I blew off all my responsibilities for today and even turned down an invitation to go somewhere fun in the hopes of catching up in at least one class. Instead, I am surfing the web and doing random blog quizzes (hat tip: life far away). I am such a procrastinator.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Glad I Picked Boalt
Below is an email that has been circulated by UCLA's La Raza Law Students Association, and it details a recent incident that occurred, which was blatantly racist. To add insult to injury, the Dean of UCLA law sent out an email to all students that didn't whole-heartedly express how the legal community at UCLA would not tolerate such behavior. Instead, he focused the bulk of his letter expressing his belief that what happened was "unintentional." Even if you concede that what happened was unintentional (which I find hard to believe that no one thought a moot court fact pattern based on offensive racial stereotypes was a bad idea), I don’t see the point of focusing a letter of this nature on how the actors in question were not culpable rather than focusing on what is and is not acceptable at UCLA law school. Although I obviously have no real way of knowing this, I have a strong feeling that Dean Edley and/or Dean Ortiz would never circulate an apology for racist behavior that consisted of so many excuses for the guilty party. In short, although Boalt has its problems too, I am so glad I didn’t end up at UCLA.
*****************************************************************************
Dear Alumni,
Greetings to you and yours from the 2006-07 Raza Board at UCLA Law. We hope this e-mail finds you well and happy! Though we as a board are excited about the work we have done thus far (especially the People of Color Workshop which was a great success!) and looking forward to a productive rest of the year, we unfortunately are writing to share a negative experience we recently faced.
On October 3, 2006, Moot Court handed out its problem for this year's competition. The fact pattern implicated an undocumented latino from the "State of Patron," named "El Guapo," who was a child-molester and deported for entering the US illegally at a port called "Beefeater."Upon re-entering, he was interviewed by INS agent"Jack Daniels." After conviction, he was sentenced to 16 years in state prison. While in prison, an INS agent in his "infinite wisdom" decided to deport "El Guapo" once again with the understanding that if he ever re-entered, all charges would still be applicable.
The issues for the Moot Court participants were: 1)the judge made findings of fact without a jury that increased "El Guapo's" maximum sentence-should this be OK? 2) Can the fact that the Grand Jury left out an essential element of the crime from the indictment constitute harmless error?
As you can guess, Raza, other student of color groups and Raza allies were outraged by the gross use of stereotypes and offensive language. We immediately drafted a letter addressed to the Moot Court Board and cc'ed it to Deans Schill, Cheadle and Carbado, Moot Court Advisor Professor Holm and Raza Advisor Professor Holmquist. The letter we sent is attached to this e-mail. After articulating the problems with the fact pattern and how it affected us, we called for three remedies: 1) a public apology 2) a re-written fact pattern 3) implementation of a policy that would ensure this doesn't happen again.
The Co-Chairs of APILSA and BLSA signed the letter. SALSA sent a letter of their own and other groups have mentioned that they may do the same. On Friday October 13th, we received an e-mail from Dean Cheadle with two attachments. The first was acover-letter and the second a re-written hypo from the Moot Court Board in which they had removed all proper names alluding to alcohol name brands and the defendant's ethnic background. We've also attached both of those documents with this e-mail.
As you can see, their letter falls short of a direct apology in that the board attempts to hide behind the "no intent" defense. Also, the letter was ONLY handed out to Moot Court participants as they received the second version of the fact pattern. The Moot Court Board never directly communicated with us (Raza) and has not addressed the law school community.
Dean Schill sent out the e-mail posted below on Monday October 16th, 2006 to the greater law school community. At this point, we are still disappointed, hurt and frustrated but can give this matter no more attention. As students of color, we already spend too much of our time addressing issues of "diversity," race and class consciousness, and outright ignorance. However, we wanted to share with you so that you can be properly informed. Thanks for taking the time to read. As you know, law school is a terribly isolating experience and it is incredibly meaningful to know that you support us.
En lucha siempre,
Raza Board 2006-07
p.s. Please feel free to forward to other Raza who may be interested.
