Taking time for civics education

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Jurisdictions

A group of about 30 Munster High School students enjoyed their time with We the People program coordinators from the Indiana Bar Foundation, attorneys, and others who helped judge their presentations April 6 at Baker & Daniels' downtown Indianapolis office. This was the firm's fifth time hosting an Indiana We the People team just weeks before the national competition, which takes place April 22-27.

While the We the People program in Indiana is supported in large part by the IBF, practice days have taken place at the law firm since spring windstorms damaged the Indiana State Bar Association's offices at the Regions Bank Building in 2006. That year, Baker & Daniels attorney and We the People alum Caryn Glawe suggested the firm could host the team that would represent Indiana at the national championships in Washington, D.C.

The first and subsequent groups of students have been particularly impressed not only with their day at a big law firm, including views of downtown Indianapolis from the 27th floor, but also that attorneys would take the time out of their busy schedules to work with them, said Erin Braun, director of civic education for the IBF.

As part of the visit, Thomas C. Froehle Jr., firm chair and chief executive partner, told students he was thrilled that the firm was able to host their visit.

B&D partner and We the People volunteer Scott Chinn also addressed the students, comparing their work to that of the Butler University basketball team.

Like the team that lost the NCAA Division I men's basketball championship by one basket in a nail biter the night before, Chinn said the key things for the students to keep in mind for the upcoming competition are execution, character, and enthusiasm. He added they should plan, as citizens, to participate by voting, to educate others about the issues while being respectful of opinions that are different from their own, and to remonstrate when they have reason to disagree with the direction the government is heading, based on what they learned in the We the People courses.

As for practice sessions, one group compared the Magna Carta, the U.S. Bill of Rights, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Judges for this group said the students did well overall and gave them a few pointers to impress the judges at the national level.

Judges for the practice session included former ISBA president Rich Eynon; Jill Baisinger, the Hamilton Southeastern High School teacher who helped her school's team win fifth place in the national competition in 2009; Seth Lahn, a professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law - Bloomington; and Mark Sausser, an attorney at Baker & Daniels. "When we take on the rigors of civic education with the vigor generally reserved for sport, and when the arena we play in is one of the top law firms in the state, there is something right in society," said Michael Gordon, the teacher for the Munster students.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What Mr. Bir is paying is actually Undifferentiated Family Support, which is a mixture of child support and spousal maintenance. If the courts had labeled accurately labeled the transfer payment, I think that Mr. Bir would have fewer objections to paying it because both Spousal Maintenance and Undifferentiated Family Support are tax deductions for the paying party and taxable to the receiving party. I brought this issue up with my family court judge when my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife was using the 'child support' transfer payment to support both herself and out children. Said family court judge stated that I did not know what I was talking about because I did not have a Juris Doctorate, despite my having a printout with dictionary definitions of the legal terms that I was using for documentation.

  2. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  3. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  4. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  5. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?