NUALS had a certificate course not an elective. It was taken by external faculty members from a public policy center who themselves approached NUALS to teach here. And the course was primarily based on 'Intersectionality'. CRT was only in one module with respect to the Black Feminist movement. There were different things like caste, class, gender and sexuality discussed. But since intersectionality as a concept originates from CRT, the focus was there.
I personally felt that they were making some very valid points but there was also a lot of factually incorrect information and they held heavily biased view points. But they never shot down any opposing view points or conventionally conservative view points. That was really surprising because these things are taught in extremely polarised atmospheres in the US where no counter perspectives are entertained. Or worse they're taught in White-free zones where there would be absolutely no disagreement or fundamentally different perspectives from within the black community for fear of being ex-communicated. But yeah no one wants that tag of disagreeing with something 'radical' like CRT so I think most people shut up in such universities.
I personally believe no ideology or viewpoint should be stifled as long as diversity of thought is entertained and it's not just a one sided debate with just one ideological viewpoints being parroted as the ultimate truth. This is something even the woke or conservative professors in the US need to embrace. Not just presenting a perspective but even present counter perspectives and allow a healthy and non-toxic room for debate, discussion and deliberation.

But this course in particular presented many perspectives through audience interaction which presented counter perspectives which is conventionally uncool to hold in academia. They had their agenda but they engaged with the students and entertained non-woke perspectives very gracefully.

So I'm guessing that's a win and something new in such woke spheres you refer to. I disagree with a lot that was taught in the course but there were definitely few things that I took away. And I guess the point of such courses is to make you 'think' rather than 'convince'. Maybe a certain extent, it was successful in doing so.

Have people here gone mad? If there is anything law schools need less of it is critical theory. These courses have zero practical relevance and are taught by ultra-left woke professors. I am shocked to hear that NUALS had an elective on Critical Race Theory. Do you guys know that Critical Race Theory has been heavily criticised by well-known scholars and some US states have even introduced laws banning the teaching of Critical Race Theory? In France, both politicians and intellectuals have uniformly condemned wokeism because it undermines the principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity and leads to cancel culture.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59584125

We need WORK courses, not WOKE courses. However, I do concede that woke courses have one big advantage: everyone gets an A because meritocracy is considered oppressive! Is that why people upvoted OP?

Fair enough. While a perfect structure for this might be impossible, the hope is to unceasingly tire for it. It's easier of course (and I've heard this from plenty) to say students are dispassionate, but the real struggle perhaps lies in the teacher exposing the brilliance of discourse to even dispassionate students (which requires new forms, innovative pedagogy and creative play).

Sorry, I didn't mean to intrude - but this is one of the most interesting threads here as well as what i think the most unfocussed. The reason I say this, is one of the things I never learnt in law school is Lacan (or Zizek). As a matter of fact Freud, Jung etc anything in psychoanalysis was not considered relevant back then. Even fukon or derida - because we were never taught to go so deep. I am very happy and curious to know the level of discourse that happens on these at law schooli

- R

I feel like I need to make some additional points to better address this.

Lets us simplify the process by imagining that there are layers (steps, building blocks whatever term fancies you) of critical engagement that may be augmented by said works.

For instance, you cannot read (and understand) Lacan without Freud, so to truly engage with the reading, one will have to be thoroughly engrossed in the subject matter and thats where the motivation aspect comes in. However, plainly adding it would mean that a sustained understanding of Lacanian Concepts will be haphazard or inconsistent without the father. In my opinion, this will be even worse than not knowing them in the first place!!!!

Coming back to layers- Don't you think more lucid and concise readings like Russell etc. will serve as a better building block to then progress to Derrida, Foucault and other such thinkers. Im certain there are less sophisticated, somewhat less enriching, but equally fruitful works that can be used as introductory tools. My point being that this will serve as a fail-safe, even if there is lack of interest or motivation to study more robust and allegedly 'complicated' works.

I believe that while proceeding with the exercise of layering, some layers must be made compulsory for all law students. Its as simple as 1+1, and clearly makes a better lawyer (not to mention a better person). Under the current model this compulsory layer consists of writers you mentioned above (this needs to be extended to all law schools , if it isn't already). I advocate for an introductory sub-layer consisting of the works I mentioned. The more layers the better the end product, granted those layers need to develop based on an individuals own curiosity and motivation.

Fascinating response, thanks. Agree with most of it. Two points of divergence, staying true to the spirit:

1) I don't think there is as much reading of even 'postmodernist' / 'poststructuralist' thinkers like Derrida, Foucault, Barthes and Lacan. There is certainly a lot of mention about them, but not really a sustained reading of their texts in the original. At least that is what I have perceived having studied and taught in some of the institutions above.

2) The 'human essence', no offence to Russell's Logicism, is not deceptively simple at all. If anything, I think that is precisely the force which moves postmodernism per se; the decentering of the Cartesian subject of cogito. We need to think about, and with, the split (and splitting) nature of the human when we study such primordial social structures such as the law.

It's just sad to see how young students fresh out of school have been indoctrinated to think that only things that are "industry-tailored" or will help them secure a job are things worth studying. The result is a people graduating law schools, getting into corporate jobs and living in misery.

