A Christian Goes to Law School

2006-08-22T00:49:00.000-07:00

We have moved to keemin.blogspot.com. Sorry for the inconvenience caused.

adieu, to you and you and you...

2006-06-21T23:04:00.000-07:00

Well, the time has come. I'm folding up this tent and moving on to another quarter of the blogosphere. It was fun to be "A Christian Goes to Law School." But ultimately I decided that I am more than just those labels, and it was getting a little too tedious to maintain multiple blogs that segmented the various areas of my life that I wanted to record for posterity (or therapy). Plus, it always got a little fuzzy at the margins, where Christianity, the law, and my personal life intersected. 'Twas a slippery slope.

If you want to find me... ask. seek. knock. Or just know who am I. (yes, that was an attempt to be enigmatic. If you figured it out, bully for you. Now don't go blabbing about it.)

I sense a trend here...

2006-05-08T00:34:00.000-07:00

Apparently CL LA MC (don't you just love acronyms?) has become somewhat of a popular place for law students to post procrastinatory notes to each other:

LUKE... hot surfer law student

Reply to: pers-156838508@craigslist.org
Date: 2006-05-02, 2:05PM PDT

Luke, the trinity misses you.

We arrive at the library with the anticipation of stalking, aka "running into" you. But then we remember you finished an exam just yesterday and are avoiding this place and an unsettling feeling of disappointment washes over us as we are forced to make sense of the jibber jabber that is property.

As we read and memorize and listen to bad pop music, we long to go surfing. to get hit in the face by our boards and to hold our bodily fluids for unhealthy amts of time. Save us!

But wait, one of us has seen the light! The light wearing a red shit with white lettering and jeans...is that you? Have you come to rescue us? Please see specific location for our crisis location.

this is in or around library reading room
no -- it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests

156838508

A Law Student Missed Connection

2006-05-08T00:11:00.000-07:00

Spotted on Craiglist Los Angeles' Missed Connections:

Goodbye 'Law Library'

Reply to: pers-158571340@craigslist.org
Date: 2006-05-07, 9:33PM PDT

So, yes, I'm finally leaving you.
When I was with you you made me feel hollow and drained, and when we were apart I felt guilty for being away.
Yes, your strange academic beauty was compelling, even exciting at first, but that initial flush has faded. I'm tired of you and your rules- we couldn't even eat together. And your Puritanical 'you can't even enter me until Sunday after noon.' Whatever.
I've had enough for now. (but we'll see what next winter brings...)
Ciao.

no -- it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests

158571340

Copyright © 2006 craigslist, inc. terms of use privacy policy feedback forum

(and yes, I do read MC for its entertainment value. Sometimes you need all the procrastination tools you can get.)

you know the stress is getting to you when...

2006-05-07T22:45:00.000-07:00

You actually find a corporate promotional video funny. Check out this one from Westlaw, I think they call it "Stressboy." And if you're a Westlaw Rewards member, you can get 400 points just for watching it. Boy, I really sound like a Westlaw addict, don't I? It's probably not going to help that perception of me, but I heard from an anonymous source that Lexis doesn't automatically reward you points for conducting a search anymore; apparently you need to do more than just enter a random citation. Another reason why I prefer Westlaw. (oh yes, and because they uhm, help me do legal research.)

waking or sleeping still?

2006-05-06T15:50:00.000-07:00

Well, the elections in Singapore are over. The opposition parties held on to their 2 seats, but gained no new ones. So the ruling PAP holds 82 out of the 84 seats in Parliament, with an aggregate 66% of the popular vote, a decline from the 75% that they garnered in the last election. Congratulations to the victors all around.

While I can't deny being disappointed that the opposition did not receive a stronger showing, I must admit that I'm not surprised either. It is hard to argue with two things that probably brought about this result: (1) the PAP's track record of success; (2) the materialistic and hardnosed pragmatism of your average Singaporean. Those two facts in combination, made it almost certain that the PAP would win most of the contested seats.

But those who clamor for change need not be disheartened or brokenhearted. The polling results show that the opposition gained a greater percentage of the vote in every constituency that they challenged. In the Prime Minister's own constituency, which had never before been challenged, a fully 1/3 of the electorate voted against the Prime Minister! In terms of asking for a mandate or vote of confidence from the people, that's hardly overwhelming. Especially given the lack of press freedom in Singapore and the Government's strong disapproval of political dissent.

There will be a lot of spin put upon the election in the days ahead, rationalization and justification of the results. Nonetheless, I think it is undeniable that this election was a landmark in many ways.

1) The use of the Internet to provide an alternative media source to the Singaporean public, despite the Government's stern warning that political expresion would not be tolerated. Yet many Singaporean bloggers decided to blog on anyway, some quite blatantly, others quite circumspectly. But there can be no denying that the Government failed to squelch Singaporean voices. I think it's a little silly to expect Singaporeans to steadfastly ignore the election while it's going on. I mean, if the entire Singaporean online community kept completely mum about the most important political event of the year, what sort of message would that imply about the importance of politics in Singapore? At this point, I don't know how the Government will react to the defiance of some members of the online community. Sadly, I expect them to actually arrest some people, and possibly fine them or even throw them into prison, for caring about their country. The Singapore Government is not used to being disobeyed. Ultimately, however, I think this experience will force the Government to re-think its stance on blogging and the Internet. Hopefully it chooses to not be China.

