Issuu on Google+

VIRGINIA L AW WEEKLY Wednesday, 30 November 2016

The Impermanence of Progress Hunter Hampton ’19 Guest Columnist Still reeling from a loss we never saw coming, progressives are grasping for an explanation: Why? Here’s one answer: Progressives lost because our message was directed towards an America we wanted to exist, rather than the America that does exist. Although many great successes have been achieved over the last eight years, the march to full equality is never complete. It’s a sad fact of life that no victory is ever fully won, but it’s the truth, and there’s a grave danger in pretending that the promise of America has ever been fully achieved for anyone. Progress isn’t permanent. It can decay, which is exactly what is happening in America’s forgotten Heartland. Now, the present situation of blue-collar white Americans is not as dire as that of African-Americans in the time of the Jim Crow laws. It’s not as dire as that of Asian-Americans during the Chinese Exclusion Act or Japanese internment during World War II. It’s not as dire as that of the millions of law-abiding, but undocumented, Latino immigrants who came to this country because to them, America still embodies the promise of freedom and opportunity. No. Theirs was, and is, a worse lot. The problem is that, rightly or wrongly, blue-collar white Americans fear that they are headed in the same direction. Donald Trump won because he—crudely, coarsely, racist-ly—tapped into those fears. But this does not mean that his supporters are crude, coarse, racists. Rather, it means that they are scared of what the future holds for them, and it means that no one else was acknowledging that fear. This is precisely where we progressives dropped the ball. Our blindness to the impermanence of progress cost us this election. November 8th made one thing clear: progressives can’t just stand up for those who are already the victims of oppression and disadvantage. We must also stand up for those who fear oppression and disadvantage, whether or not they have yet to be oppressed or disadvantaged. Don’t scoff. You might think that this is ridiculous, that progressives would obviously never oppress blue-collar white folks. But that thinking is not only wrong-headed, it’s dangerous. To ignore the fears and grievances of one group of Americans may not be active oppression, but it is passive oppression. It is condescending and patronizing to an entire group of people to say that we know better, and that they have nothing to worry about. This, despite the fact that cities, towns, and rural areas all across the Rust Belt ►IMPERANENCE page 4

The Newspaper of the University of Virginia School of Law Since 1948

SBA OVERHAULS ELECTION PROCESS

Law Weekly Staff Article

Last Monday, the SBA’s Constitutional Committee submitted its proposed edits to the SBA Constitution to the Voting Members. For a list of those proposed changes, see the article in the November 16, 2016 edition of the Virginia Law Weekly. The SBA adopted the changes through a unanimous roll call vote on Monday, officially amending the Constitution. The majority of the changes that were adopted were related to the elections process at the Law School. These election changes were proposed by another SBA committee, the Election Rules Committee, chaired by SBA Vice-President Sami Al-Marzoog. The most immediate changes to the elected positions involve the direct election of the Treasurer and the removal of the SBA voting power of the Ex Officio Members. For the past few years, the Treasurer has not been directly elected by the Law School population. Instead, the newly elected SBA elected a Treasurer from its own Senatorial body in a subsequent election. This secondary election of the Treasurer was meant to insulate the Treasurer from the political influences that would come from answering directly to the student body. However, political influences are not really present in the SBA nor its elections, and any such influences are not particular to the role of Treasurer. Therefore, the Treasurer will now be directly elected like every other position. In addition, all Ex Officio members will be unable to vote on SBA issues. Under both the previous and current SBA Constitutions, four enumerated positions were listed as Ex Officio members: UJC Representatives, Honor Representatives, Student Council Representatives, and the ABA Representative. These Ex Officio members were elected by the student body but held their positions on other bodies and had voting power in those respective bodies. However, the previous Constitution allowed some of these members—specifically, the ABA Rep and the StudCo Reps—to have a vote on the SBA, while the remaining Ex Officio members could not vote on the SBA. There was no explanation for this inconsistent treatment of the various Ex Officio members, so to treat them consistently and prevent conflicting votes with their respective bod-

ies, none of these members shall have a vote on the SBA. The largest and most significant change made to the elections process at the Law School was the decision to separate from the University Board of Elections (UBE), the Main Grounds Special Status Group that ordinarily administers elections. Most of the 12 schools of UVa use UBE to run elections for student government, UJC/ Honor roles, and other schoolwide positions; notably, Darden does not use the UBE for its election process. One of the primary reasons that the Law School decided to examine its relationship with the UBE was last year’s election process and its lack of customization to the Law School’s needs. The UBE requires a relatively tough process to even appear on the ballot in the first place. First, all applicants must complete a quiz about the election rules. While this quiz isn’t overly difficult, it is an extra procedural step, and the rules that it tests are often inapplicable to the Law School. For example, regulations on chalking are not really relevant for the Law School, since chalking isn’t really used on North Grounds. Secondly, the UBE also requires candidates to get the signature of a requisite number of future constituents to even appear on the ballot. While getting somewhere between twenty and fifty signatures isn’t that hard, it isn’t super easy; additionally, candidates would just pass the sheet around a large lecture class instead of speaking with future voters, defeating the purpose of getting the signatures in the first place. Perhaps most annoying was the fact that the signature sheets had to be turned in on Main Grounds, requiring a trek over to Newcomb Hall during business hours and paying for parking just to get on the ballot. Another frustrating aspect of UBE’s electoral process is its strange rules and lack of ability to enforce them or provide a remedy for candidates. UBE prohibits the use of mailing lists, including email lists, to solicit votes, either by a candidate or any other person on that candidate’s behalf. However, it’s a hard rule to enforce, and it requires candidates to have absolute control over not only themselves and their campaign staff, but also every single enthusiastic supporter who might

send an email inadvertently. It’s also hard to craft a remedy for such a violation; is it fair to disqualify a candidate entirely because of an email sent by a staff member? If not, should a certain number of votes be discounted? How many? The changes to the Constitution do not answer the questions above. However, they do move in the right direction by taking Law School elections out of UBE’s jurisdiction and into the Law School, where we will have more direct say into how these sorts of questions should be answered, and how future issues can be fairly resolved. One issue that still remains to be resolved is how to count Law School votes for school-wide referenda from the Honor Committee or UJC that requires a minimum number of student votes, since most Law Students will not log onto the UBE system to vote. The new Constitution allows the Election Rules Committee to create a proposed slate of rules for the upcoming election, including various rules, remedies, and requirements to get elected. This proposed slate of rules will be presented to the full SBA for an approval vote. These approved rules will be enforced by the newly created Election Committee, which will run the election itself and handle any issues that the candidates run into. The Constitution specifies that the Election Committee shall be comprised of three members, none of whom are allowed to run for an elected position to prevent any conflicts of interest. There shall be one 2L member and two 3L members. To strike the right balance between having an elected official on the Committee and having members who are properly insulated from SBA influence, at least two of the three members must not be current SBA members. The members shall be appointed by the SBA President and confirmed by the SBA. Upon passage of the new amendments to the Constitution, SBA President A.J. Collins presented his slate of appointments to this year’s Election Committee: Shannon Rice, Alex Haden, and Jennifer Lee. The SBA approved these selections, and now, the Election Rules Committee will have to finish its rules for the elections coming up in February. --editor@lawweekly.org

