Law | making edible playdough is hegemonic.

Posts Tagged ‘law’

President Obama (finally) stands up for gay marriage

May 9th, 12 / 0 Comments

Ok, so this happened.

Obama’s televised statement came after two members of his administration voiced support for gay marriage. Vice President Joe Biden went first, on Sunday:

And on Monday, Education Secretary Arne Duncan followed up by tossing his support behind the cause:

The administration’s position statements on gay marriage sandwiched a primary election day that resulted in what the New York Times called “a trifecta of intolerance“:

Tuesday was pretty great for the forces of intolerance. North Carolina voters approved an amendment that makes discrimination an official part of their state constitution. Colorado Republicans stonewalled a vote on permitting same-sex civil unions because it looked like it would pass. And Indiana’s Republican primary voters tossed out the venerable Senator Richard Lugar and replaced him with a man who thinks our problem is that we have too much bipartisanship.

It’s almost as if the staggered position statements were, um, planned by some wily press team. (In related news: The West Wing has completely crushed my rose-colored glasses.)

Sure, it’s courageous for a national political figure to take a stand in favor of gay marriage–it’s dangerous and often leads to the end of even the most thriving of political careers. (And, by the way, this truth is further proof that those assholes who say that the homosexuals already have more rights than “the rest of us” are just assholes spewing shit. And if you’re wondering which assholes say that homosexuals already have more rights than straight people, look here. And here. Here here here brb taking shower to get bigot-crud off)

I’m supposed to be celebrating at the news from the Obama administration. But instead I just keep looking at this:

Tweet This Post

Uncategorized

thoughts on Michael Griffin’s murder conviction

Apr 16th, 11 / 1 Comment

So Michael Griffin was convicted this week of murdering Don Belton. Griffin never denied killing Belton, which made for a speedy trial: All that was left was deciding whether the act was one of self-defense, manslaughter, or outright murder.

Griffin’s defense was that Don Belton had sexually assaulted him, twice, and then refused to admit to the rapes or apologize when Griffin confronted him a few days later. Griffin’s lawyer tried to convince the jury that his client pulled out the knife to protect himself during that confrontation, and that the stabbings were the result of Griffin acting out of fear and emotional pain.

The jury went with murder.

This case is about homophobia, masculinity, sexuality, and cultural norms about violence. It is to our great credit that the public discourse around this case neither shies from nor tries to sanitize these elements. Even the very first reports, as cautiously worded as they were, made it clear that sex was involved somehow. (See this article, typical of the language and details included in initial reports.) In what can only be viewed as a sea change in how we think about and represent gay men, most opinion pieces sided firmly against Griffin, dismissing Griffin’s “gay panic” defense as completely untenable. Here’s one representative example: Scott McLemee in Inside Higher Ed days after Belton’s death, analyzing the language of the affidavit and going on to speculate on the role “gay panic” would likely play in the trial:

According to a detective’s affidavit available online, he said that Belton had sexually assaulted him on Christmas. Two days later, he went to Belton’s apartment to have a “conversation” which turned into a “scuffle,” resulting in the professor’s death.

These words, which sound so mild, sit oddly in the narrative. The affidavit then goes on to say that Griffin stated “that he took a knife, called a ‘Peace Keeper’ that he had purchased prior to going to Iraq while in the Marine Corps, with him….” He also thought to bring a change of clothes. The bloody ones went into a white trash bag. Griffin “then went about and ran several errands,” the report continues, “before he eventually discarded the bloody clothing into a dumpster…. Mr. Griffin then returned home where he stated that he yold his girlfriend what he had done.”…

It is easy to speculate about what may have happened. In fact we do not know. But the circumstances track with a familiar pattern — one common enough to have a name: “the ‘gay panic’ defense.” This rests on the idea that the wave of disgust created in a heterosexual person at exposure to gay sexuality can create a state of temporary psychosis. The panic-stricken victim loses responsibility for his (for some reason, it always turns out to be “his”) actions.

This is an idea that should be retired to the Museum of Deranged Rationalization as soon as possible. But it seems far-fetched to imagine that Griffin and his counsel will get through trial without invoking it.

