Reynolds observes: "This sort of thing also creates a pervasively hostile educational environment on account of race, as courts are starting to notice."
He links to TaxProf Blog, which copies the text of Alan Rozenshtein at Volokh Conspiracy: "Mandatory DEI Trainings and Academic Freedom":
Rozenshtein writes:
According to the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL), a conservative advocacy group, the University of Wisconsin Law School conducted a mandatory 1L "reorientation DEI session" last week for which students had to fill out a "race timeline worksheet" with "7 significant moments at least" of "significant life events around race" and read a worksheet listing 28 "common racist attitudes and behaviors," including views like "I'm colorblind" and "We have overcome." A student who attended the session confirmed to me that WILL's reporting was broadly accurate.
I reached out to the University of Wisconsin Law School and received the following statement:Friday's session on diversity, equity, and inclusion for second semester 1L students was held in partial fulfillment of ABA Standard 303's requirement that law schools provide education to their students on "bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism."My goal is not to adjudicate between the competing accounts of the session, and indeed different good-faith observers can characterize the same event differently. More questions would need to be answered to properly evaluate a DEI session, such as: were a range of readings provided that offered a different perspective on race and racism; to what extent was the format of the session that of a training or rather an open-ended discussion; and, if the latter, was the environment such that students were comfortable expressing views contrary to those expressed in the worksheet, by the person leading the session, and by other students?...
The session was interactive, with ample opportunities for students to engage in dialogue with each other. A core goal was to help students develop their critical thinking skills with respect to these topics.
We do not expect students to automatically accept the views expressed in the document referred to, any more than they would the reasoning of a legal brief, judicial opinion, or their professors. Intellectual and academic freedom are core values of the Law School.
Accordingly, we welcome and encourage vigorous debate over important questions of law and policy, and this session provided a forum for such discourse.
None of the above is meant to argue that discussions about race and racism, including the presentation of arguments based on anti-racism or critical race theory or any other school of thought, are inappropriate in a law school class, or even as part of the mandatory 1L curriculum. But a discussion has to be just that: an open-ended exchange of views that recognizes that no one has the right to force anyone else to agree with them when it comes to some of the most controversial debates in modern life.
I wrote about the handout on January 20th, here, and had a somewhat similar reaction: "I'd like to hear about its sophistication [of the session]. How was the handout used? Was there depth and debate or were students merely told what they need to think/'think'?"
I thought if it was something like "totalitarian indoctrination," Wisconsin students might email me. No one did. It's hard to make inferences from the absence of email. Maybe Wisconsin law students don't know about me (anymore), maybe they are so cowed by totalitarianism they're afraid to create any record of their objection to the process, maybe oppression is so pervasive that they don't even know how to notice that they are oppressed, or maybe they've taken all the lessons to heart and genuinely believe that it is racist to resist indoctrination about racism and they don't want to be racist.
But maybe it was a "vigorous debate" — with "ample opportunities" for student "dialogue" and encouraging "critical thinking" — as described by whoever that was who responded to Rozenshtein.
Posts
79 comments:
Diversity (i.e. color judgments, class bigotry), Equivocation, Indoctrination (DEI)
That said, diversity of individuals, minority of one. #HateLovesAbortion
Did it cover the average US black IQ being 86, is the teat. That's an alternative account for blacks on the average doing less well in material stuff than whites, which is the key data point for pervasive racism theory.
There is no debate in a struggle session. The smart ones shut up, endure, and think of England.
But maybe it was a "vigorous debate"
And maybe it’s just that you’ve been running with a bad crowd so long you don’t notice.
but, apparently, Wisconsin isn't totalitarian ENOUGH for its young people
Student at the Medical College in Wisconsin says if she can’t abort a FULL TERM baby she will leave Wisconsin.
"For some people that is full-term".
Any law school that mandates DEI training confirms that it does not have competent grasp of the U.S. Constitution and therefore should not be in the business of teaching law.
