Jason Kilborn is a professor at John Marshall Law School at the University of Illinois-Chicago who wrote a Civil Procedure exam based on an employment discrimination hypothetical. The question referenced the use of racial and sexual epithets but, rather than use the words, Kilborn used commonly censored versions of just the first letter and blanks. That led to his suspension at the school and now, after he was reinstated, University of Illinois-Chicago Chancellor Michael Amiridis has issued a letter to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) that did little to quell concerns over academic freedom. Indeed, it seemed to minimize those concerns. While I disagree that the letter was a categorical denial any academic freedom protection, the controversy is chilling for those who see both free of speech and academic freedom being eroded on our campuses. (For full disclosure, I have an honorary degree from John Marshall Law School).
Professor Kilborn’s Civil Procedure II exam described how an employee quit “after she attended a meeting in which other managers expressed their anger at Plaintiff, calling her a ‘n___’ and ‘b___’ [sic].” The full exam question was reprinted by Professor Eugene Volokh in a column criticizing the action against Kilborn.
The use of the censored references led to a complaint in a letter from the Black Law Students Association and later a petition which called for Kilborn to be stripped of his committee assignments and other reforms. The Petition stated:
The slur shocked students created a momentous distraction and caused unnecessary distress and anxiety for those taking the exam. Considering the subject matter, and the call of the question, the use of the “n____” and “b____” was certainly unwarranted as it did not serve any educational purpose. The question was culturally insensitive and tone-deaf. It lacked basic civility and respect for the student body, especially considering our social justice efforts this year.
The integration of this dark and vile verbiage on a Civil Procedure II exam was inexcusable and appropriate measures of accountability must be executed by the UIC administration.
College Fix described the letter from Amiridis as a denial of any academic freedom protections for Kilborn. I do not quite see it that way. The letter denies that there are academic freedom protections against any investigation or adjudication of such claims. He is arguing that such investigations can vindicate academic freedom values but that the university has an obligation to investigate.
My objection is in the measures taken against Professor Kilborn, which I do believe undermine academic freedom. He was suspended and put on administrative leave because of a complaint that in my view was a denial of his pedagogical privileges. The matter could have been investigated further by the university after an initial determination not to change his status. Instead, he was suspended — a decision that clearly will create a chilling effect on other academics at the school.
I am also concerned by the position of Amiridis in a lengthy footnote that says that the university disputes the claim that the use of the terms was “pedagogical relevant” or “necessarily germane to the study of civil procedure.” That is a statement that drives to the very core of academic freedom. Just because Kilborn teaches Civil Procedure does not mean that hypotheticals raising racial discrimination are not germane. The best Civil Procedure teachers show how these rules can raise difficult political, social, and constitutional issues when applied in different contexts. Moreover, professors have been pushed by universities and various academic groups to incorporate greater consideration of social justice and racial equality issues in their classes.
Professor Kilborn wrote an exam question that included the censored versions of words that are commonly found in media articles and academic publications. For that, he was publicly suspended and ostracized. The school could have investigated without changing his status. It is important to listen to these students who felt offended by the question. Indeed, this was an opportunity to discuss why professors often raise such discomforting or even offensive issues in our exams. I do not believe suspension however was warranted and that the treatment of Kilborn undermined the values of academic freedom in making such choices.
The university has noted that there were other issues raised by students. One such issue appears to be related to a conversation with a student after the exam. Kilborn held a lengthy Zoom call with a member of the BLSA and Northwestern University Law Prof. Andrew Koppelman included Kilborn’s account in an essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education:
“While the battle over the exam language continues, it turns out I was actively misled into believing my suspension was related to that language.
