Tuesday, February 02, 2010

How Should We Deal with JAG's Discriminatory Hiring Policies?

Army JAG recruiters are coming next Wednesday in order to fill summer slots for 1Ls and recruit 3Ls to serve as JAGs after they graduate from law school.

Some student groups have suggested students who may or may not actually be interested in getting a job with JAG sign up for interviews and then tell the Army recruiters exactly how they feel about the US military's discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

Could this make it harder for students legitimately interested in JAG to get an interview? If so, is it the best form of protest?

Are all military personnel supporting this policy by serving for an organization that's discriminatory?

Does it make a difference that all signs point to this policy being abolished in the near future?

I find the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy deplorable, but I don't think the best way of demonstrating this is by blocking genuine attempts by students interested in serving in the JAG Corps (which have done some awesome things re: detainees in Guantanamo, calling out the Bush administration while putting their careers at risk, etc.).

I know that the standard way to oppose this policy is through attempting to block all recruitment efforts. Is JAG recruitment different than general recruitment as it's recruiting professionals for attorney positions within the Armed Forces? Are people who want to join JAG wrong?



Blogger Armen said...

Sooo...the idea is to protest a policy that unjustly prevents those who want to serve by preventing those who want to serve? I guess it could make sense in a warped mind where the ends always justify the means and everything in the process be damned. But I thought the same people were protesting that exact mindset in Yoo. I'm confused.

2/02/2010 2:21 PM  
Blogger McWho said...

Any student that protests by preventing classmates from getting a job is pathetic. It would also be an embarrasment to Boalt's students and alumni.

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject.

2/02/2010 2:51 PM  
Blogger Slam Master A said...

I agree with McWho. Additionally, I have not read the honor code at Boalt since orientation four years ago, but I would strongly suspect that such actions would violate the honor code.

2/02/2010 3:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd love to sign up, but I'm too gay...

2/02/2010 4:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you say, "the US military's discriminatory 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy."

is it still a "military policy," or did it become a federal statute during the Clinton administration? serious question, not argumentative.

2/02/2010 4:12 PM  
Blogger Patrick said...

Cornering an attorney sent here to speak with interested students because his or her commander in chief has implemented a deplorable policy is like yelling at the Walmart greeter because you are opposed products that capitalize on latin american child labor.

In fact, the only significant difference I can think of between the two is that greeters can quit any time they please.

2/02/2010 4:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Imagine a top law firm that had a policy against hiring black people. Sometimes they hired people that they thought were just really tan, but if they found out they were black, they would be fired.

If federal law required Boalt to allow that firm on campus, and made Boalt e-mail every 1L and 3L about sending them our resumes, I would be furious. I would not feel sympathetic to my classmates that wanted to go work there. I would not be understanding of my more liberal friends that wanted to go work their to change them from the inside, or maybe do some good work while at the firm.

I would try to keep them out of our school, and if that weren't possible, I would try to do everything possible to complicate their recruiting efforts. If I saw someone go to ACTUALLY interview with them, I would shun them, even if they were my friend.

Wouldn't you? Is this different?

2/02/2010 7:23 PM  
Blogger Patrick said...

Yes. This is different.

2/02/2010 7:25 PM  
Blogger Matt said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2/02/2010 7:35 PM  
Blogger Matt said...

Here, I think this is clear enough:

The policies of the Law School Career Development Office should be scrupulously observed. Students are expected to observe the basic standards of honesty, integrity, responsibility and respect for the rights of others when using the Law School Career Development Office and in other placement activities. . . . Similarly, no student may take any improper action to gain an unfair advantage or place any other student at an unfair disadvantage in the career planning or placement activities of the School, whether strictly within the Career Development Office or more generally.

2/02/2010 7:36 PM  
Blogger James said...

7:23, are you really saying that simply wanting to work for the military makes someone a shun-worthy bigot? Is the issue really that simple?

When people signed up in December of 1941, knowing full well that blacks couldn't serve in the military, were they de facto racists? Should they not have served?

2/02/2010 8:12 PM  
Blogger Patrick said...

Has James become the king of the question mark? Or do you think his keyboard has broken?