My biggest issue with these useless culture of the moment classes is that they waste student time and drive up education costs without providing any benefit.
In the midst of a student loan crisis (which is fed by spiraling tuition that is fed by spiraling financial aid programs that are driven by spiraling tuition...), it is an outrage that schools continue to squander money on vanity classes.
Ace had a great link to a Disney discussion that is very related yesterday.
"Sources tell us that with Raya and the Last Dragon, the goal wasn't to bring diversity, equity, and inclusion into the existing community of Disney animators but to replace it with a radicalized group of female activists completely.
[One] source also told us that once she expressed concerns about the mission of WiA, she found herself blacklisted from the industry (a prevalent story we've heard) and felt that WiA and similar organizations had become the gatekeepers for women to enter animation. It's not enough as an animator to be a talented female person of color; you have to be "WiA-Approved" and toe the line.
Another example of this new activist culture is the formation of a segregated women's committee that meets regularly to pitch ideas, network, vent, look at storyroom strategies, listen to guest speakers, and empower each other to take on leadership roles. Many of these sessions are sponsored by WiA and strictly for "female-identifying and non-binary people." Can you imagine going into a creative meeting knowing that half the room has already made all the decisions beforehand?
These meetings are literal war rooms as so-called creative sessions are now considered battlefields. Now, imagine if you disagreed with one of their ideas. Shots fired! I'm sure there's a large bag of "ists" nearby to hurl your way.
The mission of DEI is not equality...it's revenge. The final outcome is a complete takeover...a reset...of the entertainment industry as a whole."
Their future employment may well rely upon their email history?
Of course it is the job of law schools to tell students what to think rather than how to think. After all, if they learn how to think it puts the new legal system at risk. It might serve the people instead of lawyers and politicians.
If you had courage you would have written this piece.
What student in their right mind would push back against these zealots with such power over their future?
Well you seem to have asked for comment from previous students. It will be interesting to hear it.
Look at the layers of power that conduce toward propaganda. The ABA, the administration, the DEI department, the faculty, and the student social pressure to conform in order to be a part of the community. Lots of bennies in law schools are discretionary. No percentage in making yourself different.
Reading recommendation: The Crushing of Eastern Europe, by Anne Applebaum.
maybe they are so cowed by totalitarianism they're afraid to create any record of their objection to the process
If they emailed you at all I would expect it to be anonymous, certainly not from their school accounts. But honestly, I wouldn't expect anything at all, even if students did experience it as oppressive. People go to law school to get jobs. Anyone going to lawschool today knows the profession is cartoonishly left wing. This sort of indoctrination is priced in, along with the silly fairy tales lawyers tell ourselves about how good and respected and essential we are (apropos of the survey you posted showing our public reputation dropoing even further). You smile and nod your head.
Every law student knows why these trainings exist and why they are required to take them. And I'm sure the facilitators are pretty obvious about what they think the correct ways to think are. Law students aren't stupid and keep their heads down.
Or maybe, then again, it wasn't (a vigorous debate). Since attendance was mandatory, would that tend to spark interest and stimulate engagement, or encourage a sense of resignation?
The totalitarian characterization is a hysterical feminine gendered stereotype response. Given all of the feminine gendered stereotypical behaviors of the new republican party, it's no surprise that the loyalists are jumping down that rabid hole.
Here's a novel idea for law schools: Teach law.
Being attorneys, of course we want to know granular detail about what actually went on at this DEI session/training/discussion/indoctrination---whatever it is.
But since it hasn't been remotely possible to have an open conversation around race and "whiteness" in academia and most of society for at least twenty years, we have at least a rebuttable presumption that students would not be free to express any views contrary to the presenter's. Not without a high risk of incurring career and social murder.
The main point is that law students (or any college students) shouldn't be subjected to this in the first place.
Law students are there to learn the law and how to think like a lawyer. That's it.
