2014 Chicago Conference

The 2014 NASJE Annual Conference was in Chicago, Illinois, August 3-6, 2014, at the Westin Michigan Avenue Chicago.

The Room Block Cut-Off Date at the Westin Michigan Avenue Chicago is July 18, 2014. The Nightly Conference Room Rate is $155 plus tax.

Conference topics will include: the Fundamentals course; NASJE Curriculum Designs; Diversity Education; Leadership & Court Staff Development; Experiential Learning: Exploring Chicago’s Social Movement History; and more.

Registration Costs and Deadlines

• Early Registration (through July 10) – $600/member or $650/non-member
• Regular Registration (after July 10) – $695/member or $750/non-member

Conference Chairs Lee Ann Barnhardt and Anne Jordan

Pat Murrell Receives 2014 Karen Thorson Award
The NASJE Business meeting was held during lunch on Tuesday, August 5, and President Jill Goski presided over the business meeting and presented Dr. Patricia H. Murrell with the Karen Thorson Award.

2014 NASJE Annual Conference Pre-Conference Sessions

The following pre-conference sessions have been scheduled for Sunday, August 3, 2014:

• Fundamentals of our Profession (8:30 – 5:00 pm)
  During the opening of this preconference session, the President and President-elect of the National Association of State Judicial Educators (NASJE) will discuss the foundation and benefits of belonging to NASJE. From regional and national trainings, educational resources, access the curriculum guide, and national networking opportunities, membership with NASJE provides the access and resources you need to be an effective judicial branch educator. Mid-morning will begin by examining the work we do in our respective court systems to create quality adult-centered educational programming. Utilizing our model curriculum, participants will engage in interactive exercises applying the instructional design model to their work. Participants will have opportunities to network and share ideas with other educators throughout the country.
• A seat at the table: positioning Judicial Branch Education for success within the branch (1-3:30 p.m.)
  Understanding, developing, and implementing an effective governance system is crucial to provide the necessary infrastructure to support a judicial branch education program. Effective relationships and complementary roles among boards and committees provide a system that ranges from policy-making, to decision-making, and to program implementation.
• Forum for State Directors of Judicial Branch Education (3:30 – 5:00 p.m.)
  As in the past, this session will highlight what state judicial educators have accomplished in the previous year and their plans for the upcoming year. However, these will only be a starting point. Lee Ann Barnhardt, Director of Education and Communication for the North Dakota Court System, and Tony Simones, Manager of Judicial Education for the Missouri Office of State Courts Administrator, will lead a discussion on the larger issues of how our work as judicial educators allows us to pursue our passions and achieve objectives that are important to us. We will also talk about the barriers that prevent us from fully accomplishing our goals and how they can be overcome.

The Fundamentals of Our Profession
by Christal Keegan, NJC Program Attorney

On Sunday, August 2, 2014, a handful of eager judicial educators and several judges attended the day-long preconference session The Fundamentals of Our Profession. Most participants were newer to the field and/or this was their first time attending the annual National Association of State Judicial Educators Conference (NASJE), while a few were experienced and were attending the preconference session as a refresher.

The participants were greeted by NASJE president, Jill Goski, and NASJE president-elect, Kelly Tait, who discussed the foundation and benefits of belonging to NASJE, to include regional and national trainings, education resources, access to the curriculum guide, and national networking opportunities.

Mid-morning, NASJE members Ileen Gerstenberger, Manager of the Education Department at the Idaho Supreme Court in Boise, and Jeff Schrade, Director of the Education Services Division at the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts in Phoenix, took the floor and introduced concepts to create quality adult-centered educational programming using the NASJE model curriculum and introduced instructional design. Before delving into their presentation, they asked the participants what they hoped to achieve at the end of the day. The participants came up with an extensive list that ranged from crafting measurable learning objectives to effectively incorporating the Kolb Experiential Learning Model in their work. The learning objectives the participants came up with were displayed throughout the class and checked off as the session proceeded.

