The Electric Commentary

Saturday, March 03, 2007

Leonard Kaplan

There's a pretty big stink going on regarding some comments that UW Law Professor Leonard Kaplan said regarding Hmong people in a Legal Process class.

Professor Kaplan allegedly said that: "Hmong men have no talent other than to kill" and "Hmong women are better off now that Hmong men are dying off in this country" and "all 2nd generation Hmong end up in gangs and other criminal activity" "all Hmong men purchase their wives, so if he wants to have sex with his wife and she doesn't consent, you and i call it rape, but the Hmong guy is thinking 'man, i paid too much for her!'"

A Hmong student in his class sent out an email about it, which became a mass email, and now it appears pretty much out of control. The response from the Law School, from what I can tell, has been pretty pathetic. What they should be doing is finding out what he really said and in what context he said it. Then maybe they should act on it. Instead, they've been catering to these blind accusations. Dean Davis attended a forum in which he apologized the the offended parties and "praised Kaplan's accusers for the way they had handled their concerns and promised to provide cultural awareness programming next month." Cultural awareness programming? Is Kaplan, or anyone who teaches in the law school, really in need of cultural awareness programming? Kaplan teaches classes on law and culture, and law and theology. His expertise is in psychology and the law or something like that. Anyway, the response has been ridiculous. Ann Althouse has actually been providing what appears to be a fairer treatment of the story than you'd find in the paper (she notes that the Milwaukee JS article linked to above is the first main stream article that actually reports on the story).

I had Professor Kaplan for two classes, both during my final semester of law school. Based on my experience with Kaplan and after following these stories in the news I would bet that these two things are true: (1) He totally said the things he is quoted as saying, and (2) Anyone who believed that when he said those things he was actually expressing his opinion or belief is an idiot that doesn't deserve to be in law school. Kaplan's teaching method isn't exactly "traditional." It isn't exactly what I'd call "good" either, but that doesn't make him a biggot. He likes to get a discussion going, and he really likes to talk. In the course, you would read a bunch of books and articles about philosophy or jurisprudence, and then go to class and talk about baseball or something like that. The discussion is rarely very linear but it does relate back to the reading material, sometimes. But Kaplan wanted you to think. He did make outrageous statements to try to get you to respond to those statements. Everyone in the class with half a brain knew he wasn't serious most of the time.

I also had him for a class called Law and Theology, or something like that. In one class discussion he said something like "Atheists have no morals. You certainly can't know right from wrong if you don't believe in some god, right?" This is something I'd find offensive if I ever found anything offensive. Now I realize that some of the dumber portions of America actually believe this, but Kaplan is a smart guy, so I knew he was just trying to elicit discussion. Instead of writing down his statement and sending out emails and demanding apologies and sensativity training, I raised my hand and told him he was wrong. I said that was ridiculous, that it's arrogant to think you know enough about how your brain works to say you know why certain things seem right to you and certain things seem wrong to you, that Atheists don't do bad things at a higher frequency than theists, that the Atheist that pushes a child out of the way of a moving bus, losing his life in the process is actually more moral than a person that would do the same believing they will go to heaven for the act, etc. Some egghead grad students took Kaplan's side, but it was obvious to me the Kaplan was helping to facilitate my arguments. It was a good discussion. I think it was exactly what he wanted to happen. Of course, the chances of that happening with this Hmong student are slim, since SHE WASN'T EVEN IN CLASS when he allegedly made these comments. Those Hmong people always skip class. [kidding]

46 Comments:

  • (she notes that the Milwaukee JS article linked to above is the first main stream article that actually reports on the story).

    I read about this last week in a mainstream Minneapolis paper.

    http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1026637.html

    The Janesville and GreenBay papers picked up the AP story too. If it went out on the wires, chances are it ran in mainstream newpapers across the country unfortunately. Maybe they will also pick up the eventual response, to correct any misperceptions.

    In public relations, you learn to respond immediately in denying statements like that because the 24-hour news cycle works faster than a courtroom (unfortunately but true).

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:42 PM  

  • I see, you're distinguishing between those papers that ran the wire story, vs. those that assigned their own reporter to cover it. Gotcha.

    I thought the question was if this story had hit the mainstream papers, or just asian news providers.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:45 PM  

  • I actually meant that it was the first paper to actually look at both sides--to treat the story fairly. The Madison papers are making it a witch-hunt.

