Time Capsule
I happened upon a book today that is the starting point of my inaugural post.
Approximately ten years ago, a 1L became dismayed with the alleged lack of intellectual diversity at Boalt. He felt that racial categories were being privileged over diversity of viewpoints--especially those on the right. He was called a racist for opposing affirmative action. This occurred in the wake of Proposition 209, now a part of the California Constitution, which had ended affirmative action at Boalt and in the state.
The student, David Wienir, propounded a series of questions to his peers. The twenty-seven responses he received, mainly from conservative students, formed the basis of a book called "The Diversity Hoax." It is this book that I found today and thumbed through.
I feel that now is a good time to re-evaluate the status of diversity of peoples and viewpoints at Boalt. In the spirit of frank but civil debate, I reproduce the (concededly loaded) questions below and invite comments, whether you attach your name or comment anonymously. Let me emphasize: I'm not looking for a particular kind of response. I have pondered the questions below and I am genuinely curious to see what my peers think. I've written an opinion of my own, but will refrain from posting it until others have had a chance to say what they think.
The questions:
"How healthy is the marketplace of ideas here at Boalt? Do you have fair opportunity to share your ideas in the classroom? Does expression flow freely in an environment tolerant of diversity, or does the climate of tolerance at Berkeley paradoxically inhibit true diversity of opinion? Has political activism within the classroom silenced important student perspectives? What should have been said, but never was?"
Approximately ten years ago, a 1L became dismayed with the alleged lack of intellectual diversity at Boalt. He felt that racial categories were being privileged over diversity of viewpoints--especially those on the right. He was called a racist for opposing affirmative action. This occurred in the wake of Proposition 209, now a part of the California Constitution, which had ended affirmative action at Boalt and in the state.
The student, David Wienir, propounded a series of questions to his peers. The twenty-seven responses he received, mainly from conservative students, formed the basis of a book called "The Diversity Hoax." It is this book that I found today and thumbed through.
I feel that now is a good time to re-evaluate the status of diversity of peoples and viewpoints at Boalt. In the spirit of frank but civil debate, I reproduce the (concededly loaded) questions below and invite comments, whether you attach your name or comment anonymously. Let me emphasize: I'm not looking for a particular kind of response. I have pondered the questions below and I am genuinely curious to see what my peers think. I've written an opinion of my own, but will refrain from posting it until others have had a chance to say what they think.
The questions:
"How healthy is the marketplace of ideas here at Boalt? Do you have fair opportunity to share your ideas in the classroom? Does expression flow freely in an environment tolerant of diversity, or does the climate of tolerance at Berkeley paradoxically inhibit true diversity of opinion? Has political activism within the classroom silenced important student perspectives? What should have been said, but never was?"
posted by Callagy at 11:59 PM
21 Comments:
I'm not sure hostility characterizes the climate here so much as apathy. It seems like few students care enough to get exercised enough to yell someone else down. Though that might be fun to wtahc.
I think back to HaLo's con law class, which was largely characterized by a few students from the far left debating a few students from the center left -- with perfectly reasonable (and reasonably received) conservative comments floating in occasionally. All in all, Halo had to beg for hands.
Contrast that, meanwhile, with the stories in the NYT and Boston Globe over the weekend about Obama in law-school. Both give the feeling that Obama played a kind of Jesus-like peacemaker between throngs of furious, screaming lefties and conservatives, at war in the confines of the law review and the law school over merit, race, affirmative action, faculty hiring, faculty diversity, etc.
Here at Boalt in 2007, do we even NEED a peacemaker? Just who in those institutions is getting so exercised?
Possibly all of this is a sign that the country has moved on to other issues. If you think back to the November elections, the dominating themes were: Iraq, economic populism, and social "moderation."
But just how, where, or why would any of those ideas emerge at Boalt these days (the occasional Yoo debate/protest excepted)? A townhall on "heterosexual privelege" isn't even close to what the country is talking about these days--isn't even close to what the left is talking about, isn't even close to what The NATION (the magazine) is talking about -- however much it might stir the energies of a few dedicated activists. (The mainstream gay rights discussion is entirely dominate by a Q of how (and how soon) to push for gay marriage.)
The forward to the Harvard Law Review's 2006 Supreme Court Review had a great article entitled, "The Court's Agenda--and the Nation's." It pointed out that fears of the Court on the right and the left were overblown, because the Court simply wasn't addressing the major issues on Americans minds in the last five years in most of its work.
Similar might be said of us. The "Boalt agenda" of a few activists isn't the same as the country's agenda nor that, I suspect, of much of the rest of Boalt itself.
From an admissions perspective, what is Boalt supposed to do? Give more money to right-wing admittants? Most people would probably like more viewpoints expressed in class, DS knows that Boalt didn't really deliver the kind of stimulating class discussion he thought it would.
Surely the 700 or so admitted each year range in their political beliefs. But, if DS was a true right-winger, he wouldn't come to Boalt. It's Berkeley, and San Francisco, and the Bay Area that would keep him away. Until the admissions department starts enticing conservatives with more money (never going to happen), Boalt's self-selecting student body will remain unchanged in its political viewpoints.
