The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Shenanigans at Yale Law School
Administrators threaten retaliation against a student for declining to apologize for an email that did not merit an apology
Reprinted with permission, the article is by Aaron Sibarium of the Washington Free Beacon, originally published here. I did not think a summary with link would do this one justice:
Administrators at Yale Law School spent weeks pressuring a student to apologize for a "triggering" email in which he referred to his apartment as a "trap house," a slang term for a place where people buy drugs. Part of what made the email "triggering," the administrators told the student, was his membership in a conservative organization.
The second-year law student, a member of both the Native American Law Students Association and the conservative Federalist Society, had invited classmates to an event cohosted by the two groups. "We will be christening our very own (soon to be) world-renowned NALSA Trap House … by throwing a Constitution Day Bash in collaboration with FedSoc," he wrote in a Sept. 15 email to the Native American listserv. In keeping with the theme, he said, the mixer would serve "American-themed snacks" like "Popeye's chicken" and "apple pie."
The student, who requested anonymity for fear of retaliation, is part Cherokee, the Indian tribe that was forcibly displaced during the infamous Trail of Tears.
Within minutes, the lighthearted invite had been screenshotted and shared to an online forum for all second-year law students, several of whom alleged that the term "trap house" indicated a blackface party.
"I guess celebrating whiteness wasn't enough," the president of the Black Law Students Association wrote in the forum. "Y'all had to upgrade to cosplay/black face." She also objected to the mixer's affiliation with the Federalist Society, which she said "has historically supported anti-Black rhetoric."
"Trap house" has been a term used in progressive pop culture since at least 2016, when the socialist podcast "Chapo Trap House" burst onto the scene. Hosted by three white men, the podcast has received sympathetic profiles in the New York Times, the New Yorker, and the Guardian, none of which suggest that there is anything racial about its name. Once associated with inner city crack dens, "trap house" has also become generic slang for any place where young people can score beer.
The hosts of Chapo Trap House did not respond to a request for comment about the show's title.
Just 12 hours after the email went out, the student was summoned to the law school's Office of Student Affairs, which administrators said had received nine discrimination and harassment complaints about his message.
At a Sept. 16 meeting, which the student recorded and shared with the Washington Free Beacon, associate dean Ellen Cosgrove and diversity director Yaseen Eldik told the student that the word "trap" connotes crack use, hip hop, and blackface. Those "triggering associations," Eldik said, were "compounded by the fried chicken reference," which "is often used to undermine arguments that structural and systemic racism has contributed to racial health disparities in the U.S."
Eldik, a former Obama White House official, went on to say that the student's membership in the Federalist Society had "triggered" his peers.
"The email's association with FedSoc was very triggering for students who already feel like FedSoc belongs to political affiliations that are oppressive to certain communities," Eldik said. "That of course obviously includes the LGBTQIA community and black communities and immigrant communities."
The statement signals that administrators at the country's top-ranked law school now regard membership in mainstream conservative circles as a legitimate object of offense—and as potential grounds for discipline. The Federalist Society, founded by Yale Law students in 1982, has spread nationwide over the past four decades and become one of most influential legal groups in the country. Members include all six conservative justices on the Supreme Court, as well as the late Antonin Scalia, who spoke at the society's inaugural conference.
The episode also offers a peek into the culture of campus diversity offices that claim to be a resource for all students. Behind closed doors, the leaked audio suggests, these bureaucracies are less ecumenical than their public messaging lets on: Their goal isn't to make universities more inclusive, but rather to wield the threat of exclusion against disfavored groups.
Throughout the Sept. 16 meeting and a subsequent conversation the next day, Eldik and Cosgrove hinted repeatedly that the student might face consequences if he didn't apologize—including trouble with the bar exam's "character and fitness" investigations, which Cosgrove could weigh in on as associate dean. Those investigations review aspiring lawyers' disciplinary records in considerable detail: The New York State Bar, for example, asks law schools to describe any "discreditable information" that might bear upon an "applicant's character," even if it did not result in formal discipline.
It is unclear whether that is what Cosgrove was referring to when she warned on Sept. 16 that things "may escalate" without an apology. "I worry about this leaning over your reputation as a person," Eldik chimed in. "Not just here but when you leave. You know the legal community is a small one."