    By Blogger DannyNoonan, at 7:15 PM  

  • What did you think of the AP coverage? It seemed fair to me, based on what was being acknowledged at the time, and what they were given to work with.

    Kaplan has met privately with offended students who say he stood by his remarks but said he was sorry if anyone was hurt by them.


    Kaplan, a law school faculty member since 1974, has not returned phone or e-mail messages. Law School Dean Kenneth Davis said he believed Kaplan apologized during the meeting.


    Somebody obviously dropped the ball on this one, but it doesn't seem right to find fault with the AP story as written, or expect them to hold such news until the school's final statement is offered up.

    Maybe we need to assimilate the Hmong students by educating them on baseball games, so they'll have a reason too to go to class? *joke*

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:40 PM  

  • It just seems to me that everyone (the AP, the local papers, Dean Davis, the Law School etc.) are treating this story as "Professor Says Horrible Thing." I just think that maybe they shoud treat it as "Law Student Skips Class; is Oversensative." Or at least, "Law Student Offended By Professor's Statement Taken Out of Context."

    By Blogger DannyNoonan, at 11:40 AM  

  • Maybe it should be treated as, "Students too busy IMing and browsing shoes.com to realize context of professor's remarks."

    By Blogger Scott H, at 12:04 PM  

  • He has been given ample time to respond: where is the defense?

    Circle the wagons just to protect the professor, and watch the school's reputation continue to plummet.

    Until everyone learns exactly what was said, this whole thing is a public relations nightmare. But I can't see how you can push it all off on poor media coverage just for explaining how things are being handled.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:45 PM  

  • I didn't push it all off on poor media coverage. I think my mention of the media took up one sentence of this post and that sentence was just to say that someone else, Ann Althouse, noted that the JS gave the story fair treatment (I do agree with her on that point though). In my above comment, I mentioned the media, but I also mentioned how the law school is dealing with the situation. You are the one focussing on the media Mr. Anonymous.

    By Blogger DannyNoonan, at 6:49 PM  

  • First, no need to get angry when someone interprets differently than you. Don't take disagreement so personally, my friend.

    Second, you keep on saying that the media is treating this as "Professor Says Horrible Thing."

    Twice I asked if you read the AP story, and what exactly is your objection to it? I asked the second time because I wondered if you had actually read the AP story as opposed to student newspapers who indeed might .

    You conclude they are only providing one side of the story ("I actually meant that it was the first paper to actually look at both sides--to treat the story fairly.") and have not "actually reported on the story."

    But this rings false Danny. The reporter called and emailed Kaplan -- that's what a reporter does. If someone does not respond, you report that and let readers draw conclusions from the silence. That's no witch hunt, but I am still unclear if you think there is something "unfair" about the AP story. There was a definite attempt at balance -- giving both sides an opportunity to speak their side before the story went to print.

    Your beef shouldn't be with the media here, who are trying to present all of the information in circulation out there. Your beef is truly with the professor and the school -- who for all their talk of wanting the an open discussion -- are keeping mum. That's why the stories are coming across so far as "one sided".

    Don't blame the messenger is all I'm saying, and then deny that your post and follow up comments is not about them doing a poor job. They're not. Blame the students and the media, sure, but take a closer look at who allowed this thing to spiral out of control. It ain't the media.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:09 AM  

  • psst... sensItive.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:16 AM  

  • with an I

    By Anonymous proofer, at 2:16 AM  

  • "First, no need to get angry when someone interprets differently than you."

    What are you talking about? I'm not sure I've ever gotten angry. I've certainly not said anything that should lead you to conclude I'm angry here.

    I read the AP story, and again, the purpose of the post is not to talk about the media coverage. The coverage is perhaps part of the overall attitude. If you'll go back and read the post, my focus is much more on the girl that complained, and the Law School for apologizing before they even know if her complaint it legit. Why did I mention the papers? Because that's where I read the story. I expressed the treatment of this thing in terms of "Headlines" for simplicity's sake. I was trying to sum up a whole attitude in a few words. I'm sorry that you misunderstood that as an attack on the AP story. So for the last time, my beef with the media here is secondary and minor if anything. I'm just talking about a news story and adding what I know from personal experience with the professor.

    By Blogger DannyNoonan, at 7:39 AM  

  • Hey anonymous guy, did you write the AP story or something? Is that why you're focusing on that tiny little bit of this post? Do you want Danny to praise your fine work? Do you want a cookie? Or an HJ? Well, I think you did a great job on your story. That PR degree is really paying off for you.

