The reason you "don't 'get' this story" is because there isn't one. Let's get back to real gossip!

The story seems to be about an individual making an official decision based on his prejudices. In this case, the SBA president felt that minority student groups were divisive (and unnecessary) and so he used his discretion to exclude them from a breakfast with Justice Roberts and other student leaders. There may have been valid reasons to exclude them, although many at NU have indicated that the excluded groups do in fact play a major role at the school. Nonetheless, the reason he provided was far from valid. Fortunately, the SBA President is not representative of NU Law. But, his decision and its aftermath have demonstrated how not to lead an organization. Hopefully Mr. Pattakos will learn from this incident.

Typical law school PC bullshit. who cares? law students need to get over themselves and their stupid worthless organizations.

Meanwhile, Chief Justice Roberts wishes he didn't have to have breakfast with *any* SBA representatives. He hates puking up his eggs.

Two possible levels of interest:

1. What was actually said by the SBA Pres (that all race based student groups should be dismantled)

2. That the President didn't step down but rather had his hand forced by the law school admin.
http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=576233&mc=6&forum_id=2

It does matter. NU Law bills itself as a school committed to diversity and the fostering of a cogenial environment for all students. (I should know I graduated from there, did you all?)

In essence, the pres said no minorities, racial or gender, are allowed. If had been the other way I am CERTAIN you all would have cared.

In my opinion, Student Affairs should have nipped this in the bud!

who did the pres invite? his white bread federalist society friends?

At my law school, you didn't "have" to be Latino to join the LLSA, you didn't "have" to be black to join the BLSA, etc. They were active and important groups on campus, and they didn't discriminate or "divide" by race -- they helped bring awareness to issues affecting race and provided a support group for members of that race. But there were definitely white kids in both groups.

NU's former SBA pres sounds like a self-absorbed whiny dickwad. He went out of his way to exclude groups that likely contributed a lot to campus life. This was a meeting of student leaders, and HE is the one who segregated by race.

Frankly, I hope someone tells the bar of his future home state about his racism.

fyi, Justice Roberts was at Washington University in St Louis SOL yesterday judging the Wiley Rutledge moot court finals. He was quite charming both during and after. He also presided over a conlaw class of 1Ls earlier in the day.

he looks much older in person.

6:44

he was certainly charming at his Senate confirmation hearings. I'm jealous you got to hear him speak in person.

Although w/r/t his presiding over a 1L con law class, god bless the braves souls [gunners] who raised their hands during that lecture.

according to the guy's resignation email (linked to above) 6 of the 18 people were of "diverse ethnic background." wonder what that means specifically.

his email is actually decent. i clicked through ready to savor some enjoyable indignation about a retrograde clod's attitude. then was surprised by what i read.

there's at least the possibility that he's gotten scrood here.

I was right! It WAS his federalist society buddies! Okay, the pres of the fed soc, fine, but "a Fed Soc Board Member who has been exceptionally active on SBA Committees and in SFPIF"?

I also thought his email was surprisingly decent. He shouldn't have felt any obligation to invite every president of APALSA, LALSA, BALSA, etc. Although I am curious to see whether the "Law Review board members, 2 Editors-in-Chief of academic journals" were his buddies too. Based on his own description, I don't think his selections really comprised a broad cross-section of "academic and community leaders" without due consideration to any of the minority group leaders.

Anonymous 5:58 p.m.: I also graduated from NU Law. Yes, it bills itself as committed to diversity, but (1) there are many types of diversity (not just racial or ethnic) and (2) NU doesn't do all that well at attracting a racially or ethnically diverse student body.

As a fellow Alum, you should know that shit like this gets blown out of proportion ALL the time at NU Law. The open listserv is a breeding ground for ill-informed opinions and baseless accusations of racism or prejudice. And student affairs is notoriously poor at handling these issues (e.g., holding "town halls" which only serve to escalate animosity). I don't know the facts behind this situation, but I do know Peter. I know he's not a racist and that his comments - made to someone who apparently was a friend in a casual context (and notably, who would have been one of the potential attendees at the breakfast given his status as co-president of LLSA) -- were likely blown out of proportion and used in ways unfair to him.

Also, Anonymous 6:06 p.m., it's a fricking miracle (Robert's political views aside) that the Federalist society had any representation at the breakfast. If you're a Federalist at NU Law, you'd might as well wear a Scarlet 'F' on your shirt.

5:58

There were minorities, they just weren't the leaders of the organizations. And please, most of those organizations were a joke (except for maybe BLSA).

And yes, I did go there, and I was a member of one of those groups.

If it's so tough on the Feds at NU, then why were TWO Feds invited and only one ACS?

They asked for recommendations of academic and community leaders... it looks like about one-seventh of the people he recommended were community leaders, and the rest were law review types. He couldn't possibly have been kissing up, could he? I'm personally disgusted at the notion of making a breakfast with the Chief Justice so law review-top heavy with very very little representation from the people who actually make the law school a law school rather than a correspondence course. But then, I guess that fits with a legal culture that disproportionately values numbers with too little regard for whether or not the people you'll work with are socially bearable.

I am on Peter's side. The administration wanted academic and community leaders, and Peter gave names of people from Law Review, Journals, student gov't, ACS and Fed Soc., with 1/3 of those being of "diverse ethnic background."

Giving BLSA a spot because it is Black History Month or LLSA a spot because they won "Best Student Group of the Year" is ridiculous.

The problem with minority groups (and I am in one) is one of sheer volume - there is literally an organization for every conceivable group. You could fill a 10-15 person guest list with only leaders from these groups and still manage to exclude representatives from the majority of groups. Then you are stuck with everyone complaining that some minority groups were considered more worthy than others.

Perhaps the lesson is to hold a breakfast for the entire student body and lose out on the intimate value of the event. Then we can stop fighting about invitations and start arguing over who gets to sit at Roberts' table.

7:16 - Are you kidding w/r/t the status of FedSoc at NU? Is that why the national FedSoc conference is being held there this year? They probably have the largest representation of any T14 school.

It's very simple. Peter demonstrated that he cannot manage his way out of a hat. This is not about being PC - this is about having a clue when you are deemed a leader and showing some judgment. No one said all of the minority student groups had to be invited; but excluding all of them was stupid. And the worst part was his reasoning. He allowed his personal beliefs about the value of such groups to drive his decision.

7:45 - The Fed Soc conference is being held there because a small group of really dedicated individuals worked really hard to get it there. And, not to discount their efforts, but I'm sure having the founder of the Fed Soc on faculty doesn't hurt. Generally, conservative and libertarian viewpoints are not typically expressed on campus, and to the extent they are, it's the fed soc doing the talking. And I'm willing to bet Harvard's fed soc has larger representation, for one.

"Generally, conservative and libertarian viewpoints are not typically expressed on campus, and to the extent they are, it's the fed soc doing the talking."

Ha! If NU students would jaunt 15 minutes down Lake Shore they'd be awash in a veritable haven of conservative thinking fresh from the 1980s!

Oops, my bad. I should have said "a place where diverse ideals are encouraged, especially in the classroom!"

::snicker::

7:45 - I'm pretty sure Columbia trumps Northwestern as to Fed Soc representation as well. I don't think any school hosts nearly as many events as the Columbia Fed Soc chapter, not to mention hosting the most succesful student symposium to date. It is well respected on campus and there is a very strong Fed Soc contingency. If Columbia hadn't have hosted it last it year, it would have been the most logical place to have the symposium again this year.

Pattakos' actions were wrong because he injected his personal politics into what should have been a routine decision. If spots were limited, he should have allocated them based on the groups' sizes or level of activity, not his personal views on what a student group should be organized around.

Justice Scalia visited the University of Michigan Law School in the Fall of 2004, just over a year after his strongly-worded dissent from the Supreme Court's ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger (which upheld the constitutionality of the Law School's admission practices). According to Pattakos' logic, Scalia shouldn't have accepted Michigan's invitation because of his fundamental disagreement with the Michigan administration about the use of race in admissions. It's a good thing that the scholars Pattakos' likely looks up to don't think the same way he does.

yeah, Columbia is awash with fed soc people. and they also maintained a "poor me, everyone here is liberal and hates me" attitude, even though they were 1) well represented 2) well funded 3) more or less well-liked (excluding the inevitable pricks).

that said, they were well organized and held some excellent events when I was there.

re: Harvard and Columbia, I'm guessing their larger class sizes (in HLS's case double NU) helps give them a greater number of FedSoc members. Compare the # of FedSoc members at NU with the # of ACS members there and 7:16's original point that Federalists at NU are lookingn down upon is fundamentally wrong. As previously referenced, the fact that Calabresi is there (along with FedSoc stalwarts like McGinnis) make it difficult not to have a large Federalist presence.

His email's regarding the execution of Saddam to the NU lawschool (complete with a rap lyric referring to "whips across N*'s backs") should have caused his removal months back.

I can't eat... I can't sleep... I need to know what Loyola2L thinks about the NULaw situation. NEED.

He talked about it in the Charney thread. No one would care if it happened at a T2, Roberts wouldn't visit a T2 and so on.

Peter was the fucking President. NU students elected him. Accordingly, he was charged with suggesting invitees. Selecting the leaders of Law Reviews doesn't seem like an odd selection. Selecting people who participate in his organization doesn't seem odd, either.

Ultimately, the administration approved Peter's selections and then proceeded to invite additional people. None of whom was the President of BLSA or LLSA. The admin then hung him out to dry when shit hit the fan.

Sometimes Presidents make decidsions with which you disagree. Grow up. Move on. And, work on trying to elect people with whom you agree in the future.

As big of a knucklehead as I am I've never felt comfortable saying that I'm conclusively anti or pro death penalty in general... but...to the extent that such a thing is an exercise in line drawing (and if it wasn't for line drawing being an exercise there wouldn't be schools of law), I respectfully submit to you, my esteemed and beloved classmates, that wherever the line is to be drawn, killing Saddam is nowhere close to the wrong side of the line. At least not now... given limited resources and such... Respectfully...

Also...whatever problems the nascent Iraqi government may be plagued with right now, I admire their efficiency w/r/t what was arguably their primary objective.

And to those who think that the US endeavor over there is an entirely lost cause...what about the people who were celebrating Saddam's death in the streets? Isn't that at least a patch of soil in which a seed of self determination might sprout? (even if we define self determination broadly?) Might that be enough? Maybe?

I dunno. But for now I'll raise a glass...of egg nogg...cause at this point it's not too early to hit it because we should drink it before it spoils. As always, please correct me if (where) I'm wrong.

Hooray,

Peter

"Now I heard that the South is where your folks from,

down in the bottoms where they broke some

whips cross a nigga back

way back

now they wonder why we act

how we act"

---Outkast/8Ball/MJG

The song is called "Throw Your Hands Up" and I'd heard it a few times last night so it was in my head. I think it's a great song, and that it and its hook fit perfectly with the celebratory tone of my email. I didn't think twice about not using the radio edited version and maybe I should have - but as you guessed, I wasn't thinking twice about much of anything at that point in the evening.

Please appreciate the context here. The fact that the word, once oft-employed to oppress, has been effectively co-opted by millions as a term of endearment is sign of human progress. The quote I included in my email alludes to human progress. Saddam being brought to justice is human progress.

Whether it's appropriate for me to sing along to the unedited version of this song at home, or if its different if I'm at a club, or if it matters who's there, or if I was forwarding the lyrics to an individual or a group, or to "use" this term in any of a great number of ways certainly depends on context. Your advice might be to avoid the word altogether, but there are millions who disagree with you, and some of these people appreciate how the word has been co-opted. This is all an exercise in line drawing that might be as interesting as that re: the death penalty - and you're probably right that, at this point, including the word in a quote on the listserv is on the wrong side of the line. My apologies and thanks for the advice.

-Peter

To the extent that we live in a global village, we've all suffered as a result of Saddam's rule. While we've all suffered to different degrees I will not accept that the effects of this man's actions have not affected me and all of us in a very real way.

There is an obvious difference between "reveling in putting people to death," as you imply I have in some general sense, and raising a glass in recognition of the powerful symbolic effect of this particular execution as a mark of human progress - that this may bode well for peace in the region and the world. It's easy to understand why your mother would admonish you for celebrating a man's death as a child who had little if any idea about the execution's broader effects; but you're not my mother, and while I may or may not be a child I've repeatedly expressed my own idea of what progress is and how this is related. So please, excuse me while I stand on my grounds for cheer in confidence that I'm not contributing to a more barbarous society. Thanks.

-Peter

After a good night's sleep and some reflection I wish to revoke my apology for quoting from a piece of pop culture in appreciation of it. I appreciate the way the word in question has been co-opted by Outkast, the RZA, and millions of others. I think it's more empowering to completely change the meaning of a word than to stop using it altogether. I realize that some people disagree with me. I also realize that the opinions of some of these people should carry more weight then mine because of our relative skin colors. Nevertheless, I don't think I should be prevented from expressing my appreciation for a piece of popular art by quoting it in the way that I did - merely because of my race. To suggest otherwise is essentially telling me that I should "know better" than the artists who sell me their art, are certainly happy that I buy it and enjoy it, and are probably happy to be quoted in appreciation as often as possible. To suggest otherwise is, in my opinion, regressively racially divisive.

Again, I realize that people disagree with me, but I suggest that this should be taken up either with Outkast, Jay-Z, David Chappelle, the Estates of Christopher Wallace and Tupac Shakur, et. al., or, God help us, your elected state or Federal representatives, and not with me.

Happy New Year to everyone.

-Peter

The open listserv is a place for members of our community to freely communicate with one another. There are no bright lines regarding what is and isn't appropriate for the listserv. It has been left up to the individuals of our community to decide for themselves. Celebratory emails and colloquial speech are commonplace on the listservs. Quotes after email signatures are similarly commonplace.

In the signature of an email with the dual purpose of celebrating the execution of Saddam Hussein and provoking discussion of the death penalty I included a direct quote from a song by popular hip-hop artists Outkast, Eight Ball, and MJG. This quote included a controversial word. Many people oppose the use of this word in any way at all, even in a positive manner – as it was employed in the quote I included in my email. However, there are many other people, including the artists that I quoted, who liberally employ the word in a positive way. This use of the term in this way has been widely accepted in American hip-hop culture, as evidenced by millions of records sold and dozens of Grammy awards won, and my own personal observations that I'm sure are not unique in this way.

I do not advocate widespread or indiscriminate use of the term, even as a term of endearment. I do not believe, however, that I should be somehow restricted because of my skin color from quoting a piece of popular art that includes the term - in appreciation of that artwork and the sentiment expressed within – that of resisting oppression. To the extent that this sentiment was not clear in my original email, I apologize. I should be very clear about my intentions in quoting art that includes such a controversial term. Again, my only intention in using the quote was to celebrate one milestone in human progress by referring to another.

This is my own political position; if the word is going to be used in this positive way and sold to me via mass distribution networks, I should be free to quote it in a positive way, regardless of my race, and regardless of the origins of the art form. My job as SBA President is not to adopt the political stance of a certain portion, or even the majority of our community. One of my jobs as SBA President is, however, to help ensure an environment where individuals can hold and share diverse political opinions and hopefully learn something in the process. I've learned something from the community reaction to my email, and I will not use a quote including the term on the listserv again. I understand that revoking my initial apology instead of clarifying it as above was an unnecessarily harsh - even obnoxious - way of affirming the particular political stance at issue here, and this was a mistake that I apologize for; but I hope we're on our way to a day where we can be equally trusted to share a piece of artwork by quoting it in the same positive context as the artist.

Thanks, and best regards as always,

Peter

Andrew,

You say, "we are not a party to that struggle, and it is not a part of our identity." This is wrong. "That struggle" affects all of our lives profoundly, and is as much a part of an individual's identity as that individual chooses to recognize.

I notice a common thread in your emails Andrew. This particular failure of perception is similar to, and probably worse than, your claim that we haven't been affected by the consequences of Saddam's rule of Iraq. The world would be a much better place if intelligent and thoughtful people wouldn't isolate themselves in this way. It's one thing to recognize that we all struggle in different ways in the same fight, but to suggest we're not party to the struggle at all misses something important. Humans have been helping humans overcome obstacles since the dawn of history. We have a long way to go and much to gain from continuing to do this. We, particularly we citizens of the lone remaining superpower on Earth, have a lot to lose from failing to do this.

Drawing race-based lines as a society is what got us into this particular struggle in the first place, and we should be careful in continuing to do so. I'm OK with affirmative action for now. To draw such a line in deciding who can sing or quote an Outkast song is problematic to me. To tell me that I can't identify with a struggle that affects me, simply because of my race, is much, much worse.

