Friday, October 28, 2005

Really Moot Court

Disparate treatment, disparate impact, blah blah blah, we've all heard about the two big dogs of discrimination numerous times from con law one forward. However, what most people forget is that "discrimination" can only happen to certain groups of people.

Let me start this off by saying I never thought I would make moot court, and this isn't a personal rant, but more of a rant for the people I think deserved it and got screwed. Also, those of you that made it, Congratulations, I'm sure you worked your ass off, my problem isn't with you, it's with the process itself.

Moot Court is a big deal in most law schools, and I personally held it with high esteem before going through the process. Now I realize, it's pretty much a joke.

First, in tryouts, competitors argue against a random selection of 5% of the people competing for moot court. Competitors are put in front of different judges, who attack arguments differently and understand competitor's points differently. Oh yes, also, their level of care differs greatly as well. My last judge told me, "I'm getting pretty tired, I hope you guys don't mind if I don't really pay attention to your arguments." Yeah, maybe it was in jest, but there's at least a little truth in every joke (except any joke about Tre or Nye). If Moot Court is as prestigious as people would like us to believe it is, there needs to be a much more balanced and level application process.

The point that really irks me is the 'random selection' of these judges. I had 6 males, three other people I asked had 6 males, 4 people I asked had 5 males and 1 female, and ONE person had a "mix of males and females." So we pick all male judges and FOURTEEN females make it as opposed to FOUR males. It doesn't take ole Sigmund to postulate a theory as to what may have happened. Also, the girls who made Moot Court are a pretty physically attractive group, which makes me wonder even further (If any of you ladies are reading this, I am free this weekend, call me, except the married ones). The easiest argument to make is in the converse, if 14 males had made moot court, how many formal complaints do you think would have been filed? How many sit-downs with the Dean would disgruntled Moot Court applicants be having, "Dr. Dean, 77.7% of the people that made moot court are males, this is just so not fair!" But we're men, so we take it. If we complained, I'm sure we'd be "whiners" and "sore losers" or, even better, we "can't take it when a women beats us." If a female complained, she'd have a legitimate beef. Please.

This specific example just underscores a problem that I used to find funny, but now is starting to really bother me. Sexism is not something that is tolerated anywhere, unless, of course, it targets males. "Bitch" and "Slut" won't fly, but "Bastard" and "Man-Whore" are completely fine. I'm not making this reference hypothetically. I know a number of girls that take enormous offense to the former, but don't think twice about tossing the latter towards a male constituent. What's the difference? Men haven't been raised with this stigma that women are out to get them. We feel no need to protect "the essence of manhood" at every single turn. We don't think people are out to get us just because we are men. That's the problem, maybe we should, as it's pretty obvious that something, intentional or not, happened in moot court tryouts.


Anonymous said...

Just be glad you don't have to be part of a retarded lawschool club comprised of people who couldn't cut it for law review. Also, I 100% agree with your posting today regarding men's plight.

Anonymous said...

I think that you probably just didn't do as good of a job as you thought and are looking for someone else to blame....if stop being bitter and blogging all the time and maybe you could have made moot court.

Tre! said...

I think that you probably just should work on your reading comprehension. And I quote the post:

"Let me start this off by saying I never thought I would make moot court, and this isn't a personal rant."

I knew I didn't do that "good," as you put it. I'm not saying the process kept me from being on moot court, just that the process was flawed. I'm really not bitter at all about moot court. I'm just tired of the perpetual double standard that exists in regards to sex. Do you really think if 14 out of the 18 people that made moot court had been male that we wouldn't be hearing a shitstorm of complaining?

Anonymous said...

No, I don't agree with your assertion that if 14 men and only 4 women were chosen you'd hear about a bunch of noise from the women, especially depending on the ration of men to women at your law school. Unless that ratio is somewhere near 75% women, then my guess is the women don't pay attention when more men than women get chosen.

