I was amused to see my work described on the ACS blog as "a bit conservative". I guess I can live with that. After all, my favorite supreme court justice is David Souter.
I was reminded of my 1L post on law school leftism today. (If you read it now, the rest of this will make more sense.)
When I arrived at school this morning, a group of mostly minority students were congregating in the courtyard, preparing to start a protest about the lack of racial diversity on campus. The idea, I gather, was to enter classrooms to give students a sense of what UCLA was like before Prop 209 ended racial preferences, and cut down the number of minority students admitted.
As I've stated elsewhere on the blog, I'm opposed to Prop 209 in education. Schools should be able to admit whomever they want, for whatever reason. (I have no opinion on Prop 209 outside of education.)
But I had a difficult time understanding why students would protest on the UCLA law campus about diversity and Prop 209. Isn't that a textbook example of preaching to the choir? What's the point? Possibilities I discarded:
To raise awareness about the lack of diversity at UCLA? Any competently perceptive law student can see the homogeneity of our student body. Just about all of us went to colleges outside the UC system which were much more racially diverse.
To persuade people who are opposed to racial diversity? This is a null set. Who is opposed to diversity? Not even Nino Scalia.
To persuade the administration to consider race in admissions? That would be illegal. You may not like the law, but if UCLA law broke it – and they're probably at least bending it already – they'd open themselves to liability. How is liability a positive thing?
I had to conclude that the point of the protest was personal expression and not, in the words of Gene Sharp, "something that can win". One group of people wanted another group of people to know how they felt about an issue, even though the 2nd group already agreed.
If people really dislike Prop 209, why aren't they focusing their energies on "something that can win"? Like, oh I don't know, starting a campaign to repeal Prop 209? Collecting signatures? I'm not trying to be snide. I'm genuinely perplexed why, in a state where anyone with enough time & patience can get a measure on a public ballot, people would not want to put their efforts toward a solution. In 2+ yrs on the UCLA campus, no one has ever asked me to sign on behalf of an anti-Prop 209 ballot measure. I would be happy to do so.
Dean Schill update! Did the Dean sit idly by when word of this protest reached his desk? No. I have it on good authority that Wednesday night, he called at least one prof whose class was targeted and suggested he stay home today.
Now, everyone pause to think about that. At first glance you might think the Dean was capitulating to the protesters by taking a prof out of the way. But if Schill had removed the prof, his class would've been canceled and part of the protest would've been neutralized before it began.
As far as I know, everyone showed up, classes went on, and no fistfights broke out (perhaps someone who was in one of the protested classes can comment – I wasn't there.) But Dean Schill once again showed his preference to manage potentially offensive speech by preventing it altogether.
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 ...
Our dean, the champion of free expression! Huzzah!
03 Nov 06
MB,
I was in Beard’s National Security Law yesterday when the demonstrators made their statement.
Unlike you I think there should be, and is a dire need for, affirmative action in public education institutions in California. But I was really put off by the demonstration yesterday. Obviously they are preaching to the choir and they went about it rudely in Beard’s class.
The demonstrators came into to our NSL class two minutes late. Beard was just starting his lecture when about 20 people, two equipped with video cameras, marched into the classroom. At the front of the room one of my favorite people in the entire school, Nikki Brown, stood and commanded attention. When she started to speak Beard cut her off. He told her that she needed to ask the class whether or not they want to hear from her. He explained that it should be the classes’ choice who addresses them. When he asked her how long she wanted to take of class time she paused for a minute and they responded with something along the lines of, “less time than you just took.” Fucking rude.
Another man came in the side door 10 minutes later and stood at the front of the class room taping Beard. Beard asked him to leave and then focused his attention on the other cameraman. The other cameraman said he was from CBS news and Beard told him to leave. The CBS guy already taped the entire class by the time he left. Many students were uncomfortable with being on camera.
About 30 minutes into class another 20 or so demonstrators marched in and disrupted class before they found seats. Beard did a good job of keeping the class going. At the end of the class Professor Beard left 25 minutes for the demonstrators to address the class and explained that he support affirmative action in public schools.
As much as I personally like the people involved and support the cause I thought the demonstration in Beard’s class was rude and lame. If they would have contacted Beard in advance I am sure he would have opened the floor to them. Most students adore Beard and I am sure many were put off by how he was treated. I did hear the Schill (Mr. No Back Bone) was notified and emailed the faculty the students who pulled this off could have gone about it much more productively.
EAS
Posted by: EAS at November 3, 2006 10:40 AMIf I went into a class that I was not enrolled in, interrupted the professor, and then gave a political lecture, I would not expect to be a student at the school much longer. Along the lines of EAS' post - do the leaders of these organizations realize that they are alienating many of their core constituencies (liberal law school students/professors)? I really wonder if they don't realize they are alienating people or they do realize it but believe it to be more important to get this particular message out?
Posted by: at November 3, 2006 01:20 PMI agree with MB that the protest seemed much more about self-expression than about advancing any kind of argument. In fact, I was sort of surprised that there was so little substance to the whole thing: all I saw were some statistics showing that minority representation has declined at UCLA since Prop 209 passed. There was no discussion of why this is, what it means, or how it should be dealt with.
And Che Guevara t-shirts, all-black outfits, and homemade arm bands are probably not the best idea when trying to get others to take you seriously. But, I guess they work when all you want to do is show that you're really pissed off about something.
Posted by: UCLA law student at November 3, 2006 02:28 PMEAS, thanks for the first-hand account. BTW, I am not opposed to affirmative action. Per above, I am opposed to Prop 209. Schools should be able to use racial preferences if they want to.
However -- this is where I get "a bit conservative", I guess -- I think if schools want to treat certain students differently using racial preferences, they should disclose the bar passage rates for students admitted under affirmative action vs. others.
Or, if you think that's potentially too 'stigmatizing', how about disclosing bar passage rates for each quartile of entering LSAT scores. That's race-neutral. Students could compare their score to the historical data and get a rough idea how they will fare.
Or if you think that's still too stimgatizing, drop the public disclosure, but ask the ABA to require, as a condition of continued accreditation, that law schools keep their minority bar pass rates within a certain number of points of their white bar pass rates. Today, those gaps are shockingly large.
If the diversity demonstrators are looking for something productive to do, I seriously encourage them to go see Schill or Carbado and request UCLA's bar passage rates for the past 5 years, broken out by race. That would be a genuinely valuable contribution to the diversity discussion.
Posted by: MB at November 3, 2006 03:21 PMa bit conservative = uses brain on occasion
Posted by: at November 4, 2006 02:08 PM"Any competently perceptive law student can see the homogeneity of our student body."
I don't know if I'm a competently perceptive law student or not, but I do know that I am a member of the law school's racial majority. While I am aware of the school's lack of diversity in a general sense, it's not something that I think about in my daily interactions on campus. My sense is that minority status is a much larger factor in minority students' experiences. To the extent the protest was designed to help majority status students relate to the experiences of minority students, I'm supportive of that goal. It sounds like the students in the disrupted class were made to feel uncomfortable and self-conscious. As someone who wasn't there it's difficult for me to judge, and I certainly don't condone rude or abusive behavior by any member of the community for any reason, but maybe this was a greater success than you thought.
Posted by: J at November 10, 2006 12:06 PMPersonally I was only uncomfortable because Professor Beard, a jewel of this school, was treated disrespectfully.
I feel like it wasn't sucessful because I think it ultimately alienated the people who are supportive of the need for a more diverse campus.