Of Our Elaborate Plans, the End
Consider this the token graduation post. But this is not what you'd expect. This is a praise of all those involved. Just from the occasional comments that have been popping up, I know that there will be plenty of 3Ls who are unhappy about it all. For example, in response to this post last year by Max Power, graduation is now an hour earlier to avoid the heat. Naturally, I already know people don't want to wake up early.
In a similary vein, those who are complaining about El Presidente clearly have no idea how hard he's been working on this. Not only is it rude to a fellow classmate, it's just outright DBaggery to bitch and moan without offering a helping hand. Somewhere JFK is rolling over in his grave.
Cutting to the chase:
Faculty Speaker: Stephen McG. Bundy
Graduation Speaker: Bryan Stevenson
Personal Thoughts: At least it's not Danny Glover. More seriously, Prof. Stevenson is a rockstar in the legal world and apparently he's a prolific speaker (a quick google search revealed quite a few speeches he's delivered). Not to take anything away from Prof. Stevenson, being at Boalt does not help us with the selection of a graduation speaker. First, you can cross off any Dem politician off the list. Just forget it. No one will cross a picket line. Second, if you think Boalties are pissed off about being up at 7:30 for graduation, imagine if they had to wake up at 7:30 for graduation to hear Arnie. Uh hum. So that rules out the other side of the aisle. As far as non-politicals go, well, we don't pay an honorarium and we don't offer an honorary degree. Good luck getting Bill Cosby to speak. Any guesses on how much SCOTUS justices make during the commencement cycle?
Also, this is (incredibly shockingly) the first time that Prof. Bundy has been selected as the faculty speaker. I can't wait for the 1940s Bogart reference. Lastly, thanks to all the people working behind the scenes. DO,HP, PP, JC, etc. SOME of us appreciate the hard work. I'm striking HP off the list b/c her e-mail beat this post by a few minutes in breaking the news. Damn you for scooping me HP.
In a similary vein, those who are complaining about El Presidente clearly have no idea how hard he's been working on this. Not only is it rude to a fellow classmate, it's just outright DBaggery to bitch and moan without offering a helping hand. Somewhere JFK is rolling over in his grave.
Cutting to the chase:
Faculty Speaker: Stephen McG. Bundy
Graduation Speaker: Bryan Stevenson
Personal Thoughts: At least it's not Danny Glover. More seriously, Prof. Stevenson is a rockstar in the legal world and apparently he's a prolific speaker (a quick google search revealed quite a few speeches he's delivered). Not to take anything away from Prof. Stevenson, being at Boalt does not help us with the selection of a graduation speaker. First, you can cross off any Dem politician off the list. Just forget it. No one will cross a picket line. Second, if you think Boalties are pissed off about being up at 7:30 for graduation, imagine if they had to wake up at 7:30 for graduation to hear Arnie. Uh hum. So that rules out the other side of the aisle. As far as non-politicals go, well, we don't pay an honorarium and we don't offer an honorary degree. Good luck getting Bill Cosby to speak. Any guesses on how much SCOTUS justices make during the commencement cycle?
Also, this is (incredibly shockingly) the first time that Prof. Bundy has been selected as the faculty speaker. I can't wait for the 1940s Bogart reference. Lastly, thanks to all the people working behind the scenes. DO,
Labels: Moving Out
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 10:06 AM
104 Comments:
Berkeley has had a long-standing problem with commencement speakers. Five years ago, for instance, all the undergrads could get was Johnny Mosley, the Olympic skier. The guy is a joke for a graduation -- he never graduated from college. Mosley was just one of many commencement speaker flops.
Last year’s fiasco with Howard Dean was something, too. Dean is a total douche-bag (that much we know) and so were the striking UC workers. The lousy, overpaid bastards have union benefits, but can’t keep Boalt’s two friggin’ bathrooms clean. But that wasn’t enough. They had to make everyone’s graduation shitty, too. Where are the Pinkertons when you need ‘em?
I don’t blame El Presidente – it’s not his fault. It’s ours. We’re a bunch of weak-willed sissies who’ll settle for anything, so long as no one’s feelings get hurt. Well, I say, to hell with that. Howard Dean is a douche, and so are the striking workers. And Stevenson, for all his legal rockstardom, is a third-rate commencement speaker. Isn’t there an electric chair somewhere than needs unplugging? Let him go do that. I’d much rather extend Professor Bundy’s speaking time than give Stevenson the time of day.
Lastly, Armen, how much DOES a Supreme’s appearance cost? Can’t be more than Boalt’s tuition. Let’s stop sponsoring Boalt’s dozen or so social clubs for a week, and we’ll save enough to invite someone worth listening to.
You are an idiot, angry 3L. Bryan Stevenson is the best speaker I have ever heard.
A story: When I graduated college everyone bitched and moaned about our graduation speaker. The year before my own graduation, the school had two very well-known, but not exactly eloquent, politicians. My year was someone whose name was far less scintillating, and who really only got the invite because he was an alum. Everyone complained and the school paper even said the speaker was not worthy.
Well, the speaker started his speech by quoting that article, and got a huge laugh for it. He didn't take himself, or graduation ceremonies, too seriously, and ended up giving a great speech. The lesson? While it might be nice to get a big name, it's a lot better to get someone who is actually a good speaker. I don't know anything about Stevenson, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
P.S. I hope some of the suggestions from my post last year get taken seriously--especially during the awarding of diplomas, when all students deserve the same attention from the audience. Also, SeemaMachine provides a great counter to that post, and offers a different perspective on last year's graduation. http://seemachine.blogspot.com/2006/05/when-you-leave-here-dont-forget-why.html
One more thing: Armen's comment that anyone considered right-wing wasn't an option is pretty bothersome. Is this really true? Would students have had a problem with a Republican speaker? Personally, while I would never vote for Arnold, I would have loved for him to be the Commencement speaker. I just want to see someone with something to say, not someone who says what I already think. I hope this was a case of being overly cautious, rather than a reflection of the reality at Boalt.
If you had told me that a school wouldn't consider half of all political leaders based simply on ideology, I would think you were talking about Bob Jones University, not Berkeley.
The issue of the keynote speaker aside, I'm really looking forward to the presentation of awards to individual students. I went to graduation last year and enjoyed learning about the accomplishments of members of the 3L class, whose academic, extracurriculur, or personal achievements often go unnoticed.
Anonymous 11:31 AM:
I may be an idiot, but if Bryan Stephenson is the best speaker you've ever heard, you really need to get out more. Besides, who gives a shirt about what you think?
Max Power:
Sadly, Armen is right about conservatives, nay, even centrists, avoiding Berkeley like cholera. Dan Flynn ( http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=3345 ), Benjamin Netanyahu ( http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/11/29/netanyahu.protests.ap/ ), and David Horowitz ( http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=4979 ) come to mind. And those are just the ones I can recall. The morons on the so-called left can't stand civil discourse. No wonder speakers who don't directly support terror avoid cal.
But Armen is right. At least its not Danny "Dumbo Drop" Glover. That guy is just a loser.
