Nov. 8
Disclaimer: This post will not make sense unless you're a current UCLA law student.
I wasn't originally inclined to write anything about another email that was sent to all about another incident that happened. But then I realized that the SBA sent out a strongly worded email, yet the email basically told us nothing. The email went something like this: something big happened on Nov. 8->people need to be respected->hence we need to create a non-hostile classroom environment->which is why we're making a resolution against hostile classroom environments. It's basically the equivalent of 3rd graders saying "I have something to tell you but I'm not going to." I think SBA is making things worse for itself, since it has just stirred up a hornet's nest full of law students, and instead of having one version of the event, people are now going to start gossiping and inquiring and there will be dozens of versions of the event which SBA or the Dean will eventually have to dispel.
While I pretty much know one version of the story, I'm not going to take sides or comment on the event in question itself since I don't know the other side's version. I'm merely commenting on the way in which SBA chose to go about the situation. (But if the events happened as alleged, I do think the professor was out of line.)
If you want to know about what happened, ask anyone in the 1L class. I'm sure they've all heard about it, and like the game telephone I played as a kid, each retelling by one to another is never perfect and winds up being further and further from the truth. The SBA apparently intends the consequences of its actions, so let the rumors fly.
[if you don't know any 1Ls, email me for one version of the events, as relayed to me by a 1L who was in the room when it happened]
I wasn't originally inclined to write anything about another email that was sent to all about another incident that happened. But then I realized that the SBA sent out a strongly worded email, yet the email basically told us nothing. The email went something like this: something big happened on Nov. 8->people need to be respected->hence we need to create a non-hostile classroom environment->which is why we're making a resolution against hostile classroom environments. It's basically the equivalent of 3rd graders saying "I have something to tell you but I'm not going to." I think SBA is making things worse for itself, since it has just stirred up a hornet's nest full of law students, and instead of having one version of the event, people are now going to start gossiping and inquiring and there will be dozens of versions of the event which SBA or the Dean will eventually have to dispel.
While I pretty much know one version of the story, I'm not going to take sides or comment on the event in question itself since I don't know the other side's version. I'm merely commenting on the way in which SBA chose to go about the situation. (But if the events happened as alleged, I do think the professor was out of line.)
If you want to know about what happened, ask anyone in the 1L class. I'm sure they've all heard about it, and like the game telephone I played as a kid, each retelling by one to another is never perfect and winds up being further and further from the truth. The SBA apparently intends the consequences of its actions, so let the rumors fly.
[if you don't know any 1Ls, email me for one version of the events, as relayed to me by a 1L who was in the room when it happened]
posted by The Fox at 12:01 AM
2 Comments:
(1) It was an awfully slow response. Maybe because I'm having such a long week? But it didn't seem timely. (2) What the hell did the email even say? Whose side were they on? What does their resolution *mean*? What does it change?
Email was late, probably because 11/8 was a Thursday and SBA leadership (2L and 3Ls) had our 5-day holiday. And then SBA probably had multiple meetings to deliberate and to word the resolution.
Post a Comment
<< Home