Secondly, just because you put a disclaimer on your posting doesn't mean that your agenda isn't to defend male dominance. Sounds to me like you cared enough to post, so you were on a personal rant. There may very well be a double standard, but it's not the fault of the women who were successful. Blame the sexist male judges whom you seem to believe gave higher scores to only attractive women.

Anonymous said...

I will not weigh in on the entire issue of discrimination and who is favored, but I do have some food for thought. The advantages to being a white male have become nonexistent in certain situations in which they historically may have existed. In fact, being a white male has become a disadvantage in these situations. For example, job searching for professional positions. You can't tell me that if given a pool of equally qualified and successful law students to choose from, a firm wouldn't select all of the women and minorities first. If all of the candidates are qualified fairly equally, the firm gets a "bonus" for selecting a woman or a minority because it improves their "diversity profile". Perhaps this is fair because of the years in which the tables were turned, but it still sucks.

Nye! said...

I didn't participate in the moot court tryouts so I won't comment on the process specifically. I will, however, throw some numbers out there.

The UC Law class of 2007, including transfer students, has 73 men and 70 women. That's a 51/49 split. The members of the class of 2007 who made Moot Court are 4 men and 14 women. That's a 22/78 split.

The UC Law class of 2006 has 75 men and 80 women. That's a 48/52 split. The members of the class of 2006 who made Moot Court are 4 men and 13 women. That's a 24/76 split.

Priot years' moot court teams have been split 29/71, 43/57, and 41/69 (all this information is available on the Moot Court web site,

So since 2001, there have been more and more women than men on the Moot Court team, and for at least the last two years, those numbers are vastly different from the makeup of the classes. (Of course, the more relevant numbers for the last two years concern the makeup of those trying out rather than those in the class, but I suspect the latter is a reasonable proxy for the former.)

Again, I didn't participate in the process and I didn't hear a single argument, so I'm definitely not saying that anyone on the team doesn't deserve to be there. But the numbers over the last five years are rather eye-opening.

Tre! said...

"There may very well be a double standard, but it's not the fault of the women who were successful. Blame the sexist male judges whom you seem to believe gave higher scores to only attractive women."

Um, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I'm doing, I'm not putting any blame on the women that were successful. I'm blaming the process, not the participants. I'm not "defending male dominance" at all, I'm simply pointing out a possible inequity. However, I've learned that the next time I hear a woman complain about sexism, I should tell her to "stop whining."

Read the stats in Nye's post again and tell me I'm a whiner.

Anonymous said...

Defending male dominance? Are you kidding? Its been a decade since white males were allowed to dominate ANYTHING. Personally I think they get the shaft more than anyone cares to realize. Everyone is so concerned with making the traditionally minority groups (sex, race, etc) happy and making amends for past wrongs (which weren't even committed against the people in question...just their predecessors) that they lose sight of the real goal - which should be judging people on their personal abilities alone. NOVEL CONCEPT for all my female counterparts out there who demand special treatment and act as if they are owed something. PLEASE.

Anonymous said...

"Defending male dominance? Are you kidding? Its been a decade since white males were allowed to dominate ANYTHING."

I would like to point out that white males actually dominate the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of our federal government. They dominate in the business and legal professions. A select few have more power over the United States than most people realize.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who reads this blog knows that Tre is a superb antagonist. His blog provides for great amusement: he polarizes, uses strong language, is sarcastic, and most of all, makes it clear that he is a man’s man. Tre pointed out some real inequities in the moot court competition that should not be clouded by his all too familiar style. The childish mudslinging and the male dominance banter is uncalled for.

If law school experience has taught me one thing, it is not to underestimate my classmates. I know this, Tre knows this, and people reading/posting on this blog know it.

My hat is off to those selected, they deserve it, and I truly believe that it is not anyone’s intention to minimize their accomplishment. But frankly, Tre's post does echo the sentiments of many other participants; this thing is a craps-shoot.

This thing is a craps-shoot, and the Moot Court Board statistics say that the dice are more likely to fall in your favor if you are a woman. Let’s point out the problems and make an effort to remedy them so that next year if those selected are 75% women, they will not have to have their hard work compromised.