2/02/2010 8:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

better ideas:
have a table with information about why don't ask don't tell is wrong, staffed by friendly pro-LGBT rights students who can provide information

encourage people with open minds to join JAG and the army to continue the shift away from the sort of homophobia that creates these policies

another idea a bunch of law school LGBT groups do is have their members wear suits like they're going to an interview and tell everyone that you're wearing it to symbolize that you can't interview...

these seem like more of "win-win" protests...

2/02/2010 8:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Matt, I'm sorry that queer kids with better GPAs than you might take your interview slot and put you at an "unfair disadvantage."

2/02/2010 8:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you feel strongly enough about this, then go ahead and do it.

But I will be sure to shun you because of what you are doing to your fellow classmates in tough economic times. If you are ever up for a journal spot I will vote against you, and if you ever interview where I am working I will be sure not to hire you. Furthermore, I hope that CDO bans you from OCI.

2/02/2010 8:32 PM  
Blogger Toney said...

I love it when people post here saying "I will be sure not to hire you", especially when it is such a disproportionate response to some perceived misconduct. Extra especially when it's in response to an anonymous poster. Doubly extra especially because it isn't in response to anyone here who is advocating for the protesting (including James).

2/02/2010 8:38 PM  
Blogger Toney said...

... and by "it isn't in response to anyone here who is advocating for the protesting (including James)", I mean "there isn't anyone here advocating for the protesting for it to be in response to".

Grammar fail.

2/02/2010 8:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I do know who some of these protesters are. I have seen emails with their names.

I don't think its unreasonable to not want to hire someone who actively impeded their classmates job searches.

2/02/2010 8:44 PM  
Blogger Toney said...

I've been informed that my new sentence ends in a preposition, so let's try again: "there isn't anyone here advocating for the protesting for it to be in response to, bitches."

2/02/2010 8:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

James, I'm pretty sure black men could and did serve in the military well before 1941.

2/02/2010 8:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Black men were segregated in the military during most of WW2.


2/02/2010 9:00 PM  
Blogger Matt said...


1. We don't have GPAs.
2. I was just clarifying that it is, indeed, a violation of the honor code.
3. I think all three of 8:16's ideas are better than taking interview slots away from fellow students who are interested in JAG or simply want to ensure they have a way to pay off their debts. While I think the second one would be most effective long-term, I'd be willing to help table if the Boalt LGBT and LGBT-friendly groups elected number one

2/02/2010 9:01 PM  
Blogger James said...

Yeah, that was a bad shorthand version of making the point that they military was segregated and that African Americans were not given the same rights and responsibilities in the military as were whites.

I think asking questions about stuff like this encourages a dialogue, which is useful and more conducive to coming to a consensus.

I am worried that students may be unknowingly violating the Honor Code.

2/02/2010 9:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm just going to say this, anyone who ends their email as below:




2/02/2010 9:11 PM  
Blogger McWho said...

7:23 made me think of the other hilarious ways people can take a noble thing too far.


2/02/2010 9:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

James - Thanks for looking out. I know you're way of left of Obama and all, but I prefer your predictable posts criticizing any semblance of campus activism without the mock concern.

There's NOTHING in the honor code against this. I am planning on (1) accurately offering my resume and transcript to CDO/JAG, and (2) taking "proper" action and going to my interview if selected. Heck, if they select me I'll even take the job, provided they don't mind that I have certain, cough, proclivities...

2/02/2010 9:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am pretty sure there is an honor code violation for being a douche.

2/02/2010 9:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you are actually LGBT, I don't think its a problem for you to go to the interview. Any decision to not hire you would be made by the military in accordance with their discriminatory policies.

Going to an interview with the sole purpose of depriving other people of the slot and with no intention of taking the job is a different matter altogether.

2/02/2010 9:48 PM  
Blogger James said...

Is it really that difficult to understand that someone might disagree with the method of protest and also disagree with what's being protested?

2/02/2010 9:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:48 - Okay, thanks. But, how do I know if I'm gay enough to legitimately attend an interview, in your book? Can we meet up and you can vet me if I pass your gayness standard?

2/02/2010 10:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look, I don't like that Woolworth's refuses to serve black people. I really don't. But what is sitting at the counter going to do? They're not going to get served.

What they're doing is depriving that woman behind the counter of tips; depriving those other customers of a chance to sit and enjoy pie. That's really inconsiderate of them!