I really enjoyed reading Seema's post about last year's graduation. The day can be very emotional for the 3L class and their families. A lot of folks want to savor the moment, savor the accomplishment, and reflect on what they've achieved. While Max Power had some interesting suggestions watching as a 2L observer, I find Seema's 3L perspective resonated with me a lot, a lot more, as someone who is about to achieve this milestone and has undergone lots of personal sacrifice. So, Boalt, go forward with ceremony! Lay on the celebration! Let's hear nice speeches and learn more about our classmates. I'm sure the 3L class and families who have traveled wide and far will appreciate it.
You're right, I shouldn't have called you an idiot. But this was pretty rude: "Well, I say, to hell with that. Howard Dean is a douche, and so are the striking workers. And Stevenson, for all his legal rockstardom, is a third-rate commencement speaker. Isn’t there an electric chair somewhere than needs unplugging? Let him go do that."
He really is an amazing speaker - I'm not sure whether or not you have heard him, but I'm thrilled that he'll be our speaker. And I get out plenty.
I am very disappointed that yet again the minority population of Boalt (Public interest students), gets to have it their way. The vast majority of the graduating class and their families couldn't care less about about some unknown's public interest accomplishments. We want to hear someone interesting, relevant, and controversial. However good of a speaker Stevenson is, I can't imagine that I'll remember him in a month. At least last year's class had the enjoyment of the Howard Dean controversy, all we get is cold disapointment.
As good a speaker as Stevenson *may* be on a technical level, selecting him as graduation speaker is a major letdown.
Technical speaking ability is but one factor in selecting a graduation speaker. I mean, I'm sure there are some Baptist preachers out there who are mighty fine and inspirational speakers, but that doesn't mean they should speak at the graduation ceremony of a top law school. As for the social justice angle of Stevenson, so what? Did we really need to fly a clinical law professor from NYU to come speak to us about social justice? I would have preferred that we have our own L. Fletcher, D. Mulligan, or L. Semel speak to us about lessons we can learn from Boalt's own clinics, if we couldnt't get a traditional graduation speaker.
The school should find social justice emissaries of more renown to speak at graduation, if we must have a social justice speaker. Yes, renown. We deserve it. Our families deserve it for shelling out so much to Boalt for our education.
Wanting a speaker of renown is no flitty, selfish desire. No, on the contrary. People of renown who have actually accomplished things -- whether they be in the field of social justice, business, politics, or entertainment -- should serve as an inspiration that, one day, if we do something useful, we'll be recognized for it. And there's nothing wrong with wanting recognition for great acts, particularly for acts that benefit society. Renown and respect motivate people to contribute to society even when there is little monetary gain from doing so. The graduation speaker is a model, a beacon to which we may aspire.
We shouldn't use graduation to prop up minor figures. Rather, graduation day is about major figures propping us up.
Oh yeah for the ra ra we want renown crowd, Boalt can't even put the speaker up in the Claremont or fly him/her first class...or business.
Rising 2L's - Some advice: Please elect 3L class presidents who run on an "awesome commencement" platform, not social justice issues. Wrest the student council elections away from the coalition of campus identity groups that have a limited vision of the Boalt majority.
It's B.S. that Boalt can't afford to put up a speaker in a nice hotel. Boalt could make some minor budgetary adjustments - cut down on one lunch event during the year - and put the speaker up in a hotel.
Yes, Boalt just has a magic pot of gold that it can spend however it pleases. Welcome to reality genius. There's a set amount for commencement.
Or a professor with a very nice home here in Berkeley might be kind enough to put a speaker up for a night - more comfortable and homelike than a hotel, and better connecting that person to the Boalt community. There are many creative ways to address cost if that is really the issue.
As far as I'm concerned, Stephen McG. Bundy is the Graduation Speaker, the keynote address. The other guy is the (NYU) Faculty Speaker.
What happened to the great idea about giving tickets to 1L's and 2L's so that we can have our friends from other classes there (without taking away tickets from our families) and so that the 1L's and 2L's are included in this important event of the Boalt community? If there is a concern about current students taking the "best" seats that families want to sit in, why not designate a section for them?
What if Danny Glover spoke, only he was disguised as Mel Gibson. This surely would have maximum impact. I will try to get this sorted out for you guys.
I think part of the disagreement here is attributable to different opinions about priorities. Some people primarily want a big name to bring glory and prestige to the school, someone they'll remember. Other people primarily want a compelling speaker to make it an entertaining and meaningful event. These two are not mutually exclusive, but together in one person I'll bet they're rare and hard to get, especially given Boalt's limited resources.
So we settle for just one of the two priorities. The people involved in making the decision clearly picked compelling speaker over big name, maybe based on their preferences, maybe out of necessity. I don't think one priority is really better than the other--we get something good either way.
Personally, I'm just glad Bundy's speaking, too.
Why are a bunch of students left to their own devices in getting a graduation speaker? That's plain wrong. A Boalt professor or administrator should be spearheading the search, along with student input. The administration is derelict in their duties in passing such an intricate assignment to students and offering them so little help. If Boalt doesn't allot money in their budget to fund a speaker, as other schools do, then they should compensate for that neglect by having professors and administrators brainstorming and making calls with students to find a speaker.
I found the 3L class president's email to be annoying. His defense of the speaker choice referenced Boalt, in so many words, as a hard-core social justice institution and that the speaker lived up to our credo. You know, at Harvard Law School, 80% or so of graduates go into BigLaw. Here, at Boalt, 70% of graduates go into BigLaw. There really isn't that much difference. We're both corporate BigLaw feeders and have intellectually and politically diverse student bodies, large segments of which haven't bought into the "social justice" agenda that ultra-egalitarian policies are the only path to our country's political salvation. I agree with the first commenter that we should stop getting Howard Dean-surrogate speakers and start getting speakers of more diverse political backgrounds.
I want people to know that James and the rest of the graduation committee tossed around a LOT of names for potential speakers, and not all of them were "Howard Dean-surrogate speakers." The list included Nobel Prize winners, domestic political leaders, international leaders, and major figures in the legal community. I realize James didn't include the whole list of names that were under consideration, so I'm not trying to attack people who jumped to the conclusion that we only looked at speakers of a certain political persuasion. I would encourage anyone who actually wants real information, rather than speculation, to talk to James or anyone on the graduation committee about the process. Frankly, James should be commended that we even have a speaker.
I also think it's sad that three years at Boalt has made "social justice" a term that causes many students to react with eye rolls at best and visceral distate at worst.
It's a sad state of affairs that "[the 3L class president] should be commended that we even have a speaker." That line essentially indicts the school for neglecting to help the students secure a speaker. If it weren't for the efforts of an overworked class president, we'd have no graduation speaker.
