ILNews

Students learn through Leaders in Firms Emerging

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Jasmine Batts, wearing a black skirt and matching short-sleeved blazer, makes her way across downtown Indianapolis, walking from Kightlinger & Gray to Ice Miller for a lunchtime meeting. Along the way, she calls Jenny Ellis, director of administration for Kightlinger & Gray, to let her know she will meet her at a coffee shop before the meeting.

She arrives early to meet Ellis, like any smart businesswoman would. But what sets her apart from the hundreds of other busy professionals traversing downtown is that Jasmine is just 16 years old.

Jasmine is one of five students from Shortridge Magnet High School for Law & Public Policy who got a summer internship through a new program called L.I.F.E. (Leaders in Firms Emerging) Beyond Shortridge. Ellis created the program with the support of the Association of Legal Administrators, Indiana Chapter, and with funding from the national ALA.
 

life-15col Jasmine Batts, right, a summer intern at Kightlinger & Gray, presents materials for review to Director of Administration Jenny Ellis. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

All sophomores at Shortridge are eligible to participate in the L.I.F.E. curriculum, which covers subjects like mock interviewing, résumé writing, and workplace conflict resolution. Students who wanted to be summer interns had to attend two after-school sessions this spring. And Ellis said she wanted students to know that law firms offer plenty of non-lawyer jobs that might suit their interests. About 20 firms have lent their support for the project by hiring interns, speaking to the group, or underwriting the group’s weekly lunches. Ellis said that even if these students decide working in a law office is not what they want to do, the lessons they learn through the internships will be helpful in any career.

A working lunch

At Ice Miller, the students – accompanied by a chaperone from their place of employment – have gathered around a conference room table. The first item on today’s weekly meeting agenda: Business lunch etiquette.

Abigail Martin, senior paralegal for Betz & Blevins, reminds the students that the following week, they will be attending the ALA chapter meeting at the swanky Skyline Club in downtown Indianapolis, where membership is by invitation only. Martin asks the students if any of them have attended a business luncheon before. Nibbling on pizza, the students answer her question with blank looks.

Martin gives the students some pointers – be courteous to your server; don’t slurp your soup; don’t cut up all your food before you eat it.

Dominique Knox, the lone male intern, interjects with the question: “What do you do if you don’t like the food that they serve?”

Martin explains that the food at business luncheons may sometimes be tasteless and unappetizing; the adults in the room nod in agreement. She advises the teens to make an effort to eat the food when possible, and Ellis reveals a secret standby excuse to use in case of emergencies: I’m sorry; I can’t eat (some ingredient in this dish).

The guest speaker at the ALA luncheon will be talking about cost-benefit analysis, and Ellis – without talking down to the students – explains the concept so that the teens will be better able to understand the lecture. Martin tells them that even if they don’t realize it, they engage in cost-benefit analysis every time they go to the store and compare the prices on bags of chips and think about how to get the most for their money.

The students are asked to talk about what they’re doing at work and how their weeks have been. Chinaa Harris has been working the phones at Wooden & McLaughlin, through an arrangement with IST Management Services. Ellis said that when she called the firm recently, she hadn’t immediately recognized Chinaa’s voice, due to her mature, professional demeanor. Chinaa says working the multi-line phone is a challenge and that she doesn’t like to hear her own voice when paging people over the intercom. That may be why she refuses requests from people at the table to use her “phone voice.”

Justina Fields remarks that she’s been doing a lot of stapling at LewisWagner. Soft-spoken Makiyla Gaddie passes on the question. And Dominique returns to the topic of table etiquette.

“Is there a certain time limit that you should have to talk at a table? Because I’ve been to lunches where basically only one person talks the whole time,” he says, eliciting a round of hardy laughter from the room.

Mark Goins, facilities coordinator for Barnes & Thornburg, tells Dominique, “Some people are uncomfortable with silence, so if there are not other people talking, they feel like they have to fill that gap and over-talk.”

“What do you do when someone cuts you off?” Dominique asks.

“That’s when you learn how to suffer gracefully,” Goins says. Vicki Bruce, chief operations officer for Bose McKinney & Evans, where Dominique works, tells the student to make sure he circles back to finish his thought after being interrupted.

The students continue asking questions about dining etiquette – about lessons many adults know, but can’t say where they learned them. Jasmine makes an astute observation: “As I look around, I see that everybody over there has glasses, and we’re drinking out of the cans.”

“If you do notice something like that,” Bruce says, “help yourself to a glass of ice and pour your drink into it so it makes you feel more comfortable. Because the older you get, the more you’ll be drinking out of glasses instead of the can.”

Jasmine smiles sheepishly and says, “Yeah, because I feel like a little kid right now.”

Next steps

Shortridge will be adopting a year-round curriculum beginning this fall, Ellis said, and she’s unsure how that will affect L.I.F.E.’s ability to offer internships. She said she hopes that the opportunities can be tailored to the students’ availability. In the meantime, the program will hold a writing contest, with the top three finishers giving an oral presentation at an ALA meeting.

Ellis is working on a plan that other cities can adapt for use in their schools. As the child of two teachers – one of whom retired from Shortridge before it was a magnet school – Ellis places a lot of value on education’s role in shaping well-rounded, engaged members of society.

“These kids are delightful, energetic, smart, inquisitive,” she said. “In addition to learning tasks, they’re learning a lot about themselves.”•
 

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