2) The maturing of the political opposition. For a long time, the opposition in Singapore had a credibility problem; they did not field candidates who could inspire confidence in the people. Opposition political rallies really did use to be nothing more than just entertainment. But from listening and hearing to some of the online broadcasts of the rallies, the opposition has managed to capture the hearts of a larger percentage of the people, and even, to a limited extent, their minds as well. It was astounding to hear the crowds, thousands strong, chanting the parties' names, reciting the Singapore pledge, and genuinely caring about the political future of Singapore. Beyond just populist sentimentality, however, the opposition has also managed to attract an increasing number of young, well-educated, English-speaking professionals, exactly the type of voter that has historically supported the PAP. What is more, it's these professionals that the PAP is relying on to drive the Singapore economy. It must be worrying to see an increasing proportion of them feel that the PAP is not enough.

3) The campaigning gaffes. In past elections, the opposition always seemed to commit more gaffes than the PAP, in terms of picking their words poorly, or employing less than productive tactics and campaign strategies. But this year, it truly felt like the shoe was on the other foot. After Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew denounced third world gutter politics, his party began a campaign of personal attacks against the opposition, outright character assassination. That certainly does not seem like the behavior of civilized first world politicians. The PAP then embarked on a hardcore campaign of pork barrel politics, waving multi-million dollar bribes under voters' noses, warning them that if they didn't vote for the PAP, they would be denied government money that would go to the constituencies that did support the PAP. This is, to varying degrees, a tactic employed by politicians all over the world. But the PAP is certainly one of the most blatant and in-your-face political parties when it comes to "vote-buying." The Prime Minister was caught in a speech talking about how, if the opposition increased its seats in Parliament, he would need to spend more time thinking about how to "fix the opposition" and "buy [voters'] votes." He probably didn't mean for it to come out that way, but they were certainly ill-chosen turns of phrase.

This election will hopefully be a wake-up call for the PAP. Ruling Singapore is not a right, and they cannot rest on their laurels forever, arrogant and assured that their historical success has earned them future security. Political capital was spent on this election, and the Government must go ahead now knowing that at least a full third of Singapore disapproves of their policies and how they are running the country. In established democracies like the U.K. or U.S., a 66% approval rate would be much coveted. In hegemonic Singapore, however, it should be nothing short of alarming.

I should make it clear that my support for the opposition has nothing to do with animosity toward the PAP. But I do think they need to change, and they need to be willing to let go of the past, and their arrogance, and remember to serve the people with humility, ruling not just from their heads, but also their hearts. At the end of the day, they lead "we, the people of Singapore," not "Singapore, Inc."

Technorati Tag: singaporeelections

jubilatio

2006-05-06T01:39:00.000-07:00

Almost done with finals now, just Monday's exam for Deals, worth the princely proportion of 10% of my grade. Here's a word of friendly advice for law professors (or indeed, any teacher) and registrars/exam schedulers: exams that are worth 10-20% of the final grade should always be put on the first day or two of an exam period. When they come at the end, they become pesky hindrances to students' freedom. Your student isn't thinking, "Man, I've really got to study hard and ace that 10% final." No, instead after his penultimate final, he's thinking, "Yes! I'm done! Free! What should I do this weekend? Maybe I'll take a trip to- oh wait, do I have one more? Argh! Foiled by a 10% final! NOOOOOO!!!!" And yet another glorious sun-soaked Southern Californian weekend is foiled, consigned to the heap of wasted-weekends-that-you'll-never-have-again.

Alright, to be fair, I'm indulging in the traditional law school pasttime known as "whining" or "whinging" or "being a baby." It's really not all that bad, in the grand scheme of things. It could be a 10% 20-page paper. And he's promised to go easy on us. And, truth be told, it's really not going to stop me from enjoying my weekend. I've already lined up a game of Settlers, a free lunch on the law school (to say hi to diversity admits who were admitted late and convince them that despite the administration's insulting gaffe, they really do want to come to UCLaw), an early morning foray to REI, and church on Sunday. Somewhere in there, I might even crack open my Deals notes.

Oh, and if anyone's thinking of doing law school at Boulder, I highly recommend taking Victor Fleischer's Deals class. It's a shame UCLA's losing him (and all the Corporate Law concentration people who didn't take him this time round are kicking themselves for it). :)

no s**t!

2006-05-05T00:58:00.000-07:00

Really, I'm more excited about the upcoming election in Singapore than my Business Associations final tomorrow. Excited. About an election in SINGAPORE!!! (Okay, so it really wouldn't take much to get anyone with a pulse more excited about it, versus a B.A. final. But for a political election in Singapore to manage that. Wow.)

My meanderings through the blogosphere have also wised me up to the relatively large number of Singaporeans overseas who are unable to vote, either because: a) their GRC isn't contested anyway; or b) they've been abroad for over 2 years without the Singapore Government's explicit backing (i.e. they're not a government scholar, employee, etc.). (a) I can understand, I mean, if your district isn't up for grabs, voting for a walkover candidate's rather silly, right? (b) is, however, a little much. What about being overseas for more than 2 years renders a Singaporean citizen ineligible to vote? Do you become less Singaporean by virtue of the fact that you live overseas? (Many sons and daughters of Singapore's government ministers have lived overseas for years and years) Does living in a foreign country somehow taint you and make you, oh I don't know, unable to make a well-reasoned political choice? Yeesh. (Alright, some of you might ask what would one expect from a country that banned chewing gum. I avert mine eyes in embarassment. No comment, please.)

Alright. Sleep. B.A. final tomorrow. Sigh. Think I'd be more excited about going to the dentist...