Volume 69, Number 13

around north grounds Thumbs down to 2016. It started with a gorilla and ended with a guerilla. Who would have thought that we would miss 2015? Thumbs up to the Gilmore Girls revival. If you spoil anything, ANG will hunt you down and perform an action that does not constitute a threat beause ANG’s lawyers have advised ANG not to make threats anymore. Thumbs down to delays at Dulles Airport. If ANG wanted it to take thirtysix hours to get home, ANG would have channeled Wild and just walked the Appalachian Trail back to Charlottesville. Thumbs up to the California State Bar for declining to ban attorney-client sex. If ANG were on a state bar association, ANG would ban boring attorney-client sex. Imagine the discipline hearings. Thumbs down to the 1L who reported Career Services to Above the Law. ANG recommends wine-ing over whining. Also, LOL to 1Ls thinking they know what long emails are. Talk to ANG next year. Thumbs up to Black Friday and Cyber Monday for merging and creating one big shopping extravaganza. ANG has now spent three years of anticipated firm bonuses on discounted clothing and electronics. Thumbs sideways to football. Some teams won, some teams lost, life goes on. ANG’s team also won the Youth Football League’s game over the weekend, but no one is talking about that. Mostly because ANG was cut from the team several months ago for “polite disagreements” with the team’s steroid and alcohol ban. Thumbs up to Thanksgiving break, but thumbs down to December. How dare you.


2

Colophon

VIRGINIA LAW WEEKLY

Wednesday, 30 November 2016

LAW WEEKLY FEATURE: Court of Petty Appeals

The Court of Petty Appeals is the highest appellate jurisdiction court at UVa Law. The Court has the power to review any and all decisions, conflicts, and disputes that arise involving, either directly, indirectly, or tangentially, the Law School or its students. The Court is comprised of four associate justices and one Chief Justice. Opinions shall be released periodically and only in the official court reporter: the Virginia Law Weekly. Please email a brief summary of any and all conflicts to ach7pa@virginia.edu. PILA Auction Committee v. PILA Auction Attendees 470 U.Va 724 (2016) GOLDMAN, J., This case came before us in an unusual manner; we normally hear cases in our chambers (SL 279; briefs can be nailed to the corkboard outside or sent via email at editor@lawweekly.org), but instead we heard this on location on the dancefloor of the Omni Hotel. Since all justices were in attendance at PILA, and Petty Rule of Civil Procedure 37 states that, “The Chief Justice may call the Court into session in any location she or he sees fit,” Chief Justice Haden used the baseball bat signed by Dean Goluboff to call the Court into session. The impromptu plaintiffs, the PILA Auction Committee, initiated this action charging the defendants, various Law Students in attendance of the PILA Auction, with disorderly conduct. As specific examples, the oral complaint notes various acts of mania: stolen balloons, charging the stage, and eating wayyyy too much of that pizza. The PILA Auction is a widely respected event whose stated purpose is raise money to provide summer job funding for 1L and 2L students to work in nonprofit and government over the summer. The Plaintiffs assert that the taking of balloons, the charging of the stage, and the crude use of the balloon letter “D” meet the elements for disorderly conduct not becoming of UVa Law Students. The facts are not at issue: After Professors Mitchell and Bowers concluded with the live auction portion of the evening, students rushed the stage to take balloon letters that formerly spelled out “HOLLYWOOD” allegedly (or apparently) in reference to the theme of the event. Students then began to dance (badly) on the stage to Justin Beiber’s esteemed classic “Sorry” and the widely regarded best song of all time “Dancing On My Own,” which, in hindsight, could have been fraught with tort claims. Regarding the taking of balloons, the 1L defendants asserted that they did not know the difference between stolen and aban-

doned property. The 2L and 3L defendants say they believed the stage and all fixtures were abandoned since the live auction was over; and thus the abandoned property was ripe for taking. We remind 1L defendants that ignorance of the law is not a defense in this Court or any other (see Brady v. Free Food Table in WB 361 U. Va 276 (2016), “I put my lunch down for one second and next thing I knew I was being trampled by 3Ls and a very hungry Professor White.”). The 2L and 3L’s arguments are more compelling, but the PILA auction does not officially end until midnight, the end of the silent auction, or when the DJ stopped playing music, whichever is latest. At the time of the takings the music was still playing and the silent auction was still open, but the time was not noted, therefore we rely on the first two conditions. Further, the PILA Auction committee worked very hard on the decorations, and a PILA ticket does not give you a vested interest in being an asshole. To the plaintiffs’ main complaint, “disorderly conduct not becoming of UVa Law Students” is not a crime in this jurisdiction. Though the reasoning as to why SBA has not written this into the Model Petty Penal Code seems obvious, there are several events and situations that may be in jeopardy if such a crime did exist (see generally Foxfield, Barrister’s Ball, and the day after the class lottery runs within the confines of Dean Dugas’ office). In response to Chief Justice Haden’s concurrence noting that the opinion is mixing civil and criminal worlds, the majority would like to direct the Chief Justice to Petty Rule 1, “We do what we want.” The PILA auction committee did admit in oral arguments that since all the balloons were taken the clean-up process was expedited, but they did not appreciate the undermining of the integrity and purpose of the event. It is common knowledge that the PILA Auction is an opportunity to drink too much and donate an obscene amount of money to play Pokémon GO with Professors Kendrick and Schwartzman.

Significant and comprehensive studies1 have shown that the purpose of PILA is furthered when the crowd is more drunk and debaucherous at the auction. It was not nice of attendees to take over the stage like it was a high school prom, because attendees purport to be adults; similarly it was inconsiderate to destroy the decorations that the auction committee worked so hard to assemble. Being a Petty Court, we never issue formal apologies, and we almost never require anyone else to apologize either.2 Ultimately, however, the drunk and disorderly behavior worked to further the stated purpose of the event. We do not require the defendant to apologize, but we do require them, through the Student Bar Association, to replicate the “HOLLYWOOD” balloon sign and deliver it to Student Affairs, where Plaintiffs can enjoy the balloons every time they stop in for candy and gluten free pretzels. It is so ordered. HADEN, C.J., concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment. I join the majority’s opinion relating to our jurisdiction and our ability to hear cases in an impromptu manner. As Petty Rules of Evidence 1 and 37 make clear, we are able to do essentially whatever we want in terms of court procedure, and this case does not run afoul of any Petty Due Process concerns. However, the Court notes that all five Justices were present at the impromptu trial, which is true, but is not a necessary requirement for a judgment 1 Jennifer Lee, Drunk and Disorderly: A Study on PILA Auction Revenue and Belligerence, 83 Nature 228, 254-342 (2016) (“There is a direct, positive correlation between the amount of money raised and amount of alcohol consumed. For example: one year a voucher for one month’s Ivy rent was purchased by an Ivy resident for more than the cost of the normal month’s rent.”). 2 Third Restatement of Petty Actions takes generously from Beyonce’s latest album, Lemonade, see “Sorry” (“Sorry, I ain’t sorry… stop interrupting my grinding”).