This is a profound failure by the Dean at the College of Law.
We had similar “DEI training” at my company a few years ago. As it occurred shortly after a massive layoff, many were not inclined to debate against it. This also occurred around the Covid hysteria, so the training ended up being virtual.
As the conference call started, a discussion about name pronunciation occurred, as the company is multi-national and thus multi-cultural, and despite employees understanding differing dialects; we were educated that mispronouncing a person’s name was a micro-aggression. So much for those pesky Brit’s calling me Leyland, even if that is part of the etymology of my name.
We then watched a video in which children had core-memories taken of them playing with dolls with various skin colors. They were given nothing else to do but play with the dolls. At one point, a researcher asks the child, “which dolls is good and which is bad”. The video shows children wondering what the heck that has to do with their play, but when forced to answer they would hold up one doll as bad and one doll as good. We are then told that this experiment was repeatedly x times and the majority regardless of child’s skin color held up a dark skin doll as bad and a light skin doll as good. We were then put into breakout sessions with about 6 people in a call and told to discuss what we learned. Without any other guidance, most people said nothing in the session, but when pushed to provide an opinion, the discussion was about the flaws in the experiment as demonstrated to us.
That was mostly it for the session. The feedback for the training highlighted its lack of guidance and assumptions that something was a clear sign of aggression rather than a simple mistake. Overall, the training seemed very poor because it lacked rigor in preparation. It assumed that people would simply accept what they were told and draw conclusions from that acceptance, yet a very large majority (I would say 80%) questioned what we were told to accept, particularly the notion that we should be offended by someone defaulting to their culture to understand ours. What was really frustrating was most of the employees has greater experience working with various cultures than the trainers leading the discussion. Most of us had worked around the world, and the trainers had almost no experience outside the US.
DEI is the antithesis of Dr. Kings dream of judging people on their character and not their skin color. He must be spinning in his grave.
My first real exposure to this was in ~2009-2010, during business school, when an awesome ethics professor walked the class through a true ethical powerhouse workshop where he would equally push both sides of a situation and get the class on one side, then the other, and show the realities of how messy ethics can be and how important it is to carefully look at both sides.
He was removed from his position because a Black woman in the class did not like the way he treated her, while he was posturing and positioning the same to everyone and challenging them (sometimes rudely).
The shame of it was, he was a master at his craft - taking on both sides of an argument. Passionately. And with a strong understanding of the good points each side of an argument would make.
The race to tier 2 continues!
“… that law schools provide education to their students on "bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism."”
Who decides what racism means?
Would WILL continue to educate self-identified racists?
Speaking of indoctrination.
This'll make your day. In Britain no less.
https://twitter.com/CatchUpFeed/status/1749288724872200503?s=20
Speculation at its finest.
UW 1L students should be required to attend a cruel neutrality and free speech lecture by Ann Althouse!
Now that would be valuable.
Ann's fee? $10k.
My answers to the 7 instances would have been:
(1) Fuck off.
(2) Fuck off.
(3) Fuck off.
(4) Fuck off.
(5) Fuck off.
(6) Fuck off.
(7) You still here? How can I help you to fuck off?
The statement that this was interactive and open to free debate is a lie and everyone knows it. Any student who had answered like I would have above would have been brought up for disciplinary charges, ordered to take the session again and supply the politically correct answers, or expelled.
Well, apparently at least one student forwarded the materials to The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL).
Meanwhile, WILL partnered up with the Mountain States Legal Foundation to strike a requirement at UW-LaCrosse that all student organizations must sign a DEI statement. The mere threat of court action was enough and it was a win for free speech.
UW–La Crosse removes mandated DEI statements
Althouse, are you familiar with the organization (WILL)?
Certainly, there were "ample opportunities" to be smeared as a racist by disagreeing with the anti-white racism, but its doubtful anyone took the bait since they want a career.
