Legal Literacy - Every time a new academic year begins, thousands of students with high idealism set foot in law faculties across the country. In their minds, there is an image of a brave legal expert—a defender of truth who stands at the forefront to uphold justice, like the heroes in courtroom dramas. However, as time goes by, that idealism is slowly eroded by the reality of the education system which, ironically, often produces legal "craftsmen" rather than justice "keepers." Our legal higher education today seems to be trapped in a paradox. On the one hand, it aims to produce jurists with integrity. On the other hand, the curriculum and teaching methods unconsciously prioritize the approach legal-formalistik or what is often called positivisme hukum. Students are taught that law is what is written in the law, period. The main focus is on mastering articles, procedures, and legal doctrines rigidly. In classrooms, students are trained to become reliable legal technicians. They are tested on their ability to memorize, analyze the text of laws, and find precedents to win a case. The question rarely moves into the philosophical realm: "Is this law fair?" or "What is the social impact of applying this article?" What is more often emphasized is, "How to use this article for the benefit of the client?" As a result, law is reduced to just a game of strategy. Students are educated to become clever players, who are able to manipulate the rules of the game for victory. They are taught to look for celah hukum (loophole), interpret articles flexibly, and take advantage of every ambiguity in the regulations to justify actions that may be morally and ethically questionable. The ultimate goal is no longer keadilan substantif—justice felt by the community—but keadilan formal, which is victory based on procedure, no matter how crooked the path taken. Look at the products produced by this system. Many law graduates are technically brilliant, but spiritually dry. They become corporate lawyers who are adept at designing "legal" tax avoidance schemes. They become advocates who skillfully defend corruptors, not because they are convinced that their clients are innocent, but because they know how to exploit weaknesses in evidence in court. The law in their hands is no longer a sword of justice, but a shield for those in power and able to pay dearly. Of course, it is unfair to generalize that all law faculties and their graduates are like that. There are still many lecturers who struggle to instill the values ​​of justice and students who uphold their idealism. However, we cannot close our eyes to the dominant trends that exist. It is time for the law faculty to carry out deep introspection. Legal education should not stop at teaching "what the law says" (das sein), but must constantly encourage students to ask "what the law should be" (das sollen). Courses such as legal philosophy, legal sociology, and professional ethics must be at the heart of the curriculum, not just a complement. Case study-based learning methods must be enriched with ethical dilemmas that force students to think not only as technicians, but also as human beings who have moral responsibilities. Legal clinic programs and legal aid for poor communities (LBH Kampus) need to be massively promoted, so that students can see firsthand how the law they learn in college operates—or fails to operate—in the midst of the most vulnerable communities. If the law faculty does not immediately reform itself, it will only continue to produce legal gladiators who are good at fighting in the arena, but blind to the cries of justice seekers outside the arena. Indonesia has no shortage of smart people who know the law; this country lacks wise people who understand what the law is actually for. And the task of giving birth to that wise generation rests on the shoulders of the institution we call the law faculty.