Technorati tag: singaporeelections

Dissolution of a Political Hegemony?

2006-05-04T15:50:00.000-07:00

Okay, I really should be studying Business Associations. But what was once a lack of motivation (partly the class, partly my lack of effort through the semester, partly the professor, partly being sick) has been replaced by an avid interest in Singaporean politics. Here in the US, voting is a right, but certainly not an obligation. And although we have the chance to, every four years, elect the leader of the free world (the President really is, like it or not), not all of us exercise that right. In Singapore, voting is not just a right, but an obligation. It's an offense not to vote in the election, should your particular constituency be contested. The irony of it is that for a long time, voting was always somewhat futile; there was no real possibility that the ruling People's Action Party would lose, or that your vote would bring about any sort of meaningful change.

But things are changing, as my previous post mentioned (although I apologize for its terrible prose. I plead diminished mental capacity as a result of physical illness). Sitting here in LA, eight thousand miles from my heartland and not even a citizen, I can feel it. And you know what? It's exciting. It's exciting because the opposition is gaining strength, and if nothing else, this election shows that in years to come, Singapore may actually have "first-world" politics (which is what Lee Kuan Yew apparently wants), with political parties on both sides being strong and credible checks on each other (and hopefully they can do it in a genteel and civilized manner, without the use of ad hominem attacks or suit at law).

For my regular American readership (okay, that was probably a little bit of egoism on my part, to think that I have a regular readership. Indulge me, will you?), I apologize for talking about something seemingly unrelated to my usual topics (like they're all that interesting anyway). I'm struggling to fully convey the excitement that I feel. But imagine that for forty years, as long as you can remember, a single political party has controlled all levels of federal and state government, and never been meaningfully challenged: a political hegemony. Finally, after forty-one years, a credible challenge is being mounted, and the winds of change have begun to blow. Surely that would stir up some excitement in you, the thought of freedom steadily marching on?

If you're interested in finding out more, I'm recommending several blogs that I've found quite worth reading:

Yawning Bread (several really good photo essays. Start with the one on April 28)
SG Election '06 (personal commentary, persistently apolitical in keeping with the Singapore Government's strict warnings against persistently political blogging/podcasting/vodcasting)
SG Rally (excellent site that tries to cover all the rallies and television broadcasts. The only way I managed to hear the four leading political parties' televised speeches)
Singabloodypore (another apolitical commentary site)

Alright. I'm going to study B.A. now, I swear.

Technorati tag: singaporeelections

The Times They Are A-Changing (in Singapore's Politics)

2006-05-03T20:36:00.000-07:00

For those of you who may be unfamiliar with the facts, Singapore is a tiny island-nation in Southeast Asia, unremarkable in almost every way except for its people and what they have achieved; a level of economic growth and development that is envied by every other post-colonial country out there. It has not, however, come without a price (albeit one that most Singaporeans were, for a long time, willing to pay): a lack of political freedom. The People's Action Party (PAP) and its undisputed helmsman, Lee Kuan Yew, have been in power since Singapore gained complete independence in 1965, an achievement that was arguably made possible by the heavy-handed silencing of opposition politicians and any sounds of dissent.

Growing up in Singapore, I remember never being very impressed by the opposition parties that would, every once in a while, try to contest an election. Few of their candidates were well-educated, and they didn't really seem to have much of a plan or platform. Many Singaporeans apparently agreed with me, because the opposition was, for a very long time, viewed as simply not being credible.

But the times, they are a-changing. Singapore goes to the polls this Saturday, and for the first time that I can remember (and probably for the first time that a lot of Singaporeans can remember), the opposition is fielding candidates to challenge half of all the seats that are up for grabs in Parliament. It's symbolic more than anything else, really; no one expects them to be able to unseat the PAP. But it is well-timed symbolism; Singaporeans are increasingly dissatisfied with the PAP and how it stifles any expression of freedom that can be seen as deleterious to the government (or as Singaporeans are fond of calling it, the gahmen). There is, at least online, a certain sense that this election will be different.

A lot of that has to do with the Internet, especially the proliferation of blogs. The Singapore Government has naturally clamped down, chiefly by imposing a moratorium on political blogging in Singapore during the election campaigning. Yet a quick blogsearch for "singapore elections" will turn up many blogs that discuss the elections, oftentimes in a way calculated to not run afoul of the law (as some of them cheekily remark, "Prison got no broadband!"). A search for the Technorati tag "singaporeelections" will pull up many more blog posts. The Asia Times Online also has a good article on how the PAP is trying to control political expression on the Internet, arguably an exercise in inevitable futility.

And I must say: I never thought I'd see the day that the PAP would actually be afraid. Well, okay, perhaps I did think that I would live to see the day, but I certainly never thought it would appear so soon. I now have some small inkling of the heady rush of freedom that East Germans had in 1989. Well, except that I don't live there anymore, but still. Merdeka!

Technorati tag: singaporeelections

when front page news intersects with the UCLA L. Rev.

2006-04-27T16:31:00.000-07:00

Most people have heard, through the Web grapevine, about the Ferrari Enzo crash on PCH a while back, and the ensuing intrigue surrounding the former Gizmondo executive, blah blah blah. Which all makes for good, if somewhat frivolous, news.

Now that he's facing criminal charges for gun possession (and probably more), he went out and hired a criminal defense firm. (Smart move on his part; unfortunately I don't believe that you can achieve criminal justice without adequate legal representation on both sides in the U.S.) Now for the twist: I was in the L. Rev. office a couple days back, and posted on the noticeboard was a wanted ad from that criminal defense firm; they're looking to hire a UCLA L. Rev. member with an interest in criminal law, especially international criminal law, as a law clerk for the case.