“On Thursday, January 7, I voluntarily agreed to talk to one of the Black Law Students Association members who had advanced this petition against me. Around hour 1 or 1.5 of a 4-hour Zoom call that I endured from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm with this young man, he asked me to speculate as to why the dean had not sent me BLSA’s attack letter, and I flippantly responded, ‘I suspect she’s afraid if I saw the horrible things said about me in that letter I would become homicidal.’ Conversation continued without a hitch for 2.5 or 3 more hours, and we concluded amicably with a promise to talk more later.
“He apparently turned around and reported that I was a homicidal threat. Our university’s Behavioral Threat Assessment Team convened, with no evidence of who I am at all, and recommended to my dean that I be placed on administrative leave and barred from campus. […] Having full discretion to implement or reject that recommendation, and knowing me fairly well, having worked with me quite a bit for the past four years, my dean decided that I was, indeed, a homicidal threat.”
Dean Darby Dickerson (who also served as president of the Association of American Law Schools) reported Kilborn on the basis of that statement in a four-hour Zoom call. Again, the question is why the school cannot address such claims informally when the statement was clearly meant in jest. There is no indication that Professor Kilborn is indeed homicidal. Indeed, holding a four-hour call with a single concerned student would seem strong evidence of a desire to engage concerned students and explain his pedagogical purposes.
It is important to note that this entire controversy began with an exam question on an employment discrimination case that censored terms to avoid discomfort or insult. As academics (and particularly law professors), we have to address difficult and discomforting issues in our society. Our students have to be prepared to work in a world that is filled with such offensive terms and discrimination. Instead, the university and the law school showed little concern for the impact on these actions on not just Professor Kilborn but other professors. Few would want to risk such public humiliation and suspension. The result is that they are likely to simply sanitize exams questions to avoid anything that might trip a wire or cause a complaint. The loss is not just felt in eroding academic freedom values but in abridging academic training for our students.
I suggest the coining new three letter acronyms such as “URP” for “undefined racial pejorative” and “USP” for “undefined sexual pejorative”.
At the beginning of the test a list of such terms used in the exam paper should be flagged as terms that you must know to attempt this paper or they should be asterisked or foot noted when used.
It looks to me as if the student had considerable malice to the professor. One thing we assume about racism is that it only exists when a relationship of racial dominance exists as exists on the US with whites and blacks. This is WRONG. Racism, sexism, and all other prejudicial -isms are normal components of human behaviour. Of course blacks are racist against whites as they have every right to be. If someone treated me the way whites in Australia or the US have treated blacks (and still treat them) I would want to torture such a person to death very slowly but blacks are not usually in a dominant position to do this.
However “political correctness” in its original meaning of taking sensible ideas about “human rights” to extremes of absurdity has now been weaponized by members of previously discriminated against groups to turn the tables. The current meaning of “political correctness” is of course the criticism of misinterpreting “human rights” as homo sapiens sapiens rights and wrongly acting if homo saiens sapiens who are not human in the sense of being entitled to human rights such as Palestinians in Israel occupied Palestine, Americans with brown skin or Honduran indigenous people such as Berta Cacaeres who most rightly was whacked by agents of the Honduran oligarchy.
So tired of this n-word entrapment industry. For any person, black or white or any other color, to be offended by that word in this day and age, well it’s just ludicrous. It’s a WORD. Get over it. As a woman, I’ve been called and heard worse words and I’d never get all worked up like these student crybabies.
Amen sister!
The game being played is “humiliate whitey,” so, under the pretense of being offended, angry black students go after any low-hanging fruit. This isn’t about racial justice and it’s not about revenge for historical wrongs, which have actually already been corrected by society. This new generation of blacks want their piece of the pie, and they don’t want to wait 100 years for it — and they don’t want to work as hard as others have for it either. So they wait in the wings, ready to pounce on any unsuspecting victim, to show their power, such as it is, and get a few perks, like elimination of entrance exams and easier grades — it’s an easy road to success. Liberal academia created this Frankenstein, and the media fuels it. Based on false and misleading statistics, these elite minorities are convinced that race relations in the US haven’t changed since 1619 (yes, thanks to the NYTimes).Ignorant of history and enraged by white elites telling them they’re all oppressed victims, it’s no surprise that this is the outcome. But don’t expect those who benefit from a divided society to do anything about it.
