Law Students Want to Postpone Exams because of Trauma (1 Viewer)

[-fish-]

Megyn Kelly has ripped these "cupcake" students a couple times now that I've seen.

Actually I just came in here to say she hot

love Megyn Kelly ever since the election night coverage when Karl Rove lost his mind.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Thought I'd pop in since we were all chatting about this today before one of our exams. SLS opinion: seriously Columbia? lolz.

I guess the last two days since the "die in" with 100 of your classmates and a dozen of your professors have brought closure?

No. We just think postponing our exams like we're special isn't the best way to promote change. There's more coming from #SLS next quarter to look out for. We're still young enough to believe we can be agents of positive change!

Give it up...Once hired go to work for the next 30-40 years and collect your paycheck . Die when you are around 80 and know that nobody will even remember your name let alone give a #### what you did or didn't do.....Now that is a lesson in life.

 

[-fish-]

Thought I'd pop in since we were all chatting about this today before one of our exams. SLS opinion: seriously Columbia? lolz.

I guess the last two days since the "die in" with 100 of your classmates and a dozen of your professors have brought closure?

No. We just think postponing our exams like we're special isn't the best way to promote change. There's more coming from #SLS next quarter to look out for. We're still young enough to believe we can be agents of positive change!

You know how people that are practicing lawyers know someone is from Stanford? Because they tell you in the first 5 minutes you meet them. Stop saying SLS. You go to law school. Half the board did. They're all the same (well, except that farce that Woz went to), and the minute you hit a courtroom or an office nobody cares where you went.

You want to be an agent for positive change? Lead the way in Stanford grads not being dooshes.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Your Honor, I request a continuance.

Well then state your reason counselor.

Well the political climate in the country, wholly unrelated to this case, has me so emotionally verklempt that I cannot reasonably be expected to adequately represent my client at this time.

Counselor your request is denied on the grounds stated. I will, however, allow your client a continuance to seek a new lawyer as it is unlikely you will be allowed to represent any client after I refer you to the Bar Committee to examine your fitness to practice law. Now get out of my sight.

Mr. Senior Partner Sir?

Yes Precious.

I will not be able to have the contract revisions on your desk in the morning as requested.

Did you think that was a request, Precious? This is a billion dollar deal meaning 100's of millions to our firms coffers over the next several years. Somebody had God-damned well better be dying.

Oh they are sir. You see the fascist police in this country are killing black men who are resisting arrest.

Clean out your desk.

 

[TenTimes]

Should have known lawyer smack would be among the best [subscribe]

 

[otello]

I would hire exactly none of these kids.

I would enjoy the interview process, though.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I would hire exactly none of these kids.

I would enjoy the interview process, though.

I'd like to see Otis cuff them about the head and shoulders with those giant Otismitts. Maybe he could knock some sense into them, and if not, well, it sounds like Otis could use the exercise.

 

[Henry Ford]

I think I could get away with a die-in at the Department of Labor. David Duhon's pretty accommodating. Past that, I think I'd be in trouble.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Thought I'd pop in since we were all chatting about this today before one of our exams. SLS opinion: seriously Columbia? lolz.

I guess the last two days since the "die in" with 100 of your classmates and a dozen of your professors have brought closure?

No. We just think postponing our exams like we're special isn't the best way to promote change. There's more coming from #SLS next quarter to look out for. We're still young enough to believe we can be agents of positive change!

All of us are young enough to believe we can be positive agents for change. The question is how.

I believe that I am an agent for change each and every day. I just ran my audit numbers for the year as we are wrapping up accounting docs and I was a positive agent for the change of my bank account from last year, which was a change from the year before. I am enjoying the change I make in the world.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Thought I'd pop in since we were all chatting about this today before one of our exams. SLS opinion: seriously Columbia? lolz.

I guess the last two days since the "die in" with 100 of your classmates and a dozen of your professors have brought closure?

No. We just think postponing our exams like we're special isn't the best way to promote change. There's more coming from #SLS next quarter to look out for. We're still young enough to believe we can be agents of positive change!

You know how people that are practicing lawyers know someone is from Stanford? Because they tell you in the first 5 minutes you meet them. Stop saying SLS. You go to law school. Half the board did. They're all the same (well, except that farce that Woz went to), and the minute you hit a courtroom or an office nobody cares where you went.

You want to be an agent for positive change? Lead the way in Stanford grads not being dooshes.

 

[Henry Ford]

Thought I'd pop in since we were all chatting about this today before one of our exams. SLS opinion: seriously Columbia? lolz.

I guess the last two days since the "die in" with 100 of your classmates and a dozen of your professors have brought closure?

No. We just think postponing our exams like we're special isn't the best way to promote change. There's more coming from #SLS next quarter to look out for. We're still young enough to believe we can be agents of positive change!

All of us are young enough to believe we can be positive agents for change. The question is how.

I believe that I am an agent for change each and every day. I just ran my audit numbers for the year as we are wrapping up accounting docs and I was a positive agent for the change of my bank account from last year, which was a change from the year before. I am enjoying the change I make in the world.

I know this is tongue-in-cheek, but I've heard your stories. You're clearly an agent for change in the lives of the individuals you represent.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Thought I'd pop in since we were all chatting about this today before one of our exams. SLS opinion: seriously Columbia? lolz.

I guess the last two days since the "die in" with 100 of your classmates and a dozen of your professors have brought closure?

No. We just think postponing our exams like we're special isn't the best way to promote change. There's more coming from #SLS next quarter to look out for. We're still young enough to believe we can be agents of positive change!

All of us are young enough to believe we can be positive agents for change. The question is how.

I believe that I am an agent for change each and every day. I just ran my audit numbers for the year as we are wrapping up accounting docs and I was a positive agent for the change of my bank account from last year, which was a change from the year before. I am enjoying the change I make in the world.

I know this is tongue-in-cheek, but I've heard your stories. You're clearly an agent for change in the lives of the individuals you represent.

