Celebrating 10 years! 2007-2017

Nancy Leong Disinvites Herself From 10th Circuit Conference Presentation

https://blog.simplejustice.us/2017/ 12/19/tuesday-talk-the-le jorgedeclaro12/19/17
She claims, "What happens when women of color ask for more d inho2solo12/19/17
Wait, is it Fetivus already? In keeping with the spirit, le ichininosan12/19/17
I wish I could make a similar claim but I'm a bad hombre pra isthisit12/19/17
Haha, one of Scott's commenters points out that using the de inho2solo12/19/17
Hopefully no one there comments about frivolous conferences jorgedeclaro12/19/17
You put the word frivolous in the wrong order. It goes inho2solo12/19/17
I haven't been on ABA journal for years, didn't know he was jorgedeclaro12/19/17
Yeah. She banned him for a year then allowed him back on, s inho2solo12/19/17
Scott knows what's up: "I hear the winner gets a Hawaiian jorgedeclaro12/19/17
Academia, what a racket. I wonder why she was invited in massivemissive12/19/17
Hey! She wrote that paper that no one read about that topic isthisit12/19/17
Is no one going to mention that she looks white? I looked dietcoke12/19/17
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/ arts/a-defense-of-transra wolfman12/20/17
She could be a white looking half asian. junkwired12/20/17
That would be my guess. rubbersoul1412/20/17
She looks more ethnic than say, Elizabeth Warren. But she ce jorgedeclaro12/20/17
She claims to be Asian American in a UCLA law review article junkwired12/20/17
You have to be very desperate for attention to be Asian and dietcoke12/20/17
POC are not/should not entitled to any benefits based on the jorgedeclaro12/20/17
So what benefits does she want? junkwired12/20/17
Being able to allege authority based on experience on topics jorgedeclaro12/20/17
Preferential treatment (and the right to be outraged) despit sullivan2day12/26/17
* Sorry for posting this twice, but I noticed this thread wa jmiceli01/10/18
this email chain does not make Professor Leong look like the dietcoke01/10/18
Dude, you went in trying to pick a fight. For the most part jorgedeclaro01/10/18
Taking your responses to the 7 questions and her reply to yo inho2solo01/10/18
Law school is a game and you are failing at it. I probably d junkwired01/10/18
"If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an booyeah01/10/18
Agree with all of the above. Why did you enroll in this cla toooldtocare01/10/18
And you know that she or someone she knows keeps up with jdu jorgedeclaro01/10/18
Johnny-Boy, Most of us here are not fans of her or her "s superttthero01/10/18
TITCR. Listen to Super T. A sympathetic audience has univers jorgedeclaro01/10/18
I concur. She's doing a critical race theory class. Don't jackofspeed01/10/18
Thank you for your insight. I'll consider your comments and jmiceli01/10/18
Only losers care enough to understand a topic for the purpos confused1l9301/10/18
Thank you for your candor. At the time I was writing my orig jmiceli01/13/18
Law school is very traditional, if nothing else. These "Law 3lol01/15/18
This is 100% correct. What you are doing is completely point barneystinson01/15/18
My opinion is as follows: You aren’t going to listen, wearyattorney01/15/18
He may be the first person in the history of these "fluff" c thirdtierlaw01/15/18
Take your saved Tuition money and buy cryptocurrency. We a gonetomorrow01/15/18
You sound like you own a fedora. Email your professor and isthisit01/16/18
Yeah you're toast. I can't fathom how you thought any of thi flawed01/16/18
jmiceli I hope you take some time for serious reflection. lucapacioli01/16/18
You could have argued it better. And you definitely need to captain01/17/18
At least we have managing partners to suck up to. Tanking yo thirdtierlaw01/17/18
I think it a bit much for the professor to discredit this pa patenttrollnj01/17/18

jorgedeclaro (Dec 19, 2017 - 1:14 pm)

https://blog.simplejustice.us/2017/12/19/tuesday-talk-the-leong-ultimatum/

Apparently having a panel full experienced civil rights litigators who happen to be white and herself (who is neither white nor experienced) conflicts with the open road narrative found in her favorite books.

