Remembering Year 2 in Sensenbrenner Hall

As we settle into the second year of Eckstein Hall, it is interesting to look back and try to imagine what it would have been like to have been a student in Sensenbrenner Hall in its second year, 1925-1926.

First of all, the Sensenbrenner Hall of 1925 was quite different from the building that the law school vacated in July of 2010. The original building, known only as the Law Building until the 1950’s and constructed for the princely sum of $200,000, contained 5540 square feet of space (not counting the basement). The building ran for 100 feet along Wisconsin Avenue and for 60 feet along Eleventh Street, but a 10′ by 46′ indention at its southwest corner kept it from being perfectly symmetrical.

Not only was the then-new law building just the front part of current structure, but its interior was also arranged quite differently from the way that we remember it. Its principal components were three classrooms, two courtrooms, a palatial reading room, the library stacks, and a variety of offices.

As one entered the building from W. Wisconsin Avenue, the room on the first floor to one’s immediate right was a lecture hall.

On the left hand side of the hallway were an office and a faculty room/lounge. Beyond the lounge and the northeast lecture hall were four more offices, two on each side, and another lecture hall on the west side of the building.

The east side of the second floor was the moot court room, in which mock cases were tried before “Judge” Dean Schoetz each Thursday during the school year. Opposite it were another office and a jury room. The western half of the floor was divided between a classroom in the northwest corner and the appellate courtroom opposite it on the southwest side of the building.

On the east side of the third floor was found the luxuriously appointed Grimmelsman Memorial Reading Room, which had been funded by a separate gift of $50,000 from the Cramer family in honor of one of the University’s earlier presidents. (The Cramers were apparently promised that the name of the room would never be changed.) On the opposite side of the floor were the stacks that constituted the school’s library. In addition to a center hallway, the third floor also included two offices.

In the basement, one could find a smoking room in the west third of the building with the rest of the space divided between the janitor’s room, a locker room, and an “unassigned” room.

The two biggest academic changes between 1924 and 1925 came from the law school’s decision to eliminate its night division and to require all first year students to have completed two years of college before enrolling in the law school..

For the first time in the school’s 17-year history all first-year students in 1925 were full-time students. Moreover, full-time students now had to present evidence of two years of college work, not just one as had been the case in 1924.

Although currently enrolled night students were allowed to finish their course of study in the evening, these two changes caused the school’s overall enrollment to drop sharply from 325 students in the fall of 1924 to 235 in the fall of 1925. First year enrollment, not surprisingly, was down significantly, as only 39 new freshmen law students enrolled under the more rigorous entrance requirements.

Enrollment would drop even further to 203 students in 1926. (By way of comparison, total enrollment at the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1924-25 was 240 students.) The elimination of the night program did make Marquette eligible for ABA accreditation, which it received in 1925, two years after the American Bar Association began to accredit law schools.

While most of the law students were male, there were a handful of female students, including Lois Kunzli, who sat on the board of directors of the Coed Club, the leading campus women’s organization.

The faculty was made up of 17 professors, five of whom — Dean Max Schoetz, John McDill Fox, Willis Lang, A.C. Umbreit, and Carl Zollman — were full-time teachers. The part-time instructors included Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Franz Eschweiler, Municipal Judges A.C. Backus and Otto Briedenbach, and Thomas Lyons, the former chairman of the Wisconsin Tax Commission.

Students in 1925 paid $85 per semester in tuition, plus a $3 health service fee each semester. Books were projected to cost $40 in the first year, $25 in the second, and $30 in the third. Students were advised that “Good board can be secured near the Law School at $5.50 to $7.50 per week. Students who club together can board for less.” Legal education, it seems safe to say, was less expensive in the old building.

Marquette graduates in 1925 and 1926 were still required to take the Wisconsin bar examination, but that was okay with Dean Max Schoetz who was an outspoken opponent of the diploma privilege and who supported efforts to have it abolished in Wisconsin.

In summing up the second year of student life in the new law building, the Hilltop, the Marquette yearbook, noted, “Under the direction of Dean Max Schoetz, Jr., the school of law has become one of the most active and enthusiastic departments in the university. During the past year the students in the law school were represented in almost every phase of student life. The lawyers began their year’s activity by winning the Homecoming Trophy for the best float in the parade. On the athletic field, Lavern Dilweg, junior barrister, won recognition for the school of law by being place on Walter Eckersall’s All-American team [for college football].” (Dilweg, an end, went on to star for the Green Bay Packers and later was elected to Congress.)

The law school’s basketball team, also starring Dilweg, won the university intramural championship, and two members of the varsity golf team, including captain Leonard Fons, were law students. A debate team, composed entirely of law students, defeated the team from Cambridge University during its American tour.

A picture of the new law building with an inset of the chandelier and stained glass window from Grimmelsman Reading Room were set out on page 19 of the yearbook. The annual law dance, held in the Knights of Columbus ballroom on January 22, 1926, was reported on page 108. The Law Review, in its sixth year of operation was led by editor-in-chief John M. O’Brien.

With a brand new law building, a day-only student body, new entrance requirements that were exceeded by only a handful of American law schools, and a full-time faculty that included Carl Zollman, one of the best known legal scholars in the United States, AALS membership, and ABA accreditation, the Marquette Law School was well-positioned to take a place among the leading law schools of the 1920’s.

