ILNews

Indianapolis law grads reflect on Maennerchor years

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Not quite 50 years have passed since Indiana University’s law school in Indianapolis moved from the Maennerchor Building. The old place is long gone, but some of its last graduates gathered recently to share memories of a time that holds special meaning.

“I think everyone sort of had a common bond,” retired Marion Superior Judge Patricia Gifford said of lawyers who trained in the old downtown hall. “We all worked during the day and went to school at night.”
 

maennerchor-archive-15col.jpg From 1945 until 1969, law students in Indianapolis were educated in the Maennerchor Building that was located at the corner of Michigan and Illinois streets. Alumni of the predecessor to Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law recently paid tribute to their former school. (Photo submitted)

Gifford was among about 100 graduates of the Maennerchor school who gathered June 18 at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law to recollect and reconnect.

The Maennerchor, a former German music hall named for a choir still in existence, was the seat of education for aspiring lawyers in Indianapolis, located at the corner of Michigan and Illinois streets. The IU School of Law at Indianapolis affiliated with a predecessor institution, Indiana Law School, and opened in the building in 1945.

The university had recognized a need to train attorneys in the state capital in the postwar years, said Gerald Bepko, retired chancellor of Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.

“The Maennerchor era was so important because it shaped the culture of the law school,” Bepko said. “These were hardworking, honorable people making their way up in the world. If you could create that in a laboratory, you would have something that would be priceless.”

Bepko also was a professor and then dean of the law school at IUPUI in the 1970s and 1980s, after it moved from Maennerchor. The law school initially was housed in Eskenazi Hall, now Herron School of Art, until the McKinney School opened at its current location in 2001.

“I think the school has made an effort to preserve that culture,” Bepko said of the Maennerchor years. “As times change, that’s why it’s important to gather people from that golden era of the law school’s history to rekindle the law school’s spirit, and I think the law school’s done a good job of doing that.”

Graduates during the Maennerchor era went on to become judges, congressmen, and leaders as public servants and in private practice, Bepko said. Notable grads include the late Rep. Andy Jacobs and the late Virginia Dill McCarty, the first woman appointed to a full term as a U.S. attorney, among numerous other firsts.

Also among notable graduates: Indiana Chief Justice Brent Dickson (Class of 1968) and retired attorney and banker Robert H. McKinney, for whom the school now is named. McKinney graduated in 1951.

Indianapolis defense attorney Jim Voyles of Voyles Zahn & Paul worked day jobs while he went to law school at Maennerchor in the evenings, on weekends and in the summertime. “If you wanted to go to law school, that was what you did,” he said.

Voyles keeps a photo of the Maennerchor in his office, and he knows many of his classmates do, too.

“It was just a fabulous old building. It was quaint and old, but it had a lot of character,” Voyles said.

What it didn’t have, among other things, was central air conditioning. “I remember one of the upper classrooms got pretty hot,” Gifford said.

Voyles said professors were accessible and helpful, but also could be tough. “It was academic, but there was a lot of practicality to it – this is what you do as a lawyer.”

Years after law school, Voyles said he was working on a case that gave him occasion to involve his former professor, Lawrence Jegen, who has taught at the law school since 1962.

“I had to call him professor,” Voyles said. “He kept telling me not to, but I had to.”
 

betty-barteau-15col.jpg Indiana Court of Appeals Senior Judge Betty Barteau talks to classmates and other alums who studied law at the Maennerchor Building in Indianapolis. (Photo submitted)

Indiana Court of Appeals Senior Judge Betty Barteau was a legal pioneer of sorts, graduating from the school in 1965. Not only was she just one of two women in her class, but she also had been a career woman working for Standard Oil Co. in southwest Indiana while raising four children.

But those weren’t the only nonconventional aspects of her law studies. When she moved with her family to Indianapolis, she had completed only 11 hours of undergraduate study when she applied in 1962 for one of only a couple of openings to attend law school based on test scores and faculty interviews.

When she made the list of finalists to be interviewed, she felt her meeting with faculty went well, but she said she was a little surprised when, “I got a call and they said classes would start Monday.”

“I made some really dear friends,” Barteau said of her days studying at the old school. “This was a small facility and you just knew everybody. You knew the faculty and you even knew the people who worked for the faculty.”

In an era when few women attended law school, Barteau said she never felt discriminated against because of her gender. “I felt like the professors picked on me sometimes, but they picked on everybody.”

Gifford said when she attended, far more women started law school than completed it. She ascribes that to the era.

“I think it was just a time when it was all kind of new to have women lawyers,” she said. “My grandfather was a lawyer and he was very accepting of that, but I had an uncle who was a lawyer, who I think even when I graduated failed to recognize I was in law school,” Gifford said.

“It was a different time,” she surmised, noting that now women are the majority in many law schools.

After its last students graduated in 1969, efforts to save the Maennerchor building came to an end with its demolition in 1974. Barteau expressed the consensus of her classmates: “It’s a damned shame that happened. … It was such a pretty building.”•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

  2. Freedom as granted in the Constitution cannot be summarily disallowed without Due Process. Unable to to to the gym, church, bowling alley? What is this 1984 level nonsense? Congrats to Brian for having the courage to say that this was enough! and Congrats to the ACLU on the win!

  3. America's hyper-phobia about convicted sex offenders must end! Politicians must stop pandering to knee-jerk public hysteria. And the public needs to learn the facts. Research by the California Sex Offender Management Board as shown a recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders of less than 1%. Less than 1%! Furthermore, research shows that by year 17 after their conviction, a convicted sex offender is no more likely to commit a new sex offense than any other member of the public. Put away your torches and pitchforks. Get the facts. Stop hysteria.

  4. He was convicted 23 years ago. How old was he then? He probably was a juvenile. People do stupid things, especially before their brain is fully developed. Why are we continuing to punish him in 2016? If he hasn't re-offended by now, it's very, very unlikely he ever will. He paid for his mistake sufficiently. Let him live his life in peace.

  5. This year, Notre Dame actually enrolled an equal amount of male and female students.

ADVERTISEMENT