I have participated for months in the Oregon and broader #DiplomaPrivilege conversations. For those advocating for diploma privilege, I thought you might appreciate the views of one dean. With thanks to @sjdprods & @profdaf who helped guide my thinking, let me offer a thread.
As a law school, we were confident that our graduates could pass the bar exam--under pre-pandemic circumstances. But, to state the obvious, the conditions for the upcoming exam will be, at best, uncertain.
To be sure, the Oregon Bar did its best to provide a socially distant exam, as I'm sure all bar examiners will, but neither we nor any Bar can be confident about how the public health guidance will shift between now and later this month.
Normally, we of course would advise our students to go forward and take the bar exam. However, if the administration is cancelled, or if a student is required to self-quarantine, for example, the student would not be permitted to take the exam.
Thus, we pursued #DiplomaPrivilege and encouraged our students to accept the diploma privilege provided by the Oregon Supreme Court. If it's important for an employer or for a graduate to have a UBE exam in hand, then the graduate can register for the February exam in a UBE jxn.
But the diploma privilege path exists in large part to alleviate the substantial uncertainties associated with the July administration of the bar exam. We saw very little downside risk in accepting a path to licensure that will rapidly become irrelevant as a graduate practices.
Ultimately, if an examinee/employer likes, the UBE will be available later under circumstances that are much more certain. After all, no one can say that a bar exam under pandemic circumstances can adequately measure minimum competency. (cc: @BarExamTracker@DiplomaPriv4All)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ My heart breaks for the victims of the Robb Elementary School shooting. Like many, my heart hurts in different ways. 🧵
2/ My heart hurts as a parent who hugged his kids a little harder today, as a higher ed leader who believes it does not have to be this way, and as a crim law scholar who knows that the gunman’s use specifically of an AR-15 was preventable. Let me explain.
3/ In 1994, Congress passed the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act — known as the “assault weapons ban.” congress.gov/bill/103rd-con…
1/ Circling back on the #Cosby opinion to focus on one problem: the remedy. So, why not suppress his deposition testimony & remand for retrial? Seems reasonable, and the concurring & dissenting opinion (CDO) pointed it out, but according to the majority...
2/ "Our disagreement with the CDO arises concerning its view that mere suppression of Cosby’s deposition testimony will remedy his constitutional harm and 'fully' restore him to where he stood before he detrimentally relied upon D.A. Castor’s inducement." pacourts.us/assets/opinion…
3/ "This perspective understates the gravity of Cosby’s harm in this case, and suppression alone is insufficient to provide a full remedy of the consequences of the due process violation."
1/ I have so enjoyed watching the impressive anti-racism efforts of law schools—including my own. #LegalEd has a long way to go, but we’re doing the work. As we do, though, I can’t help but feel tension between this work and the US News rankings. THREAD aals.org/antiracist-cle…
2/ For those outside the loop, the US News rankings incentivize law school admission practices that alienate students from historically underrepresented backgrounds—e.g., those identifying as American Indian, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian. lssse.indiana.edu/wp-content/upl…
3/ Let me explain via an illustrative example from my friend, @TheEdLawProf (whose work I recommend). In his piece, “The Marginalization of Black Aspiring Lawyers,” @FIULAWREVIEW, Taylor writes:
1/ Let's talk about some of the problems with the grand jury's decision not to indict the officers responsible for killing #BreonnaTaylor [Thread] cnn.com/2020/09/23/us/…
2/ Let's start with some background (I promise it's relevant and short): first, as a general matter, a grand jury is asked to consider presented evidence and decide whether probable cause exists to believe that a crime has been committed by one or more individuals.
3/ second, the grand jury is an independent body - disconnected from any branch of government. It deliberates in secret and the prosecutor is the only attorney presenting evidence. There is no obligation to present exculpatory evidence and/or defenses.
1/ [Short thread] A few comments as await a decision from the grand jury about whether the officers who shot and killed #BreonnaTalyor will be criminally charged. nbcnews.com/news/us-news/l…
2/ To begin with, it's the right call to rely on the grand jury here - it provides independence to a charging decision that would ...otherwise fall within the province of the prosecutor's discretion. Now, please know that grand jury proceedings are secret so we will not learn...
3/ either what the prosecution presented or the rationale for the grand jury's decision. Also, jeopardy does not attach at the grand jury phase, which means that a grand jury that chooses not to indict has no constitutional impact from a charging perspective.
1/ A former (& talented) student of mine @UARKLaw—Marion Humphrey—was subjected to race-based policing by the AR. St. Police. As a dean & scholar who is deeply committed to issues of crim. law & procedure, I can’t sit by w/o comment. So, let’s talk. THREAD arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/…
2/ The stop: The officer alleged he stopped Marion for “changing lanes too quickly.” Maybe he did, but the dashcam footage I’ve seen doesn’t support that claim. My take: The officer stopped Marion because he’s a young black male who was driving a rented U-Haul on the interstate.
3/ The stop (cont.): Yes, pretextual stops are constitutional so long as police have a valid basis for the stop (Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) needs revisiting), but that hardly means pretextual stops are normatively appropriate.