ILNews

Blomquist: Inspiring the Next Generation in the Shadow of Greatness

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

blomquist-kerrySenator Richard Lugar. Judy O’Bannon. Congressman Andy Jacobs. Judge Cynthia Ayers, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Eugene B. Glick, Sidney Eskenazi…

What do all of these people have in common?

They are all alumni of Shortridge Legal Magnet High School for Law and Public Policy. Although it has only been designated such since 2009, clearly these alums show that the school was cranking out leaders well before the actual name change. The story behind Shortridge is fascinating. It is the oldest high school in the State of Indiana dating back to 1861. The school was closed between 1981 and 2007 and was then completely revamped from a middle school to a magnet school for grades six through 12. This past spring, Shortridge graduated its first class since the spring of 1981. Last month was the first Homecoming dance in over 30 years. Apparently, platform shoes never had the chance to go out of style at Shortridge.

The school today is nothing short of inspired. As the Indianapolis Public Schools Magnet School for Law and Public Policy, Shortridge has been designed to be the chosen path for future lawyers, legislators, business leaders and policymakers from Indianapolis. There is a Moot Court Room in the newly renovated building, and students are discovering their inner public speaker as early as grade six. Student “prosecutors” and “defense attorneys” are currently handling juvenile truancy cases for all IPS schools at Shortridge, putting a unique twist on the concept of teen court.

I first began reading about the metamorphosis of Shortridge well over a year ago, coincidentally when I was planning the implementation of the IndyBar Strategic Plan goals for 2013. One such goal was to begin to engage local middle and high school students in the practice of law. Seems the stars were in alignment for the IndyBar-Shortridge collaboration in 2013, and the project needed only dedicated leadership.

Enter United States Bankruptcy Court Clerk and longtime IndyBar volunteer Patricia Marshall. I asked Pat to spearhead this collaboration well over a year ago, and frankly, the woman just took off. With the help of her Public Outreach Committee, Pat facilitated a collaboration that included not one but three chances for IndyBar members to have a direct impact on the students at Shortridge, who will very likely be the future of this legal community.

On May 2nd of this year, Shortridge hosted its inaugural Naturalization Ceremony, which, as you may know is a moving reminder of the unparalleled value of U.S. citizenship. The ceremony was sponsored in part by the IndyBar Public Outreach Committee and graciously orchestrated and presided over by U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson and her wonderful staff. For young students of our legal system to be able to see, hear and indeed participate in a ceremony that underlines the value of our democracy is a pretty spectacular thing, and a reminder that what we often take for granted, many, many aspire to.

On June 4th of this year during Law Week, the IndyBar hosted a “Mentoring Day” by allowing Shortridge 8th grade honor students a chance to “shadow” an IndyBar member for part of their day. All transportation challenges aside, it was a great opportunity for these future lawyers to see, and yes I am overstating, just how the magic is done. A sincere thank you goes to the 20 to 25 IndyBar members who stepped up for this and showed their student a good time. Every comment I received was glowing, and nothing beats the life lesson of observation.

Finally, just last month and with the help of Public Outreach Committee members Beth White, Marion County Clerk, and Joan Champagne from White and Champagne, the IndyBar conducted a voter information program geared specifically to Shortridge 8th graders. The committee modified the existing “YVote!” program to help that class learn about the voting process and to facilitate their election of an 8th grade class representative on the Shortridge student council. From “declaring their candidacy” to campaigning and lobbying to the mandating of IDs before they could vote, these kids saw and experienced it all. Not to sounds like an advertisement for Visa, but simply: PRICELESS.

I’ve been parenting for a while now; my oldest just left his teens and I have one still solidly entrenched there. I, like many other contemporary parents, have at times struggled to remain cautiously optimistic about the future of this generation that at times seems to know more about Gandalf’s blood type than our system of checks and balances. But this new collaboration between the IndyBar and Shortridge Magnet School for Law and Public Policy is a bold reminder that as stewards of this profession and indeed this system of justice, we can, should and must take some responsibility in passing on those reigns. Well done, gang.•

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. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT