From Above the Law (internal links omitted) comes a real man bites dog story:
Richard Peltz teaches torts and con law at the William H. Bowen School of Law at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Within Arkansas, he is a well-known expert on freedom of speech, cited by the Arkansas Supreme Court. In 2005, he exercised his freedom of speech while talking about affirmative action during a con law lecture. From the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette:
In that class, Peltz displayed a satirical article about the death of Rosa Parks and made comments about friends who weren’t admitted to law school because of affirmative action, according to a letter students wrote about a year and a half later to law school Dean Chuck Goldner. The students also said Peltz promised to give black students who scored as high as white students an extra point on the final exam.
Apparently, the satirical article was Now We Can Finally Put Civil Rights Behind Us, from the Onion.
Though the issue was resolved in 2005, the allegations of racism reemerged in 2007, during a controversy over there being no black students on the Law Review. (The admissions website says the school has 440 students, and that 30% of the 2007 entering class was “of color.")
From this description, it sounds like there’s a race war brewing at the UALR’s Law School. And Professor Peltz just put himself in the middle of it, suing his black students and Arkansas’s black law association for defamation:
In a nine-page lawsuit filed last week, he complains that the defendants, students Valerie D. Nation of Little Rock and Chrishuana L. Clark of Pine Bluff, who are officers or former officers with the university’s Black Law Student Association, and attorney Eric Spencer Buchanan, president of the W. Harold Flowers Law Society, have been making false accusations against him around the law school and statewide legal community since the fall of 2005. In the lawsuit, he asks for unspecified punitive and compensatory damages.
I know no more of the details than what ATL and the links provided, so Ican;t comment on the merits of the suit. If Professor Peltz behaved as described in the article, however, his conduct was unprofessional and even moronic (in my opinion, a qualification I hasten to add just in case Professor Peltz is feeling really litigious). It’s perfectly legitimate for a law professor to dissent from the prevailing academic views on diversity. It’s perfectly appropriate to raise that dissent in class, as part of airing all sides of the debate. But being a jerk about it is just plain stupid.
Worse yet, being a jerk about such issues discredits legitimate dissent. The academic left will hold Peltz up as the exemplar of how critics of affirmative action think.
Are you a lawyer? A guy sues for defamation, and you say that if the defamation is true that he’s a moron. Isn’t the point of suing for defamation that you sue because somebody says you did something moronic when you DIDN’T.
I found the Rosa Parks story. It’s a satire of Bush. It supports civil rights. I don’t know how Pelz used the article, but it is supportive of affirmative action. Read it for yourself: http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/hoglawyer/2008/03/allegations_of_racism_at_ualr.aspx#more
If somebody thought it was conservative, they should read it again!
Next entry: Voter ID Fraud
Previous entry: The Clintons and Rev. Wright
First, Peltz did not act as described in the article, which is one of the many reasons he is suing for defamation. Second, this lawsuit is his final attempt to nudge the school into do something, anything, to show students that they cannot act this way. It’s shocking to me that law school students should have to be told that. Third, his comments on affirmative action were originally purposefully solicited by those he sued as part of an out-of-class debate on affirmative action.