Austinist: UT Law Students Attempt Irony, Fail Miserably

matt wright

Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:08:24 -0600

smells like over-reaction to me.

adam

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:14:52 -0600

speaking as one of the people defending the law students, there's two things that may clarify. first, no one's arguing that what they did was wrong, but they weren't wearing blackface, either, and that accusation keeps getting thrown around haphazardly. that's not really fair. second, what's messed up is that the display comparing the students to minstrel performers, and the personal meetings with the dean, came a week after the email condemning them. they never had an opportunity to defend themselves, and now they're screwed, despite the fact that most everyone involved admitted fault pretty much immediately.

Edward

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:47:15 -0600

Jooley Ann, I think everyone here agrees that what these kids did is repugnant, but whether it is legal and within their rights is another matter. Part of living in a free society is having to put up with other peoples offensive ideas and expressions. If we decide to censor some speech and expression but not others, who is the arbiter? As the quote often attributed to Volaire goes: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Paraphrasing the history of free speech presented here (ironically by the riaa): http://www.riaa.com/issues/freedom/history.asp "The underlying premise is, that if you censor someone today, tomorrow someone could censor you, perhaps for an entirely different reason. (Ask Tamara Hoover about what offends AISD) That’s why it is so important to uphold the principle of freedom of speech and expression, even when in practice it is difficult to do so. There’s no challenge involved in defending someone you agree with; the stretch is standing up for your opponent—so that everyone’s rights are preserved." That having been said we certainly don't have to *like* the actions of these idiots and we all can and should loudly voice our disgust.

Jooley Ann

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:08:32 -0600

~retrieves jaw from floor~ The defensive stance in the blog's comments is flabbergasting. "Golly, what *exactly* is offensive about this?" "Gee, who said the students meant to mimic *African American* pop culture?" I am floored. And very sad. I clicked hoping I'd find an intelligent discussion. Instead I discovered that quite a number of people -- seemingly all UT law students -- think this was perfectly appropriate, defensible behavior.

Edward

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:48:06 -0600

Definitely shows poor judgement, but assuming they weren't on school grounds and this wasn't framed to be a function associated with the school in anyway, it certainly seems that they were within their rights. Just because what they did was amazingly *douche-tastic* and doesn't make it illegal.

adamr

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:12:19 -0600

That is an interesting point you make counselor. The new Law School dean, Larry Sager, is one of the foremost constitutional scholars in the country. We can expect, with some hope, that in the coming years UT Law will foster a more thorough investigation of the law's use, or misuse, of Constitutional rights. That said, would you agree then that the majority of students enrolled in the University of Texas School of Law could be, or should be, considered "Legally Blonde" or "Legally Blonde 2: Red, White, and Blonde?"

counselor

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:36:12 -0600

Good post. UT law school is a joke. Most of the students there are former UT frat/sorority kids, rich and spoiled, who have never left Texas and are completely clueless as to the struggles of others, unfamiliar with the view from anywhere but the top of the social ladder and insensitive to anything race-related except threats to their own supremacy. The smartass posters who think that the school has no interest in this issue are dead wrong (assuming the pictures linked the party to UT or UT law school). If pictures were posted, even on myspace, that tie the university or the law school in any way to this nonsense, then certainly the school has an interest in making its position or clarification known publicly. People misunderstand free speech anyway. It's not that you get to say anything with no repercussions afterwards. Certainly you are responsible for what you say or incite. That's the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example they teach in law school. This party is an example of what happens when diversity is merely a nebulous concept, rather than an actual reality, e.g., the person working/studying/living next to you.

adamr

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:16:30 -0600

Do it! Do it! Do it! Do it! Wonkette does it all the time.

pd

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:08:47 -0600

i found them allen...but they're on the stalker college site, facebook?

allen

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:18:35 -0600

man, i tried finding the photos but the guy's taken them all offline, and for good reason. any insiders care to share the flyer being posted around the law school halls?

truecraig

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:48:35 -0600

Damn. I forgot how much law students LOVE to argue. Even more than I do. They should have an intramural arguing team.

norbizness

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:46:35 -0600

I was in the last class that still had something close to decent minority representation, pre-Hopwood; I was wondering when the "all frat-boys with LSAT preparation courses, all the time" policy would bear fruit.

adamr

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:35:11 -0600

Need pictures! want pictures!!! What ever happened to the straight up classy cocktail party? These kids need to get ready for the Kountry Klub Kscene.