UCLA law professor learns Ferguson-related exam question is taboo

Fox News ^ | 12/12/2014 | Maxim Lott

[SeekAndFind]

Law school exams often present legal conundrums ripped from headlines of the day, but one UCLA law professor is apologizing for basing a test question on what is apparently a taboo subject -- the fallout from the police shooting of a black man in Ferguson, Mo.

Professor Robert Goldstein said the exam question was designed to test students’ ability to analyze the line between free speech and inciting violence. It cited a report about how Michael Brown’s stepfather, Louis Head, shouted, “Burn this bitch down!” after a grand jury decided not to indict Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson in the death of Michael Brown.

The question then asked students to imagine that they are lawyers in the St. Louis County Attorney’s office and had been asked to advise the prosecutor “whether to seek an indictment against Head” for inciting violence. The exam reads:

“[As] a recent hire in the office, you are asked to write a memo discussing the relevant First Amendment issues in such a prosecution. Write the memo.”

But students complained, and writer Elie Mystal at the popular legal blog “Above the Law” opined that the test question was “racially insensitive and divisive.” Mystal also incorrectly alleged that the question asked students to “advocate in favor of extremist racists in Ferguson.”

[gaijin]

I rest my case.

[blackdog]

"But students complained, and writer Elie Mystal at the popular legal blog “Above the Law” opined that the test question was “racially insensitive and divisive.”

Elie Mystal has no business or the foundation needed to become a lawyer.

There are no laws (yet) which restrict insensitivity or divisive content. Inciting violence is different. There are laws applicable to prosecution of such acts.

[goldstategop]

[Sasparilla]

Political correctness rears its ugly head again. Some of these lawyer wannabes will probably come across issues that will make this logical question pale in comparison. But, some of law school has nothing to do with the real world.

Shame on the Prof for back pedalling.

If I found out that a lawyer I might hire was offended by a question like this, I would keep looking.

[facedown]

Wow, a twofer.

[goldstategop]

[JennysCool]

The prof forgot the new paradigm: “The truth, and nothing but the truth, unless it somehow involves an aggrieved minority.”

[GladesGuru]

Smug, fat, and ‘wacis’ is no way to go through life.

[ex91B10]

[grundle]

Here's my favorite part of the article:

“If there are some law students who are such delicate flowers that merely being asked to assess whether certain controversial speech that's been in the news is constitutionally protected, in a class covering the First Amendment of all things, then maybe they should find another profession,” David Bernstein, a law professor at George Mason University School of Law, told FoxNews.com.

[TigerClaws]

They ALL are these days. Everyone is so damn worried about hurt feelings. Unless, of course, it’s a white Christian male. Then he can just suck it up.

[Delta Dawn]

extremist racists

Are they a protected group?

[goldstategop]

[BenLurkin]

question was “racially insensitive and divisive.”

How?

Seriously, how?

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

A cowardly liberal Jewish professor and a bigoted, knee-jerk black ahole. Guess both will have to postpone exams because they have become traumatized by the events in Ferguson, New York, and the knife killings of Jews in Israel and NYC.

Oh wait! Dead Jews don’t merit a day off. Never mind!

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

Hey Mystal. I see a lot of books in your bookcase. Ever read any, such as “The Constitution” of the United States?

Apparently not. End of argument, end of observation, end of sanity.

[NonValueAdded]

They can graduate with a JD with a minor in Drama

[CurlyDave]

advocate in favor of extremist racists in Ferguson.

Why is it that when I first read that phrase, I thought that it was referring to the black mob who felt looting and arson were appropriate responses to the outcome of a court case?

[trebb]

“[As] a recent hire in the office, you are asked to write a memo discussing the relevant First Amendment issues in such a prosecution. Write the memo.”
But students complained, and writer Elie Mystal at the popular legal blog “Above the Law” opined that the test question was “racially insensitive and divisive.” Mystal also incorrectly alleged that the question asked students to “advocate in favor of extremist racists in Ferguson.”

Wow, a whole new set of parameters for discussing the legal/constitutional issues for specific circumstances.

I didn't see where the professor asked them to consider race, only events/conditions - all very apporpriate and necessary to look at the legal issues involved in assesing whether a Constitutional Amendment applies.

Now, because folks know that Blacks are more likely to have made "bad decisions" on this than Whites, it is racist to dicsuss a situation as it applies to the Constitution.

They want the Constitution and the Rule of Law dead - they don't understand that if they really get their way, many of them will be dead too and the remainders of their population will likely never be able to be so outspoken again...