The controversy began on Oct. 28, after a criminal law class all first-year students are required to take. In discussing the circumstances under which a criminal defendant could be held liable for crimes committed by his co-conspirators, the student repeated a quote from a defendant that appeared in an opinion written by a former State Supreme Court judge, Alan B. Handler. “He said, um — and I’ll use a racial word, but it’s a quote,” the student said, according to a summary of the incident written by professors. “He says, ‘I’m going to go to Trenton and come back with my [expletive]s.”
That led to a petition from a group of black students calling for a policy that would ban saying a word that is printed in the text of the case under discussion and extracting apologies from the student who said the word and from the professor who either didn't notice or failed to express disapproval. The NYT article isn't at all supportive of the petitioners' demands.
The comments at the NYT — at least the ones I've read, the top-rated ones — are quite strongly opposed to the petitioners:
1. "As a criminal defense attorney for over thirty years, I can't even count the times racial or obscene words have been quoted in legal proceedings. They might relate to an element in the case or a motive for a particular witness, victim or police officer. It's not so much about free speech as it is about presenting the complete picture for a jury to make a decision. I might also note that if the appellate court cited the word in the published opinion, it must have been critical to the case."
2. "The students taking issue with the quoting of the word appear unable to consider context of its use or intent of the person quoting it. They can’t practice criminal law if they can’t consider context and intent. Universities need to push back against this garbage. If enough people will actually show some courage, then it will stop. These students will have difficulty getting jobs after they graduate."
3. "How can any student or professor discuss legal cases if they aren’t allowed to directly quote the cases themselves? Considering the word is still used frequently in our culture, it must appear in documents from time to time. Surely students can consider context and apply some understanding to its infrequent use in a classroom setting? How does one approach First Amendment cases focusing on hate speech if you have to censor the speech being discussed?"
(To comment, you can email me here.)
Posts
