The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
OK for Law School to Consider Whether "Students Possess the Mental and Emotional Stability to Join the Bar"
"[T]he wide-ranging conspiracy Doe posits, one that tormented an ordinary law student for months on end using actors, poison, and a weapon that can send electricity wirelessly through brick walls, is too far beyond the pale of human experience to credit without supporting evidence, of which Doe has provided none."
From yesterday's opinion by Judge P.K. Holmes, III in Doe v. Bd. of Trustees for Univ. of Ark.:
The Court concludes that the Law School's need to certify its students' character and fitness is a "business necessity" which is "vital to the business" of running a law school. As discussed above, the fundamental "business" of a law school is to produce lawyers. When a law graduate seeks to become a lawyer, a law school must certify that graduate's character and fitness to the relevant state bar in order for the bar admissions process to go forward. Therefore, the Law School's ability to certify the character and fitness of its graduates is integral to its central purpose of allowing those graduates to become lawyers—in other words, "vital to the business."
Further, the Law School had "legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons to doubt" whether Doe's apparent mental instability would be compatible with her chosen profession. The record in this case discloses that Doe assertively pressed her claims of harassment with many professors and administrators at the Law School, including a federal judge, demanding that they use their authority to intervene in the harassment. This is a legitimate basis for [Law School Associate Dean of Student Success] Pollvogt's concern that Doe might not be able to interact professionally with court personnel, especially if she perceived this harassment in a courthouse.
Perhaps more importantly, Doe's mention of the weapon manipulating her cognitive state and impairing her ability to study would have been legitimate grounds for concern about Doe's ability to soundly advise her clients and perform legal research tasks. Given the foregoing, the examination was job-related and consistent with business necessity.
An excerpt from Doe's allegations:
Doe indicates that she began to experience harassment during the spring semester of her first year at the Law School. She describes groups of "three or four individuals … reenact[ing] something painful or traumatic" that she or her family had experienced. She also describes being followed by groups of people even during times of low foot traffic and after detouring to out-of-the-way, unoccupied areas. Some of these individuals, she states, looked "identical" to people she knew and acted "in an aggressive manner that seems to be designed to provoke an allegation on my part.".
By August of 2021, the harassment had escalated to include "use of electric weapons that targeted my genitals, targeted my dog, targeted my devices like my phone, my computer, my key fob." She characterized the weapons at issue as being banned in several states and as being "silent. They are invisible. They are used to incapacitate a person. They can traverse brick walls [and] concrete."
Doe purports to be familiar with "a lot of literature specific to the use of these weapons by mental health workers …. to identify individuals who suffer from mental illness but are undiagnosed or undertreated and present a threat to the community. So if you're hit with one of these lasers or weapons and you're already mentally unstable, then it could cause an episodic break, and that would allow the authorities to document the break." Doe says that the device seems to have various settings, ranging from annoying to painful to sexually stimulating.
On August 30, 2021, Doe e-mailed three of her professors to let them know that she would likely be unprepared for class, including being unable to turn in one assignment. In these e-mails, she described "debilitating harassment and abuse" which "negates any reasonable opportunity to read, comprehend, or complete assignments." Doe claimed that she was unable to contact the authorities for help because she had no proof the abuse was happening. Despite the e-mail, Doe ultimately completed her assignment on time.
A few days later, Doe sent more e-mails to various faculty members. In one, she claimed that she was "sexually violated and stimulated" during a standardized test, voicing suspicions that those responsible had accessed the test database to artificially increase her score afterwards. Another described the profound impact of the harassment on her day-to-day life, her fear that the perpetrator was "embedded with or aligned to the police," and her hope that the faculty (including one federal district judge) could intervene on her behalf to keep the perpetrators from accessing her residence and vehicle….
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
I wonder about Millenial Law Students are feel unsafe when they hear bad words. How will they be able to function in a world where there are opposing counsel that will challenge the students' actions? How about the real world where clients or opposing parties use harsh language?
Kids these days!
This is as stupid and reductive as 'OK Boomer.'
The bigoted, superstitious, conservative millennials can find safe spaces on conservative-controlled campuses, which protect clingers from discouraging words through censorship, enforcement of silly dogma, suppression of science to flatter childish superstition, speech codes, loyalty oaths, conduct codes, the teaching of nonsense, statements of faith, wholesale rejection of academic freedom, and similar methods.
Carry on, clingers. So far as your ignorance, backwardness, superstitious, bigotry and poor education could carry anyone in modern, improving-against-your-wishes America.
Except for the fact that there are no "conservative-controlled campuses" in the United States.
Every single one is ultra-liberal.
Take for example Purdue University, which banned the teaching of rigorous science and mathematics on the grounds that teaching engineers math and science upholds "white male privilege."