Anonymous said...

why don't you propose some solutions as well, tre/nye?

Nye! said...

No, I'm not getting into this. Like I said, I didn't participate so I have no idea what happened. I only posted those numbers to point out that John might not be crazy. You guys can fight it out yourselves.

Tre! said...

I'd suggest getting a better balance of male and female judges. I know it's hard, but it's doable. Also, the fact that the decision process, and the final scores, are all kept fairly quiet forces people to speculate as to why they didn't make it. We're in law school now, I don't think anyone will get their feelings hurt if scores were posted. Maybe even just post the top 35 or something, I don't know, but there needs to be some sort of insight for people who thought they were close. I don't think I was close, but I wouldn't mind if other people saw this. I don't think the people I know in law school would judge me based on my moot court score.

The real change that needs to be made is having the moot court competition during the end of 1L year. That's what most schools do, as it keeps the playing field level. At that time, everyone has the same time constraints. When you get into second year, people are taking different classes, working at jobs that require different time commitments, some students are working externships, and most students are busy looking for summer employment. It just makes more sense to have the competition at the end of 1L year. I'm pretty sure this is the timeframe in which most law schools run moot court competitions.

Modern Esquire said...

If the comments on this posts is indicative of the arguments made by men in the Moot Court competition, then I'd said it's no surprise that women in law school tend to do better than men in the competition.

More female judges mean more males make Moot Court, based on what? That all judges favor competitors of their opposite gender? Your logical fallacy couldn't be more apparent.

And assuming the results had been different, would you stand up and say that any criticism of the process as being "anti-female" was valid? I sincerely doubt you would.

What if, again, I know it's hard to believe, that the result was actually based on the personal abilities of the candidates themselves and race and gender had nothing to do with it?

If you must know, your oral scores don't affect who gets on and not as much as you think. Between the two, I'd say your written score probably has more to do with someone making Moot Court than your oral score.

And that may be the reason women make the board often than men, because maybe they are more careful writers. I remember everyone thinking that the writing scores would be about the same and that the only thing that distinguishes you is your oral score. Total fallacy.

Some of the written briefs are horrible. Unimaginably bad. Can't believe this person passed LWD, or even Intro to Law, bad.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the women gotten a better oral score (which you are presuming) because, SHOCK, they did a better job presenting their argument and responding to questions. I know in most of the rounds I judged where there were male-female competitors, that was the case except for one exception.

The whole reason you argue so many rounds with so many judges with your worst round thrown out is to account for any disparity. Now, you want a male bonus, too?

As for your idea that the competition should be done during the first year, I think it's a horrorendously bad idea given that a 1L student doesn't know how to cite, let alone how to write an appellate brief. Though, apparently, a 2L student does not know much more either.

Your sole rationale for having this first year is this misguided notion that it would "level the playing field."

If you can't handle the fact that your opposing counsel may have more resources and less time constraints than you do, then save your money and drop out of law school now. Parties are rarely, if ever, on the same playing field in that regards.

In case you hadn't realized it, there's a reason we wait until the second year besides the fact that the competitors should know by then how to write. One of the things being tested is your ability to handle the other demands of law school and still be a strong competitor in Moot Court.

If you can't handle the other time commitments and pressures of law school when trying out for Moot Court, then you probably won't do a good job of handling it if you're on the board either.

Just like everything else in law school and life, it's a matter of choosing your priorities.

I, myself, was taking 17 credit hours (including Tax and U.C.C. Art. 9), working 16 hours a week downtown, doing part-time research for a professor, looking for a summer job, and planning my wedding when I tried out for Moot Court. And I made it despite have nearly all male judges.

We don't want to do tryouts when everyone, by force, has the same time constraints, we want to do it when people have some flexibility with their time to decide how much of a priority Moot Court is to them.

