May Day May Day
Ok so by now most of you have gotten the e-mail from Dean Ortiz that Boalt will reschedule your Monday exam if you plan on missing it to take part in the immigrant work-stoppage thingy on May 1. I think it's very kind of the school to accommodate those who choose to take part. I just hope no one (1) abuses it to get a few extra days of studying and (2) tries to get an exam extension for every single social justice cause that falls in early May. Personally, I stopped taking part in May Day events after leaving the Soviet Union. It's just not the same without the large Red Banners.
Lest anyone take my thoughts and construe them to be ultra-conservative rants, I also want to take a minute to say something about this whole immigration nonsense. I think the U.S. like any other country has a right to secure her borders. But I cannot take any talk of immigration reform seriously. Here's why. The history and current dialogue in this country (see, e.g., Lou Dobbs) is nothing more than masked xenophobia. Prime example are the idiotic letters and postcards sent to Antonio Villaraigosa and Cruz Bustamante. Two former speakers of the Assembly, and prominent elected officials WHO WERE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. Those are the kinds of people that I associate with "immigration reform." This might be irrational on my part, but up until this point in history I have not seen one iota of evidence that immigration is causing our downfall. Quite the contrary, such dialogue has always been used to fuel innate dislike of those "ethnic types." That is all.
Lest anyone take my thoughts and construe them to be ultra-conservative rants, I also want to take a minute to say something about this whole immigration nonsense. I think the U.S. like any other country has a right to secure her borders. But I cannot take any talk of immigration reform seriously. Here's why. The history and current dialogue in this country (see, e.g., Lou Dobbs) is nothing more than masked xenophobia. Prime example are the idiotic letters and postcards sent to Antonio Villaraigosa and Cruz Bustamante. Two former speakers of the Assembly, and prominent elected officials WHO WERE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. Those are the kinds of people that I associate with "immigration reform." This might be irrational on my part, but up until this point in history I have not seen one iota of evidence that immigration is causing our downfall. Quite the contrary, such dialogue has always been used to fuel innate dislike of those "ethnic types." That is all.
Labels: DO, Grades And Other Neurotic Bullshit, Honor Code, Rabid Conservatives, Rabid Liberals
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 11:27 AM
34 Comments:
The ever Honorable Earl Warren. I can not believe that you do not remember what the strike was about last year. Union contract, living wage, solidarity, respect for the people who clean up after you - I guess it didn't seem that important at the time either.
And don't be so reductionist about protests. Sacrificing is not all that it's about. It's about organizing, it's about symbolism, community, etc. Just because you don't know the joyful pain of tear-gas and pepper spray is no reason to hate.
Just sit back and enjoy your martini at your terrace level fundraising event and be glad that there are some people out there doing things that your bougie identity will not permit you to do.
Is it just me or does a commenter automatically lose credibility when they write out hypos to pawn off as arguments? 12:02, I'm looking in your direction. I really don't see the difference between E-dub sipping a martini at terrace and shouting ra-ra and you sipping martini in public and shouting ra ra. Afterall, the point is both of you are equally inconvenienced.
Who gets to decide which causes are worth rescheduling exams for? How is it decided? Are there objective criteria? While I certainly do support immigrant rights, I'm not sure I support how DO went about doing this.
I think that part of the concern which the administration nobly responded to by allowing students to reschedule their monday exams was that it is forseeable that many student might have transportation difficulties on Monday. Many convergences have been planned for Monday, and some of these are quite near Bart stations. Politics aside, it seems reasonable to assume that students in san francisco would have a more difficult time commuting to Berkeley on Monday than those who live in the east bay. given the impossibility of predicting disruptions associated with the strike, it seems highly prudent of Deans Ortiz and Shelanski to announce this policy now, rather than deal with the aftereffects of students missing exams.
This being said, in a democracy, the persuasive effect of a political mobilization should not depend on the depth of the sacrifice of those who mobilize.