Aw shucks...... I'm blushing. You too man. You too. :manhug:

 

[Henry Ford]

Thought I'd pop in since we were all chatting about this today before one of our exams. SLS opinion: seriously Columbia? lolz.

I guess the last two days since the "die in" with 100 of your classmates and a dozen of your professors have brought closure?

No. We just think postponing our exams like we're special isn't the best way to promote change. There's more coming from #SLS next quarter to look out for. We're still young enough to believe we can be agents of positive change!

All of us are young enough to believe we can be positive agents for change. The question is how.

I believe that I am an agent for change each and every day. I just ran my audit numbers for the year as we are wrapping up accounting docs and I was a positive agent for the change of my bank account from last year, which was a change from the year before. I am enjoying the change I make in the world.

I know this is tongue-in-cheek, but I've heard your stories. You're clearly an agent for change in the lives of the individuals you represent.

Aw shucks...... I'm blushing. You too man. You too. :manhug:

I didn't say it was for the better. BOOM! Roasted.

 

[El Floppo]

KEEP IT IN YOUR OWN DAMN THREAD

 

[krista4]

Megyn Kelly has ripped these "cupcake" students a couple times now that I've seen.

Actually I just came in here to say she hot

love Megyn Kelly ever since the election night coverage when Karl Rove lost his mind.

She was awesome.

 

[apalmer]

we had exams postponed 4 days when a kid in our class committed suicide a day before our 2nd year fall exams started. Supposed to start on a thursday, postponed until Monday.

In my first year of law school, my father died of a heart attack on Monday. Funeral was Wednesday and my first final was Thursday. Never even occurred to me to ask for a postponement.

 

[-fish-]

By the way, Ditkaless Wonders should post more.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

By the way, Ditkaless Wonders should post more.

Kind sentiments, though I am certain they are not universally shared. Thanks GB.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

we had exams postponed 4 days when a kid in our class committed suicide a day before our 2nd year fall exams started. Supposed to start on a thursday, postponed until Monday.

In my first year of law school, my father died of a heart attack on Monday. Funeral was Wednesday and my first final was Thursday. Never even occurred to me to ask for a postponement.

You did not do a good job arguing your clients case.

 

[Zow]

Thought I'd pop in since we were all chatting about this today before one of our exams. SLS opinion: seriously Columbia? lolz.

I guess the last two days since the "die in" with 100 of your classmates and a dozen of your professors have brought closure?

No. We just think postponing our exams like we're special isn't the best way to promote change. There's more coming from #SLS next quarter to look out for. We're still young enough to believe we can be agents of positive change!

You know how people that are practicing lawyers know someone is from Stanford? Because they tell you in the first 5 minutes you meet them. Stop saying SLS. You go to law school. Half the board did. They're all the same (well, except that farce that Woz went to), and the minute you hit a courtroom or an office nobody cares where you went.

You want to be an agent for positive change? Lead the way in Stanford grads not being dooshes.

That said, and to further reiterate your point that this law school teaming and dreaming doesn't matter in the real world, my current bosses/partners of my firm don't even know which law school I went to and have never asked (they just know it was somewhere cold and wasn't Yale).

To Instinctive, let me lay out my day for you so you can gauge just how much positive change I've done for the community. Bear in mind I work predominantly criminally defense with a large percentage of that caseload being indigent appointments. I "stand alone , armed only with [my] wits, training, and dedication. Inspired by [my] clients' hope, faith and trust, [i am} the warrior and valkyrie of those desperately in need of a champion. , by protecting the downtrodden and the poor, shield against infringement of our protections and, in reality, protect us all." Hightower v. State. As Henry Ford indicated, basically I'm a superhero for the poor.

So this morning I used my superman vision to sit in a small, cramped back room of the police station on a secured computer to view over 70 images of child porn. And I'm talking the good stuff, the stuff that would make Homer blush. Also, where the non-crusader may wish to simply skim these images, I have to examine each one closely to determine whether an objective fact-finder would be firmly convinced that the pictures would meet all the elements of the charge (i.e. underage, sexually exploitative, etc.). After doing that for awhile I finished my morning doing extensive research on whether my state's sentencing guidelines possibly violate the 8th amendment - because it just simply cannot be real that a person can go to prison for 100 years minimum for possessing a few pictures on his computer. I mean, this is America and how could it be possible that a legislature could create such a draconian law?! But alas, that issue has been thoroughly argued and well-settled and it would be likely frivolous of me to raise any sort of 8th Amendment issue at the trial level. My afternoon was spent predominantly in court doing a standard criminal docket where there are multiple hearings. You know, in the trenches where lawyers roll up their sleeves and effect real, substantive change and do positive things for people. However, the reality is that the bulk of that time is spent watching people make terrible case decisions by simply outright ignoring the advice of their superhero and listening to a judge swat away pleas for mercy like a jogger running through some gnats.

Pretty standard Thursday actually. But you keep plugging away at that positive change.

 

[Zow]

we had exams postponed 4 days when a kid in our class committed suicide a day before our 2nd year fall exams started. Supposed to start on a thursday, postponed until Monday.

In my first year of law school, my father died of a heart attack on Monday. Funeral was Wednesday and my first final was Thursday. Never even occurred to me to ask for a postponement.

Wow.

 

[Instinctive]

Thought I'd pop in since we were all chatting about this today before one of our exams. SLS opinion: seriously Columbia? lolz.

I guess the last two days since the "die in" with 100 of your classmates and a dozen of your professors have brought closure?

No. We just think postponing our exams like we're special isn't the best way to promote change. There's more coming from #SLS next quarter to look out for. We're still young enough to believe we can be agents of positive change!

You know how people that are practicing lawyers know someone is from Stanford? Because they tell you in the first 5 minutes you meet them. Stop saying SLS. You go to law school. Half the board did. They're all the same (well, except that farce that Woz went to), and the minute you hit a courtroom or an office nobody cares where you went.

You want to be an agent for positive change? Lead the way in Stanford grads not being dooshes.

That said, and to further reiterate your point that this law school teaming and dreaming doesn't matter in the real world, my current bosses/partners of my firm don't even know which law school I went to and have never asked (they just know it was somewhere cold and wasn't Yale).

