Last Monday, Dean Michael Schill stepped into the fray with the following email entitled "Diversity, Tolerance and Understanding", which first I'll reproduce in full:
One of the great strengths of our school is our diversity. Within our extraordinary student body and faculty are men and women from a variety of races, ethnicities, nationalities, income groups, religions, sexual orientations and ideological perspectives. One of the principal benefits of diversity is the opportunity for us to learn from each other. Part of this education is learning to see the world through another's eyes. This understanding of different viewpoints and perspectives is important for one to become an excellent lawyer; it is also important to become a good person.Given our diversity, it is an unfortunate reality that from time to time members of our community will say or do things that will unintentionally offend or hurt one another. In the past week, we have experienced one such incident when the Moot Court Board created an exercise that included racial stereotypes and then compounded the problem by using a jocular tone. Understandably, many students were deeply offended that a formal law school academic activity would include undeniably offensive stereotypes.
Based upon our conversations with members of the Moot Court Board, I am convinced that there was no intent on the part of the Board to offend or belittle our students of Mexican heritage. I also believe that members of the Moot Court Board now understand and feel deeply sorry about the hurt that they have caused to their classmates. Indeed, to avoid this sort of situation from recurring, the Moot Court Board has suggested and I have agreed that future exercises will be read by a faculty advisor.
Before we move on from here, I would like each of us to take a moment to reflect on this incident and learn something. Each of us is part of a community here at UCLA. As an intellectual community, it is incumbent upon us to defend the right of each member to express his or her views honestly and forthrightly. At the same time, because we are a community we should also encourage each other to consider the impact of what we say and do-- intentionally and unintentionally-- on our fellow students and faculty members and to hold each other accountable when we fail in that regard.
The dean rarely addresses the whole school on substantive issues, so when he chooses to send something like this to all 1000+ students, it lends gravity to the message. When I get a message like this, I assume, as I imagine others do, that what he's saying is important. I also assume, as I imagine others do, that the facts are fairly and accurately depicted.
So now let's look at each paragraph in turn.
One of the great strengths of our school is our diversity. Within our extraordinary student body and faculty are men and women from a variety of races, ethnicities, nationalities, income groups, religions ...
I think we get the idea. Next —
Given our diversity, it is an unfortunate reality that from time to time members of our community will say or do things that will unintentionally offend or hurt one another. In the past week, we have experienced one such incident when the Moot Court Board created an exercise that included racial stereotypes and then compounded the problem by using a jocular tone. Understandably, many students were deeply offended that a formal law school academic activity would include undeniably offensive stereotypes.
Schill at least recognizes that moot court acted unintentionally. That in itself should defuse any claim of racism. Whether it's an unfortunate reality is debatable. I would call it an inevitable side effect of enjoying free speech on campus, like carbon dioxide emissions (or perhaps, more aptly, car accidents) are an unfortunate reality of driving a car. It's a cost we accept, because we enjoy the benefits.
Now things take a turn, as Schill seems to adopt La Raza's viewpoint exclusively. Yes, moot court used a jocular tone, poorly. But whether the problem really included racial stereotypes is an open question. I can appreciate that to La Raza readers, those racial stereotypes were obvious. To others, me included, they were not nearly so obvious. So to call them undeniably offensive &ndash as if it's an objective reality – rather overstates the case.
Based upon our conversations with members of the Moot Court Board, I am convinced that there was no intent on the part of the Board to offend or belittle our students of Mexican heritage. I also believe that members of the Moot Court Board now understand and feel deeply sorry about the hurt that they have caused to their classmates. Indeed, to avoid this sort of situation from recurring, the Moot Court Board has suggested and I have agreed that future exercises will be read by a faculty advisor.
Who is the "our" is in "our conversations"? I can only assume Schill means "La Raza and I" had the conversations with moot court. This confuses me. Is Schill acting as an advocate for La Raza against the moot court board? If so, isn't that a little weird?
He affirms that moot court had no intent to offend anyone, but leaves out the exaggerated claims La Raza made in its letter. Does it not merit a mention that La Raza called moot court "blatantly racist" without adequate proof? Should we conclude that such accusations are consistent with Schill's notion of "tolerance and understanding"?
