[TigerClaws]

Can a law professor ask a question about rape?

A terrible precedent from the insane left. Will need trigger warnings in the future to teach a sex crimes class.

Typical leftist response by the student: immediately assume a question is all about them and they have to divulge personal information or experience.

[freedumb2003]

>>A terrible precedent from the insane left. Will need trigger warnings in the future to teach a sex crimes class.<<

Yes — real world situations that involve anything related to gender are now off limits.

I suspect the bar exam is not as open-minded.

[gaijin]

Dazzzz what ahm talkin 'bout..!

Nome sayin'..?!

[ReagansShinyHair]

Clearly he is the one token Republican law professor at Howard.

[TigersEye]

One of the complaining students allegedly said she believed that the question somehow forced her to divulge whether or not she had undergone a Brazilian wax job process herself.

A self-absorbed snowflake who will spend her life being a PITA to everyone she knows and many others she merely comes in contact with.

[leaning conservative]

I guess the students will have to sign a waiver that they can’t sue over “bad” words. And then we can pray we never hire one of these idiot cry babies.

[PAR35]

Well, I would suggest that law students that can’t deal with issues probably won’t be decent lawyers, but we are talking Howard here, so that’s probably a given.

But if we were ranking law schools, it likely is better than Southern or Texas Southern.

[Telepathic Intruder]

The problem is that the question didn’t have a homosexual context.

[KarlInOhio]

504 day investigation? How about a one day investigation? “Did you ask this question? Do you really think it’s appropriate? Really? Well don’t ask it again.”

[Pontiac]

“My case should worry every faculty member at Howard University, and perhaps elsewhere, who teaches in substantive areas like law, medicine, history, and literature,” Robinson said. “None of these academic areas can be taught without evaluating and discussing contextual facts, especially unsavory and emotionally charged ones.”

Law School.

Snow Flakes need not apply.

Law, especially cases involving rape and sexual abuse can not be taught without discussing man’s inhumanity to man.

People often do unspeakable things to one another and lawyers will have to discuss it in open court dispassionately.

If they can not do that in a lecture hall how are they going to do it the rough and tumble of an adversarial court room?

[dhs12345]

Apparently, I missed that it was about a woman. Men can have bikini wax jobs too, can’t they... ouch!

[TigerClaws]

another article on this story for those interested:

https://www.thefire.org/a-sticky-situation-at-howard-university-brazilian-wax-test-question-nets-professor-a-504-day-title-ix-investigation-sanctions/

[BIV]

I remember my contracts exam in the first year of law school. One of the questions involved a shirt company called “Tanks for the Mammaries.” I aced that one!

[morphing libertarian]

16 month investigation. They must have thought this was important and urgent.

[Rebelbase]

An ex-girlfriend from another life tried to do a self wax and rip it ALL of at one time.

I never laughed so hard in my life.

[LeoTDB69]

I’m trying to imagine todays law students 10 years from now in an actual courtroom:

Defense Atty:
Your Honor, I object to the prosecutions line of questioning in that I find it offensive to my clients ears.

Judge:
Objection sustained. Prosecution, please try to respect the defendants safe space...

[Sasparilla]

If these snowflakes really want to be lawyers, they should prepare themselves to likely be told real life stories by clients and would be clients that will be truly sickening to a person of normal sensibilities, Those can be found in criminal defense and prosecution, personal injury, family law, and medical malpractice.
It’s called the real world. It’s part of life. If they can’t handle it, then do insurance defense or corporate law.

[stylin19a]

here's the question:

Question 5.

P owned and member managed “Day Spa & Massage Therapy Company, LLC.” P catered to men and women.

Among other services, P offered Brazilian and bikini waxes – sometimes called “Sphynx,” bare waxing, or Hollywood waxing.

To provide these services, P hired A, an Aesthetician, who had been fully certified and licensed by the school at which A had studied and by the state in which P was located.

One day, T visited P’s company.

T had never sought such services, but T’s friends had raved about P’s waxes. A met T at the service desk. T asked for a Brazilian wax. “A full or modified Brazilian?” A asked.

T looked confused, and so A explained that a Full Brazilian (“FB”) would render T hairless from belly button to buttocks, and a FB required T would be naked from the waist down.

A FB required A to touch T’s body and to adjust T’s body so that A could access every follicle of pubic hair. Next, A explained a Modified Brazilians (“MB”). A MB left a thin strip of hair at the top of T’s genitalia, viz., a “landing strip.” T opted for FB. A again told T that A would have to touch T’s genitals to complete the waxing. T agreed, and T signed the service contract and initialed the space for acknowledging A’s information.

T got undressed in a private salon, where T also drank hot herbal tea. At A’s behest, T, w who was waist down naked, got on the waxing table. Once on the table, with instrumental tones wafting, T drifted into light sleep; A completed the FB.

Upon awaking, T felt physically uncomfortable, asking A if A had touched T improperly. A, saying no, and feeling offended, walked out.

Two weeks later, P received a letter from T’s attorney, in which T alleged that A had improperly touched T, causing T to seeking counseling and drugs for post-traumatic stress disorder.

Having worked with A for 10 years, P responded that A was a certified, licensed Aesthetician, who’d never had any such allegations filed by clients.

T sued P, and in deposing A, P and T’s attorney learned that A had properly touched T during the FB. Nevertheless, T still felt that A’s touching was improper.

In the suit, T alleged that A, cloaked with the apparent authority, had induced T by false representations to rely reasonably on A, so that A, while within the scope of employment, could cause harm to T. If P demurred, in effect saying “Yeah, so what!” to T’s pleadings, will the court find in favor of T?

(A) Yes, because T had established that A was a servant who was placed into A’s position as an Aesthetician, which enabled A to harm to T.

(B) No, because T expressly and impliedly consented to A touching T in any manner that was reasonable for A to provide the FB service that T requested.

(C) Yes, because P benefited from the revenue paid by T to P for services performed by A.

(D) No.

[IronJack]

I'm a layman (not a lawyer) and I sat on a jury for an obscenity trial. We were forced to watch not one, not two, but three separate porno movies. They were the prima facie evidence in the case.

I wish I could say I was offended, but the truth is, I almost fell asleep.

The point is, the "offense" this professor committed was mostly in the minds of the snowflakes. Otherwise, it was just a boring test question.

[Taxman]

Yet another example of LIEberal insanity!

[tbw2]

Then these lawyers cannot handle real life cases of rape, murder, gang rape, sexual molestation, etc. And they shouldn’t be allowed to be in law school.