Good for the 10th Circuit judges who decided her openly racist and sexist demands had no place on their panel.

Reply Like (0)
inho2solo (Dec 19, 2017 - 1:24 pm)

She claims, "What happens when women of color ask for more diverse conference speakers? Well, I was just removed from a panel...".

But without recognizing that she basically forced them to either boot one of the whites off the panel or forego her presence.

She told the organizer, Judge Suzanne Mitchell, “I am not willing to appear on a panel so lacking in demographic diversity". Was that an example of a 'woman of color asking for more diverse speakers'? Instead it sounds like what it is, an "I'm not willing unless my demand is met" type ultimatum.

In my opinion, her claim quoted above seems close to just lying about the actual situation.

Whatever happened to intellectual honesty?

Reply Like (0)
ichininosan (Dec 19, 2017 - 1:35 pm)

Wait, is it Fetivus already? In keeping with the spirit, let us all issue an ultimatum to a federal court and threaten to disinvite ourselves from whatever hearing / status conference / trial that’s on the calendar.

Reply Like (0)
isthisit (Dec 19, 2017 - 1:38 pm)

I wish I could make a similar claim but I'm a bad hombre practicing in Immigration court 🤣🤣🤣. Nothing but diversity there.

Reply Like (0)
inho2solo (Dec 19, 2017 - 1:49 pm)

Haha, one of Scott's commenters points out that using the demographic makeup of the states in the 10th circuit, having professor Leong on the panel is wildly over-representative of minorities rather than under-inclusive.

Scott's comment: "Math is hard. You’re mean."

Also, Judge Kopf made an appearance in comments.

Reply Like (0)
jorgedeclaro (Dec 19, 2017 - 2:08 pm)

Hopefully no one there comments about frivolous conferences in Hawaii that mention luaus. They might get a bar complaint.

Reply Like (0)
inho2solo (Dec 19, 2017 - 2:15 pm)

You put the word frivolous in the wrong order.

It goes between the "r" and the "c" in the next sentence.

Glad he weathered that, though it still must have been a real PITA to have it happen, especially because it was so frivolous.

P.S. Scott's pretty tight on moderating comments, so even if someone dared, it wouldn't last long. Notice how restrained Bruce McLeod is being compared to how he used to fly off the handle all the time at ABAJ before he finally got permabanned by Molly.

Reply Like (0)
jorgedeclaro (Dec 19, 2017 - 2:37 pm)

I haven't been on ABA journal for years, didn't know he was permabanned. Was Yankee ever banned? That guy was nuts.

I am also glad Dyybuk weathered that and was relatively unscathed. But it also shows the importance of not providing enough personal identifying information to get tracked down (and dropping misinformation occasionally). Fortunately, I'm never going to confuse Nancy Leong with whatnext so she isn't going to trick me into dropping my hootchiemama codeword.

Reply Like (0)
inho2solo (Dec 19, 2017 - 2:50 pm)

Yeah. She banned him for a year then allowed him back on, so he started a schtick of signing his posts "McLeod, The Unbanned, [something about flagons and dragons]". About 2 years into that he finally got kicked for good.

My own impression is their editorial staff likes having "conservative" nutjobs like Yankee and Sunforester post, as a way of steering thought about "this is what conservatives are like".

What they don't seem to like are more moderate or sensible conservative commenters. I was extremely careful to follow their guidelines yet kept getting posts moderated, while those toeing more to left-wing positions could be as vicious as they wanted without any action being taken. I was eventually banned, too, but never did figure out what triggered it (if anything).

As far as getting "tracked down", there was the suspicion that there was some behind-the-scenes help like perhaps IP address and/or email address provided (not by JDU; another `site) in tracking him down.

Reply Like (0)
jorgedeclaro (Dec 19, 2017 - 4:38 pm)

Scott knows what's up:

"I hear the winner gets a Hawaiian vacation and luau, so the incentives are strong."

For the record, I am not Scott Greenfield, or anyone else commenting on that post.