Cool. We’ve moved past the cultural setpoint that assumes that gay men are perverted sex fiends. Which is fantastic. Really, really fantastic And we’re moving past the era when “gay panic” would have been seen as a viable defense. (See Joseph Mitchell Parsons, 1987; Jonathan Schmitz, 1995; Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, 1998; Joseph Biedermann, 2008; Vincent McGee, 2010.)

But–and here’s where it gets tricky–we’re not yet past the era of blaming the accuser in sexual assault cases. Take a look at these tidbits:

Scott McLemee explains that rape is not plausible since Michael Griffin was younger and stronger than Don Belton, thereby invoking the “if she didn’t fight back, it wasn’t rape” position: “Belton was 53 years old while the man charged in his death is 25. The idea that he could violate an ex-Marine (and not once but twice, according to his statement to the police during interrogation) would be funny if it were not so grotesque.”

Over at Ambling Along the Aqueduct, a writer named Josh (possibly Josh Lukin? not sure.) starts with the “if she didn’t fight back, it wasn’t rape” argument and builds in a “she didn’t call the police, so it wasn’t rape” defense and tosses in an “I know this man and he would never have done that” defense for good measure:

most (commenters responding to this issue online) suggest, credibly, that an itty-bitty professor who could not lift heavy objects probably did not assault the young veteran, and that if the guy believed at the time that he had been assaulted, he would have called the police or, if shame and pride prevented that, done violence to Don right then and there. Friends’ reports of the fact that Don hated being around boozers also help to challenge the rumor that the assault occurred when Griffin was incapacitated by heavy drink.

And from the comments section of the Bloomington Herald-Times, in the days immediately following Belton’s death:

I’m thinking that if I were attacked once and didn’t like it, I don’t think I’d allow it to happen a second time. There are plenty of options. The easiest and most effective would be to not go near the person who attacked me the first time. Get in the car, drive to another location maybe?

If you pet a dog, and the dog bites you, do you try and pet it a second time? I don’t. (Wednesday, December 30, 2009: 7:30 am)

Here is a theory, in light of Belton’s journal entry about “a wonderful individual who has come into my life named Michael”)… A young, macho, ex-Marine experiences sexual attraction to another man and it leaves him feeling anxious, ashamed, angry and ultimately, tragically, homicidal. (Wednesday, December 30, 2009: 8:16 am)

I did not know this professor nor do I need to know him to conclude an opinion on this matter but what I do know is this…in my short 29 years on this earth I have come to learn that it really does not matter what this man’s race is or that his smile does not look like your’s or mine or that he was an openly gay man or not! What does matter is this….He was MURDERED!!!….This was an accomplished man, a man who used his time to read and write and not only educate himself but also others. He wasn’t a bum, he didn’t stand on the side of the road asking for a handout and he certainly did not deserve to be murdered!!! (Wednesday, December 30, 2009: 8:43 am)

Why did the girlfriend leave town? If she witnessed the event and it was rape, why did they not report it? They were coherent enough to remember, but not sober enough to fight off his attacker? Something does not add up. Other than the accused, everyone who knew Professor Belton seemed to find him a gentle, caring man. It is very hard to believe they were all so wrong about him. (Wednesday, December 30, 2009: 11:54 pm)

and here’s one in the gap between the trial and Michael Griffin’s conviction:

Just to clarify: no rape was ever reported to the police, nor was there any physical or medical evidence that a rape occurred. The defendant never reported such a crime, nor die he ask to be examined. We have only the defendant’s word that the sex he engaged in was non-consensual, and, now according to his testimony (which differs from the statements he gave to police), his recollection is so fuzzy, his girlfriend had to tell him something happened. In any case, the very next day, following what he is now describing as a sexual assault, the defendant and his girlfriend made love 5 times, while “processing” the events of the night before. There are so many contradictions in this sad story that it does break your heart. But Don Belton is the victim here, and cannot speak to defend his reputation. This is why those who knew him well came to testify to his nonviolent character. That is his “reputation.” In this country, it’s very simple. We don’t take the law into our own hands. While Michael Griffin deserves our pity for his troubled nature, he is not above the law. (Thursday, April 14, 2011: 1:04 pm)

Though here’s a nice, even-handed analysis from someone by the username of Gonzo:

[T]hose who argue that due to the size of Griffin he COULD not have been raped by the smaller man are engaging in a double standard as well. I would LOVE to hear one of them argue that a smaller man could not rape a woman who weighed 50 or 60 pounds more than them. That is saying that a woman has to forcefully resist a man’s advances with every possible amount of strength and any weapon at hand or it’s not rape. That’ thankfully, is NOT the law.