Bryan Stevenson isn't just some clinical professor from NYU; rather, he's the founder and executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative, a bright light in the otherwise dismal Alabama legal community. EJI provides representation to persons on death row or facing the death penalty who are not otherwise represented in a state that caps legal fees to capital defense attorneys at rates that barely pay for electricity. Until 2000, legal fees paid to capital defense attorneys were capped at $2000. Now the cap has been lifted for trial work, but the reimbursement rate is still the incredibly low $40/hour for out-of-court work, and $60/hour for in court work. The cap of $2000, however, remains for appellate work--and is a rate that certainly does not incentivize reading a 2000 page trial transcript to look for good issues. The grim truth is that people in Alabama are executed without having either the benefit of competent counsel or meaningful review of their constitutional claims. Were EJI, the Southern Center for Human Rights, and large law firms working pro bono not doing the work that they are doing in Alabama, many more would.
EJI receives no money from the state of Alabama; rather it receives all of its money from private donations, foundations, and ,relatively recently, NYU. Bryan Stevenson flies up to New York for a couple of days each week to help supervise the death penalty defense clinic there. In turn, he earns a clinical professor's salary, which he funnels back into EJI itself. Everyone at EJI, including Bryan Stevenson, earns a very small salary of about only $35k; all other monies--whether from speaking engagements, professor gigs, etc--goes to client representation.
I am extremely proud to have him speak at graduation. For more information on EJI, check out their website: www.eji.org.
Jenna is so right about Boalt turning "social justice" into a eye-rolling term. I think that the series of accusatory posters from the Center for Social Justice ("Admit it, you're here because you're wealthy and have connections"; "You know the nice lady from the bookstore? Yeah, she has a name. It's Joyce") about a month ago summed up the ridiculous holier than thou attitude of our closed-minded social justice crowd.
Wow, and what does a small death penalty project in Alabama possibly have to do with California, Boalt, the UC System, the Bay Area, graduates, future lawyers, or their families? Why not bring in the General Counsel for the State of Moldova who recently secured new water access rights for the town of Grozny on the Kirkrzny River? Big victory!
I don't mean to belittle Stevenson. Wait, actually, yes I do. Because there are maybe 250 lawyers in California doing bigger, more interesting, more impactful work right here in our backyard.
Actually, I can give you 43 right off the bat:
California Lawyer's Attorney of the Year awards.
They run the gamut from public interest work to labor defense to class action to civil rights to immigration to M&A to appellate. All did really, really cool shit in the last year alone -- usually really, really related to California issues.
You're telling me you couldn't find one of these people to give a freaking speech?
How about Steven Shatz tenured (Not clinical) prof at USF law. He runs the Keta Colby Tailor death penalty clinic right here in our backyard, is a dynamic speaker, and drum roll please... is actually a boalt alum.
Whats that you say? A Boalt alum and a bay area native? Screw that who wants a marginally relevant speaker at graduation. What we really need is an out-of-state run-o-the-mill attorney. No wait better yet I know this place in New York that makes fantastic falafel, its right by the NYU law dorms and we could probably get someone from Mahmouns falafel to speak. I'm sure they are good speakers.
I would like to see James post a reply. Sorry to use an anonymous ID to call you out James, but I would like to hear your defense of the choice and the process. I have spoken to many other students about this (Not N&B commentors) and have not heard any positive responses yet (Maybe something of a selection bias, but I don't think that accounts for all of the observed reactions)
Wow. Just, wow.
First, I don't think 8:06AM really is sorry about calling out James anonymously; otherwise he or she would have posted his or her name. Maybe James doesn't read Nuts and Boalts. Maybe 8:06 should talk to James directly--he's a very approachable guy.
As I said above, anyone who wants to should talk to someone on the graduation committee about the process. I'm more than happy to show people the many, many, many emails about compiling a list of people to invite, the people who were invited and were rejected, and why this was so complicated and difficult. I had never heard of Mr. Stephenson before he was mentioned as a potential speaker. From everything I've heard it since, it sounds like he'll be inspiring--which is kind of the point, right? For people who disagree with his views, at least it'll be an opportunity to have your ideas challenged and expanded for maybe the last time before disappearing into an office.
James was a great leader during the process, and I'm angry that people are attacking him. I don't know what, if any, support he received from the school administration, so I can't speak to that. Again, the answer? Say it with me: talk to James himself rather than complaining anonymously here.
Addendum to my 8:55 comment: I'm not angry that people are attacking James; disagreement can be valid. I'm angry that people are attacking him anonymously and thus, in my opinion, dishonorably. I'm also always surprised that people who didn't make any of their own time to participate in the decisionmaking process are now complaining about the results.
Like I said, prime dbaggery.
Oh give me a break. The minute you put your name on a ballot, you open yourself to public criticism -- indeed, you SHOULD open yourself to public criticism. That's called *politics*. That's what happens when you ask to represent a group of people: those people then talk about you and maybe even criticize you. This isn't North Korea. As Coolio said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out the kitchen."
"This isn't North Korea" is my father's favorite saying for when my mom asks him not to mow the lawn with his shirt off. Oh, the memories of home.
Of course James is open to public criticism--I just think it's really cowardly to not have the courage of your convictions to post your name. In a few short months we're going to be lawyers which is scary on many levels. Are you going to be afraid to sign your name to a brief if it is mildly controversial?
I feel like I'm sounding really bitchy here, which I don't think I am in real life. Our graduation should be happy and I'm sad that people are so ready to have a chip on their shoulder and hate on everything involved. Yes, there should be changes--that idea to have tickets for 1Ls and 2Ls is a good one. I also heard that the seats in the front are not reserved for the disabled or for old folks who will have trouble walking up the stairs. Great news for my more elderly relatives! Things aren't going to change just by complaining (anonymously) here. Go talk to James, talk to HP, talk to PP, talk to DE, DO, etc. That may involve having a name attached to your opinion, but that might be a pleasantly new experience for some people here.
People interested in capital defense lawyering in the south might want to check out the readings for March 9, 2006 at this site:
http://www.fr.com/jjs/
It's a mixture of the appalling and the heroic. Those excerpts will provide some background for Bryan Stevenson's speech. There's also a profile of him here:
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/bh_stevenson.html
On another topic, next Monday, April 9th, at 12:45 pm, we're having a brown bag lunch in room 110 about students who did film documentaries rather than papers in the Legal Profession class. We'll discuss tips, how-to, etc.
I completely agree with Jenna. Also, I have something special here for Anonymous 8:06. I've been saving it for you.
"I shall conclude this paper by observing, how much it is to be wished, this writer would exhibit himself to the public view, that we might behold in him a living monument to that immaculate purity, to which he pretends, and which ought to distinguish so bold and arrogant a censor of others." --James Monroe
I'll put myself on the record to say I'm incredibly excited that Bryan Stevenson will be our speaker. I'm sure the rest of you will be glad once you hear him speak.
Here's a quote from the ABA profile John Steele referenced.
"As one of the most effective public interest lawyers in the country, and one of the nation's leading critics of the death penalty, Stevenson is a highly sought-after speaker. In addition to his views on the unreliability of the death penalty and its disproportionate use for the poor and people of color, he fervently believes that "no one is beyond hope, beyond redemption.""