Reply Like (0)
massivemissive (Dec 19, 2017 - 2:51 pm)

Academia, what a racket.

I wonder why she was invited in the first place. She has no practice experience and her scholarship is laughable. Oh yeah.... I guess you have to go with what you have.

Reply Like (0)
isthisit (Dec 19, 2017 - 2:59 pm)

Hey! She wrote that paper that no one read about that topic she never practiced in, published in a prestigious journal that no practioner ever cites.

Reply Like (0)
dietcoke (Dec 19, 2017 - 7:18 pm)

Is no one going to mention that she looks white?

I looked at all of her photos on her faculty and personal website. That's a white chick.

Am I going crazy, how can she claim to be POC?

Reply Like (0)
wolfman (Dec 20, 2017 - 5:02 am)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/arts/a-defense-of-transracial-identity-roils-philosophy-world.html
(artcle in question had some originality, if not original thinking per say; goes w/out saying it wasn't by a law school "professor.")

Reply Like (0)
junkwired (Dec 20, 2017 - 9:04 am)

She could be a white looking half asian.

Reply Like (0)
rubbersoul14 (Dec 20, 2017 - 1:56 pm)

That would be my guess.

Reply Like (0)
jorgedeclaro (Dec 20, 2017 - 11:30 am)

She looks more ethnic than say, Elizabeth Warren. But she certainly hasn't ever been pulled over for driving while POC, or denied a home loan because she's a minority. She just wants the benefits of being a minority without the actual downsides of being a minority.

Reply Like (0)
junkwired (Dec 20, 2017 - 11:54 am)

She claims to be Asian American in a UCLA law review article.

"Speaking both as a law professor and as an Asian American person, I simply disagree that affirmative action injures Asian Americans."
https://www.uclalawreview.org/misuse-asian-americans-affirmative-action-debate/

Although she doesn't specify, she must be either half or one-fourth Asian.

So, do Asians, or for that matter part-Asians who look white, count as POCs? Although I think she's ridiculous, if she IS a POC who happens to look white, what would be so wrong about wanting the benefits of being a POC? Whatever benefits that a POC is justified as having are based on their immutable racial characteristics. Therefore, although she may not have experienced any discrimination, she couldn't be faulted for wanting POC benefits based on her race. Unless, of course, only certain POCs are entitled to unique benefits, whereas others are not. *invent stupid new rule about race and society here to continue discussion*

Reply Like (0)
dietcoke (Dec 20, 2017 - 12:45 pm)

You have to be very desperate for attention to be Asian and refer to yourself as "POC"

Reply Like (0)
jorgedeclaro (Dec 20, 2017 - 1:23 pm)

POC are not/should not entitled to any benefits based on their race. We care about minorities being treated poorly because of their race, something that has historically happened and was previously government imposed or sanctioned. If the person isn't suffering any discrimination based on their race, then race should be irrelevant.

Reply Like (0)
junkwired (Dec 20, 2017 - 1:27 pm)

So what benefits does she want?

Reply Like (0)
jorgedeclaro (Dec 20, 2017 - 1:44 pm)

Being able to allege authority based on experience on topics she has no experience in. Favorable hiring as a minority professional in the name of diversity.

Reply Like (0)
sullivan2day (Dec 26, 2017 - 5:34 pm)

Preferential treatment (and the right to be outraged) despite probably never having experienced discrimination.

Reply Like (0)
jmiceli (Jan 10, 2018 - 1:10 am)

* Sorry for posting this twice, but I noticed this thread was newer and can really use some advice.