Is there any evidence out there that these indoctrination sessions anywhere contain anything other than anti-white bigotry? Look at the worksheet. It goes out of its way to mischaracterize any hint of meaningful argument undercutting its premises and labels those ideas as racist (but not actually racist since it contends only whites can be racist). Mostly, it's just strawmen arguments. Nowhere on the sheet does it state that these are debatable contentions. No. It presents them as facts.
We just saw the John Hopkins Diversity Chief [is it ok to use the term "chief"] get busted sending out a anti-white newsletter as if there was nothing wrong it. The following apology was fake but the newsletter, like the UW handout, is s a clear example of how these evil racist people actually think.
Each time this DEI content get exposed, there are no examples of debate. The DEI folks never have to prove the premise of their ideas, which must be assumed on faith or else you're a bigot. The notion that there is a DEI seminar at UW that somehow doesn't include any of that racist anti-American bullshit is ridiculous. Look at the worksheet. They think you're stupid. The racist worksheet used in the course is real. The apologies or explanations are meant for public consumption and are utter BS.
Critical Racists' Theory (CRT) is a subset of Diversity (i.e. color judgments, class bigotry) exercised under liberal license as an article of faith in progressive sects, States.
Pure Marxism.
Certain minority groups need to deal with the reality of their lives and not force this bullshit on others...
In the 1800s most or all colleges were religious (i.e., Christians in the USA). With the rise of state schools, aggressive atheistic legal challenges, and the mainstreaming of college attendance for labor needs, secular school training took over.
DEI brought Sunday School, Holy Communion, and Vespers into secular state colleges. We need a 'consciousness raising' on the left to develop internal awareness that they actually founded a new religion.
I have no problem with religious training and requirements in religious schools. The main issue here is that contemporary DEI training is a {fringe} ideology that slipped into the mainstream only because of TDS and the establishment's defense of COVID mask-vax autocrats.
Quoting Larry rat-Fink for the second time in a few days:
"Behaviors are gonna have to change and this is one thing were asking companies. You have to force behaviors, and at BlackRock we are forcing behaviors," the CEO said.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/blackrock-ceo-slammed-force-behaviors-dei-initiatives
Force always works both ways. Invest accordingly. Choose schools accordingly.
"The session was interactive, with ample opportunities for students to engage in dialogue with each other. A core goal was to help students develop their critical thinking skills with respect to these topics."
In some venues, 'critical thinking' = 'critical theory.' Without hearing how the interaction happened, I won't presume to know, but considering how the current first year students were taught up through primary and secondary school, I can guess.
How about this for a law lesson:
The WI legislature should sue the UW System for violation of contract. The state legislators approved the UW budget on condition that it drop its DEI cult activity. Since the UW broke that agreement, they are in violation of contract.
Let the UW "vigorously debate" that.
One can't exclude the possibility that it was "a 'vigorous debate' — with 'ample opportunities' for student 'dialogue' and encouraging 'critical thinking,'" just as one can't exclude the possibility that pigs can fly. Imagine having to come up with seven significant moments--at least!--of significant life events around race, when you're only 22 years old. I'd have a hard time coming up with seven at more than three times that age, and really, in the grand scheme of things, how significant is it to get mugged?
Adam Schitt is a pile of excrement... and a punchline.... and a walking fraud.
"vigorous debate"
So, how far do you think a student who questioned the base premise behind DEI would get in the school? I think we can see how well that goes when people ask questions (see James Damore and Larry Summers) about important biological factors that should be at least reckoned with.
If "I am colorblind" is identified as a "common racist attitude" which is what the document seems to say, then don't we know how this is weighted. Am I misreading this? The response from the Law School is somewhat vague, purposely so, I would assume. Maybe if the list did not have a heading and was open to discussion and had some obvious nonsense in it to start discussion but we can probably guess that the heading says it all, no?