Continue ReadingRemembering Year 2 in Sensenbrenner Hall

Falling Leaves and Rising Stress Levels?

The leaves are changing, the nights are cool, and there’s a nip in the air in the early mornings.  That means it’s October, which means for most law students that school has been in session for nearly two months (for most students).  It’s around this time that the 1Ls perhaps notice an increase in workload.  Now there’s not just reading and briefing for class – which may be clipping along more quickly now – but probably assignments due in their writing classes.  All along, in the background, 1Ls are hearing people talk about “getting those outlines started.”  Second years have hustled through the on-campus interview process, which seems more selective than ever, and some are working their way through call-backs.  Others are frustrated that they aren’t getting any call-backs.  And likely most 3Ls are themselves working on getting jobs, knowing with that as each day passes, they are one step closer to graduation and one step closer to having to pay back those loans.

Perhaps here is where the stress starts to kick in.

Not all stress is bad; stress often gives us the kick in the pants we need to get things done, and we can return to “normal.” But for law students, the stress can seem to be ongoing, weighing them down for weeks or maybe months.  Is there any way for law students to avoid this stress?

Continue ReadingFalling Leaves and Rising Stress Levels?

Do We Need an Anti-Siphoning Act in the United States?

The remarkable Milwaukee Brewers have now reached the second round of the Major League Baseball play-offs, but many Brewers fans have yet to have the opportunity to stay at home and watch the team play post-season games on television. The reason, of course, is that this year all first round play-off games as well as the second round of National League play-offs are shown only on cable television. Those who don’t subscribe to cable are shut out of watching the Brewers on television, unless they can make their way to Long Wong’s Sports Bar on Blue Mound Avenue, or some other similar establishment.

This was, of course, not always the case. Until 1996, all Major League Baseball post-season play-off games were on free television. That year, ESPN won the right to broadcast any first round play-off games not aired by NBC or FOX, then Major League Baseball’s primary broadcast partners. Since that time, the number of play-off games on pay television has been steadily creeping upward.

In Australia and in many European countries, the local equivalent of Major League Baseball’s playoff games would be required by law to be broadcast on free television. Called anti-siphoning statutes, these laws dictate that certain sporting events must be made available for broadcast on free, open-air stations, if they are broadcast at all.

In Australia, for example, every regular season and play-off match played in both the Australian Football League Premiership (Australian Rules Football) and the National Rugby League—the country’s two most popular sports leagues—are on the anti-siphoning list. On the list as well are a host of other sporting events, many of which take place outside of Australia, ranging from the FIFA World Cup to the U.S. Masters Golf Tournament to all test matches played by Australia’s senior representative cricket team.

In the European Union, the 2007 Audiovisual Media Services Directive encourages individual members to adopt similar protected lists, and guarantees legal immunity from any other EU rule or regulation that might arguably apply. Such guarantees exist in a variety of European countries, including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and the United Kingdom.

The failure of Arab countries to adopt such statutes meant that the vast majority of Arab citizens were not able to watch, at least legally, the 2006 World Cup, because the exclusive broadcast rights were sold to a single satellite broadcaster that charged exorbitant rates for its signal. (I have written about this issue in some detail in an article entitled “The Over-Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Sport in the United States and Elsewhere” that appeared in the Winter 2011 issue of the Journal of the Legal Aspects of Sport.)

Almost twenty years ago the United States Congress expressed concern about the migration of high profile sporting events to pay television when it adopted the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, which authorized the FCC to study the issue. To date, most of the major sporting events in the United States—the World Series, the NCAA Final Four, the NBA Finals, and the Super Bowl—remain on free television, but that may soon change.

In recent years, a variety of popular sporting events have been shifted to pay television, including most of the races constituting NASCAR’s Chase series, early round play-off games in the NBA and NHL, as well as Major League Baseball, two of the four tennis majors, and one of golf’s four majors. Moreover, last year the BCS championship game was, for the first time, broadcast exclusively on cable television (ESPN), and will be for the foreseeable future.

That there has not been more uproar over the recent shifts may reflect that fact that an estimated 75% of the United States population now has access to basic cable or satellite television, placing those of us who do not in a distinctively minority position.

Furthermore, whether an American anti-siphoning law could withstand First Amendment scrutiny is an interesting question. Early on in the history of cable television in the United States, the FCC issued a draconian guideline that essentially prohibited cable television broadcasters from airing any live sporting events at all (as well as prohibiting original programming not first shown on free television). This rule was struck down by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Home Box Office v. FCC, 567 F.2d 9 (D.C. Cir. 1977), but that directive was far more restrictive than any modern anti-siphoning statute, all of which permit the simultaneous broadcasting of events on free and pay television. However, given the solicitude shown for commercial speech by the current United States Supreme Court, the fate of such legislation is hard to predict.

As a baseball fan, I feel aggrieved by not being able to watch the Brewers games on free television. However, so far I do not feel aggrieved enough to subscribe to cable television or, for that matter, to complain to my Congressman. For the time being, I will just have to root for the Brewers to make it to the World Series, which, thankfully, is still on regular television.

Continue ReadingDo We Need an Anti-Siphoning Act in the United States?