3 ms·

> All of sudden, critical race theory was more than mainstream in America’s law schools. It was mandatory. Starting this Fall, Georgetown Law School will requir

> All of sudden, critical race theory was more than mainstream in America’s law schools. It was mandatory. Starting this Fall, Georgetown Law School will require all students to take a class “on the importance of questioning the law’s neutrality” ... Sounds good. Lots of people mistake the law for morality, it's important to make them think about how that's not the case, and if the law is made by agenda-driven politicians, it will necessarily be unfair to some. > As of last month, the American Bar Association is requiring all accredited law schools to “provide education to law students on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism,” ... Sounds good. These are things adults should know about. > One criminal law professor at a top law school told me he’s even stopped teaching theories of punishment because of how negatively students react to retributivism—the view that punishment is justified because criminals deserve to suffer. Sounds good. Deterrence is ineffective, and the criminal justice system needs to move to a more rehabilitative model. > [reparations & prison abolition shirt image] I'm not sure why I should care about this. It's not censorship or illiberalism to advocate for these positions. > At Boston College Law School this semester, a constitutional law professor asked students: “Who does not think we should scrap the constitution?” According to a student in the class, not a single person raised their hand. This would be the expected response to any question in an 8 a.m. class. I could go on. These cancel culture/critical race theory/campus illiberalism stories are junk.

philjohn 5y ago
But dangerous as they can be easily spun into sound bites to be repeated ad nauseum.
- a_shovel 5y ago
  I'd say these articles are the thing spinning random disputes into sound bites.
brimble 5y ago
> > > At Boston College Law School this semester, a constitutional law professor asked students: “Who does not think we should scrap the constitution?” According to a student in the class, not a single person raised their hand. > This would be the expected response to any question in an 8 a.m. class. Not only that, you're gonna get a fair number of votes for "scrap" in any classroom full of people who've spent much time studying and thinking about the constitution. Most "no" votes will likely be from people approaching it practically, as too difficult to realistically improve on in the current political environment—an "in an ideal world" kind of framing would have a real chance of getting a very sincere and considered, universal "yes" from the whole class. This is because it's fairly bad, and it's been (plenty) long enough to see exactly how and why it's bad. Some parts never worked right (the electoral college comes to mind, which broke completely about as soon as it came in contact with reality and effectively never worked the way, or had the effect, that was intended, at all) and a bunch more kinda work, but are clearly not optimal compared with proven alternatives.

philjohn 5y ago

But dangerous as they can be easily spun into sound bites to be repeated ad nauseum.

a_shovel 5y ago
I'd say these articles are the thing spinning random disputes into sound bites.

brimble 5y ago

> > > At Boston College Law School this semester, a constitutional law professor asked students: “Who does not think we should scrap the constitution?” According to a student in the class, not a single person raised their hand. > This would be the expected response to any question in an 8 a.m. class. Not only that, you're gonna get a fair number of votes for "scrap" in any classroom full of people who've spent much time studying and thinking about the constitution. Most "no" votes will likely be from people approaching it practically, as too difficult to realistically improve on in the current political environment—an "in an ideal world" kind of framing would have a real chance of getting a very sincere and considered, universal "yes" from the whole class. This is because it's fairly bad, and it's been (plenty) long enough to see exactly how and why it's bad. Some parts never worked right (the electoral college comes to mind, which broke completely about as soon as it came in contact with reality and effectively never worked the way, or had the effect, that was intended, at all) and a bunch more kinda work, but are clearly not optimal compared with proven alternatives.