[Vision2020] Law student's response to diversity training

[Donovan Arnold]

This poor immature fellow is going to have this pathetic letter follow him around his entire professional career, assuming he gets one at all. How sad. 
 
Donovan Arnold
 

________________________________
 From: Chuck Kovis <ckovis at turbonet.com>
To: Robert Dickow <dickow at turbonet.com> 
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com 
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2012 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Law student's response to diversity training
  


The following is an E-Mail sent to U of Idaho law students from a fellow student who opposes the diversity training.   The E-Mail was a response to a letter in support of the diversity training being sent to a State Legislator in response to 20 plus legislators objecting to Dean Burnett's handling of the matter.


Bold (red) supplied by writer "Dear Collogues: I have grown increasingly disappointed in some of the rhetoric that is being discussed about the diversity session. In the letter by Ms. Hasse and the Letter of Support I noticed what appeared to be hypocrisy by the authors. Take a look at the letter and read it carefully. “We find it regrettable that such an enlightening, beneficial, and worthwhile event has been tainted with controversy, derision, and negative attention.”  The bolded words not positive, they indicate that those with opposing views have tainted the meetings bringing only derisive and negative attention. Additionally, it indicates that those who are not inclined to attend are not enlightened. “Many of us were surprised anddisappointed to learn that our colleagues contacted the state legislature to share their views about this issue.” Disappointment in ones colleagues further subtly indicates that the opposing view is wrong. “While
 we encourage everyone to form an educated opinion and exercise their rights of expression, it is important for you to know that the dissatisfaction you encountered from our colleagues, with whom we respectfully disagree, was representative of the minority view at Idaho Law.” The educated opinion portion is a pointed insult that infers that any other than that of support is somehow uneducated. Ironically, the minority view is pointed out in a negative fashion when the diversity meeting is supposed to be exactly about understanding the minority rather than discounting them with ad hominem fallacies. “Indeed, the majority of students are supportive of both the Dean and the “Dialogues on Professionalism and Diversity.” Once again it is the minority that should also be considered, not only the majority opinion. “Furthermore, we suggest thatmost students found the tone of Dean Burnett’s communication pertaining to this event conveyed urgency and
 importance, rather than disrespect” It is irrelevant what most students thought. If everyone at work thought it was acceptable to make racial or sexist jokes, the one person who disagreed would be the view that should be considered most closely. Those voices of opposition should be heard and considered, even if their message is unsavory. “Unfortunately, the negative response to the diversity dialogues may have tainted the reputation of our school and our state.” Alluding the opinion from another group somehow taints the reputation is nothing less than a veiled insult. Disagreement on an issue, no matter how sensitive can never taint a reputation. Suggesting it does is suggesting opposing opinion should be silenced. The letter then talks about tolerance and how everyone is welcomed, valued and accepted. It unfortunately left off the clause “Unless you disagree.” I am sure that many may discount me as a raging bigoted white man who hates gays,
 women and Jews. Of that I am unconcerned; but the opinions of others, especially in a law school, should ALWAYS be heard and considered. The letter of non-attendance should not be placed in someone’s record if they make the adult decision not to attend. I put on my big boy pants when I came to law school, and I am mature enough to make decisions about what I would like to attend or not attend. I do however want to make it clear I do not have favorable opinions of the American Bar Association or their political stance. Their political stance is opposite to mine on almost every issue. I do have concerns that it will be a meeting about political correctness that excludes my viewpoint. The letters sent by those who support the meeting indicate that may be the case here also. It has been my experience in the past the diversity training meetings all arrive at the same end, the white straight Christian male is the Cro-Magnon bad guy. For that reason alone I
 am not very interested in attending. Sincerely,
Aaron A. Tracy
(White Straight Christian Cro-Magnon Male)" Any doubts that the University of Idaho School of Law needs diversity training?  Chuck Kovis  


 
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120209/23fcab52/attachment.html>