After lunch, the participants got moving and engaged in various dynamic learning exercises involving the instructional design model to include: (i) completing the Instructional Design: The Backbone of Effective Education Course Development worksheet, and (ii) self-identifying which Kolb Experiential Learning Model we tended to associate with and then grouping ourselves by that learning model for a group discussion exercise.

The day wrapped up on an inspiring note with The Art & Science of Judicial Branch Education. The atmosphere fostered sharing of ideas and stories, which was an invaluable aspect of the program.

In conclusion, the Fundamentals session created opportunities for connecting with other judicial branch educators and provided valuable resources to be an effective judicial branch educator.

Fundamentals for Court Staff: Ideas for Teaching Due Process
by Christal P. Keegan, NJC Program Attorney

After lunch on the first day of the NASJE conference, participants had the option to choose from numerous high-value concurrent sessions. Choosing which sessions to attend and which sessions to miss was challenging. A packed house attended the Fundamentals for Court Staff: Ideas for Teaching Due Process session, presented by Nancy Fahey Smith, Pima County Field Trainer for Pima County Superior Court in Tucson, Arizona. Although she presented an abbreviated version of a program she provides to Arizona court employees, it became immediately clear that protection of due process rights is at the essence of every job in the courts and staff at every level needs to be aware this fundamental right.

In her presentation, Nancy showed pictures of faces from racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds to demonstrate her point: you cannot put a face to the law and the face of law is not the stereotypical elder Caucasian male. The presentation proceeded into a variety of learning activities. First, participants were provided with a “Take a Moment” worksheet that offered a thinking and reflective opportunity on why it is important to teach due process to court employees. After a few minutes, the group participated in an information exchange; participants shared the course goals / learning objectives and activities they identified to engage court employees when teaching due process. Next, the participants worked through the “Legal Advice or Legal Information?” activity worksheet to decide if court employees can answer a list of common questions from court customers.

One of the many highlights of the presentation was the showing of a video segment featuring John Stewart, American political satirist and host of the television show The Daily Show, which covered due process in the context of the media’s coverage of Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, perpetrators of the Boston marathon bombing. While the group found the video entertaining and on point, she cautioned that some audiences may take offense to it and she encouraged a thoughtful introduction prior to showing the video.

The presentation anchored due process to reality by discussing timely and on-point local news articles that reflected controversial court decisions (Roe v. Wade and the Affordable Care Act). These too merit careful introduction along the same lines as the video. The session wrapped up with a small discussion group exercise where groups were assigned different personnel positions within the court and were asked to state how staff working in the assigned position protected due process rights of court clients through their work. For example, our group was assigned human resources assistant.

At the conclusion of the presentation, the participants were able to define the two types of due process, state why and how due process is fundamental to the court system and the work of court employees, associate jobs performed by court employees with protection of due process, integrate activities into a due process class, and adapt plans to classes for court employees in their states.

How the Courts Failed Germany
by Nancy Smith, Pima County Superior Court, Tucson

On Tuesday, August 5, Dr. William Meinecke and Mr. Marcus Appelbaum of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum presented a thought provoking session on Nazi history as it applied to Germany’s judicial system before and during WWII. They asked some difficult ethical questions to prompt participants to understand that we in the judicial branch must be vigilant against abuses to our legal system, to our rule of law, and to our individual liberties in order to avoid horrors like the Holocaust.

Dr. Meinecke’s history lesson took judicial educators back to Germany after WWI, and guided them though the political upheaval that engendered the rise of Hitler and the Nazis in the 1930s. He presented evidence that the adoption of Nazi policies as they pertain to the legal system was largely voluntary by judges—in many cases they enthusiastically supported Nazi laws. Dr. Meinecke argued that judges used weaknesses in the German constitution under the Weimar government to reinterpret the law—in effect, that judges obeyed Nazi edicts because they interpreted these laws as constitutional. The laws deemed “constitutional” by German jurists included the infamous Nuremburg laws, which outlined racial purity standards and institutionalized the Holocaust, as well as the decree against public enemies, which demanded harsh penalties for petty crimes like theft that “threatened” German society.

