Subject: Raza update
Dear Alumni,
Greetings to you and yours from the 2006-07 Raza Board
at UCLA Law. We hope this e-mail finds you well and
happy!
Though we as a board are excited about the work we
have done thus far (especially the People of Color
Workshop which was a great success!) and looking
forward to a productive rest of the year, we
unfortunately are writing to share a negative
experience we recently faced.
On October 3, 2006, Moot Court handed out its problem
for this year's competition. The fact pattern
implicated an undocumented latino from the "State of
Patron," named "El Guapo," who was a child-molester
and deported for entering the US illegally at a port
called "Beefeater."
Upon re-entering, he was interviewed by INS agent
"Jack Daniels." After conviction, he was sentenced to
16 years in state prison. While in prison, an INS
agent in his "infinite wisdom" decided to deport "El
Guapo" once again with the understanding that if he
ever re-entered, all charges would still be
applicable.
The issues for the Moot Court participants were: 1)
the judge made findings of fact without a jury that
increased "El Guapo's" maximum sentence-should this be
OK? 2) Can the fact that the Grand Jury left out an
essential element of the crime from the indictment
constitute harmless error?
As you can guess, Raza, other student of color groups
and Raza allies were outraged by the gross use of
stereotypes and offensive language.
We immediately drafted a letter addressed to the Moot
Court Board and cc'ed it to Deans Schill, Cheadle and
Carbado, Moot Court Advisor Professor Holm and Raza
Advisor Professor Holmquist. The letter we sent is
attached to this e-mail. After articulating the
problems with the fact pattern and how it affected us,
we called for three remedies: 1) a public apology 2) a
re-written fact pattern 3) implementation of a policy
that would ensure this doesn't happen again.
The Co-Chairs of APILSA and BLSA signed the letter.
SALSA sent a letter of their own and other groups have
mentioned that they may do the same.
On Friday October 13th, we received an e-mail from
Dean Cheadle with two attachments. The first was a
cover-letter and the second a re-written hypo from the
Moot Court Board in which they had removed all proper
names alluding to alcohol name brands and the
defendant's ethnic background. We've also attached
both of those documents with this e-mail.
As you can see, their letter falls short of a direct
apology in that the board attempts to hide behind the
"no intent" defense. Also, the letter was ONLY handed
out to Moot Court participants as they received the
second version of the fact pattern.
The Moot Court Board never directly communicated with
us (Raza) and has not addressed the law school
community.
Dean Schill sent out the e-mail posted below on Monday
October 16th, 2006 to the greater law school
community.
At this point, we are still disappointed, hurt and
frustrated but can give this matter no more attention.
As students of color, we already spend too much of our
time addressing issues of "diversity," race and class
consciousness, and outright ignorance.
However, we wanted to share with you so that you can
be properly informed. Thanks for taking the time to
read. As you know, law school is a terribly isolating
experience and it is incredibly meaningful to know
that you support us.
En lucha siempre,
Raza Board 2006-07
p.s. Please feel free to forward to other Raza who may
be interested.
**E-mail from Dean Schill to UCLA Law
Dear Members of the UCLA Law Community:
One of the great strengths of our school is our
diversity. Within our extraordinary student body and
faculty are men and women from a variety of races,
ethnicities, nationalities, income groups, religions,
sexual orientations and ideological perspectives. One
of the principal benefits of diversity is the
opportunity for us to learn from each other. Part of
Dear Alumni,
Greetings to you and yours from the 2006-07 Raza Board
at UCLA Law. We hope this e-mail finds you well and
happy!
Though we as a board are excited about the work we
have done thus far (especially the People of Color
Workshop which was a great success!) and looking
forward to a productive rest of the year, we
unfortunately are writing to share a negative
experience we recently faced.
On October 3, 2006, Moot Court handed out its problem
for this year's competition. The fact pattern
implicated an undocumented latino from the "State of
Patron," named "El Guapo," who was a child-molester
and deported for entering the US illegally at a port
called "Beefeater."
Upon re-entering, he was interviewed by INS agent
"Jack Daniels." After conviction, he was sentenced to
16 years in state prison. While in prison, an INS
agent in his "infinite wisdom" decided to deport "El
Guapo" once again with the understanding that if he
ever re-entered, all charges would still be
applicable.
The issues for the Moot Court participants were: 1)
the judge made findings of fact without a jury that
increased "El Guapo's" maximum sentence-should this be
OK? 2) Can the fact that the Grand Jury left out an
essential element of the crime from the indictment
constitute harmless error?
As you can guess, Raza, other student of color groups
and Raza allies were outraged by the gross use of
stereotypes and offensive language.
We immediately drafted a letter addressed to the Moot
Court Board and cc'ed it to Deans Schill, Cheadle and
Carbado, Moot Court Advisor Professor Holm and Raza
Advisor Professor Holmquist. The letter we sent is
attached to this e-mail. After articulating the
problems with the fact pattern and how it affected us,
we called for three remedies: 1) a public apology 2) a
re-written fact pattern 3) implementation of a policy
that would ensure this doesn't happen again.