If five million people all over the country demonstrate on Monday, should we be any less impressed because not all of the five million were fired from their jobs, suspended from school, or failed law school as a result of standing up and making their voices heard?
Student Services: Don't screw over the students who are taking the exam on Monday. Make sure that you have the necessary staff and resources to run the exams effectively. Make sure the wireless people are on hand. I hope that the staff of Boalt aren't bolting Boalt on the day as well. If that is the case and if the Bart isn't running on time and if the people who make exams possible are not around in the numbers necessary, etc., then Boalt should cancel for everybody because the school is effectively non-operational.
And please change the time on the clocks in the classroom and advance them an hour. It's stupendously ridiculous that the school hasn't done that yet.
Oh, and by the way, congrats on creating a new professor evaluation form online that nobody filled out. I suppose Boalt saved a few nickels in not processing paper evaluations, but Boalt lost thousands of dollars of potentially useful feedback. Next year, have the students fill out the form online in class. Or, at least, when the associate dean sends out an email urging people to fill out the electronic form, have the sense to include a hyperlink to the site to encourage people to go to the form directly.
"If you are planning to participate in the action called for May 1 to support the rights of immigrants . . ."
Does that mean that we are not allowed to reschedule our exams in order to participate in a rival protest on May 1?
I am a big fan of immigrants and I think they make a positive net contribution to our society, but I nonetheless think it is completely inappropriate for the administration of a public law school to send out an email like this. I'm sure no one here thinks it would be acceptable for the University of Arizona's law school to let students postpone finals to go volunteer with the Minuteman Project. Idealogy shouldn't be involved with setting rules at public schools.
4.31: "I am a big fan of immigrants..." Classic.
I'm a fan of strawberries at $2.50 at lb, freeway off-ramp oranges, authentic tamales sold out of a coleman cooler, and seasonal workers who work when there is work to do, and leave when the work is over.
How can you not be a fan of immigrants?
That being said, the university should not pick and choose which protests that it is willing to support.
barristerina: Well, I am flattered that you at least thought my argument "had a ring of truth to it" (courtesy of dictionary.com), but I think the issue between us is factual and I don't share your optimism about DO's flexibility. Anyone care to chime in with anecdotal evidence regarding rescheduling? I thought I remembered seeing a list of acceptable excuses somewhere, and "accommodating" was not the word I would have used to describe it, however I can't seem to find it now. I suppose we'll probably never know the truth because I would guess no one at Boalt will ever have the audacity to ask to reschedule a final to participate in a rally that DO finds abhorrent, regardless of how important it would be to that individual. Are there any conservative Republicans reading this that are up to the challenge?
I think it's nice that people will get to protest (for either side) if they want to, but I think it sets a weird precedent in light of how Edley refused to cancel classes so people could participate in election day work last fall or how classes weren't cancelled for the SEIU protest last year. I don't find the argument that there will be groups gathering at BART stations that compelling--it seems a "specious" cover for the real argument--these students just want to protest and take their exams too. Granted that skipping class and skipping an exam are different, but I also wonder how "major" future protests will have to be in the future to warrant the same treatment.
It is worth mentioning that the May 1st event is not just a large protest, but specifically a GENERAL STRIKE, calling upon people to not go to work, school, or make purchases (see http://www.maydayinthebay.dyndns.org/)
Last year, the event in question was a one-day strike by AFCSME, the union that represents janitorial and other workers at our school. Part of a strike's effectiveness is its call to people who work at and attend the institution not to patronize it. It's an organization of economic power to counter the employer, which is hurt by those who choose not to honor it.
These points are meant to emphasize that this is not simply a private political choice for people to make by themselves, but based in political and organizing movements. And in both instances, students mobilized other students but also faculty and the administration: last year by moving some classes off-campus and this year, by making it possible for more to participate without facing a penalizing choice.
My message: this is politics and organizing at work. If you call a credible national boycott for any cause, I bet you'll get DO to honor it, even if she doesn't believe in the underlying politics.