To Instinctive, let me lay out my day for you so you can gauge just how much positive change I've done for the community. Bear in mind I work predominantly criminally defense with a large percentage of that caseload being indigent appointments. I "stand alone , armed only with [my] wits, training, and dedication. Inspired by [my] clients' hope, faith and trust, [i am} the warrior and valkyrie of those desperately in need of a champion. , by protecting the downtrodden and the poor, shield against infringement of our protections and, in reality, protect us all." Hightower v. State. As Henry Ford indicated, basically I'm a superhero for the poor.

So this morning I used my superman vision to sit in a small, cramped back room of the police station on a secured computer to view over 70 images of child porn. And I'm talking the good stuff, the stuff that would make Homer blush. Also, where the non-crusader may wish to simply skim these images, I have to examine each one closely to determine whether an objective fact-finder would be firmly convinced that the pictures would meet all the elements of the charge (i.e. underage, sexually exploitative, etc.). After doing that for awhile I finished my morning doing extensive research on whether my state's sentencing guidelines possibly violate the 8th amendment - because it just simply cannot be real that a person can go to prison for 100 years minimum for possessing a few pictures on his computer. I mean, this is America and how could it be possible that a legislature could create such a draconian law?! But alas, that issue has been thoroughly argued and well-settled and it would be likely frivolous of me to raise any sort of 8th Amendment issue at the trial level. My afternoon was spent predominantly in court doing a standard criminal docket where there are multiple hearings. You know, in the trenches where lawyers roll up their sleeves and effect real, substantive change and do positive things for people. However, the reality is that the bulk of that time is spent watching people make terrible case decisions by simply outright ignoring the advice of their superhero and listening to a judge swat away pleas for mercy like a jogger running through some gnats.

Pretty standard Thursday actually. But you keep plugging away at that positive change.

I'm being trite. I shouldn't have. I frequent the lawyer thread and know the good work y'all get to do and some of the #### you have to wade through to do it. Why do you think I'm proud to be at a law school? People like y'all are the ones that make it easy to remind myself why I'm here when I trudge through yet another god-forsaken Torts case.

I should be very clear here: the reason I post in the lawyer thread is because I finally feel like I can be a part of the club of the people I most respect. Sometimes that means I try to fit in with the trite quips and the jokes about naivete. That could be uncalled for, or maybe I just don't have enough experience to be able make those jokes yet. I'll refrain.

 

[rockaction]

Thought I'd pop in since we were all chatting about this today before one of our exams. SLS opinion: seriously Columbia? lolz.

I guess the last two days since the "die in" with 100 of your classmates and a dozen of your professors have brought closure?

No. We just think postponing our exams like we're special isn't the best way to promote change. There's more coming from #SLS next quarter to look out for. We're still young enough to believe we can be agents of positive change!

You know how people that are practicing lawyers know someone is from Stanford? Because they tell you in the first 5 minutes you meet them. Stop saying SLS. You go to law school. Half the board did. They're all the same (well, except that farce that Woz went to), and the minute you hit a courtroom or an office nobody cares where you went.

You want to be an agent for positive change? Lead the way in Stanford grads not being dooshes.

That said, and to further reiterate your point that this law school teaming and dreaming doesn't matter in the real world, my current bosses/partners of my firm don't even know which law school I went to and have never asked (they just know it was somewhere cold and wasn't Yale).

To Instinctive, let me lay out my day for you so you can gauge just how much positive change I've done for the community. Bear in mind I work predominantly criminally defense with a large percentage of that caseload being indigent appointments. I "stand alone , armed only with [my] wits, training, and dedication. Inspired by [my] clients' hope, faith and trust, [i am} the warrior and valkyrie of those desperately in need of a champion. , by protecting the downtrodden and the poor, shield against infringement of our protections and, in reality, protect us all." Hightower v. State. As Henry Ford indicated, basically I'm a superhero for the poor.

So this morning I used my superman vision to sit in a small, cramped back room of the police station on a secured computer to view over 70 images of child porn. And I'm talking the good stuff, the stuff that would make Homer blush. Also, where the non-crusader may wish to simply skim these images, I have to examine each one closely to determine whether an objective fact-finder would be firmly convinced that the pictures would meet all the elements of the charge (i.e. underage, sexually exploitative, etc.). After doing that for awhile I finished my morning doing extensive research on whether my state's sentencing guidelines possibly violate the 8th amendment - because it just simply cannot be real that a person can go to prison for 100 years minimum for possessing a few pictures on his computer. I mean, this is America and how could it be possible that a legislature could create such a draconian law?! But alas, that issue has been thoroughly argued and well-settled and it would be likely frivolous of me to raise any sort of 8th Amendment issue at the trial level. My afternoon was spent predominantly in court doing a standard criminal docket where there are multiple hearings. You know, in the trenches where lawyers roll up their sleeves and effect real, substantive change and do positive things for people. However, the reality is that the bulk of that time is spent watching people make terrible case decisions by simply outright ignoring the advice of their superhero and listening to a judge swat away pleas for mercy like a jogger running through some gnats.

Pretty standard Thursday actually. But you keep plugging away at that positive change.

I'm being trite. I shouldn't have. I frequent the lawyer thread and know the good work y'all get to do and some of the #### you have to wade through to do it. Why do you think I'm proud to be at a law school? People like y'all are the ones that make it easy to remind myself why I'm here when I trudge through yet another god-forsaken Torts case.

I should be very clear here: the reason I post in the lawyer thread is because I finally feel like I can be a part of the club of the people I most respect. Sometimes that means I try to fit in with the trite quips and the jokes about naivete. That could be uncalled for, or maybe I just don't have enough experience to be able make those jokes yet. I'll refrain.

Bless you all for helping me look better in this thread.

:X

 

[Henry Ford]

Thought I'd pop in since we were all chatting about this today before one of our exams. SLS opinion: seriously Columbia? lolz.

I guess the last two days since the "die in" with 100 of your classmates and a dozen of your professors have brought closure?

