 Good afternoon and welcome to today's event on integrating doctrine and diversity. We have a great program lined up for you today. My name is Greg Bowman. I'm the Dean at Roger Williams University School of Law. And to start our event this afternoon, I want to begin by reading our law school's land and labor acknowledgement. So as we begin, I want to take a moment to reflect on the lands on which we reside. We are coming here today from many places, and we want to acknowledge the ancestral homelands and traditional territories of indigenous and native peoples who have been here since time and memorial. And to recognize that we must continue to build our solidarity and kinship with native peoples across the Americas and across the globe. Roger Williams University School of Law is located in Bristol, Rhode Island. And so we acknowledge and we honor the Narragansett and Poconocha people, as well as Soems, the original name of the land on which our campus resides. We also acknowledge that this country would not exist if not for the free enslaved labor of black people. And we recognize that the town of Bristol and the very land on which our campus resides have benefited significantly from the trade of enslaved people from Africa. The economy of New England, Rhode Island, and more specifically of Bristol was built from wealth generated through the triangle trade of human lives. So during this time of ongoing national reckoning with our history of slavery and the disparate treatment of black people. We honor the legacy of the African diaspora and the black lives, knowledge and skills stolen due to violence and white supremacy. And as we gather here today, the movement for justice and liberation is building in our country and we are witnessing the power of the people. Yet many are still being met with violence and even being killed while others actively work to stand in the way of progress. As a holders of justice, our hope is to become agents of change for members of our society who have been met with violence, physical, mental, emotionally, through our privilege. And as a holders of justice, we believe that our students who soon will be practitioners of law can be and already are agents of change as well. Thank you again for being here today with us. Thanks, Greg. I will take it from here. Welcome to our last integrating doctrine and diversity speaker series event of the school year. My name is Nicole and the director of special programs academic affairs here at RW law. This is our second year of the speaker series. We've hosted six events this academic year featuring speakers representing 16 law schools in 12 states with one speaker as far away as Myanmar. Our co sponsors for this year's speaker series grew from jurist, RW law and CUNY law to include those sponsors and Berkeley law and GW law. We have had about 2000 people registered to attend these sessions, with at least one registrant from over 80% of us at US ABA accredited law schools. This programming is entirely free recorded when possible, meant to be considered and reconsidered shared and discussed. Thank you all for attending these sessions, even when you are busy. Thank you for sharing them with your colleagues. Thank you for inviting us into your offices when you're eating lunch and when you're grading. Some of you on the West Coast maybe just having your cup of coffee in the morning. Thank you for continuing to respond to my emails when I invite you to come to these events and when I invite you to come and speak at these events. Thanks for showing up today and tomorrow and into the academic years to come. So let us start with today's conversation. Today is our first one on one sit down and it is with Dean Irwin Chimerinsky. It honestly feels a little silly for me to introduce him as our speaker, because you all know him. It seems like it would make more sense for me to introduce me. The National Juris Magazine has named Dean Chimerinsky the most influential person in legal education in the United States. But just in case you're here by accident or you're my mom, allow me to introduce Dean Chimerinsky. He became the 13th Dean of Berkeley Law on July 1, 2017. When he joined the faculty as the jet C H Chopra Distinguished Professor of Law. He is the author of 16 books, including leading case books and treatises about comma, crime procedure and federal jurisdiction. He is also the author of more than 200 law review articles. In 2016 he was named a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. In 2022 he was the president of the Association of American Law Schools. That was his abbreviated biography. Imagine how long the actual biography is. So, Erwin, this first question is for you. This series is focused on pedagogy. It's a series of discussions about how to shift focus from the whiteness and maleness of the traditional law school classroom, and to teach diversity skills and content throughout the law school. In the most inclusive way, what do you see as the role of law school teachers with regard to DEI be work in the classroom. Let me start by saying, thank you so much for having me on this series. And thank you for doing this. It is so crucial for legal education in the United States today. I think we have to start with the goal. The goal is to make sure that our classrooms are inclusive for all students. It has to be that all students feel welcome, that all students feel comfortable there. And that's true of the law school as a whole. What we're going to talk about is also important that law school classrooms be places where all ideas and views can be expressed. Your specific question, though, is about the role of law teachers. And I think there's a number of things that law teachers must do in the classroom. The problem is model the behavior that we expect of our students. It's essential that the professors treat every student with respect that the students are all seeing from the faculty, how they're expected to behave. It's important that faculty express the expectations for the classroom. I think it needs to be explicit. I've realized over the years that I've been teaching, I become much more explicit on the first day of class and describing what it is that I expect in terms of discussion and in terms of the nature of the discourse. And third, it's