By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
When I was a young lawyer twenty-five years ago or so, I remember a particularly enlightening client meeting. A 30ish woman had scheduled an appointment to discuss a sexual harassment case against a prominent lawyer in town. Being the new guy at the firm but with some considerable jury trial experience even then, I was asked to sit in while our senior partner met with the client. The client arrived and began a convincing narrative about a sexually charged work place replete with provocative innuendo, being subjected to daily dirty jokes, some pass-by groping in the hallway and even arriving at the office in the morning with an open Penthouse magazine on her desk. Despite complaints to the other partners with nothing of substance being done, she claimed, the client had taken all she could and resigned citing this treatment as the reason. Since the claimed harassment involved a superior and a text-book hostile work environment seemed evident, we were seriously considering taking the case despite what we knew would be a no-holds barred defense.
When we came to the part of the meeting where we asked about corroborating evidence in the form of witnesses or documents confirming her version of events, the client’s demeanor changed from cool professionalism to anger. “Don’t you believe me?”, she shot back like a dagger. “No, it wasn’t that,” our senior guy said. “We just need to know what kind of case we can present.” Wrong answer! ” I don’t want a lawyer who doesn’t believe me. I know what happened and all you have to do is subpoena every staff person there and they’ll tell the truth.” I recall thinking at this moment about all the clients I represented and their look of absolute betrayal as witness after witness “couldn’t remember” this event or that one in deference to preserving their job status. I didn’t say anything, but the senior lawyer did. “Look,” he said quite understandingly I thought, “This is a bad situation for you but he’s a prominent person in the community. His firm is on tv doing all kinds of charitable work around the holidays. He has represented thousands of people in the area, is well-connected politically, and has tons of financial resources to throw at you. We need to know how strong your evidence is going to be.” That broke the camel’s back. “You’re in cahoots with him aren’t you?,” spat the client. “I was told you would take the case because I was in the right, but now all you want to do is talk me out of it by telling me how good his case is going to be.”
“No, not at all,” came the reply as the client was gathering up her papers to make a fast exit. “I not interested in you representing me ,” came the terse rejoinder and “I’m thinking about reporting you to the bar for being in league [with her tormentor].” With that she turned on her heel and strode out the door. A little sheepish, I asked “Should I go and try to get her to come back? It looks like a winnable case to me, if we can get some confirmation of her story,” I asked. “No,” came the seasoned reply. “She’s a chip person, and juries can smell that a mile away.” I went back to my desk thinking here was an intelligent person with a potential case who can’t step away from the emotion of the moment to aid even those who want to help her. It’s an emotional blindness we all suffer from.
I thought about that while reading about the dust-up between Professor Leong and her Moriarty, dybbuk, as well as the unseemly sandbox dispute between Professors Campos and Leiter. Let me know how these statements strikes you, the blog jury. First from Professor Leong’s website, Feminist Law Professors:
Some argue that racial and gender harassment are part and parcel of participation in online discourse. As one white man commented on my prior post: “Welcome to the jungle . . . . If you want to have a voice . . . just do what we have been doing for over a decade and laugh it off.” (In context, “we” meant “white men.”) Of course, it’s easy to talk about “laughing it off” when, because of your status as a white man, you’re virtually never the target of identity-based harassment that deploys historically subordinate or marginalized status as a silencing tool.
My obvious question is how does Leong know that her poster is a “white man”? Does he say so? Did she ask? Did she track him down and call his workplace to find out? Or is she just assuming and making the same stereotypical argument of which she complains herself? Are her assumptions about white men any more venomous than the assumptions about a “white man’s” reaction to her identity? My reaction, which I think some will share, is that Professor Leong is a “chip person.” That is she views every criticism through the lens of her own personal battle and doesn’t understand how the same statement would be viewed by an independent person freed from the emotional involvement of her circumstances.
And for Exhibit A consider this screen shot of the exchange between Leong and dybbuk which she entitles “Luau Train”:
Leong’s take on the first comment: “Rather than explaining why (for example) he thinks that the racial capitalism framework is analytically flawed, the first commenter disparages my Native Hawaiian background with a reference to the “luau train.” He then attempts to undermine my intellectual contribution to an academic conference by claiming that the reason for my presence is to serve as an object of sexualized attention for a presumed heterosexual male audience.”
Professor Leong in word and deed (naming the image) obviously considers this comment by dybbuk to be a slur aimed at her heritage, but there is also a more benign interpretation that dybbuk is merely commenting about the location of her speech and not her heritage. Why does an educated person fail to consider the view of things than a simpleton like myself would have to concede could also be true? For his part, dybbuk claims he has no knowledge of Leong’s Hawaiian roots and was referring to the sumptuous spreads some speakers get at these seminars that never seem to be scheduled in Dubuque in the winter time.