Bad enough that Schill should insert himself into a dispute between two sets of adults. It suggests that he thought moot court and La Raza were incapable of resolving the issue on their own. (I know there are rumors that 3rd parties encouraged Schill to get involved. I don't have the facts so I'll leave such speculations to the reader.)
But it's even worse that moot court should have to submit future problems to a faculty advisor. Moot court fixed their error, and hopefully learned from it. That's all that can fairly be asked. To make them submit to a pre-emptive editing scheme for the foreseeable future – to presume, without proof, that they will make the same mistake again – seems both unfair and unnecessary. It has the unpleasant odor of a prior restraint on speech. It certainly does not fit my idea of "tolerance and understanding".
Before we move on from here, I would like each of us to take a moment to reflect on this incident and learn something. Each of us is part of a community here at UCLA. As an intellectual community, it is incumbent upon us to defend the right of each member to express his or her views honestly and forthrightly. At the same time, because we are a community we should also encourage each other to consider the impact of what we say and do-- intentionally and unintentionally-- on our fellow students and faculty members and to hold each other accountable when we fail in that regard.
With due respect to the Dean, I'm not ready to move on based on this somewhat glib explanation. Accepting his invitation to hold each other accountable, I encourage him to consider the impact of how he's handled this situation, and how he's packaged it for the UCLA community.
But first, let's go back to January, when Schill sent out an email called "Free Expression and Civility":
A law school, perhaps more than any other type of academic institution, should celebrate and protect free expression. It is only through robust discussion and debate, inside and outside the classroom, that we will gain an understanding about how the law affects society and how we can change it to further common goals and objectives. As dean of the Law School, I defend the "right" ... of the anonymous author of "Teh Scrivener" to satirize me as well as others.But having a right to do something does not necessarily imply that what the person has done is right ... With respect to Teh Scrivener, my overriding reaction was that the articles were not terribly funny and, even worse, that some references could personally offend some members of our community ...
My reason for writing is to emphasize both the importance of free expression, but also the importance of tolerance and respect. One of the things I love most about this school is that these virtues are in abundance ... Overwhelmingly, we believe in and practice spirited debate; but we do not demonize each other or treat each other in an uncivil or disrespectful manner even when we feel very deeply about the point at issue. This is what it means to be part of an intellectual community ...
Civility, tolerance and respect – I agree with Schill that these are core virtues of an intellectual community. But they do not run in only one direction. In January, Schill was bothered that an anonymous satirical leaflet contained language that could personally offend someone.
How is this a conceptually coherent position? You can't support free expression without supporting the risk that people might get pissed off someday. There is a big difference between holding people accountable for the real effects of things they've actually said, vs. filtering statements for their potential effects.
The only way to prevent offensive speech before it happens is to prevent speech. And that is antithetical to civility, tolerance and respect.
Move forward to April, when Dean Cheadle sent out this message about the "May 1 National Day of Action" on behalf of Schill:
Over the weekend several students requested that they be allowed to reschedule their Monday final examinations to enable them to participate in the May 1 National Day of Action on immigration rights. After consulting with the faculty who are giving exams that day, Dean Schill has decided to permit any student who wants to participate in the National Day of Action events to reschedule his or her examination to Tuesday ...
I already weighed in on that one. Suffice it to say that Schill's accommodation of the Mexican immigration rally was extremely unusual. The law school is typically strict about exam schedules, because it preserves the fairness and integrity of the exam process. What justified the exception?
Then in August, we got the "Letter Regarding Military Recruiting and Non-Discrimination Policy":
We feel a responsibility to protect and foster the worth of each individual in the law school community. The non-discrimination principle holds true, we think, for society at large, but it has a special force in the setting of a university law school, which is particularly concerned about issues of justice and equality ... The non-discrimination policy evolved during the 1970s to include race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, and veteran status.
I mentioned this previously, when UCLA's official publication, The Docket (RIP) was simultaneously promoting scholarships which discriminated on the basis of nationality (in favor of foreign citizens and recently naturalized U.S. citizens).
