I fought the law and the law won

In reading through Williams's work, I was especially interested in her discussions of law school curriculum. I never had an interest in it myself, but I had a number of friends who went from English degrees into law school because they had the sort of critical writing and reading and analyzing skills needed to succeed in the field. Looking at Williams' discussion of the law school tests, though, seemed to paint a very different picture. Like, what is this shit? (84-85). Calculating the tax implications of slavery? Reading horribly offensive material and then trying to defend it on first amendment rights? Disturbingly detailed accounts of crimes against women? Williams biggest concern is that these issues aren't being used to analyze a case, or explore some sort of understanding or critical eye for the very real types of hateful crimes that law students may encounter in the field. In fact, they are being used on tests. That's what really got to me--tests! Like, some exams are what stand between us and the fist of an angry law student. I don't really understand how a critical, analytical field like law is still wrapped up in tests! It's like if we were still doing grammar drills in college!
Don't answer that, I'm sure there are schools that still do. And yeah, it may be helpful in some cases.
But I was really just shocked that law school is still running off of some modernist, codified system of instruction.

And then, why was I shocked? Like, really Adam, you didn't think of law as an institution? The same institution that decries a Mexican-American Woman from saying she had a unique viewpoint on minority issues over a white male? Yeah, yeah, I see your point. But that's the point, I've totally bought into it! Page 87, "[The tests] require the assumption of an 'impersonal' (but racist/sexist/homophobic) mentality in order to do well in the grading process" (87). Justice is blind, right? And Western, white, and male. The litmus test for the impersonal, detached judge/jury/lawyer is one who is concerned only with facts and truth. And all the scare quotes in the world can't hedge those enough.

So I'm just wondering, how can we make law school more like the humanities? Not like we're got our shit together or anything, but it seems like the theoretical and critical analysis is being heralded for dealing with subjects and working in the courtroom, but not in the approach to "the law" itself. You're always trying to work within the institution of the law, never turning your critique to the actual laws themselves. Or if you do, you're labeled the dreaded "activist" who will never get a job. And when you compound that with the continuing education of future lawyers (and often, eventual lawmakers) it seems like a self-propagating system.