The best way to "make this go away," he continued, would be to formally apologize to Yale's Black Law Students Association. "You're a law student, and there's a bar you have to take," Eldik said in a follow-up meeting on Sept. 17. "So we think it's really important to give you a 360 view."
When the student resisted, saying he'd prefer to have a face-to-face discussion with anybody offended by his email, Eldik nonetheless drafted an apology for the student to send in the service of "character-driven rehabilitation."
Addressed to black student leaders, the note included an apology for "any harm, trauma, or upset" the initial email may have caused. "I know I must learn more and grow," the draft apology concluded, "[a]nd I will actively educate myself so I can do better."
The student ultimately declined to send the note, instead telling his classmates in an online forum that he welcomed conversations with anybody offended by his choice of words.
When the student hadn't apologized by the evening of Sept. 16, Eldik and Cosgrove emailed the entire second-year class about the incident. "[A]n invitation was recently circulated containing pejorative and racist language," the email read. "We condemn this in the strongest possible terms" and "are working on addressing this."
Eldik, Cosgrove, and Yale Law School dean Heather Gerken did not respond to requests for comment.
Dubious discrimination complaints are nothing new at the Ivy League law school. In February, for example, a raft of affinity groups accused the Yale Law Journal of systematically excluding black students from the masthead. When the prestigious publication released its admissions data, it turned out that black students had been admitted at a rate of 61 percent—far higher than the rate for any other race or ethnicity.
But as "discrimination" and "harassment" have taken on ever wider meanings, anti-discrimination offices have taken on a larger mandate, enforcing not just equal opportunity but progressive ideology. At least one complaint alleged that the email "was a form of discrimination," Eldik told the student, while the "harassment" claims centered on how "psychically harmful" it had been.
That concept creep has been enforced by bureaucratic self-interest. Anti-discrimination officers have an incentive to address grievances in heavy-handed, public ways, a fact the audio drives home. When the student suggested letting his peers reach out to him individually to discuss their feelings about the email, Eldik responded: "I don't want to make our office look like an ineffective source of resolution."
That resolution may not involve any formal punishment. In a third meeting on Oct. 12, nearly a month after the initial incident, Eldik and Cosgrove assured the student they would not put anything in his file that might pose a problem for the bar.
"We would never get on our letterhead and write anything to the bar about you," Eldik said. "You may have been confused."
At their first meeting, Eldik had hinted that the student's race might result in some leniency.
"As a man of color, there probably isn't as much scrutiny of you as there might be of a white person in the same position," Eldik informed the Native American student. "I just want to acknowledge that there's a complexity to that too."
Update 3:58 p.m.: After the publication of this piece, Yale Law School released a statement saying that "no student is investigated or sanctioned for protected speech" at the law school. "At no time was any disciplinary investigation launched or disciplinary action taken in this matter," the statement read. "While any person may report concerns about a lawyers' character and fitness to the bar, the law school has a longstanding policy of reporting only formal disciplinary action to the Bar Association."
UPDATE FROM DB: First, note the non-denial by YLS that the events happened as reported. Meanwhile, Reason's Liz Wolfe provides a sensible take on the controversy.
UPDATE 2: FIRE sends along the following statement:
Yale Law School is repeating a very tired play from a very tired playbook: intervene at the first whiff of controversy. Yale says it didn't "investigate" a student for his obviously protected expression. Fine. Whatever you want to call it, hauling a student into an administrator's office to issue him veiled threats about his career unless he issues a pre-written apology drafted by the administration is an abuse of power and immoral. Full stop. Yale continues to issue statement after statement about its commitment to free expression. But actions speak louder than words, and Yale's actions repeatedly trample on the rights of its students and faculty members.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The IRS Non-Profit Office should rescinding the tax exemption of this woke, treason indoctrination camp. Look at the vile product it has put out, totally toxic to this nation. The Trump administration should shut it down, and seize its assets in civil forfeiture, in 2025.
The first time the IRS does that in a new Trump Presidency, all woke is gone from these awful treason indoctrination camps. Once Yale is closed, its toxic effluvia, including people like Volokh, will stop damaging our country. Once intelligent and ethical young people emerge as vile lawyer dumbasses.