No. We just think postponing our exams like we're special isn't the best way to promote change. There's more coming from #SLS next quarter to look out for. We're still young enough to believe we can be agents of positive change!

You know how people that are practicing lawyers know someone is from Stanford? Because they tell you in the first 5 minutes you meet them. Stop saying SLS. You go to law school. Half the board did. They're all the same (well, except that farce that Woz went to), and the minute you hit a courtroom or an office nobody cares where you went.

You want to be an agent for positive change? Lead the way in Stanford grads not being dooshes.

That said, and to further reiterate your point that this law school teaming and dreaming doesn't matter in the real world, my current bosses/partners of my firm don't even know which law school I went to and have never asked (they just know it was somewhere cold and wasn't Yale). To Instinctive, let me lay out my day for you so you can gauge just how much positive change I've done for the community. Bear in mind I work predominantly criminally defense with a large percentage of that caseload being indigent appointments. I "stand alone , armed only with [my] wits, training, and dedication. Inspired by [my] clients' hope, faith and trust, [i am} the warrior and valkyrie of those desperately in need of a champion. , by protecting the downtrodden and the poor, shield against infringement of our protections and, in reality, protect us all." Hightower v. State. As Henry Ford indicated, basically I'm a superhero for the poor.

So this morning I used my superman vision to sit in a small, cramped back room of the police station on a secured computer to view over 70 images of child porn. And I'm talking the good stuff, the stuff that would make Homer blush. Also, where the non-crusader may wish to simply skim these images, I have to examine each one closely to determine whether an objective fact-finder would be firmly convinced that the pictures would meet all the elements of the charge (i.e. underage, sexually exploitative, etc.). After doing that for awhile I finished my morning doing extensive research on whether my state's sentencing guidelines possibly violate the 8th amendment - because it just simply cannot be real that a person can go to prison for 100 years minimum for possessing a few pictures on his computer. I mean, this is America and how could it be possible that a legislature could create such a draconian law?! But alas, that issue has been thoroughly argued and well-settled and it would be likely frivolous of me to raise any sort of 8th Amendment issue at the trial level. My afternoon was spent predominantly in court doing a standard criminal docket where there are multiple hearings. You know, in the trenches where lawyers roll up their sleeves and effect real, substantive change and do positive things for people. However, the reality is that the bulk of that time is spent watching people make terrible case decisions by simply outright ignoring the advice of their superhero and listening to a judge swat away pleas for mercy like a jogger running through some gnats.

Pretty standard Thursday actually. But you keep plugging away at that positive change.

I'm being trite. I shouldn't have. I frequent the lawyer thread and know the good work y'all get to do and some of the #### you have to wade through to do it. Why do you think I'm proud to be at a law school? People like y'all are the ones that make it easy to remind myself why I'm here when I trudge through yet another god-forsaken Torts case.I should be very clear here: the reason I post in the lawyer thread is because I finally feel like I can be a part of the club of the people I most respect. Sometimes that means I try to fit in with the trite quips and the jokes about naivete. That could be uncalled for, or maybe I just don't have enough experience to be able make those jokes yet. I'll refrain.

We're all a little flippant about the practice at times. We have to be. It masks the insanity and the soul-sucking helplessness when things go wrong. That said, I think there's a small component of knowing that 100 Stanford Law Students and 12 Stanford professors, if they each spent an hour tackling a single pro bono case together instead of a die in, could probably actually cause a massive positive change in someone's life. It's judgmental and uncalled for to make that connection, but some people may be doing that.

 

[Instinctive]

We're all a little flippant about the practice at times. We have to be. It masks the insanity and the soul-sucking helplessness when things go wrong. That said, I think there's a small component of knowing that 100 Stanford Law Students and 12 Stanford professors, if they each spent an hour tackling a single pro bono case together instead of a die in, could probably actually cause a massive positive change in someone's life. It's judgmental and uncalled for to make that connection, but some people may be doing that.

We do have a really robust pro-bono too. I'd have to ask our Levin Center for stats, but almost every single 1L I know devoted significant time to pro bonos in the course of the semester and will continue to do so. Not sure how public this became, but there was actually a full bus-load, full-day drive to rural CA to provide legal services to those unable to even get to an area they were offered, much less pay for them. I think it says something about the ways our country works that the Die-In has been publicized but the One Justice services weren't. I for one am glad that we can try to effect change in the ways that will get attention and also effect change at the lowest levels.

Point well taken though. I'm already far more cynical than I was 3 months ago starting out. A stark difference, really.

 

[Henry Ford]

We're all a little flippant about the practice at times. We have to be. It masks the insanity and the soul-sucking helplessness when things go wrong. That said, I think there's a small component of knowing that 100 Stanford Law Students and 12 Stanford professors, if they each spent an hour tackling a single pro bono case together instead of a die in, could probably actually cause a massive positive change in someone's life. It's judgmental and uncalled for to make that connection, but some people may be doing that.

We do have a really robust pro-bono too. I'd have to ask our Levin Center for stats, but almost every single 1L I know devoted significant time to pro bonos in the course of the semester and will continue to do so. Not sure how public this became, but there was actually a full bus-load, full-day drive to rural CA to provide legal services to those unable to even get to an area they were offered, much less pay for them. I think it says something about the ways our country works that the Die-In has been publicized but the One Justice services weren't. I for one am glad that we can try to effect change in the ways that will get attention and also effect change at the lowest levels.

Point well taken though. I'm already far more cynical than I was 3 months ago starting out. A stark difference, really.

In our business, you may find that the more you actually help, the less publicity there is. And vice versa.

 

[Johnny Rock]

Does anybody else find it odd that Woz's current bosses/partners at the firm don't know what law school he attended?

 

[El Floppo]

####### lawyers.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Does anybody else find it odd that Woz's current bosses/partners at the firm don't know what law school he attended?

Not really. I couldn't tell you where my former bosses went and they never asked me where I went.

 

[Zow]

Does anybody else find it odd that Woz's current bosses/partners at the firm don't know what law school he attended?

