• 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

PhDeac said:
What word did Curtis say?
Click to expand...

A word that would be inappropriate to say in all but a select few contexts. This was one of them. He was teaching a first amendment case, one point is that sometimes very ugly language is still constitutionally protected. And his job is to prepare students to be attorneys in the real world. Not some bubble filled with gum drops and hugs.
 
wakelaw13 said:
A word that would be inappropriate to say in all but a select few contexts. This was one of them. He was teaching a first amendment case, one point is that sometimes very ugly language is still constitutionally protected. And his job is to prepare students to be attorneys in the real world. Not some bubble filled with gum drops and hugs.
Click to expand...

In the real world, there is real push back for using that word. Just because the Supreme Court said something was "constitutionally protected," it doesn't mean you can use it at your job with no repercussions. I think students in the class should have more say over when it's appropriate than the old white guy teaching the class.

I really don't know why white people feel so oppressed because there's one word it's not socially acceptable for them to say. I don't think you all realize how ridiculous you all look. White guys rule the damn world based on a legacy of violence, cruelty, and oppression and y'all keep trying to carve out a spaces to say one word that plenty of you say privately to each other anyway. Give it up. It's so pathetic to insist your rights have been violated because people don't want to say one word in public.

Maybe you all can use this quarantine to get it out of your systems. Say it with your wives, girlfriends, and kids to your heart's content because you don't have to worry about Tyrone in Accounting.
 
Last edited:
"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.
 
PhDeac said:
In the real world, there is real push back for using that word. Just because the Supreme Court said something was "constitutionally protected," it doesn't mean you can use it at your job with no repercussions. I think students in the class should have more say over when it's appropriate than the old white guy teaching the class.

I really don't know why white people feel so oppressed because there's one word it's not socially acceptable for them to say. I don't think you all realize how ridiculous you all look. White guys rule the damn world based on a legacy of violence, cruelty, and oppression and y'all keep trying to carve out a spaces to say one word that plenty of you say privately to each other anyway. Give it up. It's so pathetic to insist your rights have been violated because people don't want to say one word in public.

Maybe you all can use this quarantine to get it out of your systems. Say it with your wives, girlfriends, and kids to your heart's content because you don't have to worry about Tyrone in Accounting.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Perhaps you should read the case, or at the very least a summary of the case, and then give your opinion. No one is arguing that the word can be said with impunity. The first amendment (and nearly all of the amendments which constitute the bill of rights) protects people from government action - not action by private citizens. No one is arguing you can use that word at your job because the supreme court said the government cannot arrest you and jail you over the use of the word. You can't honestly think that's what I was saying, which is annoying.

Furthermore, no one has given the slightest implication of feeling oppressed by the non-use of that word. I don't use it. I don't want to use it. I feel uncomfortable hearing it, in any context. Which is kind of the point of the lesson: this despicable language that should make anyone uncomfortable and angry is constitutionally protected. This isn't some outdated supreme court opinion; it is the seminal opinion on this issue. And we're training lawyers who are going to have to go out into the world and deal with a variety of unseemly actions, much less words, and advocate a position for their client. Again, this often isn't a happy fun world.

Let me give you a hypothetical. You're out to dinner with your family, and some piece of shit MAGA hat wearing loser uses that word directed at you or someone in your family. You punch him, and cause a significant injury. We all know it can happen, since it just did to one of our coaches. You get arrested. You have a white lawyer advocating on your behalf. In his statement, do you want the jury of your peers to hear the watered down version of the threatening language directed at you and your family? Or do you want them to hear the words that were actually used; to feel the sting of the actual words and judge your response in that context?
 
You are asking a black man if he would to hire a white man to say the n-word. That’s a strange question.

Would you contend that white law students need to practice saying it out loud in the classroom just in case they get that John Grisham moment when they’re “allowed” to say it? Of course not.

The government didn’t punish this professor, right? I don’t see the outrage.
 
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...


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.
 
PhDeac said:
You are asking a black man if he would to hire a white man to say the n-word. That’s a strange question.

Would you contend that white law students need to practice saying it out loud in the classroom just in case they get that John Grisham moment when they’re “allowed” to say it? Of course not.

The government didn’t punish this professor, right? I don’t see the outrage.
Click to expand...

I provided you with a hypothetical where an attorney might be called to do something that would be uncomfortable for everyone. You called the question strange but didn't answer it. But since you've pointed out that Professor Curtis as just an "old white guy," I'm sure you have sufficiently informed yourself before casting judgment.
 