I believe that a woman had a right to say NO at any point and that once that is said further sexual action constitutes rape. Griffin, according to testimony anyway, rebuffed Belton three times. In Indiana physically pushing away or moving away from someone making sexual advances IS considered the same as saying “No” out loud.

Furthermore, saying a “6 foot tall 220 pound Marine” conjures up a significantly different image than what you get from seeing Griffin speak in person, as I saw yesterday.

Mr. Griffin killed Mr. Belton. He gave convincing and emotional testimony yesterday that his actions weren’t premeditated but that’s up to the jury , and that’s always a toss up. (Thursday, April 14, 2011: 3:12 pm)

Gonzo further writes:

I also feel Belton SHOULD be alive, there is no doubt in my mind that Griffin SHOULD (and will) go to prison. I also understand the concept that it is unfair that Belton can’t defend himself against allegations of rape.

But I am concerned there is a serious double standard at play though that does not alleviate the responsibility of Griffin for this homicide whether it is murder or manslaughter.

The double standard I see is this: If Belton as a 50 some year old man had befriended a woman in her mid-twenties who had serious emotional issues and events had unfolded in the same way, the woman in question would have the sympathy of a lot more people than Griffin does.

I do not know if it was murder or manslaughter. I do NOT believe that the rape, if it occurred, justified homicide in any way. All I can say is that what I was able to see of the trial was mostly Griffin’s testimony and all the folks on here saying he’s an evil manipulative bad ass seem to be talking about someone else than the person 50 or so people, including the jury, saw testify.

So, my bottom line is this; these events and this trial, no matter what the outcome, will not result in any form of ‘justice.’ Those on here crowing about Griffin’s innocence because he ‘was raped’ are doing so because of their prejudices for certain, but a lot of people have decided they know what happened and they don’t really have a clue, they are basing their judgments on their own preconceived notions as well. (Thursday, April 14, 2011: 10:25 pm)

Really, I couldn’t have said it better myself. So I won’t bother to try.

I will only add that this case, and the public discourse surrounding it, has left me feeling deeply conflicted and uneasy. As a queer feminist lady-type, as a social liberal, as a human being who cares about human beings, I’m sad and disappointed and dismayed by how easily members of “my” communities have slipped into the friend/enemy rhetoric that works against “us” far more frequently than it works in “our” favor.

Tweet This Post

Uncategorized

Michael Griffin convicted of murder in stabbing death of Don Belton

Apr 15th, 11 / 1 Comment

I have thoughts. I have many thoughts. But right now I just want to post the news article from the Bloomington Herald-Times.

Jurors convict Griffin of murder in stabbing death of IU professor

By Laura Lane 331-4362 | llane@heraldt.com
April 14, 2011, last update: 4/15 @ 12:30 am

Michael James Griffin

Don Belton

After 12 hours of deliberations, jurors late Thursday night found Michael Griffin guilty of murder, deciding he intended to kill Don Belton when he stabbed him 22 times in December 2009.

The 27-year-old former Marine faces a prison sentence of 45 to 65 years.

The seven women and five men on the jury spent 12 hours, until 11:15 p.m., working to reach a unanimous decision.

MORE: For more stories on Don Belton and this case

Two satellite trucks from Indianapolis-based television news stations sat parked outside the Justice Building late into the night, the reporters hoping for a verdict before the 11 p.m. newscast.

Griffin is a Bloomington High School South graduate who was awarded the Purple Heart after being injured in the Iraq war. Belton was an acquaintance and an assistant English professor at Indiana University.

A friend found 53-year-old Belton’s body on the kitchen floor of his South Madison Street house on Dec. 28, 2009.

Griffin admitted to jurors he killed Belton by stabbing him 22 times with a knife that has a 10-inch-long, double-edged blade. He claimed Belton raped him, and that when he confronted Belton, the man denied there had been an assault and said he believed the sex acts between the two were consensual.