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19378629.2017.1408631
When did Liberty University become ultra-liberal?
Or Bob Jones University, etc.
Forget words, some of the illegality involves horriffic things.
Law schools cannot consider the racial makeup of their student bodies when considering applicants but can consider, somehow, whether their applicants have the mental fortitude to join a profession that includes Rudy Giuliani, Jeffrey Clark, Alina Habbas, and Sidney Powell.
Fortunately I can think of no way this can or will be abused and am certain this is the final piece that will solve all the law school woes.
Or stand there and facetiously lie the tax records are for congressional review of tax law, which everybody knows was done so it could be leaked to embarrass a political opponent, which was then done.
Or course, lying, power hunger, corruption is what politicians do. Perhaps such mentalities should be barred from election instead.
Wut?
While I agree that allowing law schools to judge "mental fitness" is a dangerous precedent and ripe for abuse, it's equally true based on the snippets above that the plaintiff has some serious mental health issues and is desperate need of treatment.
There are some delusions that warrant derision and mocking. Delusions such as believing that Trump won the 2020 election or that there was some great conspiracy to take it from him. I'm fine letting the world sort that out and don't think schools should be in the business of excluding people from a profession because of those delusions.
Then there are delusions that are indicative of a serious untreated mental illness that prevents the person from doing the job. I am okay with schools intervening then.
Now, I suppose there is somewhere along that continuum where it's a tough case and reasonable minds can differ. But this situation is a long way from that point. I just hope this woman get the help she clearly needs.
I'm not convinced that Giuliani, Clark, Habbas and Powell are crazy; I think they're probably just dishonest, which is a different type of issue.
But acknowledging that there are at least some members of the bar who fit within the definition of crazy, I'm not sure that's an argument to let someone in that you know up front probably won't be able to handle it. I can just picture this woman telling the judge at her very first trial that opposing counsel shot her with silent and invisible weapons, or her senior partner that she won't get her brief done on time because of debilitating harassment. Speaking as a trial lawyer, if you can't take stress, you belong in another line of work. I suppose she might do OK with real estate law, though I've never done real estate law so maybe that's stressful too.
The Volokh Conspiracy doesn't want to talk about John Eastman -- the prominent, in-the-news, headed-toward-disbarment former Volokh Conspirator dreamboy -- these days.
How many of those five -- Eastman. Clark, Giuliani, Habba, Powell -- will be disbarred before the end of 2024?
I think something happened to Giuliani along the way - possibly alcohol. He is not close to being the man he was when mayor of NYC.
I'm more inclined to believe multiple small strokes because if it was alcohol, one of the tabloids would have photos by now. You kinda know he likely was running high blood pressure.
And even though I consider it a wotchhunt, there's something unseemly about prosecuting addled old men.
Yes, Reason's posting is worse than I though. It isn't a bug in edit, where edits don't "take". It's a bug in typing the post, where initial submissions miss stuff.
My post above had a third sentence on the initial submission. I suspect they have turned on send-every-letter, and that their system is dog slow, so when you submit it erroneously assumes its dogging system has already received and processed all letters, when it's 10 to 20 seconds behind. Meanwhile "Post" button gets through, and submits the still incompletely-filled buffer.
Why would they turn such a thing on? Perhaps an AI tool that monitors your typing "movements" to help ID you so they can earn a whisker more money. They monitor mouse movements, too, this way. Like gait walking analysis.
Disaffected malcontents generally can't abide anything that works. Misfits prefer chaos, grievance, dysfunction, etc.
It is insane (no irony intended) that there is a law that lets crazy people sue for discrimination on the basis of their craziness.
David,
Having a child who has suffered from paranoid delusions, I can sympathize with Doe. Please avoid using "insane" and "crazy" which are uncaring and cruel. They are unnecessary to make the point that the law school has valid reasons for its judgement.
Please join the real world and grow a thicker skin. The world does not revolve around your personal problems.
No it doesn't revolve around him. But there's no reason to use crass terms for someone who is clearly struggling with a mental-health issue, and it's completely fair to call people out when they are being assholes.
There's every reason in the world for English speaking people to use common English terms in ordinary language discourse.
If he wants to complain about a lawyer or clinician wrongly using a term, fine. But ordinary people define ordinary words by ordinary usage, and if he wants to change that, the world has billions of English speakers; he better get started on his letter-writing campaign pronto.
Look at your own comment. "Asshole" is clearly the wrong word if you want to get technical, yet you toss it out as if everyone should understand its common usage.
Sorry, the world doesn't revolve around you either. Grow a thicker skin.
Funny that you seem to consider encouraging civility to be a bad thing.
What civility? He seems to think the world of English speakers should change common usage because he got butt hurt. Is that civil?