important that the instructors conduct the classroom in a way that fosters inclusion and belonging. Too often students have been called on or not called on because of the race or their sex were treated differently because of the race or their sex. Too often difficult topics have been avoided. Too often professors have been confrontational with students where it's undesirable. And so if you ask me simply, I think in terms of instructors, we have to model good behavior, we have to articulate what's expected to conduct our classrooms in a way that fosters equity and inclusion. Thanks. I really like that to start off with that part of this is about setting the tone and to not expect students to accord themselves in a certain way when we ourselves as teachers are not doing the same thing so I think that's great. In December 2020 you wrote a post from the Dean which we're going to share in the chat which states, quote, we must prepare our students to serve a diverse society and to have the tools to improve it. To succeed, we must be a place where all ideas can be expressed and discussed. We must do our research and scholarship help point the way forward to a fairer society. We must, in light of our vital public mission, work to fight racism and work for justice and equality in our community, our nation, and the world. My first question is about where you said all ideas can be expressed and discussed. Based on your experience, what happens or should happen in the classroom, when an overtly racist idea is discussed. What is the role of the teacher is the role to name the speech as hurtful. Is it to use it as a springboard to a more nuanced discussion. What is the teacher's role in this instance. So much is going to depend on the context. What is it that's sad, and how is it being said. Start with an answer your question with the teacher can't do is ignore it. Now, my approach as a teacher is to try never to embarrass a student and never to make a student feel uncomfortable. So I would never say outlaw to a student, you know what you just said is really offensive, because that makes me adversarial to the student and likely to other students in the classroom. If something is expressly said that's racist, then what I need to say is, I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but people could hear it this way. And I can give examples as we go along where I've had that happen in the classroom. And if it's an idea, the response would be to the idea, not to the student in a personal level. So, if it's an idea say, some have put forth this idea. Now it might be that what I need to do as a teacher is respond directly and say, but that's generally regarded as a very problematic idea, because maybe it's the kind of idea that there could be discussion and say, well, that's a perspective. What about the other perspective, and if no one's there, I would provide it. So if somebody is saying something that's expressly racist or sexist or homophobic, I'm going to need to respond to it, and I'm going to need to respond directly to it. If it's more of an idea than how it's expressed, then I need to take it on as an idea, and the more offensive it is, the stronger my response to the idea, the more it's something that's open for discussion, the more I would let it be discussed. Thanks. So, so often what I hear from students is that faculty get in those situations, and they like, there's like a freeze moment, like, oh gosh, this really terrible thing was just said, let me move on to the next thing. Let's okay let's look at the next case, or oh okay you know thanks for sharing, and then they steamroll over it because it is more potentially more comfortable to do that than it is to really engage in this work. And so I'm glad to hear that you know we're both on the same page that the doing this work is critical. And I think the, the, there's a lot of harm done when we don't take it on. So even if when we take it on we don't do it perfectly, I think that that is preferable to the okay let's read the next case kids approach. I do have like a follow up question which is, what do you do when it is less and explicitly racist or sexist or ableist concept but it is a it is more an intolerant or implicitly racist idea discussed, do you use the same approach or do you have a different style. Let me start by responding by also defending faculty. When you're up in the front of the room. It's all happening so fast. And you may be taken aback by what you just heard to, and you just don't have time to process quickly enough. What is I should do in the circumstance. I think that's why this conversation is so important, because I think that it's essential that all faculty think through in advance, exactly what we're talking about. So we be prepared. And I want to go back to the distinction that I drew in response to your prior question between, are we focusing on how something is said, or we're talking about the idea that said, because if somebody uses a slur. If somebody uses a slur that's happened in my classroom, then I have to respond to that slur directly. And again, often it's not meant to be an intentional slur. It's just vocabulary that people sometimes unfortunately don't realize is so offensive. If it's an idea, we can certainly identify ideas that are deeply offensive, where I have to say immediately. That people find that idea offensive. But now you're moving into the area. What if it's more implicit, and what if it seems more intolerant. Then it becomes more difficult. And then the question is, how do I open it up for discussion, or do I respond to it. Let me give examples just in terms of how difficult it can be. At this point, we wouldn't use certain words. And I'll use some of them that I don't think would be, we no longer would use the word alien to describe a non citizen, non citizen is the appropriate word. But the statutes in the case is still use word alien, if a student uses that, I don't think I would explicitly correct the student, but I'm very careful now to use the word non citizen. We wouldn't use the word handicap, we'd speak of a person with disabilities. If a student use the word handicap, I wouldn't my response speak of people with disabilities. I don't think I would chastise the student about that. On the other hand, there are certain