"[A]n invitation was recently circulated containing pejorative and racist language,"
That statement is false. What sanction will this school officer face for blatantly lying in an official capacity?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
I would say that that statement is libelous, though possibly opinion rather than fact and therefore not actionable.
This is clearly a ridiculous over-reaction, and I commend the law student for doing his best to try to navigate his way through it without a cynical, pointless capitulation to these knob-headed bureaucrats. And the bureaucrats should be ashamed of themselves for their borderline extortionate behavior.
Still, I could only laugh at this howler: Members [of the Federalist Society] include all six conservative justices on the Supreme Court, as well as the late Antonin Scalia, who spoke at the society's inaugural conference. At a time when American institutions lean overwhelmingly left, the judiciary has remained reasonably balanced thanks in part to the Federalist Society's efforts.
Ha, yes, "reasonably balanced" in the sense of, an impregnably conservative 5-4 or 6-3 majority on the Court, giving the conservatives there free rein to implement whatever dramatic shifts in jurisprudence they might happen to desire, as well as conservative dominance in virtually every Circuit Court, with the exception of the Ninth and (from time to time) the Seventh and Second. I don't know how you can describe the courts as "reasonably balanced" when the Fifth is acting more or less on its own prerogative in pushing conservative policies through judicial lawfare, and the Ninth has been reduced to writing snippy opinions that can be easily overruled by the Court.
That's all beside the point, of course. I'm sympathetic to the SJW cause, but stuff like this Yale blow-up make me more hostile to it. I feel no desire or need whatsoever to defend it.
Actually, there is no "conservative dominance in virtually every Circuit Court." Republican active judge appointees predominate in seven circuits (2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11); Dem appointees in five (DC, Fed, 1, 9, 10), and the 4th Circuit is evenly split. The DC Circuit, widely regarded as the most important of the Circuit Courts, is split 7-4 in favor of Dem appointees. Currently held US District Judge positions are split between 302 Republican appointees and 300 Democrat appointees. So "reasonably balanced" seems like a fairer description than "conservative dominance."
Dem judges abiding by conservative Court precedents yield conservative results, so I don’t see what the point of your headcount is, other than to obfuscate the truth.
I am speaking more of substantive outcomes than according to the party of the appointing president.
You understand the 1970s and 1980s the Republicans saw a need to create think tanks to counter government-paid think tanks like universities and NPR, right?
Just another game of catch up to Democrats.
Of course Republicans are for free speech, now that they are the oppressed. Of course Democrats are in favor of oppression, now that they are the oppressors.
Actually, the student may have been trolling. He could be a fan of black rap who thinks of a trap house as a place you can find a kegger, but I'm not finding that very convincing. "Trap house" was known to me, anyway, from the Brianna Taylor incident as a place drugs were sold by her (black) ex-boyfriend and fried chicken and "bitch" also have black overtones.
But the firing of the dean and the diversity grifter ought to be demanded for their hartassment and threats and illogiic and illiteracy.
Shocking news for you; honkys eat fried chicken too.
In fact, in a lot of the south, the saying goes "If it ain't fried, it ain't food"
White people also eat watermelon, but if he'd said that was going to be provided it would nevertheless reinforce my point.
This may come as a shock to you, but in the South we will admit that barbecue is food.
CT isn't in the South, and sterotypes anyway don't have to be accurate.
"Shocking news for you; honkys eat fried chicken too."
And white women sometimes get bitchy.
If the party were serving fried chicken and watermelon, they would have maybe had a point, but fried chicken and apple pie? Grasping at straws.
FWIW, the only time I remember ever seeing the phrase Trap House was in a reference to the Chapo Trap House podcast. I can't say I ever bothered to look up was Trap House meant, but I would say as an empirical matter that if it's being used by one of the leading progressive podcasts for years without controversy, the idea that in 2021 it suggests an invitation to a blackface party is completely absurd.
It's black argot, and the fried chicken and bitch reference fit a pattern. I say he was trolling in a deniable way, and that's just fine. As would be inviting everyone to a blackface party, though that would be unwise, though still not justifying the admins to threaten him.
Bitch has black connotations? Please.
I don’t think any of the Superbitches of the ‘80s were black. There’s no trolling here. The guy mintioned three unrelated terms and someone looking for offense manufactured some.
The email reads to me like someone trying a bit to hard to come off as cool (or whatever the current equivalent vernacular would be).
