In light of the latest developments in the Patty O’Herald kerfuffle, including the SBA’s official statement and the release of a new issue of the Patty O (above), I thought now would be a good time to revisit the substance of the controversy. After the jump, I’ve quoted in full the official BLSA resolution condemning the controversial article. But first, I want to say a couple of things.

You may recall that things got rather nasty in the comments on my initial post about this. I want to apologize for my part in allowing that to happen. I made two major mistakes: first of all, I responded to personal accusations/attacks by upping the ante with further personal accusations/attacks, rather than taking the issue offline and discussing privately and civilly what really started out as largely just a simple misunderstanding. I’ve since made peace with the people involved in that side of things, and we’ve all expressed regret that the discussion developed the way it did. So, case closed, issue over, as far as I’m concerned, with regard to the personal stuff.

Secondly and more fundamentally, I made the mistake of coming flying out of the gate with accusations about people being “thin-skinned” and “easily offended” without even hearing their side of the story. It’s one thing to blog in that sort of combative fashion when dealing with a distant controversy involving people I don’t know, but in a controversy involving my friends, classmates and peers, I should have anticipated how explosive this issue was, and toned down the rhetoric at least until I had a clearer idea of the other side’s position. I, of course, reserve the right to say that people are overreacting if that’s what I honestly believe, but I should have made more of an effort to at least hear the other side out before condemning their position. A strong indicator of my failure to do so is that I still, more than three months later, really don’t have a good sense of precisely what is the position of the offended parties. In view of which…

I’m genuinely curious what exactly it is about the controversial article that was considered so offensive. I’m open to the possibility that there’s a reasonable interpretation whereby it is offensive — I’m just not seeing it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Here’s how I framed the issue in a comment on another student’s blog (I’m not linking to it because I believe the blog is sort of quasi-private) last December, trying to be more diplomatic than I initially was on this blog:

While I certainly agree that “there’s just something inherently wrong with perpetuating racial/ethnic stereotypes,” for me the fundamental question is whether the article was perpetuating stereotypes, or mocking them. In my opinion, it was the latter, and I believe that’s perfectly OK — indeed, laudable! Stereotypes suck, and they should be mocked!

You mentioned that you respect me, and I appreciate that. I respect you too, and I respect lots of people who disagree with me on this. Yet I don’t really understand your position. Maybe if we break this issue down, we can come to some sort of understanding about why we disagree…

Surely you would agree that, in some circumstances, it is OK to mention stereotypes — simply for the purpose of debunking them, not spreading them. (After all, if we can’t even talk about them, how can we possibly discredit them?)

The question then becomes: 1) whether satire is ever an acceptable means of debunking stereotypes, and 2) if so, whether this particular article was intended as that sort of satire, and 3) if so, whether it succeeded in its intention. I think the answer to the first question is clearly and unequivocally yes, the answer to the second question is also clearly yes, and the answer to third question is debatable. I wonder which answers you would disagree with?

I personally feel that the article was clearly satirizing the stereotypes, not perpetuating them. Obviously, lots of people disagree with me about that. I’ve yet to really hear a compelling counterargument from the folks who were offended, explaining why this particular article was so offensive even though on its face, it appears to be satirizing stereotypes, and I think most people would agree that stereotypes deserve to be satirized. But, although I haven’t heard a compelling counterargument, I don’t doubt that one exists.

I also added, in response to a question, that “no, I wouldn’t feel differently if it involved stereotypes of Arabs or Jews (or Irish people, or whomever), for precisely the same reason. Making fun of stereotypes, making the stereotypes themselves look foolish, is perfectly OK, and does not ‘perpetuate’ the stereotypes.”

The fellow student to whom I wrote that comment never responded in full, as finals intervened before we could really finish our discussion. But — if the statute of limitations for debating this issue hasn’t passed already :) — I’m curious what anyone else who was offended by the article thinks about the points I made and the questions I asked.

And now, as promised, after the jump, the BLSA resolution condemning the article. I scanned it from a paper document, so if there are any obvious typos, they’re probably artifacts of the scanning process. I think I caught them all, though.

(more…)

Florida’s Kari Klinkenborg: America’s hottest student-athlete? Yeah, like Florida needs any more national titles. But SI On Campus says she deserves the title, and who am I to argue? (More photos here.)

P.S. Speaking of hotties, it looks like Dwight King is going to lose the Law Librarian Hotties contest to Fordham’s Larry Reeves, though the polls are still open, as far as I know. Meanwhile, in the female-librarians contest, it’s a tight race between the Library of Congress’s Abigail Rudman and the U.S. Supreme Court’s Joy Hanson.

1LG weighs in on Propertygate: “For $40,000 a year I deserve to be taught not just by brilliant people but brilliant teachers. I also deserve to be graded using a fair and adequate system which is (to the extent that it can be) unarbitrary and nondiscriminatory.” She adds:

For those of you who think [the petition] is a drastic step, I respectfully disagree. In addition to students communicating their concerns to the administration and the SBA, the SBA president, as a liaison, has also been involved and has met repeatedly with deans etc. So far there has been no solid answer as to why the situation happened or whether the faculty will seriously address the lack of any sort of TA policy. In fact, according to the meeting today, the faculty committee has put this issue on the back burner until the end of the semester.