**E-mail from Dean Schill to UCLA Law
Dear Members of the UCLA Law Community:
One of the great strengths of our school is our diversity. Within our extraordinary student body and faculty are men and women from a variety of races,
ethnicities, nationalities, income groups, religions,sexual orientations and ideological perspectives. One of the principal benefits of diversity is the opportunity for us to learn from each other. Part of this education is learning to see the world through another's eyes. This understanding of different viewpoints and perspectives is important for one to become an excellent lawyer; it is also important to become a good person.
Given our diversity, it is an unfortunate reality that from time to time members of our community will say or do things that will unintentionally offend or hurt one another. In the past week, we have experienced one such incident when the Moot Court Board created an exercise that included racial stereotypes and then compounded the problem by using a jocular tone. Understandably, many students were
deeply offended that a formal law school academic activity would include undeniably offensive stereotypes.
Based upon our conversations with members of the Moot Court Board, I am convinced that there was no intent on the part of the Board to offend or belittle our students of Mexican heritage. I also believe that members of the Moot Court Board now understand and feel deeply sorry about the hurt that they have caused to their classmates. Indeed, to avoid this sort of situation from recurring, the Moot Court Board has suggested and I have agreed that future exercises will be read by a faculty advisor.
Before we move on from here, I would like each of us to take a moment to reflect on this incident and learn something. Each of us is part of a community here at UCLA. As an intellectual community, it is incumbent upon us to defend the right of each member to express his or her views honestly and forthrightly. At the same time, because we are a community we should also encourage each other to consider the impact of what we say and do-- intentionally and unintentionally-- on our fellow students and faculty members and to hold each other accountable when we fail in that regard.
Thank you.
Michael H. Schill
Dean and Professor of Law
UCLA School of Law
405 Hilgard Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90095
(310) 825-8202
***************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************
Dear Alumni,
Greetings to you and yours from the 2006-07 Raza Board at UCLA Law. We hope this e-mail finds you well and happy! Though we as a board are excited about the work we have done thus far (especially the People of Color Workshop which was a great success!) and looking forward to a productive rest of the year, we unfortunately are writing to share a negative experience we recently faced.
On October 3, 2006, Moot Court handed out its problem for this year's competition. The fact pattern implicated an undocumented latino from the "State of Patron," named "El Guapo," who was a child-molester and deported for entering the US illegally at a port called "Beefeater."Upon re-entering, he was interviewed by INS agent"Jack Daniels." After conviction, he was sentenced to 16 years in state prison. While in prison, an INS agent in his "infinite wisdom" decided to deport "El Guapo" once again with the understanding that if he ever re-entered, all charges would still be applicable.
The issues for the Moot Court participants were: 1)the judge made findings of fact without a jury that increased "El Guapo's" maximum sentence-should this be OK? 2) Can the fact that the Grand Jury left out an essential element of the crime from the indictment constitute harmless error?
As you can guess, Raza, other student of color groups and Raza allies were outraged by the gross use of stereotypes and offensive language. We immediately drafted a letter addressed to the Moot Court Board and cc'ed it to Deans Schill, Cheadle and Carbado, Moot Court Advisor Professor Holm and Raza Advisor Professor Holmquist. The letter we sent is attached to this e-mail. After articulating the problems with the fact pattern and how it affected us, we called for three remedies: 1) a public apology 2) a re-written fact pattern 3) implementation of a policy that would ensure this doesn't happen again.
The Co-Chairs of APILSA and BLSA signed the letter. SALSA sent a letter of their own and other groups have mentioned that they may do the same. On Friday October 13th, we received an e-mail from Dean Cheadle with two attachments. The first was acover-letter and the second a re-written hypo from the Moot Court Board in which they had removed all proper names alluding to alcohol name brands and the defendant's ethnic background. We've also attached both of those documents with this e-mail.
As you can see, their letter falls short of a direct apology in that the board attempts to hide behind the "no intent" defense. Also, the letter was ONLY handed out to Moot Court participants as they received the second version of the fact pattern. The Moot Court Board never directly communicated with us (Raza) and has not addressed the law school community.
Dean Schill sent out the e-mail posted below on Monday October 16th, 2006 to the greater law school community. At this point, we are still disappointed, hurt and frustrated but can give this matter no more attention. As students of color, we already spend too much of our time addressing issues of "diversity," race and class consciousness, and outright ignorance. However, we wanted to share with you so that you can be properly informed. Thanks for taking the time to read. As you know, law school is a terribly isolating experience and it is incredibly meaningful to know that you support us.