Well, duh.
It "fits a pattern" only because you are looking to make it so. It also fits the more plausible pattern of 'young socially awkward male trying to talk about stuff he likes'. While I question some of his taste, Popeye's chicken is a) delicious and b) reasonably cheap - precisely the sort of food that you might want to brag about when trying to advertise your party.
"It’s black argot, and the fried chicken and bitch reference fit a pattern."
From the Urban Dictionary in 2015:
"Originally used to describe a crack house in a shady neighborhood, the word has since been abused by high school students who like to pretend they're cool by drinking their mom's beer together and saying they're part of a "traphouse"."
The usage here seems to fit into the second paradigm.
"But the firing of the dean and the diversity grifter ought to be demanded "
Prof. Bernstein, like Prof. Volokh, has these clingers on the end of a string.
Never heard of the guy before, and I don't recall him saying that, though he ought to. You are a moron.
In Kirkland’s world it’s fine for college admins to threaten a kid with ruination over nothing. Especially since the kid was part Cherokee (as am I). He’s friggin’ white adjacent anyway. He should be willing to humiliate himself with a buzz word filled apology so that the black students and the diversity people get a scalp.
Pun intended.
" Never heard of the guy before "
Which guy?
"and I don’t recall him saying that"
You wrote it 20 minutes earlier.
The professor tossed some low-grade, partisan red meat and one of his blog's followers leapt to the bait.
Basic bitch is a very "white" term, in that it refers to white women, or things that are considered "white women" things.
There is no remotely racist connotation to the term, unless they mean that it is racist for people of color to use the term in reference to white people?
The administration openly acknowedged using race as a basis fr deciding what disciinary measures to use. I would save that email. If someone white gets subjected to harsher treatment, that email ought to be Exhibit A in the s discrimination complaint.
Wait, wut, they are acknowledging that white people get different scrutiny?
Let the lawsuits flow from past disciplinary action. I think everyone has a claim now.
Class action for sure - - - - - -
There's a whole line of SCOTUS cases saying that it's OK to give the non-"diverse" different scrutiny, so good lick with that.
* luck. Sheesh.
Eating my posts
A Federalist Society-Native American Law Students Association combo seems . . . peculiar.
A 'NALSA drug house' party featuring fried chicken, sponsored by the Federalist Society, would be . . . peculiar. (A Federalist Society event with any chicken other than Chick-fil-A?)
There is essentially no chance the Free Beacon account is straight news or a comprehensive report. "Lighthearted?"
This entire incident, from ill-conceived start to the (yet-to-occur) finish, seems . . . peculiar. Perhaps a reliable, worthwhile analysis will emerge. Such an account might depict less-than-proud conduct from everyone involved. A flirtation with racist content by a clumsy student, an overreaction by other students, a calculated faux-grievance performance by clingers, an official overreaction to a student mistake that played right into the victim theater.
(Liz Wolfe seems to be mostly a right-wing fringe player focusing on silly clinger grievance, so this is part of her beat. And this is a White, male, right-wing consumed by White, male, and right-wing grievance, making this post a predictable lurch by the Volokh Conspiracy.)
Keep imagining facts out of existence, jackass.
The guy is the hemorrhoids of this comment section
And the distinction between this blog and FreeRepublic, RedState, Instapundit, Stormfront, Gateway Pundit, and Power Line continues to thin . . .
Indeed, I muted two people when the feature became available and they were one of those two. I've seen no need to mute anyone else since.
However, I wish there was an option to automatically collapse all threads below a muted user as I really don't even want to see responses to their drivel.
(Although, I suppose, I would prioritize that feature behind either a [Preview] option or a WYSIWYG comment input.)
What about an edit button?
Kirkie, Kirkie! Take an aspirin... and a nap.
"A Federalist Society-Native American Law Students Association combo seems . . . peculiar."
Lol. Arthur's comment is more racist than the party invitation. Nice going, dude!
You haven't noted, over the years of its racist, sexist and rape-centric posting, that it is indeed a smug, ignorant bigot who brings nothing to any thread?
I have no idea what this student's views are, but one reason a Native American might sympathize with the Federalist Society is that the Federalist Society promotes federalism, that is, limits on the powers of the federal government. We usually think of this as promoting the powers of the states, but it arguably also promotes the powers of other non-federal entities, which include Indian tribes.
Perhaps someone could ask the Native American Law Students Association how that combo platter was prepared (did the group intend to associate with the Federalist Society or was this a unilateral mission of a single member? did the group embrace the 'trap house/fried chicken' theme or was that a clumsy student's rogue attempt at humor or trolling?) and to identify any underlying reasoning.
(Carolyn Franklin, the middle dancer, was Aretha's younger sister and wrote this one)
(Arrangement by Sugar Miami Little Steven)
Why the fuck does any of that matter?
The point is there’s nothing wrong with any of it? Your “rational” side tried to make something out of nothing, and they’re so caught up in their “rational” bullshit that it almost cost an innocent person. An innocent POC, by the way.
You can’t simply bring yourself to admit the obvious because you’re so horribly bigoted.
My side... your side...
You sound like an idiot
At least you acknowledge this exists. There is a meme defense mechanism against questioning the sincerity level of claimed butthurt though.
I recall religious leaders boldly saying don't feel afraid to question the faith. Still more evidence this is a religion in pattern form: to question sincerity is to sin
Whoever thought this up was a genius. A utilitarian, Machiavellian genius, to be sure.
Look, the fact that the comments didn't require an apology is exactly why it's so important to the administration to get one.
It wouldn't have made any sense for O'Brien to demand that Winston see five fingers if he'd actually been holding up five; The point was to get Winston to agree that the Party was the only truth, not the evidence of his senses.
Similarly here, the administration is trying to established that they're entitled to apologies and confessions from the innocent. That they actually are innocent is kind of the point.
"We have always been at war with EastAsia."
"Jacobson clearly justifies forcible cutting of fallopian tubes."
And soon forcible Jabbing, never mind that Buck was supposed to be wrong.
Same old, same old.
"We have always been at war with EastAsia."
"Jacobson clearly justifies forcible cutting of fallopian tubes."
And soon forcible Jabbing, never mind that Buck was supposed to be wrong.
Same old, same old.
"Just 12 hours after the email went out, the student was summoned to the law school's Office of Student Affairs, which administrators said had received nine discrimination and harassment complaints about his message."
One of these days, a college administrator with any sense of self-confidence is going to respond to such complaints with a curt and reasonable statement that the complainant needs to grow up.
"One of these days, a college administrator with any sense of self-confidence is going to respond to such complaints with a curt and reasonable statement that the complainant needs to grow up."
If colleges figure out that they can just tell the whiny students to shut up, they'll be unable to justify all the DEI spending. They'll never do that.
I'm afraid you're under the impression that the college administrators are being bullied into this. Maybe they were, at one time.
These days they're more like ringleaders.
All I can do is laugh as I observe this and realize just how much of a stain the legal profession is, even if it can also be a necessity. But woke law schools are a stain on an already stained profession. I would break their hold on legal education if I could by allowing student to read the law in lieu of law school and eliminate occupational licensing to allow competition from non-lawyers in a free market where we no longer infantilize consumers with the belief that without government they would be incapable of making decisions about legal representation on their own.
" But woke law schools are a stain on an already stained profession. I would break their hold on legal education "
The law schools you disdain -- those operated by and for the liberal-libertarian mainstream --have a hold solely on strong, reputable legal education.
Disaffected Americans already have a number of downscale, conservative-controlled law schools . . . and could form other right-leaning schools tomorrow (maybe even one with a credible reputation and record) to address the claimed market failure. Yet they never do.
There are downscale law schools for Democrats and randos, too. If you really have the power hunger, or just want to follow a relative's profitable footsteps into graft, and your schoolastics aren't so good, pick any one of these three and off you go.
"including trouble with the bar exam's 'character and fitness' investigations"
Is he kidding? That's insane. And morally reprehensible too.
That tells me a candidate for the bar in some states can be blackballed for any reason, or no reason at all. I don't know which states other than a few banana republics like SC use the NCBE to dig or fabricate dirt on a candidate, but I know tyranny when I see it. Graces and favors, dirty politics, chicanery, and corruption will rule the bar if NCBE have their way.
NCBE’s mission is to promote unfairness, chicanery, and sharp practices in admission to the legal profession for the benefit and protection of vested interests.
