In news at W&L Law School... Forum

[BankruptMe]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/edu ... story.html

"“They assured me it was a welcoming environment where everyone sticks together as a community,” Taylor said. “Then I came here and felt ostracized and alienated.”

Taylor is among a group of students who have urged the board of trustees to make the university more welcoming for minority students. Known collectively as the Committee, the students wrote a letter to the trustees with a list of “demands,” promising acts of civil disobedience if they see no action before Sept. 1.

The students want Confederate flags removed from the chapel. They also want administrators to ban Confederate reenactors and sympathizers from campus on the Lee-Jackson holiday in Virginia, and they ask that the university’s undergraduate school cancel classes on Martin Luther King Jr. Day."

Funny, W&L told me when I applied the same thing. Thoughts?

[SFrost]

Basically, they want the school to make a bunch of arbitrary changes to appease them or they threaten to break the law?

This doesn't bode well for their future as lawyers.

[wlee1220]

I don't really know how to feel about this. On one hand, I would hate to be in an environment where I felt ostracized because I was Black and my school was a shrine to Robert E. Lee; on the other hand I have heard from other URMs there that this Committee is over-sensationalizing things to create controversy.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Basically, they want the school to make a bunch of arbitrary changes to appease them or they threaten to break the law?

This doesn't bode well for their future as lawyers.

I don't think the changes are really arbitrary.

[arklaw13]

In other news, is there any particular reason why an AA would want to go to W&L? I mean it's not like it's Bob Jones University, but still far from the most racially inclusive environment imaginable. I'm trying to imagine an AA & family vising W&L's campus. I can't do it.

[El Principe]

In other news, is there any particular reason why anyone AA would want to go to W&L?

[BankruptMe]

In other news, is there any particular reason why an AA would want to go to W&L? I mean it's not like it's Bob Jones University, but still far from the most racially inclusive environment imaginable. I'm trying to imagine an AA & family vising W&L's campus. I can't do it.

Lol I applied and got dinged after thorough review. They told me that they are diverse and not to worry.

They have a strong rep inside VA. That is all I heard growing up is how W&L is elite and on a whole other level

[kaiser]

The school has a certain history and culture, and none of that was a secret to the students before they put down the deposit. The school is named after the Confederate general, for gods sake. So you are going to get a certain level of "appreciation" for that heritage at the school.

And of course the school will claim to be welcoming and tolerant. They are trying to sell you an insanely expensive product. You think they are going to note the possible negatives? Some things they can't possibly spin since they are facts (though they do a pretty good job of manipulating those as well), but opinions are opinions, and of course they can and will say the environment is welcoming.

[SFrost]

Basically, they want the school to make a bunch of arbitrary changes to appease them or they threaten to break the law?

This doesn't bode well for their future as lawyers.

I don't think the changes are really arbitrary.

They want to ban people from reenacting one of the most important events in our country's history, of which the school is named after a major figure of that event.

Maybe we have different definitions of arbitrary.

[sunsheyen]

Basically, they want the school to make a bunch of arbitrary changes to appease them or they threaten to break the law?

This doesn't bode well for their future as lawyers.

I don't think the changes are really arbitrary.

They want to ban people from reenacting one of the most important events in our country's history, of which the school is named after a major figure of that event.

Maybe we have different definitions of arbitrary.

ar·bi·trary adjective \ˈär-bə-ˌtrer-ē, -ˌtre-rē\
: not planned or chosen for a particular reason : not based on reason or evidence

: done without concern for what is fair or right

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary

[SFrost]

Basically, they want the school to make a bunch of arbitrary changes to appease them or they threaten to break the law?

This doesn't bode well for their future as lawyers.

I don't think the changes are really arbitrary.

They want to ban people from reenacting one of the most important events in our country's history, of which the school is named after a major figure of that event.

Maybe we have different definitions of arbitrary.

ar·bi·trary adjective \ˈär-bə-ˌtrer-ē, -ˌtre-rē\
: not planned or chosen for a particular reason : not based on reason or evidence

: done without concern for what is fair or right

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary

How convenient you leave off the part of the definition that completely supports me in this context:

1
: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary>

Even declaring something racist is a moral judgement (which are always arbitrary). Even worse, deciding specifically which racist things to ban in the south (there's a lot to choose from, trust me) makes it doubly arbitrary.

Let me reemphasize: these people have threatened civil disorder and law breaking to enforce their arbitrary demands upon an institutions tradition; traditions that were predictable and known before they joined.

[A. Nony Mouse]

No, deciding something is racist isn't arbitrary, and moral judgments aren't inherently arbitrary. Just because you don't agree with what the students are challenging doesn't make it arbitrary.

[sunsheyen]

ar·bi·trary adjective \ˈär-bə-ˌtrer-ē, -ˌtre-rē\
: not planned or chosen for a particular reason : not based on reason or evidence

: done without concern for what is fair or right

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary

How convenient you leave off the part of the definition that completely supports me in this context:

1
: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary>

Even declaring something racist is a moral judgement (which are always arbitrary). Even worse, deciding specifically which racist things to ban in the south (there's a lot to choose from, trust me) makes it doubly arbitrary.