words, if a student would ever use the n word in my class, I would have to respond immediately and respond say that's unacceptable language. So there's a nuance to this, and it's difficult. And so much depends on context. And it's like, as you pointed out, it's happening in real time, you're standing up there, there are 70 sets of eyes looking at you, something goes wrong. And it could be something goes terribly wrong, the n word, it could be something goes wrong using the word alien. And you sort of have to make a game time decision. What path am I going to go down. I think sometimes it's important in these conversations for teachers to hear from me but also more importantly from you, but like it's okay to make mistakes. And the classroom isn't the only opportunity you have to fix it if you've made a mistake. You have another class, it's coming in two days it's coming next week, we have email, we there are tons of ways where we can say, hmm. I think that I might have, you know, said or done the wrong thing. Here's another opportunity for me to fix that. I mean, do you see that as useful in the classroom. Absolutely, though again so much depends on context. I want to be sure to respond, but I also want to blow something out of proportion. Some things inherently out of proportion, we can imagine things to be said in class that not just for that class, but probably for the entire course will be defining moments. And so there will be a need to respond and to respond perhaps an email or after class. On the other hand I can imagine things that tramps are much milder that you deal with in the class, and then better to move on. And I want to emphasize on this at the beginning, I try very hard, never to embarrass a student, and to never be in an adversarial position with a student. That said, there are moments where I could imagine a student saying something where there's no alternative but to respond to that student in a way that may make the student feel uncomfortable. I also think, like, I don't always trust my own chops on this like I'm a, I'm a cisgendered white woman. And so if something happens, I think like from my own perspective is responding to this in real time a good idea. Is it alienating a student. Is it making it worse if I send an email later using the word alien over and over. Like, what do I do and I sort of rely on my community but I do worry like, oh no. Am I the, is it someone with my identity that is making a good decision on this. And there are difficult situations where it's easier to know what I would want to do. And then there's difficult situations where it's much harder to know. And I'm sure we all had the experience of being in a conversation and only when it's over we realize what we wish we'd have said, I have that experience and teaching all the time, and the heart of the moment, the words likely on reflection would have a better answer. Um, so I would love to get to some of your personal experience. Would you be willing to share from when have you faced controversy or resistance within the classroom and what did you do that was successful or unsuccessful. I still have, especially I've been a law professor for 43 years, and I've had some great moments in the classroom, and I've had moments where I wish the floor could open up and swallow me and it would all go away. I remember once teaching a professional responsibility class as the University Southern California at the time, and we were talking about the ethics of negotiation. I apologize, I don't know another way to tell the story without using language that some might find offensive. A woman in the class said, quote, well they're going to try to drew you down. And immediately course the class went silent. And that's a moment where I felt that I had to respond. And what I said was, I know you didn't mean any offense. Many will take the use of the word drew in that context, as offensive as being based on stereotypes. And the student immediately said, I apologize. But it was a moment where I felt it essential that I respond that I respond right then, but try to do so gently to the student, knowing that it's still going to be an uncomfortable moment to the student. Unfortunately, it didn't stay in the classroom. It then was brought to the dean and said, it's all fine, you know, yes, people are upset, but we don't want to make this more than what it was. It's a place where I wouldn't have sent a follow up email to the class. And the student apologized. And there's another instance, I was teaching constitutional law, and we're teaching a formative action. And a student, again, I apologize, I don't have to tell the example without telling the students that essentially said that those who benefit from affirmative action are intellectually inferior which is why they need affirmative action. That's an idea. And certainly people can express the idea, but I felt it necessary to respond there and say, And I think I could have put it better than I did at the moment. Again, many would find that to be offensive. There are some like Charles Murray who have advocated that, but the scholarly responses really debunk that. And there's so much evidence that any difference in test scores as a result of the legacy of slavery, the current inequalities in our educational system and the like. And, but that's a place where it was an idea that I felt required an immediate response. An example where I learned from and don't think I handle the first time on in teaching abortion. I referred to women, I didn't refer to persons who can become pregnant or pregnant persons. And a student came up to me after class very upset that by just referring to women in the abortion context, I was excluding transgender men. And I thought about it, and since thought about it even more. And at the beginning of the next class I said that I had referred to this as women I recognize of course that transgender men can become pregnant. And yet I'm unwilling to ignore that prohibitions of abortion will have a disproportionate effect on women are cited compared to men. I'm interchangeably going to now from now on use, speaking a pregnant person sometimes and women the other. Because I want us to recognize both. And after that, and this year when I taught the material, I began the discussion of abortion