    By Blogger JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe, at 8:52 AM  

  • Jesus: I thought discussion was what the comments were for?

    I responded to this statement: (she notes that the Milwaukee JS article linked to above is the first main stream article that actually reports on the story)

    By saying the MJS is the "first", you ignore the main story that when out and was picked up -- the AP story.

    AP is not the Badger Herald. Tell me how that story is not reporting on "both sides".

    That's what I asked originally, and Danny backed up his argument with this: It just seems to me that everyone (the AP, the local papers, Dean Davis, the Law School etc.) are treating this story as "Professor Says Horrible Thing."

    Again, I followed up to question that. Does he really think that AP story is a witch hunt, or even only presenting one side? I disagee.

    You all say it's a small part of the post, but it's not. If the AP story was fair, the MSJ story is not the first to present both sides. It's the first where Kaplan spoke up. If he had denied anything or returned calls, you would have read that earlier.

    They did their reporting job. Your trying to blame this on the MSM media or make it into a "witch hunt" is laughable.

    Why not back honestly away from those statements, instead of now minimizing them. (It was only a small part of my post!) Yeah, but a big part of the argument. When it falls, your reasoning falls. Get it?

    Poor Jesus. He's used to always being correct, and can't handle it when da BigBadMedia's not to blame for everything. Boo hoo hoo. Sorry Danny. I assumed you were angry too when you wrote in this tone: "You are the one focussing on the media Mr. Anonymous."

    And my nevermind my penchant for correcting spelling errors then. It is what it is.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:36 AM  

  • "By saying the MJS is the "first", you ignore the main story that when out and was picked up -- the AP story."

    Talk to Ann Althouse. As I sated, I was just repeating what she said. That statement was in parenthesis to indicate that it was basically a side issue anyway. Although the JS story certainly was the first story about Kaplan that I read that I thought treated it fairly. Also, I think you mean "main story that went out"

    Nothing about how the media is treating this is a big part of this post, or a big part of "my argument." Please go back and read the post. I’m not even making an argument really. All I'm trying to say is this: (1) Some people are accusing Professor Kaplan of saying some things. (2) I know Kaplan in that I had him for two classes. (3) Based on that, I believe that he really did say those things but they are being taken terribly out of context.

    I referred to the news papers, because news papers cover stories. And I didn't even mention the AP story, you did. I mentioned the JS story in contrast to the coverage in the Madison papers. But if you want me to "back honestly away from my statements" fine, the AP story is totally fair. It's the greatest news story I've ever read.

    By Blogger DannyNoonan, at 10:59 AM  

  • "And my nevermind my penchant for correcting spelling errors then. It is what it is."

    I think you have an extra "my" in there.

    By Blogger DannyNoonan, at 11:00 AM  

  • "Jesus: I thought discussion was what the comments were for?"

    Why are you using the comments to solicit an HJ then?

    "Poor Jesus. He's used to always being correct, and can't handle it when da BigBadMedia's not to blame for everything. Boo hoo hoo."

    I don't think Danny was focusing on the media's treatment of this, but I CERTAINLY wasn't. I'm certainly not Boo hoo hooing either. I just think you're being a nit-picky jerk.

    And quit commenting annonymously. It's annoying. At least use a pseudonym.

    By Blogger JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe, at 11:26 AM  

  • Yep. I made a typing error. Thanks.

    You consistently misspell sensative. Sorry for trying to point something out that you might be able to fix.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:14 PM  

  • As I stated, I was just repeating what she said.

    Sorry. I thought you were agreeing, and reiterating later that the earlier AP story -- the one that was picked up nationally -- was in some way unfair or unbalanced.

    And I didn't even mention the AP story, you did.

    See, but you did in discounting all of the news reports that came before the WSJ article, and generalizing/concluding that was the first "first main stream article that actually reports on the story". Your facts are wrong, no matter which highly ranked blog provided you them. (:-)

    a fairer treatment of the story than you'd find in the paper

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:23 PM  

  • What a fucking douchebag.

    "What did you think of the AP coverage?" ("Anonymous" post #3)

    I think he/she meant "what did you think of my first ever story to make it on the AP wire now that I've graduated with a bachelors degree in journalism and gotten my first real job?"