Let me reemphasize: these people have threatened civil disorder and law breaking to enforce their arbitrary demands upon an institutions tradition; traditions that were predictable and known before they joined.

Well since you are against cherry picking definitions--which I didn't do, just quoted the main information listed on that page, refer to the rest of the accepted definitions. They all refer in some way to a randomly assigned desire/choice without a foundation in reason/law. Requests to eliminate practices that create a threatening/oppressive environment, i.e., decisions based on a reason, are not arbitrary.

Please stop trying to be an argumentative asshole. I know you used the word arbitrary in the initial post and feel you have to stick by it, but you are sounding stupider by the moment.

[isuperserial]

I don't think the changes are really arbitrary.

They want to ban people from reenacting one of the most important events in our country's history, of which the school is named after a major figure of that event.

Maybe we have different definitions of arbitrary.

ar·bi·trary adjective \ˈär-bə-ˌtrer-ē, -ˌtre-rē\
: not planned or chosen for a particular reason : not based on reason or evidence

: done without concern for what is fair or right

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary

How convenient you leave off the part of the definition that completely supports me in this context:

1
: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary>

Even declaring something racist is a moral judgement (which are always arbitrary). Even worse, deciding specifically which racist things to ban in the south (there's a lot to choose from, trust me) makes it doubly arbitrary.

Let me reemphasize: these people have threatened civil disorder and law breaking to enforce their arbitrary demands upon an institutions tradition; traditions that were predictable and known before they joined.

You say that declaring something is racist is a moral judgment and that this is always arbitrary. Uhhh, am I just going to take your word on that? Little did I know that when kids were making jew jokes at me, it was because of my own individual discretion.

I think you just solved the racism problem. Turns out we can just think our way out of it!

[SFrost]

Yes, obviously by appropriately classifying the perception of racism as arbitrary I am condoning racism. (Note obvious sarcasm for the lack of reading comprehension in this thread).

We can make very strict or very liberal definitions to the term racism.

In college, I learned in an evolution class that racism was "the belief in the inherent genetic superiority of one race over another".

In a human rights class I learned that racism was prejudice based on race in combination with power/institution.

More recently, a feminist tried to convince me that racism included just about everything males have ever done to females.

Which one is right? I won't try to convince anyone, we all have our own experiences and worldviews. I have my own definition, I can tell you that much. Ultimately, though, any definition I pick and any you do are all equally arbitrary. The word itself is not restricted by any universal law. The scope, degree, and limits we place on any particular definition are also arbitrary.

Wrapping up with my original point: going back to any historical figure pre-1900 the vast majority would probably meet our definition of racism. Even people fighting for emancipation largely believed in white superiority (in the US). They believed in equality under the law and before God, not in innate ability. We have the benefit in 2014 of a more enlightened and scientifically-accurate understanding of race (largely by way of genetics). Most historical figures were probably very racist and contributed in some way to oppressive acts. Do we issue a blanket ban on all traditions dealing with history?

You go to school in the south you better be ready for some history and tradition that has racist dressings. If you go to a school named after a god dang Confederate general ... lol.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Why shouldn't a school get challenged on its current, present day, racist dressings of history? That's seriously not arbitrary, however much you want to play around with the word.

[SFrost]

Why shouldn't a school get challenged on its current, present day, racist dressings of history? That's seriously not arbitrary, however much you want to play around with the word.

My main sticking point was the Civil War reenactment.

Show me the proof that interest in the Confederate side of the Civil War = racism. Any proof you provide I would also like it explained how that link is not arbitrary

I don't agree that students should be able to dictate what history others are allowed to appreciate because of perceived offense.

Here's a public service announcement while we're at it: stay out of the South. Seriously, it's the worst part of America.

[yomisterd]

Yes, obviously by appropriately classifying the perception of racism as arbitrary I am condoning racism. (Note obvious sarcasm for the lack of reading comprehension in this thread).

We can make very strict or very liberal definitions to the term racism.

In college, I learned in an evolution class that racism was "the belief in the inherent genetic superiority of one race over another".

In a human rights class I learned that racism was prejudice based on race in combination with power/institution.

More recently, a feminist tried to convince me that racism included just about everything males have ever done to females.

Which one is right? I won't try to convince anyone, we all have our own experiences and worldviews. I have my own definition, I can tell you that much. Ultimately, though, any definition I pick and any you do are all equally arbitrary. The word itself is not restricted by any universal law. The scope, degree, and limits we place on any particular definition are also arbitrary.

Wrapping up with my original point: going back to any historical figure pre-1900 the vast majority would probably meet our definition of racism. Even people fighting for emancipation largely believed in white superiority (in the US). They believed in equality under the law and before God, not in innate ability. We have the benefit in 2014 of a more enlightened and scientifically-accurate understanding of race (largely by way of genetics). Most historical figures were probably very racist and contributed in some way to oppressive acts. Do we issue a blanket ban on all traditions dealing with history?

You go to school in the south you better be ready for some history and tradition that has racist dressings. If you go to a school named after a god dang Confederate general ... lol.

