43rdSB: UI Law School Not To Blame

Seven comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  duroc on February 10 at 8:42 a.m.

  Is this a trick question, DFO? It very obviously was the fault of the legislators, and not the UI College of Law.

  I recommend that anyone interested in this situation read Sisyphus’ excellent write-up (thanks for the link, DFO) about the background of this situation, the botched attempt at “journalism” coming from the Idaho Reporter regarding the situation, and the absolutely uninformed bully tactics of the 21 signatories of the ridiculous letter to Dean Burnett.

  More embarrassing behavior from our Idaho Legislature. They certainly never let their own ignorance prevent them from meddling (and making things worse).

• 

  DFO on February 10 at 8:50 a.m.

  @ Duroc re: “Is this a trick question, DFO?”

  Sometimes the answer is so easy that the question appears to be a trick one …

• 

  Sisyphus on February 10 at 10:51 a.m.

  Thanks, both of you.

  As I reflect on this, I’m thinking these legislators really need to do some damage control lest the accreditation committee get wind of this. They aren’t due to make the decision on accreditation for a month yet, but if they see that letter by the legislators, they may conclude that issues of professionalism and resistance to incorporating diversity aren’t confined to a handful of students. They might conclude that this is a top down institutional problem in the state of Idaho. Those legislators ought to start with a formal apology to Dean Burnett for going off half cocked. Failure to do damage control could have serious consequences for the school, for the currently enrolled students, and Idaho’s reputation.

• 

  Sisyphus on February 10 at 11:35 a.m.

  You should also know that one of the offending students has been identified in my comment section.

• 

  Dudethebagman on February 11 at 10:18 p.m.

  Answer: the Dean was responsible.

  While I have sympathy for his position regarding the ABA’s concerns and the reality of recruiting students in Idaho, he bungled the situation badly.

  How? Right out of the gate, he insulted the entire student body and DID threaten to impugn the reputation of students who refused to go to the 75-minute training. The student body, the vast majority of whom are not bigots, first heard about this situation in the Dean’s threatening late-night email (the one where he apologized for his “tone,” but let the threat stand). That email felt like an accusation that there is something wrong with us. For the most part, there isn’t. The way he imposed the thing makes it feel like a punishment.

  The threat, not the substance of the diversity “dialogues,” is what pissed the students off. After he “apologized” for his “tone” in the Student Bar Association meeting, he was asked to reconsider the threat of the note in our permanent records (that record is disclosed to the bar’s character and fitness committee and could influence our admission to practice). He could have still made the meeting mandatory, taken attendance, and provided a carrot instead of a stick. He could have just explained that this was a accreditation issue, and that it would be in all of our best interests to go. But no, he wouldn’t back down and intended to follow through with his coercion in the same manner that pissed a fair number of us off in the first place.

  Consequently, a group of UI Law students (not all were a part of this) contacted the legislature and asked for help in an attempt to pressure the Dean to reconsider. THE LEGISLATORS RESPONDED TO THESE STUDENTS’ REQUEST WITH THE LETTER. The Dean responded with his fine example of diplomacy, but still refused to yield. Then the media was contacted. Quite possibly in retaliation. It was a urinating match between a stubborn administrator and a stubborn student body. None escaped unsoaked. Everyone loses in those kinds of scenarios. The Dean’s scorched-earth coercion created a scorched-earth coercive response from the student body. Perhaps we learned from his example of professionalism and treating others with respect.

  If he hadn’t pissed us off so much, or at least reconsidered his threat after the SBA meeting, the flap would have gone away. Any further drama is a result of his heavy-handedness. You can’t treat adults in the manner he did and expect smiling compliance. We’re independent-minded adults. You have to level and reason with us, not treat us like 11 year-olds and threaten to take Christmas away.

• 

  Dudethebagman on February 11 at 10:19 p.m.

  I can’t emphasize strongly enough that the resistance to the dialogue HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RESISTANCE TO DIVERSITY AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH RESISTANCE TO THE COERCIVE METHODS THE DEAN USED. The fact that a lot of otherwise smart people can’t help but conflate the issues makes the threatened note’s implications to the Bar’s character and fitness committee even more obvious. Otherwise smart people can’t seem to separate resistance to being threatened with bigotry. It’s not the same thing. He could have attempted to coerce us into a 75-minute discussion of ANYTHING and gotten a similarly resistant response. But the implication that we’re bigots if we don’t cave to his pressure made this especially maddening. I don’t think he really thought this through.

  Perhaps there’s a subtext to the resistance that’s especially insulting to the generally intelligent students populating the school: that you don’t win hearts and mind through threats to attend a 75-minute lecture on diversity. It’s just too stupid. If someone hasn’t learned to treat others with respect by their mid-20’s - 30’s, they likely aren’t going to be swayed in another 75 minutes. This leads me (and others) to believe that this is nothing more than a PR stunt overreacting to a bad situation instigated by a few bad apples. A 75-minute meeting will only put a gloss on the situation. It won’t change the climate, and it won’t persuade the committed bigot.

  If UI has a cultural problem of not respecting other’s viewpoints (and that may be the case, law schools are factional environments full of aspiring culture warriors), that should be something the admissions committee should consider in their decisions. But in reality, there’s going to be a few bad apples in every bunch, Idaho or elsewhere.

  Note - I don’t represent UI Law or the entirety of its student body. These are my views based on my ACTUAL EXPERIENCE, not the media-derived conjecture I’m reading here.

• 

  Dudethebagman on February 11 at 10:24 p.m.

  By the way, I am NOT conservative. This has little to do with political ideology or diversity, and much to do with resistance to being bullied.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic