Petitioners' Victory! Or not.
This is for all those readers not on DE's friends and family list. In the comments, I will quote an email received from the Dean in response to the JY petition. I think the two main points are:
1. DE firmly dismisses the issues raised in the petition.
2. Boalt will offer another Civ Pro II class, but for a different reason.
The new class is being offered because "[t]ypically, around 160 students per year have enrolled in Civ Pro II, which means next year’s offerings must accommodate roughly 320 students. This clearly justifies adding a third section." However, it would be "inappropriate" to make any curriculum changes on the basis of a few students' objection to JY.
I think it's notable that DE goes out of his way to clarify that he's not validating the petition. Your thoughts?
1. DE firmly dismisses the issues raised in the petition.
2. Boalt will offer another Civ Pro II class, but for a different reason.
The new class is being offered because "[t]ypically, around 160 students per year have enrolled in Civ Pro II, which means next year’s offerings must accommodate roughly 320 students. This clearly justifies adding a third section." However, it would be "inappropriate" to make any curriculum changes on the basis of a few students' objection to JY.
I think it's notable that DE goes out of his way to clarify that he's not validating the petition. Your thoughts?
posted by Carbolic at 1:13 PM
41 Comments:
To 1L and 2L Students Regarding Civil Procedure II:
In the past, we typically offered two sections of Civ Pro II each year. As you know, Civ Pro II is being phased out of the curriculum, and the 2009-10 offerings will be the last ones. This means that two years of student demand will be compressed into one. Because of an unfortunate coincidence of faculty leaves that resulted in staffing challenges, we scheduled only two sections in 2009-10, both in the fall. In recent days, however, many students voiced serious concerns about access to the course, so we reviewed the enrollment history. Typically, around 160 students per year have enrolled in Civ Pro II, which means next year’s offerings must accommodate roughly 320 students. This clearly justifies adding a third section. We were wrong to offer only two sections, and we’ll fix it. We will add a third section in spring 2010, with the instructor TBD.
A few students objected to Professor John Yoo teaching one of the sections, citing his controversial role in the Bush Administration’s policies regarding torture. My general view on this remains pretty much what I stated last spring. In brief, any alteration of Professor Yoo’s academic responsibilities would raise serious academic freedom issues, until and unless something more formal, official, and dispositive develops. As things stand now, it would be inappropriate for the Law School to make curricular decisions based on those objections.
[DE]
The petition was silly, and the response to it on here was embarrassing, but the petitioners got what they wanted, if for reasons other than intended.
I think this goes to show that the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
I have trouble with the proposition that being concerned with the public perception of our school, as well as wasteful expenditures of political capital, is "embarrassing." But, if you're talking about the open threats to throw resumes, which aren't going to come across your desk anyway, in the trash, then I agree that that was rather embarrassing.
I think it's pretty obvious this was a response to the petition, despite DE's insistence to the contrary. Beyond that, I try not to care too much about this.
i think dan is spot on. DE's acknowledgment of the petition kind of hints that it did influence this decision, but it would be inappropriate for the law school administration to say it did.
to think otherwise seems to be an overly literal reading.
or perhaps each side in this great debate will take exactly what they want to out of this letter...
...which come to think of it is probaly exactly what DE was going for.
Hey everybody, let's try to break down Dean Edley's syntax to reveal a hidden message that we can interpret as a moral victory!
The response to this petition has been childish. I don't care whether the petition, independent concerns about the number of spaces available for civ pro 2, or the fact that the Yankees lost last night was the primary factor in Dean Edley's decision. In any case, people who wanted a chance to avoid taking a class with John Yoo get what they want, and the few who want Dean Edley to throw his concern for academic freedom to the wind and can the guy have to live to fight another day.
To Matt and others embarrassed by the petition, I guess I'm sorry that you find your fellow students' willingness to voice their concerns an embarrassment to our school. You are free to believe that students' objections to John Yoo are silly symbolic gestures. Somehow, though, I don't think your concerns about Berkeley's reputation in the corporate world are going to dissuade people with a moral objection to torture and its enablers from speaking up again in the future. I guess you'll have to laugh off the "empty Berkeley tradition" in interviews as best you can for the foreseeable future.
I'm so tired of this "you either support the peition or you support the Yoo ideology" mentality.
Isn't it at least possible to be both morally opposed to torture, and desirous of formal, careful, non-ad hoc proceedings against its enablers?
That's me. And it's DE, too.
No, Patrick, you can't do that. You can't be opposed to the petition and hoping to enter a non-corporate job after graduation, either.
Today is the first time I've been "embarrassed by the public perception of our school." I'm currently hosting my fifth admitted student (after being begged by the administration due to severe lack of volunteers this year) and today at lunch I was prepared for the discussion about the construction, the loss of major faculty to other schools in the following year, and the any "Berkeley hippie" stereotyping that I've come across....However, I was completed unprepared when this admit brought up Nuts & Boalts and the recent thread about this petition.
