A few thoughts on the law school's absurd and bizarre reaction to an offensive word

Recently, a law student from the University of Maryland made a Facebook post that included an allegedly offensive word. At some point the student realized the post might be offensive. She took it down and apologized.

At some point (whether before or after the apology is unclear), the administration of the law school became aware of the post and the Dean sent the following email:

Dear Members of the Community: 

It has come to my attention that a racially offensive term appeared on one of our student’s Facebook page. Among the features that most attracted me to this law school was the community’s longstanding commitment to diversity and to the highest levels of professionalism as part of its core values. https://www.umaryland.edu/about-umb/strategic-plan/about/core-values/.  Racially offensive remarks have no place in the discourse of those who aspire to become guardians of the legal profession. This student is now aware of the offending nature of the post, and is appropriately contrite. In consultation with members of the administration, the student is taking appropriate affirmative steps to convey apologies, and the student has recognized the gravity of the offense. 

Being a part of the profession of law is a great privilege, and it carries with it considerable responsibility. This includes sensitivity to the manner in which each of us comports himself or herself privately and in public. In addition, posts on social media remain there indefinitely and can continue to harm others. I cannot emphasize strongly enough the importance of giving great thought to anything you intend to post, e-mail, or tweet. In the era of social media, this is part of professional responsibility. 

Donald B. Tobin
Dean and Professor of Law

The exact text of the post has not been made public, but the student apologized to the law school community in a mass email:

...I posted about my new access to Wi-Fi, flippantly mentioning an old neighbor and their inappropriate choice for a network name. I later realized how offensive it was, so I deleted it and posted an apology....

The offensive word this student used in her Facebook post was the WiFi network name of an old neighbor. According to this student, the context of her post was to point out that the network name was inappropriate. Maybe it wasn't smart for this student to use an offensive word in her Facebook post. In that case, the student's apology to her Facebook friends certainly seems like enough. A lecture by the Dean and a school-wide apology seems a bit much, no? Context matters here, doesn't it?!

Nonetheless, the Student Bar Association sent a follow-up email strongly condemning any use of "certain words, phrases, and symbols carry with them an abhorrent history of a violence, discrimination, and oppression...These words are INHERENTLY wrong, in and of themselves...." More: "these words...directly represent a system of unfathomable injustice whose dregs continue to linger in the lives of every single American." The SBA explains how we should be offended: "Terms categorically saturated with racial animus should offend each and every one of us." I suppose it's not appropriate for me to determine what's offensive to me.

We are in the age of the Offending of America, where every week comes a new thing to be outraged about. Even so, this situation is absurd and the reactions by the Dean and the Student Bar Association are bizarre. This reaction ignores the reality and context of the situation to push a heavy-handed message that, in my opinion, chills the discussion of anything that might be considered offensive. Steer clear of any words that might be offensive because your career depends on it. Got it.

Yes, Rev. Jackson, I'm ready for that honest conversation about race in America

Talk about tone deaf:

An open letter to people of all races about the George Zimmerman case

I have no idea what happened between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. None of us do, except George Zimmerman. We weren't there.

I have no idea if George Zimmerman is a racist. None of us do, except George Zimmerman. We weren't there.

I have no idea if George Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin. None of us do, except George Zimmerman. We weren't there.

I have no idea if George Zimmerman stalked Trayvon Martin. None of us do, except George Zimmerman. We weren't there.

I have no idea if George Zimmerman started a fight with Trayvon Martin. None of us do, except George Zimmerman. We weren't there.

It is entirely possible that George Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon Martin, followed and stalked him, started a fight, got his ass kicked, and then killed Trayvon Martin. 

That is also entirely consistent with a not guilty verdict when the evidence does not prove the prosecution's case beyond a reasonable doubt.

You can believe that this case is a message about race relations. But before you do that, ask yourself who injected race into this case.

Despite what the NAACP and others would have you believe, this case has never been about Stand Your Ground. Zimmerman turned down a SYG hearing. The lawyers on both sides acknowledged this case was not about SYG.

