The YLJ training itself is not a big deal. The Journal chose to put it on for its own editors who clearly felt free to disagree. More reporting should be done on whether Hart gave the same presentation at the 1L orientation. That would imply school endorsement of her views. Either way, things don't look good for the diversity director.
See footnote 8 of the YLJ memo embedded at the end of Aaron's post. She led workshops for both the 1L orientation and the entire law school. What's not clear to me is whether those workshops were mandatory.
But it's worth noting, per the memo, that the February 2021 workshop that was open to the entire school was co-sponsored by BLSA and the Office of Student Affairs ("OSA"). The OSA is, of course, an official part of the YLS administration. I don't know that this means you can attribute every word of Hart's presentation to the administration, but it's probably fair to say that the OSA saw some value in it (hence the co-sponsorship).
Was it the same presentation though? If she was invited to give this exact presentation to all the 1Ls or the entire student body you'd think it would've come out sooner.
According to the YLJ memo, it was "literally the exact same training" Hart "gave last spring to the whole law school."
One of my YLS sources confirmed that Hart did give this presentation last spring. My source didn't tell me about it back then because, in this source's view, there was nothing to be gained from spreading the word; it would only make the school look bad and create a ruckus. So I can understand why this news didn't come out sooner.
Even in today's fairly transparent world, you'd be surprised at how many stories never see the light of day or come out belatedly. Back when I was at Above the Law, I would sometimes hear about stories months after they took place, with the source telling me, "I can't believe you guys never heard about this."
This was often the case with Biglaw stories, where perhaps the sources were afraid of adverse employment consequences if they aired dirty laundry. Sometimes the source has an incentive to share a negative story—e.g., complaints about below-market compensation, in the hope that coverage will spur improvement—but for gossipy stories with no connection to compensation, there's often no incentive to share.
The training sounds wildly antisemitic and I'm glad that students pushed back and David shed light on it.
But, is the "silent majority" trope really applicable here? You're not silent if you have a well-subscribed substack that pays you, and it sounds like the YLJ editors weren't silent either.
I don't think we disagree. My argument in the article is that the silent majority is finally breaking its silence—and that includes me. I do have a good platform, and I'm grateful for that.
What I would add, though, is that these developments have been going on for years, and many of us have been silent—for years. I've only started speaking out on these issues recently—and I feel bad for not having spoken out earlier.
Keeping quiet was the path of least resistance, as well as a way to avoid getting personally attacked. I've gotten attacked much more ever since wading into this debate. But I don't regret getting involved.
Bravo David. And I’m quite proud of those YLJ editors for showing more sense than the YLS administration and faculty.
The YLJ training itself is not a big deal. The Journal chose to put it on for its own editors who clearly felt free to disagree. More reporting should be done on whether Hart gave the same presentation at the 1L orientation. That would imply school endorsement of her views. Either way, things don't look good for the diversity director.
See footnote 8 of the YLJ memo embedded at the end of Aaron's post. She led workshops for both the 1L orientation and the entire law school. What's not clear to me is whether those workshops were mandatory.
But it's worth noting, per the memo, that the February 2021 workshop that was open to the entire school was co-sponsored by BLSA and the Office of Student Affairs ("OSA"). The OSA is, of course, an official part of the YLS administration. I don't know that this means you can attribute every word of Hart's presentation to the administration, but it's probably fair to say that the OSA saw some value in it (hence the co-sponsorship).
Was it the same presentation though? If she was invited to give this exact presentation to all the 1Ls or the entire student body you'd think it would've come out sooner.
According to the YLJ memo, it was "literally the exact same training" Hart "gave last spring to the whole law school."
One of my YLS sources confirmed that Hart did give this presentation last spring. My source didn't tell me about it back then because, in this source's view, there was nothing to be gained from spreading the word; it would only make the school look bad and create a ruckus. So I can understand why this news didn't come out sooner.
Even in today's fairly transparent world, you'd be surprised at how many stories never see the light of day or come out belatedly. Back when I was at Above the Law, I would sometimes hear about stories months after they took place, with the source telling me, "I can't believe you guys never heard about this."
This was often the case with Biglaw stories, where perhaps the sources were afraid of adverse employment consequences if they aired dirty laundry. Sometimes the source has an incentive to share a negative story—e.g., complaints about below-market compensation, in the hope that coverage will spur improvement—but for gossipy stories with no connection to compensation, there's often no incentive to share.
Thanks for this. Bad look for OSA. Hope a leadership change is coming.
The training sounds wildly antisemitic and I'm glad that students pushed back and David shed light on it.
But, is the "silent majority" trope really applicable here? You're not silent if you have a well-subscribed substack that pays you, and it sounds like the YLJ editors weren't silent either.
I don't think we disagree. My argument in the article is that the silent majority is finally breaking its silence—and that includes me. I do have a good platform, and I'm grateful for that.
What I would add, though, is that these developments have been going on for years, and many of us have been silent—for years. I've only started speaking out on these issues recently—and I feel bad for not having spoken out earlier.
Keeping quiet was the path of least resistance, as well as a way to avoid getting personally attacked. I've gotten attacked much more ever since wading into this debate. But I don't regret getting involved.