COLOPHON

Ashley Angelotti ‘17 Managing Editor

Caroline Catchpole ‘17 Columns Editor & Pizza Whisperer Carly Coleman ‘17 Cartoonist-in-Chief

Lia-Michelle Keane ‘18 Features Editor

Greg Ranzini ‘18 News Editor

Ryan Caira ‘17 European Correspondent

David Markoff ‘17 Technology Editor

Published weekly on Wednesday except during holiday and examination periods and serving the Law School community at the University of Virginia, the Virginia Law Weekly (ISSN 0042-661X) is not an official publication of the University and does not necessarily express the views of the University. Any article appearing herein may be reproduced provided that credit is given to both the Virginia Law Weekly and the author of the article. Advanced written permission of the Virginia Law Weekly is also required for reproduction of any cartoon or illustration. Virginia Law Weekly 580 Massie Road University of Virginia School of Law Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-1789

3 See Justice Pickus’ research regarding North Dakota’s lax arson laws.

Phone: 443.812.3229 editor@lawweekly.org www.lawweekly.org

EDITORIAL POLICY: The Virginia Law Weekly publishes letters and columns of interest to the Law School and the legal community at large. Views expressed in such submissions are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Law Weekly or the Editorial Board. Letters from organizations must bear the name, signature, and title of the person authorizing the submission. All letters and columns must either be submitted in hardcopy bearing a handwritten signature along with an electronic version, or be mailed from the author’s e-mail account. Submissions must be received by 12 p.m. Sunday before publication and must be in accordance with the submission guidelines. Letters and/or columns over 1200 words may not be accepted. The Editorial Board reserves the right to edit all submissions for length, grammar, and clarity. Although every effort is made to publish all materials meeting our guidelines, we regret that not all submissions received can be published.

problems in future litigation. In my opinion, the conduct complained of absolutely constitutes disorderly conduct. The stealing of property, the storming of the stage, and the general debauchery are textbook characteristics of disorderly conduct. However, I note two things that allow me to join in the majority’s conclusion, or, at least, to join in the ultimate disposition of the case. First, there seems to me to be a cognizable defense of assumption of the risk. I read Justice Goldman’s opinion to hint at this argument tangentially, when she notes that PILA should have expected this level of debacuhery. In the alternative, if I were to award judgment to the plaintiff, I would be hard-pressed to find damages to award them. I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the only cognizable loss was the loss of the balloons; in almost every other way, however, PILA undoubtedly benefited from the attendees overall. ANGELOTTI, J., concurring specially. I found out that Professor Ferzan only reads my opinions because they are so short, so I am taking this opportunity to ask if you can send me those worksheets from 1L Crim for me to use when I study for the bar? PICKUS, J., dissenting. The Court of Petty Appeals has no jurisdiction to decide this case. PILA is an anarchic wasteland with neither law nor order. We have no more jurisdiction over PILA than we do the ninth circle of Hell or the DC Metro system. There are no laws. Abandon all hope.

faculty quotes J. Johnston: I sat by a guy in shop class in high school who had really long hair. He would take a piece of his hair and make a lasso and catch a fly with it and hold it so that the fly would fly around him in class. G. White: One thing one ought to do when giving hypotheticals is to make them realistic. Would wolves chase a sleigh? No. Would they want to eat people? No. That’s all I have.

Virginia Law Weekly Alex Haden ‘17 Editor-in-Chief Jenna Goldman ‘18 Executive Editor Eric Hall ‘18 Production Editor

from this Court. For example, if two Justices on this Court were to recuse themselves, certainly the remaining three could decide the merits of a case, so long as a majority of the remaining three came to a conclusion. I read the above sentence in the Court’s opinion to be merely dictum and does not suggest that the presence of all five justices is required. As for the rest of the opinion, I find the legal reasoning to be a little unclear. The plaintiff has made a claim of disorderly conduct against the defendants. The majority, however, references the fact that disorderly conduct is not a crime in this jurisdiction. This blending of the criminal and civil worlds is problematic for our jurisprudence. We have never required that there be an underlying crime that would support a recovery in a civil action. Indeed, should our Petty Legislature decide to decriminalize arson3, that would certainly not bar an action for trespass to chattels or conversion. The majority also notes that such a crime would be problematic given the events that the Law School has during the year. I am not so sure that this reasoning is sound; rejecting a law simply because it would catch a lot of people does not seem to strike a proper balance. Were this question squarely before the Court, I would assume that some sort of balancing test would be required. I find myself unable to join that part of the majority’s opinion. However, since this question is not before the Court, and since the majority’s paragraph discussing it is not central to the holding, I assume it is dicta and therefore will not cause

J. Dienelt: As you know, this place could have been called the University of Virginia School of Law and Free Food. K. Ferzan: Days of Our Lives? Does no one watch soap operas? That’s all I did in law school! M. Collins: Even if you’re the Supreme Court, you don’t tug on Superman’s cape. You don’t overturn Judge Learned Hand.


Wednesday, 30 November 2016 In the barrage of post-election commentary, I was unsurprised to see that some students objectTex Pasley ’17 Guest Columnist ed to (or mocked) the law school’s provision of “safe spaces” in light of the election results. While I grasp the spirit of these responses, the underlying reasoning belies a misunderstanding both of what safe spaces are for, and the very damaging hyper-political effects Trump’s campaign and election on has had on our society in general, and students at this Law School in particular. This column makes three claims. First, we need an appropriate definition of what a “safe space” is, and the function it serves. Second, with this understanding, I think we can see that the Law School already provides “safe spaces” for all students. Finally, by recognizing that Donald Trump’s election already stands as an historical event that transcends politics, I think we will find that the administration’s response was entirely appropriate, and will probably not produce thin-skinned lawyers in the process. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. —George Orwell, Politics and the English Language  This to-and-fro over “safe spaces” has become tiresome. The

HOT BENCH

Campbell Sode 1. Have you ever had a nickname? What? I have never been fortunate enough to be blessed with a nickname but Joe Nardella, my college lacrosse position partner and I were collectively known as the Smokes Squad (long story), so I’ll just go ahead and lay claim to that moniker. J 2. How old are you in dog years? Three years old, and my fellow PA’s can certainly attest to this as I’m definitely the metaphorical baby sibling of our group. However, my section thinks I’m a middle child type so s/o to them for overlooking my irresponsible shenanigans this semester. 3. Where did you grow up? I grew up in Dallas, Texas and now call the tropical environs of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida home (when I’m not buried in legalese or interning in D.C.). 4. What’s the best meal you’ve ever had? On a high school lacrosse road trip to Louisiana, the team bus stopped at a roadside joint spe-