The two argued and Griffin went into a rage, killing Belton days before the professor was to depart on a vacation to Hawaii.

Jurors had the option of finding Griffin guilty of murder — an intentional killing — or the less-serious offense of voluntary manslaughter, killing someone in the sudden heat of emotion.

The range of penalty for voluntary manslaughter is 20 to 50 years behind bars.

Griffin likely will serve half of his sentence under an Indiana statute that gives prisoners two days of credit for each one served on good behavior.

From closing arguments

Earlier in the day, the defense and prosecuting attorneys presented closing arguments to jurors.

Public defender David Collins said his client snapped when Belton was flippant about Griffin’s allegation that Belton sexually assaulted him on Christmas Day 2009.

“He went to Don Belton’s to get some understanding of what happened Christmas night,” Collins told the jury. “He was met with a smirk … he wanted to hear it was not OK. Twenty-two times … does that evoke thoughts of passion, anger, rage?”

Deputy prosecutor Darcie Winkle said Griffin had 32 hours to decide what to do about the events on Christmas. She told jurors he went to Belton’s house to kill him, then carried out the plan.

“He killed Don because he was humiliated about what happened the 25th,” Winkle said. “Actions speak louder than words. It’s crystal clear what the defendant’s intent was.”

Tweet This Post

Uncategorized

know your rights for the National Day of Silence

Apr 14th, 11 / 0 Comments

This Friday, April 15, is the National Day of Silence, a day in which students are asked to stand, in silence, in protest of the harrassment, bullying, and silencing of LGBTQ youth in schools. If you are a student who is considering participating in the Day of Silence, you need to know your rights in advance of the protest. Below is a document published by Lambda Legal in which your rights as a student are detailed.

April 15, 2011 is the National Day of Silence, a student-led action sponsored by Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network’s (GLSEN) in which thousands of students around the country will remain silent for all or part of the school day to call attention to the harassment and discrimination faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth.

Over the years, GLSEN and Lambda Legal have heard from hundreds of students, parents and allies who have encountered resistance from their schools and school officials in response to their efforts to participate in Day of Silence activities. Whether a school’s actions are based on school officials’ misunderstanding of the law, a desire to avoid controversy, or intended to blatantly discriminate against LGBT-supportive speech, they may be violating your rights even though they are less obvious forms of discrimination and censorship.

Do students have the right to participate in and advocate for the Day of Silence?

In most circumstances, yes. Under the Constitution, public schools must respect students’ right to free speech.The right to speak includes the right not to speak, as well as the right to wear buttons or T-shirts expressing support for a cause. This does not mean students can say—or not say— anything they want at all times. There are some limits on free speech rights at school.

For example, schools have some control over students’ speech in the classroom or during other supervised, school-sponsored activities.If a teacher tells a student to answer a question during class, the student generally doesn’t have a constitutional right to refuse to answer. Students who want to remain silent during class on the Day of Silence are less likely to encounter problems if they seek permission from their teachers beforehand.

However, school officials are NOT allowed to discriminate against you based on your message. In other words, school officials may not censor a student just because they disapprove of the student’s ideas, because the student’s speech makes them uncomfortable or because they want to avoid controversy.Outside of the classroom, in areas like hallways and cafeterias, students have a much broader right to free speech. Schools can’t censor students unless they use lewd or foul language, promote illegal drug use, harass other students or substantially disrupt the school environment.

If you believe your right to freedom of expression has been violated, Lambda Legal may be able to help or advise you. www.dayofsilence.org/legalhelp

Do students have a right to display posters and make announcements about the Day of Silence?

In many circumstances, yes. If a public school generally allows students or student organizations to display posters or make announcements on the public address system—the school may not deny or otherwise restrict your right to display posters or use the PA system based on your message or viewpoint (so long as you do not use lewd or foul language, promote illegal drug use, harass other students or substantially disrupt the school environment).So if students are generally allowed to announce events and put up posters on school property, Day of Silence participants must be allowed to announce events and put up posters too.

If you believe your school is unlawfully restricting or censoring your right to freedom of expression, Lambda Legal may be able to help or advise you. www.dayofsilence.org/legalhelp

Can a school justify banning speech by claiming it will be disruptive?

