3 ms·

Students should be skilled in the meta-theory of law as well as legal critique to know the limits of legalism. What the administration is attempting to do is m

Students should be skilled in the meta-theory of law as well as legal critique to know the limits of legalism. What the administration is attempting to do is monopolize the framing of the issue as a legal one. Frame monopolization is inherently an authoritarian practice and unbecoming of a prestigious higher institution.

AlbertCory 4y ago
Wait, you left out "weaponize." Isn't that the usual term the mob resorts to whenever a principle is cited against them?
tablespoon 4y ago
> What the administration is attempting to do is monopolize the framing of the issue as a legal one. Frame monopolization is inherently an authoritarian practice and unbecoming of a prestigious higher institution. What do you mean? It's a law school, so it seems perfectly reasonable and not authoritarian that these issues should be framed by the organization's primary purpose. And frankly the quoted statement less "frame monopolization" than a rejection of an even more stringent kind of authoritarian ideological "frame monopolization."
khazhoux 4y ago
It's not "monopolizing" the "frame" for a person to take a position and argue for it. And it's certainly not authoritarian. In any debate, it is expected that each side will argue their own position and not the counter-position. If you disagree with the administration that the issue is a legal one, then that becomes a new point that one may debate.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Right, I'm point out that framing it as a debate is itself up for dispute.
  - khazhoux 4y ago
    So to be clear: your position is that there is no legal issue here, and that the SLS Dean is utilizing authoritarian tactics when he says it is a legal issue?
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      What I'm saying is that there is no reason to give a legal framing primacy. What I'm getting back in response is, "There is one true way to frame this and it is legal." It's great that people think that, but I'm simply not going to accept that without justification. It's the difference between fighting a fair match in an arena and having a conversation about what arena or if an arena at all is even the right way to think about this. I simply won't accept without justification that a legal framing is legitimate without a case being made beyond, "well, it's the best we have, or if you have something better, say it." Those responses always display a failure of creative imagination.
      - khazhoux 4y ago
        FWIW I have no problem with any of that. Sure, the legal framing might be wrong. What I took offense at was calling a point of debate an "authoritarian" tactic.

AlbertCory 4y ago

Wait, you left out "weaponize." Isn't that the usual term the mob resorts to whenever a principle is cited against them?

tablespoon 4y ago

> What the administration is attempting to do is monopolize the framing of the issue as a legal one. Frame monopolization is inherently an authoritarian practice and unbecoming of a prestigious higher institution. What do you mean? It's a law school, so it seems perfectly reasonable and not authoritarian that these issues should be framed by the organization's primary purpose. And frankly the quoted statement less "frame monopolization" than a rejection of an even more stringent kind of authoritarian ideological "frame monopolization."

khazhoux 4y ago

It's not "monopolizing" the "frame" for a person to take a position and argue for it. And it's certainly not authoritarian. In any debate, it is expected that each side will argue their own position and not the counter-position. If you disagree with the administration that the issue is a legal one, then that becomes a new point that one may debate.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
Right, I'm point out that framing it as a debate is itself up for dispute.
- khazhoux 4y ago
  So to be clear: your position is that there is no legal issue here, and that the SLS Dean is utilizing authoritarian tactics when he says it is a legal issue?
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    What I'm saying is that there is no reason to give a legal framing primacy. What I'm getting back in response is, "There is one true way to frame this and it is legal." It's great that people think that, but I'm simply not going to accept that without justification. It's the difference between fighting a fair match in an arena and having a conversation about what arena or if an arena at all is even the right way to think about this. I simply won't accept without justification that a legal framing is legitimate without a case being made beyond, "well, it's the best we have, or if you have something better, say it." Those responses always display a failure of creative imagination.
    - khazhoux 4y ago
      FWIW I have no problem with any of that. Sure, the legal framing might be wrong. What I took offense at was calling a point of debate an "authoritarian" tactic.