Sarah Spiegel
Some friends of mine recently got married. It was a great, but expensive wedding. It cost over $250.00 per guest as a variable cost. Somehow an old acquaintance was mistakingly invited by other friends. The happy couple had to make the very uncomfortable telephone call to let the old acquaintance (who hadn't otherwise been heard from for a couple of years) know that he was not in fact invited. This was my friend's special day, something they had been dreaming about for a long time, and they deserved to have it just right. It isn't d'baggery to want something nice, special, and just maybe a bit memorable for something that you may have looked forward to for your entire life.
As 9:14 said, when a politician makes a HUGE foul-up announces the screw-up at the last minute as though it were a triumph, and then doesn't respond to the criticism of his electorate, the politician starts to look a little bit Bushesq
Put me down as ecsatic that Bundy will be speaking.
Re: the commencement speaker; I didn't help look for one when input was solicited. Owing to my lack of standing (but see Mass. v. EPA; forthcoming post?), I will keep silent.
Thanks to all the people who are making this event happen without my help!
Has it occurred to anyone that perhaps Stevenson was only invited after many other speakers declined? And that this may have more to do with how little Boalt is willing to do for them ($, travel, honors)? Or that "big names" are busy more than a year in advance?
Oh you're so naive 11:44. Don't you know this is an evil plan hatched by an evil class president to get his evil world views impressed on everyone at graduation? Your love of social justice is clearly blinding you to this reality.
I just love reading the incessant bitching and the sense of entitlement. My favorite so far is the idea the professors should pick the speaker. I'll bet life and limb the same person would not even bat an eye when criticizing the out of touch faculty for choosing someone he doesn't like.
On a personal note, I really wanted Colbert. But let's be honest, an invite letter like the following would not have been warmly received.
"Dear Stephen Colbert,
I want to make love to a school boy. Your raper's wit is a welcome nightly distraction from the horrors of law school reading. And for that reason I would love to invite you to speak at UC Berkeley School of Law's commencement ceremonies. Now, I understand you tape your show four nights a week, which leaves you with little free time. But the commencement is on a Saturday morning, and really well worth it. You'll be inspiring hundreds of students to go out into the real world of six-figure salaries and tax brackets never before dreamed of. Only you can really move the young esquires to pursue justice with vengeful billing rates.
You can get in touch with the common Americans, for whom you fight nightly on your show, while flying coach across country. If you prefer business or first class, I suggest you call your friends with frequent flyer miles in advance. Now the hotel you'll be staying at smells a bit. The rooms have the stench of disappointment and urine from the fall interview cycle here at the law school.
In return for your commitment, you well be cheered, and possibly even jeered because some people here probably think your TV persona is genuine. You may pick up your ticket at United's e-ticket counters.
Sincerely,
Grad Committee
P.S. You look like you could use the California sun."
Notice that many of the anonymous posters merely referred to our resident political leader as the "3L class president," never mentioning him by name. Anonymous posters have done 1000% more in protecting his identity from enterprising Google searchers than non-anonymous posters. Only a non-anonymous poster stated his name publicly. The anonymous posters have shown more respect for obfuscating real-life identities than the non-anonymous posters have. Keep that in mind before you go on another misplaced diatribe attempting to stifle discussion merely because the free expression happens to come with no names attached.
I don't see asking the 3L president in person to explain prior actions at this juncture is a better approach than hashing out this situation in the only forum of free dialogue at Boalt. What's he going to do about it? The deed is done. The discussion here is more forward-looking, suggesting that future classes elect class presidents who will shake up the current way commencement speakers are selected (the current way: kids from a public school, dressed in rags, claiming to have no parents [or at least parents with money], beg speakers to come and talk with no promise of lodging, food, sunscreen, or water).
Next year, the 3L president should give the class quarterly status reports. He or she should tell his constitutents what's getting done, what isn't getting done, and where their help is needed. I recall that he sent one email out to us in the fall, essentially saying, in so many words, "Don't get your hopes too high on a great graduation speaker. Be realistic. Remember that Howard Dean bailed on us last year." That wasn't very inspiring.
Alternatively, if the issue really has nothing to do with the poor, good-intentioned guy or girl who is selected as president, future classes should demand more accountability, more participation from the admnistration regarding acquiring a commencement speaker. As 11:44 AM likely states correctly, Stevenson was much lower on the list than other speakers who the students were trying to recruit; a month before graduation, we badly needed a speaker. With the appropriate support from the administration, this situation would probably have not occured.
I, along with about 25 of your classmates, was on the graduation speaker committee. It was truly through much toil and consideration by many that we were able to land Bryan Stevenson as graduation speaker. And I think that our class president deserves great credit for his stewardship of the process. If anyone has any questions or complaints about the process, feel free to contact me in person or over email.
I also concur with the sentiment expressed by James Monroe that Issac posted, although I might have phrased it differently: It's easy to be an asshole anonymously.
Ben Wolff
We could also just choose to have 2 faculty speakers this year. It is never to late to un-invite a speaker. We can blame it on some sort of strike...
I nominate Shelanski. The man talks about asset specificity and common carrier regulations and makes it seem as though he is telling captivating ghost stories. Never have I seen someone convey such mind numbing topics in such a sintillating fashion. It doesn't hurt that his resume is far superior to most people we could possibly have come speak at our graduation.
True Ben, but many of us make it look easy in person as well.
Is a single faculty member or administrator on the graduation speaker committee?
Are you kidding, 12:24? You want to un-invite one of the great civil rights lawyers of our time so we can have a speaker talk about "asset specificity and common carrier regulations"? Even if you are going into a law firm, don't you still care about civil rights and equal access to the law for poor people? I don't understand how Bryan Stevenson is being cast as a niche speaker - would you say the same thing about Thurgood Marshall (before he was a justice)?
-Sarah Spiegel
Mr. President, Ben, and everyone on the committee:
Thank you very much for working so hard to invite Mr. Stevenson to speak. I look forward to the day. I understand that you had a very difficult job and your choice, whatever it was in the end, was guaranteed to make some (or many) people unhappy.
Maybe I would have invited somebody different, but that's beside the point: my chance to influence the process came and went (see Tom's comment above). Besides, I like hearing from different viewpoints, so I see this as a good chance to hear from someone doing work I likely won't ever do in a place I might never go. We shouldn't be parochial and insist on Californians only, as some comments demand.
Finally, I also find it interesting that the individuals critical of the choice of speaker mostly voice their gripes anonymously or pseudonymously. Try to show some backbone if you've got something critical to say.
And Armen said the 2Ls are whiney.
To the whiney 3L students who are bitching about their speaker when they had every opportunity to give their input and be on the speaker selection committee:
Good Fucking Riddance.
Don't tell me I'm whiney!!!
I'm disappointed because one of the most important days of my life thus far is going to be my graduation from Boalt. I would like, and I deserve to be enamored with the speaker. We all deserve to hear from someone that we have at least heard of before. We deserve someone who can be unamiguously found by searching google for their name. As it is I rank higher than he does on a search for my name (I don't have a unique name). I don't need to agree with the speaker. In point of fact I do agree with the planned speaker, but I do need to be interested in hearing him speak. As to having had my chance, As previously noted by someone, not much was made of the chance, and I assumed some competance, or some follow through.