by saying, here's why I'm choosing the vocabulary I am. And it ends up being a long discussion with one of the students is to whether just focusing on the phrase pregnant persons ignores something that society should face, and whether it's better to, as I've now done interchangeably use the phrases, but I learned from them. Thanks. While you're talking I was just thinking of all the mistakes that I've made I imagine all the people at home are sort of running through all the times when they said something they wish that they hadn't. And, you know, thanks for sort of being humble and sharing because I think it is really important for us to hear that this happens to all of us. There's a way forward. And we can get better about it by normalizing some of this vulnerability. I so we're going to share this in the chat. You have stated and I think this was in an interview or a podcast quote I've heard students say, I feel unsafe if someone's expressing something that I regard as hateful or offensive. So campuses can't create safe spaces in that way. It's the nature of campuses that we ought to be exposed to things that we disagree with that annoy us that even offend us and quote, when it comes to the classroom. How do we as professors balance the freedom of expression with the very real impacts of a trauma reaction from trauma from racial trauma in particular like I have heard students say, when these racially charged comments are made or when these things come up that their their heart pounds their blood races, they start sweating they get anxious. How do we strike a balance here. It's enormously difficult because we want to things that sometimes intention. I want the classroom to be a place where all ideas and views can be expressed. I want my students to feel comfortable being able to express themselves. And I know that some ideas and views can be very hurtful. And I would say more generally, if speech had no effect, it wouldn't be a fundamental right. We protect it because it has impact. The impact can be positive, and the impact can be negative. And so there is attention sometimes between the two. And yet, I think it's essential that we try to do both. And I think the way in which we do it is the ways in which we're talking about now. Some of it is, I always mind students that just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean that it should be said that I think students have the obligation to be careful in what they say, so as to be sensitive to the feelings of others. That said, I think that we also have to say to our students, part of coming to higher education is being exposed to things that times are going to make you uncomfortable. I'll tell a story here too. In November of 2019 and culture spoke on the Berkeley campus, it wasn't a law school event. And those who are going to hear her got assaulted. They got water thrown at them pushed and shopped and the like and I saw the video. And I sent an email to the law school community the next day, saying as I just did to you. The universities who place all ideas and views can be expressed. If you don't like a speaker, you should protest against the speaker in a non disruptive way or invite your own speaker, certainly appropriate to protest against and culture I love and culture. But to assault those who are going to hear her is inappropriate. And we as a law school have to stand up for free speech. On every bulletin board in the law school here that day flyers would up saying, I stand up for and culture but I don't stand up for Berkeley law students. A student came to me and said, and cultures presence on campus and I'm quoting is violence against me. I said, no, and cultures presence and campus of sets you offends you, but it's not violence against you. And I stand by the campus has to be a place where an and culture has the right to come and speak. But so do we have to have speakers of other viewpoints. Now that's not just in the particular classroom context that you're focusing on, but it relates because to me it's with the idea of higher education has to be about. I think it's so hard. Because on one hand, it is the classroom. We are asking these students or they are paying money to come here and learn. And sometimes they are coming with a deficit of knowledge with a deficit of knowledge about what is the correct way to use with a deficit of knowledge about science with a deficit of knowledge about what race is what gender is what sexual identity is. And then they are bringing that into the classroom and it is our job to help them learn. On the other hand, those deficits of knowledge are harmful or can be harmful to our students also who are there to learn. And I just, it's very hard to know where to strike the balance. But we have to strike the balance. I'm very concerned about pressure that might keep students expressing conservative ideas in the classroom. I have an example to illustrate this as well. Two years ago when we're entirely online. I taught constitutional law, and I said the students could speak by raising their hand, or they're writing in the chat. What they write in the chat was only visible to me, and I would read a lot of whatever they wrote without censorship, obviously I would not do so if there was something that was offensive of the way we're talking about. I had far more students expressing conservative views when they could do so anonymously than I've ever had in the classroom. That's troubling to me, because we've got to be a place where all ideas can be used to be expressed. On the other hand, as I said to you, we have to recognize that those ideas and views sometimes can be very hurtful to people, and we have to protect them as well. We have to as an institution, and as instructors in classes, articulate what our goals are. And then we have to find ways of facilitating what times our goals that are intention. Thanks. I think this is a great pivot point to my next question. In the same December 2020 post that we shared in the chat, you stated quote we as a law school have a special role in responsibility to play in ensuring justice. We must loudly condemn the racism that permeates our society. We must express solidarity with our students staff and faculty of color. We must speak out against the great economic inequalities, especially