It may not be about historical wrongs but it may be about present ones. Read Michelle Alexander’s book The New Jim Crow Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colour-blindness. For the law to be colour-blind all agents have to be truly colour blind and laws that were implemented in the ages of racism banished. All people normally harbour implicit racism which hides under the section of the brain labelled “OBVIOUS COMMON SENSE THAT NOONE QUESTIONS”.
“. . . avoid anything that might trip a wire or cause a complaint.”
If you can figure that out, you should be playing the Powerball lottery.
(music to tune of four dead in o hi o)
This winter I fear them coming…
They’re rednecks on their way.
Those students at John Marshall.
Have feathers on their legs.
Gotta get down to it!
Marshall is cutting us down!
How can you run when you know?
His first name was True good and …
He had his head on the ground.
It is important to listen to these students who felt offended by the question.
It is important to dismiss the complaints out of hand. You get these complaints because people are encouraged to display aggression which has no purpose but to assert dominance they do not deserve.
It’s important to teach these children that what they find offensive might reside in their minds rather than residing in the minds of those who make the remarks in question. Not only should his classes continued but the children should have been taught that not every action demands a reaction.
My theory is these black future lawyers rarely, if ever, hear the word nigger used in a hateful or derogatory way in real life. But they’ve been conditioned by the culture to pretend to be upset by its use regardless of context. So when they see the fake, non-word placeholder “N—–” used on a test, they do what they’ve been conditioned to do and pretend to be offended.
That, and it’s a power rush to take down someone in a position of authority.
In reality, they will hear the word nigger used in a derogatory or hateful way about as often as they see a chicken with lips.
It seems to be a lack of due process. A professor is suspended without a hearing? Because of a complaint? The lesson I see out if this is that you do not meet with those complaining about you. Whatever one wants to believe, I see this as a control mechanism. Somebody wants to be offended and then they are, what a surprise. Now they demand restitution to be made whole. Well the political correctness is now eating the academics. Now it is no longer a mental exercise.
Instead of doing an investigation and then determine a way forward as should have been the case, they put the cart before the horse. I wonder if this Professor Kilborn sues and then it becomes big news, how it will look to the law school then.
Never talk to someone who complains about you or make sure the conversation is recorded on video.
We residents of the BLOG-ZONE need a couple of TLAs to mean “insert_perjorative-_of_type ……. of your choice here”. or an imaginary race that does not exist and an imaginary class of non-existent sexual deviants to be used to avoid insulting any particular already existing group.
University professors need them as well.
The university’s going off half cocked action against the professor without first talking to him is ABSURD and the university authorities owe him a grovelling apology. Maybe he should sue for defamation.
Folks who walk around with their “feelings” on their shirt sleeves looking to be “offended” for any perceived slight no matter how trivial are a menace to a society that routinely grants them Victim status.
This must stop.
Being challenged to think, reason, analyze, consider, compare, and just plain ol’ confront uncomfortable issues is a must for a proper education.
Where else but a College or University is best suited for such activity?
Certainly there are rules of propriety that can and should be applied but none that stifle free speech to the point divergent views being stifled or silenced.
Those words modified to conform with current journalistic standards were not directed at any person directly or negative manner…….who was harmed by that?
If being required to apply critical thinking skills is to be considered improper conduct by a College Professor this Nation is in great harm.
All we have to do is consider some language….”Social Justice” replacing “Justice” for example…..if you have Justice doesn’t that include Social Justice?
Why do we see the movement to create the whole concept of “Social Justice” out of the broader and far more inclusive concept of “Justice”?
