Posted on 10/25/2005 6:18:40 AM PDT by Rodney King
Law school incidents don’t garner much coverage in this undergrad newspaper, but, given the situation I found last Friday, October 7th, I believe this incident should be an exception.
First, some background. At Columbia Law, the Career Services Office offers second and third year law students the opportunity to interview with prospective employers on campus. Columbia posts interview dates online, and students sign up online; generally, employers have limited time frames (one day, maybe two), and slots fill up quickly. Employers take these interviews seriously. Additionally, Columbia is currently locked in a Supreme Court case over the Solomon Amendment. The Amendment, which Columbia is seeking to overturn, prevents Universities that bar military recruiters from receiving certain funds. Columbia Law wants to ban the military because of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy; however, it doesn’t want to lose the money. While the suit is going on, the school complies with the Amendment, allowing military recruiters on campus to give interviews to those who sign up.
Now, the problem. A homosexual rights group at the Law School, OUTLAWS, wanted to protest the Air Force JAG recruiter working on Friday. It organized this by sending out a mass e-mail to the Law School. It encouraged students to come on Friday morning to a demonstration against the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. So far, nothing wrong here. But, buried at the bottom of the e-mail, Dynishal Gross, the vice chair, added: “[second and third year law students] may also sign up to interview with Air Force JAG through the career services Web site and express your opinion to the recruiter directly!”
As a second year student, I was concerned. This was a deliberate sabotage of an event designed for recruitment. It disturbed me for two reasons:
1. It misleads recruiters into believing a student was there to hear about the benefits of the position, and instead forces them to hear the whines and accusations of a self-righteous mob. Recruiters have no power to change policy; they are job recruiters, not policy makers.
2. More importantly, it took slots away from deserving students who wanted to interview. Like me. I hadn’t even known about the interview, and frantically tried to find a spot online. This was Thursday, the day before the protest. No slots were available, and I could only assume some self-righteous protester had taken it—sabotage.
I immediately contacted administration officials to let them know of the e-mail, and tell them I felt this would reflect poorly on the school. After all, if this were an unpopular private firm, say a big tobacco firm, would they allow this treatment? I expected them to stop it. The response was fascinating: “We are aware of this issue and work very hard with the recruiters and the students in order to make certain that everyone who wants to interview with this employer, for whatever reason, is accommodated.”
What OUTLAWS did was underhanded and sabotage. But the administration allowing it was unconscionable. It reflects poorly on the administration as a whole that it would allow such an action, and leads me to question its motives.
This was a job interview, not a debate. What would have sent a larger message is if no one had signed up for the interviews; it would have made more sense. Protesters are allowed freedom of speech, not freedom of sabotage. OUTLAWS has lost its integrity; and in its treatment of the issue and the recruiter, the Law School has lost some honor.
Columbia ping
As if they ever had any integrity..
But we are gay, we can do whatever we want.
How dare you waste bandwidth by posting a gigantic picture of Catherine Bell in her underwear? (My wife made me say that. I say--Thank you very much.)
ping
ping
Too bad she's a member of the Scientology cult.
Twenty years ago I would not have suggested such a thing because I believe it is wrong. But now, I say, go for whatever works as long as it is legal. You can write and turn the other cheek over and over, that might get you into heaven, but it will only get you bruised cheeks now and vilified by the minority groups for complaining about their tactics.
Without knowing what I was getting, I TIVO'ed something called Hot Line: Seductive Tales. OMG. I had no idea Catherine Bell made skin flicks. It was quite a rush seeing Mac in the altogether. Needless to say, the recording is characterized on my drive as DO NOT DELETE -- EVER!
But I will make a comment as a practicing lawyer. Some of those "Outlaws" might be well advised to consider how their flaunting of their unfortunate tendencies now may later dog any careers they plan in the Law. Everyone in the profession is not sympathetic to "Outlaws" or proud deviants. Some of us still believe one should spare others the details of one's less appealing misfortunes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.