In most circumstances, no. If a public school wants to restrict student expression because it fears disruption, school officials have to show facts that reasonably lead them to believe that the speech will cause a substantial disruption to the school.A school can’t just assume that the Day of Silence or speech related to it will disrupt the school. And schools can’t censor students just because other students might respond in a disruptive way. If students who disagree with a speaker’s ideas create a disruption, the school can punish the disruptive students but can’t punish the speaker.So, for example, if a Day of Silence participant puts up a poster and another student responds with name-calling and harassment, the solution must be to discipline the harasser and to protect, not censor, the Day of Silence participant.

If you believe you have been unfairly punished or censored based on the school’s claim of “disruption,” Lambda Legal may be able to help or advise you. www.dayofsilence.org/legalhelp

What if a school says it has to restrict Day of Silence activities so community members won’t think the school is endorsing the event?

Schools have more control over student speech if other students or community members would reasonably believe the speech represents the school’s own speech or viewpoint. For example, if a student helps write an official school publication, like a school newsletter, the school has some control over what the student says because people reading the publication may think the school endorsed the student’s expression. But this doesn’t give the school the right to control what students express on their own, or what they express through means generally open for independent student expression at school, like posters and morning announcements. Schools cannot discriminate against students based on their ideas in those situations because nobody could reasonably think that the student speech represents the school’s speech. In the words of former Supreme Court Justice O’Connor, “[t]he proposition that schools do not endorse everything they fail to censor is not complicated.”

If you believe your right to freedom of expression has been violated or that you are being unfairly censored based on your school’s claim of “endorsing” Day of Silence, Lambda Legal may be able to help or advise you. www.dayofsilence.org/legalhelp

Can a school restrict student speech because it offends other students or parents?

No. So long as student expression isn’t lewd or profane, advocate violence or illegal activity and doesn’t harass others, schools can’t restrict it just because some students or parents find it offensive. “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

If you believe your right to freedom of expression has been violated, Lambda Legal may be able to help or advise you. www.dayofsilence.org/legalhelp

Are there other ways in which schools might interfere with Day of Silence activities -aside from blatantly denying students the right to participate?

Yes. Although your school may allow you to participate in some DOS activities, they may also restrict or infringe on your ability to do so in a way that violates your rights. Examples from past years include:

Not providing students with an opportunity to meet with the Principal, or otherwise attempting to avoid giving students permission to participate in Day of Silence activities and then telling students that “it is too late”;
Telling students that they cannot individually participate without a club to sponsor DOS;
Attempting to rename the DOS “Diversity Day” or otherwise co-opt students’ messages;
Allowing students to use the PA system, but rewriting what the students want to say or providing a script;
Providing students who do not want to be exposed to DOS messages an excused absence (a get-out-ofschool-free pass);
Allowing students to have a table to distribute materials, but requiring the table to be in a location or at a time where students rarely pass by.

If you feel that your school is unfairly restricting your ability to participate meaningfully in Day of Silence, Lambda Legal may be able to help. www.dayofsilence.org/legalhelp

More questions?

For more information about students’ legal rights, contact one of Lambda Legal’s regional Help Desks. Phone numbers and additional information are available at: www.lambdalegal.org/help.

For more information about the Day of Silence, including tips on how to organize your own Day of Silence at your school, visit www.dayofsilence.org.

Tweet This Post

Uncategorized

teacher to issue public apology for antigay harrassment of student

Mar 18th, 11 / 0 Comments

Whoa momma.

Via Feminist Law Professors:

Teacher to Publicly Apologize for Antigay Harassment

Posted on March 18, 2011 by Tony Infanti

In another instance of repeated antigay bullying, the ACLU of Florida announced yesterday a settlement with the Flagler County School District in a case of a student who had been bullied and harassed by other students and by a teacher. From the ACLU press release:

Herbert, a 15-year-old freshman, had been bullied and threatened by fellow students at school and on Facebook and was physically attacked at school by another student who regularly taunted him with anti-gay slurs. Although Herbert reported several instances of bullying and harassment to school officials, the bullying and harassment got worse.

“I reported the bullying to the administration but it never seemed to change anything. I felt alone and it made me stop wanting to go to school,” said Herbert. “My breaking point came when one of my teachers started telling anti-gay jokes and mocking me in front of the entire class.”