    Nobody gets this fired up about this sort of thing unless it's personal, or maybe political, and this aint political.

    Anonymous, have you been going around to other relatively obscure blogs and defending your work against similar non-attacks?

    I think one of the main points of Danny's post relates to people being overly sensitive to comments that wouldn't ordinarily be offensive unless those people were seeking out opportunities to "be offended" in the first place. The reward for such behavior being the sympathy and compassion (misplaced though it may be) of others. Nice job, Anonymous, of illustrating that his point is also valid in non-racially charged circumstances as well. Unfortunately for you however, there isn't some blog-monitoring committee floating around to assure you that Danny and his brother will receive sensitivity training to prevent similar non-assaults on AP wire journalists in the future.

    By Blogger Matt, at 1:06 PM  

  • Nobody gets this fired up about this sort of thing unless it's personal, or maybe political, and this aint political.

    Yes, it is personal. That school name is on my resume too.

    You all sound rather sensitive that someone politely disagrees with you. Wonder how you'd respond if really provoked?

    Something about the shoe and the other foot...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:47 PM  

  • And sorry if I offended you with my well chosen words, Matt.

    Slip a nitro pill under the tongue, eh?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:48 PM  

  • Whatever anonymous dude. Nobody, least of all me, is getting "sensitive” about your “polite” disagreement with me. I really don’t care about the news coverage. My reference to it was off-the-cuff and secondary. I’ve already told you that the AP story was really super awesome. Why don’t you write a post about the AP coverage of the story on your blog? Maybe I could read the post and leave 10 comments critiquing your typos in an effort to help you while I go on a tirade about some tiny detail of your post that barely relates to the topic?

    Look, I wanted to write a post about what I think about Professor Kaplan’s remarks based on my experiences with him. Why don’t you make a substantive comment about that? Did you ever have him as a professor? Do you think he said what his accusers say he said? Does it matter? What should be done about it? That, in my opinion, is what the comments are for. Ideally, they’re not just a platform for you to get all snarky.

    By Blogger DannyNoonan, at 2:26 PM  

  • Wasn't there, only half the information is in, so I'll refrain from opining.

    I do think folks should speak up to correct mischaracterizations of the facts.

    Otherwise people start to repeat and accept ill-informed opinion as fact. Funny how they get so sensitive when called on it, huh?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:06 PM  

  • You think that having the professor in question for two classes makes someone ill-informed?

    By Blogger PaulNoonan, at 5:44 PM  

  • I even said that my bet was that his statements were taken out of context. That's not even close to "trying to pass my opinion off as fact" even if it were ill-informed.

    Just drop it dude.

    By Blogger DannyNoonan, at 6:15 PM  

  • Danny, you almost sort-of kinda criticized our little junior journalists first AP wire story. He has to defend his honor lest your blog post destroy the rest of his/her super cool new career as a journalist.

    And since this comment section is still active, I'll just note that Kaplan's open-to-the-public letter explaining the situation to Dean Davis is here (hat tip Althouse, and I am so lame that I don't know enough html to actually make it a link):

    https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/althouse/public/FINAL%20-%20PDF%20version%20of%20Letter%20to%20Davis%20from%20Len%20%28A0531223%29.PDF?uniq=-7fttn8

    Okay, Anonymous. Please opine now.

    By Blogger Mathew, at 9:07 PM  

  • other anonymous person, do you think it is possible that when danny said the journal sentinel article was the first article to treat the story fairly he just meant it was the first article he read that he thought treated the story fairly? maybe he read that article before he read the ap article. i think that is how a reasonable person would have interpreted what he wrote. it is obvious from your comments that
    you are not trying to correct some injustice. you are trying to be a
    jerk.

    By Anonymous a different anonymous, at 7:16 AM  

  • Otherwise people start to repeat and accept ill-informed opinion as fact. Funny how they get so sensitive when called on it, huh?

    By Anonymous, at 5:06 PM

    You think that having the professor in question for two classes makes someone ill-informed?

    No, sweet.
    I think making allegations before the WSJ article, no papers were covering the story fairly is an ill-informed comment.

    For "evidence", I presented an AP story.* Because outside Madison, this is the version that ran. Seemed fair to me.

    Danny admitted so too, but does not seem to understand it makes his first statement false then re. fair media coverage vs. "witchhunt".

    His first statement then is ... (wait for it) "ill informed". Doesn't matter if he was just repeating it from a bigger, more popular source -- the observation that only after Kaplan's statement was released did the media coverage become more "fair".