After going through the representative method (the SBA) and not getting answers, I think a petition is a completely adequate way of voicing a concern.

1LG adds that the problem is not “the use of TAs,” but “the apparent abuse of a TA system in this instance.” She later explains, “The abuse of the TA system has occurred in this instance, I believe, because students are relying entirely on a TA’s teaching of the class, rather than the professor. I think the administration knew this was likely to happen. TAs, if used, should supplement a class; I don’t pay $40K a year to be taught a required, fundamental first year course by a 2L.”

As always, rebuttals — both anonymous and otherwise — are welcomed. I’m not staking out an opinion about this issue one way or the other; I’m just trying to provide a forum for discussion. Thus far, the only people who seem to be speaking out publicly are the ones who are complaining, and that’s why they’ve been featured more prominently than any defenders of the current system.

NDLS’s very own Dwight King is a finalist in Above the Law’s Law Librarian Hotties contest. Make sure you check out Dwight’s nomination and vote for him at the bottom of the page!

Note: You can vote more than once if you use a different browser each time you vote (e.g., you can vote once using Internet Explorer and once using Firefox).

UPDATE: Here, I’ll make it easier for y’all:

With Week 5 of Law School Bowling looming tonight, it occurs to me that I never got around to blogging about last week’s bowling milestone: I set a new career high!

My score was a 141, breaking my previous high of 138. As you can see above, I got strikes on the eighth and ninth frames — then failed to fully take advantage of them, by getting just a 7 on the tenth frame. D’oh! As Chris observed, I “left so many pins out there!” Suppose, for example, that I had gotten a strike on the tenth frame (for my first-ever turkey) followed by a 9-1 spare: I would have gotten a 170. Even picking up the spare (6-4) on the tenth frame, and following it by, say, an 8, would have resulted in a 155.

But maybe it’s just as well. By managing “only” a 141, I made it easier to break my record again. :) I’ll be aiming for a 142 tonight (and also continuing by quixotic quest for a turkey).

More on my 141 in a moment, but first, a cute-girl-related anecdote, with photo illustration:

That’s birthday-girl Toni in the center of the photo, with Sophia at left and behind her. Both are on the all-girls “Knockouts” bowling team, and after I’d bowled my 141 and a subsequent 102 (ugh), I was drafted as a ringer for the Knockouts. I just happened to be walking by their lane (actually, I think I had gone over to wish Toni a happy birthday), and one of the ladies asked if I wanted to bowl for her. I said sure… and proceeded to bowl a strike. They went nuts (and even for a happily married man, there’s something uniquely ego-boosting about a bunch of cute girls cheering for you) and asked me to go again. I did, and got a 9-1 spare. I think I ended up bowling six consecutive frames on their lane — and getting two strikes, three spares and a 9. Without a doubt, the best six frames of my bowling “career.” I was declared an “Honorary Knockout” and invited to bowl on their lane anytime. Heh.

On a marginally related note, here’s a photo of me and Toni the next day, at her Friday birthday party:

(more…)

Today’s reading for ConCrimPro includes Samson v. California, 126 S.Ct. 2193 (2006), in which Justice Stevens writes in dissent: “Combining faulty syllogism with circular reasoning, the Court concludes that parolees have no more legitimate an expectation of privacy in their persons than do prisoners.”

What I read that sentence, my immediate conclusion was that “combining faulty syllogism with circular reasoning” would make a great slogan for certain blogs. For example… “Daily Kos: combining faulty syllogism with circular reasoning since 2002!” ;)

[Bumped to top. -ed.]

In case the latest developments in the Patty O kerfuffle weren’t enough NDLS controversy for one day, here’s another, bigger issue that I’ve only recently become aware of. It seems roughly half the 1L class isn’t happy with the way Property is being taught this semester, due to a highly unusual situation (by law-school standards) in which student TAs are reportedly playing a substantial role in teaching the class and grading students’ work.

Rather than getting into the details, I’ll let the 1Ls’ exquisitely drafted petition to the Dean tell the story. You can read it in full (along with the letter that accompanied it in a mass e-mail to the Class of ‘09 last night) after the jump.

(more…)

Heh.

[Bumped up a bit. -ed.]

An update on the Patty O’Herald kerfuffle from last semester… this morning, we got this e-mail from the SBA:

Last semester, the Patty O’Herald took a different tone than it has in the last two years, departing from its more “news and information” nature to take a “satirical” look at life at NDLS. A number of the articles published in the Patty O’ last semester offended members of the student body, faculty, and administration. The SBA Board took this matter under advisement and closely evaluated the role that the SBA should play in publishing a wholly satirical newsletter. The SBA Board is a governing body, and as such it exists to represent the interests of every member of the NDLS student body. The Board does not believe that this job includes publishing satire. Therefore, the SBA Board has voted to remove the position of Patty O’ editor from the Board. In so doing, the SBA encourages the current editor…to begin publishing the Patty O’ as an independent newsletter. The SBA will begin to publish a weekly update that will be posted in the bathroom stalls and will provide law school news and information. As soon as the Patty O’ is an “unofficial publication” (to subsequently become a “student media publication” per the Du Lac Code), it will be reviewed for SBA funding similar to the manner in which all other law school organizations receive student funding.