I had to chuckle. The L. Rev. isn't quite making the frontpage news, but mayhaps one of us will get to be a part of a developing news story...

Oh, and on another note, congratulations to the new staff of the UCLA L. Rev. You've all worked hard over Spring Break, and it's paid off. (I would say that you "deserve" to be on L. Rev., but desert is a pretty loaded term, and arguably none of us truly deserve anything. I certainly never thought that I deserved to be on L. Rev.)

To those who tried but didn't get on... thanks for trying. While you might be disappointed, I hope that you found it somewhat rewarding or interesting (okay, if you're a law dork like me, you probably did, and if you're not, you probably didn't). The fact is that the write-on grading process is highly subjective, and every year, lots of people who are eminently qualified to be on L. Rev., don't make it. With a few exceptions (myself not included), the members of any law review are not smarter or better than their non-law review peers.

Besides, in six or seven months, when the new staff is whining about their citechecks, authors who don't know how to footnote or cite properly, and impending comment doom, you can cast your eyes heav'nward and utter a silent prayer of thanks that you didn't get on L. Rev. ;)

Rescue/ I Need You

2006-04-27T15:00:00.000-07:00

I need You Jesus,
To come to my rescue;
Where else can I go?
There's no other name
By which I am saved
Capture me with grace
I will follow You.

Jared Anderson
© 2003 Vertical Worship Songs/ASCAP

Word. Especially for Laura & Rachel right now.

"Good grief!"

2006-04-23T16:56:00.000-07:00

Reading this article, Manly Men Answer Call of the Wild, in the NY Times elicited this particularly Brownian (as in Charlie Brown. What, you think I'm some kind of scientist or something?) expression from me.

The gist of it is that men pay hundreds and even thousands of dollars to enjoy simulated survival adventures. The particular one featured in the article simulates an evasion exercise for military personnel in hostile territory. The irony is that anyone who ever served would not consider putting on camo paint, lugging 60-80 lbs. of gear, eating MREs and going without a shower for a week, to be enjoyable. The Army teaches you many things; one of them is that it's good to enjoy the comforts of life, like hot food and personal hygiene.

It also seems a little pretentious; I can imagine someone coming back to his law firm/bank/mundane office from one of these trips, and bragging about how he spent five days "living like a soldier in Iraq." I think I'd be sorely tempted to introduce someone like that to Mr. Fist, or (more likely) to several well-aimed barbs of withering scorn.

And of course, sociologically, I wonder what this says. Entertainment culture, where even otherwise life-and-death experiences become a consumable good? Emasculation of the male in modern-day society, forcing them to resort to games to regain some sense of being a man?

This post, of course, reflects a well-known fact about me: I'm procrastinating from studying again.

When research pays off...

2006-04-21T11:37:00.000-07:00

Law students by now are familiar with the ongoing epic battle between LexisNexis and Westlaw for our legal research loyalty. Sometimes it's annoying to receive an incessant stream of flyers in your mailbox urging you to attend the latest snazzy training session. But sometimes, all those Lexis points and Westlaw points pay off.

Case in point? My Lexis points bought me my 8-piece Cuisinart cookware set, and my Westlaw points just got me this:

for only 3000 points. For those of you unschooled in the science of barbequeology (that includes yours truly), that's a Brinkmann® Smoke N' Grill Smoker. On the Brinkmann website, it goes for $60 + s/h (about $10). Most reward points programs out there allocate a point value of $0.01 for every point. Which means that my new smoker/grill was a real steal at an estimated point value of $0.023... even more so if you think that all I had to do to earn it was to do legal research that had to be done anyway.

Curiously enough though, the Westlaw catalog seems to assign point values based on popularity - an iPod is 20,400 points (street price of $270, which means an estimated point value of $0.013). At that point value ratio, my smoker/grill would be about 6000 points.

And if you couldn't already tell, finals are around the corner: that's the only reason I'd spend half an hour browsing the Westlaw catalog and blogging about a new smoker/grill. As a reward for reading my inane drivel, I'll throw a party at my place when the new acquisition gets here. BYOM. :)

love story

2006-04-18T07:37:00.000-07:00

From today's L.A. Times comes this article about a mixed marriage in the days after the 1906 San Francisco quake, at a time when California outlawed them (at least if the groom was Chinese) and the U.S. itself saw Chinese immigrants as a threat to public order.

It's a sweet story, set against the harsh realities of a bigoted society. But it's also sobering to think that if I had been born just decades earlier, I would have been a second-class citizen, if a citizen at all. Oh, and that I would probably have been beaten or killed for dating someone who was Caucasian. Talk about putting a damper on romance...

how unappealing

2006-04-17T02:31:00.000-07:00

NY Times article on a splinter fundamentalist church that protests at the funerals of American service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

#1: How absolutely distasteful, purely as a matter of civility and good manners.
#2: "Judge not, lest ye be judged" and "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" spring to mind.
#3: Never having taken Con Law II (First Amendment), I don't know what the test for First Amendment freedom of expression is, but somehow I don't doubt that what they're doing can be outlawed.

Off-topic #4: I really should be sleeping, and not surfing the Internet at 2:30 in the morning.

being admitted to an institution

2006-04-17T01:29:00.000-07:00

Obviously, the title of this post is a reference to law school (it's just like any other institution out there that you might be admitted to).