A story on Advocate.com reports that the teacher had told the student that he could not put his soda in the same refrigerator as the other students or they would turn gay and also mockingly imitated him.

Among the actions that the school district agreed to take in the settlement of this case was to have the teacher who bullied this student make a public apology. The question is whether that is punishment enough for a teacher’s abuse of his position of power over his young and impressionable students. I think not.

Tweet This Post

Uncategorized

finally someone listens to common sense about Proposition 8

Aug 4th, 10 / 0 Comments

You’ve heard by now, I assume, that U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8, the amendment to the California state Constitution that banned gay marriage.

In explaining his ruling, Walker wrote that

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Walker added this explanation for why the issue of gay marriage should not be up to voters to decide:

Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives.

It’s my understanding that the United States Supreme Court bases many of its decisions on general public opinion about issues like capital punishment. I’d be interested to learn the difference between court decisions that rely on majority opinion (which is often based on conjecture, speculation, and fears) and those that are decided by voters’ majority opinions (also often based on conjecture, speculation, and fears).

Of course I’m elated by the ruling, and believe Walker is absolutely accurate in his assessment of both voters’ efforts to ban gay marriage and why Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. The ruling will almost certainly be appealed, which will, I hope, give us all a chance to speak plainly about our conjectures, speculation and fears when it comes to gay rights.

Tweet This Post

Uncategorized

counseling student fights for her right to provide therapy to people she hates

Jul 23rd, 10 / 4 Comments

Here’s something awesome: A graduate student in school counseling who is publicly and vocally anti-gay is suing her school because university officials dared to suggest she might not be able to effectively counsel gay and lesbian clients.

I was directed to this story by Jon Newton of p2pnet; the Chronicle of Higher Education ran a slightly longer description of the lawsuit. Here’s the breakdown:

Jennifer Keeton, a student at Augusta State University in Augusta, GA, has been crystal clear on her views toward homosexuality: It’s immoral, a lifestyle choice, and in direct opposition to her Christian beliefs.

According to the suit, faculty members threatened Keeton with expulsion unless she underwent a “remediation plan” intended, presumably, to increase her acceptance of the GLBTQ community; the Chronicle article offers the following details:

The plan calls on Ms. Keeton to attend workshops on serving diverse populations, read articles on counseling gay, lesbian, and bisexual and transgendered people, and write reports to an adviser summarizing what she has learned. It also instructs her to work to increase her exposure to, and interaction with, gay populations, and suggests that she attend the local gay-pride parade. Ms. Keeton has refused to comply.

The suit argues that Keeton’s personal views toward homosexuality would not interfere with her ability to offer competent counseling to gay and lesbian clients. You can see a video of Keeton explaining her stance here.

Two points: First, if you are so judgmental and bigoted about a group of people that you are simply unable to keep your mouth shut about it, what in the world would lead you to believe you would make a competent counselor to anybody, least of all the people whose lifestyles you unequivocally deplore?

Second, if you unequivocally deplore the lifestyles of an entire group of people, why in the world would you want to counsel them anyway, competently or otherwise?

For goodness’ sake: school counseling. One of the most significant sets of issues young people deal with surround sexuality. Straight, queer, trans, or otherwise, all clients deserve to be counseled by someone who has not already made up her mind about what sorts of sexual attractions, dispositions, and behaviors are moral and which are a Crime Against the Lord.

Why is this woman suing? Why in the world does she even want to be a school counselor?

Tweet This Post

Uncategorized

twinning injustice, one social structure at a time

Jul 2nd, 10 / 2 Comments

My sister, who just finished absolutely destroying her first year of law school, recently announced an interest in pursuing criminal prosecution. Once I overcame my instant misreading of her announcement (don’t blame me; I’m not a morning person), I figured out pretty quickly that my twin sister and I are pursuing vocations that spring from the same moral impulse. To wit: I must serve and defend people who have suffered or will suffer at the hands of others.

It’s just the name–prosecution–that throws us off, makes us think prosecutors are out to punish the bad guys. In certain respects, of course, that’s exactly what prosecutors do–that’s exactly the power we confer to them. But the public interest in punishing the bad guys is an outgrowth of a deeper public impulse: To maintain the social order, to protect our citizens from injustice and victimization, to fight for the good guys.

