In law school we debate many controversial issues, issues that are very important and which deeply divide us. How should inclusive leaders in the law deal with debate on controversial issues that divide us?
If you believe an idea is wrong, debate it and respond with your own best argument, but never try to
censor an argument you don't like or label it as "offensive." Labeling a legal argument as "offensive" or "hurtful" or "inappropriate" is a power play designed
to deprive those with whom you disagree of their best arguments and force them to adopt your
narrative? Don't do this to others; and never allow others to do this to you (and never apologize for making a reasoned argument in good faith). When you shout "I am offended" you are basically conceding that you have lost the argument, that you are checkmated and can only curse in defeat.
Debate is always welcome in this
class. But censorship and the cancel culture have no place anywhere in a law
school committed to reasoned analysis of legal arguments. Diversity means diversity of viewpoints and ideas in a wide-open academic marketplace of free expression; and inclusion means inclusion, not exclusion. Every person--and every idea--is welcome and included here at the Law College. Debate respectfully as learned friends in the law, not as ideological enemies.
My advice to you all is to acquire tough skin when engaged in legal debate. Amazon sells a product (see above) that may help. And again, welcome to the Law College, to Property class, and to a magic carpet ride of reasoned and respectful debate and analysis of any and every legal issue.
