amusement?

So, ok, this is the long, interesting post. At least I think it's interesting.

Anyway, in Con Law 2 yesterday we were talking about Affirmative Action. And then last night, one guy sent a mass email to everyone in class. I don't want to post them whole email here, since I don't have his permission, but I will summarize it.

First, he went on for a bit saying that he had grown up in a racially tense environment, that there had been incidents at his high school because of racism and racist policies, and how many of his jobs had been run by racists. He then went on to talk about examples of how the system had kept minorities down. One example was this: when government bodies want to start affirmative action, they need data to prove that there was discrimination and racism in the recent past such that affirmative action would be pertinant and would work to fix an existing problem.

He used this and other examples to suggest that the "system" was doing things like this to make it more difficult, and economically bad, to have affirmative action. He then complained at how much lawsuits cost, and how long it takes. He suggested that the government and the courts are actively or passively discouraging racial equality. He then said that if you were white and unable to get into the school of your choice because of affirmative action, you didn't take full advantage of being white. He said that it was because you hadnt worked hard enough. He said that these people were lazy racist pigs, and it wasn't that someone took their spot, it was that they never had the spot.

It's interesting, because his examples were backwards from what the courts intended. Government agencies had to spend lots of money on proving past racism so that they weren't doing quotas, and so that they were in fact balancing the playing field.

As to the other comments, about spots and all, I'm not sure how to respond. Are there spots? And does affirmative action affect those as much as people think? I dunno, it sounded like this guy had a chip on his shoulder and wasn't thinking very clearly...


Next, there was a second, reply email. This email said the following:

First, it apologized for more spam, but since a liberal terrorist had already spammed us, he would too. He said that it's true that racism is still around, but efforts were being made. It then says that Law School is a place for debate and discussion. I have to quote one of his paragraphs, as it is very funny.

"For my part, before coming to FSU Law, I was of the opinion that all
conservatives were congenitally incapable of reason--let me rephrase, I
thought conservatives were a bunch of ignorant dumbasses. Imagine my
surprise to discover that among my classmates are many intelligent,
thoughtful conservatives who deserve my respect: both as individuals and
for their views, many of which I continue to--respectfully--disagree with."

I was quite amused.

And then he was proven wrong, in class.

So someone asked if the prof had gotten the email, which he hadn't. So someone read the first email aloud. Several people then raised their hands. One, a girl I had already pegged as a MORON brought up the second email (which hadnt been read in class).

She says "My favorite part was the bit about how conservatives were congenitally incapable of thought."
She did not put it into context or anything. EVERYONE got the email, did she think everyone else was as dumb as she was?? So yeah, she proved the guy wrong. Apparently there is at least one conservative incapable of thought, and i'd bet its genetic.

Then another guy raised his hand and said "I'm not paying 1000 dollars per credit hour to have a debate. I'm here to have the professor talk so I can learn what I need for the Bar Exam."
Yet another dumbass. He's really paying the money so that FSU can tell the ABA that he took the class. BUt thats a side note.
The professor, I think, got a little irritated by this, as I would have. He said "Well, learning the doctrine was important, but debating the issues are just as important if not more important. Since yeah, the doctrine is important for the Bar and stuff, but the ideas behind the doctrines are what we will be dealing with for the next 40 years."

And then we discussed the issues for a bit. The discussion was me and the prof and like 2 other people, and ti went on for an hour. At one point I asked a good question, I thought. Then another guy from farther down the aisle gives me the thumbs up. But this guy is the annoying guy in class - Do I really want HIM giving ME the thumbs up?

Anyhow, it was a good discussion about whether the court should try and force racial equality on society, or if society should work on it on its own. The court really would have difficulty making us do things, because its gonna cost money, and people don't like spending money on other people, and we would end up with the Boston Tea Party all over again. So that's bad. So we're stuck in this loop of the court'sd suggest stuff, and over time it gets accepted, and then from the bottom up society changes, and then more suggestions are made, and people eventually agree... OK, it's a cycle.

Anyhow, that's about it. I will post more later, about Catan.