Peter

PS: I find your claim of having garnered generalized goodwill from your last email to be somewhat presumptuous. If I holler into an echo chamber and hear an echo, have I garnered goodwill?

i wonder if the person reposting what i assume are listserv postings from the NU law school prez means to make the prez look bad or good? to me he just looks better and better.

so here's one cranky liberal who thinks the prez comes off looking pretty all right here. knowing nothing more than what i've read here, this sounds more and more to me like an early and (relatively) cheap lesson in other people's foolishness, and the reality of third rails.

if the person reposting what i assume are listserv postings from the NU law school prez means to make the prez look bad or good? to me he just looks better and better.

so here's one cranky liberal who thinks the prez comes off looking pretty all right here. knowing nothing more than what i've read here, this sounds more and more to me like an early and (relatively) cheap lesson in other people's foolishness, and the reality of third rails.

Wow, I'm suddenly very glad my school doesn't have an open listserve.

disagreed, interesting/i wonder. I read this shit and think "what a spoiled, ignorant bastard." He reminds me of the high-minded ivory tower types I despised in law school. He thinks that because he can theoretically defend the use of a highly politically-charged word he gets to cry "racism" for using an anti-black slur because he happens to be white. This is a neat rhetorical trick that completely misses the point. That he can't even see that is proof of his privileged delusions.

What a fucking tool. Sadly, that's precisely the sort of tool the law firms gobble up. I imagine he's already got a great job lined up post-graduation.

Wait, open listservs at other law school aren't like ours?!?!? NOOOOOOO.

During my 3L year, I think Student Affairs attempted to dismantle the open listserv and then there was this big outcry and maybe a town hall meeting and then people had to "opt in" but in reality, the listserv was devoted more to "I left my North Face jacket/pink Razr/ blue Nalgene in X Classroom, did anyone see it" than "Let's make blanket assertion about racial politics in the United States, wheee!"

Both were annoying.

"I left my North Face jacket/pink Razr/ blue Nalgene in X Classroom, did anyone see it"

Outside of it being a green nalgene bottle, that is too true. Good times. Ok, back to document review.

"I left my North Face jacket/pink Razr/ blue Nalgene in X Classroom, did anyone see it"

Outside of it being a green nalgene bottle, that is too true. Good times. Ok, back to document review.

It seems that his choice of attendees was not the issue. After all, the school approved all his choices and added 10 (which also did not include the heads of the minorityl organizations). It's really about a stupid remark.

Another NU Grad- I can't help myself- were you there for the infamous paper bag incident?

Um, do you mean the 'paper bag' incident where an LLM student sent a message to the listserv because she lost her brown paper bag, got completely ripped to shreds when people misunderstood, and actually was concerned about the contents of the paper bag? (If I'm not mistaken...) Yet another example of the listserv gone wild...

NU Grad and Wildcat --

Yes, I was there for the infamous paper bag incident, though I had forgotten it. Poor LLMs. The hours people spent on a good listserv war . . .

The listserve postings do raise the inference that it is possible that the SBA prez excluded the heads of blsa, llsa, in retaliation for a s-t storm of his own making. And that aint right.

William Kirsch chairs Paul Hasting's global Private Equity practice. Mr. Kirsch serves on the Board of Trustees of Northwestern University.

Grand jury indicts teenagers on mob action charges

February 8, 2007
By LINDA BLASER Staff Writer

The arraignment of six teenagers from Lake Forest and Lake Bluff is set for Feb. 15 following indictments by a Lake County grand jury on charges of mob action in connection with a beating of a 22-year-old Lake Forest man in December.

The arraignment is scheduled for Feb. 15 before Judge Fred Foreman.

Whether the arraignment will be held then is yet to be seen, since the attorney representing three of the teens -- attorney James Bertucci of Lake Forest -- asked to reschedule.

Charges of aggravated battery, a Class III felony, and mob action, a Class IV felony, were filed against: Clark Montross, 19, 400 Thorn Lane, Lake Forest; Jonathan Kirsch, 19, 1460 Lake Road, Lake Forest; and Dean DeBiase, 18, 491 Stable Lane, Lake Forest.

Charged with mob action, a Class IV felony, were: Sterne Altholz, 18, 291 E. Illinois, Lake Forest; Michael Kurzydlo, 19, 520 Stable Lane, Lake Forest; and Robert Orlowski, 18, 330 W. Prospect, Lake Bluff.

DeBiase and Kirsch also were charged in a 2005 incident that was later dropped due to lack of sufficient evidence, Burmeister said. The December 2006 incident is "much more severe," said Burmeister.

According to the deputy chief, the victim made a threat at a party in the 300 block of Basswood that he would call the police on underage drinkers. Shortly after midnight on Dec. 29, the six returned to the party and found the victim, Alan Palmer, outside. Several witnesses saw them punch and kick the victim, according to Burmeister.