Protecting people from injustice and victimization. Fighting for the good guys. That’s pretty much what I like to think I’m doing, too, by working in the service of working class kids and kids who are deeply undervalued and underserved by a system that is not designed to help them. I work in defense of those kids. And another way to frame that work is to say that I am a public prosecutor, building a case against a system that’s criminally unjust, criminally cruel.

But here’s where I think Laura and I part company: I believe we need to demolish the social order. I believe that the public education system is deeply, perhaps fatally, flawed, especially for poor kids and minorities, and I believe we need to work to tear it down. That’s the wheel I’m throwing my shoulder against.

Though we haven’t explicitly talked about this, I’m pretty sure my sister believes the criminal justice system is similarly deeply, deeply flawed (see here, here, here, and here)–but it seems to me that her stance is something like “this is the best system we have right now, the only system we have, so we need to use it to protect the innocents and the victims.”

I’m all, fuck the Man and the horse he rode in on! And my sister’s all, yyyeah that’s nice but lookit all these victims who need protecting and defense right now. And I’m all, Yes! And let’s muster up an army made up of those victims and march with them right to the gates of hell if that’s what it takes! And my sister’s all, um, okayyy but this woman was raped and that guy’s son was murdered and this woman was stabbed by her partner and what if we put aside the anger and try to take care of the people who need us right now?

Details, details, right? Laura and I agree that the world is all effed up, and we agree that we are therefore bound to the work of un-effing up things. The rest is just planning.

Tweet This Post

Uncategorized

on sexism and gender performance: it’s the bathrobes that’s outrageous?

Mar 14th, 10 / 2 Comments

There’s a nice little conversation going over at really? law? about masculinity, gender performance, law school, and competition.

The post, which was written by my sister Laura McWilliams in observance of International Women’s Day, describes her experience as a female law student. As she explains, her male classmates are the ones who shout her down, who silence her; she writes:

I can’t say for certain that this is about gender, but I can say that I’ve often been dismissed, insulted, or shouted down by men, but only once, since I started this thing, by a woman. Not every man has acted this way, but nearly every person who has acted this way has been a man.

She does add, however, that she hasn’t thought much about how men perform gender, and specifically about “the anxiety that comes with being a man and proving one’s manhood”:

I always separated in my mind the competition between men and women and the competition between men and men. One was about domination; the other was about bonding. Now I’m thinking that I was nowhere near right. The two are more mixed up than that. I’ve only recently begun trying to synthesize the two.

Men’s interactions are about performance–right?–in a way that’s different from how women perform. Men are constantly proving their gender, while women are forced to try to prove–I don’t know, their lack of gender?

The post has received several comments from male readers, and the set of comments by someone who calls himself “passer by” were especially interesting to me. He begins by arguing that women are far more competitive than men are:

I’d challenge the notion that males are more aggressive that females. And I have given it more than a passing thought. Both are more than capable of aggression, at equal levels.

Competitive? I’d say your (sic) wrong, sorry. Both men and women are competitive, but men more often acknowledge when they loose (sic), and let it go on the spot. Maybe with a bit of rude behavior, but that’s it. Women tend to find a way to bring it back around, go after revenge, and throw some vengeance in to boot.

This writer argues that women are more competitive, more vicious in their gossip, and more “catty”; in fact, he writes,

Cats are both masculine and feminine, but how many men do you know that are “catty?” How many men gossip in a way that undermine the credibility and reputation of women, or other men? Far more women tend to expend energy on such things.

Over the course of a multi-comment exchange between Laura and this commenter, she gently suggests that the “cattiness” label is part of how women are disempowered, then follows him as he changes the subject to sports, stereotyping of all men based on how a minority behave, and biological differences that he believes prove that men and women are just different–they just are. He writes:

Yes, environment plays a huge role. But any 8 year old can tell you boys and girls are born different, and anyone who has forgotten that fact hasn’t looked in their pants in far to long. To try to “discover” there are biological differences is a hysterical concept to me. It’s not news that sexual organs are the only distinguishable differences, so are hair patterns, hormones, and emergence differences that are apparent. To think that this doesn’t affect mood, attitude, aggression, and ultimately social perception is just naive.