I'm now with my 4th Firm since I started practicing. Aside from the first one who hired me when I was a 3L, the three thereafter didn't ask where I went to school, don't have a damn clue, and certainly didn't/don't care. Granted, none of these are anything near the BigLaw stuff, but my experience in the criminal and family law bars is that, aside from brand new associates asking each other, nobody has any clue where an attorney went to school nor do they care.

Networking, reputation, and courtroom presence go a long way,

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Megyn Kelly has ripped these "cupcake" students a couple times now that I've seen.

Actually I just came in here to say she hot

love Megyn Kelly ever since the election night coverage when Karl Rove lost his mind.

She was awesome.

I didn't know who she was until the recent events in my town. Smart, hot & blond?. Oh my.

 

[roadkill1292]

It's inarguable that Megyn Kelly was awesome on election night 2012 but none of you should be watching Fox News now.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

UCLA law professor learns Ferguson-related exam question taboo

December 12, 2014

Law school exams often present legal conundrums ripped from headlines of the day, but one UCLA law professor is apologizing for basing a test question on what is apparently a taboo subject -- the fallout from the police shooting of a black man in Ferguson, Mo.

Professor Robert Goldstein said the exam question was designed to test students’ ability to analyze the line between free speech and inciting violence. It cited a report about how Michael Brown’s stepfather, Louis Head, shouted, “Burn this ##### down!” after a grand jury decided not to indict Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson in the death of Michael Brown.


The question then asked students to imagine that they are lawyers in the St. Louis County Attorney’s office and had been asked to advise the prosecutor “whether to seek an indictment against Head” for inciting violence. The exam reads:

“[As] a recent hire in the office, you are asked to write a memo discussing the relevant First Amendment issues in such a prosecution. Write the memo.”

But students complained, and writer Elie Mystal at the popular legal blog “Above the Law” opined that the test question was “racially insensitive and divisive.” Mystal also incorrectly alleged that the question asked students to “advocate in favor of extremist racists in Ferguson.”

Goldstein has apologized for putting the question on the test and has promised not to grade the question.

“I clearly underestimated and misjudged the impact of this question on you. I realize now that it was so fraught as to have made this an unnecessarily difficult question to respond to at this time. I am sorry for this,” he wrote in an email to his students that a UCLA spokeswoman forwarded to FoxNews.com.

He defended his intentions in posing the question, making reference to both the Ferguson incident and a New York grand jury's decision not to indict another police officer on the death of an unarmed man placed in a chokehold.

“As with many of my exams in this upper-level elective class, questions may be drawn from current legal issues in the news or from recent court reports. This helps make the exam educational and relevant,” he wrote in his email to students.

“I recognize, though, that the recent disturbing events and subsequent decisions in Ferguson and New York make this subject too raw to make it a useful opportunity,” he added.

Other law professors say there should be no need to apologize for such a straightforward exam question.

“If there are some law students who are such delicate flowers that merely being asked to assess whether certain controversial speech that's been in the news is constitutionally protected, in a class covering the First Amendment of all things, then maybe they should find another profession,” David Bernstein, a law professor at George Mason University School of Law, told FoxNews.com.

He also noted that tossing out the question after-the-fact on a final exam was unfair to any students who might have spent a lot of time answering the question.

“I think the professor erred by retroactively tossing out the exam question because of these complaints," he said. "Law school exams are timed. Some students might have spent more time on this question than on other questions, some might have done the opposite. Tossing out the question is grossly unfair to the former students,” Bernstein said, adding that the real problem with the question was that students who had been following the news closely would have an unfair advantage.

“The actual outrage is wildly misplaced,” he said.

 

[Henry Ford]

Ridiculous. The classes of 2015-2017 should be shot in the streets and law schools should start over.

 

[jonessed]

I had no idea attorneys were such pansies.

 

[Don Quixote]

The Onion: http://www.theonion.com/articles/columbia-law-school-allowing-students-distressed-o,37660/

"Come on. I realized I was working for a broken system years ago, and I still do my job."

-Ben Carlson

Defense Attorney

 

[Gary Coal Man]

The Harvard Law Review editor pens a response to the criticism that he and other law students have received for requesting that their finals be delayed to deal with the trauma of the recent grand jury decisions; successfully makes lawyers look even more blowhardy.

Op-Ed: Delaying Exams Is Not a Request from 'Coddled Millennials'

By William Desmond

National Law Journal


Over the last week, much has been said about law students’ petitioning for exam extensions in light of the circumstances surrounding the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner at the hands of police officers. Students at Harvard Law School, Columbia Law School, Georgetown University Law Center and several other schools requested that their administrations allow extensions on final exams for students who have been confronting the aftermath of the recent failed grand jury indictments of the officers who killed the unarmed black men.

In response, opponents of exam extensions have declared that to grant these requests would be a disservice to the students. Law students, they argue, must learn how to engage critically with the law in the face of intense adversity. Drawing comparisons to events surrounding the Civil Rights Movement and other times of intense turmoil, these opponents portray today’s law students as coddled millennials using traumatic events as an excuse for their inability to focus on a three-hour exam. In essence, law students are being told to grow up and learn how to focus amidst stress and anxiety—like “real” lawyers must do.

Speaking as one of those law students, I can say that this response is misguided: Our request for exam extensions is not being made from a position of weakness, but rather from one of strength and critical awareness.

Although over the last few weeks many law students have experienced moments of total despair, minutes of inconsolable tears and hours of utter confusion, many of these same students have also spent days in action—days of protesting, of organizing meetings, of drafting emails and letters, and of starting conversations long overdue. We have been synthesizing decades of police interactions, dissecting problems centuries old, and exposing the hypocrisy of silence.

I have seen the psychological trauma brought on by disillusionment with our justice system send some law students into a period of depression. After all, every death of an unarmed youth at the hands of law enforcement is a tragedy. The hesitancy to recognize the validity of these psychic effects demonstrates that, in addition to conversations on race, gender and class, our nation is starving for a genuine discussion about mental health. But to reduce our calls for exam extensions to mere cries for help exhibits a failure to understand the powerful images of die-ins and the booming chants of protestors disrupting the continuation of business as usual in cities across the country.

