as someone who's also a bit tired at conservatives claiming that they are uncomfortable speaking up in class, im not sure completely dismissing their fears as we're doing in class today is doing anything to refute their feelings lol
Yeah kinda seems like everybody who has spoken has validated their points. I think the "watch and report" comment is the exact fear they were discussing, especially since the bar for what someone considers problematic or racist is incredibly subjective and will be lower for some than others, especially when it is evident that the goal is to be looking for problematic comments.
Agreed, @Earth. I hate to cause more strife, but the the comments made in class and the total scoffing at whether there might be suppression of discourse yesterday only served to prove the point that anything other than one set of presumptions is worthy of being shamed. People are seeming to ADVOCATE shaming and reporting. I think this is a huge shame. It's not just "pompous white FEDSOC men" that seem to be getting called. There are people here who've worked toward civil rights and justice for years and years and now, in wanting to slightly disagree with an interpretation of a case or result, are being tagged with that same stereotype. I'm wondering if we can afford just a little bit more nuance instead of scoffing and shaming.
Conservatives peers' fear was about their liberal peers harming their careers. The confirmation of Judge Barrett and Kavanaugh, as well as Trump's election, demonstrate that conservative view points do not harm one's ability to succeed in their career. It seems as if our conservative peers are actually worried about being unliked. They're not entitled to being liked. In the same way that people are allowed to have their views, others are allowed not to like them.
This sounds like a fascinating project, and I would love to hear specific examples of how observers have been able to actually correct a wrong. Is the primary role of observers to create a more passive pressure on judges or other court personnel? Or are there mechanisms by which they can take on a more formal role in responding to some sort of breach that they observe?
I think saying conservatives have an easier time accessing powerful legal spaces because a few conservatives are at the top to prove this is like pointing to President Obama and Justice Thomas to say black people have an easier time accessing powerful legal spaces. Also a "veneer of neutrality" is much more of a problem with journalists (who may have a leftist bias/agenda)
Kinda love this - like when the teacher gets observed for a day in grade school. I want to know more about how the monitoring happens, and how hard it would be to train observers & get someone in EVERY court (at least criminally?)...
I love the idea of a trial watch system. The power of observation in the 21st century is palpable. It has the potential to provide a check on judge and police misconduct. I do think that individuals who have only ever known pure power and societal privilege will perceive equality as oppression and members of the judiciary and criminal justice system at large will be resistant to having their power checked.
Really interesting stuff. Thanks for coming. The Trial monitoring concept applied to the U.S. is fascinating and important work. I have an international relations background and I always used to laugh at the U.S. insistence. Nice touch with Hegel too, Barrett.
Good morning everyone. In response to both Scott and Barrett, I am curious as to why you feel that your group is the right group to be the ones who monitor. Who chooses what is right. What to stop. What to care about.
In response to Juan, I want to point out that different groups of people shape their view of society based on their respective upbringings and happenings. The fact that they don't share their feelings does not mean that there are not so many of them and it does not mean that they changed what they feel after the liberal speaks their voice. In any event, the conservatives have their platforms and it is working well for them in all levels of society; they are packing courts, they have a president for the past 4 years, and many live pretty good and happy lives.
I really do not like that we have to keep our cameras on when typing in threads. I do not see the utility in it, and it inhibits my ability to speak openly even on threads. The claim that it is an advantage to put Fedsoc on your resume is simply not true. Maybe there are a few judges that like it, but left leaning judges are more likely to exclude you than right leaning judges are to include you. In the private sector Fedsoc is even more likely to damage you. That is why I did not put fedsoc on any of my resumes. The proof is in the pudding. Practically no right leaning opinions are ever expressed in this class or any other.
I generally have positive thoughts on Trial Monitoring, but I worry it becomes coopted for political purposes. How is your organization planning to focus its efforts? Are you most worried about focusing on cases where there is a history of judicial abuse? Or perhaps where there is a political difference (of some loosely-defined sort) between judge and defendant? I guess I'm worried that trial monitoring becomes just another vehicle for dismantling the judicial system, which I'm in favor of but which I think might undermine the effort to hold judges accountable TO the system that we have.
