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
***************************************************************************