The big unanswered question, based on that e-mail, is whether the newly “unofficial” Patty O will be able to keep posting in the bathrooms.

Incidentally, I have a copy of the resolution that BLSA passed condemning last semester’s controversial “P-Dizzle” article. I’ve been meaning to blog the text of the resolution, but haven’t gotten around to it. Now that this controversy is back on everyone’s radar again, I’ll try to type it up soon and post it here.

UPDATE: It should be noted that the first sentence of the SBA’s e-mail — “Last semester, the Patty O’Herald took a different tone than it has in the last two years, departing from its more ‘news and information’ nature to take a ’satirical’ look at life at NDLS” — is arguably false, or at least misleading. The Patty O’Herald has always been a satirical newspaper, at least since I’ve been here (and I remembering seeing it, and thinking it was funny, when I visited in fall of 2003 as well). In prior years, it had some elements of “news and information,” moreso than this year, but it was still primarily satire, as indeed its title (a play on the name of the law school’s dean, Patty O’Hara) indicates. What set the Patty O apart in fall 2006 wasn’t that it suddenly became satirical, but that the satire became edgier, more biting, arguably more offensive, and in many cases at least, quite a bit funnier.

There are 52 Bengal Bouts fights tonight, three of them featuring NDLS students:

Patrick Salvi, 163lb. Weight Division, around 9:30pm in the Main Boxing Arena

Colin Dougherty, 175lb. Weight Division, around 10:15pm in the Main Boxing Arena

Geoffrey Spiess, Super Heavyweight Division, around 8:45pm in the Boxing Room (between Gates 1 and 2 in the JACC, downstairs–near the fieldhouse)

Good luck, guys! Goooo Law Students, Beeeeat (Up) Undergrads!

Dmytro’s Bengal Bout is tonight at the Joyce, shortly after 6:30 PM. Whomp Wemple!

Fellow 3L Dmytro Aponte, a.k.a. “Fists of Furry,” is competing tomorrow — for the third straight year — in Bengal Bouts, Notre Dame’s intramural boxing competition. Tomorrow’s matches get started at 6:30 PM at the Joyce Center, and Dmytro is in the third match. He’s up against freshman Danny Wemple. Methinks the law students in attendance need to get a “WHOMP WEMPLE” chant started.

Other law students competing in this year’s Bengal Bouts, according to Dmytro, include Tom Hardman, Pat Salvi, Raphael Flood and Geoff Spiess. Tickets can be purchased at the door, or from one of the participants (though Dmytro says he’s all sold out).

Anyway, GOOOO APONTE! BEEEEAT WEMPLE! TOOOO A BLOODY PULP! :)

The second of the Class of 2007’s every-ten-days parties leading up to graduation is tonight, starting at 9:30, at the famous (or perhaps infamous) “frat house” that’s home to a dozen wild and crazy 3Ls. That’s at 534 Carroll Street, and all the cool kids are going. :) I’ll probably at least make an appearance. The organizers ask that you bring refreshments. The theme is “Monday is so close to the weekend that it’s all good to be tired on Tuesday… or something.” Personally, I would suggest the alternative theme, “We’re 3Ls, who the f*** cares?” ;) As always, all classes are welcome.

Three of my classmates and good friends, Toni Mardirossian, Kevin Moot and Jimmy Paulino, won the Region 8 championship of the National Trial Competition in Champaign, Illinois over the weekend. Congrats to them!! Couldn’t have happened to nicer trio of future lawyers. They’ll be heading to Houston next month for the national championship, from March 28-31. Good luck!

Also: I forgot to post about this previously, but law-school intramural team “Tainted Fruit,” led by Captain Meg Tierney (another fellow 3L and friend of mine), won the Women’s Indoor Soccer championship last week with an 17-11 victory. (I guess indoor soccer is a bit higher-scoring than regular soccer… heh.) In addition to Meg, the team members are: Meghan Brown, Erin Groeber, Kate McGinn, Kim Carpenter, Lauren Galgano, Sarah Moore, Jessica Laux, Danielle Loss and Kirsten Walker. Congrats to them, too!

UPDATE: And another thing! As noted in comments, 3Ls and regular blog readers Emily Chang and Seth Carmack (a damn nice guy, despite the fact he’s a Bruin :) won the Region 7 championship of the ABA Client Counseling Competition. They, too, advance to the national championship, also next month, also in Texas (but in this case, Dallas).

All hail NDLS! :)

Please inform your professors that they cannot start “going over” assigned class materials three minutes after class ended.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Law Students