Where some commentators see weakness or sensitivity, perhaps they should instead see strength—the strength to know when our cups of endurance have run over and when the time for patience has ended. Perhaps they should instead see courage—the courage to look our peers in the eyes and uncomfortably ask them to bear these burdens of racism and classism that we have together inherited from generations past. We have taken many exams before, but never have we done this. We are scared, but no longer will we be spectators to injustice.

Our focus and critical thinking are at an all-time peak while the importance of our textbooks is at a low. It is not that law students are incapable of handling their exams. It is that we are unwilling to remove ourselves, even for a few days, from this national conversation. As future practitioners, professors, judges and policymakers, we have all been trained not only in the faithful application of the law but also in the critical examination of its effectiveness. And by our analysis, responsible members of the legal community can no longer defend our criminal justice system as exemplifying fair process when that system so frequently produces the same unjust result—life drained from an unarmed black body by a barrage of government-issued bullets.

We recognize that this is a moment for change. If not us, then who? For most of us, we know that if we get lower grades this semester, this cost will have been worth the importance and privilege of joining a national movement to fundamentally reform this country’s approach to law enforcement and criminal justice. But just because we are willing to pay this price does not mean we should have to.

The most striking irony behind this criticism comes from the constant refrain we have heard over the years from every “real” lawyer who has offered us a job, as well as sometimes from these same critics, about how detached legal education has become from the realities of legal practice. Our requests for exam extensions are requests for our faculties and administrations to recognize that this movement is our legal education—that when we march, when we advocate, when we demand accountability and action we are employing the analytical skills and legal knowledge that we have learned in our law school classrooms far more than we would be if we responded to a hypothetical exam prompt.

Each year as classes of law students enter and exit our nation’s legal institutions we are told the same thing: You are the future of the law. Well, the future is now.

 

[rockaction]

:X

 

[jonessed]

Look at us! Look at us! We are precious snowflakes that demand attention and coddling!

 

[Henry Ford]

The Harvard Law Review editor pens a response to the criticism that he and other law students have received for requesting that their finals be delayed to deal with the trauma of the recent grand jury decisions; successfully makes lawyers law students look even more blowhardy.

Fixed.

 

[[icon]]

By the way, Ditkaless Wonders should post more.

 

[StrikeS2k]

The Harvard Law Review editor pens a response to the criticism that he and other law students have received for requesting that their finals be delayed to deal with the trauma of the recent grand jury decisions; successfully makes lawyers look even more blowhardy.

Op-Ed: Delaying Exams Is Not a Request from 'Coddled Millennials'

By William Desmond

National Law Journal


Over the last week, much has been said about law students’ petitioning for exam extensions in light of the circumstances surrounding the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner at the hands of police officers. Students at Harvard Law School, Columbia Law School, Georgetown University Law Center and several other schools requested that their administrations allow extensions on final exams for students who have been confronting the aftermath of the recent failed grand jury indictments of the officers who killed the unarmed black men.

In response, opponents of exam extensions have declared that to grant these requests would be a disservice to the students. Law students, they argue, must learn how to engage critically with the law in the face of intense adversity. Drawing comparisons to events surrounding the Civil Rights Movement and other times of intense turmoil, these opponents portray today’s law students as coddled millennials using traumatic events as an excuse for their inability to focus on a three-hour exam. In essence, law students are being told to grow up and learn how to focus amidst stress and anxiety—like “real” lawyers must do.

Speaking as one of those law students, I can say that this response is misguided: Our request for exam extensions is not being made from a position of weakness, but rather from one of strength and critical awareness.

Although over the last few weeks many law students have experienced moments of total despair, minutes of inconsolable tears and hours of utter confusion, many of these same students have also spent days in action—days of protesting, of organizing meetings, of drafting emails and letters, and of starting conversations long overdue. We have been synthesizing decades of police interactions, dissecting problems centuries old, and exposing the hypocrisy of silence.

I have seen the psychological trauma brought on by disillusionment with our justice system send some law students into a period of depression. After all, every death of an unarmed youth at the hands of law enforcement is a tragedy. The hesitancy to recognize the validity of these psychic effects demonstrates that, in addition to conversations on race, gender and class, our nation is starving for a genuine discussion about mental health. But to reduce our calls for exam extensions to mere cries for help exhibits a failure to understand the powerful images of die-ins and the booming chants of protestors disrupting the continuation of business as usual in cities across the country.

Where some commentators see weakness or sensitivity, perhaps they should instead see strength—the strength to know when our cups of endurance have run over and when the time for patience has ended. Perhaps they should instead see courage—the courage to look our peers in the eyes and uncomfortably ask them to bear these burdens of racism and classism that we have together inherited from generations past. We have taken many exams before, but never have we done this. We are scared, but no longer will we be spectators to injustice.

Our focus and critical thinking are at an all-time peak while the importance of our textbooks is at a low. It is not that law students are incapable of handling their exams. It is that we are unwilling to remove ourselves, even for a few days, from this national conversation. As future practitioners, professors, judges and policymakers, we have all been trained not only in the faithful application of the law but also in the critical examination of its effectiveness. And by our analysis, responsible members of the legal community can no longer defend our criminal justice system as exemplifying fair process when that system so frequently produces the same unjust result—life drained from an unarmed black body by a barrage of government-issued bullets.

We recognize that this is a moment for change. If not us, then who? For most of us, we know that if we get lower grades this semester, this cost will have been worth the importance and privilege of joining a national movement to fundamentally reform this country’s approach to law enforcement and criminal justice. But just because we are willing to pay this price does not mean we should have to.

The most striking irony behind this criticism comes from the constant refrain we have heard over the years from every “real” lawyer who has offered us a job, as well as sometimes from these same critics, about how detached legal education has become from the realities of legal practice. Our requests for exam extensions are requests for our faculties and administrations to recognize that this movement is our legal education—that when we march, when we advocate, when we demand accountability and action we are employing the analytical skills and legal knowledge that we have learned in our law school classrooms far more than we would be if we responded to a hypothetical exam prompt.