En lucha siempre,
Raza Board 2006-07
p.s. Please feel free to forward to other Raza who may be interested.
**E-mail from Dean Schill to UCLA Law
Dear Members of the UCLA Law Community:
One of the great strengths of our school is our diversity. Within our extraordinary student body and faculty are men and women from a variety of races,
ethnicities, nationalities, income groups, religions,sexual orientations and ideological perspectives. One of the principal benefits of diversity is the opportunity for us to learn from each other. Part of this education is learning to see the world through another's eyes. This understanding of different viewpoints and perspectives is important for one to become an excellent lawyer; it is also important to become a good person.
Given our diversity, it is an unfortunate reality that from time to time members of our community will say or do things that will unintentionally offend or hurt one another. In the past week, we have experienced one such incident when the Moot Court Board created an exercise that included racial stereotypes and then compounded the problem by using a jocular tone. Understandably, many students were
deeply offended that a formal law school academic activity would include undeniably offensive stereotypes.
Based upon our conversations with members of the Moot Court Board, I am convinced that there was no intent on the part of the Board to offend or belittle our students of Mexican heritage. I also believe that members of the Moot Court Board now understand and feel deeply sorry about the hurt that they have caused to their classmates. Indeed, to avoid this sort of situation from recurring, the Moot Court Board has suggested and I have agreed that future exercises will be read by a faculty advisor.
Before we move on from here, I would like each of us to take a moment to reflect on this incident and learn something. Each of us is part of a community here at UCLA. As an intellectual community, it is incumbent upon us to defend the right of each member to express his or her views honestly and forthrightly. At the same time, because we are a community we should also encourage each other to consider the impact of what we say and do-- intentionally and unintentionally-- on our fellow students and faculty members and to hold each other accountable when we fail in that regard.
Thank you.
Michael H. Schill
Dean and Professor of Law
UCLA School of Law
405 Hilgard Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90095
(310) 825-8202
***************************************************************************
Friday, October 13, 2006
Tongue-Tied
I've noticed how precarious discussions have become with casual law school friends when the topic turns to OCIP. When someone brings up OCIP, I have become the master of carefully unearthing clues about how someone is doing without directly asking. I almost feel like asking any direct questions is akin to asking a woman her weight or a man the size of his unit. Some questions are just never polite. I almost wish people wouldn't bring it up at all because you never know if that person did incredibly well or didn't get any callbacks at all. Still, I guess its the innate nature of law students to want to know how they measure up to their fellow students, which constantly creates these awkward conversations whether it is about grades, CLR, or now OCIP. I am looking forward to the day when there is no longer anything else to compete for. Oh wait, I’m gonna be a lawyer; I guess that is never going to happen.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Questions I NEVER Want to Hear Again
1. So, tell me about yourself.
Hmmm....I am really lazy, like reality TV, and would prefer not to do morally repugnant work.
2. Why do you want to work at a law firm?
I like money.
3. Why do you want to work at our firm?
Refer back to my answer regarding why I want to work at a law firm.
4. What is your greatest weakness?
Big law firms that will pay me an obscene amount of money even though I am clueless. Bonus points for a summer program that will give me absolutely no sense of what it will be like to work there fulltime, and has a low ratio of socially awkward associates.
5. What is your favorite law school class?
The one where I did well even though I did online shopping most of the time, and almost never came to class anyway.
6. Why did you go to law school?
I'll give you a hint, it wasn't to be a lawyer at a big law firm.
7. What do you do in your spare time? Do you have any hobbies?
Helping the little guy stick it to the man.
8. Where do you see yourself in five years?
Not at a big law firm.
(Feel free to add any other non-favorite OCIP questions.)
Hmmm....I am really lazy, like reality TV, and would prefer not to do morally repugnant work.
2. Why do you want to work at a law firm?
I like money.
3. Why do you want to work at our firm?
Refer back to my answer regarding why I want to work at a law firm.