Hot Bench

VIRGINIA LAW WEEKLY

In Defense of Safe Spaces

debate really calcified around this very time last year when students at Yale and the University of Missouri successfully forced the resignation of campus officials for different incidents that a large population of students found offensive. From that point, we’ve retreated into two camps, working from two different lexicons. Terms like “trigger warning,” “micro-aggression,” “free speech,” and “safe space” have lost whatever original meaning they had, and are merely verbal grenades, lobbed into the opposing trench with the remote promise of scoring a direct hit. My hope is that, if nowhere else, we can halt this trend here at UVa Law. So to begin, we need to understand that the term “safe space” is not unique to our political moment; it arose in the gay, lesbian, and feminist movements of the 1960’s and 70’s. As Moira Kenney writes in her book Mapping Gay L.A., safe spaces provided an important stepping stone for gays and lesbians seeking wider social acceptance: Gays and lesbians live in cities they have mapped for their own purposes: neighborhoods discreetly appropriated in forgotten zones, street corners where kisses can be exchanged proudly, and community centers to provide safe space for coming-out or mobilizing activists. And then there are the places where none of these things can happen, where gay bashing and subtler forms of heterosexism are expected and feared. The experience of being part of, and subject to, the life of the city, combined with the search for specific spaces that permit and affirm one’s own way of be-

ing, are the key elements in such maps. To be sure, the use of explicitly defined safe spaces is controversial within activist movements. Those critiques are not the point of this piece. But we need to recognize, as a matter of first principle, we all make use of safe spaces. In the quote above, Kenney juxtaposes the “discreetly appropriated” neighborhoods against the city atlarge. As humans, we fundamentally require “specific spaces that permit and affirm one’s own way of being,” and we use them all the time. Many of us went home or visited family for Thanksgiving, and I suspect most of us like to unwind from a long week by going to a bar or a friend’s house for drinks. While we don’t call our parents’ house or the local watering hole a “discreetly appropriated safe space,” we should recognize that what we are, in fact, deliberately entering a safe space. Beneath all of this is the simple recognition that, as human beings, we cannot fully participate in public life all the time. Accepting this understanding, we should further recognize that Donald Trump’s election was not the Law School’s first attempt to create a safe space. Directly, the Office of Student Affairs and Student Bar Association have sponsored events covering issues such as mental health and privilege. One purpose of these events—I suspect—was to offer a safe space where students could communicate with each other in a permissive and affirmative manner on subjects they feel uncomfortable discussing with the wider student body. The upshot is that,

cializing in Cajun fare in rural Louisiana just outside of Shreveport. I was introduced to the fried catfish po’boy and okra combo there and I will never forget the semi-religious experience that ensued when I tucked into that meal.

10. Are you a good dancer? I range from decent to very good, but my dancing ability directly correlates with how many trips I’ve taken to the bar that night so you never really know what you’re going to get.

5. If you could meet one celebrity, who would it be? Cristiano Ronaldo, my sporting hero and quite possibly the best footballer ever to grace the planet (I watched him score a goal for Portugal against Latvia as I was typing!), but I would settle for coffee and crumpets with Jose Mourinho if I had to.

11. What did you have for breakfast this morning? An egg and sausage on an onion bagel from Bodo’s.

6. What’s your favorite book? Crime and Punishment. For some reason, something about Raskolnikov’s character really captivated me, and I haven’t been quite as enthralled by the other books I’ve read thus far. 7. Cats or Dogs? Dogs! My Facebook friends are all well aware of my corgi obsession; pictures of cute, fluffy corgis probably outnumber pictures of me on my timeline at this point. 8. Backstreet Boys or *NSYNC? Aaron Carter FTW! 9. If you could know one thing about your future, what would it be? I’ve always wanted to climb Mount Kilimanjaro, the highest mountain in Africa, and I’d like to know if I’ll be able to check that off my bucket list in the future. 10. If you were a superhero what would your superpower be? Super speed, you can’t beat what you can’t catch!!

12. What’s your most interesting two-truths-and-a-lie? (And what’s the lie?) I once spent a week above the tree line in the Rockies during a 2-week hike. I was recruited to play two different sports at the NCAA level (I had offers to run cross country and play lacrosse and I opted to play lacrosse at Rutgers). I have never ever eaten at Taco Bell. Although this may shock everyone at the law school, I have never stepped foot in a Taco Bell, much less eaten anything from there. 13. What’s the best gift you’ve ever received? I have to be honest, my friends, as a collective, are the best gift that I have ever received. I don’t have any siblings so I lean on y’all more than you might realize! 14. If you could live anywhere, where would it be? Definitely the Algarve in Portugal, I can’t say no to whitewashed abodes, azure water, and great weather year-round. 15. Do you sing in the shower? Not really, I prefer to just let the hot water wash over me and relax like I’m in a Turkish bath or sauna. grew up. It really expands your horizons and changes your perspective on the world.

afterward, students (myself included) feel more comfortable engaging with their peers. Such a state of affairs should lead to a more dynamic, welcoming, and “collegial” student body. Indirectly, of course, the Law School Foundation bankrolls student organizations that provide comfortable spaces for all sorts of affinity groups, including but not limited to Democrats, Republicans, women, feminists, and Jewish, Christian, Catholic, and Mormon students (and many others). Universities, and law schools in particular, are designed to be places where ideas are exchanged freely and openly. The inevitable consequence is that everyone, at one point or another in the course of her education, struggles to reconcile her personal convictions with what she learns in class. We should recognize that whenever a student organization hosts a potluck, faculty dinner, or similar outing, it’s providing a safe space to its members. By providing this affirmative space, students can return to class more energized, refreshed, and willing to engage with the wider student body. Once we attach the “safe space” label to these activities, an unfortunate and inevitable knee-jerk reaction occurs—we are now “coddling” its students. As Betsey Hedges puts it, “the Law School administration is not assisting us in developing the resilience we will need in the legal profession.” I am not yet part of the legal profession, so I cannot speak to what sort of resilience is required. Yet Ms. Hedges fears that when the school provides us with safe spaces, it treats us like “juve-

3

niles”, which will in turn make us ineffectual, namby-pamby lawyers (or something). I find this response particularly troubling in this for two reasons. For one, while we can all look forward to careers working long hours as we perform intellectually rigorous and morally demanding tasks, I would also expect our administration to recognize that lawyers are abnormally susceptible to depression, substance abuse, and divorce. Not unrelatedly, it is also a profession where people from disadvantaged or historically oppressed backgrounds feel unwelcome. I hope that—as a future training ground for lawyers—our Law School administration is attentive and responsive to these concerns. By unilaterally concluding that a safe space “defrocks us of our sense of responsibility,” all we do is retrench the very real and negative personal consequences we face for choosing this line of work without really giving any of us guidance in how to become (truly) socially responsible and resilient attorneys. And second, in the context of the most recent election, this response displays a blissful unawareness of our political reality. The most recent Law Weekly contained plenty of able commentary on this point, and I’m not going to rehash it here; the world certainly does not need another Donald Trump think-piece. But we must acknowledge that Donald Trump is a disturbing president-elect. No major party presidential candidate in my lifetime, and probably no candidate since Richard Nixon or Barry Goldwa►IN DEFENSE page 6