In the end, it comes down to this simple fact: the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Period.

"Justice" may get you your day in court. It does not guarantee you the verdict you think you deserve.

This verdict does not weaken our system of justice, it strengthens it. It affirms that we would rather have ten guilty people go free rather than send an innocent man to prison.

Law in Plain English: Shelby County v. Holder

This is one in a series of posts designed to describe court decisions in plain English. For more detail and background on the legal issues, see the link to the case below. For similar posts, click here.

See here for a previous discussion and more background on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act.

Shelby County v. Holder

In 2006, Congress reauthorized Section 5 the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which kept in place a pre-existing coverage formula in Section 4(b) which determined which jurisdictions are required see seek preclearance for changes to voting procedures. Shelby County, Alabama filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Voting Rights Act (specifically, Sections 4(b) and 5) were unconstitutional. The District Court disagreed and granted summary judgment to the Attorney General. A divided Court of Appeals affirmed. The question before the Court was whether Congress’ decision to reauthorize Section 5 of the VRA under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the VRA exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act t is unconstitutional; its formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance. As a result, Congress cannot use the VRA's existing preclearance formula to single out jurisdictions--they must use data about current conditions.

Clarence Thomas, affirmative action, and Brown v. Board of Education

From Justice Thomas's concurrence in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin:

The University’s arguments today are no more persuasive than they were 60 years ago. Nevertheless, despite rejecting identical arguments in Brown, the Court in Grutter deferred to the University’s determination that the diversity obtained by racial discrimination would yield educational benefits. There is no principled distinction between the University’s assertion that diversity yields educational benefits and the segregationists’ assertion that segregation yielded those same benefits.  Educational benefits are a far cry from the truly compelling state interests that we previously required to justify use of racial classifications.

...

My view of the Constitution is the one advanced by the plaintiffs in Brown: “[N]o State has any authority under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.”

...

Although cloaked in good intentions, the University’s racial tinkering harms the very people it claims to be helping.

Law in Plain English: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

This is one in a series of posts designed to describe court decisions in plain English. For more detail and background on the legal issues, see the link to the case below. For similar posts, click here.

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

Any Texas resident who graduates from high school in the top ten percent of their class is automatically admitted to the University of Texas (the "Top Ten Percent Plan"). The remaining spots are filled by students based on a number of other factors, including race. When Fisher was denied admission, she filed a lawsuit alleging that considering race discriminated against her because is white. She alleged that the Top Ten Percent Plan already resulted in making the University a highly diverse institution, and that considering race among the factors for the remainder of students was unconstitutional racial balancing. The question before the Court was whether the University's use of race in admissions decisions as a means of affirmative action violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a 7-1 decision (with Justice Kagan recused), the Supreme Court ruled that because the Fifth Circuit did not hold the University to the demanding burden of strict scrutiny articulated in Grutter and Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265, its decision affirming the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the University was incorrect. As a result, the case will return to the Fifth Circuit for another look. The practical impact of this decision is that the Court did not directly rule on the merits--this is a compromise decision that will be taken up again next term in a different case.

Quiz time: Can you answer this question?

See if you can answer this test question:

Q: When operating in a building which uses a standpipe system, it is necessary for a firefighter to maintain adequate pressure at the nozzle of the firefighting stream. The correct nozzle pressure is calculated by adding an additional 5 psi (pound per square inch) for each length of hose that is being used, to a constant starting base of 50 psi.

A firefighting team is operating in a building with a standpipe system and is in the process of using 4 lengths of hose. The correct nozzle pressure that needs to be applied in this situation is: A) 50 psi, B) 60 psi, C) 70 psi, D) 80 psi.

Answer below the break...

Race and ethnicity in Baltimore

This is a map which shows race and ethnicity in Baltimore City and the surrounding areas. Each dot represents 25 people; Red is White, Blue is Black, Green is Asian, Orange is Hispanic, Gray is Other. Data from Census 2000. Base map © OpenStreetMap, CC-BY-SA. Map is from Eric Fischer.  Click here to view the largest version of the map.