Add up these data points any way you want. In my view, a tyranny of the minority is no less odious than a tyranny of the majority. The goal is equality: a tyranny of no one.
Schill said in January "we do not demonize each other" but moot court has been demonized three times in this transaction: once by La Raza et al. (in their letter) and twice by the Dean himself (in his email, and by endorsing a faculty advisor).
Also, Schill's email address to the students last week seemed to rely on the fact that most students wouldn't ever see the source documents. The documents reveal the partiality of his position. This could've become a useful teaching moment — e.g. show the documents, explain the nuances, suggest how both moot court and La Raza might've best handled the situation, show support for what both groups are trying to accomplish. Instead the moment was used to beat on one student group for the benefit of "students of Mexican heritage" under the cover of "tolerance and understanding".
It certainly doesn't fit my idea of tolerance, understanding, civility or respect. Somebody owes the moot court board an apology.
20 Oct 06
Well put. Only the Scrivenator could say it better.
Posted by: at October 23, 2006 12:44 PMgiven your viewpoint that the moot court problem did not contain any offensive stereotypes that were readily apparant to you, i'm curious to know what on earth would you think constitutes an offensive stereotype ? also, you are dead wrong in continually acting as if La Raza were the only students offended by the moot court problem, since many other students, white students and students of color were equally offended and supported La Raza. i'm sorry, but the fact that dean schill commented that the moot court board acted unintentionally does not in any way diffuse any charges that the moot court problem was racist, considering that many students do believe they acted intentionally, and even if the moot court board members maintain that they didn't act intentionally, unconscious racism and ignorance ould have influenced their actions and contributed to their produciton of the racist moot court problem. for someone who claims to understand what tolerance, understanding, civility or respect entail, your comments come off as pretty resentful, defensive, and ignorant of both sides of the situation, and indicative of your priviledged and obviously sheltered world view.
Posted by: at October 23, 2006 05:43 PMEveryone enrolled at UCLA law school is de facto privileged and sheltered. You, me, everyone. If you don't agree, go spend 6 months working for minimum wage and then tell me what you think.
My goal in obtaining & publishing these documents was to counteract ignorance through disclosure. People are welcome to draw different conclusions than I do, but at least they're using evidence, not speculation.
I wish I had your ability to look at the situation and conclude that there's a right side and a wrong side. It certainly would've made for shorter, less time-consuming blog posts.
Posted by: MB at October 23, 2006 08:22 PMSorry for the long comment, but I wanted to respond to the above anonymous poster, who wrote:
"I'm curious to know what on earth would you think constitutes an offensive stereotype"
I think each time someone accuses the moot court board of having included (intentionally or not) offensive stereotypes in the moot court problem, they should be required to state exactly what stereotypes they are referring to, and why they are offensive. I'm not saying people weren't offended, or that they shouldn't have been. I just think it would keep the dialogue more grounded.
As far as I can tell, there are two candidates for "offensive stereotype":
1. The Mexican citizen is characterized as a child molestor, reinforcing the stereotype that Mexicans are child molestors.
2. The Mexican citizen is placed in a problem where other characters (but not the Mexican character himself) are named after brands/types of alcohol (Mexican, British, and American), reinforcing the stereotype that Mexicans are drunks.
I've never heard of the first stereotype before, suggesting it's not actually a stereotype. If the point is that this reinforces a broader stereotype of criminality, then I would like to know if those offended by this are suggesting that a criminal defendant in a Moot court problem can never be Mexican.
The connection required to see the second stereotype seems to be a fairly tenuous one. I'm not saying it's impossible to infer, but given that the Mexican citizen himself is not described as a drunk, such an inference would seem to be at least somewhat extreme, and certainly requires some further explanation.
So, it seems a little strange to ask "what on Earth" constitutes a stereotype if the above facts don't, when I think the above facts are objectively not that extreme (relative to all stereotypical portrayals of Mexican citizens or those of Mexican heritage that).
