After the moot court problem was released, La Raza wrote a letter of complaint co-signed by the chairs of BLSA and APILSA:

La Raza, for those of you playing at home, is a campus group that advocates on behalf of Latino students and topics.

The issue is not whether La Raza was objectively reasonable to infer that the moot court problem was "disrespectful", or that it "further[ed] the stereotype of Latinos ... as lazy drunks who commit criminal acts".

What matters is that subjectively, they found it offensive. So they were entitled to say something about it, and moot court was right to take it seriously. A heterogeneous campus imposes a duty of mutual civility and respect on its members. It is not a symptom of political correctness gone wild. It is just another way we avoid the tyranny of the majority. As a defense, the idea that "I didn't find it offensive, so neither should you" is both pointless and hopelessly dated.

However, the duty of civility runs in both directions. Moot court made an error, so they should be held accountable for that error. But the La Raza letter goes farther than that. It compounds the problem with two errors of its own:

Failure to recognize mitigating factors. It took me all of 10 minutes to figure out the real Supreme Court cases this problem is based on and find the briefs describing the facts. Before accusing the moot court board, La Raza would've done well to compare the problem facts with the real facts and consider why the problem was written as it was.

Why is this important? Calling someone "blatantly racist" is a serious charge. It's appropriate if – and only if – it's justified by the facts. That duty of civility required La Raza (and their co-signors) to do some research and make sure they weren't shooting from the hip. Perhaps this research was done, but the letter gives no indication this was so.

You may say: why should that matter? If the language of the problem was offensive, isn't that enough? Well, no, actually. As we remember from con law: when it comes to discrimination, intent is what counts the most. To call moot court "racist" is to describe an intent. So where's the evidence? La Raza could've fairly accused the moot court board of carelessness or insensitivity. But La Raza overreached to accuse moot court of racism.

Lack of proportionality. In the letter, La Raza explains how individual elements of the moot court problem, which might otherwise seem benign, have negative connotations when taken as a whole. Fair enough.

But then, they attempt to connect this infraction to much broader issues, namely a) poor incorporation of racial issues into the curriculum, b) low enrollment of minority students, and c) the generally "hostile, exclusionary, educational environment" of UCLA law. According to La Raza, the moot court problem

further criminalizes and demonizes Latino/a immigrants, and perpetuates the isolating and negatively charged environment in which students are attempting to academically survive within.

I agree with La Raza on their general complaints. The state of minority enrollment and support on campus is dreadful. And I've studied minority bar results, so I know the long-term picture is equally problematic.

But I find it difficult to swallow that moot court is an agent of this broader conspiracy. Yes, moot court should be held accountable for their own actions. But bringing in these other issues muddies the picture. Is it really necessary to make a mountain out of a molehill? Is it civil and respectful?

Here's what I find most confusing. Among others, the letter was sent to Deans Schill, Cheadle and Carbado, presumably to enlist their support against moot court. But who's accountable for the incorporation of racial issues into the curriculum? Moot court? No, Schill, Cheadle and Carbado. Who's accountable for minority enrollment? Schill, Cheadle and Carbado. Who's accountable for the campus educational environment? Schill, Cheadle and Carbado.

I'd call that barking up the wrong tree.

Next: Dean Schill addresses the school.

20 Oct 06