I'm concerned for those black students, I really am, and I don't want them to get in any trouble. Further, I want to see them be effective. That's why instead of fighting racism, I'm going to expend my energy writing about how they REALLY ought to be sitting outside with a table explaining the issue to people in a friendly manner.

Worst of all, I've heard there are now WHITE students that have joined the sit-ins. Now, what legitimate purpose could those students have in joining with their peers? Now that's going to far.

2/02/2010 10:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey 9:31,

I'm planning on running down the middle of Bancroft naked, violently waving my harms, shitting myself, and screaming "SERGIO" at the top of my lungs. It's to protest the UC Administration. You down?

An Ally

2/02/2010 10:26 PM  
Blogger McWho said...

Now THAT is how protest is done.

2/02/2010 10:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:23's post may not be a perfect analogy, but it should at least give anyone siding against the protest (like myself) some pause. good post.

2/02/2010 10:35 PM  
Anonymous Boalt Vet said...

To 4:12 PM-- It's not a military policy. It is federal law-- passed by the Congress and signed by the president (Clinton). The military has no choice but to follow the law.

To 8:16 PM-- Why not staff the table with some of your veteran classmates who can also tell you why DADT is so wrong? LGBTs don't have a monopoly on supporting LGBT civil rights.

I think that military leadership is ready-- for the most part-- to open up the forces. However, there are a whole lot of folks at the non-decision-making/grunt level that may act out upon a change in the law & policy. Leadership is worried about that and hence their caution in preparing for implementation. Former CJCS Shalikashvili has been calling for it for some time and current CJCS Mullen recently (today?) issued a strong personal statement in favor of repeal because "it would be the right thing to do."

2/02/2010 10:38 PM  
Anonymous Boalt Vet said...

Forgot the key point: Protesting the JAGs is misdirected. You should be contacting your elected officials-- starting with Senator McCain who chastised Mullen for "bypassing Congress" by expressing his opinion.

2/02/2010 10:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I also wonder the ramifications intentionally depriving another student of an opportunity for work would have on one's moral character review. I certainly know that if I were a student seeking a JAG commission and I knew of a student who took an interview slot as a "protest," there would be a very straightforward letter sent to the committee of bar examiners.

2/02/2010 10:51 PM  
Blogger Boomtime said...

10:38 makes a very important point: DADT is not a military policy. In fact, the military leadership is at least conflicted (and probably supports) repealing it. For example, Chairman of the JCS, Adm. Mullen, posted this to his Twitter feed 12 hours ago:

"Stand by what I said: Allowing homosexuals to serve openly is the right thing to do. Comes down to integrity." [http://twitter.com/thejointstaff]

Should you really be preaching to JAG recruiters? They may be members of the choir.

2/02/2010 11:05 PM  
Blogger Boomtime said...

And yes, I do follow the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Twitter.

2/02/2010 11:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Further, it's silly to protest at the Greensboro Woolworth's! That woman behind the counter is probably just as opposed to her corporate policy as I am. Really, a letter writing campaign should begin to their Board of Directors.

2/02/2010 11:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My point was simple. If you are actually interested in the job, go for it. If the military discriminates against you after you identify as LGBT that is their fault. But if you have no interest in the job don't go to the interview.

That being said, the Woolworth's example is a good one, and I can't really find a compelling distinction in my head.

What I really don't want to see is a bunch of Boalt students lose out on career opportunities because of this. However, the point being made may be important enough to justify this protest. I don't know... but now I feel troubled by either decision.

2/02/2010 11:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Solidarity-peeps, shouldn't you leave Berkeley Law because it accepts money from the federal government and as a result has to allow these JAG recruiters on campus?

OH WAIT, I guess your solidarity does not extend THAT far. It only goes far enough to screw your fellow students over. Thanks for that.

I guess the new motto should be: "Solidarity, whenever we can make a ruckus and disrupt the lives of other people."

2/02/2010 11:27 PM  
Blogger Boomtime said...

I think the Greensboro Woolworth's analogy thought-provoking and a great addition to these comments. But I don't think it's quite on point.