I understand the argument that "diversity" here is a hoax, but I don't really buy it. I know people on the right, both inside and outside of Boalt, who say that true diversity would give representation to conflicting ideologies better than Boalt manages to do, but to me, diversity is about a lot more than politics. It's about taking people from a wide variety of backgrounds, thus creating a broad sample of worldviews (not just political views). As for people on the right who feel somehow silenced here, there's a whole country full of red states out there, so pardon me if I don't feel sorry for you. In fact, we've had six years of fantastically bad central leadership by republicans, so again, pardon me if I don't feel sorry for you. If taking people from different ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographical backgrounds has a corollary of a saturation of left wing thinking, I'm okay with that. Frankly, true diversity among students and especially faculty is still lacking, by which I DON'T mean that there is a deficit of conservative viewpoints. My favorite thing about Boalt is the wide array of people I have met due to the diversity we have, even if classroom discussion tends toward what Dean Edley refers to as "choir practice."
I feel it should be noted that Boalt, in reality, does not reflect the poster child of radical liberal politics image that it has acquired as a result of what happened at Berkeley (the lower campus) nearly 50 years ago. While I'll agree that our classes aren't exactly saturated with the Bush-loving types, our demographics reflect a fairly heavy concentration of political opinions that are much closer to the center than they are to the left. Perhaps there's some validity to that study that found that the more educated one becomes, the more conservative his views. All that said, I think that whatever your views are, you cannot claim that you have not had an ample opportunity to express them here. I don't feel sorry for anyone who is too intimidated not to speak up in class, casual conversation or in any other forum just because he or she feels that the majority of those present disagree with those views. To my knowledge, no one at Boalt has discouraged conservatives from sharing their views, however, if you're too busy surfing the internet, playing games on your computer or silently hating the granola-crunching feminist sharing your desk when the professor asks for comments, kindly stop whining about not having an opportunity to share. You always have opportunity; your failure to take advantage of it is not anyone else's problem.
2:00:
While Boalt may not be the rioting student body that was here 50 years ago, it is still arguably the most liberal law school in the nation. To argue otherwise is blindness to the political situation in this country.
"Not exactly saturated" is probably a kind way of saying that you can count the people that voted for Bush in any class on one hand. No matter what you think of Bush, that limits the possibility of hearing all viewpoints.
If you have an idea and are in a room with 84 people that think you are (1) wrong and (2) biased in some way because of your wrong view, then how often do you truly feel you would speak up?
I think the professors do an amazing job at striving to hear all viewpoints. I think that the students many times should take from that example in conversations in and out of class.
Boalt students from any side of the political spectrum tend to share a common trait: they are a pretty vibrant, opinionated bunch who are not the type to let the peer pressure of a majority viewpoint hinder the expression or exploration of that viewpoint.
If people aren't speaking up in class due to fear, it's more likely the fear of being perceived a gunner than the fear of being opposed. But, more likely than that, it's the fear taking time away from a more interesting IM discussion happening on the side.
That said, the school attracts a more liberal student body than many first tier law schools. Nonetheless, it's law school--people tend to have liberal political viewpoints but conservative means of expression. Though we are at war, there is little dialogue of war in the halls. It's not law students oak-tree hugging to prevent new development on campus. And people are too busy researching their independent interests to organize a sit-in on the Deans desk as per the golden days.
Where does that leave us? We may come liberal and leave liberal and maybe we'll actually do something liberal some day, but when it comes to real change, such as increasing the racial diversity of our public law school, we don't do much of anything. Liberals sign up for Prof. Yoo's constitutional law class and scoff when protesters disrupt it, pissed that the education they (or their parents) are paying for is being disrupted with real live free speech. If there's political activism in the classroom, it may be the result of professors witnessing a historical moment of Boalt apathy and wondering what has become of our institution's legacy.
I think conservatives don't talk in class because of the sheer futility of it. It takes a fairly confident conservative to come to Boalt (or to want to live in Berkeley at all), so I don't think they are particularly intimidated. There just isn't a point. What is the point of stating a viewpoint that 80% of the class will disagree with? No one is going to be persuaded. Might as well let the class keep moving.
4:51 nailed what I was attempting to say on the head.
I think we're getting pretty close to the truth about conservatives at Boalt: most are more interested in their firms jobs and IM discussions than talking in class, their views are still dominant and largely unthreatened in society, and if they do speak up there is no violent reaction from their more liberal counterparts. Plus, they have the most well-read blog at Boalt (this one), can get an automatic line on their resume for presenting their writing requirement to the Federalist Society, and have the "in" with Federalist judges who won't even look at people who have EBCLC of "social justice" or ACS on their resume.
It seems the emerging consensus is that this conservative victim complex routine is wearing thin at Boalt. Once we all leave Boalt, on the other hand, I don't think anyone doubts the liberal students will have it much harder than the conservative students!
Someone once said that to vote Republican a person must be either rich or stupid. Therefore, the lack of Bush voters at Boalt can be explained by two factors: (1) Boalt students certainly aren't stupid (#3 most selective admissions process of any law school in the country) and (2) many aren't rich (it is a cheaper public school after all). You could say the same thing about many of the top law schools where Democrats always outnumber Republicans.
