All threads

All of the threads for this selected topic

Final Class Feedback [12-01-20]

24 replies | 24 unread

Of what is this 'evidence'?

2 replies | 2 unread

Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo

28 replies | 28 unread

Feedback [11-30-20]

44 replies | 44 unread

Thanksgiving Thread

19 replies | 19 unread

Peremptory Challenges [11-23-2020]

77 replies | 77 unread

Feedback [11-17-20]

57 replies | 57 unread

Your questions, doubts and concerns about confrontation and cross as core jury process.

22 replies | 22 unread

Feedback November 10

17 replies | 17 unread

Feedback [11-09-20]

24 replies | 24 unread

Discussion Group 2 [11-9-2020]

19 replies | 19 unread

Discussion Group 1 [11-9-2020]

28 replies | 28 unread

Election Night

25 replies | 25 unread

George Fisher Caves [11-03-2020]

29 replies | 29 unread

Group 1 [11-03-2020]

53 replies | 53 unread

Group 2 [11-03-2020]

49 replies | 49 unread

Group 3 [11-03-2020]

35 replies | 35 unread

Feedback 11-2-2020

34 replies | 34 unread

Feedback 10-27-2020

47 replies | 47 unread

Discussion 10-27-2020

59 replies | 59 unread

Feedback 10-26-2020

51 replies | 51 unread

Hypothetical 10-19-20

49 replies | 49 unread

Feedback 10-20-2020

15 replies | 15 unread

Feedback 10-19-20

22 replies | 22 unread

Surveillance 10-19-20

46 replies | 46 unread

Feedback October 13, 2020

20 replies | 20 unread


31 replies | 31 unread

REVIEW - October 13, 2020. Please offer questions and concerns.

3 replies | 3 unread

Feedback Oct 6, 2020 - violence of discussion for some

7 replies

Feedback October 6, 2020

67 replies | 67 unread

Feedback Oct 5, 2020 Fair

4 replies | 4 unread

Gatecrasher - Who Wins?

15 replies | 15 unread

Blue Bus

25 replies | 25 unread

Conjunction --In what order should we decide the elements of the alleged crime?

21 replies | 21 unread

Prison Yard - Can WE prosecute all of them?

38 replies | 38 unread

Feedback [09-29-20]

17 replies | 17 unread

Would you be interested in joining together in threads while watching the Trump-Biden debate?

20 replies | 20 unread

feedback sept 28

26 replies | 26 unread

What is your biggest fear going forward?

40 replies | 40 unread

BIAS (in judgmen)t

9 replies | 9 unread

Feedback #1

30 replies | 30 unread

racism - anti-racism

41 replies | 41 unread

what is your passion?

40 replies | 40 unread

What do you feel you have to learn about fair trial? Do you feel that fair trial matters?

9 replies | 9 unread

Give Thanks

0 replies

Active thread

Only the replies to the one thread you selected
OP: having a "logical" discussion about it could be violent in itself.
OP: How can this concern be best understood and met?
Polaris: I don't understand how words can be construed as being "violent" especially in such settings as this. At every single critical juncture of our society, hard truths and tough topics had to be broached and uncomfortable things had to be discussed for society to progress and grow. If civil rights advocates and politicians had not been able to have discussions about the state of society because "discussions are violent", we'd be living in a very very sad state of society. Complex and frustrating discussions are part of growing and part of the reason we decided to attend such a complex and thought-provoking institution. To not have them because of some notion that they are "violent", does not help anybody. In fact, it prevents people with backward ways of thinking from having to confront the short-comings of their own logic.
Luyten 726-8A: I second everything above. I also want to address the comment this is addressing in the other thread, that calling society idealistic or well-intentioned is itself violent. This raises, I think, one of the stumbling block presuppositions we keep running into — that everything is racist, everyone in charge in malicious, all of history is evil, and anyone who says anything different is an active proponent of white supremacy. As people with the immense privilege of being here, we need to be able to talk about law without drawing these hard lines. We need to be able to talk about ideals in order to fix what's bad and know what ideals to strive for. We need to discuss the hard parts of history, good and bad, to learn and not make the same mistakes in the future. I think it would be a real error at this school to shut down the opportunity to be real scholars and change makers.
Io: We should engage, exclusively, in illogical discussions until the university figures this out.
Sunflower: I can't speak for Milky Way, but I think this misunderstands their point. Nowhere in that comment did the person say that difficult topics should not be discussed. The person simply said that it can be difficult for some people to immediately engage with topics theoretically when they can feel so personal (I agree), and that it's probably easier to engage in discussion on a theoretical level, quickly, whether in a whole-group or breakout room setting, for people who are maybe less targeted by the systems we have been discussing. The way I read it is that we should absolutely be discussing these things but should always remember that not everyone experiences it the same way, and that has pedagogical implications. If every conversation that's theoretical about something that is so harmful to Black and Brown people in this country hurts, that adds up, and that's not a weight everyone in the class carries. We can and should all learn from each other in this very unique institution. I think Milky Way was probably reinforcing the importance of threads and nymity while also opening the door for people Milky Way could not speak for to share feedback from that angle if they want to. Again, I don't know but that's how I read it.
Sunflower: Apologies to Milky Way if I got this wrong! Appreciate that you validated this for those who might be feeling it. Even just mentioning it can be important, so it's not invisible.