In my day, law students argued and debated vigorously and these "common" attitudes would have been laughed at. Today? maybe not so much, particularly when your reputation can be ruined by some social media twit accusing you of being racist or sexist because their feelings were "hurt".
These mandatory indoctrination sessions are despicable, the cottage industry that runs them is populated with grifters and fools.
Where is Lysander Spooner when you need him?
maybe they are so cowed by totalitarianism they're afraid to create any record of their objection to the process
I'd imagine their brains are already washed going in. Let's not kid ourselves that there is an open debate regarding DEI at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. They are being told what to think, and the boundaries of the thoughts they are allowed to have.
I'd imagine at UW, if you are accused of racism it's a scarlet letter; whether or not it is true.
"Colorblind" is now racist. Does that make MLK a racist?
Gusty Winds said...
"Colorblind" is now racist. Does that make MLK a racist?
didn't you get the memo? Not ONLY is MLK a racist; he is an uncle tom: no better than Clarence Thomas
If you don't Hate, and Despise America, there is No Place for YOU in (today's) America
Nothing says "let's have a vigorous debate" quite like starting off with "you're racist if you don't agree."
Leland said...
We had similar “DEI training” at my company a few years ago..
then Leyland (hehe) described IN DETAIL, that
Overall, the training seemed very poor..
But, of course, the Import Questions Are:
How Much did this cost the company (in fees, salaries, lost time, lost careers?)
How Many promotions (of HR folk) came about because of this?
How Much DOES DEI cost america?
"Dean Tokaji graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, with an A.B. degree in English and American Literature and Language and Philosophy, then earned a J.D. from Yale Law School. Dean Tokaji clerked for the Honorable Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A former civil rights lawyer, he has brought many free speech, racial justice, and voting rights cases over his career."
Harvard and Yale. Loser.
students had to fill out a "race timeline worksheet" with "7 significant moments at least" of "significant life events around race"
I'd list every school I applied to and didn't get in to, and tag it "discriminated against because they decided I'm just a white male"
and read a worksheet listing 28 "common racist attitudes and behaviors," including views like "I'm colorblind" and "We have overcome." A student who attended the session confirmed to me that WILL's reporting was broadly accurate.
And then I'd rip the shit out of that racist bullshit
The session was interactive, with ample opportunities for students to engage in dialogue with each other.
How about dialogue with the racist pigs running the show?
Whoever is the GOP nominee should vow to withhold all federal funds from schools who have DEI departments or programs.
If schools think DEI is so important, they can forgo that sweet federal cash.
But maybe it was a "vigorous debate" — with "ample opportunities" for student "dialogue" and encouraging "critical thinking" — as described by whoever that was who responded to Rozenshtein.
Yes, and maybe a unicorn will fly by and poop Skittles on you on your next walk.
I'm certain that the same people who claim it's absolutely necessary to censor all conservative views off of social media run struggle sessions , I mean "racial diversity discussion groups", where everyone is free to disagree with received "wisdom".
I do hope the sarcasm came through there.
Here's the "absence of evidence" that you actually can trust:
The fact that the UW Law Administrators did not send you any documents handed out at the struggle session that were less extreme than that "worksheet" tells you that no such document exists
My alma mater in DC, which is neck-deep into the DEI bullshit, keeps asking me to leave $$ to it in my will.
Fat chance: I wouldn't give them the stink off my............
I don't know how Turley continues to put up with it.
It was required.
So most students nodded their heads and regurgitated platitudes.
The ones who didn’t were too high or are True Believers.
But maybe it was a "vigorous debate" — with "ample opportunities" for student "dialogue" and encouraging "critical thinking" — as described by whoever that was who responded to Rozenshtein.
Maybe it was an, "I have to quietly sit here and pretend I'm paying attention because that's a requirement for getting a law degree at this school."
Will there be a test?
“mandatory DEI training for first-year law students at University of Wisconsin Law School”
Is racism illegal now?