Get into the Holiday Spirit It is finally Christmastime! (Like officially; not that day-after-Halloween crap that had Elf Jaqueline Malzone ’19 Guest Columnist memes plastering my Facebook newsfeed.) It is undoubtedly the best time of the year– everything is lit up beautifully, the crisp air brings the scent of snow, the best cookies are made, the jolliest songs are played, Starbucks cups are red, and of course we cannot forget about the endless Secret Santa exchanges! I don’t know how more people are not already getting into the spirit. I walked into my apartment after coming back from Thanksgiving in New Jersey, and my roommate says to me, “Aren’t you a strange little Jewish girl with your box of Christmas decorations!” My only response was that I was shocked that she did not have her own box of holiday décor! Yes, I am proudly Jewish, but the evergreen back at home is not a Channukah bush, it is a Christmas tree. The fireplace is lined with stockings, Santas and reindeer are scattered throughout the house, and a wreath hangs outside our front door. Christmas has never been about Jesus for me. Christmas is a time to be with family. It is one of the rare times that my siblings and I bond when we trim the tree and decorate the house, reminiscing over old Christmases and stories of past snow days. My Catholic grandma comes home from church to teach me all her special holiday recipes. I get the chance to prove how well I really know my family

and friends when I find them the perfect gift and get to see the look of pure joy when they open them. I’m not the only Jew who loves Christmastime. I will never forget the time I bonded with my very Jewish grandfather over the holiday. We picked him up for lunch one day, and my dad went to turn off the Christmas music in the car, so as not to offend him. To our surprise, though, he scolded my father and made him put the music back on! His reason for loving the music? “Jews wrote those songs,” he said, so nonchalantly, as he went on to hum along with the tunes. Christmas is a time for spreading joy to everyone, regardless of religious background or upbringing. Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, and agnostics alike – we can all benefit from spreading a little Christmas cheer. When you walk into my apartment, you are all but assaulted by the holiday explosion; but it feels like a hug when you sit on the couch, all the lights glowing and the smell of our seasonal candles wafting in the air. We go to law school, and as much as we all want to be here because we want to be lawyers, we have to admit (especially the 1Ls) that this time of year sucks for us. We spend as much time as possible in the library, meticulously editing outlines, stumbling through practice problems, and wondering what the future will hold for us. And let’s not even delve into the mess of anxiety people are feeling after the elections year. With all this stress just piling on, we need a source of comfort! You might be wondering what makes me so sure that Christmas is the kind of comfort we require. ► HOLIDAY page 6


4 Professor Lunch For those of you who aren’t 3Ls or super gunnery 2Ls, a few weeks ago was 2016’s final iteration of Alex Haden ‘17 Editor-in-Chief the much-beloved legal ethics test, the MPRE. The MPRE stands for Making People Really Ethical, which is ironic, because no one really prepares for this test for more than a day or two. For that one uncle in your family who always makes “crooked lawyer” jokes at Thanksgiving, you can show him this article to detail the excruciating and needless pain that the MPRE forces law school students to endure.1 The first ridiculous thing about the MPRE is that it’s one of those multiple choice tests where you have to select the BEST answer. Not the correct answer. The best answer. Anyone who suffered through these miserable kinds of tests as a kid knows the absolute absurdity of these kinds of questions. For example: “Which of the following is a type of weather? A. games B. pain C. lead pencils D. chair.” The correct answer is B, pain, because it rhymes with “rain.” BEST ANSWER. Get out of here. The MPRE is supposed to test us on our ability to be ethical lawyers by posing various hypotheticals to us. The laughable part of these hypotheticals is that somehow we, as junior or less-than-junior attorneys, could ever be in such posi1 Or you can just have some more Thanksgiving cheer, a.k.a. vodka and cranberry sauce.

The Law Weekly staff took Professor Michael Gilbert to lunch a few weeks ago to learn a little bit Ashley Angelotti ’17 Managing Editor

more about one of UVa’s Law and Economics experts. In addition to his background in economics, he also is considered an expert in issues related to legislation, election law, judicial decision-making, and direct democracy. After graduating from Tulane University, Gilbert spent three years working as a research assistant for the Federal Reserve Board in DC. During his time in DC, he met many of the Federal Reserve Board governors, including Ben Bernanke.1 His time at the Fed made Gilbert realize that, in addition to his love of economics, he also loved the law. With that knowledge, he decided to apply to JD/Ph.D. programs across the country, and finally decided on Berkeley Law.2 Before starting school, he backpacked in South America for over two months, finally using the Spanish that he studied while at Tulane. During his 1L summer, despite 1 At this time, Alan Greenspan was still in charge of the Fed. I “geeked out” a bit at lunch when Professor Gilbert confirmed that he did meet Bernanke at one point, although he insists that Bernanke would not remember it. Bernanke is one of my personal heroes. 2 His Ph.D. is in Jurisprudence and Social Policy. He agrees that’s a lame name for a degree.

VIRGINIA LAW WEEKLY

MPR-Weee! tions of power where we could be unethical. The only applicable question is the one where your supervising attorney tells you to do Action X, even though you think Action X violates the Rules of Professional Responsibility. The laughably “correct” answer is that you shouldn’t do Action X and tell your boss exactly why. I’d like to meet the first-year associate who informs the partner, “Your conduct might be running afoul of one of the Model Rules and I’d like you to reconsider your action.” The MPRE is also somewhat useless because we are being tested on the Model Rules, which very few, if any, states actually have adopted in their entirety. It seems silly to learn about rules that may not actually be applicable for our jurisdiction, especially if the real rules are actually the opposite of the Model Rules. If only there were a test designed specifically for our jurisdiction that was designed to make sure we were competent for that specific jurisdiction. But since there isn’t any such test that we will have to take after law school, we are forced to take the MPRE to become ethical. The other substantive annoying aspect of the MPRE is that we have to learn about the judicial code of ethics. As in, the code of ethics for JUDGES. Why on earth would that be necessary for us to be proper lawyers? Most of us will never become judges, and for the few of us who will become judges, that career move won’t happen for at least three decades. We’ll be lucky enough if we remember torts when we’re that age, let alone remembering what campaign contributions are acceptable for us to

receive from family members and political parties. Then there are the 500 crazy procedural hoops that you have to jump through just to get to test day. First, you have to pay a ridiculous sum of money – ninety-five dollars – just to be able to sit for the test. Heaven forbid that you miss the early registration deadline, or else you are subjected to the late registration fee: $190. Do you know how many drinks at the Bilt that is? Enough to make you more ethical than the MPRE will help you to be. Also, the test is only offered three times a year, at extremely inconvenient times: (1) right around spring break; (2) in August, during vacation time after working for the summer; and (3) in November. Usually we’re busy working on our no-shave November beards right now. So these times aren’t really great for our schedule. Then, you have to carefully print out your exam ticket (don’t be fooled, it’s not a fun kind of ticket). You then have to secure a passport photo that you can attach to the ticket. You might be confused by this requirement. Wouldn’t a government-issued ID be much more simple to prove your identity? You’re right, but a governmentissued ID is ALSO required to take the test. The passport photo is just gravy on top of your passport or driver’s license, which apparently isn’t all that official or valid for the MPRE administration. So you’ve gotta march down to CVS and get your passport photo taken, which costs a whopping $13. CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS MADNESS? IT’S LIKE CVS AND THE MPRE ARE IN CAHOOTS! FOLLOW THE MONEY. Plus, that guy at CVS