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...

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.
 
Why did Reynolds step down? Tired of fundraising and that BS?

I always assumed Ron Wright would be dean someday.
 
wakelaw13 said:
I provided you with a hypothetical where an attorney might be called to do something that would be uncomfortable for everyone. You called the question strange but didn't answer it. But since you've pointed out that Professor Curtis as just an "old white guy," I'm sure you have sufficiently informed yourself before casting judgment.
Click to expand...

It was a strange question because the answer is obviously no. You didn't answer my counter hypothetical either.

Why is it so important for you to be able to say the n-word? Why is it something worth wasting the time, energy, and effort to fight for? You're clearly passionate about this issue? What's being taken from you if you can't say this one word in public?
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
It was a strange question because the answer is obviously no. You didn't answer my counter hypothetical either.

Why is it so important for you to be able to say the n-word? Why is it something worth wasting the time, energy, and effort to fight for? You're clearly passionate about this issue? What's being taken from you if you can't say this one word in public?
Click to expand...

It’s not important to say it. But, what does a professor do when it’s in a legal opinion he’s discussing with a class and he’s reading that opinion? And, does this just apply to the n word? What if he’s discussing Snyder v. Phelps...does he say a homophobic slur? Or Cohen v California.... does he swear?

I don’t think anyone is arguing the n word isn’t everything you’re saying it is. Nor, do I think anyone disagrees that any White person who acts like a victim because they can’t say it is really a giant douche (legal term). I think all anyone is saying is this is a very limited circumstance where a professor merely reciting the word as it’s read from a legal opinion should be given some reprieve from being publicly reprimanded.
 
"I think all anyone is saying is this is a very limited circumstance where a professor merely reciting the word as it’s read from a legal opinion should be given some reprieve from being publicly reprimanded."

But why? Like I said before, the government isn't reprimanding him. The constitution doesn't prevent students and colleagues from expressing their dismay with his choice which is what they did.

wakelaw13 said this: "No one is arguing you can use that word at your job because the supreme court said the government cannot arrest you and jail you over the use of the word. You can't honestly think that's what I was saying, which is annoying." Yet wakelaw13 is expressly arguing it's fine for lawyers to use that word at their jobs because the Supreme Court said the government cannot arrest and jail them. He even came up with a scenario in which he, as a lawyer, would feel it's completely appropriate. It's a weird dream scenario which is why it's disgusting.
 
PhDeac said:
"I think all anyone is saying is this is a very limited circumstance where a professor merely reciting the word as it’s read from a legal opinion should be given some reprieve from being publicly reprimanded."

But why? Like I said before, the government isn't reprimanding him. The constitution doesn't prevent students and colleagues from expressing their dismay with his choice which is what they did.

wakelaw13 said this: "No one is arguing you can use that word at your job because the supreme court said the government cannot arrest you and jail you over the use of the word. You can't honestly think that's what I was saying, which is annoying." Yet wakelaw13 is expressly arguing it's fine for lawyers to use that word at their jobs because the Supreme Court said the government cannot arrest and jail them. He even came up with a scenario in which he, as a lawyer, would feel it's completely appropriate. It's a weird dream scenario which is why it's disgusting.
Click to expand...

You are right. His colleagues and students can express their dismay. I’m not saying they can’t. They have every right to. I just disagree with their dismay in this very limited instance. And, in their defense, I only know what happened from that one blog post. I may actually agree with their dismay if I heard their side of the story.
 
PhDeac said:
"I think all anyone is saying is this is a very limited circumstance where a professor merely reciting the word as it’s read from a legal opinion should be given some reprieve from being publicly reprimanded."

But why? Like I said before, the government isn't reprimanding him. The constitution doesn't prevent students and colleagues from expressing their dismay with his choice which is what they did.

wakelaw13 said this: "No one is arguing you can use that word at your job because the supreme court said the government cannot arrest you and jail you over the use of the word. You can't honestly think that's what I was saying, which is annoying." Yet wakelaw13 is expressly arguing it's fine for lawyers to use that word at their jobs because the Supreme Court said the government cannot arrest and jail them. He even came up with a scenario in which he, as a lawyer, would feel it's completely appropriate. It's a weird dream scenario which is why it's disgusting.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing it's fine for lawyers to use that word. And I'm not arguing that the supreme court gave anyone clearance to use that word with immunity. I simply explained the significance and limitations of first amendment protection and that it does NOT give someone immunity from action by their private employer. I then gave you a very narrow hypothetical to demonstrate that our profession sometimes requires thick skin and the ability to deal with uncomfortable facts and situations. And educating students like the world is one big safe space is not helpful. That's all. I don't use the word, I have no desire to use the word, and I'm not concerned by anything other than the school's canned PC response and the inevitable social justice outrage from people who don't take a moment to consider context.