After the history lesson, Mr. Appelbaum asked learners to reflect on and discuss questions such as “Where did members of the judiciary in Nazi Germany fail in their role?” and “What are the safeguards in our system to ensure a fair and impartial system of justice today?”

Finally, he asked the audience to consider whether the safeguards it came up with in the discussion are enough to ensure a fair and impartial system of justice. These are tough questions with tough answers.

Dr. Meinecke and Mr. Appelbaum take their presentation on the road regularly and have spoken to many groups of judges around the country. A gift to the museum allows them to continue to travel and present their session at low cost.

#IAmFruitvale#: An Approach to Teaching Court Staff about Racism, Prejudice and Implicit Bias
By Matthew Estes and Nancy Smith

Michael Brown. Tamir Rice. Freddie Grey. Eric Garner. These names resonate with Americans nowadays. All were African-American, young, male, unarmed and killed by police. Tamir Rice was only 12 years old. Their deaths and others similar to them sparked the Black Lives Matter movement and have put the question of racism in the criminal justice system front and center for many Americans. Opinions vary widely as to whether racism exists, to what degree, and in what parts of the system. It seems an apt topic for judicial educators to tackle as they seek to provide meaningful educational events for judicial branch employees at all levels.

It is, however, a topic fraught with challenges. Can the topic be explored in a classroom setting to judicial branch employees without provoking anger and defensiveness? What kind of opposition would there be to the topic or to the instructors? Would judicial branch employees be open to a discussion of these events? Would they be interested? Is the topic appropriate only for judges, only for court staff, or for all employees? Which approach would best serve to illuminate the topic?

Viewing the film Fruitvale Station at the 2014 NASJE conference provided the idea to use it as the basis for a class on racism, prejudice and implicit bias for court employees. Two judicial branch educators in Tucson, Arizona began teaching the topic to court staff in early 2015. This article will discuss the learning objectives and organization for the class, , the audiences the class was presented to, reactions from learners, and issues the educators considered when teaching a controversial topic based on comments from the learners.

Learning Objectives and Organization

The educators set out to teach the class in a way that highlights how racism, prejudice and implicit bias impact any person involved in the criminal justice system as well as how they affect peoples’ lives in general. The ultimate goal of the class was to provide learners with tools and ideas for changing their behavior at work in ways that chip away at real or perceived racism, prejudice and implicit bias, wherever they occur, in accordance with the canons of judicial branch ethics. The educators endeavored to provide tools for learners to leave the class feeling empowered to make changes, however small, to improve their work and their personal lives with regards to racism, prejudice and bias.

Four specific learning objectives guide the class organization:

1. Define racism, prejudice, and implicit bias;
2. Assess how these concepts relate to the criminal justice system;
3. Articulate ways individuals can act to combat negative effects of these concepts in their work and personal lives; and
4. Choose actions they can take in their own lives to facilitate change.

The class is organized with the film as its central component. Learners are encouraged but not required to take the Harvard Implicit Association test online before coming to class. Educators begin with definitions of racism at the individual and institutional levels, and continue by defining prejudice and bias, including both explicit and implicit bias. In a group discussion, the class explores what these terms mean, and especially for implicit bias, where these attitudes come from. The purpose of this 20 minute introduction is to provide a framework for considering what happens in the film, not to make learners experts on these terms and their impact in society. Most are already familiar with racism and prejudice on the individual and cultural level, but find the concept of institutional racism more challenging. Implicit bias is not well known and harder for learners to grasp.

Learners receive specific questions to think about while watching the film. After the film and a break to decompress (the film is difficult to watch and evokes emotional reactions), the class discusses what they saw as it relates to racism, prejudice and implicit bias. They discuss the main character, Oscar Grant, in terms of his character and motives. They talk about the tools the director uses to build his message as well as the effectiveness of the message. The educators then guide the class towards recent events similar to the situation depicted in the film. The class explores the link between judicial branch ethics, their behavior, and racism, prejudice and implicit bias. Finally, learners brainstorm actions they can take to try and combat the negative effects of racism, prejudice and bias at work and at home. They write their chosen activities on two post-it notes, one to take with them, the other to post on the wall in the classroom. The educators take a photo of the post-it notes and send the picture to all participants one week later to remind them of their resolutions.