Each year as classes of law students enter and exit our nation’s legal institutions we are told the same thing: You are the future of the law. Well, the future is now.

Mr. Desmond, what you've just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

[TenTimes]

The Harvard Law Review editor pens a response to the criticism that he and other law students have received for requesting that their finals be delayed to deal with the trauma of the recent grand jury decisions; successfully makes lawyers look even more blowhardy.

Op-Ed: Delaying Exams Is Not a Request from 'Coddled Millennials'

By William Desmond

National Law Journal

......

......

Each year as classes of law students enter and exit our nation’s legal institutions we are told the same thing: You are the future of the law. Well, the future is now.

Is this true?

 

[Zow]

The Harvard Law Review editor pens a

response to the criticism that he and other law students have received for requesting that their finals be delayed to deal with the trauma of the recent grand jury decisions; successfully

makes lawyers law students look even more blowhardy.

Fixed.

No actual attorney supports these students.

 

[Henry Ford]

The Harvard Law Review editor pens a response to the criticism that he and other law students have received for requesting that their finals be delayed to deal with the trauma of the recent grand jury decisions; successfully makes lawyers look even more blowhardy.

Op-Ed: Delaying Exams Is Not a Request from 'Coddled Millennials'

By William Desmond

National Law Journal

......

......

Each year as classes of law students enter and exit our nation’s legal institutions we are told the same thing: You are the future of the law. Well, the future is now.

Is this true?

It's actually now. And now. And now.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

The Harvard Law Review editor pens a

response to the criticism that he and other law students have received for requesting that their finals be delayed to deal with the trauma of the recent grand jury decisions; successfully

makes lawyers law students look even more blowhardy.

Fixed.

No actual attorney supports these students.

Depends on what you mean by "supports." I just don't give a damn whether Columbia postpones their exams or not. It's none of my business. When I was in law school, I knew I wasn't in "the real world." I'm guessing even my most entitled classmates knew that too. That doesn't mean that a hefty portion of the class didn't try to get accommodations on exams with ADHD diagnoses and the like. That's how the game was played. It wasn't a law student thing. It was an elite college thing.

But firms aren't going to stop competing for the top law students. And law schools aren't going to stop competing for those students out of undergrad. Which means that the entitled attitude that everyone is complaining about is simply a matter of market realities.

 

[Zow]

The Harvard Law Review editor pens a

response to the criticism that he and other law students have received for requesting that their finals be delayed to deal with the trauma of the recent grand jury decisions; successfully

makes lawyers law students look even more blowhardy.

Fixed.

No actual attorney supports these students.

Depends on what you mean by "supports." I just don't give a damn whether Columbia postpones their exams or not. It's none of my business. When I was in law school, I knew I wasn't in "the real world." I'm guessing even my most entitled classmates knew that too. That doesn't mean that a hefty portion of the class didn't try to get accommodations on exams with ADHD diagnoses and the like. That's how the game was played. It wasn't a law student thing. It was an elite college thing.

But firms aren't going to stop competing for the top law students. And law schools aren't going to stop competing for those students out of undergrad. Which means that the entitled attitude that everyone is complaining about is simply a matter of market realities.

All good points.

By "supports" I mean that no lawyer I know (obviously I was being a bit hyperbolic in my initial post) is outwardly saying that these students shouldn't not be made fun of because it is completely understandable that they should be such emotional wrecks from two grand jury decisions that they shouldn't have to take finals.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

The Harvard Law Review editor pens a response to the criticism that he and other law students have received for requesting that their finals be delayed to deal with the trauma of the recent grand jury decisions; successfully makes lawyers look even more blowhardy.

Op-Ed: Delaying Exams Is Not a Request from 'Coddled Millennials'

By William Desmond

National Law Journal


Over the last week, much has been said about law students’ petitioning for exam extensions in light of the circumstances surrounding the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner at the hands of police officers. Students at Harvard Law School, Columbia Law School, Georgetown University Law Center and several other schools requested that their administrations allow extensions on final exams for students who have been confronting the aftermath of the recent failed grand jury indictments of the officers who killed the unarmed black men.

In response, opponents of exam extensions have declared that to grant these requests would be a disservice to the students. Law students, they argue, must learn how to engage critically with the law in the face of intense adversity. Drawing comparisons to events surrounding the Civil Rights Movement and other times of intense turmoil, these opponents portray today’s law students as coddled millennials using traumatic events as an excuse for their inability to focus on a three-hour exam. In essence, law students are being told to grow up and learn how to focus amidst stress and anxiety—like “real” lawyers must do.

Speaking as one of those law students, I can say that this response is misguided: Our request for exam extensions is not being made from a position of weakness, but rather from one of strength and critical awareness.

Although over the last few weeks many law students have experienced moments of total despair, minutes of inconsolable tears and hours of utter confusion, many of these same students have also spent days in action—days of protesting, of organizing meetings, of drafting emails and letters, and of starting conversations long overdue. We have been synthesizing decades of police interactions, dissecting problems centuries old, and exposing the hypocrisy of silence.

I have seen the psychological trauma brought on by disillusionment with our justice system send some law students into a period of depression. After all, every death of an unarmed youth at the hands of law enforcement is a tragedy. The hesitancy to recognize the validity of these psychic effects demonstrates that, in addition to conversations on race, gender and class, our nation is starving for a genuine discussion about mental health. But to reduce our calls for exam extensions to mere cries for help exhibits a failure to understand the powerful images of die-ins and the booming chants of protestors disrupting the continuation of business as usual in cities across the country.

Where some commentators see weakness or sensitivity, perhaps they should instead see strength—the strength to know when our cups of endurance have run over and when the time for patience has ended. Perhaps they should instead see courage—the courage to look our peers in the eyes and uncomfortably ask them to bear these burdens of racism and classism that we have together inherited from generations past. We have taken many exams before, but never have we done this. We are scared, but no longer will we be spectators to injustice.