    There was fair media coverage -- an opportunity to present the other side, and careful use of "alleged" in the story. The media was just reporting on what the charges were, what was happening.

    Your beef here is with the school. And am I the only one who would not want Dan-o as a defense attorney, if he thinks he's paragraphs were beneficial to the professor or the skool?

    do you think it is possible that when danny said the journal sentinel article was the first article to treat the story fairly he just meant it was the first article he read that he thought treated the story fairly? maybe he read that article before he read the ap article.

    Gawd, even worse.
    Concluding from half the facts... then stickin by them.
    You boys really practice law? *kiddin, just wise up, eh?*

    WV: dykwzr

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:56 AM  

  • So you think that "informed" means "uninformed."

    By Blogger PaulNoonan, at 8:06 AM  

  • "There was fair media coverage -- an opportunity to present the other side, and careful use of "alleged" in the story"

    Please go reread what I wrote:

    "Professor Kaplan allegedly said..."

    "...now it appears pretty much out of control."

    "The response from the Law School, from what I can tell, has been..."

    "What they should be doing is finding out what he really said and in what context he said it."

    "Ann Althouse has actually been providing what appears to be a fairer treatment of the story than you'd find in the paper (she notes that the Milwaukee JS article linked to above is the first main stream article that actually reports on the story).

    "Based on my experience with Kaplan and after following these stories in the news I would bet that..."

    "I think it was exactly what he wanted to happen."

    I made almost no factual statements in the whole post. I gave you my interpretations of things. When I was commenting on an allegation I called it an allegation. When I was describing how something appeared and didn't know for certain whether the appearance was correct, I stated it that way. What more could you possibly want? Dude, just admit you're wrong or drop it.

    And please quit commenting anonymously if you're going to be leaving this many comments. Why not make up a pseudonym? How about "Davis" or "DK" or something like that?

    By Blogger DannyNoonan, at 8:53 AM  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe, at 9:10 AM  

  • "I think making allegations before the WSJ article, no papers were covering the story fairly is an ill-informed comment."

    I'm not quite sure what you mean since this is a poorly written sentence, but I think that your allegation that danny said that no papers were covering the story fairly prior to the WSJ article is an ill-informed comment. He never mentioned the WSJ. He mentioned the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and the Madison papers generally.

    He also said very clearly that it was the Madison papers that were turning it into a witch-hunt.

    Stating, "Ann Althouse notes that the Milwaukee JS article linked to above is the first main stream article that actually reports on the story" is not an ill-informed statement unless Ann Althouse didn’t really note such a thing. Here is the title of the post that he links to:

    "MSM finally tries to get the Kaplan story straight"

    The first sentence is this:

    "Megan Twohey -- in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel -- is -- I think -- the first mainstream reporter to really get somewhere reporting the other side of the Wisconsin Law School story that has gotten so much press lately."

    I’d say that making a statement that "X said Y" is not ill-informed when X really did say Y even if Y isn’t true. Not that Y isn’t true here...

    By Blogger JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe, at 9:13 AM  

  • So you think that "informed" means "uninformed."

    Y'all play silly games.

    I think he was uninformed (look it up if you're having trouble) when he repeated the line about unfair media coverage.

    Let me know if you're still having trouble understanding, though.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:32 PM  

  • Why not make up a pseudonym?

    I did. WV dkywsr.

    Dude, just admit you're wrong or drop it.
    My thoughts exactly!

    Here's what you missed in your recounting:
    "(blog) has actually been providing what appears to be a fairer treatment of the story than you'd find in the paper (she notes that the Milwaukee JS article linked to above is the first main stream article that actually reports on the story)."

    Not if you read the AP story. Much fairer than biased blog coverage. Can you see that?

    I actually meant that it was the first paper to actually look at both sides--to treat the story fairly.
    Untrue, if that AP story was fair.

    It just seems to me that everyone (the AP, the local papers, Dean Davis, the Law School etc.) are treating this story as "Professor Says Horrible Thing."

    Still backing up that blogger's ill-informed nonsense, yet by this point you're admitting you had no trouble with the AP coverage that ran earlier.

    It just seems to me that everyone (the AP...) ... are treating this story as "Professor Says Horrible Thing."

    Huh? You just said you had no prolem with the AP coverage.