Have you ever wondered how Professor Leong treats her students that disagree with her and she has absolute power over? I would love to show you. As a first generation law student that perceives his whole school as being against him (and I think for good reason), I don't really have anyone to turn to. Since you seem like free thinking lawyers yourselves, I would love to hear your advice on how I handled the situation and how I should proceed to move forward in the most appropriate fashion. What I most want is for her to change and have her realize that she was not being as tolerant as she thinks. It's one thing to say you stand for the oppressed, another to actually do it. Alternatively, I would like her removed from her position of power since it worries me she'll bully more people in the future. The only extra context I could give to our email exchange(since we had never met, and I didn't even know who she was) is what I said in class. She had us go around the room and discuss our views on race and why it is hard to talk about it. To the best of my ability, I tried to be respectful but direct. I mentioned that it was hard to talk about race because people like Professor Leong uses the honor code as a weapon and gives students a 0 on their first assignment because they dared to disagree. She then mentioned my grades were confidential (although I knew she had already forwarded what I sent to the administration) and shifted the topic. I never mentioned it again to after class, when I forwarded our emails to the entire class. At this time, I imagine that she's trying to figure a way to get me kicked out. So I figured I should be formulating a plan as well. Below is our full exchange, starting with the Original Email.

Dear all --

Welcome to Critical Race Theory and Jurisprudence! I am excited about our class and I look forward to our semester together.

I have attached a tentative syllabus for the class. Please note that there is a reading assignment for the first class.

Your only other assignment for the first class is to answer the six questions you will find listed below my signature block. You should answer the questions by replying to this email and typing your answers into the return email. Please complete the questionnaire by 5pm on Sunday, 1/7.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and I look forward to meeting everyone on Monday!

NL

_____________________
Nancy Leong
Professor of Law
University of Denver Sturm College of Law
???? E. Evans Ave. | Denver, CO 80208
phone: 650.814.---- | email: ---
Faculty profile | SSRN page


Please respond to the following questions. Questions 1 and 2 are bookkeeping. Questions 3 and 4 will serve as the basis for part of our discussion on Monday. Questions 5 and 6 are just for fun. You don't need to spend more than ten minutes on the questionnaire unless you want to.

1. What name would you like to be called in class? Please include a phonetic pronunciation if you think I might mispronounce it.

2. What pronouns do you prefer? (e.g. she/her, he/him, they/them, etc.)

3. What is your first memory involving race?

4. Why do you think it is often hard for people to talk about race?

5. How do you text on a smart phone (e.g. both thumbs, one thumb, index finger, etc.)?

6. Do you consider yourself an extrovert or an introvert?

7. What are you good at besides law school?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS. Yes, there are actually seven questions. Fortunately there is very little counting involved in CRT.
(Professor Leong sent this as the second email)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Jonathan
2. I identify as Mr. Deplorable
3. I do not remember my first memory of race. When I was younger, my favorite athlete was Reggie Miller. I identified with him because of his lanky frame, pugnacious attitude, and ability to go head to head with my older brothers favorite player, Michael Jordan. It was not until I became acquainted with the liberal fascination with identity politics that I realized Reggie Miller and I had different amounts of Melanin in our skin.
4. Because liberals accuse anyone who disagrees with them as being racist. It was only until I said F it, I know what's in my heart and am not gonna kowtow to political correctness, that I felt comfortable expressing my opinions. As president of The Federalist Society, I am excited to host two events this semester explicitly dealing with race.
5. Both thumbs.
6. Extrovert
7. Shooting guns, political thought.

Looking forward to our semester together,
Jonathan Miceli
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Jonathan,

I am writing to to express some concerns relating to your email response to the Critical Race Theory questionnaire and to offer what I hope will be useful information about the scope of the class.

First, the tone and content of your email is inappropriate for both a professional and a university setting. For example, the phrase "F it, I know what's in my heart and am not gonna kowtow" uses inappropriate language and is too informal for professional correspondence. So are some of the other responses. Please note that the syllabus specifies that your participation grade includes "maintaining professional style in emails and other written correspondence." Your previous email falls short.

Likewise, the statement that your preferred pronoun is "Mr. Deplorable" is disrespectful because it trivializes diverse gender identities. Please refer to the University of Denver Honor Code, which includes "recognition that a community or institution’s success is dependent on how well it values, engages and includes the rich diversity of students, staff, faculty, administrators, and alumni constituents, and all the valuable social dimensions that they bring to the campus, including but not limited to . . . gender identity" (pg. 3).

In light of these issues, I invite you to revise and resubmit your email response to the introductory questionnaire.