I guess I made an ass out of u and me.
As a 1L, I am officially requesting that our class start trying now to secure Stephen Colbert for our graduation speaker. Pretty please, 1L reps?
c'mon, people. your special day isn't going to be ruined. how many of you even remember who spoke at your undergrad or high school ceremony, much less what they said?? the guest speaker is 20 minutes of a 2+ hour ceremony. the day is about celebrating the occasion with your family and friends.
I'm a 2L and I want someone famous if we can get them (though people seem to think we can't). But maybe I'm just a celebrity-whore. Anyone running this spring with connections to someone cool gets my vote.
Wow...the whining goes on and on. I really hope that the spirit of Boalt is better reflected in the benefit for Holly today in the courtyard. I'm willing to bet many of those moaning have rarely lifted a finger to make anything happen at Boalt...
The whining makes me think that the privilege which CSJ has tried to question is alive and well-- the tone of people's comments were definitely: "its all about me" "I'm entitled to someone famous" "look how special i am world" Most of us are going on to "great things" (however that may be defined for you) next year---was bragging about your law school graduation speaker going to help further inflate your ego? Awww...I'm so sorry for you. Certainly your needs come above those of the wrongly convicted who sit on death row.
On a personal note, I mentioned Stevenson to my Dad today, and he was thrilled--"wow, I read an article about him recently, he's supposed to be great."-- So there, my Daddy's going to be psyched. na na-- na na na. na.
Jennifer Seidenberg
I will also go on record as in full support of James and the Committee. Bryan Stevenson is awesome, I'm grateful he is speaking. He is also definitely "famous," far more so than most of us ever will be.
Can someone explain why a benefit was held for Holly today? Not that I don't love her and all (I do), but what was the purpose?
What the fuck? I paid a hundred thousand dollars to go to a public school and I have to put up with a shitty speaker? Maybe all of you rich kids can shell out that kinda money without flinching, but I sure cant.
The day someone else pays my tuition bills, I'll start giving a flying fuck about what they think I'm entitled to for my money.
Thank God Bundy will be speaking. Otherwise, that ceremony would just be a gigantic shit-show.
Thanks James, Jenna, Ben, and everyone else on the graduation committee for ensuring that we will have a speaker, and no doubt a very accomplished speaker no matter his political persuasion.
Props to Jen for calling out the whiners, but this is truly malicious hating rather than simple whining.
For me, graduation will be an important day, but it is not the keystone of my time at Boalt. My experience has been forever shaped by the people here who I have come to know and respect. The graduation speaker, regardless of how popular, what political bent, how inspiring, or controversial will not represent the culmination of my years here. Rather, it will be embodied by the celebration and memories that I have with my friends and family.
To all of the anonymous posters: despite such dishonorability, I am thankful for it because I don't want to spend my last 4 weeks at Boalt Hall associating your faces to the asinine comments here.
it bears repeating: you people are a bunch of whiners. Get over yerselves--especially the poster talking about families shelling out money for law school deserving something better. Pullllease. Some of us are bearing the bill all on our big 'ol selves and are just fine to have our hard earned degrees in hand with a little pomp and circumstance. Thanks to all who organized the party. I gladly attend.
To the constant downers that just have to moan, I wonder what makes you think graduating with obviously qualified speakers isn't special. What--you think you're going to be friends with the desired famous speaker? He or she is going to invite you for tea? It's a speech. You take a picture. You go party. You start studying for the bar. Stop sniveling. You irritate me.
Regarding the request earlier for accommodations for those who can't climb the stairs, please see http://www.law.berkeley.edu/students/services/commencement/#disability. H.P. can probably help you out!
To the crybaby 3Ls:
Get over it! If you cared so much about who your graduation speaker would be, why didn't you join the graduation speaker committee? It would be one thing if you tried to be a part of the committee and were prevented from having some input but that obviously didn’t happen. You should have said something when you had the chance to actually help choose a speaker. Stop complaining about the handful of Boalt students that actually took the time out of their schedule to find a speaker.
"To the crybaby Democrats:
Get over it! If you cared so much about who your President was, why didn't you join a campaign full-time? It would be one thing if you asked to work for Kerry in the last election and were prevented from being hired, but obviously that didn't happen. You should have done something when you had the chance to elect a President. Stop complaining about the handful of conservative political operatives that actually took time out of their schedule to help elect George W. Bush president."
Do you see what's absurd about that? Not all of us can FUCKING DROP EVERYTHING TO WORK ON A CAUSE. But we can vote. And when the results don't turn out how we like, we can criticize those who made such decisions. That's the basic concept of a "representative government," which is surely what the 3L class leaders are, in whatever de minimis form. Or should we all just realize that little Georgy Bush is trying super really hard and should be commended and not put down? Of course not. We all participate in our own ways, we all vote, and we all have the right to challenge the results of that vote. If someone didn't want to be the target of public criticism, they shouldn't have run for a public position -- and no amount of "but gosh they worked weally weally hawd!" is going to change that simple fact.
Well you certainly have enough time to blast off about this silly little cause--and the nerve to compare your whining to actual political discourse. You're not talking about government policy. You are talking about the choice for a class speaker. You are not criticizing Congress, you are criticizing the equivalent to the prom committee.
Grow up. Your banter makes you look like you’re LDLS--lap dog law student. You know, the product of too much pedigree and pamper, the thing with all the first place ribbons that mistakes overbreeding for studliness. The yappy little thing that annoys real dogs.
In 9:08's defense, it takes only a couple of minutes to post a comment here, whereas it takes (I assume) much more time to actually be a part of the committee.
Oh now I understand! If you care a lot about a public issue, it's OK to criticize, debate, argue, and inform. But if you care a lot about a...public issue on a smaller scale, then shut your fucking trap!
That makes a lot of sense. Participatory democracy for sufficiently "important" issues to the nation. Shut-up-and-be-grateful for issues important only to a smaller community.
You have created a distinction without a difference. If a) people care about an issue and b) took the time to vote for c) someone who proclaimed they wanted to represent the community on that issue, then you have *political discourse*, however much you want to be the Grand High Mufti of deciding what is and is not permissible political debate. Congratulations. There's a position as King Mullah waiting for you in Iran.
(But they kill dogs over there, by the way.)
Yeah, okay yapper. You're engaged in some bizarre psycho-drama that's not allowing you to see the larger picture. That's cool. (yap). You can tell yourself this is about you being persecuted for participating in democracy.(yap). Some left-wing hypocracy designed to keep you from engaging in enlightening dialogue (yap) about why it sucks that you didn't get a class speaker that is more worthy of your status. yap.
I just heard about this discussion and after reading through it I am feeling a bit sick to my stomach.
I must say I completely agree with all of the folks who have commended our class president and the members of our class committee for having done a great job. I appreciate all of their hard work and I am very much looking forward to hearing Mr. Stevenson speak. And I am sure my parents and brother, who will be traveling a long way, will also be very happy with our speaker. I just hope my parents never see this "discussion" because it might detract from their experience with all of the great things about Boalt and all of the amazing people I have gotten to know over my three years here.