Please try and respond to what I've actually said.

For what it's worth, I don't think I would have used the word in this context. I would have told my students to read the case. We would have discussed it. But I wouldn't have actually read that word out loud. I'm in my early 30s, and Curtis is in his 70s. I'm telling you I know the man, and he was only trying to teach his students. He was in no way acting maliciously, because that's not who he is. And dismissing someone who has spent a career fighting the good fight as some "old white guy" is what's disgusting.
 
PhDeac said:
"I think all anyone is saying is this is a very limited circumstance where a professor merely reciting the word as it’s read from a legal opinion should be given some reprieve from being publicly reprimanded."

But why? Like I said before, the government isn't reprimanding him. The constitution doesn't prevent students and colleagues from expressing their dismay with his choice which is what they did.

wakelaw13 said this: "No one is arguing you can use that word at your job because the supreme court said the government cannot arrest you and jail you over the use of the word. You can't honestly think that's what I was saying, which is annoying." Yet wakelaw13 is expressly arguing it's fine for lawyers to use that word at their jobs because the Supreme Court said the government cannot arrest and jail them. He even came up with a scenario in which he, as a lawyer, would feel it's completely appropriate. It's a weird dream scenario which is why it's disgusting.
Click to expand...

What I hear when I read is: "my feelings are more important than the first amendment." It's emblematic of the way a subset of the internet population thinks. I'm glad that most people don't think that way.
 
wakelaw13 said:
I am not arguing it's fine for lawyers to use that word. And I'm not arguing that the supreme court gave anyone clearance to use that word with immunity. I simply explained the significance and limitations of first amendment protection and that it does NOT give someone immunity from action by their private employer. I then gave you a very narrow hypothetical to demonstrate that our profession sometimes requires thick skin and the ability to deal with uncomfortable facts and situations. And educating students like the world is one big safe space is not helpful. That's all. I don't use the word, I have no desire to use the word, and I'm not concerned by anything other than the school's canned PC response and the inevitable social justice outrage from people who don't take a moment to consider context.

Please try and respond to what I've actually said.

For what it's worth, I don't think I would have used the word in this context. I would have told my students to read the case. We would have discussed it. But I wouldn't have actually read that word out loud. I'm in my early 30s, and Curtis is in his 70s. I'm telling you I know the man, and he was only trying to teach his students. He was in no way acting maliciously, because that's not who he is. And dismissing someone who has spent a career fighting the good fight as some "old white guy" is what's disgusting.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. I would hope you understand my confusion. You defended his use of the word on his job and gave me a hypothetical defending a lawyer using the word on the job. So yeah, I thought you figured it was OK to say it on the job.

Grabs, the feelings of well-to-do white guys are all over the Constitution and the interpretations of it. So yeah, fuck my feelings. That's one point of the document and of the Supreme Court itself.

Again, if you are prioritizing the right to say the n-word over the right to criticizing someone for saying the n-word, that's not a first amendment issue. Just because someone has the right to do something doesn't mean you need to attack people who don't want them to do it. You're not protecting that person from government retribution. You're picking sides. You're trying to make it socially acceptable to say the word because you "feel" like it should be said. If you're more passionate about protecting the guy saying the n-word than you are about protecting his critics, you're picking sides.

If this Dr. Curtis is the guy you all are saying he is, he probably thought, "I messed up. I shouldn't have done it." And he's looking down on people cheering him on.
 
Last edited:
This issue comes up more regularly than you'd think. And I firmly believe there is zero, absolutely zero, pedagogical value in *saying* the "N-word" in the classroom. Everybody knows what the word is, everybody can read it, everybody can discuss it without saying it aloud.

Now, that's not to say that 1) the protections of freedom of speech and tenure shouldn't permit a professor to say it and 2) this professor necessarily deserves to get punished it 3) there isn't a certain irony in his getting criticized for reading it from a case about free speech.

But seriously, it's an unnecessary, asshole move.
 
Also, the argument that future lawyers should hear it spoken in the classroom because the real world is tough is super fucking dumb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top