Cruel and unusual punishment of people... persons who do not exercise liberal license to indulgence diversity dogma (i.e. color judgment, class bigotry) brayed in progressive sects under the Pro-Choice ethical religion. Take a knee, beg, donate, roll over, good boy. #HateLovesAbortion
"Any law school that mandates DEI training confirms that it does not have competent grasp of the U.S. Constitution and therefore should not be in the business of teaching law."
The good or bad points of DEI training aside--I know too little about it to state an informed opinion, (though this hasn't stopped other commenters from making all sorts of negative declarations)--how does the Constitution bear on what curriculum a law school chooses to include as part of its required curriculum?
"In the midst of a student loan crisis (which is fed by spiraling tuition that is fed by spiraling financial aid programs that are driven by spiraling tuition...), it is an outrage that schools continue to squander money on vanity classes."
This is a cogent criticism, although, if DEI issues become prevalent in legal disputes and law suits in the future, it may be helpful or even necessary for attorneys representing clients on either side of such disputes to have thorough understanding of the issues from a legal perspective. At the least, it might should (sic) be offered as an elective course.
I have been at my company 26 years (small company, 60 employees) in the South. I heard precisely one racist remark over those years. We have long had employees from India, various South American countries, and several open lesbians. When we had DEI training the implication given was that we were bad people because of all our "privilege" and we needed to become anti-racist activists. People got really upset. It is divisive.
"Here's a novel idea for law schools: Teach law."
What does that entail? What is or isn't within the purview of the law? How can you assume what "teach law" includes and excludes without knowing the content of each class offered in the curriculum?
"But maybe it was a "vigorous debate" — with "ample opportunities" for student "dialogue" and encouraging "critical thinking" — as described by whoever that was who responded to Rozenshtein."
Really? I haven't seen a single "vigorous" debate about ANY of the race/gender issues since 2008, when I watched a bunch of colleagues who were fully old-school, '60s-style feminists, and who just LOVED Hilary Clinton, get absolutely railroaded, shouted down, manipulated with fake crying, called "racist" (mostly) behind their backs, etc.* when they temporarily resisted jumping aboard the Obama bandwagon.
In very recent memory people were disciplined, forced to make groveling apologies, not re-hired, etc. for saying "All Lives Matter." Current first-year law students were college students during the Blessed Riots of St. Floyd and the subsequent spasmodic adoption of every lunatic item on the left-wing wish-list from mascot name changes, to removing an evil ROCK, to 'acknowledging' the tribes who massacred the other tribes before selling their captured land to settlers, to "decolonizing" things that were never "colonized" (like Shakespeare or Medieval Literature), to changing the name of Classics to GLAM** (I have made up none of these things).
So I don't believe for a moment that there was any actual debate about race or gender. If by chance anything was vigorous, it was certainly just the now-standard hyperbole competition to see who could get to the most extreme position first and then who could agree with that person the loudest.
*i.e., their own tactics were used against them brutally and remorselessly. Although I felt a twinge of sympathy when I saw the looks of betrayal on their faces when their younger "browner" colleagues turned on them so viciously, I also remembered what they had done to the well-meaning, Old Left, aging '60s radical men who were seen as standing in their way (not to mention what has been done to the only innocent victims in all of this: the non-political professors who had no interest in a revolution or a counter-revolution but just wanted to study and teach their subjects and be left alone).
** GLAM = "Greek, Latin, and Ancient Mediterranean." Dropping the name "Classics" is as big a self-own as dropping "Renaissance" was in favor of "Early Modern." (Every year I ask incoming students when they think the "Early Modern" period was; the consensus answer is "1900-1920.")
I don't see the problem for white students. Lead the entire class in worshipping DEI "standards". Amaze your classmates with your self-abnegation! Lie like Adam Schiff! After all, that's what lawyers seem to wind-up doing, isn't it? Lie like rugs?! Especially in D.C.?
Is racism illegal now?