Wednesday, 30 November 2016

►IMPERMANENCE

who takes the photos is very chatty and asks a lot about your day and law school, and I’m really just trying to get home and talk to no one. Then, once you’ve secured said passport photo, you have to tape – NOT STAPLE – the photo to your admission ticket. However, the photo has to fit inside of the specified box, and the box is too small to fit a standard passport photo. So you have to cut your photo down to an acceptably small but not too small size, just to appease the MPRE Gods who will rip up your ticket and your future if you fail to follow their exact instructions. You are also forbidden from bringing a cellphone, which makes some amount of sense; however, the testers will suggest that those who accidentally brought a phone should hide it in the bushes outside for “safekeeping.” The rest of the requirements are also strict and draconian. The MPRE subscribes to the ridiculous requirement that we use number two lead. I don’t even know what that means. It has something to do with how soft the lead is, but what does that mean? Don’t answer questions with questions please. Also, it’s 2016. It’s time that we make a machine that can read pen like a freaking adult. You also aren’t allowed to bring a watch in, because knowing the time is unethical. Unless you’re billing for it. But you can’t bill for the MPRE. Or for being ethical. And apparently, at UVa, you’ll have to contend with screaming sorority girls outside of your testing room for half an hour. All in all, the MPRE is a series ►MPRE page 6

continued from page 1

and Appalachia are shedding jobs in the thousands while a drug epidemic sweeps in to fill the void left by a lack of opportunity, a future, and a voice for change. Here’s an oft-forgotten fact: it was not until 1856 that all white men could vote. Before this, many states required property ownership before you could cast a ballot. Rich white people have never been oppressed in the United States, but poor white people have. It was just a lot longer ago than we tend to remember. In this election, we operated under the assumption that the fullness of liberty and opportunity had already been extended to all white people, conclusively and permanently. But as it turns out, many of them felt the promise of America slipping away. In advocating our vision for the future, we can never take for granted the progress achieved long ago. Now, in the shambles of our defeat, we need to reach out beyond our liberal bastions, where the victory already seemed won, to the Americans who were rolling their eyes at our own smug blindness. Because in their towns, our victorious mindset seemed hopelessly out of touch. --hah8ew@virginia.edu

Getting Grub with Gilbert having never worked at a law firm, Professor Gilbert decided to join Clifford Chance’s litigation group. The next summer, he worked at Skadden’s London office to learn more about transactional law.3 During his time at Berkeley, he also served as the

Articles Editor of the California Law Review. He was also an Olin Fellow in Law and Economics and received a grant from the National Science Foundation for his dissertation research. After graduating, Gilbert clerked for a year at the 9th Circuit for Judge William “Willy” Fletcher, who was also his Federal Courts professor at Berkeley. While he states that he does not “obsess” over the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), he admits that his favorite Justice would be Sca3 If you can’t tell from the subjects that he teaches, this experiment with transactional law was not his favorite.

lia because of his legal mind. He also likes Justice Kagan. Gilbert is one of many who believe we should appoint SCOTUS justices for eighteen-year terms rather than lifelong terms. He said that, right now, a “SCOTUS appointment is an appointment for life,

“Why UVa?” Gilbert replied that the Law School was a “natural fit” for him and his family. He wanted to become an academic because he loves teaching, meeting interesting people, traveling to interesting places to teach or lecture, and writing papers. When writ-

Professor Michael Gilbert. Photo Courtesy of University of Virginia.

at a minimum.”4 Gilbert rationalizes this idea by recognizing that the more that justices are empowered, the more they feel free to make whichever policy decisions they want, no matter how far to the left or right they may be.5 In 2009, Professor Gilbert finished his clerkship and joined the UVA Law faculty. When asked,

4 He admits that he is not the first to say this, but he could not remember its source. 5 To quote Professor Gilbert: “Do you want Justice Thomas to be making policy decisions for you? If you’re on the right, do you want Justice Ginsburg doing it?”

ing academic papers, Professor Gilbert explained that he feels like Indiana Jones because he gets to explore a new area of the law or a unique way of looking at problems.6 He is currently teaching only two classes this year because he is in the middle of writing a casebook on law and economics with a professor from Berkeley. While there are casebooks on topics covered in Law and Economics I, there is none on the topics in his Law and Economics II class, 6 Professor Gilbert admitted that he is a huge nerd about writing papers.

which looks at public law from an economic perspective. Despite teaching at UVA since 2009, Professor Gilbert has never taught a 1L class. Outside of work, Professor Gilbert is married with two young kids. He can typically be found spending time with his family, traveling, or exercising. If he can ever find the time, he would love to learn about photography. He also loves eating at restaurants around Charlottesville. If someone else is paying, he loves to go to Fleurie, a French restaurant on the Downtown Mall. Otherwise, his favorite place is Al Carbon. Right now, he is reading Harry Potter and Timmy Failure with his kids. His favorite books include Siddhartha, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, and All Quiet on the Western Front. His favorite movies include V for Vendetta, Mosquito Coast, and Y Tu Mama Tambien.7 While Professor Gilbert’s wife is convinced that his movie choices show that he is a “libertarian survivalist” at heart. He disagrees. At the end of our lunch, we asked him about his best “unpopular opinion,” or a belief that he holds that would not be well received by others. He responded by stating that while he has enormous admiration for President Obama, he believes that the United States may have benefitted if it had elected Mitt Romney in 2012. Professor Gilbert rationalizes this view by saying that, had Romney been elected, the Republican Party may not be so divided, and we may have been saved from 7 Two of these aren’t very good, and Professor Gilbert admits as much. He has lowbrow tastes.


Wednesday, 30 November 2016

VIRGINIA LAW WEEKLY

K-Cup Rankings

K-Cup Compendium: The Definitive K-Cup Rankings PILA is over and exam season will soon be upon us. This next month will leave the best Nick Rutigliano ’18 Guest Columnist of us weary and exhausted. For those of us that will be spending a significant portion of our waking hours in the library, the Keurig machines in MyLab offer sweet, sweet temporary reprieve. Free coffee in the library is one of the most appreciated perks of being a student here, and we have access to a nice variety of coffee at the press of a button. As part of this investigative piece, I took the time to sample them all and offer my thoughts on each blend. Disclaimer – any negative opinions expressed are purely out of jest. This author appreciates all of the fine coffees available to us here and would never mean to genuinely disparage them. Please don’t ever take the coffee away. Columbian Fair Trade Select Described as “classically balanced with a ripe fruit finish,” this is actually a pretty good cup of coffee. It’s a nice medium roast, and true to its description, very balanced and smooth with a pleasant after taste. I’m really not sure what this “ripe fruit” is all about, but this cup finishes with a nice acidity that plays off the caramel notes up front. Dark Magic As far as K-Cups go, this blend will actually deliver a somewhat complex flavor pro-

file. Rich aromas of a heavy dark roast linger after the initial dark, cocoa flavors develop. Minimal acidity with some pleasing bitterness as the coffee finished. Newman’s Special Blend This is good, it’s just not much to write home about. Or in this case, write in the Law Weekly

review for what the actual coffee tasted like because I forgot. It just tasted like coffee. I think. I don’t know. It wasn’t nearly as memorable as it smelled. I’m sure it was just fine. Breakfast Blend The description on the box for this coffee is apt (“light roast”).

about. If someone just wanted “a cup of coffee,” this is probably their best bet. The initial flavor is subtle and balanced and will not linger long on the palate. In my opinion, this K-Cup also probably has the highest quality grind and coffee beans, but I’m basing that on nothing but haphazard sampling and speculation. Sumatran Reserve Magic Most pleasant and intriguing aroma, but somewhat disappointing flavor profile. As the coffee brews, sweet caramel and butterscotch notes emanate from the Keurig. Your mind starts to wander and your anticipation grows. I honestly can’t write a

