In its Oct. 26 editorial “Rule against this law school,” The Journal’s editorial board suggests that its members don’t stay awake at night wondering why there aren’t “more lawyers around here.”

A better question, one that should keep more of us awake at night, is “Why isn’t there more justice around here?” The proposal to have the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth take over Southern New England School of Law, in North Dartmouth, through a donation of the school and its facilities, would achieve just that — an increased number of lawyers working in the public interest. It’s a shame that the editorial writers chose not to cite that and other facts but rather rely on tired old anti-lawyer prejudices and misleading information about the proposed public law school, both of which currently abound in the Fourth Estate.

First, and most obviously, this proposal does not add an additional law school. It converts an existing one — one of nine private law schools in the commonwealth — to public status. Thus it opens opportunities for students in Massachusetts who would probably choose to stay in state if there were a public-law-school option.

Second, the proposal includes slots for students who commit to spending four years doing public-interest law. The Journal often touts the good public-interest work of Roger Williams University Law School; certainly it would be only fair for it to acknowledge that a similar benefit would accrue from a UMass Law School.

Third, over 80 percent of law-school seats in Massachusetts are in Boston. Locating the public law school in Dartmouth would benefit the South Coast, its people and its economy. In this region often slighted by the state, a public law school would continue SNESL’s mission of encouraging access to law school for economically and racially diverse students. That itself is a public good. A public law school would enhance access to justice as part of its central mission.

Fourth, the state Board of Higher Education rejected a merger of the two schools five years ago based not on the merits, but on an alleged concern about revenues being channeled through continuing-education money. This new proposal does not involve continuing-education money. The BHE was subsequently sued over its behavior regarding the merger. The resulting settlement ensures that the process this time will be an open one — something sadly lacking from the merger consideration before.

Fifth, law schools raise money for their parent institutions. As a 2007 Vanderbilt Law Review article stated, “Law schools . . . can be regarded as a source of funds for other university programs. . . . [T]hey are cash cows.” (Nicholas Zeppos, page 325).This same point — with the same bovine phrasing — was made 15 years earlier in The Wall Street Journal (June 19, 1992; Arthur Hayes).

Further, Massachusetts law requires tuition remission to the general fund. The current proposal envisions that $500,000 to $1 million would be returned to the state treasury each year. So notwithstanding all ill-informed assertions to the contrary, the taxpayers would benefit, not be left holding the bag.

What about the naysayers? Why do they have a dog in this fight? Why are private law schools so concerned about what the University of Massachusetts does or how it implements its vision of a first-class university system? Is it because a public law school, for whatever reason, threatens them? I would hope they would be more confident in their product than to create such a hue and cry against something that really has nothing to do with them.

So let’s open the doors so that students who want to be lawyers to help people — yes, Virginia, that does exist — can do so without leaving law school with a debt so high that they are forced to forgo the public sector and seek private-sector jobs.