I am really grateful for Barret's explanation of ethnocide and its relation to the Hegelian dialectic because i think that's a really accurate framing for black americans' position in the US. It's something I haven't given a lot of thought to in this way. I think this framing will inform how I think about race relations and power going forward.
i think the problem is that some of you guys are assuming that those that bring forth conservative viewpoints are conservatives. I feel like a lot of the time people want to bring forth these ideas to dissect them and even sometimes invalidate them, but are unable to because of SOCIAL pressure. The worst thing that can happen to your student experience is for everyone to call you a racist or whatever else because you wanted to have the opportunity to explore an idea that you're unsure about or even disagree with.
I am not going to get into Chulak's point too much, because there is so much about it that I disagree with but want to articulate better than I can in this constrained time period. I will say this though: Juan knows that about how people are socialized.
I was the one who made the "typical" comment on yesterday's feedback. It had nothing to do with stereotypes of immutable characteristics as Nesson seemed to suggest. The behavior of silencing dissent has become typical at HLS.
I truly enjoyed Barrett's discussion, he has such enlightening perspectives that also add philosophical elements to components we discuss daily - applying dialectical reasoning/discourse to the legacies of white supremacy and also applying such frameworks to current systems of harm and power was so informative. Thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us! I also appreciated the comment that this class needs to incorporate more historical perspectives - I feel like having that nuance is so important, and staying ahistorical can hinder.
I also think that defining people as conservative is so silly. people arent just "liberal"" or just "conservative." not all liberal people have the same opinions and not all conservative people have the same opinions.
I also really appreciate your framing of judges/conservatives feeling like they're being oppressed with the Hegelian dialectic. I think you're exactly right that they feel threatened when the discourse is more equitable and their position of power is then perceived as threatened.
Thank you for coming. I am curious as to which approach is more effective in trial watch: being physically present in the courtroom or publishing information regarding the injustice being conducted that can be read by all. Although not mutually exclusive, I am curious to hear more.
i'm sorry @sullust but that is simply untrue. OPIA specifically has its own career advising for conservative students. and do you know how many judges, biglaw attorneys, politicians, business leaders, etc. are in fedsoc? the sheer number of powerful leaders in fedsoc versus the number of law students in fedsoc mean that law students will have an easier time getting a job if they are in fedsoc. also do not come at me with that oppression narrative when up until a few months ago i could literally get fired from my firm for being gay. talk about employment issues.
The pro-conservative comments at the beginning of this thread are baffling to me, especially considering that ACB was just confirmed last night and SCOTUS is 6-3???? Like???? Conservatives are literally experiencing the pinnacle of institutional power right now?? And y'all are still "scared" to speak in class? WILD
i mean WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT? or is it that you really just want to be able to deny people rights and not be called out for it at all? if you actually believe these opinions then announce them and defend them. you shouldn't be scared to face valid criticism for your beliefs unless you are scared for being rightfully called out for opinions that directly hurt your classmates.
@Crinfrid. So what? What does the SCOTUS panel have to do with anything. Trump had the chance to appoint 3 justices. The Let's blame Trump for the death and retirements of all the justices. This says nothing about the dynamics in the higher echelons.
wow sirius aren't you lucky. i wish that i didn't spend last night crying because i had to consider whether or not i would have the right to marry or not be fired in the recent future. if only i only had to worry about my classmates' valid concerns that don't impact me
@sirius, the point is that the higher levels of the judiciary are packed with fedsoc people. whatever "shaming" they experienced in law school had no adverse effect on their career. they were still able to rise to power and use that power to degrade my rights just as much as they wanted to.
literally... how many judges has trump appointed.... your narrative is completely removed from reality. and are you really complaining about a *possible* perceived career impact in the future for being part of an organization that believes and strongly organizes to ensure that some of your classmates don't deserve rights??
@scarif, many were confirmed in the past few years in during the height of your "oppression." one just got pushed through last night, and "shaming" did absolutely nothing to stop it. what are you afraid of?
@scarif are you kidding me. last year you literally brought in a speaker who is perhaps most well known for his public advocacy in favor of gay conversion therapy on children. how is that not anti-lgbt organizing
@cidaris, tbf it is the point you are trying to make...here is a list of elites who share characteristics and they don't have problems, therefore you don't have problems. Not endorsing the analogy, but you made the same one
@Cidaris, you used the last three SCOTUS appointees as an example to show how being conservative is actually beneficial in the higher legal sphere. You can't get upset if someone uses a more extreme example of your logic to show how flawed your thinking is