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.
The lengthy language gymnastics lawyers use in most any discussion that may cause others to be stressed. Clearly, I didn't go to law school so cannot relate to the stress of an exam, but the legal word salads lawyers often employ make me crazy. It's often hard to discern the real point and seems intentional, to me, to put others off balance.
Not at all. It's just tiring to read all of it. I'm sorry, I probably shouldn't have commented. (Btw, that's a sincere apology, since evidently an "I'm sorry" isn't cutting it these days)
As someone who despises gratuitous jargon, and suspects that, unless it's a highly technical subject like medicine or engineering, it's generally deployed to (1) hide the fact that you don't have a good point, (2) hide the fact that your point is obvious, (3) hide the fact that you are smuggling in substantive points or assumptions without actually defending them, (4) confer insider status on your friends, and/or (5) befuddle or dazzle outsiders, I hear you.
At the same time, I confess that, as a (now non-practicing) lawyer, I've always found law talk (as you might find, say, in a Supreme Court opinion) to be relatively readable, precise, and straightforward, relying on obscure terminology only when it's a useful shortcut very well understood among those with a basic legal education. It's far easier to read a legal brief than, I'd say, a typical social science study or postmodern paper in the humanities or a work of European philosophy -- and less vomit-inducing than the sort of plainly unnecessary and/or obfuscatory jargon one encounters in the worlds of business or "diversity, equity, and inclusion."
Language that has legal effect is another matter -- by which I mean what you read in your apartment lease, the back of your phone bill, a contract, a deed, a will, a law or regulation, and so on. That really is legalese. It's not unreadable if you persist, but it's often not easy either. The reason is that it's meant to be crystal clear to a judge charged with interpreting it in the widest possible universe of potential situations. This is why you often encounter lots of apparent redundancies and very long sentences!
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.
We must, though, I believe, insist on proportionality and not cede the high ground automatically to those who say they are hurt, offended, angry, threatened, traumatized etc. The supermarket analogy is instructive. If you are looking down at your phone while shopping instead of where you're going and your cart knocks into someone, sending them reeling by a few steps, you owe them an immediate and heartfelt apology even though of course you didn't MEAN to bump into them. And if you're the person who was bumped into, decency demands that you assess the situation, the intent/negligence of the person who bumped into you, apply the golden rule etc. before deciding whether to pitch a fit, call the police, call a lawyer, call the media. My view in general is that if someone makes a mistake -- even one that comes from negligence -- it's enough that they own their error, express regret and, if applicable, promise not to do it again.
If their "mistake" is symptomatic of cruelty, hostility or utter indifference to others (if the person ramming you with their shopping cart is someone with whom you'd earlier exchanged cross words in the parking lot, for example, then even an elaborate "I'm sorry" probably won't cut it.
So let's not give excessive deference to those who want to escalate every dispute into a major confrontation that requires utter self-abasement to rectify.
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.
"Needlessly provocative" is certainly a judgment call. And my understanding is that it wasn't a four hour "debate" but a conversation that was mostly amicable and the tone conciliatory. The fact that other students and his colleagues aren't coming to his defense tells you nothing because, as my recent experience with Northwestern illustrated, cowardice dominates faculty responses to things. People fear that coming to Kilborn' defense will tar THEM as racists.
Note that while I haven't heard support from the UIC Law faculty, nor have I received even one anonymous note from someone on that faculty supporting the students.
Kilborn apologized to the students in a lengthy email after the semester. Is this not "direct" enough for you? And what would your attitude be if someone accused you of racism and wanted you fired over an "infraction" like this? Would your attitude need adjusting?
I take your point on public support; what is unknown is how much quiet support, if any, faculty and students gave him to administration.
My point on the email was that it was, by necessity, an email. I think that is less effective an apology than an in-person apology or discussion with the class. In person could have humanized him in a way that an email can't, and would offer the opportunity for continued interaction during the semester to help diffuse the situation. Would it have made a difference? Who knows (see below).
