If one is truly fortunate, you may have one individual whose guidance and instruction influence and direct your career. I was was extremely privileged to have known several such people, one of whom was David M. Becker. He was perhaps, the most direct guide in ways which I know he did not intend and the results of which would likely surprise him. What I learned from David Becker was the importance of listening.
I met Professor Becker early in 1974 when, as a newly minted attorney, I enrolled in the LLM program at the School of Law. My family and I had recently moved to St. Louis and with three young children, one 14 months old, were adjusting to our new environment. My knowledge of the law school faculty was very limited, but sufficient to know that David Becker was highly respected, admired and feared. It never dawned on me that he had been on the faculty for less than five years.
I registered for an LLM seminar involving housing and urban issues taught by Mr. Becker. My assignment, which evolved into one of my LLM theses, was based on an opinion issued in September, 1973, by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in the case of Otero v. New York City Housing Authority et al. The appeals court ruled that the right of the prior residents of a public housing community to return to the rebuilt housing, as was promised, was not enforceable if to so act would “tip” the balance resulting in a non-white majority. The conclusion was that too many non-whites was to be avoided, while the reverse was acceptable.
In reviewing the opinion, related cases and law, I concluded that the “benign quota”, as it was characterized by the Second Circuit was anything but. I thought it was malignant in intent and impact, violated the 14th Amendment, Fair Housing Act and numerous other well established principles of constitutional and statutory law.
I was young (a handicap now past), passionate and determined to convince Professor Becker of the “right” of my argument. In fact, I wanted – demanded – that he agree with me and acknowledge the evil of the actions of the Second Circuit and the miscarriage of justice they perpetuated. I confronted him several times and to my shock and amazement: He listened.
And being David Becker he assaulted me with an endless barrage of questions. I had no choice but to find the answers, hone the arguments and return. We continued this volley for several months. He frequently conceded my points, but then countered with more questions. And he always listened and engaged: politely, patiently and I’m sure with a a great deal of exasperation, which he never betrayed.
But I learned the importance of listening. You cannot practice law unless you listen: to your clients, colleagues, students. Everyone has something to contribute, whether you agree or not, but you won’t know that unless you listen. Professor Becker’s “shocking” approach was to make clear that while my views were not well honed or sufficiently hardened (though my opinions surely were), he thought it worthwhile to listen and engage me each step of the way.
I’ve tried to use that lesson and have done so sometimes better than others. But the value of listening, which bespeaks a respect for the other party, is crucial to how we proceed and behave as attorneys. Professor Becker made it clear to me that whether I was right or wrong, whether my project was progressing or complete, whether my arguments were solid or weak, they were valuable enough to him to be heard. He “practiced” listening, engaged me and through it I learned to appreciate the professionalism that others speak of, but don’t practice.
I recently retired after a fulfilling and enjoyable career. I’m still convinced my arguments were correct and I still find Professor Becker intimidating and uniquely gifted as a teacher. But his greatest lesson for me was much broader than the scope of the seminar and perhaps my entire formal legal education.
Dianne R. Sagner, JD 1974