Your premise that we can simple just get more female judges is laughable. It's a shame you didn't make the board, maybe if you did you'd realize how hard it is to get attorneys to volunteer to give up their evenings for the competition. To think we can do that with a "protect the males" affirmative action plan is simply idealistic naivity.

Anonymous said...

I have to compliment Modern Esquire on his response; he explained most of my responses appropriately and succinctly. No wonder he is on Moot Court. Great job!

Anonymous said...

Modern Esquire, I really don't think you're contributing anything to the discussion here. What, exactly, was your point? You seem to be making the exact type of gender-based generalizations that you're blasting Tre for -- specifically, you're claiming that the women are better brief-writers and more composed advocates than the men, but offer no evidence to support your claim (aside from setting a great example of male inadequacy with your repeated misspellings, incoherent sentences, and wandering thought process). Or was your point simply that you were better than most of the other men in your class who didn't make the team?

I agree with Tre that holding the competition during the 1L year would be better for everyone involved. That works just fine for most of the other law schools in the nation, so I think it would work fine for us.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget that if the competition were held in the first year, you also would have had to compete against the Law Review students. Then, when you didn't make it, you'd have some other complaint.

Nye! said...

I don't really see what competing against the Law Reviewers has to do with it. The people who wanted to do Law Review would still do Law Review, and the people who wanted to do Moot Court would still do Moot Court. (Or if you're really ambitious, you would do both, as one of our classmates did this year.) I mean, as it stands now, essentially everyone is competing already -- most of those who tried out for Moot Court also tried out for Law Review. What does it matter if the Law Review competition is first or the Moot Court competition is first?

In any case, I believe that at Georgetown, they have tryouts for both Moot Court and their many journals during second semester of the first year.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Tre that the process appears to be flawed. It IS significant that nearly 50% of the participants were male and 14 of the 18 candidates selected for the board were female. I don't see how anyone could honestly disagree with that. Of course, I guess it could be disputed if those disagreeing realize they got lucky and are just trying to justify why they happened to get selected. Face it ladies, something is amiss here!

Tre! said...

Dear Esquire:

1. I understand it's very hard to get anyone to volunteer to do anything, let alone lawyers. I think I've acknowledged that. What I put forth was a random theory, I didn't expect it to fall under your expert logical scrutiny. Yet, with how personal everyone has taken it, maybe there is more credence to it than I thought. I don't doubt the skills and abilities of everyone who made moot court. My point is, if the roles were reversed, someone who said the process was "anti-female" would not get all this criticism. I'd like to thank you all for proving this. It's OK to say a process is "anti-female," but "anti-male"? I'm called a whiner and people accuse me of having a "fragile male ego." I have no problem losing to a female, my problem is the more than apparent discrepancy in the representation by sex on the moot court board. Would the "can't you just take it that men are better than women" fly? I guess it will.

2. Furthermore, I wouldn't stand up and say the process was "anti-female" but I would expect a female constituent to say something if 28 males and 7 females made moot court in the last two years. You don't think the University would be looking into that?

3. Add William & Mary and University of Pennsylvania to the list of top 30 law schools that have moot court competitions in the Spring. I guess the paramount concern for these schools isn't whether or not you make moot court a "priority."

4. So the brief is the most important part of moot court. Why wasn't this illustrated more clearly. On practice briefs, we received barely any criticism, but a lot of "great starts" and "very good" or "great argument." That was about it, cursory at best. However, in the practice arguments the constructive criticism was extensive and very individualized. Although they say it's 50/50, I'll go with the cliche that actions speak louder than words.

Furthermore, using your logic, the brief is worth more than 50%, as you use it as a foundation for the oral argument. So really, the brief is worth about 75%, all of the brief portion and half of the argument. Maybe if the board provided a restrictive case list for the oral argument section, it could truly be 50/50. Or maybe, just maybe, you give the argument in an advocacy competition more weight. In the moot court competition that UC hosts, after the first round the weight the oral argument is afforded goes up every round, until the last round, when the oral argument is worth 90% of the score. Hmm, maybe the oral argument should be the deciding factor in an advocacy competition.