along racial lines in our society. We must provide education on these issues within Berkeley law into the broader community. We must work hard for solutions through the law and the legal system to these deep seated problems. Law has been vital and progress toward racial justice and law remains the most powerful tool for social change and quote. I was really struck by this, because here at Roger Williams we have a mandatory three credit class called racing the foundations of law. Although the class had a few trial runs as an elective. Last fall was the first iteration of the class as mandatory. I feel like we are really working to embody the sentiment you expressed, we are providing education we're working hard for solutions, but that work is exhausting. It's also exhausting differently based on our identity. So coming into a class as a woman versus a male teacher as a person of color versus a white teacher, but I think it's fair to say we're all exhausted. What advice do you have for law schools trying to create these spaces. What advice do you have for professors who are doing the work but facing resistance and pushback from students who do not want to meaningfully engage in racial justice education in our classrooms Berkeley law we have also now created a mandatory graduation requirement of taking a course on race and the law. We've gone in the direction of we're creating a menu and every student, starting with the class that will enroll in August must take that order to one of those classes in order to graduate. I think you asked really difficult questions. And I'm always reluctant to give advice, certainly to other law schools are really to anybody. What we're here is we have a real burden institutionally to justify the class. And I think as instructors, we have to, when we're teaching that class, justify the class. But I feel that way in every class I teach, I always feel the need to explain to the students why it's important to learn this material. When we're teaching such a class, I would want to come up with all of the reasons why it's so important for students to learn this, learn this in terms of what it's going to mean for their profession as lawyers, learn for what it's going to mean, living in this society. The other is, I think it's going to be very important in this class to not see it as putting forth a particular ideology, because if it is seen as just a particular idea, ideology, you're guaranteed you're going to alienate students with a different ideology. And I don't want my classroom to be a place where I'm speaking to only a choir. I want the class to be there. And maybe the students who are most skeptical of the class are the ones we must want to reach with the class. So I think it has to be an exploration of ideas and not be perceived as an indoctrination. And I think also schools need to accept that there are some students who are not going to be happy with the class and to be forgiving of teachers for those evaluations when they get that there are some students are going to say it's not doing enough to prepare me for the bar exam or not doing enough to prepare me for the law I want to practice. This isn't what I want to be spending my time doing as much as we justify the reaction. And I think as hard as it is as a teacher to get those evaluations to know that it's not personal in the school when they consider student evaluations need to take that into account. Thanks, I think that that's a really great point. And because it is so supportive of the professors who are doing this work. So moving beyond the classroom, can you share a bit about the student group controversy that made headlines this academic year at your school. What lessons do you have to share from how this was handled by your institution. I have so many lessons. I'm not familiar with it. And since it was on the front page of the New York Times, many are familiar with it. On the first day of the fall semester, our law students for justice in Palestine, asked other student groups to sign on to a bylaw that among other things they would not invite any speakers who now or ever supported quote Zionism, quote the apartheid Israel, or quote the Palestinian occupation, and asked them to support the boycott divest in sanction movement. Some student groups immediately adopted that. As I said I learned of it about four o'clock on the first day of school. I sent a message to the leaders of all student groups that week, saying that I support the free speech rights of students that includes the right of student groups to choose what speakers would like to invite based on viewpoint, but I believe that the bylaws inconsistent with our values as an institution, that all ideas and views should be expressed. In fact, I would not be welcome to speak under the bylaw, because I support the existence of Israel, consider myself a Zionist, but I can condemn many of Israel's policies. Some media attention at the end of that week Ted Cruz tweeted about it at the beginning of the following week, but it largely faded within the law school and nationally. I did a student town hall as I do every semester, got no questions or comments about it. Then at the end of the semester at the end of September, an article appeared in the Jewish Journal, tell Berkeley creates Jewish free zones. I have the Jewish free zones at Berkeley, and it was a mischaracterization of what if the bylaw was about it mischaracterized my position on it. And it was written in a very inflammatory way. It then went viral in a manner that I could have never expected Barbara Streisand tweeted it to 800,000 people the next day. It then got enormous international and national media attention. That's why those who objected are creating Jewish free zones. I then reiterated in our beds and in messages to the law school my position that under the First Amendment student groups have the right to choose speakers based on viewpoint. The association decide they're only going to like pro choice speakers, or the college Republicans can choose them and that conservative speakers, but I condemn the bylaw, because we say that even if the topic has nothing to do with Israel in the Middle East. Still they wouldn't invite a speaker at certain viewpoints, and I and so many Jews will be excluded under that. And then