Barristerina--
If you are going to be one of the new bloggers for this site, please learn grammar and spelling.
If you're going to be a commenter, use your name. No, really! Maybe it's finals, maybe it's my plan to study for evidence by watching My Cousin Vinny, but I'm really getting fed up with retarded comments like the one above.
Getting back to the topic--
People need to chill out. I understand that a lot of people are looking for things to gripe about at this point in the semester but there must be better targets.
The May 1 policy is not about some political agenda in the dean o' students' office. It's about the fact that dozens of students wrote Dean Ortiz and their professors urging them to make a small allowance for people who may have travel problems or want to be part of the strike. She responded with a very small allowance that will actually make most people's lives more difficult by further compacting their exam period.
I suspect the dean's office would respond in a similiar manner to any request to make it possible for people to engage in an important national dialogue if the request came from dozens of students representing a significant portion of the student body. In fact, it would probably be easier to get approval for a right-wing cause because the dean's office is sick of getting knee-jerk reactions from conservative students with a victim complex.
BTW, note how the email was signed by both Dean Ortiz AND Associate Dean Shelanski (it was actually co-signed, "Dean Shelanski," upgrading his status a bit and creating the veneer of equality). I have NEVER seen that before. Usually, Dean Ortiz sends out her own directives from her account, signed only by her.
I think it was an attempt by the administration to not have ultra-progressive Ortiz get all the flack for making this call. This was a "bi-partisan" decision. Shelanski is a liberal democrat who leans to the center. He believes in the regulatory state and doesn't like republican politics, but by Boalt's standards, he might as well be conservative.
I'm not saying Shelanski doesn't stand by what he co-signed. I think he does. Perhaps he even thought up the idea of co-signing it and argued passionately for the policy move. But he hasn't co-signed other significant emails with Ortiz about exams, the honor code, and other Boalt matters, which, as associate dean, you'd think he had a hand in deciding. Symbolic, consensus politics likely lies beneath the co-signage.
Good job Sherlock. Or maybe Shelanski approved the move on behalf of the faculty who ultimately decide on academic matters. But what do I know, I think it's just as plausible that DO scoured the ranks of senior faculty to find one with the right left of center credentials.
9:31 and 10:37,
The problem with your arguments is that you keep qualiying the hypothetical right-of-center events that Dean Ortiz would make an allowance for as either "credible," or one that a significant number of students wanted to attend.
The point isn't that you might be able to get an allowance to attend one of these events, the point is that who in the hell put Dean Ortiz or my fellow classmates in charge of deciding which political events are credible
Bad facts make bad law. If someone wants to attend a baby seal clubbing rally next fall during exams in support of Innuit (Eskimo) rights, I think that the deans office needs to let that person go now.
I think Dean Ortiz is THE person to make such a call. Clearly she consulted with the faculty on this one because it involves exams. But this is her job, to make decisions that affect the students' conduct here.
Those who still want to whine about the decision, really....move on. Go club a Gilbert's or something.
It seems that DO's latest email says that if you get stranded by the strike while trying to commute to Berkeley on Monday you're SOL. Solidarity must be pre-approved!
I'm also a bit surprised by an earlier comment:
"In fact, it would probably be easier to get approval for a right-wing cause because the dean's office is sick of getting knee-jerk reactions from conservative students with a victim complex."
Does the author care to share how he knows this? As a "conservative" Boalt student (this is of course a highly relative designation around here) this comes as news to me. I personally haven't complained about decisions such as this, nor do I know of people who have. I only know of the critiques that appear on this blog, which are not directed at the Dean's Office, though it is apparent that the Office does peruse this blog. Moreover, I don't know of any instances where the Dean's Office has changed a policy as a result of conservative students' complaints. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I also personally don't see Armen's critique as directly ideological. It seems more to concern a matter of principle.
No offense to the obviously well-informed brilliance on this board, but I actually think this May 1 business is bigger than you believe.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/28/boycott/index.html
Also, it's no big surprise that the administration and faculty at boalt is more left than right, but I think Boalt made this accomodation because so many students lobbied for it.
