• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Law School is a sham

Perhaps the Dean should next admonish Associate Justice Anita Earls (African American and former civil rights attorney) for including the word as part of a parenthetical in her concurring opinion from yesterday. State v. Copley, 2020 N.C. LEXIS 269, *22-23 (April 3, 2020). But she went to Yale Law School and taught at Duke so what does she know?
 
Last edited:
Why is it necessary to choose sides?

I think I can abhor the uttering of the word generally and yet appreciate that there may be exceptional moments when it could be appropriate to use or utter.

And I’d think one could be both offended by the word generally and appreciative of its exceptional or even appropriate usage.


And I’d think it proper to apologize to people even if one thinks they are using the word necessarily or appropriately. Because it is nonetheless a highly offensive word.
 
Robert M. Pirsig said:
"but it was a quote" doesn't work in the classroom either. the ephemeral nature of the spoken word doesn't reduce its potentially violent, material effect. if you've got a classroom full of students and you don't know what they've been through, don't say it.
Click to expand...

tagsfan said:
[/B]

So, discussions of rape, abortion, and poverty are also out of bounds? No, I'm not comparing them to what the professor read. Just saying almost any word can be a trigger to someone. Your statement is way too general.
Click to expand...

Robert M. Pirsig said:
That's not true at all. There are pretty specific words that could be triggering to someone, professors usually know what they are and typically they either avoid the words entirely or give students plenty of advanced warning through the syllabus and pre-class discussion about the reason (ex. wakelaw13) why the word is going to be announced aloud. I'd bet (obviously wasn't there) that some of those steps weren't taken in this case, based on my experience in and teaching the classroom.

The "any word can be triggering" is so hyperbolic, c'mon. And I'm not saying discussions of rape, abortion, poverty, racism, and any other difficult topics shouldn't be broached carefully. I'm saying that the words that pretty clearly are pregnant with hate and derision don't need to be distigmatized, and any academic presentation that just assumes students are familiar with the historical and emotional weight behind that word (introduced without this backing) runs the risk of drawing fire from wounded students.
Click to expand...

It's hard to believe that today's law students (at least those raised in this country) are unfamiliar with the historical and emotional weight of the particular word used by Curtis. Granted, most weren't alive for F. Lee Bailey's devastating cross-examination of Mark Fuhrmann. That will remain as a classic example of using a witness' words against him. Having Bailey do the cross rather than Cochran or the other black attorney for Simpson (Carl ___) was a great strategic move by the Dream Team, in my opinion.
 
tagsfan said:
It's hard to believe that today's law students (at least those raised in this country) are unfamiliar with the historical and emotional weight of the particular word used by Curtis. Granted, most weren't alive for F. Lee Bailey's devastating cross-examination of Mark Fuhrmann. That will remain as a classic example of using a witness' words against him. Having Bailey do the cross rather than Cochran or the other black attorney for Simpson (Carl ___) was a great strategic move by the Dream Team, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

There's an enormous difference between being familiar with something and actually holding knowledge about it. It's actually quite easy to believe that most students moving into law school have been given an anesthetized version of race in America through years of standardized testing that highlights the key figures in the movement while minimizing the visciousness and violence that the movement fought against and lived in. I know because I was a product of that education and I learned most of what I know about the history of race in this country from a humanities post-graduate education.
 
Is it possible for me to think that the professor could have handled this better and that white people aren’t defending this because they want to defend saying it to their heart’s content with friends and family in private?
 
Tobacco Road said:
Is it possible for me to think that the professor could have handled this better and that white people aren’t defending this because they want to defend saying it to their heart’s content with friends and family in private?
Click to expand...

There's a follow-up somewhat related post (posted yesterday) mentioning the Wake Law situation by Professor Volokh at The Volokh Conspiracy. He apparently practices what he preaches. His reasons for quoting offensive language are well-stated, even if not everyone (including his Dean at UCLA) will find them entirely convincing. Once you read his personal story, the assumption that he is a closet racist becomes laughable.
 
tagsfan said:
There's a follow-up somewhat related post (posted yesterday) mentioning the Wake Law situation by Professor Volokh at The Volokh Conspiracy. He apparently practices what he preaches. His reasons for quoting offensive language are well-stated, even if not everyone (including his Dean at UCLA) will find them entirely convincing. Once you read his personal story, the assumption that he is a closet racist becomes laughable.
Click to expand...

Who assumed that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top