The Co-Chairs of APILSA and BLSA signed the letter.
SALSA sent a letter of their own and other groups have
mentioned that they may do the same.
On Friday October 13th, we received an e-mail from
Dean Cheadle with two attachments. The first was a
cover-letter and the second a re-written hypo from the
Moot Court Board in which they had removed all proper
names alluding to alcohol name brands and the
defendant's ethnic background. We've also attached
both of those documents with this e-mail.
As you can see, their letter falls short of a direct
apology in that the board attempts to hide behind the
"no intent" defense. Also, the letter was ONLY handed
out to Moot Court participants as they received the
second version of the fact pattern.
The Moot Court Board never directly communicated with
us (Raza) and has not addressed the law school
community.
Dean Schill sent out the e-mail posted below on Monday
October 16th, 2006 to the greater law school
community.
At this point, we are still disappointed, hurt and
frustrated but can give this matter no more attention.
As students of color, we already spend too much of our
time addressing issues of "diversity," race and class
consciousness, and outright ignorance.
However, we wanted to share with you so that you can
be properly informed. Thanks for taking the time to
read. As you know, law school is a terribly isolating
experience and it is incredibly meaningful to know
that you support us.
En lucha siempre,
Raza Board 2006-07
p.s. Please feel free to forward to other Raza who may
be interested.
**E-mail from Dean Schill to UCLA Law
Dear Members of the UCLA Law Community:
One of the great strengths of our school is our
diversity. Within our extraordinary student body and
faculty are men and women from a variety of races,
ethnicities, nationalities, income groups, religions,
sexual orientations and ideological perspectives. One
of the principal benefits of diversity is the
opportunity for us to learn from each other. Part of
this education is learning to see the world through
another's eyes. This understanding of different
viewpoints and perspectives is important for one to
become an excellent lawyer; it is also important to
become a good person.
Given our diversity, it is an unfortunate reality
that from time to time members of our community will
say or do things that will unintentionally offend or
hurt one another. In the past week, we have
experienced one such incident when the Moot Court
Board created an exercise that included racial
stereotypes and then compounded the problem by using a
jocular tone. Understandably, many students were
deeply offended that a formal law school academic
activity would include undeniably offensive
stereotypes.
Based upon our conversations with members of the
Moot Court Board, I am convinced that there was no
intent on the part of the Board to offend or belittle
our students of Mexican heritage. I also believe that
members of the Moot Court Board now understand and
feel deeply sorry about the hurt that they have caused
to their classmates. Indeed, to avoid this sort of
situation from recurring, the Moot Court Board has
suggested and I have agreed that future exercises will
be read by a faculty advisor.
Before we move on from here, I would like each of
us to take a moment to reflect on this incident and
learn something. Each of us is part of a community
here at UCLA. As an intellectual community, it is
incumbent upon us to defend the right of each member
to express his or her views honestly and forthrightly.
At the same time, because we are a community we
should also encourage each other to consider the
impact of what we say and do-- intentionally and
unintentionally-- on our fellow students and faculty
members and to hold each other accountable when we
fail in that regard.
Thank you.
Michael H. Schill
Dean and Professor of Law
UCLA School of Law
405 Hilgard Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90095
(310) 825-8202
another's eyes. This understanding of different
viewpoints and perspectives is important for one to
become an excellent lawyer; it is also important to
become a good person.
Given our diversity, it is an unfortunate reality
that from time to time members of our community will
say or do things that will unintentionally offend or
hurt one another. In the past week, we have
experienced one such incident when the Moot Court
Board created an exercise that included racial
stereotypes and then compounded the problem by using a
jocular tone. Understandably, many students were
deeply offended that a formal law school academic
activity would include undeniably offensive
stereotypes.
Based upon our conversations with members of the
Moot Court Board, I am convinced that there was no
intent on the part of the Board to offend or belittle
our students of Mexican heritage. I also believe that
members of the Moot Court Board now understand and
feel deeply sorry about the hurt that they have caused
to their classmates. Indeed, to avoid this sort of
situation from recurring, the Moot Court Board has
suggested and I have agreed that future exercises will
be read by a faculty advisor.
Before we move on from here, I would like each of
us to take a moment to reflect on this incident and
learn something. Each of us is part of a community
here at UCLA. As an intellectual community, it is
incumbent upon us to defend the right of each member
to express his or her views honestly and forthrightly.
At the same time, because we are a community we
should also encourage each other to consider the
impact of what we say and do-- intentionally and
unintentionally-- on our fellow students and faculty
members and to hold each other accountable when we
fail in that regard.
Thank you.
Michael H. Schill
Dean and Professor of Law
UCLA School of Law
405 Hilgard Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90095
(310) 825-8202
No comments:
Post a Comment