Do you people not remember that this is a public website? Do you really think that bickering like children and threats by alums to "toss resumes" is the perception that we want to put forth while the admits are deciding where they want to go to law school? Who chooses to join us next fall affects ALL of us. The 1Ls and 2Ls will need intelligent, articulate, passionate, and energetic new blood. The 3Ls and alums will need this school to continue to lead this country as a top law school for their future careers and future employees.
And guess what kids...you just lost one admit. A good one. And I'm pretty certain he's not the only one who knows how to google "nuts & boalts" and see this fiasco.
For all of our sakes, grow-up. The petition was made and there didn't need to be a huge mud-throwing blog about it. If you don't approve, don't sign it. If we are going to be the leaders of the country in the near future, can we please start acting like it now? A 22 year old just called us all childish, and he's right...
Heather makes a good point. So before we point fingers and decide which side is responsibility for being childish, let's just agree to not be jackasses in the future. Respect your fellow students beliefs, even if you don't agree with them.
I actually support the petition AND I support Yoo.
I have not yet taken a Yoo class, but I am excited to get the chance to do so. I hear he is a great professor.
At the same time, I understand why students would not want to take his classes. It is a moral objection that has nothing to do with whether he broke the law or some rule of ethics.
The solution is to do precisely what DE did -- let Yoo do his job, but give students who do not want to take his class another option.
Note that the petition did not call for some disciplinary measure against Yoo -- it just called for another option for students.
1. The petition was self-righteous, foolish (in its description of civil procedure), and smacked of entitlement (I demand a conflict-free schedule!). At least initially, it was a public demand to have a professor removed from teaching civil procedure. I don't think anything wrong about talking about it.
2. I don't recall any posts that challenged the principle of not wanting to take a class with Yoo. The fact that there were alternatives, the fact that civil procedure doesn't involve individual rights, the tone of the petition--all this was discussed. But that's different.
3. I don't accept the idea people should either sign the petition or be silent. The petitioners are the ones that brought this issue out into the open. Should Patrick have started a counter-petition asking DE to disregard the first one? Should Nathan then have started a third petition to respond? N&B can be childish and petulant at times, but it's one of the few fora for public discussion at Berkeley. That's a good thing. Law school is supposed to be about the energetic exchange of ideas, but it's often not.
4. Heather: first, be careful dismounting your high horse. Second, if an admit doesn't want to be in an environment where people argue and defend their opinions, then I'm not sure I want her or him at Boalt. Some students petition to have a professor removed from a course, we're not supposed to talk about it in case we might disturb Boalt's sales pitch?
5. I reserve the right to be childish.
Not that I was involved in the debate (as, again, I barely care), but I do regret it if the blog's demeanor turned off an admit.
On the other hand, if he manages to find a law school where people don't bicker childishly, I'll eat my foot.
If an admit isn't going to want to come to Berkeley because of a blog post,well I don't think that admit would've come to Berkeley anyways and was just coming up with a reason to tell you.
However, if this blog post really made somebody change their mind on where they would spend the next three years of their life then I don't think Berkeley lost much. That doesn't show very rational thinking.
That is like saying that an anonymous comment on ATL made me decide to switch law firms.
Congrats, Csrbolic and Patrick. You've managed to take an issue that was fruitfully discussed and debated in the halls of Boalt and brought it to a forum where even Berkeley Law students will bicker like children behind the anonymous veil of the internet. Now, what never would have gained any attention outside of our school is posted on ATL for all the world to see.
Nuts and Boalts, as the de facto public face of Boalt, is trite at the best of times and an absolute embarrassment at the worst. Carbolic's defense of his right to act like a child by taking anonymous swipes at people on the internet for the sake of a "public forum" is ridiculous.
Oh the irony.
J. that post of yours is pretty ironic.
J., at first I thought you were easily excited. Now I know you're a defensive and unappreciative idiot.
Nuts and Boalt is one of the best things the students at this school have, and Armen and Patrick have done a service to the Boalt community that is completely unmatched by any other law school, anywhere. Your petition bothered me. But slandering these bloggers' selfless and time consuming commitment to the student body as a whole? That just pisses me off.
I second 9:24 and was about to say the same thing myself.
N&B is the best!
This blog got the entire university to change how they do registration times.
As a person with formally crappy registration times I owe all my non-8:00 classes to this blog!
Wow, three NICE comments from Anons?
My heart grew three sizes this day.
Glad to touch your heart Dan, and I do not pretend to speak for others, but my anonymous compliment was directed to Armen and Patrick. You have some promise but much to learn, grasshopper.