5. It's amazing that law reviews nationwide let those 1L's that "don't know how to cite" write on at the end of 1L year. I would agree with you, and seriously doubt the credibility of any law review.

6. Also, if the purpose of moot court is to win competitions (which it may not be, I don't know), then wouldn't you want some balance to the team? People who could write well and people who can argue well. The writers can help the oralists with prepping the brief, and the oralists can help the writers in prepping their argument. Instead, we seek people who were good at both, which is fine I guess. If I was running it, I would seek mostly people who were exceptional at one or the other (or both, as some people were).

Anonymous said...

I don't know if there is a right answer or if the process is even flawed. But, I think when you have statistics showing something, an open and intellectual debate is necessary. Law school is meant to teach us not to accept the status quo, so I applaud Tre for at least speaking up, whether he is right or not.

P.S. Modern Esquire - Nobody who has seen you thinks that you made it because of your looks...

It was probably because of your arrogance, or maybe your time management skills. Congrats on passing Intro to Law. I'll bring you a cookie tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

Modern Esquire:

One quick peice of food for thought. I would not dare make the assertion either way, but since you did...If women are more "careful" writers than their male counterparts, then why is the current UC Law Review...58% men?

One more thing, I will have to see a transcript in regards to your success in UCC Art. 9 and Tax. Merely being enrolled in the class is not a testament to your time management skill.

Anonymous said...

I happen to have overhead a few of the Moot Court big whigs discussing this blog, and I heard them say, "The results wouldn't have been much different if the top 18 were based on the briefs alone. Those are anonymously graded, and the problem writer wasn't involved in the grading." So you may have thought that you've made some kind of point, but you really haven't. An anonymous, unbiased, assessment of the participants' briefs yields very similar results.

There may be some arbitrariness built in to the process, but that's law school, and that's life. Just think about law school exams. A really intelligent, articulate person who will make a fantastic lawyer may get a C on the final. But that's no marker of the student's overall ability. Similarly, some qualified people may not have made the board just b/c they didn't do their best work on this particular assignment. It means just that, they didn't do their best work on this particular assignment. That doesn't mean that the process is bogus, biased, or whatever else you want to call it.

Questioning processes and having controversial discussions is healthy, but let's not over analyze the situation. The most harmful thing you've implied (and I say this realizing the sarcastic tone to your blog) is that it's in some way shocking when intelligent women achieve major accomplishments. You're not intimidated, are you?

Anonymous said...

"...holding the competition during the 1L year would be better for everyone involved. That works just fine for most of the other law schools in the nation, so I think it would work fine for us."

Not quite...moot court programs vary widely across the nation. First, many schools do not even send moot court teams to national competitions. For example, Michigan has several internal moot court competitions, but the only national one that they send a team to is the Jessup competition. Other schools have try outs for each national competition (Oklahoma is one). And further, other schools follow the exact same try-out process as Cincinnati (South Texas is one, and they have the most impressive trophy case of any school in the past two decades).

Second, looking at the moot court programs of top 25 or top 30 law schools does not mean anything. Again, compare the trophy case at South Texas to any other school.

My point is this: each try-out process is likely based upon the size of the school, their moot court budget, tradition, and a number of other factors. Of course, it's easy to say it "works for them, works for us." But no matter which school you pick as "them" (Georgetown, for instance), you will be able find students who attend "them" that think their process is flawed and want to follow that of another school.

Anonymous said...

I think this should be the moot court topic for next year. This argument would wake those judges up.

Anonymous said...

With regards to the arbitrariness comment... Why would the system continually produce such a disparate amount of females to males year after year, when a relatively equal number of both males and females tried out. It wasn't like this was a fluke year. It has been a pattern over the past few years. The numbers should even out, don't ya think? Sure an intelligent student may bomb an exam, but over time that student's intelligence will come through on other exams and balance out their G.P.A.

Anonymous said...