So, it's law school admission/acceptance/rejection/waitlisting time again. Admissions departments at law schools all over the nation frantically crunch the numbers to project if they'll have enough students satisfying whatever student diversity/money/LSAT profile they have in mind, constantly balancing the competing constraints of admitting too many people (sort of like overbooking a flight) versus admitting too few (consequently flying with a half-full plane). In my year, UCLA was admitting people up till the first day of Orientation (so don't lose heart!).

Best things I've heard so far? A friend apparently encountered a prospective 1L who had been admitted to Columbia and UCLA, and was asking which school was better for meeting a nice Orthodox Jewish boy. After ascertaining that she was serious, it was recommended that she go to Columbia.

0Ls who ask if law school is really as bad as we say it is. My answer usually is, "It depends on your baseline." If they breezed through undergrad at a liberal arts college (like me), then quite possibly yes. If they slogged their way through a PhD, then probably not (coming back for a JD after a PhD only establishes that they really did suffer permanent head damage, and no further damage would be possible).

And finally, "Is law school corporate?" This is usually a concern of public interest minded 0Ls. The response to which is an unequivocal "YES." Law firms have money. Law schools want money. Law schools want alumni who have money. Large corporate law firms pay associates well. QED.

Of course, corporate is not necessarily bad. After all, our PILP friends will need to hit up law firms for money and other forms of support once we're all out there practicing. More to the point, I think assimilation into the corporate culture in law school can be resisted, just as Jean-Luc Picard and his crew valiantly resisted the Borg time and time again. (Yes, I am a law school dork.)

Passover

2006-04-14T11:15:00.000-07:00

The story behind Passover, as I understand it, is that way back in the back beyond of history, God liberated the Israelites (the predecessors/ancestors of today's Jews) from slavery in Egypt. To make the Egyptians release them, God killed every first-born male child in Egypt. But the Israelites were commanded to slaughter a lamb for dinner, and to sprinkle the lamb's blood over their doorposts. This would be a sign for the Angel of Death to passover (get it?) their household and spare their oldest son.

I'm no rabbi, so I won't expound on what Passover means for Jews today (although at the seders I've been to, no one ever slaughtered a lamb and sprinkled blood). But Jesus was crucified during Passover, the timing meant to identify Him as our Passover lamb, whose blood is shed that we might be spared. So in a very real sense, Christians celebrate Passover too, that we have passed over from death to life, darkness to light, captivity to freedom. Now we are free.

I read Luke's account of Jesus' last hours today. Jesus still puzzles me, mystifies me, yet draws and attracts me. Who is this man who is unlike any other? Apart from Oasis, I don't know anyone with a big enough ego to say, "heaven and earth will fade, but my words will never pass away." Not even the Trump.

What also struck me, was the extent to which politics influenced the law back then as well (hey, this is after all, supposed to be some kind of legal blog). Pontius Pilate couldn't find any crime with which to charge Jesus (or more appropriately, the evidence was insufficient even to survive summary judgment), so he wished to release Him. But the political pressure of the people eventually caused Pilate to rescind his preliminary 12(b)(6) ruling, and he sentenced Jesus to death by crucifixion.

Ultimately though, in reading through the Passion story, what really strikes me is that it is so much bigger than life; it's larger, bigger, heavier, than our mundane everyday existences. Strands of death, life, anger, hate, fear, redemption, forgiveness, pain, and yes, even... joy. Irony of ironies, that the only death I would celebrate, would be the death of the one I love most.

Write-on Part II

2006-04-11T15:17:00.000-07:00

So a year ago, I laboriously slaved over my Law Review Write-On comment, painstakingly checking commas, periods, italicization, and signal order, hoping that all my hard work would pay off and I'd be invited to join the prestigious UCLA Law Review. At the time, a friend remarked that the reward for all my hard work was only going to be more hard work. I ignored him and slaved on. When I was done, I consoled myself by saying that nothing else that L. Rev. threw at me could possibly compare to the Write-On.

I suppose I was right, but arguably there is one thing worse than doing the Write-On: grading the Write-On. 1Ls mistakenly think that all we do is read through their submissions, subjectively decide which ones give us warmer fuzzies, and separate them into two piles: the In's and the Out's. Quite wrong. Given that the Write-On topic is usually something most L. Rev. members are encountering for the first time, we actually have to read through the Write-On packet to get the proverbial lay of the land. This allows us to spot faulty legal analysis and questionable interpretation of the law, and figure out who's pulling a fast one and who's actually going to pull their weight.

Then comes the reading through 10-12 various papers, checking to make sure there are only 28 lines per page, 70 characters per line, etc., etc. And then deciding which ones are better and which ones are not. If that weren't enough, then there's the grading of the production test problems. I didn't know this at the start, but apparently I'm responsible for grading all the answers for the question that I set. Which means I need to grade 140+ mistake-riddled (and hopefully corrected) production test questions.

The one good thing, is that I have more than 6 days to do it. This is, however, outweighed by numerous other bad things, such as my not having started any outlining or significant studying for finals, and various other commitments that are yet to be definitively completed. Let's just say it's going to be an intense ride. :)

what a crazy world we live in

2006-04-10T17:35:00.000-07:00

I think that's a song by Rufus Wainwright. Sorry for the absences and infrequent posts, but I'm currently grading L. Rev. Write-on submissions (and internally debating the merits of the staircase vs. dartboard methodologies of grading), trying to finish papers, trying to start outlining, working out where I'll be next fall, and dealing with life in general. In a typical "grass is always greener" nostalgia, I saw a bunch of little kids on the bus today and half-wished I was a little tyke again (of course, I don't really remember what that was like, but man, those kids I saw today sure seemed carefree).