Jay V.
Wow, quite a thread here. After all that, I just have two tiny cents to add.
I don't know James, but I believe that he did his best. Thanks, James, for putting the time in. I'm sure it wasn't easy, and I'm sure it sucks to hear little feedback all year followed by a bunch of griping on the back end. So thanks.
I wasn't on the grad committee, but I did have hopes for one speaker in particular. I did my small part in pursuing that speaker, helping to draft a letter of invitation. It didn't pan out. Oh well.
My hope all along was to have a cool speaker. Not necessarily famous (I don't really understand the desire of a famous speaker for fame's sake), just cool. This Stevenson guy sounds cool to me. I hope my right-wing, ex-cop aunt and uncle are pulling their conservative hair out by the end of it, but that's just me. I'll be happy even if Stevenson's not polarizing as long as he gives a decent speech, which I fully expect he can.
One other thing that nobody has keyed into: I realize the value of open, honest discourse, but it seems pretty disrespectful to belittle or badmouth Mr. Stevenson and his accomplishments before he even gets here, after he agreed to do something for us that x number of other people wouldn't. How would you feel if you were asked to give a speech somewhere, then a month beforehand, you found a bunch of blog commentors talking about how disappointed they were about you being the choice?
Well, I'm sure that Bryan Stevenson has been up against a lot worse than disgruntled graduates, so it's probably not a lot of harm done. Still, I feel like we should give the guy a chance and be grateful that he wants to make the coach flight out here and stay at the Hotel OCIP.
I'll probably be attacked now for suggesting that someone doesn't deserve to be bashed, but whatever. Have at it.
I want to echo Jay and Kahla. Who are you people?? Did I really go to school with you for three years? Not that I believe we all have to be friends, but I thought my classmates were largely decent people who had spent three years hopefully learning something about civil discourse and how to make persuasive arguments (which malicious complaining, especially anonymosly, is not). I moved across the country for Boalt because I really believed (and continue to believe) that we are the nice law school with students who can be nice to each other even if we disagree.
Not a single commenter yet who has hated or complained has had the guts to sign his or her name. Apart from the far-above comments asking about how much support and input there was from the larger Boalt administration, there has been only complaining and attacks on El Presidente and the graduation/prom committee. That's not constructive. The graduation/prom committee can't invent a speaker out of thin air or manhandle Bill Clinton onto the stage. The graduation speaker's job is to talk for 20 minutes and not put people to sleep. For the people who wanted someone interesting and controversial--read the man's bio. For the people who think fame alone makes a great speaker--go hear Danny Glover. Having Bryan Stevenson as our speaker does not add or detract from what we've all accomplished, and having Barack Obama or John McCain wouldn't have added or detracted either, contrary to what some (anonymous) people seem to think. After Stevenson's speech, I bet you're all going to feel really, really sheepish that you treated an inspiring and interesting speaker with such premature disrespect.
So bring on the enlightened discourse. It certainly hasn't been brought-en (ha!) yet. I'd prefer civility and a signature, but I'd even settle for either.
A note to any 2Ls reading this:
I sincerely hope that we don't have this problem next year. Because reading this thread makes me feel really happy I'm not in the 3L class right now (and not because of who the speaker is). Let's learn something from this and try to avoid this type of thing next year, because it's sad. Whoever our speaker is, hopefully we can avoid self imploding as a class a mere 6 weeks before graduation.
Good thing some of the comments are anon because I can't imagine what would happen if you all found out the person sitting next to you in class was the person you were yelling at on this blog.
The dialogue in this comment thread has been quite civil. Elected student leaders have been criticized (not attacked) for their actions and their record, not for their personal attributes. Thoughtful posters have consistently pointed out that, if there is any blame to go around here, the administration, not a bunch of students, should bear the brunt of it. Those who call this discourse uncivil obviously haven't visited AutoAdmit.com.
i'm not afraid to say who i am when making angry comments. i'm erin davidson and i hate writing fake motions for summary judgment. damn you, law school!
okay, but seriously, how is any of this criticism productive? i am personally looking forward to our graduation speakers, but even if i wasn't, i don't see the point of making rude and insensitive comments(some of them directed against individuals) about it on this blog.
first, you do realize that people other than students and, not to mention, people outside the boalt community read this, right? i understand some of your institutional frustrations (with the funding for speakers, etc) and i don't necessarily think it's inappropriate to air them in a public forum, but doing so in the tone and manner that some of you have reflects very poorly on our school and on our student body- and, that's not really something that most of us appreciate, i don't think.
second, what's your motive in doing so? we have our speaker set, your comments here aren't going to change anything for our class year (and many of you seem to only be whining about how you're personally disappointed)...so the best thing you can do is accept it and move on. you want future change? great, but (as others have wisely pointed out- you need to do something more about it than posting here!!) not to mention that your posts are really only alientating others (namely people who are happy with our graduation speaker) who might otherwise have been willing to work for change in the way the graduation speaker is selected at boalt in coming years.
finally, for god sakes, people, maybe i'm way too oversentimental about things, but remember when we first showed up as naive unsuspecting 1Ls at Boalt having no clue what an "issue" or a "rule" was and still thinking of CLR primarily as a cleaning product? think about how far we've come since then, how much blood sweat and tears we've put into earning our degrees... graduation should be something that brings us TOGETHER in a sense of accomplishment and pride from what we have acheived, not something that drives us apart.
so please, try to be nice. i'm very sorry that some of you are disappointed in our speaker, but in the grand scheme of life this is a very trivial disappointment. i'm disappointed that my slice of cornbread at smart alec's was extra small today, but i just thanked the clerk and walked away...
The comment threads on this blog were considerably more vicious around commencement last year when Howard Dean bailed on the 3L class.
Moderate-lefties were eating alive far-lefties in the Boalt cyberspace. Conservative students were laughing at the lunacy of Boalt's left-wing factions. The student council was trying to make all factions of the left happy: the unions, the student groups, democratic politicans. At the same time, student group leaders were pouncing on right-wing critics. Students were pulling out their hair, trying to negotiate world peace with the local UC Berkeley union -- a union that they had dedicated countless hours championing, striking with, and getting to know over the course of their three years at Boalt students -- a union that would essentially stab those progressive students in the back on a very important day by blocking Howard Dean from speaking. That was a lot of heady stuff for students to have to rationalize. And we witnessed it blow-by-blow on cyberspace. It wasn't pretty. It wasn't pleasant.
Another thread about commencement got so nasty that Armen shut it down; I don't think you can find it in the archives of this blog.
I prefer this discourse to last year's. Complaining about the prestige of a speaker may seem petty, but it's more tolerable than some of what occured last year.
Is it too late to recommend Tom Fletcher or Armen as the speaker? How about the staff of this blog collectively?
Who are the student speakers at graduation? Do people audition to speak? Or are their de facto speakers?
I was actually recommending them as the Faculty/Graduation Speaker.