The attitude adjustment comment related to the fact that, apparently, there were more alleged incidents than just the exam question. The steps taken in response to the exam issue were, I thought, appropriate and could be seen as a one-off response to a one-off situation. If that were the entire story, I would think (putting myself in his shoes) I did not need an adjustment, but did need a reminder to be more sensitive. But if you believe there was more of a pattern of conduct from the Prof, then that requires more intervention. Call that extra intervention what you will.
So why were a group of students so committed to seeing him fired? And why draw in Rev. Jackson? The general consensus (in these posts) is that the Prof's mistakes were correctable, his apology heartfelt, and his further actions consistent with increased sensitivity to others. Seems like nothing was going to satisfy the group short of firing. Just a show of influence? Something else/more? I have no idea.
I thought that it was funny and chuckled when I read it. But I also thought it was a bit crass, so I didn't vote for it. It also reminded me of when the Trib blocked a comment about military training, where I referred to 'grunts humping', which is USMC jargon for marching across country with a pack.
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!
Of all of the stressful events in my life, the 100 (or so) mid-term and final exams that I took in college do not rank very highly. I think that the excuse that a final exam for a law school class was a uniquely stressful event, requiring special concern for the mental well-being of students, is farcical. I believe that actual trial experience, with real consequences, is more stressful.
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.
It begs the question was Kilborn deliberately attempting to bait students? You would expect a higher education professional to be far more aware of the rapidly changing social mores taking place on all campuses.
Objection sustained to that use of "begs the question" and a question for the "he should have known better!" crowd. Were YOU aware that it's now considered off limits to use even the redacted form of this particular racial slur? Had you shuddered, recoiled or even thought twice about the scores or uses of the expression "the N-word" in mainstream media? I'll answer for you. You were not. You recognized it as a common usage that marginalized the actual term but specified it was that term and not some term with far less historical baggage and cultural impact. I know this because there is STILL no answer as to if and when and even why even alluding to this slur is now off limits. Not one person has written to me to make that claim, and only a few have made the thin argument that the rules are different for an exam. And, really, you think the professor should have known that. I call shenanigans.
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.
Post links! Biden certainly has his flaws but Trump is a vain, fatuous gasbag whose lack of self awareness makes him really easy to joke about. You can post links here and I'll sure consider them.
I'm very disappointed in your reply Eric. Trump, may in fact, be all those things you stated and more. If I wanted to respond in kind, I could also point out that Biden regularly displays amusing degrees of senility, has to have his wife take him by the hand to find his dinner table, loses his train of thoughts and cannot complete sentences, and is becoming infamous for his outrageous exaggerations in terms of his academic achievements, not to mention the hilarious "Corn Pop".
But that's particularly my point, for both of us, and for all of us, to find it within ourselves to move outside of our partisan views and find and enjoy humor across the spectrum. I can easily take you up on your offer and supply you with an endless stream of memes featuring biden, Pelosi and others on the left. But that's precisely what I did not want to do and make this into yet another partisan divide. My challenge was an invitation for all of us to be able to laugh together, irrespective of our own personal viewpoints.
Zorn's challenge remains: post some good Biden jokes! In the absence thereof, I think we're left to fall back on Zorn's theory that Trump is, even putting aside partisan preference, a far more ridiculous figure and thus far more susceptible to mockery. I don't actually find senility jokes that funny and they don't ring that true for Biden anyway. I'm more inclined to see Biden as sad. He's such a disappointment as a politician, something I thought he'd be pretty good at, given that he's been in politics for 7000 years. (That reminds me, I think you see the occasional "Biden is old" joke, but they're seldom knee-slappers.)
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.
What obfuscation are you referring to?
The lengthy language gymnastics lawyers use in most any discussion that may cause others to be stressed. Clearly, I didn't go to law school so cannot relate to the stress of an exam, but the legal word salads lawyers often employ make me crazy. It's often hard to discern the real point and seems intentional, to me, to put others off balance.
Hello, are you referring to my comment?