Second, I want to clarify the scope of the Critical Race Theory curriculum. As the syllabus explains in more detail, critical race theory is a political and intellectual discipline that emerged in legal academia about forty years ago. Relying on well-established legal and social science research, critical race theory accepts a number of general principles about the role of race in American society and builds upon those principles to develop a more advanced understanding of race. For example, critical race theory accepts the well-documented principle that the legal system reinforces existing racial inequality. Similarly, critical race theorists accept the overwhelming evidence that implicit bias affects the way the people of different races are treated in society. In class, we won't be reexamining these and a number of other well-established basic principles.

The issue is not that discussion of these basic principles are unimportant. Indeed, I am happy to direct you to research that you can read to increase your understanding of the foundation of critical race theory. I am also happy to talk with you about these issues outside of class. The point is that questioning basic premises -- or disparaging the discipline of critical race theory itself -- is simply off-topic in a critical race theory class. An appropriate analogy is the study of biology. Some people don't believe in evolution. Scientists, however, view evolution as proven and proceed from that basic principle. So in a biology class, it is off-topic to argue that evolution did not happen.

Some of your answers to the questionnaire indicate a hostility to the basic premises of critical race theory. You are of course welcome to believe whatever you wish about critical race theory, but in order to participate meaningfully in class discussion you will need to accept -- at least for the sake of discussion -- the basic principles of the field.

I am glad that you chose to enroll in the class and I very much hope that you will choose to stay enrolled. I also hope that this email clarifies your understanding of the coverage of the class and my expectations for class members. If you have further questions, feel free to reach out.

Best wishes,
Professor Leong
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Leong

I do not agree with your assessment of things.

My tone is my tone, I have a frankness about me that satisfies me as a person. While I understand that we have to use different language depending on the setting, the university setting should be a place for the unending pursuit of the truth, not language policing. Additionally, I do not feel like your real problem with my "tone," but my ideas, and your using the language police as a way to stifle dissenting point of view.

I fail to see the difference between me identifying as something I feel most comfortable with, and people on the left doing so. I always rooted for the villain, so if you really care about catering to our identities, I would prefer Mr. Deplorable. If you want to call me something else, go for it. I don't get my self-worth from others.

I do not agree that there is a statistical basis for saying "the legal system reinforces existing racial inequality." I have looked at the evidence and am not convinced. Like I expect of anyone when they assert something as true, I demand to see the evidence of the person from making the assertion. It is the job of the religious man who asserts that God exists to prove it. Not the job of the atheist to prove the negative that it does not. I think there are serious issues of police accountability (and government accountability more generally) that get muddled with statistics that support our narrative but is not backed by the soundest logic. In regards to the second part of the syllabus, it breaks my heart that people view things from a racial as opposed to an individual lens, so we have agreement there.

Sticking with the premise of biology. Biology is good science that could stand up to its ideas being criticised. My evolutionary professor for undergrad welcomed anyone to challenge him because he was confident he had the facts to back it up. Real learning comes from questioning and criticising your ideas. If your class presents a compelling case, then I will change my own. But I will not let you use your position of power to cudgel me into silence.

Evolution, along with Objectivism, is also the reason why I feel so strongly about what you are doing is harmful. Briefly, what I believe is this. We all came out of Africa relatively recently in evolutionary terms. The only reason we have different skin color is our ability to absorb vitamin d. However, these differences are primarily skin deep. For evolution to have any real effect on us as a species, we need millions, not thousands of years. I have thought of an example of a beta fish. Through artificial selection, it is easy for us to change artificial features like colors and size. But whether green or blue, big or small, we're all still beta fish. Additionally, the only reason we were able to evolve different skin tones, is because we have genetic variation that is unique to us as individuals. This, along with my classical liberal and Objectivist Principles is why I think treating people on the basis of their race wrong. While the tiki-torch carrying assholes that live in their parent's basements are the most nefarious expression of this; I believe you are also promoting a softer version of the same idea. I understand that people don't share the same opinion as me, and we shouldn't pretend that society has come close to achieving the dream that the great Reverend spoke so passionately about. When the class focuses on this, I am all on board. But if I believe you are encouraging people to view people as part of a group instead of an individual; you better believe I am going to make my voice known by raising my hand and challenging you.