I still think of CLR primarily as a cleaning product.
You must have a dirty fucking toilet.
Wow. I mean really--just wow. I thought Sanjaya was a divisive issue, but apparently he's no Bryan Stevenson.
To answer a couple questions...
12:27 AM--last year I believe it was the BHSA presidents, plus one other student. I have this feeling that El Presidente's speech will show a bit more respect to his fellow classmates than has been shown to him.
12:14--the first post you refer to (about Howard Dean) actually had very positive comments, as I recall. The second post (about the ceremony itself, Armen links to it above) started out alright, but someone picked up on an offhand comment about the announcement of the valedictorian's grades. That started a conversation about grades, and then all hell broke loose, and Armen eventually shut it down.
There seems to be quite a bit of anonymity on this thread, from both sides of the issue. Perhaps I'll draw fire for this comment, but so be it.
First off, James and the rest of the committee members are great people and I’m proud to know them. That said, I must admit that I was disappointed with the graduation committee’s choice. Not because I question Stephenson’s abilities – I am certain he is a great, engaging speaker. But I don’t think he’s the kind of speaker the majority of the audience wants. Certainly, I understand that the long-standing conditions on this campus prevent us from getting politicians, be they democrats or republicans. I also understand that many speakers ask for a hefty fee – and according to Armen, we can’t pay that. I do, however, have several questions.
First, of speaker choices. I know politicians are out of the question. Democrats because of the workers’ strike and Republicans because of the inevitable left-wing protests. But what about judges? With the 9th Circuti next door, there are a number of amazing candidates. Noonan and Kozinski are just two of the many worthy candidates. Were they approached?
Second, of the money issue. I know notable speakers visit our campus on a constant basis. General Anthony Zinni is coming in 2 weeks and, as Armen tells me, Germany’s former foreign minister is going to speak tomorrow. I’m sure they’re not cheap to invite. And Danny Glover isn’t appearing out of the goodness of his heart either, I’d imagine. Obviously, the University has money to pay for their time. Now, I’m not suggesting that we get a CENTCOM bigwig, Joska Fischer, or the elephant from “Operation Dumbo Drop” for Boalt’s commencement, but we could get someone of famous. So many of the other, poorer departments do. Besides, a lot of people seem to want a famous person. Armen tells me it can’t be done. Boalt has had notable commencement speakers before – how’d they do it then?
Again, I know James and the others, and they’re all awesome. Moreover, I’m sure they worked really hard. And though I voted during the class elections, like most 3Ls, I did not submit my input to the committee. But that’s the beauty of a representative government, right?
In any case, its pointless to argue about this now – this should have been decided much earlier. With whom the fault lies for that, I do not know. But I do believe that a lot of people’s anonymous comments are not just “whining” and “bitching” and “righteous DBaggery,” as some have said. They’re legitimate, though somewhat strongly worded, concerns.
Igor
Oh 12:23, I'm very flattered. If I was asked to speak, I would get up, thank the graduating class, faculty, staff, and guests. Then proceed to read this. Also, I'd encourage people to watch clip 1 and clip 2. I thought the end of clip 1 sounded like yours truly's speech in Fall 05 during you know what, but anyway, that's just me.
In the future, I don't think Boalties should give up on inviting Democrat politicians and leaders to speak at graduation. In recent years, Gavin Newsom (Mayor of SF) and Walter Delinger (former head of the OLC under Clinton) spoke at graduation. I hear plenty of other politicians have spoken at Boalt's graduation in years past. Last year, the UC Berkeley union decided to rain on our parade. So what? It doesn't mean they can do so every year.
Remember that the picket line only included 9 or so janitors last year. It was NOT an impressive display of union strength. Talk about anonymous weaklings!! The janitors didn't have the guts to picket in noticeable numbers, likely because they didn't want to show their faces to the students who had championed them all those years - students who even wore arm bands in support of the unions on the day the union blocked their graduation speaker.
Democrats should and will take notice of last year's weak picketing and question whether the local chapter should be taken seriously. Next time the unions threaten to strike at a Democrat and stop him or her from speaking at Boalt, the student groups and the Democrat politician can say to the union leader, "Are you going to drag out more than 9 picketers this year? Because if you can't summon a critical mass of picketing janitors who are willing to show their faces to students on the day of their graduation, then I'm going to cross your line and speak to the students - because those students, unlike your janitors, bothered to show up."
So, in the spirit of forward-looking, constructive advice, I urge rising 3L's to not assume that you can't get the Democrat politician of your dreams to speak at graduation.
Graduation is much more than a speaker or two, folks. For example, one of the nicest parts of the ceremony, other than when we get our JD's (yey!! yey!!!), is when individual students get recognized for their awesome grades (valedictorian), awesome writing, awesome social justice achievements, awesome contributions to campus life, and all around awesomeness. We get to clap and cheer for our friends and support each other the way that Boalt students, at their best, know how to do.
It's nice to hear someone emphasize some other aspects of graduaiton, 1:27 AM. I think there's also a Boalt singing group that sings at graduation. A lot of work goes into making that ceremony happen. We should be grateful to those who plan it.
Guys! Don't you realize that this commencement will have not one, but two excellent speakers with two different speaking styles? Last year's graduation - other than the student speeches - had two stinker speeches. Heyman was boring, and so was the public interest lawyer. In contrast, this year, we get Steve Bundy, who brings a New England-meets-Berkeley eloquence and hipness. The guy knows how to talk. He knows us too. And we also get Stevenson, who, by all accounts, is part of the great tradition of rousing, inspirational minority-activist speakers. So we're in good rhetorical hands.
A slight shift in topic...
I would like to post in defense of anonymous posters. Many of the anonymous posters have been criticized quite harshly on this blog by self congratulating non-anonymous posters. Those critical of anonymous posters who proudly display their name forget that they are espousing the "easy" opinion. No one will call you a douche bag, look at you askance, or permanently lower their personal opinion of you for sharing your view that the Grad committee are all great people and that the speaker will be more than adequate.
So please stop emitting your noxious clouds of smug. It is hard enough to hold a contrary opinion on this campus, at least being able to blog anonymously provides an outlet for the contrarians.
In case you are wondering, I echo Igor at 12:41. I am a little disappointed, though I respect both James and our speaker, I had hoped for more.
Best,
Jacob Chapman
I'll chime in briefly to agree with my comrade, Igor.
Whatever opinions you may hold about the members of the committee as individuals, friends and colleagues, they have failed us in one major way: not by selecting a graduation speaker that many, if not most of us, find underwhelming, but rather by failing to make the selection process transparent. There simply needed to be more communication and accountability.
No, I didn't choose to sit on the committee, but as a constituent, I have a right to more than just an email in the beginning of the process telling me not to have high expectations of the outcome and an email at the end, saying -- more or less -- that things got down to the wire and the committee was not able to get anyone more famous than the selected speaker. Personally, I am quite pleased with the choice, as I do have a soft spot for social justice issues, however, I think the committee may have found more support for its choice had it at some point sent out status reports, or at the very least informed the class that some of the more sought-after candidates were not available (and why). Certainly more people would be satisfied had some sort of solicitation for input happened say in January and whatever choice the committee ultimately made had taken into account student responses.