Semantic legerdemain. Diversity is inclusive of racism.
"In my day, law students argued and debated vigorously ..."
Have you seen what the Negroes have done to debate competitions?
I thought that UW Law was freakishly leftist when I was there in the early 1990's. (I was one of Prof. Althouse's students.) That said, there were those who, while perhaps left of center, were actually interested in teaching the law. If they were consistently replaced with active ideologues, it could potentially have gotten worse.
Professor Althouse, you've been gone long enough the students won't know you. And based on the excerpt of the materials then it was pretty heavy-handed, a struggle session for none is without (political) sin and needs to atone.
“Look at the layers of power that conduce toward propaganda. The ABA, the administration, the DEI department, the faculty, and the student social pressure to conform in order to be a part of the community. Lots of bennies in law schools are discretionary. No percentage in making yourself different.”
Yes, but it makes it too easy to learn the wrong things. For a significant extent, what matters with lawyers is winning, and not acting PC, etc. Right now, it doesn’t help the proponents of the LawFare legal attacks to win their cases to just point out that Orange Man Bad. I have had other attorneys try to intimidate me. A thick skin is just part of being a decent lawyer. It’s not about you and your feelings, but rather it is about your client and their case. You can be sure that most, esp attractive, female attorneys have faced internal sexual harassment, because it works. You just don’t do it so that anyone else can see it, so if she complains, it is he says/she says, and she is just a weak kneed snowflake to complain. My partner’s best friend routinely tells apposing counsel that not only will he win, but is going to sweep the floor with them in court, and he is going to leave them crying like a baby, when e rips their heart out. And, of course, he succeeds there, after destroying their confidence.
Howard said:
"The totalitarian characterization is a hysterical feminine gendered stereotype response. Given all of the feminine gendered stereotypical behaviors of the new republican party, it's no surprise that the loyalists are jumping down that rabid hole."
For those of us not fluent in incoherence, could you please explain to us what in the hell you are rambling about?
Robert Cook said:
The good or bad points of DEI training aside--I know too little about it to state an informed opinion,
You should have stopped right there. Essentially you are admitting you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, but you keep going.
"(though this hasn't stopped other commenters from making all sorts of negative declarations)--how does the Constitution bear on what curriculum a law school chooses to include as part of its required curriculum?"
Oh, I dunno....Con Law just teaches a law student the basics of the Constitution and how it has been applied during the last 240-odd years , while DEI commands students to ignore the Founding Document and accept the crackpot claim that it sets up a system allowing all whites to be irredeemably racist and to oppress non-whites.
You're an asshole Cook: go read Kendi and the other DEI whackos and find out what DEI is all about.
Then report back to us when you decide they're right----that the US is fundamantally racist
and its white citizens (INCLUDING YOURSELF) are tainted with racist "Original Sin."
Because no one expects you to change the tiny little thing you call your "mind."
It's easy to be so dismissive of the real dehumanization of these things when they aren't done to you.
You're clearly incapable of respecting those who have had their lives destroyed by this crap.
Please don't pretend to be a defender of free speech anymore. That's just insult to injury. This isn't some cutesy little academic word game: it's our careers, income, reputation, and future employment on the line.
Must be nice to be one of the people who can treat this like the next shiny toy. But don't worry: they'll come for you too, sooner or later.
@Jupiter - Bravo for joining me in reclaiming the word “negro”!
From my experience going to law school, the vast majority of the students are progressives so they wouldn't complain about the DEI training because they already are indoctrinated. In fact, they enjoy these sessions because they allow for a certain amount of virtue signalling to their peers.
. . . maybe they are so cowed by totalitarianism they're afraid to create any record of their objection to the process, maybe oppression is so pervasive that they don't even know how to notice that they are oppressed, or maybe they've taken all the lessons to heart and genuinely believe that it is racist to resist indoctrination about racism and they don't want to be racist.