I am already planning on having a discussion with Professor Lasch on his law review article "Sanctuary Cities and Dog-Whistle Politics." If you strike me as a thoughtful individual that his given the topic deep thought, then I will be delighted to have a sit down with you as well. I have also had a sit down with Mr. Chris Newman about all the honor-code complaints issued against me. However, if I feel something that contradicts with the honor code, I have to say it. Otherwise, I would not be comfortable with myself as a person, or in my ability to search for truth by questioning my beliefs.

For the above reasons, I must respectfully decline your request for me to resubmit my questions to you.

Jonathan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Jonathan,

Of course, you don't have to complete the assignments for our CRT course. Please be aware, however, that assignments such as the introductory survey count toward your participation grade, which is 30% of your grade for the class.

Another part of your participation grade is professionalism. Part of professionalism includes using appropriate language and titles. For example, you should always address a professor using the title "Professor" unless that person tells you otherwise. Specifically, you should address me as "Professor Leong." You should also avoid using overly informal language or swearing in written correspondence, and should proofread your emails for spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors.

Based on our correspondence, your participation grade is currently a zero.

Finally, your email indicates a willingness to disregard the honor code. Please be aware that here, as in all your activities as a member of the university community, the honor code applies, and I take it seriously.

Best,
Professor Leong
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do what you think is right. I'm happy with the effort I put in the assignment and what I said. Your judgment of me in terms of grades has no bearing on how I feel about myself or how I view success/failure in class. As long as I am comfortable with myself, I do not worry about what others think of me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey class,

Here is the email exchange between Professor Leong and I. If you are interested, feel free to read over our exchange. I think it is important to mention because I do not believe Ms. Leong was telling the truth when she said that all political persuasions are welcome. Please feel free to make up your own mind on the topic. I would also mention that I have it on good authority that Professor Leong has already forwarded my emails to school administrators. Therefore, I feel her concern for confidentiality is facetious.

If anyone is concerned with getting out of the echo-chamber, I would suggest reading the DailyWire. While we read articles from both a conservative and a liberal today, they both supported a particular point of view. I attached a response on a more traditional conservative response to White Privilege. https://www.dailywire.com/news/25179/max-boot-2017-was-year-i-learned-about-my-white-ben-shapiro#

Jonathan

Reply Like (0)
dietcoke (Jan 10, 2018 - 11:30 am)

this email chain does not make Professor Leong look like the bad guy. She was reasoned and polite. The student was juvenile and disrespectful.

Reply Like (0)
jorgedeclaro (Jan 10, 2018 - 12:44 pm)

Dude, you went in trying to pick a fight. For the most part she did not take the bait. She easily gets the best of that exchange.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Leong discriminated against students with opposing viewpoints. But if you got to law school as a thought criminal you should have learned a long time ago how to evaluate which liberal teachers are open to different points of view and which ones are not. The tests are anonymous, kowtow to those that won't accept alternative views.

Reply Like (0)
inho2solo (Jan 10, 2018 - 7:33 am)

Taking your responses to the 7 questions and her reply to you and invitation to resubmit in isolation, frankly, I don't see anything incorrect in her reply to you.

Your answers to the questions basically went off the reservation in terms of what the scope of that class covers.

Reply Like (0)
junkwired (Jan 10, 2018 - 10:22 am)

Law school is a game and you are failing at it. I probably disagree with everything Amy Leong opines about, but the way you approached the situation is sophomoric at best. Your neckbeardy reply might be cool on 4Chan, but is inappropriate in an academic context.

*adding

The suggestion for going forward is to apologize profusely and promise to change, and then note that you'll open your mind to the way of thinking posed by her curriculum. Doing so, you may be able to undo the damage you caused to yourself. Professors teaching this kind of subject are happy if they believe that their teaching shifts their students' mindsets from a socially conservative to a socially liberal bent, even if on your end it's just for show.

