Concerned students reach out to faculty members

May 14, 2008

Dear Faculty,

We students are deeply concerned with the current climate at CUNY School of Law. CUNY’s mission is “Law in the Service of Human Needs” and it seeks to diversify the legal profession by training practitioners who are equipped to best serve the under-privileged and oppressed. It started to do this by breaking traditional barriers for law school admission and developing an innovative curriculum. It continues to do this through initiatives like the Pipeline Program.

The law school prides itself in having one of the most diverse faculties in the country, yet it has allowed and supports a clinical adjunct policy that adversely affects the only African American professor in the clinic and one of the five African American professors at the law school.

The adjunct professors in the clinic who want to become Instructors should have that opportunity but it shouldn’t eliminate adjunct professors as clinical faculty, especially since CUNY was ranked fourth in the nation for the quality of its clinical practice offerings. The other top three law schools have practicing adjunct professors in their criminal law clinics. Even more disappointing is no faculty member is working to keep Professor Gray at the law school.

Racism is a system of advantages based on race which includes cultural messages and institutional policies and practices as well as the beliefs and actions of individuals. See generally, BEVERLEY DANIEL TATUM, WHY ARE ALL THE BLACK KIDS SITTING TOGETHER IN THE CAFETERIA?: AND OTHER CONVERSATIONS ABOUT RACE (New York: BasicBooks 1999) (citing David Wellman definition of racism).

The question presented is how is CUNY School of Law going to be successful in achieving its mission to train lawyers to serve the under-represented when it is participating in the oppression.

Ask yourself why you came to teach here? Who did you want to help? Law in the Service of Human Needs starts at home. Be the one to bring this up at TODAY’s Faculty Meeting.


Sincerely,

Students concerned about CUNY School of Law’s Mission and in support of Professor Gail Gray



(letter embedded below)

Letter revised - Upload a doc

Read this doc on Scribd: Letter revised

Read more!

CUNY Law Being Sued by former student

Embedded is an Order to Show Cause and Verified Petition filed by Jason Bowns, a former student, who is suing CUNY Law for disability discrimination.

According to Jason, The Office of the New York State Attorney General, which represents CUNY, is requesting additional time although the return date is for May 15, 2008. He received that Motion today and is preparing the Motion in Opposition.

UPDATE: a link to the exhibits and affidavit will not be up for a bit because there is some information in the affidavit that needs to be redacted. Until this gets done we have deleated the exhibits post as well as deleted the document from scribd. Expect a new link after finals are over.

Bowns v CUNY OSC & Petition - Upload a doc

Read this doc on Scribd: Bowns v CUNY OSC & Petition

Read more!

AN ELEGY for Leigh

AN ELEGY
For Leigh
09/22/05
By Jason Bowns

I see the steps where we sat
and chatted and laughed.

Your class seat is emptied;
a rose lies on the hard slab
of white tables, deprived of books.

You stand where they play pool
on the third floor, inquiring
about how I like studying law and
the readings. You stated that
you'd had trouble staying awake.

You are in the
auditorium, there -- yes that
chair -- thanking me for the
glazed pastries that I gave
and take an inviting bite.

You are talking in the first floor hall
with a gentle smile, sporting a new
hair dew. Your skin glistens, smooth
glass, fragile and frail to touch.

In the library you carried a chair
through the canyon of opinions and
statutes, so that I could sit nearby.

In July you entered Admissions,
replied that it was a mistake, you were
confused about a form that your Mom
had mailed, and turned to leave.

Through the lattice,
I watched you walk away,
grin, and beam. You
laughed with a shaking head
and then proceeded through
the remains of that day.

What changed?

Then I tried finding your name
online, googled and typed.
The St. Andrews school student page
stately proclaimed you were inducted
into the Honor Society in 2003.

Have the alumni heard?

In your emptied chair some
upperclassman sits who
never knew – you. The rose
is swept away by someone
cleaning. He doesn't know.

For two months (one for most),
we were accustomed to you
walking the corridors and talking
about the work you planned
to complete for tomorrow.

What's next?
Will you rest
across the street?

More likely you'll fly
South, to the Tar Heel State,
with the geese beginning
already to leave, fleeing
the approaching cold.

We'll stay here, put on our
coats, and endure another season of
parking bans and sleet.
We will hope that the filtered
inside air will be heated then, too.

But where will you be?

Frozen, an angel in the snow,
an icicle that broke?

You're still sitting here,
chattering on these same steps;
Main Street's doors are closed.
Your face pervades this place,
but the glass is cracked and stained.

Read more!

CUNY Law Blog: Name remains the same

We just want to respond to a few anonymous comments that asked why the name of the blog did not change after the poll (TAKE TWO: SHOULD THE BLOG CHANGE ITS NAME IN RESPONSE TO THE JANE DAVIS LETTER?) results were the following:
Yes: 26 votes/50%
No: 24 votes/ 46%
Maybe So: 1 vote/1%
Unsure: 1 vote/1%

In deciding to keep the name the same, we took into account both the poll results, which were quite close, and the 25 comments left on the Jane Davis post. Given the different results of the comments and poll, there seemed to be no clear right choice.

Of the 25 comments, 9 explicitly said the name should remain, and 3 implied that the name should remain. 1 post implied the name should change (though it was quite forceful in its disapproval of the blog) and no commentators explicitly said the name should change. 7 comments suggested new names and/or legal advice and there were 5 comments on topics other than the name change.

The poll and the comments seemed to be a wash, one in favor of changing the name and the other of keeping it. What ultimately tipped the balance was the input of those who took the time to comment. Half of the comments explicitly wanted to keep the name, and more than a quarter others seemed to be in favor of keeping the name.

Though the name did not change, we tried to address some of the concerns of people who were uncomfortable with the blog generally. As a result of some of these comments, we moved the disclaimer to the top and added a brief explanation of the blog's purpose under the title. We hope that this shows we try to respond to both commentators who agree with and like the blog and those that don't (or just don't like Dan).

Read more!