No no, you are right. If something has historically been the case, that makes it ok and nobody should try to change it. Duh.

[crit_racer]

My main sticking point was the Civil War reenactment.

Show me the proof that interest in the Confederate side of the Civil War = racism. Any proof you provide I would also like it explained how that link is not arbitrary

I don't agree that students should be able to dictate what history others are allowed to appreciate because of perceived offense.

Here's a public service announcement while we're at it: stay out of the South. Seriously, it's the worst part of America.

ITT: SFrost acts like an asshole then manages to piss off probably the only group of people who were likely to sympathize w/ his position. The south doesn't suck, but if it helps to keep you from ever coming here, then yeah the south is a massive shit hole.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Why shouldn't a school get challenged on its current, present day, racist dressings of history? That's seriously not arbitrary, however much you want to play around with the word.

My main sticking point was the Civil War reenactment.

Show me the proof that interest in the Confederate side of the Civil War = racism. Any proof you provide I would also like it explained how that link is not arbitrary

I don't agree that students should be able to dictate what history others are allowed to appreciate because of perceived offense.

Here's a public service announcement while we're at it: stay out of the South. Seriously, it's the worst part of America.

Okay, the link between playing Confederates and racism isn't arbitrary because you say it's not. Got it.

(and to be clear, I'm not trying to say that the individuals who play Confederates are racists. But I can also understand how the practice is distasteful to people.)

[moonman157]

I'm all about schools making changes to be more inclusive and promote a comfortable environment for everyone, but the fact that the school is named after Robert E. Lee isn't exactly something you first find out about once you're there. If you don't want to go to a school named after a Confederate general (and I would certainly not blame anyone who didn't, or anyone who doesn't want to go to a school with W&L's employment numbers) then don't go to W&L

[A. Nony Mouse]

I'm all about schools making changes to be more inclusive and promote a comfortable environment for everyone, but the fact that the school is named after Robert E. Lee isn't exactly something you first find out about once you're there. If you don't want to go to a school named after a Confederate general (and I would certainly not blame anyone who didn't, or anyone who doesn't want to go to a school with W&L's employment numbers) then don't go to W&L

I get this, but I don't think it's entirely fair. I don't think deciding to go to a school means you have to accept everything about it wholeheartedly, and there may be a lot of reasons why W&L is a good choice for someone otherwise.

[moonman157]

I'm all about schools making changes to be more inclusive and promote a comfortable environment for everyone, but the fact that the school is named after Robert E. Lee isn't exactly something you first find out about once you're there. If you don't want to go to a school named after a Confederate general (and I would certainly not blame anyone who didn't, or anyone who doesn't want to go to a school with W&L's employment numbers) then don't go to W&L

I get this, but I don't think it's entirely fair. I don't think deciding to go to a school means you have to accept everything about it wholeheartedly, and there may be a lot of reasons why W&L is a good choice for someone otherwise.

True, there may be very personal reasons for going to W&L. And like I said, I can see wanting to address things like the comments professors make, the approach to certain sensitive topics, institutional support for minority voices or a greater promotion of diverse events and student groups are all goals worthy of championing. Maybe it's not just the fact that they're trying to get the university to renounce their namesake, it's that they're threatening civil disobedience if their demands aren't met by a certain deadline. That's an incredibly drastic response to a situation you knew you were entering when you enrolled.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I'm all about schools making changes to be more inclusive and promote a comfortable environment for everyone, but the fact that the school is named after Robert E. Lee isn't exactly something you first find out about once you're there. If you don't want to go to a school named after a Confederate general (and I would certainly not blame anyone who didn't, or anyone who doesn't want to go to a school with W&L's employment numbers) then don't go to W&L

I get this, but I don't think it's entirely fair. I don't think deciding to go to a school means you have to accept everything about it wholeheartedly, and there may be a lot of reasons why W&L is a good choice for someone otherwise.

True, there may be very personal reasons for going to W&L. And like I said, I can see wanting to address things like the comments professors make, the approach to certain sensitive topics, institutional support for minority voices or a greater promotion of diverse events and student groups are all goals worthy of championing. Maybe it's not just the fact that they're trying to get the university to renounce their namesake, it's that they're threatening civil disobedience if their demands aren't met by a certain deadline. That's an incredibly drastic response to a situation you knew you were entering when you enrolled.

Yeah, I get that, too. Although the original post talked about people finding a contrast between what they were told when they were considering the school and the reality that they encountered, so I can see how something that might not have seemed like a big deal when you enrolled can take on a bigger significance later.

Edited to add: I get the argument that civil disobedience isn't the right response, but I think that's a different argument from whether it's legit (or abitrary!) to challenge some of the practices at the school.

[SFrost]

Edited to add: I get the argument that civil disobedience isn't the right response, but I think that's a different argument from whether it's legit (or abitrary!) to challenge some of the practices at the school.

It took awhile for you (or anyone, for that matter) to even partially acknowledge my point.

I also find it interesting that when issues like racism are discussed even dictionary words must kneel before the strict requirements of everyone's righteous indignation.