Not at all. It's just tiring to read all of it. I'm sorry, I probably shouldn't have commented. (Btw, that's a sincere apology, since evidently an "I'm sorry" isn't cutting it these days)
It sure doesn’t seem to be! But it works for me.
As someone who despises gratuitous jargon, and suspects that, unless it's a highly technical subject like medicine or engineering, it's generally deployed to (1) hide the fact that you don't have a good point, (2) hide the fact that your point is obvious, (3) hide the fact that you are smuggling in substantive points or assumptions without actually defending them, (4) confer insider status on your friends, and/or (5) befuddle or dazzle outsiders, I hear you.
At the same time, I confess that, as a (now non-practicing) lawyer, I've always found law talk (as you might find, say, in a Supreme Court opinion) to be relatively readable, precise, and straightforward, relying on obscure terminology only when it's a useful shortcut very well understood among those with a basic legal education. It's far easier to read a legal brief than, I'd say, a typical social science study or postmodern paper in the humanities or a work of European philosophy -- and less vomit-inducing than the sort of plainly unnecessary and/or obfuscatory jargon one encounters in the worlds of business or "diversity, equity, and inclusion."
Language that has legal effect is another matter -- by which I mean what you read in your apartment lease, the back of your phone bill, a contract, a deed, a will, a law or regulation, and so on. That really is legalese. It's not unreadable if you persist, but it's often not easy either. The reason is that it's meant to be crystal clear to a judge charged with interpreting it in the widest possible universe of potential situations. This is why you often encounter lots of apparent redundancies and very long sentences!
To use the vernacular: RIGHT ON!!!
Thank you for the respectful response :)
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.
We must, though, I believe, insist on proportionality and not cede the high ground automatically to those who say they are hurt, offended, angry, threatened, traumatized etc. The supermarket analogy is instructive. If you are looking down at your phone while shopping instead of where you're going and your cart knocks into someone, sending them reeling by a few steps, you owe them an immediate and heartfelt apology even though of course you didn't MEAN to bump into them. And if you're the person who was bumped into, decency demands that you assess the situation, the intent/negligence of the person who bumped into you, apply the golden rule etc. before deciding whether to pitch a fit, call the police, call a lawyer, call the media. My view in general is that if someone makes a mistake -- even one that comes from negligence -- it's enough that they own their error, express regret and, if applicable, promise not to do it again.
If their "mistake" is symptomatic of cruelty, hostility or utter indifference to others (if the person ramming you with their shopping cart is someone with whom you'd earlier exchanged cross words in the parking lot, for example, then even an elaborate "I'm sorry" probably won't cut it.
So let's not give excessive deference to those who want to escalate every dispute into a major confrontation that requires utter self-abasement to rectify.
Agree
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.
"Needlessly provocative" is certainly a judgment call. And my understanding is that it wasn't a four hour "debate" but a conversation that was mostly amicable and the tone conciliatory. The fact that other students and his colleagues aren't coming to his defense tells you nothing because, as my recent experience with Northwestern illustrated, cowardice dominates faculty responses to things. People fear that coming to Kilborn' defense will tar THEM as racists.
Note that while I haven't heard support from the UIC Law faculty, nor have I received even one anonymous note from someone on that faculty supporting the students.
Kilborn apologized to the students in a lengthy email after the semester. Is this not "direct" enough for you? And what would your attitude be if someone accused you of racism and wanted you fired over an "infraction" like this? Would your attitude need adjusting?
I take your point on public support; what is unknown is how much quiet support, if any, faculty and students gave him to administration.
My point on the email was that it was, by necessity, an email. I think that is less effective an apology than an in-person apology or discussion with the class. In person could have humanized him in a way that an email can't, and would offer the opportunity for continued interaction during the semester to help diffuse the situation. Would it have made a difference? Who knows (see below).
The attitude adjustment comment related to the fact that, apparently, there were more alleged incidents than just the exam question. The steps taken in response to the exam issue were, I thought, appropriate and could be seen as a one-off response to a one-off situation. If that were the entire story, I would think (putting myself in his shoes) I did not need an adjustment, but did need a reminder to be more sensitive. But if you believe there was more of a pattern of conduct from the Prof, then that requires more intervention. Call that extra intervention what you will.