4. What is your greatest weakness?
Big law firms that will pay me an obscene amount of money even though I am clueless. Bonus points for a summer program that will give me absolutely no sense of what it will be like to work there fulltime, and has a low ratio of socially awkward associates.
5. What is your favorite law school class?
The one where I did well even though I did online shopping most of the time, and almost never came to class anyway.
6. Why did you go to law school?
I'll give you a hint, it wasn't to be a lawyer at a big law firm.
7. What do you do in your spare time? Do you have any hobbies?
Helping the little guy stick it to the man.
8. Where do you see yourself in five years?
Not at a big law firm.
(Feel free to add any other non-favorite OCIP questions.)
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Maybe a Lady Justice Piñata?
The rejections from OCIP have continued to roll in via mail, albeit a little slower now. I can't believe I still haven't heard a peep from a couple firms that interviewed me during the very first week of OCIP. I know its sick, but I have been keeping all of my rejection letters and am waiting for the last few to come in before I make scales of justice piñata or something with them. Each hit of the piñata could be a cathartic whack for every stupid question I had to suffer through. What is something I want you to know about me that isn’t on my resume? Well, if I wanted you to know it, I would have put it on my fu*king resume! I am boring and have no hobbies that would help me make a connection with someone who is obviously a shell of a man. Satisfied? Why a firm given my public interest background? Well, if you want to make me say it, I will. I like money. I like the way I can pay rent with money. I like the way I can buy things like food, new clothes, and chocolate with money. Is that a sufficient reason, or did you want me to offer to clean your house too before you consider giving me an offer? On second thought, I could always use the letters as kindling for the next carne asada. So many rejection letters, so many choices. I am just glad that I don’t have to wear another suit for at least six months.
Friday, October 06, 2006
You're Hired!
Well, I did it. I tap danced for the man and it finally culminated in getting some offers. Yay! Luckily I have enough offers to institute my rigorous test of choosing between the firm with associates who made me jog in heels, and the considerate associates who actually walked a little slower and talked to me. Now I get to read five weeks worth of reading which has piled up. Despite the need to catch up on all the work I neglected, I feel incredibly lucky. I have an offer from a firm that is as good as a big firm gets, and was my first choice. Life is good.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Check Please!
The worst part of callback interviews for me has been the awkward lunches with the associates. So far I have been unlucky enough to be accompanied by people not wearing heels at every lunch. How they have failed to realize that speed walking in heels is not comfortable is beyond me. One time the two associates taking me to lunch actually walked at least fifty feet ahead of me and talked to each other instead. Needless to say, unless that place is my only offer I am not going to work there. Its not like I am a diva; I just expect a little consideration for the fact that I am wearing three inch heels, not running shoes. Also, once you sit down the uncomfortable silence begins. While I try to keep the conversation light and not too law related I have unfortunately encountered more than one associate that insists on asking the lame law interview questions that I have come to hate after doing OCIP. Do you really need to ask me “why your firm” before I have even gotten a chance to nibble on something from the bread basket? Really? Although the lunch is free I have paid dearly with minutes of my life I will never get back.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Return from Hiatus
Hello again. With school back in full swing and the stress of OCIP, I didn't have much extra time to blog. I have to admit that I don't really have any good OCIP horror stories. With the exception of being bored to death in a few interviews where I could hardly get in a word edgewise, my interviews occurred without incident. Although I could live without ever going through OCIP again, it was a positive experience in that I got to bond with all my classmates while nervously waiting in the halls of the Durant hotel. There was a real sense of camaraderie as we all pilfered highlighters and free Starbucks cards from the hospitality suites and waited for the next interviews.
This week the callback process is more individual and I miss being able to talk to fellow Boalties before heading into yet another interview. Although I am generally a people person, the callback interviews seem to be more difficult in that you are meeting so many people in one shot. In any event this process will hopefully be over soon and I can get back to reading my casebooks, which have been collecting dust for weeks now.
This week the callback process is more individual and I miss being able to talk to fellow Boalties before heading into yet another interview. Although I am generally a people person, the callback interviews seem to be more difficult in that you are meeting so many people in one shot. In any event this process will hopefully be over soon and I can get back to reading my casebooks, which have been collecting dust for weeks now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