Lunch counter sit-ins produced an immediate reaction (i.e., arrests, violent backlash, etc.), generated headlines, and involved real sacrifice by the protesters. I think it's a little self-aggrandizing to compare the current proposal to the sit-ins. In this case, the immediate result will probably be to pwn classmates' job prospects. There will be no headlines. And finally, this involves not even a modicum of sacrifice by the participants.

The analogy fails on another level. By sitting at lunch counters, Franklin McCain & co. were doing the very thing that blacks were prohibited from doing. Gays are not prohibited from interviewing for JAG positions. In fact, gays are not even prohibited from interviewing for JAG positions and declaring their sexual orientation. Gays are prohibited from serving openly in the military. If you were in the military, living an openly gay lifestyle despite DADT would be the equivalent of a sit-in.

2/02/2010 11:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The other problem with Woolworth is that career and pie are two entirely different things.

2/02/2010 11:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, so far the anonymous posters on here have made clear that they "know" the organizers of the protest, called them "douches" and "DBs," and stated that participants risk Boalt and Bar discipline for their acts. Because of that, I fully expect to be "reported" to various authorities for doing this and outed, which is a risk I'm willing to face. It's not an arrest or a beating, but it's a little disingenuous to say there's "no" risk.

Second, I think it's closer to Woolworth's then you acknowledge. There, the point was to get service, which was prohibited by the business's policy. Here, the point is to get hired, which is prohibited by the employer's policy. Black's weren't prohibited from sitting at the counter; they weren't prohibited from asking for food even! But Woolworth's had a policy not to serve them.

And who knows if this will get headlines: it's already become a pretty popular topic here! Who knows what type of an impact it will have: I don't think anyone can ever predict that sort of thing.

I don't think many of the anti-protest posters have any idea how paternalistic they come across here, telling their peers the right and wrong way to stand up for their rights.

2/03/2010 8:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paternalistic, rational... what's the difference, right?

2/03/2010 9:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find this "protest" of the military remarkably similar to the "protest" of the 49ers speaker who came two years ago. If you want to make a statement, take a giant step back and think about to whom you should direct that statement. Your life isn't a movie; these jobs with JAG could mean the difference between one of your classmates being able to pay of his/her student loans, support his/her family, or pursuing a dream of serving his/her country. I think the LGBT and LGBT friendly community at Boalt needs to step up and ensure that those few who want to harm their fellow classmates are stopped.

If you want to make a statement, do it the right way: take action via the legislature who enacted this law. The military has no choice but to follow it.

2/03/2010 9:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:51 -- That is absurd. You're saying a legitimate protest, albeit one with which you may disagree, is a reportable bar offense? Would you really want to be part of an association (the bar) that takes such a negative attitude towards different forms of speech?

A separate point -- does this protest really preclude anyone from getting a job with JAG? Aren't there a bunch of other ways to apply for JAG besides OCI?

I agree that obviously congress addressing this is really the most appropriate way. They have to; it's a statute, not an administrative policy. But apparently, the next step is for the Pentagon to review the issue for a year, and information at the recruiting level would factor into that. Even if you feel that a protest of this nature would have a minimal impact, which is possible, the thought that the Bar should consider turning people away who participated in it troubles me deeply.

2/03/2010 9:17 AM  
Blogger Armen said...

By that standard, forging a transcript is also "speech." I'm not defending the bar comment, but this profession is built collegiality (don't let the movies fool you) and the value of your given word. Until now, Boalt was the gold standard of those two virtues: don't send us a deposit, just tell us you're coming here, etc. No one is faulting you for the position you take, it is actually quite unremarkable. But affirmatively screwing over your classmates is the offending act. It shows lack of judgment, sense of entitlement, and a lot of other attributes that, shall we say, we can all do without.

2/03/2010 9:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the bar should absolutely take into account an applicant's willing violation of law school policy. You all are trying to enter the legal profession; that implicitly requires respect for the law, including the proper method of enacting and revising laws.

2/03/2010 9:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope when I'm done with law school I have better things to do then spend all my time on a blog dealing with my old law school. I would apologize for "be[ing] an embarrasment [sic] to Boalt's... alumni," but you all embarrass yourselves.

2/03/2010 9:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again, is it really screwing over your classmates? Is it not possible to apply to JAG by a different means?