Now consider the case of the dueling professors. Prof. Campos sends the following email to his apparent long-time intellectual adversary:
From: Paul F Campos [mailto:paul.campos@Colorado.EDU]
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:03 AM
To: Leiter, Brian
Subject: Dybbuk
Brian,
I have been asked by somebody who has passed on (unsolicited) some potentially very embarrassing personal information about you to me, regarding your activities in cyberspace and some related goings-on in the real world, to make this information public, should you choose to “out” Dybbuk.
Paul
Professor Leiter upon receipt of the email launches a broadside attack lambasting Campos for, what he says, is “resorting to blackmail.” He then adds the following dittie that struck my logistician’s eye:
I am told by a colleague who teaches criminal law that this threat is blackmail (criminal “intimidation” as we call it in Illinois, or “extortion” or “criminal coercion” as it is in many other jurisdictions). I have no idea what fabrications Campos would produce this time, but there is nothing truthful he could post, and he knows it. (Remarkably, this is also not the first time Campos has tried to coerce another law professor with threats.)
You guessed it the classic logical fallacies of an ad hominem attack (Campos is bad because he’s done bad before and he lies ergo he is not to be believed) and a borderline appeal to authority (My colleague teaches criminal law hence he must be knowledgeable in charging decisions by local prosecutors. Maybe he does, but Leiter never tells us.) by an unknown source.
For his part, Professor Campos says his email was mere warning and the twisted grammar aside, it’s a reasonable interpretation especially if Lieter has already “outed” dybbuk thus making any such disclosure of “embarrassing personal information” an empty threat since the trigger on the disclosure has already been pulled.
Leiter comes off as prickly and seeking to find the worst possible interpretation of Campos’ actions. I don’t think a fair-minded person would make the same mistake in the courtroom or that other bastion of democracy, the court of public opinion. So why lose your case in both courts simply because you need to “strike back” by questioning anyone and anything that contradicts, in the slightest way, your interpretation of other people’s motives.
Ultimately these two episodes prove to me why litigants need to arrive at court with everything except that chip. It’s unattractive and lends an air of holy crusade to a civil dispute that the resolver of fact will assuredly sniff out. Juries have their limitations but divining motivation isn’t one of them. Oh, they can be mislead and fooled but they never miss a chip the size of a 2×4.
As the pre-eminent blue ribbon jury on the blog-o-sphere what say you about these two alleged wrongs? Chip people or victims — or both?
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
“and this piece by Ms. Leong is a big jump from previous work.”
Nick — out of curiosity, how many of her other papers have you read? It looks like she’s written quite a bit and I saw some folks on other blogs talking up some of her work on constitutional rights. I don’t have time to read all of it — especially on Monday morning — (or frankly, more than one) but I glanced at the piece called “Making Rights” and thought it was solid. Now to get down to work . . .
Oro, Thanks. My morning paper isn’t here[Our carrier has issues!] and this piece by Ms. Leong is a big jump from previous work.
** on 1, January 13, 2014 at 2:21 am Mike Appleton
Arguments over private motives are typically fruitless. However, I have observed over the years that people who attack feminism or women’s studies share characteristics common among those who attack ethnic or African-American studies, one of which is a refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of those areas as subjects for serious scholarship. Those attitudes are typified by many of the comments that have infected this thread. **
Mike,
If you don’t know how to use the search feature on your PC just ask & someone will likely hep you.
Other wise keep buying decks of cards in which every card is another victim card.
And I’m so sick of the “Oh poor me, I’m so sensitive” crap I might soon start telling Pollock jokes I’ve had off limits for something like 40 years.
What, you want to breed a world full of pansy azz wimps that cry upon a shift in wind direction?
Get you some big boy panties on it’s the real world out here beyond that PC of yours.
Arguments over private motives are typically fruitless. However, I have observed over the years that people who attack feminism or women’s studies share characteristics common among those who attack ethnic or African-American studies, one of which is a refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of those areas as subjects for serious scholarship. Those attitudes are typified by many of the comments that have infected this thread.
If an examination of any law review article by Prof. Leong is warranted, perhaps it is the one published by Harvard and which is the subject of the seminar in Hawaii
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/vol126_leong.pdf
Seems substantive enough for serious discussion regardless of forum locus
Oro Lee wrote: “If an examination of any law review article by Prof. Leong is warranted, perhaps it is the one published by Harvard and which is the subject of the seminar in Hawaii…”
Thanks for the link, Oro. I was at first a bit skeptical when she started off with a quote from Playboy Magazine, and then when she mentioned Native Americans being used as slaves but ignored the fact that there also were whites who were slaves. Nevertheless, overall, this article from Leong was fresh and engaging. I didn’t like the first sentence or the last sentence, but the overall thesis was well presented and forceful. This article is certainly a legitimate scholarly study worthy of publication. It convinced me that Leong is a very intelligent and original thinker who knows full well the diversity issues involved in her recent actions against dybbuk. She understands how racial diversity and gender diversity have become commodities of trade by universities and corporations alike. This article certainly helps explain why she focused upon her ethnic background as well as gender in her complaint to the Bar. It draws attention to her worth and value to the university based upon her race and gender.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_24895008
Back on the topic of Mark’s article 🙂 :
Mona Lisa Smile, Beethoven,Skrik, Willie Nelson, Santana, Queen, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, etc…
Of course everyone has their own ear & eyes & then there is Rammstein:
Elaine, Nick who?