Who took this class?

In Arizona, every court employee is required to get 16 continuing education credits per year. The #IAmFruitvale# class was one of many classes on a wide variety of topics offered through the training departments of the three large courts in Tucson. The instructors also travelled to two small limited jurisdiction courts in the area to offer the class on site. All class participants were court staff, ranging from managers and supervisors to entry level clerks. Participants came from limited jurisdiction and general jurisdiction courts, the juvenile court, the Clerk of the Court and probation departments. All age groups and racial/ethnic groups were represented. 67 people have participated in the classes offered thus far. The class will be presented again several times in the coming year.

Reaction

Far from shying away from discussions about race, learners seemed anxious to talk about it. While differences of opinion about the behavior of police (for example) or the relative guilt or innocence of victims and other court clients certainly occurred, learners needed no convincing that racism is alive and well in America and in the criminal justice system. Further, they demonstrated that they understood that racism, prejudice, and bias affect their daily work and their interactions with the public. Several mentioned in comments that they appreciated being made aware of implicit bias, a concept largely unknown to them before the class.

Comments from learners

Participants in all classes are asked to fill out evaluations. Here are selected comments made in response to three of the questions asked on the evaluations.

What I liked best about this session was:

• It was powerful.
• The discussion. That’s where change begins.
• Everything was very interesting. One of the best classes I’ve taken.
• (the topic) It’s current today.
• The open discussion on race.
• It opens peoples’ minds to prejudice.
• Learning how I will apply this in my day-to-day job.

Why would you recommend the session to others?

• Very thought provoking. Makes you feel all sorts of different feelings.
• Identify prejudice and bias.
• Dealing with current racial issues in the USA.
• Very real, very emotional.
• Everyone needs to take this class. A real eye opener.
• Very interesting and we deal with bias every day.
• Because it helps continue the discussion on prejudice and bias.
• With all the incidents in the news lately, I recommend this class because it gets you to think about the topic and how racism is everywhere.
• Very good movie. Lots of things to learn.
• Remind us that we’re human and to change behaviors.
• Eye opening.
• It was great food for thought. This type of training should be mandatory for everyone.
• Very interesting, educational class, and very interesting discussion. I am appalled that racism is still “here” in this day and age. “We” need to learn and start with our kid’s generation to move forward.

Was this material usable for your job? Every member of every class said yes. Here are some of their explanations:

• Dealing with the public. I tend to have an implicit bias toward all people. I was able to recognize that behavior.
• To not judge a person by the way they look when they come to your window.
• Working with the public, we need to be aware.
• Very helpful for our work environment, we deal with a variety of clients.
• (I need to) be more aware of my attitude.
• A good reminder that everyone has a story and is not defined by their mistakes.
• Insight into how to interact with someone in a high stress situation.
• It applies to my job by treating everyone equally and not treating them different by the way they look.
• It helps to get educated about these issues and to look at one’s self to see where change needs to be done.

Suggestions for teaching this class

First, research the topic thoroughly and continuously. Be aware that social science research is ongoing, new events occur frequently, movements change tactics and focus, court cases get resolved, and the winds of public perception shift. Stay up to date so that the class stays up to date.

The educators for this class carefully prepare learners for the content and organization of the class, as well as expectations for behavior during the discussions. The film contains violence, bad language and a little sex; learners are warned. The educators give permission for learners to excuse themselves during the film if they became too emotional. A few do.

The educators also lay the groundwork for respectful discussion by establishing the classroom as a place where it is “safe” to express a variety of opinions. Learners are encouraged to express their own opinions even when they disagree with comments by classmates, but only in a respectful way. Criticism of other learners is not allowed. The educators act as facilitators for the discussions, redirecting when necessary, or intervening and asking different questions to keep the class moving forward. They do not pretend to be all-knowing, but rather members of the discussion group. The educators also caution against monopolizing the conversation. As a result, while it is clear that class members have different opinions, they are respectful of each other and willing to share (for the most part) experiences and ideas. If anything, the educators continue to be surprised by the enthusiasm and appreciation shown by class participants for leading the class on a difficult topic.