Or maybe academic leftists have completed its "long march through the institutions" -- including the admissions committee at that law school -- such that they've successfully culled the 1L class of anybody who holds contrary views to their orthodoxy of DEI and CRT.
Mr. T. said...
"Howard said:
"The totalitarian characterization is a hysterical feminine gendered stereotype response. Given all of the feminine gendered stereotypical behaviors of the new republican party, it's no surprise that the loyalists are jumping down that rabid hole."
For those of us not fluent in incoherence, could you please explain to us what in the hell you are rambling about?"
LOL! I looked at the time. 10:30 AM is a little early to be hitting the cooking sherry.
Ann is of the special class. Someday, someone will realize the size of her audience and offer her a choice. Given her recent behavior, I see her in a nice dacha with no consequences. Until she is of no use. See: Burnt by the Sun.
"...Con Law just teaches a law student the basics of the Constitution and how it has been applied during the last 240-odd years, while DEI commands students to ignore the Founding Document* and accept the crackpot claim that it sets up a system allowing all whites to be irredeemably racist and to oppress non-whites."
You offer an indignant temper tantrum and make a blanket claim about DEI but you do not explain how your claim is accurate or true. How does DEI "command students to ignore" the Constitution? Given systematized racial inequalities and injustice throughout our history, and that the Constitution allowed for slavery to be legally maintained, it cannot simply be asserted or assumed that the Constitution prohibits racial inequality and oppression of non-whites.
*(In caps...really? It isn't a holy relic, but a political document.)
"When we had DEI training the implication given was that we were bad people because of all our 'privilege' and we needed to become anti-racist activists. People got really upset. It is divisive."
Why take it so personally? Why draw that inference? All such HR-driven required "sensitivity" training offered by employers to their employees are simply a necessary and standard practice by which an employer officially affirms it is a non-discriminatory institution. It is a crucial element to defend against liability and support the employer's claim of not-guilty if one or more employees sue the employer for claims of racism or discriminatory treatment. It's a CYA self-defense policy allowing management to deny any bad acts at all or to separate the company from alleged bad acts of individuals within the company.
maybe they are so cowed by totalitarianism they're afraid to create any record of their objection to the process,
I would not want to leave any crumbs about my thoughts on race, CRT, DEI, etc.
Robert Cook said...
"When we had DEI training the implication given was that we were bad people because of all our 'privilege' and we needed to become anti-racist activists. People got really upset. It is divisive."
Why take it so personally? Why draw that inference?
Because we're not morons, and that's what's intended
Along with "never hire any white male ever again".
https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2024/01/only-candidates-of-color-need-apply/
That is DEI in action. It's evil, it's racist, and it's wrong
Robert Cook said...
"Any law school that mandates DEI training confirms that it does not have competent grasp of the U.S. Constitution and therefore should not be in the business of teaching law."
The good or bad points of DEI training aside--I know too little about it to state an informed opinion
That's one of the truest things you ever wrote
(though this hasn't stopped other commenters from making all sorts of negative declarations)
So, Mr Ignoramus, what is the special knowledge that allows you to decide that that rest of us do NOT know what we're talking about
--how does the Constitution bear on what curriculum a law school chooses to include as part of its required curriculum?
Let's rewrite that sentence for you:
how does the Constitution bear on what curriculum a State government run law school chooses to include as part of its required curriculum?
Gee, I don't know. Ever hear of the 14th Amendment? Ever hear that it imposes restrictions on what teh States can do? And that these limit extend to the schools, especially the post high school schools, that the State's run?
No, you're ignorant about that, too? Not that it stops you from shooting your mouth off?
The 1st Amendment as applied to the States via the 14th Amendment prevents States from forcing speech on people.
Whether or not a private school can force indoctrination sessions on teh stunts, a State school can NOT do so.
Since that's what this was, that makes it illegal, unconstitutional, and a violation of teh student's rights
Post a Comment