Blogger Diva Ann Althouse Offers Advice on How to Talk About Race
Ronald Bailey | March 5, 2007, 9:13am
University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse writes a fascinating New York Times op/ed arguing that we should not let our emotions run away with us when we talk about race.
That's very good advice.
Update: Damn. I somehow missed the fact that my colleague Radley Balko already noted this Althouse op/ed on his weekend open thread blog. Sorry to bother y'all with it again.
Also, at the request of several commenters and my editor, here's the link to my earlier blog item about race, Althouse and emotion.
John Kindley | March 5, 2007, 12:42pm | #
I was a student of both Kaplan's and Althouse's. I'll just copy below what I wrote about the uproar on Althouse's blog.
"As others have said, law students just need to grow the nerve to openly disagree with their professors when their professors express in class beliefs, about the law or otherwise, which are dubious and with which the students disagree. I did, in Kaplan's class and other's. If it looks like your grades are suffering because of such valid disagreement, that's the time to really raise hell. If you truly believe the professor's expressed belief is egregiously offensive, then respond egregiously. There's a good chance the professor will either qualify or clarify his remarks. Having been a student of Prof. Kaplan's, and recalling his freewheeling and at times intentionally-provocative lecture style, I bet that's what would have happened if only the offended students had had some nerve, and the description of the context by a law student who was there on another thread rings true to me. So much better than crawling off into a corner, working yourself into a tizzy, and running to the Dean. (You could also make your complaints known in the evaluation form at the end of the semester.)"
"While in a comment above I expressed the wish that law students would speak up and have the courage to challenge their professors in class when they say something dubious and/or offensive, instead of running to the Dean and creating a media circus, I also have to second communitygal's observation above as a former student of Kaplan, about Kaplan's teaching style. There did seem to be a lot of unnecessary baiting, and the free association lecture style, typically delivered while pacing back and forth, often seemed to smack more of the personal and subjective than the substantial and objective. I remember being surprised at some of the things he said in class on that score, and fellow students expressing dissatisfaction outside of class with things he said. Oddly, I also remember once being surprised when he said something, in the space of about 15 seconds, that was actually quite lucid, insightful and substantial about the point of law or policy under discussion. Kaplan seemed to realize it was out of the ordinary for him too, as he followed it up with something like, "Now how about that?" I regretted that he did not lecture in that manner more often.
I hesitated to say this, because I have nothing personal against Kaplan and liked him, and I agree wholeheartedly with the Committee's statement. On the other hand, perhaps this very unfortunate incident will motivate Kaplan to re-evaluate his lecture style in a positive way."
John Kindley | March 5, 2007, 12:54pm | #
I know this is a lazy way to comment, but my suggestion above, that much of law school (and other higher education) is a waste of time and money, is amplified in my comment (copied below) to a recent Althouse post on a Justice Thomas interview in which he talked about what he'd like to have done differently in college:
"It's unfortunate that we have to make life-determining decisions, like what to major in, when we're young and have little experience of life. I majored in Philosophy, because I was passionate about it at the time, but in retrospect realize I would have learned everything worthwhile about Philosophy that I learned as a Philosophy major even if I hadn't majored in it, simply because my natural interest in it led me to study it on my own, outside of coursework.
Now many years of life experience has developed in me an interest in economics, particularly the economics of taxation, but I'm all too aware that formal study of the subject at this point in my life would be economically disadvantageous and for all practical purposes useless.
I learned far more about law in law school from researching and writing my law review article than I did from the three years of coursework I was required to take, and what I produced was of actual potential benefit to lawyers. Too bad the credentialing process in America in all fields isn't based more on such productive thesis-writing (and productive apprenticeships) and less on just jumpin' through hoops and puttin' in time. If it was, I could prove myself and gain the requisite knowledge by researching and writing an article or articles having to do with the economics of taxation, and others could do the same in areas that life has interested them in, and ways would be opened for acting on their interests.
Lower the artificial career entry barriers that are for the most part just a matter of the already-credentialed protecting their turf. For my part, I wouldn't care less if a competent paralegal were allowed to hang out a shingle and practice law. Let him put his paralegal degree on his office wall and let potential clients decide whether to hire him. Without law school debt, I bet his fees would be significantly lower than the lawyer's down the street."