Next steps

#IAmFruitvale# was developed to explore issues of racism, prejudice and implicit bias in the criminal justice system, and how they impact court employees. In July of 2015, over 300 Pima County court employees and members of the Pima County Sheriff’s Department participated in beginning and advanced training sessions on implicit bias. In order to keep up the momentum and to incrementally add to the knowledge base of employees on this topic, new classes on historical discrimination, the origin and outcomes of implicit bias, and the psychological effects of workplace microaggressions are being developed in addition to #IAmFruitvale#, and will be offered periodically through the Pima County Courts Training Center.

[Related documents are posted in the members-only area: 1) An article by Leonard Pitts Jr. “It Takes More than Street Protests to Produce Change”, 2) #iamfruitvale# PowerPoint presentation, and 3) #iamfruitvale handout.]

About the authors

Matthew Estes is a Training and Education Coordinator for the Arizona Superior Court in Pima County. In that role, he brings trainings to judicial staff across many different platforms, and works specifically with juvenile detention and probation staff to meet their training needs on a case-by-case basis. Previously, Matthew was an instructor and curriculum designer at the high school and community college levels.

Nancy Smith is the Field Trainer for the Pima County Courts based in Tucson, AZ. As such she provides training on a wide variety of topics, including case management systems, to courts all over the county. A professional teacher, Nancy has worked in judicial branch education since 2008. Nancy has been a member of NASJE since 2009, and is currently the Western Region Director.

Fruitvale Station: A Review and Discussion
by Nancy Smith, Field Trainer, Pima County Superior Court, Tucson

The film Fruitvale Station is a film any judicial educator could use as a basis for a serious discussion of racism in America. The film illustrates the chasms that separate people of different colors and how involvement in the criminal justice system negatively impacts the lives of those caught up in it. Yet the film portrays its protagonist realistically, without sugarcoating his very real problems and culpability. Viewers see a person stigmatized in many ways by society and by his own actions, and unable regardless of his efforts to find his way out of the downward spiral of his life. Just when the audience is hopeful, everything goes wrong.

Oscar Grant, played by Michael B. Jordan, is a 22 year-old black man from Hayward, CA who spent 2 years in prison for drugs. He is a hothead and often irresponsible. Oscar is trying to redeem his life by getting his job back, staying honest, helping his family and raising his young daughter. He has the support of his mother and grandmother, but his sister takes from him and his girlfriend is tired of his inability to be straight with her. In the end, Oscar dies when a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) officer shoots him in the back during a struggle in the train station.

The struggle and gunshot are captured by numerous cell phones, and cell phones play a major role both in the trial of the officer and in the film. The power of connectedness, both positive and negative, resonates throughout. Witnesses stated that they began filming with their phones because what was happening to Oscar and his friends in the train station “wasn’t right.” Despite many angles from many cell phones, we are left without all the answers about the shooting.

While watching this film, the viewer struggles with the opposing sides of Oscar – is he a good guy or a bad guy? Is he trying or not? Is he right or wrong? Is he responsible or not?

Racism is a major theme in the film. The big question is, “would Oscar have been shot if he had been white?” But the questions raised by the film go much further than that. As court employees, we might ask ourselves if he would have been in prison if he were white. Would he have had a dad in his life if he were white? Would he have been able to hold onto his job if he were white? We can never know.

The juxtaposition of black and white, good and bad creates many questions and some anxiety for viewers. It also provides ample opportunity to facilitate meaningful discussions about where we as a society and where we as a court system need to go to solve the problems depicted in the movie. This film begs its audience to realize that all human lives deserve basic dignity. Winner of several awards at the Sundance and Cannes film festivals, it would be a valuable addition to any educator’s library.