Chief Justice Li,Ladies and gentlemen,Thank you for giving me the privilege of attending t

Chief Justice Li,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Thank you for giving me the privilege of attending this historic dedication and for asking me to speak to you this morning. //

Universities, like most other human institutions and enterprises, must be always in search of new systems, new models, new ways to perform. their essential mission. That is why it is of paramount importance for this school to prosper and succeed. And when it does, your model can inspire dynamic changes in legal education throughout your great nation. Your success is important for China. And your school is important for other nations who want to rely upon law and the legal profession to find common goals to achieve common progress. //

In the United States our law school professors have immense talent, and law schools are influential in government and in society at large. As some of you know, our law review system relies on students who are just beginning to study and to explore the law to engage in formal criticism of decisions made by judges. Judges, of course, are senior to students in years and in experience. But the judges respect and welcome the criticism from those who are just beginning to study the law. //

Judges do not view student and faculty criticism simply as a necessary way to train the next generation of legal thinkers. Judges and indeed the whole profession embrace the criticism as a crucial check on the power of the bench and bar. We rely on criticism from law students to see if we can find new insights to express new principles that strengthen the Rule of Law. So our law professors and our law students can be proud of their work, even when that work criticizes authority. //

Sometimes we hear law professors say: "we teach our students how to think. " In one sense this should not be at all surprising. Any teacher in any subject at any level wants to teach students how to think. So in some respects the law professor's boast is nothing more than a commonplace observation. Successful teachers always seek to inspire students to be precise and clear. // Too often, however, the suggestion or connotation is that professors at law schools have some sort of a monopoly on clear thinking. That, of course, is pretentious, narrow, and simply wrong. And to prove that law has no monopoly on thinking, one need only notice those law schools which now hire law professors with a rich, diverse interdisciplinary background. Our law professors come to law school with degrees not only in law but other fields as well. //

The thirst for interdisciplinary diversity has had an effect on the ranks of law students as well. It used to be that desks in law school classrooms were manned by pupils with a more or less homogeneous background. Most had undergraduate majors in pre-law or political science and had come straight to law school after completing their undergraduate studies. Today we see a different dynamic. Alongside the political science undergrad we find economics, chemistry and literature majors, or even find students have made a professional mark on the world in one field or who have an advanced degree and who are now eager to bring that experience to our venerable profession. //

The law professor's self—important claim that he or she teaches students how to think is in need of some revision, some refinement. We can discard that unwarranted pretension, yet we can continue to capture the vital and unique societal function law schools perform. We can say that law schools train students how to think about simple things in a formal way. This is the path to a world of thought that discovers moral principles and social responsibilities in everyday activities. //

If the law student is to succeed in this worthwhile project, he or she must be patient. This may account in part for the slight, initial disappointment some be