Thought this would be appropriate...perhaps it's time to start a chapter of NO MA'AM at the law school:


For seven Married... with Children seasons, Al and his friends suffered from their wives' and other women's oppression as opposed to their idea of a perfect world. In early episode 0106, Al expresses his anachronistic vision like that: "It used to be so great to be a man. Women were there to please us. They'd look after the kids and we go out and have a good time. That's the natural order of things."

But when some feminists took away these men's bowling night in episode 0809, Al and his friends founded NO MA'AM, the "National Organization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood." Its purpose is to fight the increasing power of women all over society (and to bowl and drink beer of course).

Anonymous said...

"...The most harmful thing you've implied (and I say this realizing the sarcastic tone to your blog) is that it's in some way shocking when intelligent women achieve major accomplishments. You're not intimidated, are you?"

Yeah, real men aren't intimidated by attractive intelligent women. So just go bowling, cry in your beer, pump iron, be macho, and have your guys' night out, while the attractive intelligent women are out with real men.

Anonymous said...

Quit your complaining that you didn't make moot court. You are simply a failure. It is shocking that someone as moronic as you hasn't failed out of Law School yet. Secondly, by making these absurd accusations, you are taking away from all the wonderful people who have contributed their time and talents to make moot court successful. Finally, even if moot court was sexist, they still let six men on...but obviously you are dumber than most men and couldn't cut it.

EK said...

"Yeah, real men aren't intimidated by attractive intelligent women. So just go bowling, cry in your beer, pump iron, be macho, and have your guys' night out, while the attractive intelligent women are out with real men."

1) Stop posting anonymously so I can tell who you all are.

2) Do you guys not listen to Tre? Apparently not, because he's said more than once in this discussion that he didn't think he should have made the team, doesn't care if he loses to women, etc. He's only pointing out that if this were reversed, people would be raising hell. And other people would be supporting their hell-raising.

3) This all illustrates his point very well. In today's society, people are not allowed to question anything where females succeed. As soon as one man does, the anonymous brigade shows up, questions his manhood, his ability to function with females in society, and implies that he has the social skills of Walter Sobchack. But they never once touch his point or get into intelligent debate about the double standard. Not one person other than Tre has addressed it.

Doulbe standards exist everywhere. Look at NALP forms. Number of partners: 78. Female: 3. Women have a tough row to hoe in plenty of areas of society, but the solution is to not pick and choose what double standard is good when. It furthermore does not help when people who want to see the double standards erased in some areas attack a person who is calling for them to be erased in others. If you're against the double standard, be against the double standard. This should not have to boil down to men v. women.

Anonymous said...

This is Michele Berry. I'm posting anonymously because it was easier that way.

A previous post states:
"The UC Law class of 2006 has 75 men and 80 women. That's a 48/52 split. The members of the class of 2006 who made Moot Court are 4 men and 13 women. That's a 24/76 split."

The statistics you're quoting actually are incorrect. In the class of 2006, there are 12 women and 5 men on the moot court board, around a 30/70 split. Also, I'm pretty sure the Class of 2006 doesn't have 155 people, so the stats quoting 75 men, 80 women also seem flawed, but I could be wrong about that.

And the correct stats for the Class of 2005 are as follows: the moot court board was comprised of 10 women and 7 men--almost balanced.

If you want to compare this year to other years, these are the most relevant years, because these were the first two years where an original problem was written, rather than "borrowing" a problem from a previous year's national competition--which was a real problem because there are ways of obtaining briefs to previously competed national competitions. Talk about a flawed system, there you have one.

I can't get into certain details about scores. There are certain things that I have to keep confidential. I hope you understand that. But if you want to talk about our system, I'd be happy to talk to you. I'm not going to criticize you or think less of you for posing legitimate questions. While I can't respond to tons of emails, I'd be happy to answer specific questions about our process. Just don't get ticked if I don't get back to you right away. Just email me on my UC account. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Michele again.

Oops. I had the Class of 2005 wrong. It was actually 9 women, 8 men. So as even as possible for a board of 17 members.

