That's far from an accurate summary of the article. From the portions I read, it's full of rich information and by no means as one-sided as you claim. Would you please stop posting shallow dismissals and ideological rants to HN?
You've been breaking the HN guideline that asks you not to use this site primarily for ideological battle. We ban accounts that do this, regardless of which ideology they're for or against. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use the site as intended from now on.
>Kennedy pointed
out that the legal professional style to which students learn to assimilate
is “overwhelmingly white, male, and middle class.”46 But the Socratic
method’s encounter with gender, race, and class diversity might related-
ly occasion worry about exclusion or oppression in a more tangible way.
That is, if the Socratic method causes the kind of terror and
disempowerment in students that some have observed, and is stylisti-
cally white, male, and middle class, would it not also impose dispropor-
tionate harm on students who are women, as well as on racial and class
minorities?
Of course the article is much more expressive than what I wrote-it is a summary.
I didn't inject ideology into this discussion. If you want to be consistent this article shouldn't be allowed either. This is blatant racism, sexism, and classism.
I didn't inject ideology into this discussion. If you want to be consistent this article shouldn't be allowed either. This is blatant racism, sexism, and classism.
The irony is that your "summary" seems to have confused the author's preface describing current trends with her personal opinion. In fact, the majority of the article argues the opposite side, saying that a proper legal education is more important than the risk of offense:
I am a cold-calling Socratic professor of criminal law who devotes about the same number of hours in class to sex offenses as to homicide. The subjects are comparable in their interest, difficulty, complexity, and relevance in the world in which we live. I treat them with the same level of seriousness and rigor.
She then goes on to explain why she doesn't use trigger warnings because she thinks they are counterproductive. She's making an essentially conservative argument, while you are mistakenly complaining that it's too biased to the liberal side. Dan isn't complaining that you brought ideology into the discussion, but that your "summary" was simplistic and wrong.