Reply Like (0)
booyeah (Jan 10, 2018 - 10:41 am)

"If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole." -Raylan Givens, Justified

Reply Like (0)
toooldtocare (Jan 10, 2018 - 12:13 pm)

Agree with all of the above.
Why did you enroll in this class? In any case, tell yourself that the professor is a petty tyrant and drop the class immediately. You've got to pick your battles, and based on the above emails, you started a fight you can't possibly win. Get out now.

Reply Like (0)
jorgedeclaro (Jan 10, 2018 - 1:01 pm)

And you know that she or someone she knows keeps up with jdu. She will know about your post. Posting here isn't going to help matters.

Get out of the class. Your self-righteousness is going to lead you into doing something stupid and you're going to walk yourself into a honor code violation that isn't based on your divergent viewpoints.

Reply Like (0)
superttthero (Jan 10, 2018 - 1:26 pm)

Johnny-Boy,

Most of us here are not fans of her or her "scholarship."

That being said, you are 100% in the wrong here, dude. Drop the class now if you can. Otherwise, write back apologizing for your tone, demeanor, lack of professionalism.

Even on her original questions, it's her class and they are not off-subject. Why the hell did you take this? Just to pick fights?

Edit:
"Some of your answers to the questionnaire indicate a hostility to the basic premises of critical race theory. You are of course welcome to believe whatever you wish about critical race theory, but in order to participate meaningfully in class discussion you will need to accept -- at least for the sake of discussion -- the basic principles of the field."

Re-read that until you understand, believe it as she says, "at least for the sake of discussion." You signed up for the class!!

Reply Like (0)
jorgedeclaro (Jan 10, 2018 - 1:33 pm)

TITCR. Listen to Super T. A sympathetic audience has universally told you that you're in the wrong. If you have anything resembling self-awareness and self-reflection, take the advice you requested.

Reply Like (0)
jackofspeed (Jan 10, 2018 - 2:10 pm)

I concur. She's doing a critical race theory class. Don't fight the hypo.

As a hard-core right-wing conservative (and current Federalist Society member) I believe critical race theory is mostly Marxism weaponized to destroy pluralistic and ethnically diverse democracies.

However, it is useful to learn about it from sympathetic sources in order to understand its premises, rhetorical strategies, and subterfuges.

My first recommendation is to withdraw. Life is too short to spend a semester with a target on your neck. If you think you can bear it, and trust the professor to stay honest to her vocation, then apologizing profusely might work to stay in the class, but you'll have to work hard at responding to the theory and its claims in a law-school acceptable manner.

She's in charge of her classroom. If you cannot abide that, you are much safer withdrawing from it.

Reply Like (0)
jmiceli (Jan 10, 2018 - 3:04 pm)

Thank you for your insight. I'll consider your comments and what the best way for me to move forward would be. I still need some time to think through all your comments and give them real thought.

In response to one question, I took the class because I am interested in the subject. I try to take all classes that I disagree with. If only so I can get a better understanding of the topic so I can more effectively argue against it.

Reply Like (0)
confused1l93 (Jan 10, 2018 - 6:27 pm)

Only losers care enough to understand a topic for the purpose of effectively arguing against a specific viewpoint. Find a hobby.

Reply Like (0)
jmiceli (Jan 13, 2018 - 3:01 pm)

Thank you for your candor. At the time I was writing my original post, I let my emotions get the better to me. I wasn't being true to myself, so I could see how my messages to Professor Leong came off as insincere on this thread.

"Toohey: "Mr. Roark, we're alone here. Why don't you tell me what you think of me? In any words you wish. No one will hear us."
Roark: "But I don't think of you.”

Reply Like (0)
3lol (Jan 15, 2018 - 1:33 pm)

Law school is very traditional, if nothing else. These "Law & X" classes are mostly just masturbatory exercises for professors, and the school allows them because they indicate a dynamic curriculum, whereas the classes that matter have been taught the same way for the last 70 years.

That being said, you chose to take a class on "Critical Race Theory" specifically because you wanted to voice loudly about how you disagreed with it, which really places a big question mark on both your social skills and your level of maturity.

Law school sets the stage for your professional career. If you develop a documented reputation for being an obnoxious, disagreeable PITA then no one is going to want to hire you, whether they agree with your political views or not. That's why you're in law school, isn't it? To get a job?

Rest assured that no one in law school cares what you have to say on the matter. You're not changing the professor's mind, and your classmates will roll their eyes as you bloviate on about your Breitbart-inspired worldview, wishing you would just quiet down so they could get the class and their legal education over with.

If you really have such an unquenchable desire to "pwn libs," hop on the internet, go to the Huff Post comments section and post away. In the real world, grow up.

Reply Like (0)
barneystinson (Jan 15, 2018 - 8:28 pm)

This is 100% correct. What you are doing is completely pointless and can only harm your job prospects, if you actually want to have a legitimate legal career. You'll realize in a couple years how stupid your actions are right now. Just stop.

Reply Like (0)
wearyattorney (Jan 15, 2018 - 3:49 pm)

My opinion is as follows:

You aren’t going to listen, but I’ll try anyway: first generation law student probably means your parents aren’t rich. This means you need to drop out of law school immediately, especially if you are taking out loans.

I didn’t even bother reading the above exchange after I saw that in your post because it doesn’t matter. Hopefully you’ll take my advice and save your life, but if I’m a betting person, I’d say you aren’t.

Good luck.

Reply Like (0)
thirdtierlaw (Jan 15, 2018 - 10:21 pm)

He may be the first person in the history of these "fluff" classes to fail.

Reply Like (0)
gonetomorrow (Jan 15, 2018 - 10:39 pm)

Take your saved Tuition money and buy cryptocurrency. We are all in PFR. Should moon once it hits some bigger exchanges.

Reply Like (0)
isthisit (Jan 16, 2018 - 12:03 am)

You sound like you own a fedora.

Email your professor and apologize for letting your emotions get the better of you and then withdraw.

If you can't withdraw than let her know you plan on being more open minded during class and look forward to having your mind expanded on CRT.

Personally I think CRT is academic bullsh!t. Just a bunch of limp wristed SJWs patting each other on the back and smelling of patchouli.

But who cares what I think? I won't lose any sleep thinking about how to change NL's mind nor should you. So don't waste your time and law school reputation being a keyboard "intellectual".

Pick your battles better going forward.

Reply Like (0)
flawed (Jan 16, 2018 - 3:04 pm)

Yeah you're toast. I can't fathom how you thought any of this was a good idea. Legit you should probably withdraw and save face before your life is made hell.

And it doesnt matter whether you are right or wrong in this scenerio, you just flat out dont understand how things work and will either learn a harsh lesson or be stumped how this could possibly happen to you. Please get some perspective on reality

Reply Like (0)
lucapacioli (Jan 16, 2018 - 11:25 pm)

jmiceli I hope you take some time for serious reflection.

Reply Like (0)
captain (Jan 17, 2018 - 1:02 am)

You could have argued it better. And you definitely need to be moe professional in your tone. But this is a great start. You should stand up for what you believe in. Most of the people chastising you are scared little children, up to their eyeballs in debt and begging for that next crumb from their mangers/partners.

Reply Like (0)
thirdtierlaw (Jan 17, 2018 - 8:02 am)

At least we have managing partners to suck up to. Tanking your GPA and class rank because you want to fight the dirty liberals in law school is a pyrrhic victory at best.

Standing up for what you believe is all fine and good if you actually get something out of it. But ranting, unprofessionally, to someone who won't change their mind all while making your future job prospects, in an already tough market, dwindle is not the time to do it.

It's an important professional skill as well, even if you are a solo. I've known enough to bite my tongue when a judge has made an idiotic decision. This is no different.

Reply Like (0)
patenttrollnj (Jan 17, 2018 - 6:59 am)

I think it a bit much for the professor to discredit this panel simply because of its racial composition.

Besides, she missed a perfectly good opportunity to address the issue of an alleged "old boys network" at the actual discussion. It would have been very interesting.

Reply Like (0)
Post a message in this thread