4 ms·

Well, it looks like the college snowflakes are now in law school. We should not be analyzing anything using the insidious concept of Intersectionality, where th

Well, it looks like the college snowflakes are now in law school. We should not be analyzing anything using the insidious concept of Intersectionality, where the more victim groups you have, the more credibility you have. Notice the author mentions she is a female Korean immigrant (+3!). The whole intersectionality movement was developed from neo-Marxist feminist critical theory, which creates a vast consipiracy of the white male partriarchy. None of it is based in sound social science, but is instead based on the subjective feelings of the person involved. The article really doesn't address how well the Socratic dialog works, which is a valid issue. Instead it focuses on whether it is part of the so-called white male patriarchy, which is not a valid issue. Is the Socratic Method abused by tyrannical law professors like Professor Kingsfield? It certainly makes good dramatic entertainment. There are tyrannical players in every system. Let's throw Intersectionality out the window and analyze teaching methods on whether they work or not, instead of whether they are part of the vast white patriarchy conspiracy. I'd love to see this Intersectionality analysis in court. "But your honor, I'm a female Korean immigrant, so you must give my argument more weight!" Setting aside the faux Intersectionality analysis. Does the Socratic Dialog work? For first year law students, yes. The Socratic Dialog uses the most valuable tool for a lawyer: the question. You find out the basic facts of a case by asking your clients questions. You find out the opposing side's defense by asking questions. You gather evidence by asking witnesses questions. What they teach in law school is not the law. The law changes daily. What they teach is legal reasoning. You study cases, which are written expositions of legal reasoning. In law school class, you must explain the legal reasoning of the cases. The professor's questions help guide you through this process. If this is traumatic for you, you should consider dental school.

nkurz 8y ago
I'd love to see this Intersectionality analysis in court. "But your honor, I'm a female Korean immigrant, so you must give my argument more weight!" I don't think the author would disagree with anything you have said. Your comment would imply that because she is a "female Korean immigrant", she is arguing for the proposition that law schools should make special allowances for the more easily traumatized students. To the contrary, and what makes this an interesting piece, she is arguing that fairness requires that men and women be treated equally: "I am a cold-calling Socratic professor of criminal law who devotes about the same number of hours in class to sex offenses as to homicide. The subjects are comparable in their interest, difficulty, complexity, and relevance in the world in which we live. I treat them with the same level of seriousness and rigor." She follows up by explaining why she doesn't believe in trigger warnings: "the idea that professors should take upon themselves to give some kind of a quasi-medical warning about trauma that students might experience because of the class is borderline irre- sponsible. In fact, some psychologists have claimed that trigger warnings may be counterproductive, because they may prime students to experience what is coming as more emotionally difficult than it would otherwise be, ratcheting up anxiety and pain."
dang 8y ago
Would you please keep the ideological rant aspect out of your comments to HN? It has a reliably degrading effect on discussion, and we're trying for better than that here. Your comment would be both better and shorter with those bits edited out. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- CryptoRetired 8y ago
  Translation: Anything that disagrees with dangs homophobic, neonazi politics is not tolerated on HN. Unless you agree with him, your opinions are ideological rants. If you do agree with him, of course, abuse, name calling, stalking, harassments, threats of violence, violations of the law and hate speech are ok... as dang himself engages in and provides cover for regularly on this site. Anyone who dares point out this hypocrisy or dares to think for themselves, for that matter, will be censored immediately. Because like all nazis, dang is an intellectual coward who cannot defend his positions, will not recognize his own hypocrisy and abuse, and thinks that silencing people so that the "HN record" only shows one side makes reality. Reality is you're an abusive, lying asshole, and hypocrite. You don't care for diversity, you seek to create a monoculture of group think. And anyone worth a damn has left his site or been driven off. Oh and of course I'm shadow banned. This is what I get for coming out as gay and admitting "I'm not aleftist". Thats all it takes. Dang you are such a lying piece of shit. Karma is a bitch, fucker.
  - dang 8y ago
    You weren't banned; your comments were killed by HN's anti-troll software. Not sure what else to say here. I feel like a simple in-person conversation could clear things up easily. Unfortunately, we're trapped in an internet hall of mirrors and there's no easy way out.
- joshuaheard 8y ago
  I appreciate your feedback. The law review article in the original post analyzed the Socratic Method using Intersectionality. Most people aren't familiar with this political ideology, so I critiqued it. I would not describe this as an "ideological rant". As a litigator, my writing style tends to be direct and forceful. But, I have read the guidelines again and will keep your comments in mind for future posts.

nkurz 8y ago

I'd love to see this Intersectionality analysis in court. "But your honor, I'm a female Korean immigrant, so you must give my argument more weight!" I don't think the author would disagree with anything you have said. Your comment would imply that because she is a "female Korean immigrant", she is arguing for the proposition that law schools should make special allowances for the more easily traumatized students. To the contrary, and what makes this an interesting piece, she is arguing that fairness requires that men and women be treated equally: "I am a cold-calling Socratic professor of criminal law who devotes about the same number of hours in class to sex offenses as to homicide. The subjects are comparable in their interest, difficulty, complexity, and relevance in the world in which we live. I treat them with the same level of seriousness and rigor." She follows up by explaining why she doesn't believe in trigger warnings: "the idea that professors should take upon themselves to give some kind of a quasi-medical warning about trauma that students might experience because of the class is borderline irre- sponsible. In fact, some psychologists have claimed that trigger warnings may be counterproductive, because they may prime students to experience what is coming as more emotionally difficult than it would otherwise be, ratcheting up anxiety and pain."

dang 8y ago

Would you please keep the ideological rant aspect out of your comments to HN? It has a reliably degrading effect on discussion, and we're trying for better than that here. Your comment would be both better and shorter with those bits edited out. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

CryptoRetired 8y ago
Translation: Anything that disagrees with dangs homophobic, neonazi politics is not tolerated on HN. Unless you agree with him, your opinions are ideological rants. If you do agree with him, of course, abuse, name calling, stalking, harassments, threats of violence, violations of the law and hate speech are ok... as dang himself engages in and provides cover for regularly on this site. Anyone who dares point out this hypocrisy or dares to think for themselves, for that matter, will be censored immediately. Because like all nazis, dang is an intellectual coward who cannot defend his positions, will not recognize his own hypocrisy and abuse, and thinks that silencing people so that the "HN record" only shows one side makes reality. Reality is you're an abusive, lying asshole, and hypocrite. You don't care for diversity, you seek to create a monoculture of group think. And anyone worth a damn has left his site or been driven off. Oh and of course I'm shadow banned. This is what I get for coming out as gay and admitting "I'm not aleftist". Thats all it takes. Dang you are such a lying piece of shit. Karma is a bitch, fucker.
- dang 8y ago
  You weren't banned; your comments were killed by HN's anti-troll software. Not sure what else to say here. I feel like a simple in-person conversation could clear things up easily. Unfortunately, we're trapped in an internet hall of mirrors and there's no easy way out.
joshuaheard 8y ago
I appreciate your feedback. The law review article in the original post analyzed the Socratic Method using Intersectionality. Most people aren't familiar with this political ideology, so I critiqued it. I would not describe this as an "ideological rant". As a litigator, my writing style tends to be direct and forceful. But, I have read the guidelines again and will keep your comments in mind for future posts.