Why is Cafe Zeb being closed on Monday?
On a different yet related tangent, what are the arguments in favor of having an official national language? I was reading about the spanish national anthem and Bush's reaction to it, and was just curious.
Anybody?
Message board...start your own thread there. I'm only keeping the comment up to illustrate the proper use of the board. Any responses will be deleted.
4:26....
ummm, huh. let me see if i can guess why the cafe would be closed.
Yeah, what else could be happening Monday that would coincide with Zeb closing? If only there were a message thread somewhere of--oh, I don't know--30ish student comments that would shed some light on this mystery...
Or maybe we're not giving 4:26 the benefit of the doubt for his/her subtle invocation of irony, driving home the point that these political issues might affect even those of us who care about nothing more than getting our morning coffee. Well done.
Whatever. This is all B.S.. I hope the Social Justice types who take advantage of D.O's offer aren't a bunch of Honor Code cheats who'll take advantage (through unmentionable means) of the fact that they're taking an in-class exam after others do. After all, when you're dealing with causes as important as theirs, the ends justify the means.
Students who don't give a rats ass about the protest can use the day as an excuse to get more time studying.
I really hope the people who take the exemption are protesting their lungs out ALL DAY on Monday and not using the day to study. That would totally defeat the purpose of why they were given an exemption.
The school should have just cancelled exams for everyone that day. That would have presented other problems, but would have reduced the probability of cheating. The school took a major credibility hit in the eyes of many students for letting so many off the hook days before the first exam. This isn't just 1 or 2 people in an exam administration taking the test on a different day. This is potentially half a class bailing out. Ridiculous.
1:54:
Yes, the law school will probably look foolish if half the class does not show. Or perhaps they'll appear in tune with the student body?
In any case, it's improper to insinuate that some, many, or all of the people who will strike are Honor Code cheats. Yes, they could cheat, but the point of the Honor Code is that we don't act like Big Brother to pre-empt potentially violative behavior. This is why DO's memo about people intending to cheat via cut-and-paste is so ridiculous. You aren't making things any better.
If you find out about someone cheating, then you're obliged to speak up. If you yourself cheat, well that's your own conscience you have to deal with. The rest of us should just shut up.
I'll see you tomorrow at 1:30 for the exam.
I won't see ya then 'cause I got an 8:30. Not all of us get nice 1:30 PM start times.
2.22: boalt saved approx. 20K by going online with evaluations. why don't you stop bitching and tell everyone you know to fill it out? and, by the way, all of you who are so obsessed with the extra day of study for some need to stop obsessing over what others may or may not be doing. The protest is about *not* going to school or work, so while I hope people do go out and protest the mere fact that they are choosing not to come to school is good enough for me.
I'm going to go buy my whole new summer wardrobe on Monday. I don't think that retailers should have to suffer just because some people can't stop whining.
I just hope that my favorite tailor shows up for work. There is nothing worse than a poorly tailored suit.
Oh Armen, it makes so much sense now! I had never read your blog, only heard of your infamous judgemental rants against the 1L class listserv before we even started here. But, if I may say, you don't seem to be in the best position to dismiss anyone's rhetorical tactics...did you really compare these demonstrations to the "red banner" Soviet Union ones? That seems rather like a Lou Dobbs move to me. Do you speak up in class like this? Maybe I'll have the pleasure of finding out..if I can hack it that is, like you tough upper-class folk who are above the petty fears of we lowly 1Ls.
Unlike Lou Dobbs and most others skipping class today, I actually waived a red banner. In class I don't speak much, and certainly not before knowing...hint hint comrade.
well played. Armen: 1 Lowly 1L: 0
There are over a 600,000 illegal Canadians in the USA stealing Our Jobs!!! Stop the Ice Back Invasion!!!
http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2006/04/a_duke_law_prof_1.html
Post a Comment
<< Home