It’s only going to increase if more people don’t oppose it; it already is. The level of brainwashing kids receive in school is only going to worsen over time without intervention, and in a couple more decades these will be our doctors, lawyers, bankers, judges, and politicians. It isn’t quite too late, but it will be eventually if we all just sit on our thumbs. It is conceivable that in the future we may even be forbidden from posting comments like this publicly.
If you have “Justice” don’t you also have social justice?
No “Justice” means law and the actions of the Law and Law always supports the current privilege hierarchy and any “unjust ” domination systems included.
Before the US Civil War slavery was legal so beating up lazy slaves was social justice.
“Victim status”: These kids need a dose of real life. One can imagine if they changed places with any minority in a totalitarian state, perhaps as a Uyghur in China. After a year or two put them back in the same class with the same question involving whatever racist slur comes up spelled out with a bunch of dashes. Watch how they react to the complaints of the newer students that act just like they did.
“It is important to listen to these students who felt offended by the question.”
No, it’s time for university officials to grow a pair and tell these social justice snowflakes to sit down and shut up and perhaps to ask them what they would do if they were involved in a real case in the real world.
This country already has more lawyers than the rest of the world combined. Less lawyers would be a godsend.
To the extent that law and institutional practice generate rents to be exploited by lawyers, yes. The problem here is not a surfeit of lawyers, but a surfeit of law students. The number of law degrees awarded each year is half-again the number you’d need to staff the legal profession. A great many lawyers pass the bar exam and then discover they cannot find work with an established firm, so they set up their own firm and discover they cannot drum up enough business to make office rent. So, they quit practicing. Law schools are selling aspirants a bill of goods. There is only one notable occupation where the ratio of working practitioners to annual degree recipients is lower, and that’s the clergy. (A comfortable majority of divinity school students have no intention of being f/t clergy on finishing their degrees; not so with law students).
Note, if your admissions policies are such that one identifiable segment of your student body has a median LSAT score 3/4 of a standard deviation below the median of the student body in general, you’re manufacturing a situation where (1) a great many people are dissatisfied with their life as a student and (2) they’re visible to themselves and others and (3) they have to come to terms with why they are dissatisfied. Some will, others will recriminate. See Thos Sowell on this point: recrimination is the modal human response to reversals of fortune.
“He apparently turned around and reported that I was a homicidal threat. Our university’s Behavioral Threat Assessment Team convened, with no evidence of who I am at all, and recommended to my dean that I be placed on administrative leave and barred from campus. […] Having full discretion to implement or reject that recommendation, and knowing me fairly well, having worked with me quite a bit for the past four years, my dean decided that I was, indeed, a homicidal threat.”
The young man the professor was speaking to is either a fraudster or he’s dumber than whale sh!t. You really shouldn’t have either in law school. Expel.
The Black Law Students Association does this because they’re aggressive by nature and claiming territory. You’ll get them to quit complaining by persistently telling them to bugger off when they file frivolous grievances (and suspending and as needed expelling students who engage in shenanigans like shouting down outside speakers).
All of this is another example of status-jonesing by gentry liberals and ill-mannered blacks. Gentry liberals fancy they assign status and you as a deplorable are of a lower status than blacks. Rude blacks fancy they’re an aristocratic stratum. Both fancy that only blacks can make use of racial slurs as they are of higher status.
Professor Turley. It’s only a matter of time GWU comes after you. Good luck and Godspeed.
Obviously the law prof should have replaced:-
“after she attended a meeting in which other managers expressed their anger at Plaintiff, calling her a ‘n___’ and ‘b___’ [sic].”
WITH
“after she attended a meeting in which other managers expressed their anger at Plaintiff, calling her a ‘insert-racial-perjorative’ and ‘insert-sexual-perjorative-for-women’ [sic].”
Why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and use racial slurs in your class, if you feel that strongly about this issue? You keep making the same point over and over again- it’s tiresome. You buy into Fox News’ “cancel culture” false narrative. Got it.
You’re an idiot.
