve our country.
Obama’s seminar offered me interesting insight on a great approach to solving problems. The seminar participants represented a wide political spectrum and our dialog was expansive and respectful. Obama would present a public policy concept and then take seriously each person’s ideas and proposed solutions. Of all my teachers at the law school, he was probably the best listener. He really wanted to hear all perspectives, consider each, and then ask us to work together to figure out a way to do what we believed was right and come to a solution that everyone could agree to.
In 2007, I assisted Obama’s advance team in finding a location for his campaign speech in Santa Barbara, which wound up taking place on the lawn at City College overlooking the ocean. As his campaign progressed, I was excited for him and the country, but was also amazed since I never expected to personally know anyone who would serve as president. As if it weren’t surreal enough to have had an opportunity to spend some time with a later president, recently other people I knew at the law school have been featured in the national news.
Over the past few weeks, Chicago Law School shared my contact info with interested media because of my unique experience with Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. Kagan was an excellent teacher who was feared by students because of her intense questioning of individuals in class, though she was also considered very fair. Some of my colleagues chose to enroll in two or more of her courses because they thought her teaching was outstanding. Students also knew her as a young and friendly associate professor who drank beer, played poker, cracked witty jokes, and hung out in the school lounge and joined us for Cubs games.
I also got to know Kagan in a different setting. First-year law students are assigned to a professor for a Moot Court project. I and one other student in my class were assigned to Professor Kagan. We wrote a legal brief and then argued as appellate attorneys before her. She donned a black robe and grilled us on our briefs and our arguments. During that hour, she asked me to extend my argument and apply it to hypothetical situations to test my reasoning. She played devil’s advocate to see if I would cave. At the end of the hour, she told me I had a future as an appellate attorney and should absolutely continue with Moot Court the next two years at the law school.
Just as I didn’t foresee Barack Obama becoming President, I didn’t heed a future Supreme Court Justice’s advice on pursuing a career in appellate argument. Instead, I chose to work in the legal aid clinic and during my remaining two years of law school successfully represented homeless people in court who had been denied benefits or housing. I thought this might be more relevant to my later work and making a difference in the world.
When I attended my law school reunion this past May, my classmates remarked that I had been incredibly fortunate to experience both Obama’s policy seminar in 1994 as well as be assigned to Kagan for my Moot Court project.
While my decisions may have confounded people at times, I figure that if they led me to work as a management consultant in Santa Barbara where I can raise my children and run by the beach year-round and simultaneously make a difference in people’s daily lives and work, then they made sense after all.
Susan Epstein is a Santa Barbara attorney and management consultant, and serves on the Goleta School Board.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace







Previous Month



Comments
This law school experience with those professors seems like one of many good credentials to be a Goleta City Councilmember.
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
July 9, 2010 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Kagan has said she would allow laws ban books and defy the First Amendment because the government would never enforce it. She is vehemently anti Second Amendment as well.
Kagan is the type of person that are founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights for.
jukin (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2010 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great comment, jukin.
These elitist overlord types can be awfully scary.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2010 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
David, thanks for the compliment. But, I don’t live in the City of Goleta, so I couldn’t possibly run for City Council. The Goleta School Board serves a larger area than the City of Goleta. I enjoy serving on the School Board.
susan_epstein (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2010 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for the article. Interesting to see that Obama has continued with his "hear all views" approach as has been noted by many, including Bob Gates. Kagan sounds like another open-minded person, thorough and with high standards.
tabatha (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2010 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am familiar with the University of Chicago having had a summer job after high school and lived on campus. I later attended the University of Chicago for summer school as an undergraduate. You do not get to be dumb and be there at the same time.
Some of the cynically based side swipe comments offered on this site are the antithesis of what places like the University of Chicago represent. Those who disparage effete intellectuals do so at their own risk since this is the type of place that earns the reputation for "higher education," and from which exciting changes emerge, such as Carl Rogers in psychotherapy.
The choice that voters have this fall, as with the last election, is the difference between dumb and intelligent, between simple and useless mantras (drill baby drill) and useful discussions about complex problems.
Conservative: Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
Maybe that is why when I hear someone defining him- or herself as a "conservative" I think "constipation."
Bird (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2010 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here are some "useless mantras"
"Celebrate Diversity"
"It takes a village"
"White privilege"
"Social justice"
"Cultural competency"
"Bicultural education"
"Whole language"
revisionist (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2010 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A very nice article, Susan!
windows (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2010 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The University of Chicago is also where the big name neo-conservatives were taught the principles of big government, military imperialism and Trotsky-esque government subversion.
"Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss’ books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli’s philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree."
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/con...
loonpt (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2010 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Seems like the University of Chicago condones views from a wide spectrum, as it should - hence it cannot be painted with a single brush. Hence the disparagement should cease.
tabatha (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2010 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
^Ya, it condones views from a wide spectrum of statism, that's for sure.
You people who condone Kagan's draconian anti-freedom views and that don't believe in individual liberty completely baffle me.
Bird, the fact that you did a stint at that school is thoroughly unsurprising to me.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2010 at 6:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Do you know what I meant when I said Trotsky-esque government subversion? I am referring to a technique of gaining control of governments by touting one set of principles while having a completely different set of goals in mind.