The bottom line is: we as a class deserved to know that there was a problem, and deserved to know it before a final selection was made.
All that said, James is an awesome guy and I know he worked very hard on this! :-)
It's a fact; the majority of Boalt (and Berkeley) students believe in free speech only when it's their side speaking. A commencement speaker who isn't a die hard member of The Party would be booed off the stage for criticizing the social-justice doublethink.
If we want one of the great social justice champions to come and tell us what we want to hear, we're going to need to pass around the collection plate and cough up the dough for their first air class airfare and their presidential suite. How could we possibly ask one of our Dear Leaders to sit in the back of the plane with a bunch of poors and stay in a regular hotel room like a common laborer?
Did anyone check on getting Arnold to come talk? He's famous. He's fairly close so a plane ticket wouldn't be that expensive. As governor of the state, he has more of an obligation to talk at a state school graduation than other people. I don't particularly care about politics at all so I wouldn't care if any politician came, but would people actually freak out/boycott the graduation if he came to talk? For all I know, the committee did check on getting him to come, but I'm curious if anyone could confirm or deny that.
Thanks to Igor, Ksusha, 4/05 Anon 3:10, and I think a couple other people whose anonymous times I don't remember for asking questions civilly (I think that's one reason alone not to comment anonymously--it makes it so much harder to reference back).
As a member of the committee, I'll try to give some answers as I know/remember them. I admit I didn't save every single email about the speaker selection, so I may miss things, and I hope other members of the committee will correct me or chime in.
From looking back through the many committee emails, I actually don't see any mention of the 9th Circuit judges or of Arnold. Those were good ideas and they seem completely obvious to me now in retrospect, but somehow they didn't come up. The committee tried to exploit several personal connections which didn't pan out. The list of nominees did include active Democratic politicians despite the picketing. It also included Republicans, including some serving in the current Administration. There were also nominees from entirely outside the legal and political field. I think the committee was a pretty politically diverse group (and not just by typical Boalt standards), and the list of nominees reflected that. I'm reluctant to list all the people we considered out of respect for Mr. Stevenson, but if anyone would like to know all the people nominated by the committee, email me at jenna underscore musselman at berkeley dot edu and I'm happy to go into more detail. I do realize that's kind of a cop out, but I just don't think the comments of this blog are the proper place for that level of specificity.
I think there were plans to send out the list of nominees to the 3L class for feedback, and I'm not sure what happened there. My guess would be that the timing just got too tight--if someone rejected our invite we needed to be ready to move right away on the next invite. I think everyone realizes status updates would still have been welcome; I hope the 2L class takes note.
One other problem with our system that hasn't been brought out is the timing. Our graduation date wasn't announced until the end of September, which makes advance planning a much tigher timeline than I think people realize. That's a main campus issue and I'd love to see ideas on how to change that.
And regarding Bundy, Dan R. and I headed up that invite so if you want more details on that you can contact either of us.
Thank you, Jenna, for the explanation. I am glad there was finally some pertinent feedback from the graduation committee. All previous posts from the people involved only focused on how great of a speaker Stephenson is and how hard the committee worked. Both concepts are well-known and widely understood. They were not at issue. The real points of contention were, I believe, the committee’s focus and goals. Again, their hard work is not questioned.
From Jenna’s account, it looks like the process had some serious organizational issues, both because of the UC bureaucracy and because of the understandable inexperience of the committee’s members. And yes, if you’re wondering, I do place some of the responsibility on the committee. They did, after all, take on that responsibility voluntarily. There is nothing wrong with criticism, as long as it is constructive. I hope that next year’s 3Ls learn whatever is necessary from this year’s situation. Transparency, a Ksusha suggested, should be among the first policies they institute.
I want to end on a positive note. There is a Russian saying which, loosely translated, states: “he who does not work does not make mistakes.” I’m just glad someone volunteered to plan this event. Even though mistakes were made, it’s not that big of a deal. It’s not like we’re graduating from Graduation Planner’s School. We’ll be lawyers. We’ll have others do the recruiting for us.
Igor
Lastly, for all those just dying to have a controversial person at the graduation, keep in mind that I openly support the death penalty, the second amendment, the war in Iraq and the President. Look for me at the event. I’m sure they’ll announce my name. And ya’ll can applaude.
There's a new poll out showing only 24% of Californians approve of the President's performance. I thought to myself, "Still 24%?! How could anyone, even a hardcore Republican, still "approve" of someone who has screwed up so ridiculously and continuously, by any possibly policy or ideological measure?" It's like supporting Buchanan, Harding, Nixon, the skipper of the Exxon Valdez, Yasir Arafat, Ken Lay, and Sanjaya...all rolled into one.
But now I have my answer.
SANJAYA??? you're lumping Sanjaya in with Nixon, the skipper of th Exxon Valdez, and Ken Lay??
I mean, holy hell.
First off, I don't "approve" of the President. What am I, God Almighty? Read my post. I clearly said "support."
Second, does this mean you're ok with all the other things I support?! Wow! You must really dislike the President. I bet if I listed "clubbing baby seals" along with my affinity for the electric chair and the AK-47, you'd still give me crap about Bush.
No, my point is that I can understand how someone can legitimately support the death penalty, the 2A, maybe even the war in Iraq. I don't see how anyone can still support the President. Ideology is one thing. Delusion is another.
I'm flattered that my political views are controversial enough to draw fire away from the speaker issue.
Supporting the President does not mean agreeing with, or approving of, everything he says and does 100% of the time. Only morons do that. I support my friends and family as well, but I don't always agree with their decisions.
Supporting the President, be he a Democrat or a Republican, does not depend on ideology. It is a matter of respect. Respect for the democratic process, for the office of the President, and for the American system. I would support any President, regardless of his party affiliation. Just like I support free speech, even if I don't always agree with what is being said. But that's another concept liberals don't understand.
I actually really appreciated 9:17's Sanjaya comment. Pretty damn funny if you ask me. Maybe we can get Sanjaya to speak at some future Boalt graduation.
Way to take one for the team, Igor! Whatever happened to your rightwing blog anyway?
I just wanted to get to 100 comments.
why? do you win a free dust buster or something? ;)
Igor - how ironic that you support our President out of "respect" for the democratic process when he wasn't even democratically elected.
12:17 - how ironic that you make ad hominem attacks (presumably on your schoolmate) without identifying yourself. if you legitimately wished to challenge igor's views, you could do so in person or via email. this is neither the time nor the place for the above commentary. let's skip the personal attacks and respectfully stick to the topic at hand. thanks in advance for your cooperation.
12:17:
Oh, that’s right, I forgot! I read all about this on bumper stickers! It was the evil, right-wing Supreme Court, with that evil, right-wing O’Connor that appointed big bad G.W. and stole the election from poor little Al. And that’s why American citizens overwhelmingly voted for Democrat John Kerry during the last election… oh, wait…
Igor
Post a Comment
<< Home