Our focus and critical thinking are at an all-time peak while the importance of our textbooks is at a low. It is not that law students are incapable of handling their exams. It is that we are unwilling to remove ourselves, even for a few days, from this national conversation. As future practitioners, professors, judges and policymakers, we have all been trained not only in the faithful application of the law but also in the critical examination of its effectiveness. And by our analysis, responsible members of the legal community can no longer defend our criminal justice system as exemplifying fair process when that system so frequently produces the same unjust result—life drained from an unarmed black body by a barrage of government-issued bullets.

We recognize that this is a moment for change. If not us, then who? For most of us, we know that if we get lower grades this semester, this cost will have been worth the importance and privilege of joining a national movement to fundamentally reform this country’s approach to law enforcement and criminal justice. But just because we are willing to pay this price does not mean we should have to.

The most striking irony behind this criticism comes from the constant refrain we have heard over the years from every “real” lawyer who has offered us a job, as well as sometimes from these same critics, about how detached legal education has become from the realities of legal practice. Our requests for exam extensions are requests for our faculties and administrations to recognize that this movement is our legal education—that when we march, when we advocate, when we demand accountability and action we are employing the analytical skills and legal knowledge that we have learned in our law school classrooms far more than we would be if we responded to a hypothetical exam prompt.

Each year as classes of law students enter and exit our nation’s legal institutions we are told the same thing: You are the future of the law. Well, the future is now.

Still sounds like a baby. Sorry. The self importance of being able to write what on the surface looks like a really good op-ed isn't anything more than the vomit of we are owed something because we are special. Bleh.

 

[Zow]

The Harvard Law Review editor pens a response to the criticism that he and other law students have received for requesting that their finals be delayed to deal with the trauma of the recent grand jury decisions; successfully makes lawyers look even more blowhardy.

Op-Ed: Delaying Exams Is Not a Request from 'Coddled Millennials'

By William Desmond

National Law Journal


Over the last week, much has been said about law students’ petitioning for exam extensions in light of the circumstances surrounding the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner at the hands of police officers. Students at Harvard Law School, Columbia Law School, Georgetown University Law Center and several other schools requested that their administrations allow extensions on final exams for students who have been confronting the aftermath of the recent failed grand jury indictments of the officers who killed the unarmed black men.

In response, opponents of exam extensions have declared that to grant these requests would be a disservice to the students. Law students, they argue, must learn how to engage critically with the law in the face of intense adversity. Drawing comparisons to events surrounding the Civil Rights Movement and other times of intense turmoil, these opponents portray today’s law students as coddled millennials using traumatic events as an excuse for their inability to focus on a three-hour exam. In essence, law students are being told to grow up and learn how to focus amidst stress and anxiety—like “real” lawyers must do.

Speaking as one of those law students, I can say that this response is misguided: Our request for exam extensions is not being made from a position of weakness, but rather from one of strength and critical awareness.

Although over the last few weeks many law students have experienced moments of total despair, minutes of inconsolable tears and hours of utter confusion, many of these same students have also spent days in action—days of protesting, of organizing meetings, of drafting emails and letters, and of starting conversations long overdue. We have been synthesizing decades of police interactions, dissecting problems centuries old, and exposing the hypocrisy of silence.

I have seen the psychological trauma brought on by disillusionment with our justice system send some law students into a period of depression. After all, every death of an unarmed youth at the hands of law enforcement is a tragedy. The hesitancy to recognize the validity of these psychic effects demonstrates that, in addition to conversations on race, gender and class, our nation is starving for a genuine discussion about mental health. But to reduce our calls for exam extensions to mere cries for help exhibits a failure to understand the powerful images of die-ins and the booming chants of protestors disrupting the continuation of business as usual in cities across the country.

Where some commentators see weakness or sensitivity, perhaps they should instead see strength—the strength to know when our cups of endurance have run over and when the time for patience has ended. Perhaps they should instead see courage—the courage to look our peers in the eyes and uncomfortably ask them to bear these burdens of racism and classism that we have together inherited from generations past. We have taken many exams before, but never have we done this. We are scared, but no longer will we be spectators to injustice.

Our focus and critical thinking are at an all-time peak while the importance of our textbooks is at a low. It is not that law students are incapable of handling their exams. It is that we are unwilling to remove ourselves, even for a few days, from this national conversation. As future practitioners, professors, judges and policymakers, we have all been trained not only in the faithful application of the law but also in the critical examination of its effectiveness. And by our analysis, responsible members of the legal community can no longer defend our criminal justice system as exemplifying fair process when that system so frequently produces the same unjust result—life drained from an unarmed black body by a barrage of government-issued bullets.

We recognize that this is a moment for change. If not us, then who? For most of us, we know that if we get lower grades this semester, this cost will have been worth the importance and privilege of joining a national movement to fundamentally reform this country’s approach to law enforcement and criminal justice. But just because we are willing to pay this price does not mean we should have to.

The most striking irony behind this criticism comes from the constant refrain we have heard over the years from every “real” lawyer who has offered us a job, as well as sometimes from these same critics, about how detached legal education has become from the realities of legal practice. Our requests for exam extensions are requests for our faculties and administrations to recognize that this movement is our legal education—that when we march, when we advocate, when we demand accountability and action we are employing the analytical skills and legal knowledge that we have learned in our law school classrooms far more than we would be if we responded to a hypothetical exam prompt.

Each year as classes of law students enter and exit our nation’s legal institutions we are told the same thing: You are the future of the law. Well, the future is now.

Still sounds like a baby. Sorry. The self importance of being able to write what on the surface looks like a really good op-ed isn't anything more than the vomit of we are owed something because we are special. Bleh.

I love the naivete of the notion that them somehow engaging in a "national conversation" is more effective than getting good grades and setting themselves up to take the actual legal positions to really effect change.

 

[DCThunder]

To paraphrase someone commenting on this topic on another board said:

"70 years ago, at the same age as William Desmond, my grandfather was storming the beaches at Saipan..."