attracted outside attention in a very ugly way. A conservative group accuracy in media had a truck go around the law school initially with a picture of Hitler it said if you want a Jewish free zone at Berkeley raise your right hand with a picture of Hitler. I went around the law school with the names of students and it said Berkeley laws anti Semitic class of 2023 and naming students with support at the bylaw. Sometimes they were inaccurate, and then he sent the trucks to students homes. I've just given you a short summary of it. I continue to believe that the position that I took from the outset is the right position student groups can choose speakers to invite based on viewpoint, but I condemn the bylaws inconsistent with our values. I have gotten it from both sides. There are those who believe I should outlaw the bylaw and student groups from having it. On the other hand, there are those who believe I'm not sufficiently supportive to the law students for just in Palestine for condemning their bylaw, a complaint was filed against us for the Office of Civil Rights for creating a hostile environment to Jewish students. We heard outside Council to respond. So that's the event is a nutshell. The good thing is the event, the incident largely faded this semester is salient and as overwhelming as it was in the fall. It had played itself out by the beginning of the new semester the student groups that adopted bylaw did those that didn't want to do so. And the school moved on. There's so many lessons that I learned. One is, I think that I made the mistake of trying to contain the issue at the beginning in a way that just didn't work and was naive. So my initial message and response was to the leaders of student groups. It wasn't to the entire school community. I wish I would have written to the entire school community at the beginning. I didn't write an op-ed for a national newspaper about this stating the position I just did to you until November. I wish I'd have written it much earlier than that. I was afraid of being responsible for making the issue go viral. And I didn't need to do anything to contribute to that was already there. We're going to share the message. I believe it was from October in the chat, which I thought was really good. You specifically said you were going to work with another dean to increase mental health support for students. Your ITU department was available to assist students who are being harassed online. You were open to suggestions about what to do. I thought that was great. It said, hey, there's a variety of ways we're working to help you. And we're also open to things we haven't thought about and creative solutions. Do you have advice for those who are crafting these messages? We live in the time of frequent school shootings, murders by police, tremendous political division, hate crimes against the most vulnerable, increasing climate change events. It seems like law schools are often having to send these messages of support. What advice do you have about these messages and to support those who are impacted and to lessen the tensions? And the part that you spoke was part of a longer message. And at the beginning, I set forth the position that I expressed to you. And at the end, the last thing I said, which I thought was an important message is we cannot control what those outside the law school do. And I hear that many are trying to use Berkeley Law to advance their own agendas, but we can't control how we act and treat one another within the law school. I hope we do everything we can to respect one kind to one another. So you raise several questions. One is when to send messages. And I recognize that if I send messages too often, they won't be read, they'll lose their impact. But if I don't send messages enough, I'm losing my opportunity as a dean to have a bully pulpit and to hopefully have some impact. And so I'm looking for the just right. I sent a message after the tragic death of George Floyd I sent a message after the January 6 and then I sent messages here. And I wanted to be an instance where I think I can make some difference within my community by sending the message, but I also want to be hesitant. Second, in terms of how to do it. What I'm trying to do is to articulate how I want our community to think about this. I spend a long time writing and rewriting these messages. So what you're seeing is a final draft that gets sent. Sometimes the messages have to be written quickly, but I'm still being very careful about my choice of language. And finally I'm cognizant of a message isn't going to solve things by itself. There's going to have to be something more than just the messages there. But that doesn't mean that the messages are unimportant. Maybe what I'm doing with the messages is affirming what people are already feeling. Maybe what I'm doing is addressing concerns that they have. Maybe what I'm doing is upsetting them by not saying it the way they wanted me to say it. But I still think that silence is a message to, and I want to speak, especially when I realize that silence isn't the message I want to send. Thanks, and I think you know you're kind of going where my follow up question is, is that sometimes statements aren't enough and organizations must respond with action. Do you have any advice for deans, DEI professionals, anyone in administration about how to make the choice between putting out a statement or acting in some way and have you ever made a mistake on this that you want to talk about. And the only thing that I would quibble with you say choice between a statement and action. I think often it has to be both. Sometimes it's just a statement. I mean, sometimes it's a statement and action at the same time. I think we waited too long to create our mandatory course on race and the law that I wish we would have done so much sooner than we did. And that is the nature of a law school that there's lots of constituencies that have to be heard and it takes time for a faculty to vote a new requirement, and a benefit of our doing it when we did was we were able to build support so it was unanimously passed rather than divisive. On the other hand, I wish we had done all of that earlier. And I think that that was an important action to take. After January 6, there wasn't an action to take. It