Keurigs have a tendency to brew coffee lightly as is, and this roast is very light. Unfortunately, not “light” in the “bright and cheery start to your day!” kind of light–more like, “this kind of tastes like flavored water” light. Which is okay! Some people prefer that, I guess. It doesn’t taste bad by any stretch–it just doesn’t taste like much at all. But it still has caffeine so that is a good thing. Italian Roast Another apt description (“dark roast”) and the polar opposite of the Breakfast Blend. I’m a believer in dark roasts, but this is just a tad much. The flavor is very deep with a heavy

roast that borders on being too harsh. The coffee finishes somewhat unpleasantly with a burnt taste. I’m also sure this isn’t a technically term (nor if it makes sense), but this coffee tastes gritty. Every sip is like the last sip of a French pressed coffee when you accidentally drink a

This is what a K-Cup looks like. Photo courtesy www.walmart.com

bit of that sediment that sunk to the bottom. I felt like I needed to check my teeth after drinking. French Vanilla Look, take my opinions on flavored coffees with a grain of salt because I’ve come across very few flavored coffees in my life that I’ve actually enjoyed. Most of them – like this particular flavor – simply overpower the coffee flavor. I take my coffee black for a reason – I want the coffee flavor to come through.1 The box’s reminder that this coffee is “artificially flavored” is unnecessary because you’ll

1 I know I sound like a coffee snob. I tried my best to avoid doing so. It couldn’t be done.

5

know as soon as you take a sip. I wouldn’t drink this again because I really disliked the aftertaste. The coffee actually had a kind of nice, interesting taste at first – very sweet with some hints of vanilla. But, the “artificial-ness” asserts itself at the end and, literally, leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Pike Place This coffee kind of smelled like something burning in the oven as it brewed. Maybe a burnt ham? Regardless, not the type of scent you want to prime your taste buds for a cup of coffee. With admittedly low expectations going in to the tasting, I was not pleasantly surprised by the flavor. The flavor was very assertive with an initial heavy, charred flavor that finished bitterly. Hazelnut I’ve never tasted a real hazelnut before, and I don’t really want to after drinking this coffee. I don’t understand why nutflavored coffee is a thing. In my opinion, it is a very bad thing. Dishonorable mentions: French Roast Decaf and Newman’s Special Decaf …decaf?! Best of luck on exams everyone. May you stay alert, refreshed, and well-caffeinated. Stay tuned for K-Cups Ranking Part Deux, The Tea Edition, in 2017.2 --mnr3a@virgina.edu

2 Maybe. I’m much more of a coffee person.

Breaking Bread with Bamzai When the Law School released a press statement over the summer to announce that Lia Keane ’18 Features Editor Professor Aditya Bamzai would join our faculty this semester, I remember thinking to myself, “What a cool career.” An alumnus of Yale University, Bamzai graduated from the University of Chicago Law School in 2004, where he was the editor-in-chief of the Law Review, before clerking for Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton of the Sixth Circuit. Following his clerkship, Bamzai spent two years working for the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Justice Department and then clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia during the 2007–08 term. Bamzai characterized both of his clerkships as having been positive experiences thanks to the mentorship he received and the unique learning opportunities that clerking provided. Bamzai even went so far as to describe his fellow Supreme Court clerks and the other people he worked alongside during that year as “[being] like family.” In response to a question about what it was like to clerk for such a prolific justice, Bamzai recounted that he would often spend hours arguing issues with Scalia and his co-clerks after a case’s oral arguments came to a close. Bamzai said that he encourages students with an interest in working for a judge to

pursue a clerkship, though he noted that it is always a good idea for such individuals to consider their career goals and evaluate the level of benefit that a clerkship would provide. Prior to entering academia full-time, Bamzai also worked as a partner in the appellate litigation department of Kirk-

developed a specialized niche. Bamzai acknowledged that his career path reflects the oft-repeated mantra that you “can’t plan for everything.” However, he also admitted that most of his previous employment decisions were at least partially motivated by his longstanding interest in becoming a professor.

land & Ellis’ Washington, D.C., office and served as counsel in the DOJ’s National Security division. Bamzai stated that during his time in the public and private sectors, he particularly enjoyed having the opportunity to work on interesting issues and collaborating with individuals whom he respected. Despite professing that he “hadn’t known much” about computer crime when he first went to work at the DOJ, it took only a few years before Bamzai had

Bamzai described his favorite part of teaching as having the ability to interact with students, and he praised the firstyear students in his civil procedure class for their high levels of engagement. Although he does not feel as if he has faced any big surprises this semester, Bamzai said that, as a new professor, it has been important for him to remember that there is no such thing as being too prepared before coming into a lecture.

In the spring, Bamzai will draw upon his numerous areas of expertise when he teaches Computer Crime Law, a new course that blends Fourth Amendment concepts with aspects of data privacy. Bamzai stated that his goal is to make the required work interesting for students and hinted that

Professor Aditya Bamzai. Photo courtesy of University of Virginia.

some discussions may even touch upon storylines from the critically-acclaimed television series, The Wire, which he also indicated is one of his favorite shows. Professor Bamzai added that he thought Stringer Bell was the best character on The Wire because [Bell] represents the idea that “people can surprise you.” When he isn’t teaching or working on his research, Bamzai’s spare time is typically spent with his family. Ac-

cording to Bamzai, his children, ages two and four, have already demonstrated an interest in music and singing, though he noted that it may be a while before they are ready to officially pick up an instrument. In addition to The Wire, Bamzai also cited Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead as being among his favorite television shows. Despite liking several popular television series, Bamzai said that he wanted to avoid claiming a “generic” movie as his favorite, and succeeded in doing so by proposing that The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, an iconic western starring John Wayne, had secured that spot. Bamzai’s reading preferences span a variety of genres and include literature from the early-20 th century as well as murder mysteries. A final fun fact about Professor Bamzai is that he spent a portion of his childhood growing up in Cairo. Although Bamzai said that his time in Egypt provided him with many happy memories, he lamented the fact that he has not returned to the country since leaving, though he expressed an interest in visiting Cairo again someday. Bamzai’s advice for students is to “study hard,” and also to remember that both law school and our legal careers are best characterized as being “marathons, not sprints.” The Law Weekly’s staff is grateful to Professor Bamzai for taking the time to speak with us and we hope that he continues to enjoy his time teaching at UVA Law. --lk3da@virginia.edu


6 The Back Page VIRGINIA LAW WEEKLY ►IN DEFENSE Safe Spaces and Why You Already continued from page 3 Believe in Them ter, has appealed so directly to the

Rachel Gallagher ’19 Guest Columnist Give Me Shelter” by Betsy Hedges. I think a lot of people have some misconceptions about safe spaces, what they are, where they came from, and how long they’ve been around. To many people, they are a product of the millennial generation, associated with stereotypes regarding hurt feelings, political correctness, extreme feminism and the modern day “social justice warriors.” What is a safe space? To me, the first thing that comes to mind is not the cordoned off rooms the Law School provided in the wake of the presidential election, but perhaps one of the earliest socalled “safe spaces:” Alcoholics Anonymous. AA is the quintessential example of a safe space: a place where members can gather and share feelings or experiences without being criticized, judged, or told that the entirety of their problems lay at their feet; they may also share experiences and thoughts that will not follow them into their daily life. And while I’m painting with a rather broad brush here, I think we can agree that a safe space is a meeting place where people share their feelings and issues dealing with experiences the majority of us might never encountered—including substance abuse, PTSD, eating disorders, the aftermath of rape, or, dare I say it,

