Penn State has been under scrutiny over its internal ‘Strategic Plan Update’ which contains sweeping anti-racism agendas, including a commitment to “recruit, retain, teach and research according to antiracist principles’ and adopt an ‘antiracist critical pedagogy.” The plan to expand employment opportunities for underrepresented candidates has prompted objections over its possible unconstitutionality in light of Supreme Court precedent. However, a tape is now circulating that raises concerns about the use of its mandatory REPL course, which stands for “Race and the Equal Protection of the Laws.”
The REPL course is described in Penn State publications:
“REPL, a required course for all first-year Penn State Dickinson Law students, invokes critical theory and critical pedagogy, aiming to transform how students see their place and role in an imperfect and still-evolving democracy. The class began in fall 2020, months after the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis prompted the Penn State Dickinson Law faculty to pass two unanimous resolutions. The first condemned violence against people of color. The second adopted an antiracist approach to legal education, leading to the creation of REPL.”
Penn State Dickinson Law Dean and Donald J. Farage Professor of Law Danielle M. Conway has stated:
“Through REPL, many law students are being exposed for the first time to the structure that supports the nation’s constitutional democracy. REPL allows us to teach that through the lens of enslavement and racism, systemic challenges that have existed since the beginning of our society. We use critical pedagogy to analyze how a governing system founded on a pledge of democratic ideals produces systemic inequity when legal, social, economic, and civil obstacles limit liberty for those othered in society.”
Aaron Sibarium of the Free Beacon posted the secret audio tape from one of the classes. I have repeatedly reached out to Penn State for a response or a statement on the authenticity of the tape. The school has not replied.
The tape purportedly captures the words of Associate Dean Jeffrey Dodge and Professor Emily Spottswood. Also featured is Shaakirrah Sanders, who was described as “the first associate Dean of anti-racism and critical pedagogy in the country.”
Dean Dodge is allegedly shown saying that “We are taking action to disrupt and dismantle systems that racialize, subordinate, and oppress. We … want to acknowledge the reality of systemic racism … as a foundation for this course.”
Professor Spottswood explains to the students that this is “not elective” and not an option because this is the only way to be a lawyer. She explains that, to be a lawyer, you must combat racism as laid out in REPL.
They also hear from Georgetown University Law Professor Paul Butler, who tells them that the existential threat remains “white supremacy … and patriarchy” and the need to “eradicate” them.
Critics have objected that the lectures sound more like indoctrination than education. Rather than allowing students to elect to take such a course, the law school requires them to complete the course as a condition for graduation.
It is common (and commendable) for incoming law students to be addressed about our profession’s commitment to fighting discrimination in all forms. I have given such speeches to incoming students. Many of us also incorporate material that explores discrimination in legal doctrine and practice into our classes.
What is different is that this is a mandatory course that tells students that they must accept certain antiracism precepts to be lawyers. This course appears similar to many offered as electives at other law schools. However, at Penn State it is mandatory.
While hopefully everyone opposes discrimination and oppression, many students (and lawyers) may not agree with the sweeping statements about the dominance or hold of white supremacy or patriarchy over our legal system.
This does not mean that combating prejudice should not be a priority or emphasized in law school. Rather, the REPL course has been criticized as an example of the activist and orthodox culture in higher education.
Here is the article with the audiotape.
all this antiracism stuff is patently just antiwhite stuff. it dresses up the resentment against the legacy white majority in a bunch of intellectual trappings. it doesn’t fool many. fundamentally this is a political contest between that legacy majority (dwindling fast but still a force) and its opposition
the irony is that the opposition to the legacy white majority is not “Leftism.” It is actually big corporations. they are the ones who have benefitted the most in pecuniary fashion by the dismantling of segregation. They seek to atomize the legacy population, divide it over and over again, blacks, women, gays, trans, whatever they think of next. in order to render us weak and unable to oppose their next scheme for self enrichment at taxpayer expense
in this contest, whites have been pretty dim witted about who they are up against, and they often point the finger at these university scoundrels, or their icons like George Floyd. resentment at racial minorities is in fact, misdirected. the anger must be aimed at the corporate chieftans who have funded this for decades on the sly, blaming it on “the Left” even as they quietly have also controlled, universities.
Their next conquest is to utterly destroy us as a political force by swamping us with AI “agents” which are talking thinking AI actors who can multiply on the internet ferociously and utterly swamp our supposed “free speech” if we let them.
Expropriation of the major AI labs is probably going to be necessary. Socialism might just save humans from AI in the end. It sure won’t be “capitalism” which is just an excuse for them to exploit us to the last drop of human blood
Sal Sar