Tweet
Record-Harvard Law School, MA
March 17 2005
Day of doom
By Raffi Melkonian
I'm kind of ashamed to admit it, but I used one of those law school
applicant discussion boards back when I was applying to school three
years ago. The one thing that makes me feel better about the whole
affair is that I'm sure I'm not the only one so besmirched on this
campus. Obviously, many law school applicants (and students) are
world-class neurotics, and it makes us feel better to try to exert
control over a fundamentally uncontrollable process - who precisely
is getting in to the schools we want? How do we compare? And most
important of all, when are we going to hear? Nor do we suddenly get
more civilized once in school - after all, the Greedy Clerks
discussion board for federal clerks and applicants is no less active.
Of course, I always noticed a lot of extraneous chatter on the
discussion board I used. Most of it was about things you expect
students to talk about - dating, for example - but some was really
offensive and nasty.
This week, though, there's been a debate among some law professors -
writing online - about whether this kind of discussion board ought to
be cleaned up. I checked the most popular one, and it's no surprise
that people are up in arms. Undeniably, the board has gotten pretty
bad in a lot of ways, including a startling quantity of the worst
sort of racism and anti-Semitism. As much as I share the protestors'
disgust with the speech involved, however, cleaning up such a web
site is a bad idea, for two reasons.
First, pressuring the site administrators to clean up the discussion
board by employing a software filter is the equivalent of sweeping a
potentially serious problem under the carpet. From the beginnings of
free speech theory, people have realized that one of the main
benefits of allowing people to voice even odious opinions publicly is
that those who disagree are confronted with the fact that the
minority opinion does actually exist. If there are law students who
feel comfortable using the kind of racial epithets contained on the
site, even under the thin blanket of internet anonymity, even as a
stupid sort of shocking joke, those of us who find such speech
disgusting should want to know about it. It's all very easy to assume
that the great persuasive battles in terms of respect and civility
have been won. Displays such as those on the discussion board at
issue demonstrate that there might be work left to be done.
Second, just as with all (even private) controls on expression,
stifling evil speech might chill other speech that is really useful
and good. The overwhelming benefit of the discussion board, as I
remember it, was that traffic was high, knowledgeable people
abundant, and answers to questions quick. Every effort made to censor
discussion was quickly discovered to be over-broad, and instead of
leaving a clean board, changes made to get rid of the racists drove
away others as well. But those kinds of discussion boards are vital
for law applicants trying to figure their way out through a tough
process, and especially those without specialized institutional
support - my British alma mater, for example, had no advising
services, so I relied heavily on internet resources to organize
myself. If we believe in expanding this school's diversity across
geography and social status as well as race, tools like admittedly
vulgar Internet boards are crucial in leveling the playing field of
applicant information. After all, the details that some people know,
and others don't, are important - and if an active, unfettered,
discussion board can spread that kind of previously rare knowledge,
it's a good thing.
I should be clear - I don't like racists, and I don't like
anti-Semites. Armenians, like myself, have had enough experience of
such people to know better. But people with offensive opinions do
exist, and from the evidence provided by the discussion board, some
may even be among us. Sending those people underground isn't a good
way to solve this problem. Free speech, even when the censoring party
isn't the government, is generally preferable to restricted speech -
and however uncomfortable such offensive language might make us, law
school applicant discussion boards aren't an exception to that
general rule.
Raffi Melkonian's posts on law school Internet discussion boards are
neither racist nor anti-semitic.
March 17 2005
Day of doom
By Raffi Melkonian
I'm kind of ashamed to admit it, but I used one of those law school
applicant discussion boards back when I was applying to school three
years ago. The one thing that makes me feel better about the whole
affair is that I'm sure I'm not the only one so besmirched on this
campus. Obviously, many law school applicants (and students) are
world-class neurotics, and it makes us feel better to try to exert
control over a fundamentally uncontrollable process - who precisely
is getting in to the schools we want? How do we compare? And most
important of all, when are we going to hear? Nor do we suddenly get
more civilized once in school - after all, the Greedy Clerks
discussion board for federal clerks and applicants is no less active.
Of course, I always noticed a lot of extraneous chatter on the
discussion board I used. Most of it was about things you expect
students to talk about - dating, for example - but some was really
offensive and nasty.
This week, though, there's been a debate among some law professors -
writing online - about whether this kind of discussion board ought to
be cleaned up. I checked the most popular one, and it's no surprise
that people are up in arms. Undeniably, the board has gotten pretty
bad in a lot of ways, including a startling quantity of the worst
sort of racism and anti-Semitism. As much as I share the protestors'
disgust with the speech involved, however, cleaning up such a web
site is a bad idea, for two reasons.
First, pressuring the site administrators to clean up the discussion
board by employing a software filter is the equivalent of sweeping a
potentially serious problem under the carpet. From the beginnings of
free speech theory, people have realized that one of the main
benefits of allowing people to voice even odious opinions publicly is
that those who disagree are confronted with the fact that the
minority opinion does actually exist. If there are law students who
feel comfortable using the kind of racial epithets contained on the
site, even under the thin blanket of internet anonymity, even as a
stupid sort of shocking joke, those of us who find such speech
disgusting should want to know about it. It's all very easy to assume
that the great persuasive battles in terms of respect and civility
have been won. Displays such as those on the discussion board at
issue demonstrate that there might be work left to be done.
Second, just as with all (even private) controls on expression,
stifling evil speech might chill other speech that is really useful
and good. The overwhelming benefit of the discussion board, as I
remember it, was that traffic was high, knowledgeable people
abundant, and answers to questions quick. Every effort made to censor
discussion was quickly discovered to be over-broad, and instead of
leaving a clean board, changes made to get rid of the racists drove
away others as well. But those kinds of discussion boards are vital
for law applicants trying to figure their way out through a tough
process, and especially those without specialized institutional
support - my British alma mater, for example, had no advising
services, so I relied heavily on internet resources to organize
myself. If we believe in expanding this school's diversity across
geography and social status as well as race, tools like admittedly
vulgar Internet boards are crucial in leveling the playing field of
applicant information. After all, the details that some people know,
and others don't, are important - and if an active, unfettered,
discussion board can spread that kind of previously rare knowledge,
it's a good thing.
I should be clear - I don't like racists, and I don't like
anti-Semites. Armenians, like myself, have had enough experience of
such people to know better. But people with offensive opinions do
exist, and from the evidence provided by the discussion board, some
may even be among us. Sending those people underground isn't a good
way to solve this problem. Free speech, even when the censoring party
isn't the government, is generally preferable to restricted speech -
and however uncomfortable such offensive language might make us, law
school applicant discussion boards aren't an exception to that
general rule.
Raffi Melkonian's posts on law school Internet discussion boards are
neither racist nor anti-semitic.