There are plenty of perfectly fine English words that have fallen into disuse in polite company. Suppose you are a bastard, or your mother is whore. Would that be your preferred terminology if for some reason we were having a conversation about it?
Yes, usage which was determined by speakers and writers, the vast unwashed masses defining language as all languages are defined, even French, notwithstanding their Academy's attempts to outlaw le weekend.
If I wanted to change that usage, I'd start writing a billion letters to a billion English speakers and writers. But I don't. You and David Bremer and Don Nico do, so best you start writing. That's only 1/3 of a billion for each of you.
No need to write letters; I'll just make a mental note that you're a boor.
Interesting word choice.
Which one am I supposed to be? Please be precise; common usage is not helpful to pedants.
Which one do you think?
Someone makes a polite request to someone else to be more civil, and you jump in to insult the person calling for more civility. What word would you use to describe that behavior?
Someone issues a public call for the public to change their language use for his personal wish.
I call such a person a typical statist who thinks the world revolves around his selfish wishes and everyone else should make adjustments for his personal preferences.
No one has issued a call for "the public" to do anything. Someone made a polite request to a single commenter to use less inflammatory language. And the fact that you think that it's statism for one person to make a polite request to another -- well, if it weren't uncivil I'd say you're nuts.
Who got your ass in a wringer today? Boo-hoo!
Are you under some impression you're in polite company?
Of course not, lol, but I'm not going to criticize someone for trying to raise the level of discourse. In Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf's case that appears to be a lost cause.
Typical statist answer. "He won't do what I want, therefore he is at fault."
And how does anything I've said involve the state?
.
Okay, but I reject the notion that the terms "crazy" and "insane" are uncivil. I would not use the word to the person's face,¹ but talking to someone and talking about someone are different scenarios. (Yes, I feel the same way about so-called personal pronouns.)
(Of course, there are also prudential reasons not to call a crazy person crazy to his or her face, but that wasn't what I was addressing.)
¹To be clear, I would call the "Trump really won the election"-type nutjobs crazy to their face. Above I was referring to the people suffering from a mental illness other than partisanship.
David, yes and no. I'm not as personally offended by crazy and insane as Don Nico appears to be and I was not offended by your original comment; my responses were strictly limited to addressing someone who apparently thinks incivility is a good thing. (And who is apparently silly enough to think it's statist to make a polite request to someone to be civil.)
But in the case of a word that is undeniably offensive I'm not sure it helps that much that one is talking about rather than to. If someone uses a racial slur in a blog comment and then says "I was talking about them, not to them," that is only worth so much.
I agree. But I don't think crazy/insane rise to the level of racial epithets.
Blah, blah blah. You should keep your nose out of other people's business.
.
At the Volokh Conspiracy?
Vile racial slurs are the coin of the realm among this blog's bigoted fans and operators. This blog publishes derogatory terms with respect to gays, women, transgender people, immigrants, Blacks, Muslims, and other targets of right-wing intolerance every day.
Why do you capitalize Blacks and Muslims, but not gays, women, transgender people, immigrants, and targets?
Black? who knows?
Muslims? because that is common English usage for all religions.
Why are you asking foolish questions.?
DN's comment does not offend me. It lowers the level of discussion here needlessly.
The comment was not made to you. So please bud out.
We have now identified two forms of intolerance the customarily bigoted Don Nico dislikes -- antisemitism (real or illusory) and disparagement of insane, crazy people.
Three things:
1. There's a difference between using it in front of the person described, and using it when discussing a third party not present or even related to any of the speakers. Worrying about the first case is genuine concern for feelings, worry about the second is often virtue signaling.
2. "Insane" was, at one time, intended to be the polite, dispassionate, scientific term. As always happens when advocates try to change attitudes by renaming things, we have to keep replacing the terms as each one acquires the stigma of the thing it is euphemizing.
3. You yourself are seriously behind in the replacement sequence. "Paranoid delusions" is becoming unacceptable. I've got a family member with schizoaffective and would never use such a term in front of them, at least not when I'm calm. Try "beliefs not grounded in evidence" or "not seeing things the way others do".
Try to do better.
I also have a child with a mental illness, but while I would object to someone directing those words personally at my child, they are words that are in common English usage that do convey meaning.
For instance the definition of insane:
"in a state of mind which prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill.
"he had gone insane"".
And that seems the sense that David used the word.
Its just a fact of life and human nature that words that describe an undesirable condition develop an undesirable connotation. Then some want to start using different words or phrases to describe the undesirable condition until they start developing an undesirable connotation.
I'm old enough to remember when "retarded" was.the polite accepted word for a moron, which used to be the polite accepted word:
"In1910, the Association of Medical Officers of American Institutions for Idiotic and Feeble-Minded Persons adopted three classifications of people we know today as intellectually disabled, as defined by a newly invented way to measure intelligence we now call the IQ test. “Morons” were the most intelligent — they had IQs between 50 and 70. “Imbeciles” with IQs between 25 and 50 were the second level. Those below 25 would remain “idiots.”