TIME

experiences with racism and unfounded hatred. As Ms. Hedges hits on, safe spaces do serve a need in the community – the need to discuss real and valid feelings and concerns without fear of them being dismissed, ignored, or held against that person’s character in their daily life. Where we disagree is whether or not it is appropriate for the Law School to provide a room for such a space. Is there really any harm in allowing temporary and limited spaces for people to discuss their concerns and fears following a long year of inflammatory and fear-inspiring rhetoric, even if there have not been any threats of violence on grounds? Especially if the man who has been elected president was endorsed by the KKK, has a history of decrying entire races and religions, and has advocated for war crimes and still had the approval of a large swath of the population? I have no problem with allowing a safe space in this situation, just as I would have no problem with the school letting a room to other group therapy or community healing events. To be clear, I am not advocating for the entirety of the Law School, or of any school, to transform into a 24/7 expansive safe space where only like-minded people can yell into a liberal echo-chamber and disagreements are not allowed— merely for the allowance for temporally and spatially limited spaces for people to discuss concerns without fear of dismissal or misunderstandings. The founder of AA was a former student at my undergraduate

EVENT

university, Norwich University, which is a private military college in the state of Vermont. My second year, I lived in the dorm that bears his name. Today, my alma mater is filled with hopeful military officers who look upon safe spaces and the like in a derogatory and dismissive manner, even as I know several alums who partake in AA for their own problems. I would ask them the same I ask of you: if you are okay with safe spaces for some groups but not for all groups, take a moment of introspection and ask yourself why you believe that some people deserve to have their issues and experiences validated while many others just need to “act like grown-ups.” --rad7ej@virginia.edu

LOCATION

COST

FOOD?

WEDNESDAY – November 30, 2016 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM

The Docket

5:00 PM

12:30 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 7:00 PM 11:00 AM 8:00 PM 8:00 PM

3:00 PM 8:00 PM

Dean’s Community Breakfast Voting Issues in 2016 Elections: What Went Wrong? SBA Diversity Week Planning Committee Ally Appreciation Day

Caplin Pavilion

Free

Baked goods and coffee

Purcell Reading Room

Free

WB 101

Free

Lunch

Caplin Pavilion

Free

No. But there will be swag.

THURSDAY – December 1, 2016 Firm Spotlight: Latham WB 101 Free & Watkins President Sullivan’s Holiday Open House

Free

Treats incl. gingerbread people

Free

Hor D’oeuvres

Free

Caplin Pavilion

Free

Food.

Culbreth Theatre

Free

Carr’s Hill

BLSA Winter Diversity Caplin Pavilion Reception 16th Annual Lighting The Lawn of the Lawn FRIDAY – December 2, 2016 Fall Finals Potluck U.Va Dance Program Fall Concert Norther Lights Candlelight Concert

racist and sexist id of our electorate. Either on Trump’s own, or through his surrogates, he has suggested policies or made remarks that goad others to act on their base impulses by—for example—suggesting we reinstate the Eisenhower administration’s “Operation Wetback” program, suggesting that all Muslims entering the United States sign up for a registry (citing the WWII use of Japanese internment camps as precedent), and doubling down when he was accused of sexual assault by multiple women during the campaign (suggesting they were not attractive enough for him to assault). Of course, that does not necessarily mean Donald Trump, the person, holds these views, or that he will implement these

policies. But many people—including many students at this law school—are rightfully scared about the consequences and their own personal safety. The election of Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, or whoever else is not the same; it’s a difference between being upset about the normal political consequences of an election, and being actually fearful for your safety. When the name of our next President is appearing next to swastikas and the Ku Klux Klan is again a public presence, we have a responsibility to push back and reach out, both in general and within our law school community. By acknowledging the potential effects of this election, and providing students space within our community to process those effects, the Administration took the appropriate steps. --crp5vw@virginia.edu

►HOLIDAY

►GILBERT

Cartoon By Carly

I am writing this article in response to, but not debating, all the points made by the article “Don’t

Wednesday, 30 November 2016

University Chapel

Free

SATURDAY – December 3, 2016 Blue Ridge Chamber Christ Episcopal Church Free Orchestra Fall Concert Family Holiday Old Cabell Hall Free Concert

SUNDAY – December 4, 2016

11:00 AM

The Great C’ville Santa Fun Run

Sprint Pavilion

$0–$25

12:00 PM

Drag Brunch

Fellini’s

Free

Avail. for Purchase Avail. for Purchase

continued from page 3

There is proof that Christmas is comforting to people generally. Not many people at this school, I would guess, are old enough to remember a time when holiday music was not played non-stop on the radio for weeks before Christmas day. However, it was not until 9/11 that this became regular practice. The reason? People were scared and depressed and entertainers felt that putting all of us in the Christmas spirit would help give the nation hope and relax for a short while. This is why we need Christmas spirit now. Call it a distraction, call it a security blanket, call it whatever you like. But no matter who you are, it is okay to feel that Kris Kringle mood and want to spread a little joy to your fellow Lawhoos. If you are anywhere near as stressed and anxious as I am, then you could definitely use some cheer in your day. So head over to Michael’s or Bed Bath and Beyond down at Barracks and pick up some string lights, a wreath, or a tree. Stop at Harris Teeter or Kroger and buy some eggnog and gingerbread cookies. Hop into Yankee Candle and get a crackling candle that smells like cookies. Switch from your usual playlist to the Christmas stations on Pandora or Spotify or iHeartRadio – whatever you prefer. Sit down and soak in the Christmas. Share it with your friends and take that deep breath and relax. It might not be snowing in Charlottesville, but we can do everything else to make it the perfect holiday season. It’s the most wonderful time of the year– embrace it! --jem7my@virginia.edu

continued from page 4

our current problem with Donald Trump. While this would not be well received by Trump supporters or Obama supporters, he does make a good point regarding the current state of the Republican Party. While Professor Gilbert is only teaching Law and Economics I this semester, Law and Economics II in the Spring, and a yearlong Seminar in Ethical Values, he usually teaches other courses throughout the year. His other classes include Legislation and Regulation of the Political Process.8 If you are a 1L or 2L (and Law and Economics is not your thing), you can still try to take one of his other classes next year, after he has finished his casebook. --ara2pf@virginia.edu 8 Many of my friends have taken Regulation of the Political Process, and they highly recommend it.

►MPRE

continued from page 4

of nonsensical hurdles that require you to bend, twist, limbo, and contort yourself to attempt to pass. And if you don’t manage to pick enough of the “best” answers, you have to repeat the entire process. One day, someone in power will realize the folly of this test, or we’ll all get smart like Maryland and stop requiring it. But until that time, I wish you luck on the test, and remember, always pick the second-most ethical answer. Which is answer B. --ach7pa@virginia.edu


11 30 gray final