Thanks for checking in Professor!
If good looks is all that you need to be successful, I would be a millionaire! 🙂
It is a bit controversial, but some argue that social mobility has been greatly reduced in the past few decades.
If true, the most reliable way to become a millionaire is to be good looking and have millionaire parents.
The rest of you guys can line up to apply for a job at McDonald’s. So far at least, there is no way to outsource McDonald’s personnel to India.
Zipser, I saw my daughter, the attorney, at a family function this afternoon and ran it past her. Guess how she answered?
” I don’t know enough about it and I can’t make a call on it, and that’s what makes me a good lawyer.”
A small out of place sign in a lawyer’s office years, (Decades), back that had a worn out couch in the waiting room.
( I guess I was the 1st to be so bold to say anything about the crap furniture as the next time I showed up the was a nice couch. LOL)
Please don’t read too much into this! The furnishings are fine here & disputes there will likely always be. But we can be civil, disagree on a issue & all move in a positive manner in most cases.
The sign: ” This too shall pass”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_too_shall_pass
**on 1, January 12, 2014 at 8:17 pm jonathanturley **
** on 1, January 12, 2014 at 8:35 pm Anonymously Yours **
on 1, January 12, 2014 at 5:22 pmBron
Zipser:
A stopped watch isnt right twice a day, it is broken or needs winding. It cannot be right. If you were on a deset island, the watch would do you no good.
Just a pet peave of mine, sorry. 🙂
=========================================================
know what you mean. i get that way with the word “sheeple”.
Well professor…. As much as I agree with you up thread or in this matter up stream….. you will see why I made the comment that I did…. And please note I did not disparage anyone nor warn them of other posters penchants…. Except for the ready rudeness…. Which is ready apparent in the comments above…. Thank you for noting this…..
randyjet:
We agree on more than you might think, I am all for your ends [a better life for all], we just disagree on the means.
One thing I have learned is that a good many Marxists were the sons and daughters of the wealthy. In fact Marx himself came from a well to do family so it isnt surprising his work would speak to people like Bill Ayers.
I really wonder why working people buy into Marxism since they are typically pawns for people of priviledge on both sides of the fence.
You would think they would be libertarians and say to hell with Marx, to hell with management.
apologies for going off topic.
AY,
“The are a number of good and well thought of folks that no longer post here because of the readily rudeness…..”
Fortunately, there is another venue where I can converse with those “well thought of” folks who decided to leave because of the individual of which you speak.
randyjet:
I wonder why they have any sort of career at all based on their malevolent history.
Bron It is unusual for us to agree on much, but I agree with you on these two miscreants. I am on the far left, and was back then, and the joke about the Weathermen was that you had to drive at least a Mercedes to belong to them. A Rolls or a Jag was better, a BMW maybe. I was driving a VW beetle, so I could not apply, plus I had to earn a living besides being in school and being in the anti-Vietnam war movement. They remind me of the pirates in Gilbert and Sullivan’s The Pirates of Penzance, who are forgiven because they after all love their Queen and are all well born.
Elaine,
I’m sorry Buddha isn’t here …. About 7 posters are still here when I started… Except for a few isolated incidents for a very short while…. There was no professional shit dispenser…. Apparently this ones rudeness keeps darking the blog.
The are a number of good and well thought of folks that no longer post here because of the readily rudeness…..
It’s just a matter of time before the prof gets involved…. We will see…. Sometimes it takes extra effort to right size the ship even in calm waters……
AY,
I see no reason to return to past disagreements. This thread has largely been civil. For the large size of this blog, we have had relatively few serious incidents. I understand if, as EM says, there are other sites that may appeal to commenters. However, this site tries to walk a straight line between free speech and civility. Rather than discuss personalities of posters, I suggest returning to the subject of Mark’s very fine posting.
Jonathan Turley
Randyjet-
I don’t know enough to answer the question.
anniofwi:
As a fat, greying, schlub – hey I might be resentful too. My online photos make me look thinner, wiser, sexier than the sad sagging reality.
All we have for Leong is some attractively posed photos. For all I know, below the neck she could be 400 pounds with six limbs. So who knows (and by the way Dybbuk, why would you expect most women to use a photo in which they did not look as hot as possible – all you had to support your sexist comments were the zit-free photos Leong picked.)
Still there is a totally different thread on lookism that could be started. There are so many studies that show the conventionally good looking to have huge advantages – which has always made me wonder about Rush Limbaugh – fat, balding, comb-over, viagra and pill chomping visitor to countries noted for supplying under-age prostitutes that he is.