Take for example the Bush administration. While Bush in 1999 was running for President on a humble foreign policy, no nation building platform, Cheney, Wolfowitz and others in the circle of Neo-conservatives were preparing to publish a document under a think tank called the Project for a New American Century (PNAC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_...). In this document they referred to a "New Pearl Harbor" that would be needed in order to expand our military presence in the Middle East. 9/11 was that event. The plans to invade Iraq had been drawn up long before 9/11 ever occurred. There is actually quite a bit of evidence that neo-conservatives and others were complicit and may have even aided the 9/11 terrorists themselves. I recommend the film "Fabled Enemies" for details http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28tE0f...
Obama has expanded the wars overseas after it was assumed by most that he was the peace candidate. What a horrible trick, although not a very good one. I have been against his hawkish stance on the wars since the first debates. I'm not quite sure what lead others to believe he was the peace candidate, other than the false left-right paradigm the mainstream media presents. Oh, do you remember those debates? The ones where Obama also specifically said he was against government mandated health insurance.. he also said he wouldn't have any lobbyists in his cabinet. Nearly every cabinet member was a lobbyist for the banking establishment or were straight-up connected to Goldman Sachs itself. First order of business? Bail those suckers out!! Horray for corporate welfare, ya? Screw the people, sayeth the overlord.
There is no difference between the establishment Republicans and Democrats, I hope this is starting to become clear to people out there.
Ron Paul 2012.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2010 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Learned earlier this evening about the author's Noleta status.
18 years ago I would drive through University of Chicago on the way to Edith's Ribs (and perch) on the Southside.
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
July 9, 2010 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Obama is not expanding the wars - he is drawing down in Iraq as promised, and he is finishing the unfinished job in Afghanistan as promised.
U.S. Troop Strength In Iraq 2003-2010
May 2003 150,000 – Invasion force
October 2007 171,000 – Height of Surge
January 2009 142,000 – Beginning Obama administration
February 140,000
March 137,000
May 134,000
June 130,000
September 124,000
October 117,000
November 115,000
December 110,000
February 2010 98,000
April 95,000
May 92,000
June 90,000
July 77,500
tabatha (anonymous profile)
July 9, 2010 at 10:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Look we know that Obama is not an ideologue because he keeps telling us so.
The trick with Obama, watch what he does and not what he says.
jukin (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2010 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you, Ms. Epstein, for sharing your unique and wonderful experience with these two exceptional leaders.
anna (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2010 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In this case, "jukin," I completely agree with your premise ("watch what he does and not what he says").
In many ways, Obama's conduct has been scandalous -- with the perpetuation of two unnecessary wars, continued erosion of privacy and civil liberties initiated by Bush Co. are but two examples.
And it all seems to be an attempt to capture the 'middle' rather than the moral ground.
Chester_Arthur_Burnett (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2010 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Very interesting article and dialogue. Thanks to all for your comments.
KKG (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2010 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What we also must remember is that Obama is just one person. While I lean toward C_A_B's comment, I would also add that true change happens when the electorate not only elects a new president, but a congress which is on board with the new plan. Also, it would be imperative that the new leaders understand that they must follow through or face being voted out or even recalled for failing to do so.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
July 12, 2010 at 3:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Way to stay on topic folks.
Kingprawn (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Our son attended U. of C. and not surprisingly, during the entire time there never heard of or crossed paths with either Mr. Obama or his wife. They are 'famous' within their own tiny circle of elitists and faithful followers who are so certain they are the smartest ones in the room and therefore know what is best for the rest of us. The error here is to believe good grades, highest IQ, status name colleges, and good looks are factors in what makes for a superior leader of the free world. Clinging to your college sweatshirt and trotting out degrees is typical among elite liberals who want to suggest their personal resume trumps the Constitution. Elena Kagan is a political, not judicial appointment. She will judge based on her feelings, not the law. The fact is, other than busy himself writing his memoirs, what has Mr. Obama actually done? What are his inventions? What product did he perfect and market and how has he participated in the economy at all? Who's money has he been spending organizing and antagonizing members of the community? He is a life-long government worker, nothing more. He has never been personally responsible for anything, including a payroll. He has no ideas that haven't been trotted out before by other Marxists and failed miserably. Calling conservatives names is typical of those who can't win their debates with fact. Sadly, everyone our son knows from U. of C. believes Obama has given the college a bad name and is spoiling its reputation.
Hollyhock (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hollyhock,
Condemning Obama by calling him an, "elitist" is just too easy IMO. The elitist argument is not a thoughtful one. It's not wrong, it's just obvious. He's rich and educated. Most high profile politicians tend to be from money and most (if not all) of them attend institutions of higher education and are therefore more "educated" than the common American. Can you think of a high ranking politician who is not an "elite" as defined by your criteria?
Secondly, dismissing Obama's contribution to the American political landscape suggests an unwillingness or incapacity to engage in a thoughtful discussion about the many changes that have taken place under his administration.
I appreciate that you and others may not always agree with the decisions made by our elected leaders but what I have difficulty understanding is the inability of most people to have a thoughtful discussion about politics or politicians without including the talking points of some pundit who's job is to polarize the nation and capture the highest ratings by triggering an emotional response. Commenters here more than other news sites appear to be struggling to generate any independent thought (no pun intended).
An incapacity to engage in thoughtful, unemotional discourse is what now seems to define us as a nation.
Also, how difficult is it to just say, "Good article. I'm glad you had a good experience at Chicago Law." ?
Kingprawn (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I attended U of C from 1980 -1982 as a graduate student in Medieval History. This is a school of intense seriousness and intellectual rigor.
Universities should be places where ideas are exchanged and tested. Obama seems to have missed this somehow.
Achilleus (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2010 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gag me. Unless folks get jobs, Obama is TOAST. Which can't happen fast enough!
maximum (anonymous profile)
July 21, 2010 at 12:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)