These terms, and the name of their association for that matter, did not strike these medical officers as insulting or offensive at all because, at the time, they weren’t insulting or offensive. They were simply medical terms. In fact, “moron” was a new word invented by Henry H. Goddard, a psychologist who helped devise the American version of the IQ scale and the three classifications adopted by the group.
In 1987, the group changed its name. Years of the use of “idiot,” “moron,” and “imbecile” as common insults had already inspired a few name changes; this time, the organization went with a progressive, respectful new term that had been introduced in the 1960s, becoming the American Association on Mental Retardation.
It took only two decades for popular culture to drag “mentally retarded” through the mud enough to prompt AAMR to change its name again. In 2007, it became the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities."
https://humanparts.medium.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-mentally-retarded-e3b9eea23018
Until and unless the person is declared not competent, they have the same rights and privileges as any other citizen. The fact that that includes the right to sue anyone for any imagined slight is a larger problem unrelated to this plaintiff's mental health.
What is your proposed correction? How do you propose that we rein in lawsuit abuse? I've argued in the past for an effective loser-pays system to counter-balance the tendency to abuse but if I recall correctly, you've opposed that approach. What's your answer?
I find discrimination against the mentally ill a difficult legal question. Some types of mental illness are more severe than others, not all mental illness renders someone non-functional, and it is probably beneficial to allow those with mental illness to function at whatever level they can.
On the other hand, what is the extent to which an employer should be required to take the risk that someone with mental health issues won't worsen and create liability.
It's a question that lends itself to simplistic solutions on both sides, but probably not one with a really good solution.
Actually, I do support loser pays, but that is not really germane to my point above. I am making an argument about substantive law, not about the abstract right to file lawsuits. I am saying that this particular claim shouldn't be a cause of action.
My patented solution:
1. Shut down all public law-schools.
2. Allow the remaining (private) law-schools deny admission to prospective students on any basis whatsoever.
And if some nut job wants to pay good money to study law, and the school wants to take their money, that's their business just as much as not taking their money.
Your solution solves nothing. It is just a ride on your hobby-horse.
What law do you think that is?
I'm aware of a law that allows a mentally ill person to sue on a theory that they were discriminates against because of that disability. That might lead to lawsuits like this, where the factual basis only exists in the person's mind. On the other hand, a delusional person could file a pro se lawsuit over many other imagined torts, and courts need to have some kind of gatekeeping mechanism to prevent those from unduly burdening the rest of society.
But there are other contexts where the mentally ill person could be discriminated against, through harassment or refusal to grant a reasonable accommodation or the various other forms recognized by civil rights laws. As long as we (as a society) legally recognize mental illness as a disability that is protected under civil rights laws, there needs to be some mechanism for people to litigate over violations of those laws.
The ADA.
FWIW I suspect almost every vexatious litigant has mental issues and the remedy of making it difficult for them to file lawsuits is clearly both discriminatory and correct.
It's called "due process" David.
I would have felt better had they simply addressed the conduct outside of any mental health issue -- they had her for fraudulently reporting crimes, etc.
Otherwise it becomes a very slippery (and quite Orwellian) slope with the law school becoming the psych police. A precedent like this *will be* abused, have no doubts....
Precedent is probably racist or something.
Mental state is certainly a valid concern. Imagine what might happen if a messianic cult, like Gush Emunim, gained a foothold in the government of a well-armed nation: we might wind up with the sort of indiscriminate murderers that President Biden decries.
Anyone who identifies as a liberal has no business being a member of any bar, as he's either stupid or mentally ill.
Alternatively, anyone who posts that "Anyone who identifies as a liberal has no business being a member of any bar, as he’s either stupid or mentally ill." has no business being a member of any bar, as he’s either stupid or mentally ill,
I enjoyed reading the court's opinion. I also admired the graphic artist who produced the PDF. I have one question:
Why is the "III" at the end of the signature line in boldface?
Very entertaining in the abstract but deeply sad that she is experiencing these sorts of delusions and mental illness. Hopefully she can get some professional treatment and she can get to the point where she is able to return to law school.
I read the opinion and it appears that she already returned to and completed law school. I hope that she can put this behind her and be a productive lawyer.
"Doe says that the device seems to have various settings, ranging from annoying to painful to sexually stimulating."
If such a device existed, there would be a hundred web sites selling it today.
It is an interesting spectrum of effect, if presented in order of effect.
Kirk: "set phasers to sexually stimulating!"
Spok: "not, 'kill', captain?"
Kirk: "this is how we have become an enlightened species my pointy eared friend"