So why were a group of students so committed to seeing him fired? And why draw in Rev. Jackson? The general consensus (in these posts) is that the Prof's mistakes were correctable, his apology heartfelt, and his further actions consistent with increased sensitivity to others. Seems like nothing was going to satisfy the group short of firing. Just a show of influence? Something else/more? I have no idea.
Is it right to put your thumb on the scale for that Humpty Dumpty tweet? Hm.
My influence over the Twitter electorate has long been very weak.
I thought that it was funny and chuckled when I read it. But I also thought it was a bit crass, so I didn't vote for it. It also reminded me of when the Trib blocked a comment about military training, where I referred to 'grunts humping', which is USMC jargon for marching across country with a pack.
EZ - As I recall, rarely does your "preferred" tweet end up as the voted favorite.
I've stopped announcing my preferred tweet, mostly because no one listened to me anyway!
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!
Many people have sent me references to this scene from "The Paper Chase" https://youtu.be/_M6bUI1A9ho?t=33
Indeed, though in that particular case, the professor really was being a sonofa -- well, I won't go on.
Of all of the stressful events in my life, the 100 (or so) mid-term and final exams that I took in college do not rank very highly. I think that the excuse that a final exam for a law school class was a uniquely stressful event, requiring special concern for the mental well-being of students, is farcical. I believe that actual trial experience, with real consequences, is more stressful.
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.
It begs the question was Kilborn deliberately attempting to bait students? You would expect a higher education professional to be far more aware of the rapidly changing social mores taking place on all campuses.
Objection sustained to that use of "begs the question" and a question for the "he should have known better!" crowd. Were YOU aware that it's now considered off limits to use even the redacted form of this particular racial slur? Had you shuddered, recoiled or even thought twice about the scores or uses of the expression "the N-word" in mainstream media? I'll answer for you. You were not. You recognized it as a common usage that marginalized the actual term but specified it was that term and not some term with far less historical baggage and cultural impact. I know this because there is STILL no answer as to if and when and even why even alluding to this slur is now off limits. Not one person has written to me to make that claim, and only a few have made the thin argument that the rules are different for an exam. And, really, you think the professor should have known that. I call shenanigans.
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.
Post links! Biden certainly has his flaws but Trump is a vain, fatuous gasbag whose lack of self awareness makes him really easy to joke about. You can post links here and I'll sure consider them.
I'm very disappointed in your reply Eric. Trump, may in fact, be all those things you stated and more. If I wanted to respond in kind, I could also point out that Biden regularly displays amusing degrees of senility, has to have his wife take him by the hand to find his dinner table, loses his train of thoughts and cannot complete sentences, and is becoming infamous for his outrageous exaggerations in terms of his academic achievements, not to mention the hilarious "Corn Pop".
But that's particularly my point, for both of us, and for all of us, to find it within ourselves to move outside of our partisan views and find and enjoy humor across the spectrum. I can easily take you up on your offer and supply you with an endless stream of memes featuring biden, Pelosi and others on the left. But that's precisely what I did not want to do and make this into yet another partisan divide. My challenge was an invitation for all of us to be able to laugh together, irrespective of our own personal viewpoints.
Zorn's challenge remains: post some good Biden jokes! In the absence thereof, I think we're left to fall back on Zorn's theory that Trump is, even putting aside partisan preference, a far more ridiculous figure and thus far more susceptible to mockery. I don't actually find senility jokes that funny and they don't ring that true for Biden anyway. I'm more inclined to see Biden as sad. He's such a disappointment as a politician, something I thought he'd be pretty good at, given that he's been in politics for 7000 years. (That reminds me, I think you see the occasional "Biden is old" joke, but they're seldom knee-slappers.)
Stop whining and bring the funny!
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.
Equally? Members only comment salons are pretty standard these days and I've gotta say they've improved the quality of comments
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.