|
4 . 1 8 . 0 7 Been distracted these past couple of days by the ongoing news coverage of the campus shootings at VTech and the aftermath. I first heard about it in between work meetings and was more or less distracted by the IPTV link on my computer all day Monday. When the causality reports started coming in I got a sinking feeling as it just started sounding worse and worse. I remember hearing about the Columbine shootings in my dorm room between classes thinking about what kind of carnage would an incident like that have on a college campus. This was before the security craze that we have been living in since 9-11 and now I wouldn’t be surprised if at least some universities around the country overreact with trying (failing) to secure their campuses against another lone gunman attack. Immediately after the shootings were made public it seemed like everyone was talking about second amendment rights and the illusion of safety with an armed populace provides - in other words, if the students were armed with concealed weapons, they would’ve shot back, right? I saw a lot of angry posts pointing out that VTech apparently rejected a proposal to allow students to have concealed weapons on campus. I find this hard to accept, if anything at all, having a campus full of students armed with lethal force seems like a huge security concession to make for a remote chance that anything like this would’ve happened. In the meantime I imagine that there would be a number of accidents and arguments that escalated into fatal outcomes. Would these concealed weapons be allowed in bars and stadiums? Would there be any requirements or restrictions on how much training students would have to have with the firearms before allowing them to carry them on campus? Let’s not forget that a firearm gives someone the ability to wield lethal force, something that would make everyday interactions life and death situations, there is no room for misunderstandings, miscommunication, or error of judgment. This is why military and law enforcement go through the rigors of training and discretion to know when and not to use it, and for at least law enforcement when the do discharge their weapon, there is an administrative process and internal investigation that goes to make sure that the officer acted lawfully, and for military, well thats what war zones are for. Unfortunately the loud voices in favor of unlimited second amendment rights are part of it is this fantasy that Americans have with wanting to play the tough guy, the pioneer, the lone ranger, the powerful one. The question is that if we are willing to play out this fantasy, will we all be as willing to deal with the responsibilities of it? Would we all be willing to be put in a situation where we could take away another human beings life in a split second? What if we misread the situation and shot an innocent, unarmed person by accident? would we be willing to live with that guilt? Of course I’m not talking about people using guns for hunting, or for hobbies or sport, I’m talking more about packing a gun on a day to day basis in public. Last point, lets say a bunch of students are in a building being raided by SWAT and law enforcement and in the panic and chaos of things, they have their otherwise concealed weapons out for protection. I think it would be highly likely that an innocent student, or cop would get shot accidentally. Also noticeable from the start was the media’s mention of the shooter’s ethnicity early on, I started groaning reading all the speculation on the blogs, immigrant bashing, ties to Islamic fanaticism, terrorism, within a few hours the internet had arrested, indicted, tried and convicted a VTech asian student based on some blog posts and pictures of guns on his website. When the news came out on the shooter’s identity there was a lot of responses about Asians and and Asian Americans. I’m still waiting and hoping there won’t be much of a backlash against Korean-Americans, East Asians, asian immigrants and all the right-wing crazy fun that comes with it. On a lighter note, I got distracted from my con law reading for a bit to read up on the Notorious MSG and sampling their music videos. I couldn’t help but find some peace of mind in good old fashion ethnic satire, especially when it has a good beat and clever lyrics like “mutha-sucka” and references to pake cuisine. 4 . 1 1 . 0 7 About a month away from completing my 4th semester, and 2nd year as an evening student. While saving any overly reflective comments until I’m actually through the gate and survived the seasonal trials and stress that comes with studying the law part time while juggling a full time day job, I’ll say that things have been progressing along, slowly but surely. My cases are becoming easier to read, and the legal reasoning has become clearer and easier to spot quickly. This is not to say that any of the material has gotten any easier, but I as usual, I’m finding ways to adapt and push forward when faced with a challenge. I think a lot of this has to do with my choice of classes this past summer and fall semester, I kind of went off the beaten path by enrolling in a clinical program which in retrospect helped put all of this training into context. In many ways it was the human element that I found missing from my first year - brought back some memories of taking pre-med science courses and craving for something more fundamental to a professional field of study. I’m looking into my classes for the next couple of years, weighing options with the required staple and bar-related courses. There are some that I’m having a hard time conceptualizing why I would need to take, and then there are others that I would like to take, but am limited based on my evening hours schedule. I’m finding myself drawn to similar topics as I did back at La Follette, more along the public policy route, with some twists and turns. Recent discussion in class dealt with the Grutter v. Bollinger case involving affirmative action policies at the University of Michigan. Reading the case I’m sure struck a nerve among many of my classmates in the sense that the case involved a haole student who was denied admission to an “elite law school” but who probably had a similar LSAT/GPA profile as many of us sitting in the classroom. Instead of “settling” for a lower ranked law school, the student decided to sue the university claiming racial discrimination. There has been some talk recently about law school rankings which inevitably enters the law student’s mind because they seem to matter so much for employment, and overall assurances that you’re not wasting 3-4 years of your live on a degree that will be perceived marginally good enough, depending on the circle you associate with, of course. My take on affirmative action to me has always been mixed. On one hand I think that we cannot deny the history (and disturbingly recent history) of racial discrimination and we as a society should be actively engaging it. On the other hand I do not think that it is a fair system, and that it can also breed some of the same discrimination and racial tensions if it is not applied equitably. It definitely has its limits as with any other law or policy, the ultimate goal is to discriminate one class against another. in free market terms, there are always winners and losers, we as society have to decide who wins, who loses, by how much, and for how long. I think I agree most with O’Connor’s comment in the case that she could envision that 25 years from now there might not be a need for affirmative action. I don’t know about the prediction of 25 years by itself, but I do agree with the broad concept of using racial preferences to address a historical wrong if it meets a certain standard of scrutiny - however they can’t be sustained indefinitely forever. Of course saying when the playing field is truly “level” is the hard part. |