    Or were you getting so off track emotional w/ Matt's namecalling and the confusion that I wrote the article that you don't know what you're saying?

    It's inconsistent, Danny, no matter how many friends try to convince you otherwise.

    Both you and that blogger seem to think that the coverage somehow only got "fair" when the professor spoke out on his version of the facts.

    I can see why the professor blogger would argue this; why are you publically contradicting yourself and blaming the media? (please see above statements, if you've forgotten)

    WV:dykwsr

    Really it's like buying the car then reading Consumer Reports. Here you slam the media, then someone points out the AP story that you admit is fair. If the media is still so horrible, then your Thunderbird was still the best buy ever! (think through it...)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:44 PM  

  • Oh I see. The problem is that you don't know what "information" is.

    Actually, that seems about right.

    By Blogger PaulNoonan, at 2:11 PM  

  • You just won’t go away will you? Let me be clear. My original post was not about the AP story's coverage. My only reference to the news media's treatment of the story was stating what Ann Althouse said. I definitely agree with her sentiment. In the comments I said that “It just seems to me that everyone (the AP, the local papers, Dean Davis, the Law School etc.) are treating this story as 'Professor Says Horrible Thing.'" I still think that, but the news coverage was secondary to me. I was trying to comment on how Dean Davis and the law school handled it. Now I did say the AP story was super terrific or something like that, but I hope that you were able to deduce that that was just a cue for you to shut up and go away. I do think the AP story is unfair but it's not what I had in mind when I wrote the original post. Since you want to talk about it so bad, lets actually talk about the first AP story. This one:

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/H/HMONG_PROFESSOR?SITE=WIFON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

    Here are the first two paragraphs:

    “MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- A University of Wisconsin law professor is getting criticism for comments made during a lecture that students say were offensive, including "Hmong men have no talent other than to kill."

    Professor Leonard Kaplan also told his class that many Hmong become criminals and gang members and purchase their wives, according to an e-mail distributed by a Hmong student upset by the comments.”

    Where are all of those "allegedlies" you were talking about? It says he's getting criticism "For comments made during the lecture." It doesn't say he's getting criticism for comments allegedly made. At this point weren’t they just allegations? Aren't they still just allegations? It says that Kaplan also “told his class” all those things? It’s not just an allegation? How does the AP know he actually told his class these things? How did it know what he actually said to his class when this went to print?

    They also didn’t mention that the girl that sent the email out wasn’t in class, but this was known at the time. They interviewed only one student in the class who gave a negative (albeit only slightly negative) account of the story even though other students in the class had talked to other media at that point and characterized the statements as being misquoted or taken out of context. As far as we can tell, the only student they tried to interview was Hmong.

    You think this article is fair?

    By Blogger DannyNoonan, at 2:35 PM  

  • And my Thunderbird still was the best buy ever...

    By Blogger DannyNoonan, at 6:01 PM  

  • I do think the AP story is unfair ...

    Flip. Flop flop flip.
    Slippery fish, ain't they?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:06 PM  

  • Oh I see. The problem is that you don't know what "information" is.

    Either stop talking to yourself, or buy yourself a dictionary? It can help with spelling, plus understanding how words can be used. No seriously.

    Try not to puke on it, though. Makes flipping the pages harder. Heh.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:09 PM  

  • Makes flipping the pages harder.

    (Look up the words, and repeat the phrasing a few times to yourself, if you don't understand.)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:10 PM  

  • And if you are still blaming the media for being unfair, rather than acknowledging that they printed everything that was being said (which is really your beef -- that they reported what was addressed in the student's email) without any comment from the professor (who was not working in co-ordination with the dean at the time) because he wasn't denying the statements publicly at the time ...
    well then I suspect you're going to be finding fault a lot more with the media in years to come for delivering bad news.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:14 PM  

  • The days of "holding the news" to protect reputations are pretty much over.

    Like I think I said upthread, you learn to respond quickly and clearly in denying allegations because that's how things work in the 24-hour news cycle. Hopefully the school and this man learned something, the students too. Never should have happened.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:16 PM  

  • fuck you

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:51 PM  

  • Obviosly you have heard the Chai Vang story. FYI- do you know what will eventually happen to racist people?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:52 PM  

  • Kaplan is a dead man; his days are numbered. although i won't be the one to commit that crime he truly opened himself a can worms that will haunt him forever.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:31 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Search:
Keywords:
Amazon Logo