Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Law Students at U. Washington Interrupt Dean’s Lecture to Demand Racial Justice

Law Students at U. Washington Interrupt Dean’s Lecture to Demand Racial Justice

“student demonstrators asked Dean Mario Barnes several questions, including why there are so few minority professors teaching law”

Why waste money on tuition if your clear goal in life is to be an activist?

The College Fix reports:

University of Washington law students demand nebulous ‘racial justice’

First-year law students at the University of Washington interrupted a lecture by the dean of the School of Law last week to highlight the “erasure” experienced by “marginalized” students.

Dressed in all black with some putting tape across their mouths featuring the word “SILENCED,” The Daily reports the student demonstrators asked Dean Mario Barnes several questions, including why there are so few minority professors teaching law.

Other queries included why racist and transphobic professors “are not held accountable,” and why there are no Native American law students at UW.

The protesters also presented Barnes with a list of demands which includes more faculty and students of color, and more resources for the required first-year course “Introduction to Perspectives on the Law.”

The “Perspectives” class, according to the report, “is the only required course in which students are given space to critically examine and discuss the racist and patriarchal foundations of the American legal system.” Of the five professors who teach it, only one is a minority.

The demand letter notes the law school core curriculum “strips the identity of marginalized students” because it disregards how they’re “treated differently in the justice system.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“The demand letter notes the law school core curriculum ‘strips the identity of marginalized students’ because it disregards how they’re ‘treated differently in the justice system.'”

It’s called colorblind – it’s called being treated equally – based on the quality of your work. No bonus victim points, darlings. Ref MLK.

It’s called colorblind – it’s called being treated equally – based on the quality of your work. No bonus victim points, darlings. Ref MLK.

Can you imagine the outrage that would ensue if one or more of the school’s faculty were to suggest that “racial justice” be defined as “no racial or ethnic preferences for anyone, at any time, for any reason”?

    artichoke in reply to Albigensian. | January 14, 2020 at 11:58 pm

    I think that can be achieved if we make protected classes for white and Asian males. A member of a protected class cannot be discriminated against. As it is, it can be legally OK to discriminate against white and Asian males (nobody else). This should change.

    And then it would be illegal to discriminate against anybody on the basis of race or sex.

Seeing how racial minorities suffer the most from criminals we need to change the laws so repeat offenders are removed from society. Racial justice requires that those who commit 3 felonies spend 50 years in federal prison. Those who commit a fourth felony are put to death.

    artichoke in reply to ConradCA. | January 14, 2020 at 11:51 pm

    3 strikes laws seem good, but they can be horribly abused. I have an experience of that from jury service.

    I was on a jury where a teenager was accused of exposing himself to some neighborhood kids — everyone was black male. The jury was half black, half white. We heard in passing that this was a capital case. I remember wondering how such a relatively minor matter could be capital (i.e. life in prison, or death). But it was just said in passing.

    The evidence was unconvincing, no let me say it was crap. The child witnesses against him were obviously coached. They all used the same phrases, which were not black slang (the black jury members were available to let us know this). He could not have been at the places alleged at the times alleged unless he had the only Ferrari in the ‘hood. The public defender did a good job. We acquitted on all charges unless the lesser included charges. There were a whole bunch of those. They desperately wanted to get this kid on something.

    Afterward I read that that state (Florida) has a 3 strikes rule and it all made sense. He committed two felonies, so any other felony would be a capital offense, third strike. After that they probably started fabricating things, at least for the 3rd strike they were just trying anything to “put him over the top”.

    Since then I’ve read one or two times where the fabrication bullshit seemed to start after only one strike.

First,it’s very annoying, isn’t it, the kind of entitlement they have, merely because they identify with a PC “identity group”? When there is that much inequality in the “power dynamic,” doesn’t it mean that we’ve reached the point where racial/sexual privilege is outdated? They are obviously not “marginalized,” but rather have special privileges others don’t have. Aren’t they worried about “inequality” when it benefits THEM? Of course not.

Second, uncomfortable to consider, but doesn’t it seem that, since standards/requirements have lowered for some populations, but not for others, that it has only encouraged this very type of ill-mannered attitude? It’s the kind you immediately see when you visit a campus nowdays…crowds of kids looking serious in their glasses and campus gear, but once they open their mouths (or write), the real lack of ability (when it comes to using standard English and displaying appropriate demeanor) is all too apparent.

Here, hard to tell, since we can’t see it all in writing, but the idea that a curriculum can “strip (someone’s)identity” — seriously, what and where is the meaning? A straight reading would have it saying they are no longer their actual selves, and the curriculum did it…No that doesn’t really make sense, does it?

Perhaps they mean that, when exposed to this curriculum, they are no longer recognized as part of their “identity group”…if so, they should have stated it that way, because that’s not what the word “identity” means, as it applies to the individual, doesn’t it? And they are claiming group rights? (with no evidence; it’s just opinion stated as fact, which the kids always seem to do now.)

Every list of “demands” I see from college kids is awkwardly and rudely written….maybe they should spend more time studying basic communication, written and spoken, rather than worrying about hiring practices, which (although they obviously want to be in charge of it) they have nothing to do with and really, know nothing about.

(Whoops, apologies for this turning into a rant…didn’t mean to, but out it came.)

If they hated this law school so much, why did they agree to attend it? It’s not UW’s fault that they didn’t get into a law school they preferred.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend