Not to be sycophantic, but I couldn’t agree more with your analysis of the UIC matter. As a retired lawyer, I recall with crystal clarity what it’s like to sit in the exam room with an empty blue book (yup!) open in front of me, focusing as hard as possible on the fact pattern. It never would have occurred to me to critique said fact pattern, as to do so is, among other things, a loss of precious time. That said, I understand that times, language and the notion of triggers have changed and that the fact pattern truly offended students. But a sincere apology should have sufficed and to carry this to the extent that administration has done seems performative at best.
I wanted to respond to this line: But what Kilborn didn’t seem to realize, and what I myself have only started to realize in the last year or so, is that furious people no longer seem to accept apologies.
As a therapist and a LCSW, I think that it is not about the "I am sorry" because, unfortunately, there seems to be a good number of people who say "I am sorry" to simply be done talking about something. I am sorry has lost the meaning to the other person. It is really important that the offender themselves recognize if they are truly sorry, or if they just want to move on and put this behind them. The most important piece of an apology is the repairing. And the repairing is not up to the offender to decide when something is repaired eg "I just said I was Sorry! Didn't you hear me?" but more about acknowledging the offended's reasons for being upset/hurt/betrayed, whatever the case may be. What did I do to cause your feelings, how can I begin to understand what your feelings even are, and am I committed to learning more about those feelings so I can then learn about myself and my own journey. For example, acknowledging about yourself that as a white person, you made assumptions, AND you don't like that part of yourself so you want to do better, be better, understand more is a part of the conversation that might be helpful.
I agree that the exam question was distressing to some and needlessly provocative. So we are debating the appropriate punishment. The Professor apologizes and participates in a 4-hour public event about his mistakes. All that seems just about right for the alleged actions. But he uses a bad rhetorical phrase in the meeting (footnote -- try some time to participate in a 4-hour "debate" and not say something that offends), and later inquiries suggest some ongoing lack of sensitivity in the classroom. An escalation of the punishment seems maybe ok, but how much is hard to tell at a distance. Some students now want him fired. But I don't think the victim -- or the victim's representatives -- should set the punishment. It should be up to the (hopefully) more neutral bosses to stand behind their decision call a halt to the proceedings.
The fact that it has gone this far suggests that the Prof does need some attitude adjustments. He seemed to have zero classroom goodwill to draw upon. Nor could he apologize directly to the class, since the initial infraction was on the final exam.
When trying to create real world situations in a test on real world responses, the professor did his best to portray a situation while still being sensitive to appropriate use of language. (Again - maybe as you said, the rules may have changed) In the real world - those worlds are used without prejudice. And after years of public apologies - those mostly lawyered up so much it is difficult to confirm it was an apology (certainly at least apologizing for being caught up in trouble) - the professor seemed sincere in his words.
In somewhat related news from the weekend - a candidate for police chief is under question for something he did in 1993. It seems we are no longer allowed to have mistakes in our past, nor to show how we have grown over the decades.
I would agree that the apology should have been enough except that I don't think the apology itself was warranted. He did nothing wrong. The students are in the wrong here.
This is not a case of shifting standards about what's okay to say. There is no rule that one may not say or write "n-word" or "n-----" when referring to someone's use of that word. Anyone may do that, in just about any context. No amount of a handful of people pretending otherwise is capable of changing that.
The students argue that it wasn't necessary for this exam. That's technically true but beside the point. The professor should be free to choose the fact pattern. This is a perfectly good one. And even though a reference to bigotry does not routinely appear on civil procedure exams, it would be pretty much unavoidable in a First Amendment class or an employment discrimination class. Can it really be true that this is a firing offense only because the class was on civil procedure?
Triggers? Trauma? These words have become so unmoored from the original context in the field of psychological disorders as to be the equivalent of "negative reaction." It is not the obligation of professors to guard against negative reactions. It's therefore a mistake to implicitly accept that obligation, as an apology does.
Anyway, if you cannot put aside a negative emotional response to this hypothetical fact pattern to analyze the situation objectively in light of the law and your professional obligations, you are not mentally equipped to become a lawyer, and you should perhaps consider something else.
If I were the administration, I would have responded as many academics have done to explain that the question was entirely appropriate on its face and warranted no investigation or action concerning Kilborn. I feel confident that this response would not have violated any of the university's legal obligations.
Speaking of which, the whole thing would make for an interesting law school fact pattern, but it would involve quoting the fact pattern, so I guess it's out!
What I don't get about about this whole episode is that how is encouraging law students to be so easily "triggered" by certain words will in any way make them better lawyers? It isn't as if this exam question was so far fetched that it would never happen in real life, or these students would never have to represent someone in this same situation. It is like medical students who can't stand the sight of blood.
I am a big believer in second chances, because that's where learning takes place and we can temper over-reactions. We all make mistakes; we all deserve the opportunity to try again and make it right.
But what struck me about this story is the comment that Kilborn has been using the same question on exams for 20 years. As a legal scholar he must know the deepening impact of the Supreme Court's gutting of the Voting Rights Act on the ability of Black people to exercise their constitutional rights in this country. We are at a crisis point on this topic and, instead of intervening, white politicians are either squabbling over minutiae of parliamentary procedure or actively throwing their energies into further erosion of racial equity. Educators in all fields need to pay attention to the volatile cultural and legal landscape this is informing the future of today's students ... and fueling their anger and frustration. Relying on what used to be OK is no longer acceptable and it shouldn't be.
I'd like to see Kilborn go through his diversity training and be given the second chance his lengthy career deserves. But I hope he'll also hold himself to a higher standard for the course materials he uses and review them regularly and strenuously.
Eric (and PS readers) - I'd like to offer you a challenge. It appears that tweets and pictorial tweets often include attempts of humor on former President Trump. I would like to challenge you to also include tweets and pictorial tweets that feature attempts of humor on President Biden.
If your immediate knee-jerk response is that ammunition for humor on Trump is plentiful, but there is nothing at all humorous about Biden, then you have already failed this challenge. And if your response is that you simply only want to engage in humor on Trump, then you have to admit the you are not seeking so much to enjoy good witticisms, but only cheap partisan political gratification.
Your decision to reprint a law school exam in its entirety today triggered my feelings of distress, fear and outright panic caused by having to answer many similar exam questions as a young Loyola Law School student in the late 1970’s. Even now, after having practiced law successfully for more than 40 years, the convoluted, unnecessarily opaque and obtuse fact pattern traumatized me. You had no right to make me to re-live the trauma of my law school exam times.
I still think we need to review motivations here. Is this a case of sour grapes over a bad test grade? Do we know what grades these angry students got on the test? As a law school graduate myself - Professors who gave low grades got much more student anger and grief. I may be wrong but I think we need to know their grades (not by name but in general).
Finally while we parcel out the issue of a middle class Professor who seems to be apologizing for his actions as racist (or not) - this situation is red meat for Trump, the Proud Boys and the KKK to name a few. After finishing this with the Professor - can they take on these groups with their open hate and aggressive racism?
I think we need some more information. Could this be a case of sour grapes over a bad test grade? I graduated from law school and found that students tended to act with anger and aggression over a bad test grade. What grades did they get on this test? I think we need to know in general (not by name). I could be wrong - but experience tells me otherwise.
Also while we parcel out this Professor's actions and apology - and the continuing issue of employment - this whole situation provides red meat to Trump, the Proud Boys and KKK.
After dealing with the Professor - can they deal with these groups and their naked aggressive racist hate?
1. The use of the epithets was unnecessary to pose the question; delete N and B, and insert, he had very negative and demeaning things to say about her, and the legal question, "do you have to give this information in an interrogatory answer?" has the same import and answer (Yes).
2. Lawyers (I have been one >40 years) often hear offensive language and must be able to rise above it.
3. The professor's apology seems heartfelt and sincere. I hope he is reinstated.
4. I agree with EZ that many people have never learned or forgotten how to accept an apology and move on. Canceling someone who does something that offends you is not a strategy for a purposeful life.
Not to be sycophantic, but I couldn’t agree more with your analysis of the UIC matter. As a retired lawyer, I recall with crystal clarity what it’s like to sit in the exam room with an empty blue book (yup!) open in front of me, focusing as hard as possible on the fact pattern. It never would have occurred to me to critique said fact pattern, as to do so is, among other things, a loss of precious time. That said, I understand that times, language and the notion of triggers have changed and that the fact pattern truly offended students. But a sincere apology should have sufficed and to carry this to the extent that administration has done seems performative at best.
This obfuscation is why lawyers are hated.
I wanted to respond to this line: But what Kilborn didn’t seem to realize, and what I myself have only started to realize in the last year or so, is that furious people no longer seem to accept apologies.
As a therapist and a LCSW, I think that it is not about the "I am sorry" because, unfortunately, there seems to be a good number of people who say "I am sorry" to simply be done talking about something. I am sorry has lost the meaning to the other person. It is really important that the offender themselves recognize if they are truly sorry, or if they just want to move on and put this behind them. The most important piece of an apology is the repairing. And the repairing is not up to the offender to decide when something is repaired eg "I just said I was Sorry! Didn't you hear me?" but more about acknowledging the offended's reasons for being upset/hurt/betrayed, whatever the case may be. What did I do to cause your feelings, how can I begin to understand what your feelings even are, and am I committed to learning more about those feelings so I can then learn about myself and my own journey. For example, acknowledging about yourself that as a white person, you made assumptions, AND you don't like that part of yourself so you want to do better, be better, understand more is a part of the conversation that might be helpful.
I agree that the exam question was distressing to some and needlessly provocative. So we are debating the appropriate punishment. The Professor apologizes and participates in a 4-hour public event about his mistakes. All that seems just about right for the alleged actions. But he uses a bad rhetorical phrase in the meeting (footnote -- try some time to participate in a 4-hour "debate" and not say something that offends), and later inquiries suggest some ongoing lack of sensitivity in the classroom. An escalation of the punishment seems maybe ok, but how much is hard to tell at a distance. Some students now want him fired. But I don't think the victim -- or the victim's representatives -- should set the punishment. It should be up to the (hopefully) more neutral bosses to stand behind their decision call a halt to the proceedings.
The fact that it has gone this far suggests that the Prof does need some attitude adjustments. He seemed to have zero classroom goodwill to draw upon. Nor could he apologize directly to the class, since the initial infraction was on the final exam.
Is it right to put your thumb on the scale for that Humpty Dumpty tweet? Hm.
When trying to create real world situations in a test on real world responses, the professor did his best to portray a situation while still being sensitive to appropriate use of language. (Again - maybe as you said, the rules may have changed) In the real world - those worlds are used without prejudice. And after years of public apologies - those mostly lawyered up so much it is difficult to confirm it was an apology (certainly at least apologizing for being caught up in trouble) - the professor seemed sincere in his words.
In somewhat related news from the weekend - a candidate for police chief is under question for something he did in 1993. It seems we are no longer allowed to have mistakes in our past, nor to show how we have grown over the decades.
I would agree that the apology should have been enough except that I don't think the apology itself was warranted. He did nothing wrong. The students are in the wrong here.
This is not a case of shifting standards about what's okay to say. There is no rule that one may not say or write "n-word" or "n-----" when referring to someone's use of that word. Anyone may do that, in just about any context. No amount of a handful of people pretending otherwise is capable of changing that.
The students argue that it wasn't necessary for this exam. That's technically true but beside the point. The professor should be free to choose the fact pattern. This is a perfectly good one. And even though a reference to bigotry does not routinely appear on civil procedure exams, it would be pretty much unavoidable in a First Amendment class or an employment discrimination class. Can it really be true that this is a firing offense only because the class was on civil procedure?
Triggers? Trauma? These words have become so unmoored from the original context in the field of psychological disorders as to be the equivalent of "negative reaction." It is not the obligation of professors to guard against negative reactions. It's therefore a mistake to implicitly accept that obligation, as an apology does.
Anyway, if you cannot put aside a negative emotional response to this hypothetical fact pattern to analyze the situation objectively in light of the law and your professional obligations, you are not mentally equipped to become a lawyer, and you should perhaps consider something else.
If I were the administration, I would have responded as many academics have done to explain that the question was entirely appropriate on its face and warranted no investigation or action concerning Kilborn. I feel confident that this response would not have violated any of the university's legal obligations.
Speaking of which, the whole thing would make for an interesting law school fact pattern, but it would involve quoting the fact pattern, so I guess it's out!
What I don't get about about this whole episode is that how is encouraging law students to be so easily "triggered" by certain words will in any way make them better lawyers? It isn't as if this exam question was so far fetched that it would never happen in real life, or these students would never have to represent someone in this same situation. It is like medical students who can't stand the sight of blood.
I am a big believer in second chances, because that's where learning takes place and we can temper over-reactions. We all make mistakes; we all deserve the opportunity to try again and make it right.
But what struck me about this story is the comment that Kilborn has been using the same question on exams for 20 years. As a legal scholar he must know the deepening impact of the Supreme Court's gutting of the Voting Rights Act on the ability of Black people to exercise their constitutional rights in this country. We are at a crisis point on this topic and, instead of intervening, white politicians are either squabbling over minutiae of parliamentary procedure or actively throwing their energies into further erosion of racial equity. Educators in all fields need to pay attention to the volatile cultural and legal landscape this is informing the future of today's students ... and fueling their anger and frustration. Relying on what used to be OK is no longer acceptable and it shouldn't be.
I'd like to see Kilborn go through his diversity training and be given the second chance his lengthy career deserves. But I hope he'll also hold himself to a higher standard for the course materials he uses and review them regularly and strenuously.
Eric (and PS readers) - I'd like to offer you a challenge. It appears that tweets and pictorial tweets often include attempts of humor on former President Trump. I would like to challenge you to also include tweets and pictorial tweets that feature attempts of humor on President Biden.
If your immediate knee-jerk response is that ammunition for humor on Trump is plentiful, but there is nothing at all humorous about Biden, then you have already failed this challenge. And if your response is that you simply only want to engage in humor on Trump, then you have to admit the you are not seeking so much to enjoy good witticisms, but only cheap partisan political gratification.
Your decision to reprint a law school exam in its entirety today triggered my feelings of distress, fear and outright panic caused by having to answer many similar exam questions as a young Loyola Law School student in the late 1970’s. Even now, after having practiced law successfully for more than 40 years, the convoluted, unnecessarily opaque and obtuse fact pattern traumatized me. You had no right to make me to re-live the trauma of my law school exam times.
Margaret Benson
I still think we need to review motivations here. Is this a case of sour grapes over a bad test grade? Do we know what grades these angry students got on the test? As a law school graduate myself - Professors who gave low grades got much more student anger and grief. I may be wrong but I think we need to know their grades (not by name but in general).
Finally while we parcel out the issue of a middle class Professor who seems to be apologizing for his actions as racist (or not) - this situation is red meat for Trump, the Proud Boys and the KKK to name a few. After finishing this with the Professor - can they take on these groups with their open hate and aggressive racism?
I think we need some more information. Could this be a case of sour grapes over a bad test grade? I graduated from law school and found that students tended to act with anger and aggression over a bad test grade. What grades did they get on this test? I think we need to know in general (not by name). I could be wrong - but experience tells me otherwise.
Also while we parcel out this Professor's actions and apology - and the continuing issue of employment - this whole situation provides red meat to Trump, the Proud Boys and KKK.
After dealing with the Professor - can they deal with these groups and their naked aggressive racist hate?
I totally agree with your view on the Kilborn case.
Well articulated and helpful. Equally concerning are the hurdles necessary to enter this comment.
There's a lot to unpack.
1. The use of the epithets was unnecessary to pose the question; delete N and B, and insert, he had very negative and demeaning things to say about her, and the legal question, "do you have to give this information in an interrogatory answer?" has the same import and answer (Yes).
2. Lawyers (I have been one >40 years) often hear offensive language and must be able to rise above it.
3. The professor's apology seems heartfelt and sincere. I hope he is reinstated.
4. I agree with EZ that many people have never learned or forgotten how to accept an apology and move on. Canceling someone who does something that offends you is not a strategy for a purposeful life.
5. Thank you for the interesting forum.