Legal Groups Condemn Racist-themed Law Student Party

For immediate release October 21, 2006

Legal Groups Condemn Racist-themed Law Student Party

Contact Carlos Villarreal at 415.377.6961

The United People of Color Caucus (TUPOCC) of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), the NLG, and the National Latina/Latino Law Student Association (NLLSA) condemn the recent law student “ghetto” party and the weak response from the UT Law administration. The groups are demanding that the University take more aggressive steps to educate students and adopt an anti-racist curriculum.

The party in question became public when photographs from the event were posted online. According to news reports, the event included students holding 40-ounce bottles, wearing Afro wigs, bandanas, and wearing name tags with names like “Tanika” or “Jesus.” Dean Larry Sager responded with an email that did not adequately address the racism involved in the event or the harm caused. Among other things, Sager addressed, “the extraordinary damage [the students] could do to their own careers.”

“This act and the weak response from the administration is a reflection and product of the deeply-rooted institutionalized and systematic racism still plaguing the US and virtually all of its educational institutions – not just UT,” said Mercedes Castillo of the NLLSA. “UT does have a unique history of segregation and racist attitudes, however, that add important context to this childish display.”

Until 1950 the University of Texas School of Law denied admission to African Americans and was only forced to integrate after the Sweatt v. Painter decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was many years later that the University began to correct the wrongs of the past through limited affirmative action admission policies. It was only 40 years after Sweatt that the University was forced to abandon affirmative action following the Hopwood decision, though unlike the earlier decision, the law school quickly swept away its policies rather than attempt to narrowly construe the High Court’s ruling.

One of the Law School’s most well-known “scholars,” Lino Graglia, has devoted much of his career to justifying inequality and a second-class status for people of color. Adding insult to injury soon after the Hopwood decision in 1997 he said publicly, “blacks and Mexican-Americans can't compete academically with whites.” He claimed there was a cultural reason for this, not an inherent or genetic reason. His statement was followed with an enormous rally in support of affirmative action and a sit-in at the law school.

While the party was a single event, it demonstrates an attitude that undoubtedly pervades the work of law students and graduates. It demonstrates, further, an environment at the law school that remains hostile and unequal. Finally it demonstrates the emptiness of mere “respect for diversity” as a tool to combat centuries of oppression.

“One wonders if some of these law students raised in what some call a post-civil rights era considered the costumes and party theme an example of the diversity that we are all supposed to embrace as we reject affirmative action as ‘reverse racism,’” said Carlos Villarreal, NLG member and UT Law alumnus. “This kind of act is a reflection on the law school and a stronger response is in order from the administration.”


###