Once again, evidence that its way past time to go Henry VIII on college endowments.
You want government to seize private assets because you disagree with their politics?
Yes.
Liz Warren and Bernie want to have a billionaire [for now] wealth tax. I want an endowment wealth tax instead. Think of the free community college we can fund!
Sounds kind of fashy but I'm not really surprised.
I don’t agree with Bob on this, but tell us LTG. What needs to be done to stop this bullshit?
Nothing. Cultural battles between students and administrations at universities has been a thing since medieval times. And to the extent that they are a reflection of wider cultural conflicts "defunding" universities is pretty useless in addressing those.
The only cultural/social suggestion I would make is for people to stop putting so much prestige on the Ivies and similar schools.
When the administration threatens to permanently harm a student’s career over nothing, that’s beyond the normal student/admin cultural battle. The two Yale admins have proven themselves to be untrustworthy. They absolutely do not have their students’ interest in mind, or they’re grossly incompetent. One or the other.
But nothing will happen to them.
You think that’s swell. Right?
No. I don’t think it’s swell. I just don’t think it’s something that literally requires government seizure of private assets.
I don’t like with the seizure idea either.
But college administrators who threaten their students with career ruination should bear a consequence. Yale needs to be compelled to give them one. Otherwise there’s no incentive for anyone to stop this bullshit.
Agreed, and quite frankly, the penalty has to be harsh enough to prevent it from occurring again.
The unruley power of NGOs was of concern to the left at first, until they realized there was much support.
If there wasn't, I assume they'd be channeling everyone from Bernie to Teddy Roosevelt about large corporations having such influence as is only properly wielded by the democratic process.
NEVER issue an apology for something you said where no offence was intended. Instead, state clearly that no offense was intended, clarify what you meant and offer to speak calmly on it.
If that is not enough for them, then you are dealing with unreasonable people. You can move on past them with a clear conscience. You only owe others the same treatment you would like yourself, nothing more, nothing less.
I like this article about how to deal with being mobbed. https://quillette.com/2021/01/27/beating-back-cancel-culture-a-case-study-from-the-field-of-artificial-intelligence/
The author agrees with you about not apologizing.
Does Bernstein do anything besides jerk-off to this sort of partisan bullshit? Do you not have children? Trap house doesn't come from Chapo Trap House, it comes from the reference that the title is a reference to... Trap house is where Trap artists make their Trap music. The Washington Free Beacon? Get a fucking life, dude.
According to wikipedia, "Trap music" came after "Trap House"
"The genre gets its name from the Atlanta slang word "trap", a house used exclusively to sell drugs."
You mean to tell me that Bernstein could have found that on wikipedia rather than immediately ejaculating upon his realization that his favorite podcast shares the same phrase?
Other than the first paragraph and the updates, the text of this post comes from the Free Beacon article, not Prof. Bernstein.
That article also doesn't claim that the term "trap house" originated with the Chapo Trap House podcast.
""Trap house" has been a term used in progressive pop culture since at least 2016, when the socialist podcast "Chapo Trap House" burst onto the scene."
Trap house has been used in pop culture since well before Chapo Trap House. And yes, I suggested that re-posting an article from the Washington Free Beacon was dumb.
The article said "progressive" pop culture which means white "progressives".
It also said "Once associated with inner city crack dens, "trap house" has also become generic slang for any place where young people can score beer."
Bob, you don't know what you are talking about. Who do you think listens to Trap music? Get out of here. Go ask your nephews or something.
Well, no. You actually suggested that Prof. Bernstein had said something that in fact had been said by the author of the article that he had reposted.
Siri, what does "at least" mean?
Also, the article says "progressive pop culture," not "pop culture."
And as an aside, Chapo Trap House was the only word association that I — not being a 19-year old — had for the phrase also.
"Well, no. You actually suggested that Prof. Bernstein had said something that in fact had been said by the author of the article that he had reposted."
I'm suggesting that Bernstein's inability to discern what's obviously stupid and incorrect from reality is worthy of being called a clown.
"Siri, what does “at least” mean? Also, the article says “progressive pop culture,” not “pop culture.”"