It's true that some collateral damage happens when unorthodox methods of protest take place. And here, those who want to apply for JAG are minorly inconvenienced by having to apply via the website rather than at OCI. But again, do we really want to say these protesters should not be able to join the bar because they minorly inconvienced their fellow law students in an effort to attract some attention to a well out-of-date discriminatory policy?

2/03/2010 9:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Collateral damage" is an amazing term for people protesting the military to use.

2/03/2010 9:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that anyone who has tried to interview with a firm outside of OCIP (when that firm interviews during OCIP) can attest that your odds of getting a position are substantially slimmer. It can happen, but it is much less likely. Further, the army members coming to interview for JAG are only human; if you went to a place to interview and were met with a number of people opposing your presence there, wouldn't you become biased against others from that institution?

2/03/2010 9:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That last comment wins!

Protests against an bigoted employment policy shouldn't go forward because... the bigoted interviewers might be biased against non-protesters.

You guys are all on the wrong side of history on this one, I'm sorry. In 50 years, people will think about you the same way as people now think about those who opposed the sit-ins.

2/03/2010 9:45 AM  
Blogger McWho said...

9:33, unfortunately alumni HAVE to care because what current students do affects the reputation of everyone with a Boalt degree.

2/03/2010 9:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:45 - Your comment belies the entire argument in favor of the protest. The interviewers are not the biggoted ones; it is the underlying law. There may be instances of biggoted people in the military. In fact, I would say it is a pretty safe assumption that there are biggoted members of the military. That does not mean that every member is, nor does the implementation of a law by CONGRESS make every member of the military bigotted.

Protesting these JAG members is completely illogical.

2/03/2010 9:49 AM  
Blogger Carbolic said...

Ah, another classic Berkeley protest: misdirected, ineffectual, and bombastic.

Anyway, if you are gay and you want to interview and be open about your sexuality, go ahead. If you're not gay but you want to tell an officer that the military should start violating U.S. law, I guess you can do that too. Just don't expect that the interviewer is going to listen to you rant for 20 minutes.

Likewise, if you sincerely want an interview and can't get a slot, just show up and wait for the "protesters" to be shown the door 30 seconds into their interview.

2/03/2010 9:53 AM  
Blogger Carbolic said...

Also, the Woolworth's analogy seems to be so sacrosanct in this thread that I'd like to make a few comments.

First, I think (but I could be wrong) that racial segregation at the Woolworth's counter in NC was the result of company policy, not N.C. or municipal law. Because Congress, not the military, has mandated "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," this "protest" is directed at the wrong party.

Second, it's assumed throughout this thread that race is an exact analogy to sexual orientation. I don't mean to argue that the two are dissimilar; I just want to point out that there are a whole lot of assumptions implicit there--in terms of genetics, sociology, history, and social policy.

2/03/2010 10:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I interviewed with JAG last spring for a 1L summer job, mostly out of desperation but also out of curiosity. My recollection is that it was an informational interview with no bearing on whether not I could get a job because JAG still requires an online application. Maybe the experience is different for post-graduation jobs (does anyone know?), but I kinda doubt it.

I bring this up because this all seems like much ado about nothing. Qualified JAG hopefuls will still get jobs and the future of DADT will remain in the hands of Congress and the president no matter how many times the protestors go all Saul Alinsky on hapless JAG recruiters.

2/03/2010 10:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm amazed by the sense of entitlement here by some of the posters. To think that "sole purpose" of such a (planned? hypothetical? possible?) action is to "deprive" straight students of an interview slot shows how warped your worldview is. I agree the Woolworth's analogy is a little forced, but that's like saying, "The sole purpose of a lunch-counter sit-in is to deprive white customers the opportunity to sit and receive timely service." In this respect, it really is no different.

I honestly don't know any of you (I think I know who James is), but is it safe to guess that the Nuts & Boalts crew is overwhelmingly (though of course not completely) male, straight, white, and economically privileged? That's the only explanation I can come up for why there seems to be such a strong sense of entitlement emanating from this place. (P.S. This last one is a serious question. Please don't respond, "Well, I'm a gay Republican and I think the protesters are douches." I get that there are people like you in the world. I'm curious about the overall make up of your group).

2/03/2010 10:14 AM  
Blogger Toney said...