Just because he won’t chortle over martinis with you as you venture deep into aggrieved caucasian reality?
caucasian reality?
**************************
Says a lot about your “reality.” Dim Bull Conner there with you?
“aggrieved caucasian reality”
I wonder what “aggrieved caucasian reality” is and whether you classify people who are proud to be who they are as an “aggrieved …. reality”.
No, I consider people who are aggrieved to be aggrieved.
In the case at hand, who is doing the aggrieving?
Was it the student that was aggrieved or Kilborn?
Further proof of confusing text proffered by Turley’s newsletters.
Deb, the three words in question were written by an anonymous poster not by Turley. At present I am waiting for that anonymous poster to clarify what he said.
AS far as Turley goes, he is providing this place for free. It takes time to edit copy and perhaps it is not worth his time. Anyone that doesn’t like it can leave without it costing him a dime. When he copies his pieces to the Hill or elsewhere he is more careful because he is paid to produce those works.
Cancel culture, alas, is all too real. It exists in the UK as well as the US and Canada, and it is spreading in Europe, chilling speech and creating moral cowards and petty tyrants as it does so.
Racial slurs do not inflict mortal wounds. They are merely words; their meaning can be inferred or implied, so what is considered a slur differs by the individual, as does the amount of outrage expressed. Italians used to tell the best Italian jokes and Poles the best Polish jokes. Members of all groups once had a sense of humor, but now too many people are fragile and rush to cancel anyone who dares to offer serious insights into the complex and contradictory realities of everyday life.
If speech is to be free, it must be downright impolite at times, and if a joke is to be funny, it must risk offending a lot of people. Similarly, if a lesson is to be useful, it must teach something new and challenge conventional wisdom and popular prejudices, not just repeat and confirm what the students believe they know. To educate is to challenge students to think and reconsider their beliefs, not to reinforce their illusions. The news media already do that on a daily basis.
A link to remind you of some of cancel culture’s victims. The majoirity have not been noted, much less reported and discussed.
Free speech is a basic right, the foundation of a free society. It is not a privilege, nor a clause in the Constitution. Without it, there are only the sounds of one leader’s voice echoed by an army of sycophants as millions of hands clap in unison.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/02/16/10-victims-of-campus-cancel-culture/
Do you riot, burn, loot and destroy when you lose control?
This is a law school. What will these graduates do when they discover the practice of law does not exist in the intellectually and culturally sterilized environment of the contemporary ‘safe’ university or professional school?
It’s the bottom tier law school among 6 in Chicagoland per US News and World Report
It has had a lot of famous graduates, famous not so much for being lawyers but politicians.
This flap is idiotic. The big question is why would any white guy bother to teach this segment of the population, eager as they are to throw stones.
Time for Atlas to shrug
Sal Sar
Social Justice is an oxymoron. Oppressing free speech is just one of its awful permutations along with hatefulness, reverse racism and dumbing down. Time for it, “diversity” and “inclusiveness” to go on hiatus. Let’s get back to excellence, freedom and merit. And for the few yet loud proponents of this dour, doomed, diabolical philosophy in academia, industry, media and government just know you’re on a circular path because at the end your monster waits for you.
The corollary to the cancel culture is the “victimhood mentality.” Everyone is striving to be a victim these days. These “oppressed” students who felt so “anxious” about the question are totally unprepared for the real world and will suffer greatly if they graduate.
They’re not the least bit anxious. They fancy the professor was talking above his station and ‘disrespected’ them. They need to be told (1) he wasn’t and, in fact, said nothing which breached any sensible code of manners and (2) they’re not entitled to that sort of deference.
Take it from an expert on dumbing down.
Remember the Jerry Spence three-fingers rule. And the word play, the unwitting reverse-from-intended meaning is just so good. You’ve outdone yourself.
Another ad hominem by Anonymous the Stupid.
Anon:
Wouldn’t you think she’d be better – at least more clear — about it?