On an ironic note, I noticed that the La Raza letter accused the moot court board of furthering the stereotype of Mexicans as "lazy" drunks. I didn't note anything in the fact pattern that even remotely suggested the Mexican citizen was lazy. This would require a double inference -- first to the drunk stereotype, then to a further stereotype that drunks are lazy. It suggests a less than cautious response to the whole situation by La Raza.
Posted by: Anonymous UCLA law student at October 24, 2006 03:52 PMLazy? Not true, Mexican's are hard workers; I think it's in their blood or something.
Hard drinkers? Sorry, also in the blood. But since when was this a bad thing? The Irish are proud of it.
And child molestors? Only creepy white dudes molest children; everyone knows that.
Posted by: at October 24, 2006 08:15 PMMB, thanks for your effort and thoughtful analysis. I think the administration and La Raza have blown this way out of proportion, given moot court's use of supreme court cases to concoct their hypo and the long & tenuous inference chain (illustrated by Anonymous UCLA law student's comment) from the hypothetical fact pattern to ethnic stereotypes. It is indeed alarming that neither the administration nor la raza mentioned either of these mitigating factors.
Posted by: Another UCLAW student at October 24, 2006 08:37 PMMB, I completely agree with you La Raza is making a big deal out of nothing.
Posted by: uclalaw F 3L at October 27, 2006 03:21 PMYeah, what's up with 'The Scrivenator?' I got a long -winded, poorly written xeroxed screed in my mailbox from him. Hard to take anyone seriously that won't even put his name on it.
Posted by: Kevin! at October 30, 2006 09:58 PMHe evidently has you taking him seriously enough.
Posted by: at October 31, 2006 05:32 PMwell if the scrivenator had some balls, he would put his name on it. I say he because someone saw him, 3L transfer, putting the flyers in the mailboxes.
Posted by: yo at November 1, 2006 10:53 PMI think your analysis digs too deep to the point where you're searching for things that aren't really there. Here's an example: "Who is the 'our' is in 'our conversations'? I can only assume Schill means 'La Raza and I' had the conversations with moot court. This confuses me. Is Schill acting as an advocate for La Raza against the moot court board? If so, isn't that a little weird?" There is no way that Dean Schill would have any intention of advocating any student organization against another. That's would entail too much risk and controversy for any dean, much less this one to take. I get the feeling from your prior posts including the ones on Professor Sander's anti-affirmative action studies that you have some deep-seated opinions on the subject of race. Why don't you come right out and put out your ideas and intentions rather than pick at the surface? No, I am not in La Raza, nor am I Hispanic, nor do I strongly believe in affirmative action (paradoxic in its own right), but I do hate the postering that takes place which usually leads to quasi-academic discussions ultimately culminating in nothing. I would like to mention that I have enjoyed your blog for the most part, at least up until your more recent entries.
Posted by: UCLAW Student at November 2, 2006 09:11 PMI have no idea if Schill really meant to imply he had acted as an advocate for La Raza. That's why I phrased it in the form of a question. But given that he adopted La Raza's version of the incident, it certainly lends weight to that interpretation. If you have evidence suggesting otherwise, please post it. I would be happy to be better informed.
I would hardly say I'm concealing my opinions about race. See posts on "Diversity" in Nov 05. See posts on "Risk disclosure" in June 06. Go to www.matthewb.com/ardaa if you care to read another 20,000+ words on the topic. My views are well-documented.
Posted by: MB at November 2, 2006 11:26 PMIn response to the previous posting - I think that anytime Dean Schill emails the entire campus he runs the risk of appearing to be an advocate of a particular side. I don't really believe that the Dean loses any sleep over military recruiting or the other issues he has discussed with us (I realize this is an assumption and I could be wrong). Given that he interacts with the entire campus so rarely, I think that the choices of the topics become important in themselves. I also agree that the Dean would probably not advocate in favor of a particular student group over another, but the email regarding moot court did seem to reflect that he had adopted a particular interpretation of the incident. I can see some motivation on his part for wanting to do this in just wanting everyone to move on, but still he does appear to be advocating in favor of La Raza's standpoint.