Sorry to nitpick, but if we're looking for some sort of pattern, lets at least have the stats right.

Anonymous said...


I am one of the male participants who competed in the competition. I put in many hours in the library, working on the moot court problem. You need to know that your system is flawed. There were many discussions about the problem and the arguments among some members of my group, as well as information passed between the first group and the second group.

If you take a look, you will see that the majority of people who got onto the board were not just female, but also members of group two. This is not a coincidence. I am posting here and not e-mailing you because I want to point this out in a public forum.

For the record, I did not engage in any of these discussions, I am way too competitive to put myself at such a disadvantage. I also did not feel that I performed very well in my arguments and, realistically, did not expect to make the board after going through the whole process. So, I don’t think my spot was given to a woman.

Anonymous said...

That's why we said at the outset, the Honor Code is in force. The Honor Code, by it's very nature, only works if people are on their honor. If you and others thought discussions were going on that shouldn't have been, you and others should have reported it. That's what the Honor Code is, and you're right, it will never work if people don't take it seriously.


Anonymous said...

To those who believe they witnessed an Honor Code violation:

Do you realize that you are in violation of the Honor Code for not reporting a violation of the Honor Code?

To those who are criticizing the Moot Court process:

Your critique is going beyond the members of the Moot Court Board, the UC students who participated in the competition, and the UC law community. You are ignorantly and dangerously questioning the integrity of lawyers and judges who have earned and deserve the respect of the legal community. These are the very professionals you hope to someday be privileged enough to work for and associate with as colleagues. I wonder if you believe in your cause enough to share your thoughts face-to-face with the judges of the competition or if you will continue to hide behind the anonymity of a cynical blogger. I think your own integrity pales in comparison to those of the distinguished lawyers and judges who gave up their time to help choose the best competitors. Congratulations to the new Board members! You earned it and you deserve it!


I'm not choosing sides in this mess because I didn't participate in Moot Court. I don't know who's right or who's wrong, or if anybody is either. I would like to congratulate all the new members, ya'll deserve it. However, I have been following this blog with the rest of the city of Cincinnati and I think commentator #35 takes the cake as biggest blowhard on the blog.

First of all, Tre is not speaking anonymously. Deductive reasoning has allowed me to establish who he is pretty easily. Whether Tre is right or not, I applaud him for raising some hell. It take a lot of guts to speak out on a controversial issue and after all the shit he has been taking because of it, I give him even more props. That's why we are here, intelligent debate. I wouldn't call it "ignorantly questioning the integrity of lawyers and judges" when there is factual data to back up what he's spittin at ya.

Second of all, the only "professionals I hope to someday be privileged enough to work for and associate with as colleagues" are going to be those who respect my opinion even if they don't agree with it. Nobody wants a kiss ass #35, so quit puckering up.

If you wanted to get a job or something out of your response, you should have at least followed your own advice and used your name. All those deeply respected lawyers and judges will never know you had their back.

Tre! said...

I wrote a blog that focused on the different way that males and females are treated when accusations of sexism are involved. I think many of the comments posted here have simply served to illustrate and prove my main point.

I wrote 2 sentences concerning a theory about what may have happened. It seems like most people didn't want to argue with the rest of the post, and decided to focus on these two. I described this as a theory. I also never said that it was a conscious decision made by the judges. My theory included a reference to Freudian theory, which deals with the subconscious, but you must know this. I'm confused about how I doubted the integrity of any of the lawyers involved, I just pointed out that they were, gasp, males (sex is a key portion of Freudian analysis).

Before we all drink the kool-aide and decide to cry foul, let's at least work on some reading comprehension.

However, anonymous blogger number 35 makes a good point in the honor code debate. People who want to complain about the honor code forfeited any right to do so by not reporting the violation the honor code. The strength of the honor code does not exude from the language of the code itself, but from the students that protect it. It's disappointing that students would either participate in breaking the honor code or stand by and watch as it happens.