I'm also contemplating several major changes to the blog, but we'll have to see. I might just put that off till the week before finals.

In the meantime, in honor of this being Holy Week leading up to Easter Sunday, I'll leave you with a question. Who is Jesus? Can anyone satisfactorily explain the man and the mystery? The N.Y. Times has an Op-Ed contribution today by Garry Wills, who argues that we can't ask "what would Jesus do," because Jesus did and said some pretty crazy and socially unacceptable things. He argues that Jesus transcended morality, and to try to co-opt Jesus to our human agenda (and I use that in the plural, because I think the singular of "agenda" really should be "agendum." Any "philatinists" out there want to set me straight?) is to engage in an absurd task: Jesus simply cannot be understood that way.

I don't fully understand Jesus. I am equal parts knowledge and mystery, doubt and certainty, faith and disbelief. All I know is that Jesus challenges me, indeed, challenges all of us. We either choose to face the challenge and struggle with the question he posed ("But you, who do you say I am?") or we discount or dismiss him, and try to get on with our lives, absent the turmoil that he brings.

Peace & Justice: International Human Rights Law in Sudan

2006-04-02T17:45:00.000-07:00

The N.Y. Times Magazine has an excellent article about the International Criminal Court and the investigation of crimes against humanity in Sudan, written by Elizabeth Rubin.

She does a good job of explaining the ICC and the strange political game that goes on in Sudan, where the Sudanese government tries to stay one step ahead of the ICC by "investigating" the crimes against humanity in Sudan, a political shell game meant to keep Darfur and all its atrocities as far out of the spotlight as possible.

She also recounts the United States' hypocritical and, in fact, sinful opposition to the ICC. (I call it sinful because I do believe that opposing the pursuit of justice is a sin, and the U.S. is certainly not doing very much to encourage the development of international laws to protect humanity, by demanding that U.S. citizens be above any such laws.)

But more than any of that, she seems to want to focus on a deeper question, which is: What is the relation between peace and justice? Can you have peace without justice? Reconciliation without reckoning? This was a subject of debate at a recent conference held at Pepperdine University. No justice, no peace? Or no justice without peace?

A lot of it centers around your definition of justice, and your definition of peace. Justice for who? And peace for who? I'm not here to offer answers, because I still grapple with these questions as well. But I do think that they are very closely linked in Christian Scripture. The Hebrew prophets speak of God as a God of justice, and remind us that those who follow God must seek justice. They also remind us that God is a God of peace, and His greatest gift to us, is peace (the Hebrew word is shalom, which connotes a lot more than just the absence of conflict).

Perhaps in the West, we've become used to the idea of justice as involving prosecution, adversarial litigation, judgment, punishment. After coming to power at the end of apartheid, Mandela established the Truth & Reconciliation Commission, as a way to establish peace. Those who submitted themselves to the Commission's jurisdiction and confessed their guilt before their victims and their families, were granted immunity from prosecution. Those who did not, remained subject to criminal prosecution for their crimes committed during apartheid. Not everyone was a fan, of course. Some believe that confession is not expungement and it does not compensate the victims for what was done.

I don't have any answers. I believe in justice, and I believe in peace. Above belief in these principles or concepts, I believe in Jesus, and in faith I believe that somehow He has the answers. Naive, simplistic, perhaps. But no one has shown me a better hope for humanity (saying that there is no hope, or that humanly-wrought inhumanity will always exist, may be construed as realism, but I wonder if it isn't just fatalism in a softer guise).

Diversity Part II

2006-03-24T18:02:00.000-08:00

Some further thoughts on diversity, prompted by a reader's response (alright, he was really the only one, so no prizes for guessing who it was).

Race and diversity. There is far more to diversity than race. But we are visual creatures, and make many judgments, both conscious and subconscious, on the basis of what we see. What stands in opposition to diversity, is the "us-them dichotomy." What sociologists like to call the problem of "the other," and what I think Jesus would say is our failure to understand who is our neighbour, and failure to obey the command to love our neighbours as ourselves. We naturally have preferences for people like us and naturally engage in discrimination against people not like us. We seek out people like us, and in some sort of collective self-preservation instinct, band together against "the others." Some argue that this inherent bias will always exist; all that we can do is to consciously counter-balance it.

Someone's skin colour (in honour of a cross-border contribution, I'll be adopting the Queen's English for this post) is one of the most obvious visual cues available when you meet someone, one of the easiest ways to figure out who is "us" and who is "them," "the other." Most of us naturally rely on colour-keyed heuristics when initially judging someone. These judgments can be wrong, and as we get to know someone, our judgments are revised (hopefully) in the light of new evidence. Penultimately (because I have hope this will not always be so), race matters because we make "us-them" distinctions on the basis of race.

This in turn influences our viewpoints (I prefer this to ideology - there is more to a person than just their ideology). Because so much of our world works on the basis of visual heuristics (including skin colour), our interactions with others are necessarily influenced by their visually-based heuristics. And our interactions with them in turn influence our viewpoints. E.g. it is more likely than not that growing up Chinese in a majority Chinese society has given me a different outlook on the world, than if I grew up belonging to the only Chinese family in the city. (Note I say more likely than not. There are exceptions, of course, but they do not invalidate the empirical truth of the general). So if our purpose in seeking diversity is to promote a diversity of viewpoints and ideas (note that I don't think this should be the sole motivation), then race matters because people of a particular race tend to have similar experiences (more likely than not) that create similar points-of-view, due to their growing up in a world that operates largely on visually-based heuristics. It would be a different world if we were blind and unable to distinguish skin colour or differences in biological features. We probably would not discriminate on the basis of race then (but we'd probably seize upon some other differentiating characteristic).