Chapo Trap House has nothing to do with the common usage of the phrase Trap House so it's a really stupid and meaningless comment that only rings here because people on this website clutch their pearls when someone says "Chapo Trap House" because BLUE MAN BAD, all while they scream about how everyone on the left can't get over "orange man". Yawn, more histrionic bullshit to lather the rubes with. And "progressive pop culture" isn't a thing and who would they be to comment on it when they think that "Chapo Trap House" is a relevant example of it. Chap Trap House is also unapologetically politically, so once again, the relevance of them to this is even more strained than you pearl clutching rubes realize.
"And as an aside, Chapo Trap House was the only word association that I — not being a 19-year old — had for the phrase also."
You're making my point for me, thanks! For what it's worth, other rubes here were able to use google and inform themselves more than 1) the author of the article, 2) Bernstein, and 3) you.
That should read "unapologetically politically incorrect"
What the fuck point were you making? Because I sure didn't make it. Inform myself about what? All I said was that I hadn't heard the phrase "trap house" before, except in the concept of "Chapo Trap House." Why would I want to use google and inform myself about it? I couldn't care less what it refers to; it's irrelevant to my life.
Berstein (and you, here) uncritically trumpets whatever bullshit he reads so long as he tickles his fancy. Rather than inform himself, he just repeats it. That you are sitting here debating it with me despite (supposedly) not having any interest or knowledge in the matter is that exact point. That you are taking as truth an article which revolves around an assessment of pop culture that is so demonstrably void of a basis in reality is my point. You make that for me when you proudly say you don't know what a Trap House is yet argue with me about how the article's description of it was accurate!
Shockingly, Yaseen Eldik and Ellen Cosgrove have yet to apologize for offending the student.
Given their view on the value of apology for community healing, you would think that that's the first thing they would have done.
I'm beginning to wonder if their advice to the student was given in good faith.
They didn’t offend him. They threatened him.
Like the two gangsters in the Python skit where the gangsters offer protection to the army - “got a lotta nice tanks here major. Shame if something happened to them”.
They should be fired.
Progressive pop culture? You don't know what the hell a trap house is... so how are you going to comment on pop culture? Bernstein, you are a clown.
"You don’t know what the hell a trap house is…"
But whatever it is, it's racist, amirite?
I don't really care to engage the Yale people in their nonsense and I'm not gonna engage you while you circle around them, hooting and hollering.
That dimwit is worth ignoring, seems pretty much another Gen Z troll, dug in like a tick whenever it spots a story that it thinks it knows something about.
Jesus christ, Gen Z? How fucking old are you, dude? You are making my point for me. Old people ignorantly parroting bullshit that tickles their fancy. I'm obviously a millenial. Some of us are in our 40s at this point. Get with the times you old fogey.
Are some Black people embarrassed about liking fried chicken? There is no reason to be. I like fried chicken also, and so do a lot of non-Blacks.
If the student offered burritos, would Yale make him apologize to Mexican-Americans? Why? Mexicans are not embarrassed about burritos.
As the diversity officer explained during the recorded conversation with the offender, the fried-chicken calumny is racist because it is often used to suggest that disparities in the health of black people may be attributable in part to something other than systemic racism.
When Fuzzy Zoeller made the ridiculously racist comments comments about Tiger Woods serving fried chicken and chitlins at the champions dinner, there wasn’t a single person who thought Zoeller was referring to Tiger’s health. The diversity officer is an idiot.
Fried chicken and watermelon is just a random menu selection in the world of some "colorblind" clingers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_kF4zLNKio
Wow.
The administration sending out gossip letters, about a disciplinary matter? At a law school.
Wonderful
I’m curious. The student in question invited his critics to speak to him directly about their criticisms of the party invitation. Did anyone take up his offer? How about the head of the black students association Who falsely accused him of encouraging attendees to come wearing black face? Did she have the guts to take up his offer?
Intellectual maturity and rigor at an Ivy law school? That would require courage, which from the nature of the accusations, seems in short supply.
Nothing new here ... this is a common form of intimidation of vulnerable students.
Maybe the dean's "fitness and character" to be a lawyer should be investigated?
Surprisingly enough, the Washington Post has an editorial about this showing about the same outrage that Reason does, and many of the commenters agree. Of course there are also some who are triggered by the implicit racism of "Popeye's fried chicken".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/14/yale-law-school-party-invitation-trap-house/