Believe me when I say that I HATE to agree with Carbolic, but I agree with him on the point that the analogy between race and sexual orientation needs to be teased out a bit more before invoking Woolworth's.

2/03/2010 10:23 AM  
Blogger James said...

10:14, Please don't lump me in with anonymous commenters and I'll give you the same courtesy. :)

I think it's valuable to have a substantive discussion on something like this. I think hearing multiple perspectives on it is a positive thing, not a negative. I understand it's a charged subject, but I think it should be discussed. I also don't automatically jump to the conclusion that someone who disagrees with me or who is undecided on a given issue is morally bad or some sort of bad actor. I don't think it's helpful , when attempting to influence others, to tell them what idiots they are while making an argument for your position.

I think the sense of entitlement you feel emanating from some of these comments is something similar to the way a lot of people view those who would protest in this manner. I think you could make a similar comment about the identities of many of Boalt's most ardent protesters. Looking at our preconceptions is definitely important, but I think it generally goes beyond looking at someone and deciding what their background and life experiences must be based on their gender, race and perceived socioeconomic status.

The whole conversation would likely be more civil if a few anonymous commenters left and everyone else attached some sort of identity to their posting. But this is the internet and that isn't going to happen. Since you know who I am, I'd be interested to hear your views in a face to face setting and always invite anyone to approach me about anything with my name on it. :)

2/03/2010 10:31 AM  
Blogger Carbolic said...

Haha, I feel the same way about your 8:38 post, Toney!

And to 10:14--I'm not sure why you assume that N&B posters are overwhelmingly male, straight, and white. I've not seen any evidence of this. Or do you assume that all people of a common race, gender, or orientation think in the same way?

You've got a point about economically privileged. But that's only because the great majority of T10 law students come from solidly middle-class or above backgrounds. And this is entirely independent of race or geographics.

2/03/2010 10:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm guessing the vast majority of posters are male because if you look at the past months of posting, most have names like James, Patrick, Armen, Dan. Also, because there's a lot of use of terms like "douchebag" and "bitch," which men tend to use more.

I'm guessing most are straight because of the freaked-out siege mentality of "they're depriving straight people of job opportunities" evidenced here.

I'm guessing most are rich because of the condescension toward the campus unions, the blase attitudes toward our massive fee hikes, and because the "alums" sound like corporate lawyers when they weigh in.

And I'm guessing most are white, well, for some combination of all of the above. Not that people of color can't exhibit many of the symptoms listed above, but the general air of entitlement smacks of white privilege...

2/03/2010 11:10 AM  
Blogger Armen said...

Not that it's anybody's business, but I didn't go to a private school for undergrad, I am an immigrant, my parents still rent the same place we got when arriving in the U.S., I have a funky name, and my racial identity has been litigated in federal courts for citizenship purposes. They said I'm white, but the CHP likes to put "O" in the race box of citations. How does that square with your preconceived notions or *cough* that of 9:33A?

P.S. No need to answer that last question because it was sarcastic. The times I've felt stereotyped and castigated for my identity has been from the fringe left. Same reason why I want to vomit when I read screed like 11:10's post.

2/03/2010 11:16 AM  
Blogger Matt said...

Clearly everyone who posts here and expresses concerns about the protests is straight, white and male. We might as well add racist and homophobic to it, as well.

2/03/2010 11:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Wow, WAY to stereotype. I am definitely neither white nor rich. You on the other hand are in fact a douche.

2/03/2010 11:33 AM  
Blogger Patrick said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2/03/2010 11:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm a minority that has "white privilege" because I don't fit into some idea of how minorities are supposed to act.

The people defending the protests are acting more close minded than any of the others commenting on here!

Stop telling other people how they're supposed to be and look at the assumptions you're concealing when you pretend to speak for minorities.

2/03/2010 11:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it extremely paternalistic when a number of fairly well off, white, "protesters," try and speak for me as though they know what its like to be non-white.

I can speak for myself, thank you very much.

2/03/2010 12:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just so I can understand this myself, I am going to try to break down the protesters' argument.

A makes law.
B is required to follow law made by A.
C does not agree with the law.
Therefore, C protests against B.