was just a statement. And there are plenty of times when I take actions, but I don't advertise them and don't make statements. I think who's trying to think through. And as you pointed out, it's often in real time under pressure, how to act quickly. What you said really resonated with me. I think some of what I have seen is that we may make an action but that action is not necessary visible to the students or to the people who have been hurt. And law school changes really slowly. I feel like that's the most obvious thing I've said but it changes really slowly, and even we immediately passed a class. It took us two years to build and test and be iterative to get the class that we have. And so that something happens, there's a statement and there's action, but then there's also how much should we communicate. I think we're working on this, or should we just use that energy to just work on it. And so I think it's all kind of complicated. And it's very complicated and of course, the thing that I was worried about is not knowing what I don't know. I know of times that I've offended people, unless they tell me. I don't know times when something in the law school has hurt people's feelings, unless I hear about it. There's certainly many instances were after I felt terrible that that had happened. And then after the fact all you can just apologize and try to do better in the future. I've been hearing questions from the audience. And one that just came in that I'm really interested in hearing what you think is, what impact will the don't say gay and anti woke legislation emerging in states like Florida have on the ability of law faculty to spark Frank conversations the question just disappeared to spark Frank conversations with students on pressing issues. I'm so very afraid of this. The stop woke act in Florida, the anti CRT legislation that's been passed on a number of states is about stopping the expression of an idea. And the ideas that are going to be stopped are ones that are so important that we talk about in creating an inclusive community. It's easy for me sitting in California to say that I hope professors in these places will be courageous and take risks, but it's very difficult when you have these laws adopted and attempts to enforce them. But I think the question is absolutely right I think it's going to have an effect in the analogy that I've pointed to as we look back to the early 1950s, and the anti communist hysteria in the way in which it chilled speech in classes. I worry we're going to see that in some states now. I struggle with how to support the faculty and those instances, because like having them come on a speaker series and talk about how to do this seems like calling attention to things that that they're doing that and it's problematic on the other hand, their heroes, or at least they're doing the right thing. And so I also have been really struggling with this and if people want to chat in questions or thoughts, I'd be open to that because I think everyone needs to hear about it. There's a lot of questions around the same theme, which is what you just brought up the idea between there being facts, and they're being ideology, and the conflation of facts and ideology. So one person asked, how do you teach a class about the through line of slavery into many of our white supremacist institutions without students believing this is an ideology. And what strategies do you have for engaging students with viewpoints different from your own on this issue. I obviously believe there's a difference with facts and ideology, but I also believe the difference is the eyes of the beholder that what I might see as facts others might see as ideology. I have to say as a professor, I pick and choose my places where I'm going to express my views. One of the places that I do is when we talk about the history of slavery, and we cover pig versus Pennsylvania and dread Scott versus Stanford and conlaw. I always say to the students at that point, why it's so important that they be aware of the slavery. And I present the facts about the inequalities in society today, that one out of three black children are born in the United States are born into families that are below the poverty level. And I compare that to the white children who are born, who are about 11% or below the poverty level. I point out the statistics with regard to incarceration of black men. I point to the wealth disparities that exist I point to the differences that exist in educational expenditures, all of which are facts. And I say that all of this must be understood as the legacy of slavery in the United States. Does that alienate some students. Sure, but I think it's important for me to make that point. In other places, I'm trying very hard for the classroom to be a place where all views can be expressed. And if I don't have somebody you'll take say the conservative viewpoint, I will do my best job of presenting the conservative viewpoint. And I have a whole set of things I say the students now the first day of the semester, but why it's so important that they hear the arguments on the other side, because the only way to prepare as a lawyer to defend your position is know what the other person is going to say. And if they chill the speech that would come expressing the other side, their education is deprived. Have you written about that anywhere that I can share with anyone who's listening or watching. I don't know that I've written it in the way that I just said I certainly made a lot about free speech on campus. In terms of what I say at the beginning of the class, it is very much this idea that their education is so enriched if they hear all of the arguments and how to respond. And it's so deprived as they don't. And I worry that in an era of social media, sometimes the students who say the more controversial conservative things get targeted on social media, and then just shut up in classes. And that serves nobody's objective. And I'm not talking about things that are raised. I mean, I know that instance of a student who argued against gun control in class. And that's a legitimate position is not what I share, and then got targeted in social media by other students, and sort of, that's in the second to talk in class anymore, and that's to everyone's detriment. Do