Achievement, affirmative action, and merit. Of course minorities can achieve as much as the majority; if minorities were not as inherently capable as the majority, then the majority would need to patriarchally take care of them (noblesse oblige, as the French used to call it). I hope we've moved on from such a blatantly racist (even if possibly well-intentioned) take on racial differences. And yes, minorities should be grateful to those who have gone before us and fought and worked extremely hard, to prove that we are not inferior and can achieve just as much, that we are children of God just as much as the next white man.

And certainly, hard work is always required. But there was a time that no matter how hard you worked, there was a ceiling imposed on you because of the colour of your skin, whether explicitly or implicitly, directly or indirectly. I would argue that those ceilings still remain for all sorts of minorities (including women). I am not against working hard, but I am against minorities having to work harder than the majority. I don't believe that life is meant to be easy, and life is never fair. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be, especially when it comes to how we treat each other. It is a deontological necessity that we treat all people fairly, and it is unfair for minorities to have to work harder than the majority. This was what motivated the Civil Rights struggles and the landmark social changes that those activists wrought upon our cultural landscape. If achievement is nothing but a matter of working hard, and the architecture of our institutions and systems does nothing to impede the achievement of minorities, then there would have been no need for the Civil Rights struggle. Less than a hundred years ago, I could not have been a citizen of the United States, simply because of the colour of my skin. If that isn't an institutional inequity, I'm not sure what is.

One of the key questions behind affirmative action and positive action in favour of diversity, is if there is equal opportunity for all, or if systemic and institutional bias still exists. I firmly believe in the latter.

Affirmative action (AA) or like programs are often construed as lowering standards for minorities because they can't meet the ostensibly merit-based criteria that have been set (by the majority). But this view of AA makes the assumption that the standards are fair and race-neutral to begin with, and that they measure merit objectively. These assumptions are certainly questionable. Racism is usually NOT conscious. I highly doubt that the people who craft LSAT questions deliberately set out to disadvantage minorities. But I'm willing to wager with you that most of them belong to the majority. Their general cultural experience has predisposed them to identify certain forms of knowledge as more meritorious than others.

I remain uncertain and perhaps even skeptical, of our ever devising a measure of merit that does not advantage or disadvantage some groups because of racial or ethnic difference. Furthermore any monolithic and homogeneous measure of merit that is universally or even largely accepted by society, will impose great pressure upon minorities to conform to the pre-established (presumably by the majority) definition of merit. In other words, "To be successful, you have to be like us." I think that no matter how our metric for merit evolves, we must always be aware of its limitations, and the value of perspectives and strengths not encompassed by our metric.

At the same time, I recognize the oddity of AA: we select out presumably qualified members of the majority based on the fact that they are the wrong race, thus engaging in race-based (and critics would say racist) decision-making, the very thing that we are supposed to be fighting against. I will admit that I would rather not have AA. Unfortunately, no one has stepped forward with realistic and workable alternatives to rectify the unacceptable status quo. The hope of AA is to effectively force diversity upon as many levels of the social strata as possible, chiefly education and employment, in the hope that the opportunities given to minorities will translate into greater socio-economic advancement and greater integration of society's different segments. I don't know if it will work. It certainly cannot work solo; it must operate in tandem with concerted and deliberate efforts on a variety of other levels through a panoply of other media, to break down the use of race-based heuristics. My fear is that people will not learn who are their neighbours (and to love them), and all the AA in the world can only do so much to change that.

Making whites feel guilty about their success. They should. We all should. Is our success something that we earned for ourselves with clean hands at no expense to others? The decimation of First Peoples as a result of the conquest and colonialization of the Americas certainly argues against that. The slavery of black people and the indenture of "Orientals" in the history of the United States is further evidence that our present-day success was not achieved righteously. Of course, the chains of causation can be tied up by invoking proximate causation. But proximate cause is a legal fiction invented to limit liability. I think the chains of causation for the success of present-day America can indeed be clearly linked to the oppression of minorities.

But I am not interested in guilt, and I daresay I speak for many people who have been the subject of more injustice than I. Guilt is useless unless it galvanizes us to repentance, by word and deed. Keep the guilt and give me the justice, give me the change, give me the breaking down of walls and the reconciliation of peoples. No, better yet, express the guilt just as those who have been oppressed express their forgiveness and seek forgiveness in return. All of us have unclean hands, and all stand in need of forgiveness from each other.

Speaking to those who claim or seek to follow Jesus Christ. Our blessings are not for us to enjoy. Rather, they are meant to be shared. For some strange reason, American theology has taken a decidedly individualistic bent that is unsupported by the weight of Scripture. No one talks about communal sins, no one talks about interceding for the sins of others or assuming communal responsibility. Yet that is the clear pattern in Scripture, beginning as far back as Genesis. If you think that Jesus only came to save people, and not societies, cultures, nations... then your God is too small and you insult Jesus and the full meaning of the Cross. From the very beginning, we have been our "brother's keeper," made responsible for each other. A theology of pure individualized responsibility cuts against the clearly established grain of Scripture, and somehow I doubt that God will look very favorably upon a "it wasn't my business" defense.