2/03/2010 12:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I actually have a question about DADT: if it is repealed, wouldn't that make things worse off for gay military members? That is, currently, you can serve in the military if you are gay, you just cannot be openly gay. If DADT is repealed, you flat out cannot be in the military if you are gay. Granted there may be little difference between the two situations, but repealing DADT doesn't solve the problem, right?

2/03/2010 12:34 PM  
Blogger Armen said...

12:34, I'm not well versed in my UCMJ, but I think DADT eliminated the prior ban on homosexuals serving in the military and replaced with a law making it a crime under the UCMJ to commit a homosexual act; to admit you are homosexual; or to attempt to marry someone of the same sex. Repeal of DADT would eliminate the ability to charge anyone for any of the above. My biggest fear, however, is that this will only result in a de jure repeal and keep DADT as the de facto policy.

Ok a quick Google search reveals that 10 U.S.C. 654 is the relevant code. Feel free to read and correct me if I got that wrong.

2/03/2010 12:42 PM  
Blogger Carbolic said...

10:11--Well that's just dumb. And although I'd like to mock you for it, we'll just move on because it's off-topic.

12:32--I would think that the DADT would be repealed in such a way that the prior military policy would be disgarded, too.

2/03/2010 1:04 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Yikes, am I really gonna wade in here after 75 comments? It appears I am.

First off, I think everyone should calm down. Proponents of equal rights in the military have had nothing but good news since the State of the Union. Gates' statements yesterday indicate that the ban is already going to be basically unenforced, and it should be lifted before long as well. This is progress, major progress, and we should all congratulate each other for earning it and the military for seeing it through.

It thus seems like an odd time to implement a protest, especially one that goes beyond any past efforts I'm aware of, by obstructing fellow classmates from interviewing for jobs they may need. I don't have any problem with protesting, even this late in the game, but why not make a sign and stand in the hallway?

DADT is a deplorable policy, and anyone who doesn't want to serve in the military as a result is well-justified. But just like I don't want the Government to tell my gay friends they can't serve their country, I also don't want my gay friends to tell me I can't do so as long as this policy is in effect.

There is nobility in military service, despite the military-industrial complex and, yes, despite the DADT policy. We can work to cure both those ills from within and without, but calling out your fellow students for trying to get a job is not helping anyone.

2/03/2010 1:43 PM  
Blogger McWho said...

Dan is a douche.

2/03/2010 4:09 PM  
Blogger Toney said...

McWho - Tell me that was an ironic/anonymous-poster-deprecating attempt at humor OR WAKE UP WITH A WATERY DUMP ON YOUR PILLOW.

Dan is badass.

2/03/2010 4:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, like a digital (stereotype of a bad) frat-house...

2/03/2010 4:29 PM  
Blogger Carbolic said...

No need to tell us about your stomach problems, Toney.

2/03/2010 4:33 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Did 4:29 add the parenthetical because he was afraid of offending the delicate sensibilities of frat guys? Hahaha.

2/03/2010 5:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yer all douches. You are arguing on a blog. Think about that. I'm even disappointed in myself for writing these words.


2/03/2010 8:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh the performative self-contradiction of the man who yells at you on a blog for being on a blog.

2/03/2010 8:05 PM  
Blogger Sean said...

I just like how people will assert how noble their purpose is, but then insist on posting anonymously lest the law school in general know their point of view. Especially the anonymous posters who show up and insult those who a.) run N&B (alums) and b.) are willing to put their names on their posts.

My two cents, anyone protesting JAG by obstructing the job search of their classmates is terribly misguided.

2/03/2010 9:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A little off topic, but related. There is a pretty good opinion piece on CNN about DADT, written by a gay officer who served under the policy.


2/04/2010 9:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, if you're that worried that another student's potential protest will affect your chance of getting a JAG gig, why not work that concern into your interview ("Wow, shit's been crazy on N&B, talking about protesting you guys...I think their protest is unfounded because a, b, & c, so please don't assume I agree with their views simply because I attend the same law school. tyvm.")

2/06/2010 11:41 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

11:41, that doesn't address the issue we're concerned with. The problem is not that we fear being associated with the protester's; it's that we will not get an interview spot at all because it will be taken by someone who doesn't actually want the job.

2/07/2010 5:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is ideas like this that make rahm emanuel think you all are retarded. Grow the fuck up.

2/12/2010 3:01 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home