you do you think there's a role for faculty in those instances. If I'm a faculty member and I know a student is being canceled outside of class for comments made in class to do I have responsibility or something to do in that instance. But it depends on what happens. Because I also don't want to be perceived as the monitor of student speech outside of the classroom, but it could certainly rise to a certain level of saying this mean the most extreme is a form of bullying. It could also rise to the point of, you know, when you do this, it's to your educational disadvantage, because then you're not going to hear the opposing arguments that you'll need to confront when you write your pre for when you argue in court. But I'm reluctant to be the one monitor social media. I don't. And so I'm reluctant to bring it class, but can I imagine a point where I would. Yes. Thanks. Another question is, how do you explain anti racism as not being an ideology. I'm glad to embrace that it is an ideology that I think that it is essential that is institutions. We be anti racist. My view is a law school dean for my institution. It's my view as a classroom teacher for what's going on in my class. And I don't think I'd want to fight over the label isn't an ideology I just think it is one that I'll embrace and say that it's essential as to who we are as an institution. Thanks. Someone is looking for advice. For the first time, the law school is forming or student a student group is being formed focused on Palestinian liberation. The Jewish law students felt threatened by the group being formed but the student bar association allowed it. Organizers for the Palestinian liberation group are all Jewish students as well. Any ideas on how to bring these groups together or not, or what to do. Welcome to my world. First, it's essential that the Palestinian group be able to organize that it be able to participate in the school like all other student organizations in terms of the Jewish student group. Here I speak as a dean it's my responsibility to meet with the Jewish students to support the Jewish students, but also to explain that the Palestinian group has the right to be a student group. As a pro Israeli group would be that I spent a great deal of time in the fall and continuing through this semester, meeting with our law students for Justin Palestine meeting with a Jewish law student association and meeting with individuals. So I think it's essential if I were the dean of such a school to make clear that the Palestinian rights group has the ability to form in the school as to treat it like all other groups, but I also have to make sure that the Jewish group feel supported as well. I have one last question for you in your role as an administrator. What do you see the role of the dean and administration with regard to DEI be work in the classroom should administrators. What should administrators be doing to make room for this content and to encourage the professional development of faculties, specifically in light of academic freedom. What is the role of administration when a situation in the classroom spills out beyond the classroom. It's a big question I'll try to answer quickly. It goes to what we've been talking about over this hour. First, it's essential that the administration articulate the values of the institution and articulate the commitment institution to diversity equity inclusion. Second, it's essential that we provide professional development for faculty. We run pedagogy workshops for faculty and we've had faculty workshops on equity and inclusion in the classroom we've had pedagogy workshops on how to create an inclusive classroom. It's essential that we create programs for students. We have part of orientation program on implicit bias. And I think that's important. In terms of the latter part. The dealing with what happens so much depends on the incident. Let me give you an example because I think it's always better concrete. A couple of years ago, some students in our tort one of our torts classes found that a professor had a number of years ago written a scholarly piece critical of critical race theory. Those students then said, we find this to be anti black, we want to be excused me have any go to this professors class. So one of the responses and administrator was no, he's taken a scholarly position. He's your assigned teacher you don't get to choose you towards teacher here, and that I'm not going to excuse you from the class. There are instances though I've seen things go on in a classroom was an administrator I'd have to say to the professor. Look, I know you didn't mean it this way, but this is how it's perceived. And I think you need to apologize to the students. And that much depends on context and circumstances. Okay, well, thank you so much. Dean Timurinsky. Thank you to everybody out there thank you to our sponsors. Roger Williams CUNY law GW law Berkeley law and jurist. Behind the scenes team of marketing and promotion and technology, especially Chelsea, and today Lorraine. This has been a great year of programming and like I said at the beginning, we are just getting started. The second volume of integrating doctrine and diversity is due out in September of this year. This companion volume features new essays case studies and bibliographies for law school faculty seeking to bring critical perspectives to equity inclusion social justice into their teaching and upper level courses. Chapters focus on subjects traditionally tested on the bar exam, including evidence crim pro and family law as well as PR. Additionally, this volume includes guidance for teaching a range of other advanced law school topics, and can be used in experiential courses. It also features guidance and reflections from faculty of who have created new courses, specifically on race and social justice in the legal system with submissions from over 35 authors. The collection has intended to spur valuable conversations within the curriculum and across the Academy. I say all that. This has been an incredible adventure. The work of integrating doctrine diversity equity inclusion belonging and social justice continues. While the work is sometimes reduced to trendy wokeness, what it really is is overdue justice. See everyone the next academic year. Thank you.