Posted by: at November 2, 2006 11:38 PMIf you think La Raza's previous actions were questionable, you should've been at the "Community Building Workshop" (Group Therapy Session) that was organized allegedly for Moot Court and La Raza to reach an amicable resolution regarding the controversy. It turned out to be a collective call to arms against the privilege white people have supposedly enjoyed in society by all the minority groups at the law school.
Instead of the mediation session being a mature discussion where both sides rationally presented its views, La Raza's members started the session by bawling during the first minute of mediation in front of an audience that consisted of members of all the minority groups on campus. Amidst tears they explained: (a) how incredibly difficult it is to grow up Hispanic (debatable considering Hispanics are almost a majority in CA) (b) how privileged white people have it and don't realize and (c) "demanding" and I repeat "demanding" an apology from each and every member of Moot Court individually. This was only the first five minutes. Subsequently, their words and actions got progressively more and more appalling. It made me seriously fear liberals.
In the face of tears and blatant sentimentalism (read: manipulative tactics), it was not surprising to see the Moot Court Board capitulate like a house of worn-out cards!
How, I ask, can anyone have sympathy for La Raza's cause given the absurd behavior of their officers?
Posted by: at November 5, 2006 07:34 PMI've been pretty careful not to chime in on the whole situation until now because when people hear that TR is on the moot court board they usually assume the worst. This time I swear I'm not guilty! I actually missed the workshop but I had intended to go and from what I heard most of the board members were there. I also heard that "it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be" from those who went, but I didn't get much more info than that. It seems like from the previous post that it was very emotional from the beginning - but this might actually be a good thing. It seems it was the concern of some people when this issue emerged that La Raza's primary goal was political. If we (the moot board) are getting raked over the coals because a number of people were offended then I can speak for the whole board when I say we would understand that we are getting what we deserve. When we got the letter from La Raza, most of us were devastated that we had offended anyone. Everyone I know on the board is there for one reason - to try to get as many people as possible involved in the program. Besides potentially offending people, we have failed at the only thing that we have volunteered countless hours to do. However, when you think that you are getting raked over the coals in order for someone to make a political point, that can cause animosity. The problem at our law school, and I'm sure at others as well, is that lines of communication between ethnic groups are almost nonexistent. Were people offended or was La Raza grandstanding? Nobody came to us to tell us that they were offended, but this is probably because they felt involving La Raza was the only way to communicate effectively in our law school's environment. When the letter from the Dean went out even though La Raza's demands had been met, I think that many people in the school saw some political motive and retreated into an "us" versus "them" mentality and automatically dismissed any offense that might have been taken. This just exacerbated the problem because the only thing worse than being offended by an academic exercise is people thinking you are acting offended or acting offended in order to further a point. No amount of mediation or dialogue will ever allow me to know what it is like to be/grow up Latin@ or for a black person to know what a white person might find offensive. The only way we can know is for someone of the other race/ethnicity to tell us and this can be extremely uncomfortable. This makes the possibility of misunderstanding and inadvertent offense even more likely. Even if the mediation last week got emotional I still think that any communication, especially genuine communication, is a positive step. The only sad part is that it took over two weeks for anyone on the moot court board to speak to anyone who was offended.
If the meeting got a bit out of hand then this is really the fault of the moderator(s) who I was told would be present. In response to the fact that "we folded like a deck of cards" - it was never really our intention to engage La Raza or anyone else. We folded the day we got the letter from La Raza which I still think was the right thing to do. There are a number of people in the law school that want us to be their proxy in the battle against La Raza but that is not, and was never, our intent. In the end, maybe this will turn out to be a positive thing and that lines of communication will have been opened. As for now, I'm sure that tomorrow the Latinos will be sitting together in the northwest corner of the quad, the black students in the southwest corner and the lounge, and the white students in the northwest corner. It doesn't look like we've progressed much since high school but I'm optomistic for the future.
Hey guys, there's another English person about, :)
I'm a new on www.matthewb.com
looking forward to speaking to you guys soon
rfcp oiajpb czvibsyk rhxoiky kcbmzej bvgsxljp olzxkyac
Posted by: okbx qtzgodklw at March 10, 2007 01:21 AM