I don't think there is anything wrong with asking N & B moderators and participants to elevate the level (and tone) of the discussion. No one is asking you not to debate the issues you care about - but it gives our school a bad name when you do so in a disrespectful and insulting manner. It also does *not* accurately reflect the tenor of discussion had in Boalt hallways and classrooms. As the "internet face" of Boalt, N & B should strive for the same level of intellectualism and care that we all afford each other publicly.
6:05 - I agree it would be nice if the tenor of discussion on N&B matched that of Boalt's hallways. Unfortunately, in any setting where people are allowed to speak anonymously, they are of course going to ignore the formalities of etiquette. While the obscene number of nutcase conservatives and hippie radicals don't represent an accurate cross-section of Boalt, the back and forth here is worlds away from the drivel you might find at abovethelaw.
Anyway, anonymous speech = lower quality discussion. It's sad, but it goes for every medium.
Hey 5:19, this blog would be pretty boring at the moment with only Patrick's existential musings and Armen's occasional simpson's quote.
Everyone contributes, for good or bad.
gah! misuse of "existential" irks me almost as much as begging the question irks Patrick.
anyone know if the US news rankings have been leaked? I heard Boalt tied for 6 w/ Chicago.
I heard Boalt was number one for best student-run blog. And number four for student-initiated petitions. Behind Washington (St. Louis), Texas-Austin, and Harvard.
See here for rankings:
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/15951/28075551.jpg
Dear J – do you even read your own rants or are you just so blind and exactly the kind of person the rest of are so embarrassed to go to school with that you can’t see the irony of your posts?
You complain that N&B: 1) make the issue public 2) caused bickering 3) in the disfavored “anonymous veil” of the internet.
Let’s review: your petition was 1) public 2) made a big secondary issue over something that could have been easily solved 3) allowed anonymous signers.
So public bickering w/ anonymous signers are only okay for you but not okay for the poster of N&B? If N&B is so ‘trite’ and ‘an embarrassment”, then stop posting here! Isn’t that what you said about the petitions? If you don’t like it don’t sign it. Well, if N&B is so bad, then don’t post here. Obviously it’s not “trite” because you keep coming back! As for the “embarrassment”, well, at least the felling is mutual.
If you think anonymous posts are so terrible, then don’t let people sign your petitions anonymously! Better yet, lead by example and use your real name next time you write a post on here.
As for the admit student, sorry we lost him. But honestly, this website is helluva lot nicer than the tone at this school. First semester of attending Boalt, every other week, I’d sit in class or Zeb and hear people have very loud (as in I sat on one side of zeb and can hear them coming from the other side) conversations about “F-cking Republicans” “F-cking pro-lifers who the hell do they think they are”. That IS the tone – because people like J who go to school here cant even conceive of the fact that moderates, conservatives, or even people who just don’t enjoy hearing cursing at that loud of a decibel at 11am even exist in their little world of Berkeley.
So sorry admit, but at least you’re getting a real picture. And if I had known that, Berkeley, the self-proclaimed high and mighty liberal institution of open minded learning, is actually one of the least tolerant (at least student bodies) in academia, I’d have taken myself elsewhere too. So maybe he’s better off.
I wish you had known too...
I have found that 90%+ of the students at Boalt are highly tolerant, intelligent, and ready to learn from people with different views. It is the other small minority that make everyone look bad.
1:52, I hear that Regent University Law if looking for some transfer students.
The above post is correct, Boalt is an active community with BROAD views, and 90% of the student body is probably disgusted by some of these posts (both liberal and conservative). To the Admits out there reading this, please try to talk to actual students face to face and don't just read the anonymous taunting that is going on as a form of procrastination for those people who don't want to study for finals.
Now, I don't really give much credence to US News--I think they move things around just to sell more magazines. That being said, their rankings affect admit behavior much more than anything said here.
The working link (for now) is here. This could well be a fake, but the LSAT/GPA numbers of various schools appears correct.
Hat Tip: The Critical Badger
Wasn't our passage rate higher than 82.5%.....
Our bar passage rate was 89% for the July 2008 CA bar (http://boaltalk.blogspot.com/2009/01/ca-bar-stats-released.html). But I'm not familiar enough with the US News methodolgy to know if I'm comparing the correct statistics.
Sorry Carbolic- that has to be an inaccurate list. There's no way that nearly all of the top 10 law schools had identical (low) 77% bar passage rates.
Or that's at least my take (who knows, maybe I'm wrong)...
I imagine it is a fake, but not because most of the top tens overall bar jurisdiction pass rate is 77%. Most of the students in the top ten all take the bar in New York, which is the stat USNWR posts.
Just checked Top Law Schools and it looks like Boalt is 6 again. It was real.
Looks like Yoo is off the hizzook: http://www.eastbayexpress.com/blogs/john_yoo_really_is_off_the_hook/Content?oid=966239
au contraire: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/us/politics/21intel.html
Post a Comment
<< Home