... served as jurors or witnesses. Our teacher was well-intentioned, not at all a Confederate sympathizer, and one of the better teachers at the school. His aim was to facilitate critical thinking. It worked. It got us all interested. We couldn't wait for our ...
... own turn to hold a slave trial, and we talked about it for years afterward.
But the trials typically involved a lot of Lost Cause-ism, and could degenerate into some ugly stuff. A common tactic on the pro side, for example, was to call "Charles Darwin" as an expert witness.
The student playing Darwin would then argue that black people aren't fully evolved, and therefore not fully human beings, and therefore not deserving of human rights.
I do recall that our teacher himself had mixed feelings about the trials. He'd preface them by conceding he probably wouldn't have held them if there had been any black students at the school, and that it bothered him that the "pro" side often won.
But the trials were such an ingrained part of my school's culture, it took years for me to realize what a weird and f***ed up thing they were.
I disagree with some (thought certainly not all) of what I've read that could properly classified as Critical Race Theory.
And of course, teaching kids about Jim Crow and slavery isn't CRT, and CRT isn't really taught outside of college and law school.
But as other have pointed out, this whole debate should begin with the acknowledgment that a lot of U.S. kids have been getting some pretty ...
... warped lessons about U.S. history for a long time.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm on vacation, but I'll answer the @popehat challenge, here. I've been on the @FedSoc speaking list for about 10 years. In the mid-2000s, I'd estimate I spoke to about 4-5 law schools per semester, on topics from police militarization, to ...
... forensics, to prosecutor misconduct, to asset forfeiture, to wrongful convictions. I've always thought this was a credit to the group, since most (though certainly not all) of its members probably disagreed with me on those topics. Sometimes these were debates, but often ...
... it was just me speaking. And often, those talks were co-sponsored by the ACLU, black law student groups, the American Constitution Society, or other left-leaning groups. Which, again, I've always thought was a credit to both FedSoc and those groups.
The 10th Circuit just issued a new AEDPA opinion. The case isn't about innocence. Instead, it deals with a Wyoming law that allows for a lighter kidnapping sentence if the offender released the victim peacefully.
But the AEDPA discussion applies to innocence cases too, so it's worth looking at.
At issue is whether the burden should have been on the defendant or the state to show if the victim had been released peacefully. The dissent believes the state was wrong here.
Thing is, the majority doesn't even necessarily disagree. It's that it doesn't matter. Even if the state court is wrong, under SCOTUS AEDPA jurisprudence, a federal court can only overturn on a constitutional issue if “there is no possibility" that ...
At the same time, Brnovich has vowed to execute 21 Arizona death row prisoners before he leaves office in 18 months. Which of course will generate a lot of press coverage just ahead of his run for the U.S. Senate.
Lamar Johnson is innocent. The man who committed the crime for which Johnson was has pleaded guilty.
After she was elected, the office of St. Louis DA Kim Gardner found and disclosed the evidence of Johnson's innocence that her predecessors had suppressed.
Included in that evidence: Prosecutors paid off the only eyewitness to identify Johnson, and didn't disclose this to the defense.
First, let's look at his claim that the "the Small Business Administration prioritized emergency Covid grants to restaurants by race."
This isn't some affirmative action program to address vague wrongs inflicted decades ago. It's about harm inflicted *last year.*
The first COVID relief package for small businesses required the loans be processed through banks, even though most of the loans wouldn't need to be repaid.
Moreover, a 2014 CA law makes shoplifting less than $950 a misdemeanor. So *no* DA in CA can throw the book at those shoplifters.
Retailers are lobbying to repeal the law. Which they have every right to do. But it’s also worth considering that they might have some incentive…
… to exaggerate the problem, or to retroactively blame pre-planned store closings on a shoplifting surge.
*Maybe* shoplifting really is up, and the contradictory crime data is due to under-reporting. But that’s an unfalsifiable claim, and it at least deserves some skepticism.