Laura’s willingness to engage with this commenter, and to consider his arguments thoughtfully and carefully, led to a lengthy and perhaps productive conversation about gender. But I was struck by how hard Laura seems to have had to work to make this happen. The notion that “cattiness” is an apt term for women but not for men is just…well, it’s blatant sexism, is what it is. And the commenter argues that sports are to blame for turning men competitive, but somehow overlooks the inherent sexism in the fact that society “encourage(s) boys to play sports more than girls.”

Yet, by letting these comments pass, Laura makes it possible for the commenter to post an interesting argument: that all men get blamed for the sexist behavior of “a small minority”–in his view, maybe 20% of all men.

Which is a powerful point that’s well worth discussing. I’m not willing to go so far as to agree that sexism is only evident in 20 percent of all men, but it’s clear that not all men engage in sexist behavior, and that not all men who do engage in sexist behavior do so all the time.

The problem, really, is this: Even if less than 20 percent of all men engaged in sexist behavior, we still live in a culture that not only encourages but rewards that kind of behavior. Which means that this “small minority” has a distinct advantage when it comes to not only sports but education, work, and access to advancement opportunities.

Women and men alike should be outraged by this. It means that women and men alike are being forced to play a game that, all things being equal, they would probably choose not to play; it means that the rules of the game are being set by a small subset of our culture; it means that if you, male or female, choose to opt out, you’re setting yourself up to walk a rockier path than you might otherwise take.

Sam Seaborn: Where’d you get the bathrobe?
Carol Fitzpatrick: The gym.
Sam: There are bathrobes at the gym?
Claudia Jean ‘C.J.’ Cregg: In the women’s locker room.
Sam: But not the men’s.
C.J.: Yeah.
Sam: Now, that’s outrageous. There’s a thousand men working here and 50 women.
C.J.: Yeah, and it’s the bathrobes that’s outrageous.

From “The West Wing: Bartlet’s Third State of the Union (#2.13)” (2001)

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOdrbf5sX_M&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0]

Tweet This Post

Uncategorized

NRA types should maybe just be quiet for a while: some thoughts on the University of Alabama shooting

Feb 13th, 10 / 3 Comments

I find it painfully appalling that some people are using the recent shooting on the campus of the University of Alabama-Huntsville to make arguments for looser gun control policies.

Details are still somewhat sketchy, but it appears that the perpetrator was a faculty member who was denied tenure. Biology professor Amy Bishop apparently brought a gun to a faculty meeting and, after learning she had been denied tenure for the second time in her career at Alabama, opened fire on her colleagues. Three people were killed and three others were wounded.

It beggars belief to hear some people arguing that the solution to incidents like this is actually more guns. According to msnbc, one student at the university said that she had requested that students with gun permits be allowed to carry their guns on campus and was turned down.

“I’m scared to go back to school,” (the student) said. “However, if they were to allow me to carry my pistol on campus, I would not be as scared…. I’m sorry that nobody in that room had a pistol to save at least one person’s life.”

To sum up, here’s the argument that the above student and others like her are making: that we need to allow more people to carry more weapons in more places. I reject outright such a monstrously irresponsible stance. Giving more people access to more guns is what makes America the gold-medal winner in First-World Gun Deaths.

And I don’t want to hear the argument that stricter gun control laws won’t stop gun violence since criminals and emotionally disturbed people like the woman who allegedly carried out yesterday’s campus shooting will always find ways to get their hands on weapons. That may very well be true, but looser gun control laws only make it more likely that those people will get their hands on weapons, while increasing the likelihood of more deaths resulting from their attacks.

Are you going to tell me that if anybody at that faculty meeting had been carrying a gun, they would have had the presence of mind to pull it out, aim it, and take a shot before Bishop opened fire?

Are you going to tell me that putting guns in the hands of young adults who are passing through some of the most emotionally tumultuous times in their lives is by any stretch of the imagination a smart idea? Drunk kids at house parties? Young romantics who have been spurned by the targets of their affections? Academically ambitious students for whom the C they just received in a class may end their dreams of becoming a lawyer or doctor?

Using shooting rampages to argue for looser gun control laws not only makes for a really bad argument, but it’s also socially irresponsible to an appalling degree.

Tweet This Post

Uncategorized