The point is not to discourage corporate jobs - we all have financial necessities and sometimes, they do take priority. It's about the quality of lives we're creating within the corporate setups. If you don't teach people to read about, discuss and appreciate the bigger pictures in life, your life will always driven by the next hour/next assignment/next small thing, making you miserable in the long run.

Reading literature, critical theories and social sciences helps you find more meaning in things that you do. You are anyway going to work hard for every waking hour of your life if you choose the damned profession of law. You might as well learn how to find it more meaningful and beautiful.

Only a very small minority of students are interested in learning or discussing these things. It requires thinking, effort, lots of readings to actually understand what's being said and discussed. But in this age of instant gratification, such interested students would prefer to go virtue signal other people on their Instagram stories. Disagree with me but that's the unfortunate reality.

You are quite right, actually.

Here's how I see it as a student of one of the institutions you mentioned, as well as a student of Phil. ever since I could read:

1. Course content dealing with postmodernist thinkers is, and always has been, high. This is evident through extensive readings of Foucault, Derrida, and the likes (although I've seen that Kierkegaard does not hold much favour. I largely think this is due to the religious annotations his philosophy enshrines, which many Professors do not appreciate wink wink). Logical Positivism, rationalism, and the subaltern discourse (primarily wrt to gender and society) are also given their fair share of appreciation. Furthermore, Locke, Adam Smith, and Marx can be found scattered in multiple subject readings in the 1st and 2nd year of the 5 year course. Now, If one engages faithfully with these subjects, it is certain they will develop a nuanced perspective on any law they are dealing with.

2. Tt has always been my position, however, that these perspectives do not and will not suffice. A student should be made familiar with varied and far-reaching ideas of love, happiness, joy, and perseverance. For instance, Victor Frankl's opus (yes, opus) - 'Man's Search for Meaning', or for instance Rusells seminal work - 'Conquest of Happiness'. These books provide simple and concise iterations of what has been echoed so many times in history i.e. what is your unique essence as a human, and how do you transpose that to your work whilst being true and just to your own self. Heck, Frankl intermingles the feelings of motivation and love with that of suffering and damnation in a concentration camp. These perspectives are shunned and even ostracised in modern academia because they are "pop." Well, everything is pop today Prof. Snob. This should not stop people from valuing the immense potential it has in shaping people and thereby their unique outputs.

3. This brings me to the very core of my (and possibly your) argument. Any dedicated utilisation of critical theory has been restricted to people having a genuine thirst for shaping and disseminating knowledge. Case in point Bakshi, Kapur etc. Remember, prodigal thinkers have mostly been in the fringes and have had to constantly prove themselves over and over to naysayers with a coherent body of work, along with sufficient overarching contemporary insights. Universities need to foster an environment where such risk-taking is accepted and encouraged. Do you think this is a reality in ANY law college in the country? No points for guessing the answer, Sir.

4. For most students, understanding the primary source and the black text of the law has always taken precedence over the larger picture it might possibly fit in. Why? Employment, Careers, Peer pressure, fear of failure, and/or just not being born creative enough (Studies in the past have proven that in terms of creativity lawyers aren't exactly at the top of the pile). Thus, in the end, it boils down to intrinsic motivation of the student and the right apparatus to spark curiosity so that perhaps he/she may potentially be engrossed in said critical theory application.

This brings me to point 2. above. If people are encouraged to learn how to preserve the human essence - which has been subject to varied and nuanced discourse from time, despite being deceivingly simple (according to Russell at-least), we will find that people begin to appreciate the law and develop fortitude, kindness, and integrity, even while suffering or facing hardship. This, in my humble opinion, can offset any (perceived or real) lack of critical theory engagement in law.

Thank you for coming to my Ted-Talk, Cheers.

A lament: law schools in India do not deal with critical theory enough, despite its predominant significance for the law. I do not mean critical legal theory, which has (fortunately or unfortunately) been proclaimed, by its own forerunners, to have met its death. What I mean is critical theory as a method to think differently (not necessarily externally) about the law, but beyond just doctrinal and procedural methods.

LI has had a lot of mentions, unsurprisingly, of Kapur, Baxi, Chimni, Pandey et. al., but are law schools today even engaging with critical theory, which, of course, is an important theoretical methodology for all of the above? For those who wonder why the above named are even remotely being linked with critical theory, need only see Kapur's use of critical feminist theory, Baxi's use of Habermas and Derrida, Chimni's use of Fanon and Marxist third worldism, Pandey's use of Hunt and Norrie. Needless to add, how all of them have creatively used critical theory along with our own laws, history and politics. Barring NLSIU, Jindal, NALSAR, NLUD, and maybe a few others, there has not perhaps been a sustained engagement in thinking about critical legal pedagogy. Even in some of these institutions, I doubt whether there is rigorous scholarship at all, which concerns less with rankings and acronymized indexes, but engages with scholarship for the proliferation of ideas.

I am curious as to why this is? Lack of administrative preference? Lack of relevant teaching staff? Students not interested? Different priorities ($$$)? None/All of the above?