Anonymouse 6:19 cracks me up. Points I disagree with:
1. "They" have the most well-read blog at Boalt. The bloggers on Nuts & Boalt are not "conservative". Period.
2. I do not know what is meant by "an automatic line on the resume", but it sounds to me like casting aspersions on what is actually a robust discussion group aimed at helping students improve their writing.
3. The "in" with federal judges does not exist. I've talked to a small handful of judges at this point in my life, and when it comes to clerks, they're looking for work ethic, interest and ability. The most "federalist" judge I've ever met routinely hires clerks from all over the spectrum. In my opinion, one major impediment to getting a clerkship is not having completed the coursework in school necessary for clerking. I'll be preparing a post for the 2Ls on applying for clerkships shortly.
4. I also cannot imagine what is meant by "I don't think anyone doubts the liberal students will have it much harder than the conservative students!" I'm not sure what it means, but I doubt it. I think any Boalt graduate willing to work will have no problem getting a job, working toward partnership, winning cases, etc.
Whooo. I guess I'm feeling argumentative. Have a good night everyone, time for "American Experience" (KQED Encore, "The Berlin Airlift").
Am i getting edited?
yo check out my new album; you can peep it at http://www.rocafella.com/
holla!
Maybe there is not much debate in class because we're pretty happy with life and the law as it is. Or maybe we're just all too busy surfing the web to bother.
The marketplace is there, but weak.
We live in a post-209 world, where most students have accepted that radical tactics and shouting down opposing viewpoints will not bring back affirmative action. We are more quiet and reserved now, having convinced ourselves that we can't change others' minds. Resolved to this reality, we seek solace where we can: among ideologically kindred spirits. Or we tune out altogether.
There is, to be sure, some recognition of conservative viewpoints. The more common response to these viewpoints, which are sometimes identified by fairly liberal students, is mocking or derision, not unqualified condemnation. We have learned from the Daily Show that implying that someone is simply dumb--not evil--can render their ideas impotent.
Sometimes I also observe struggles over characterization. What is a moderate viewpoint? A liberal or conservative viewpoint? Some ideas are not even addressed because they are instantly deemed too far to the right.
I will take the Federalists as an example. Many of us do not have strong political viewpoints one way or another (I consider myself a moderate but a social liberal). Our aim is to find people who disagree with us and to instigate discussion. We're after variety, but often we don't get that message across because we're maligned as too extreme, or as having a victimhood complex. People rip down our flyers and put up disparaging fake flyers. I don't really feel threatened by this, but I also think twice before opening my mouth. It puts one in the position of always being on the defensive, as though one’s views were presumptively unreasonable. This effect is subtle, but I think it hurts the cause of freedom of discourse.
Nevertheless, whether we rise above political differences by being mature or by sheer inadvertence, civil and multifaceted discussions sometimes occur at Boalt. While they are less frequent than I would like, they happen and can be rewarding. I am thankful that the harsh bullying and name-calling evident in "The Diversity Hoax" is no longer a part of campus life today. I think I would agree with the commenters who note that apathy, not animosity, is the greatest impediment to illuminating discourse.
"illuminating discourse"? take yourself too seriously much?
Maybe. But I prefer erring on that side to simply writing myself off.
Another fascinating and moving book on the topic is:
Andrea Guerrero's (Boalt Alumnae)
Silence at Boalt Hall
The Dismantling of Affirmative Action
The book focuses on the year surrouding the 209 years. But also, goes back further discussing Choper's tenure as Dean and Shultz's and Swift's battle for tenure.
As the author of the Diversity Hoax, it is great to see that people there still care about this very important issue.
David Wienir
No one who knows me will believe that I am intimidated into not speaking in class because I fear that the majority of students will disagree. And I don't IM in class. And I don't play games in class. And I don't mock the crunchy granola feminist who I choose to sit next to (because she's my friend). And I don't choose to watch my speech because I believe that other people will not be convinced by what I have to say. But I gradually, in the 3 years at Boalt, stopped making comments in class because I realized that other students were *not* going to tell me how wrong I was. That was my greatest disappointment. I came to Boalt hoping to get the best education *because* I would be passionately disagreed with. And this should be the reason that liberals at Boalt should be disappointed in their own education--they haven't been able to develop the skills and arguments to best defend their ideas in the forum of their choice. Instead, they seem to have settled for a "comfortable" education where there is no competition consciousness and where everyone can revel in their common vision of how messed up the rest of the country is. That's not legal training, that's a BBQ.
I think, more often than not, people think that diversity necessarily equals diverse opinions. With that said, I dont believe that the climate of tolerance at Berkeley paradoxically inhibits true diversity of opinion. I think it is the people witholding those opinions that inhibit such expression. It is up to people to freely express themselves - it is their constitutional right! however, the few people that exercise this right, are not always the ones that should. Furthermore, once a certain opinion has been stated, it is much easier to agree than to begin to formulate, verbalize, and then withstand the potential backlash of an original assertion.
Post a Comment
<< Home