As applied to discrimination and diversity: when Paul wrote that in Christ there was neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free; when Peter received his vision wherein God told him not to call anything unclean that God had made clean; and most of all, when Jesus by his words and deeds demonstrated the equal worth of all persons, they gave us no excuse to tolerate discrimination.

Conclusion (for now). All of us need each other. I know there are some in the majority who resent the politically correct push for diversity, and see it as a bunch of liberal whack-jobs undermining the greatness of our nation, or coddling lazy whiners who just can't make the grade. I respectfully disagree. Diversity isn't just for the minorities today; it's also for the majority today who will become the minority tomorrow. Within my lifetime, I full expect to see white people become a racial minority in the United States. I think it's highly likely that one day, white people will be pointing to their under-representation and clamouring for AA as well. It's even possible that they will be discriminated against (I think it's overly idealistic to believe that minorities won't discriminate) by the majority. We need to emphasize diversity now, for the benefit of everyone, not just today but also in the years to come.

If you actually read all that, I'm very impressed and grateful for your attention. Please share your thoughts. I think a rational, well-informed, and civil dialogue is critical if we are going to do something about the status quo.

S.H.A.R.E. J.D.

2006-03-21T20:53:00.000-08:00

Dear blog, it's been a long time, sorry I've neglected you. Please blame (in no particular order) Law Review, Deals, Federal Income Tax, Research Assistant-ism, one gazillion other things, for alienation of affection. But I'm back. I definitely thought about posting further inanity on your pages, but the exigencies of the moment always overrided the urge to write and the importance of what I had to say. Until today.

Today was the inaugural meeting of S.H.A.R.E. J.D. at UCLA School of Law. Students Helping Assure Racial Equity, Justice, & Diversity, a coalition of students and student groups who are alarmed at the increasing homogeneity of our law school and the precipitous decline in racial diversity, and united to try and convince the law school administration that there is a problem and it needs to be addressed.

Back in January, I posted some thoughts on diversity. Since then, it's been pointed out to me that the conventional understanding of merit is itself not race-neutral, and reflects the imprint of decades, if not centuries, of racial and cultural bias. Since I used to teach the SAT and GRE, and since I took the LSAT, you'd think I knew this, right? (And I did, just that I consider those standardized tests flawed enough in other ways that I'm uncertain if they're truly indicative of merit, even entirely apart from racial bias.)

But let's make some statistics public. The Class of 2008 at the UCLA School of Law has only 6 black students. The administration counts 9, including 3 students who are enrolled in joint degree programs but not currently taking classes in the law school (from what I've heard, the administration also counts those 3 students as members of the incoming Class of 2009). We currently have fewer black students than we did in 1969. The racial make-up of the law school doesn't reflect the demographics of Los Angeles, or California, or the United States.

What troubles me more than the depressing statistical evidence, is the apathy or ambivalence of the administration. There is a reluctance to admit the existence of a problem (and everyone who's even remotely familiar with any twelve-step program knows the first step is always to...). Even when the administration does admit that there might be cause for some concern, it is quick to defend its actions and assert that it is both doing enough and doing all it can to promote diversity. However, the fact that it is not the most diverse or even close to being the most diverse public law school in California (Boalt, from what I hear), must surely cause us to reconsider that claim.

S.H.A.R.E. J.D. has been formed to address the implicit segregation at the UCLA School of Law. One of the students tonight made a good point: Giving minorities a seat at the table is only the beginning. A seat won't do you much good if no one else at the table is willing to acknowledge or engage your difference, and you're expected to be just like them. The point of diversity is not assimilation. There are two ways to mix paint: You can mix all the colors together on one palette and produce a bland mush, or you can juxtapose the colors to produce vibrance, contrast, art. Desegregation and diversity should not be like the first (the mush) but rather the second - the art.

There are still many issues to consider, and a lot of intense discussion and debate to be had; I am not oblivious, unmindful, or dismissive of the concerns of those who oppose affirmative action and what they might consider the negative implications of an emphasis on diversity. But the status quo is simply unacceptable, and the world seems to be increasingly polarized along both racial and religious lines in both the "developed" world and the "developing" one. To remain silent or passive is itself a wrong.

what the world needs now

2006-03-09T11:27:00.000-08:00

Don't tell the Environmental Law Program (do we have an Environmental Law Program?), but after reading an editorial at The Onion, I think we really do need more nuclear reactors to solve the world's problems.

Bruce Banner, where are you? Oh, and while I got most of the superhero references in the editorial, I did miss some. Anyone out there who can name them all beyond a reasonable doubt?

how to bring joy to a benumbed law student

2006-02-13T09:28:00.000-08:00

Deposit a copy of "El Scrivenero" in his/her mailbox, obviously. Latest edition's out, folks! Hot off the presses, come and get it!

As a member of L. Rev., I'm pleased that we made the front page, twice. Scrivener, thanks for the additional publicity leading up to the write-on. If you tell me your exam number, I'll be sure to give you more points.*

And lest someone complain that The Scrivener has absolutely no educational or redeeming value whatsoever, please direct your attention to the bottom of the page, where they offer 1Ls the chance to test out their nascent Civil Procedure skillz.

* Alright, just in case any of you out there want to complain that I've compromised the impartiality and anonymity of the Law Review write-on, may I please point out that the people responsible for The Scrivener are not 1Ls. And if they were, they'd be flunking out of school. Producing a quality newspaper like The Scrivener takes more time and effort than most 1Ls should have.