I will say that someone in my breakout room visibly shook their head, laughed, and spoke with their sound off when another student asked a question. I am not sure if this was directed at the asking student, but it appeared to be and was incredibly rude.
Barrett was very generous and patient with our breakout room, but I do worry that he was sort of asked to speak on behalf of Black people for almost the entire time. It felt less like a discussion and more like a panel. I learned a lot from it, but I also hope we can do better about spreading some of that labor throughout the group in some way.
Discussion covered meta-discussions about this class, 300 years of American history, and Hegelian philosophy. The result was something that at least for me was hard to decipher. This isn't necessarily a complaint - I enjoyed the class. I just wish we had about three more hours to unpack everything.
On a different (less important) note: People still have their cameras off unless we are explicitly directed to keep them on. It really doesn't seem like we are equally engaged and I am not sure why certain people can have their cameras on when directed (or in other classes with me) but not in this class.
This class also just makes me sad. There are so many of us who may not be in fedsoc and may not be this that or the other label and just want to discuss the actual substance without it turning into a huge nightmare. I would have loved to actually voice my opinion (on say disparate impact and the Washington v Davis opinion) but I worry I'll just be attacked
i have loved this class but i am exhausted by today's discussion about fedsoc. i spent most of the night doing frantic research about whether or not it was likely that the supreme court would take away my right to work or marry. feels particularly hurtful to have fedsoc students given so much attention to complain about feeling uncomfortable sharing their opinions when some of us are facing actual oppression. if you are uncomfortable sharing your opinion, just don't share it. if you want to but are worried that people will be mad at you, explain that when you speak up! people might disagree but that's the point of law school. just don't go complaining as if you are the most oppressed simply because you aren't speaking your mind- that is what is actually offensive.
I think the structure of the class makes it hard to discuss opinions! Because there's such an emphasis on anonymity, there is actually very little opportunity to talk substantively. Everyone is at each other's throats all the time and there's so much tip toeing. I feel like today was depressing
Given today's experience, why in the world would someone like uranus express their views? All positions to the right of Hillary Clinton were indeed attacked in today's class, and no one stood up to defend them, because we all know we will be targeted. Sometimes the threat is explicit, sometimes it is implicit, why take the risk.
I really liked today's speakers and would have preferred a longer conversation with them rather than interrupting their time with threads. But I agree with comments that class was a bit disheartening and I'm not sure where to go from here because it does not seem like people will feel comfortable speaking dissenting thoughts and therefore substantive debates will not be had. Perhaps Threads is where we should start all our discussions to encourage multiple viewpoints
I'm so confused- what positions to the right of Hillary Clinton were even expressed? All I heard was people saying that being members of FedSoc hurt their career chances and other people pointing out how wrong that is.
@phobos absolutely not true. In group 2 towards the end, a classmate asked a perfectly fine question and the response was vigorous head shaking, laughing disdainfully, and talking on mute. Like you can disagree vehemently and not be disrespectful while doing it lmfao
"if your opinion were worthy of being expressed, you would stand by it" — I feel like this is just so mean spirited and, it makes me sad. I'm sure we have so much common ground. I wouldn't outright dismiss anyone's opinions just based on the labels I assume they have, and I wish I could be afforded the same respect
@utapau. Exactly. No one was willing to express an opinion to the right of Hillary Clinton because we all self-censor, regardless of whether we vote left or right. Also, no one said that being in fedsoc hurt their career choice while in the discussion, because that too would be used against them. That view was expressed on threads where they could not be personally attacked for it.
Just my opinion but threads should be a place where we have some sort of productive discussion that we may not otherwise be able to have in class (whether that's the result of reasonable fear or paranoia or whatever). Instead threads has just devolved into complaints about the class and that has unfortunately bled into the actual class. Now we are taking a class about the class and learning absolutely nothing. This isn't professor nesson's fault but our fault.
Actually, I am torn. On the one hand, I think the merits of a position taken in threads should be discussed in class when it raises an interesting point. On the other hand, we all know that when that happens the entire class will militarize to attack the opinion from the left, and those who share the opinion will not risk defending it in class. That is what happened today with the "Fedsoc on a resume hurts your career more than it helps" position and any other position to the right of Hillary Clinton.
If you really think the entire class was militarizing instead of very scared and hurt students being fed up that, today of all days, students who are part of an ideological group that has successfully lobbied to proactively harm your classmates, me included, are complaining about not sharing their own opinions... I don't know what to say. But that truly hurts my heart. How can you not see how hurt we are.
Also, I love Nesson, but the way he frames right-leaning opinions expressed on threads can be way off. He started the class by characterizing some of the right-leaning positions as saying white men want a chance to defend their privilege. I don't think anyone in this class argued for that. (White men defending their privilege is actually a left-leaning opinion, it relies on the identity politics of the left and explains why Richard Spencer endorses Joe Biden, but that is beside the point because it is characterized as a right-leaning opinion and then all other right-leaning opinions are maligned as furthering it). I am not confident that Nesson could fairly potray a right-leaning opinion expressed in threads, even though I truly belive he wants to.
@utapau, I think the kind of language you are are using (of hurt and "[proactive] harm" are part of the issue. People in class take things so personally. If you express a non-leftist position, you are "attacking someone's right to exist by supporting structure that oppress". Maybe it's not leftist oppression that makes people censor their opinion, maybe it is the leftist tendency to make everything so personal that makes it difficult to express ideas and discuss policy. People (on the right and left) would rather oppose an idea and are generally uncomfortable having the debate framed around opposing a person.
@Utapau, I am sorry you are feeling hurt. I know that I do not want to hurt you. I don't think any of our other classmates do either. I do not think the expression of opposing positions is violence, and I don't think any of the judges or politians want to harm you either. I really wish you the best. And I think wishing you the best is consistent with open discussion.