The man was so severely beaten that his eye socket was broken. Palmer has already incurred more than $10,500 in medical costs.

This is quite obviously a coup by 3 SBA exec board members to add another bullet point to their resumes. Who wouldn't want to be interim President?

See below for Peter's initial email about this situation:

Dear Classmates,

I have only resigned my title because the administration and the SBA Executive Board have forced my hand. The SBA Executive Board and school administration asked me to step down as SBA President with only a month left in my tenure, largely because I have expressed beliefs that are unpopular with some members of our community. Some think that my expression of these beliefs makes me unfit to perform the duties of my office. I disagree with those who have asked me to step down, and initially refused; offering instead to accept a dramatically reduced role in the SBA's decision making process in recognition of the impact of my expression of these beliefs. The administration and Executive Board did not accept my offer. I was told that if I did not step down the administration would have stripped me of any official duty that it could strip me of – they would cease meeting with me as SBA President, and would have prohibited me from representing the school at graduation, law board meetings, admitted student weekend, and other events where the SBA President traditionally plays a role. In addition, the administration would have released a letter to the public explaining these restrictions – and describing my words (discussed below) as "derogatory remarks." Cliff Zimmerman showed me two different versions of this letter; the version to be released if I stepped down being significantly kinder in its wording. The administration reached its conclusion to take this course of action without once bringing me, the Executive Board, administration members, and complaining parties into the same room. Finally, the Executive Board would have conducted a plebiscite on whether I was fit to hold what would have been left of the office of SBA President – the title. Given the costs of going through with this process, it should be clear that I have only "stepped down" from my position in the most technical sense.
To provide some background: There was a breakfast last Thursday with Chief Justice Roberts to which a number of academic and student-government leaders were invited. The administration asked me to recommend a list of 10-15 "academic and community leaders" to attend this breakfast. The administration had the final word on the invitees; this should be obvious given the nature of the event, the addition of 10 students to my initial recommendations, and the fact that my recommendations had to be cleared with the administration. I was never told that the intent was to invite the leaders of every student organization. The students at that breakfast were an undeniably diverse cross-section of the Northwestern Law community. These students were invited not as racial representatives, but because of their leadership on the law journals, in student government, and in student organizations with leadership positions open to members of any ethnicity. Nonetheless, the leader of one of the ethnicity-oriented student groups – a person I have always considered a friend - shouted me down in the Atrium for overlooking the leaders of these groups. He told me that I took the opportunity of a lifetime away from him. I should have walked away. I had been up the better part of the previous evening and early morning answering student complaints about the invitation list, and had continued to field such complaints throughout the day. During what can only be described loosely as a conversation, I stated my belief that our community would be better off if all student organizations were organized around ideas, and not ethnicity. It is this off-hand remark that is the primary justification for my being forced from office.

I've often wondered to myself whether student groups organized around ethnic identity ultimately unite or divide our community as a whole. History, personal experience, and recent events on campus give me reason to believe that both can be true. This is an issue that is the subject of much scholarly debate. It is an issue that some on campus, including the administration, believe an SBA President is forbidden from raising, as I did, with the leader of an ethnicity-oriented student group. I am sorry I did this. My suggestion was not well taken and I had good reason to know that it would not be, but I did not think that this personal disagreement was a good reason for me to be forced from my elected position. I recognize that these groups make substantial positive contributions to our learning environment; I only wonder whether the net positive would be greater if these groups were organized differently. It is decidedly not inconsistent to question the organizing principles of a student group and simultaneously recognize its contributions. Unfortunately, much of the consternation surrounding this particular comment as well as Cliff Zimmerman's email on behalf of the administration explaining that I made comments that "dismissed the value" of these organizations completely misses this point and misrepresents my views.

I did not want to step down from my position because I am concerned about what such an action represents. I have never been and would never be unwilling or unenthusiastic about working with any student group that approached me for help. I have never questioned any such group's right to exist, and I have never questioned the value of diversity. I have always been willing to work with any person of any political belief. Some now believe that they should not have to work with me because they disagree with my political beliefs. I have often been careless in expressing my opinions but I have never shared an idea with a malicious intent. I have always expressed myself with willingness to debate and discuss. I believe that those who have forced me to step down for raising a question that is relevant to the well-being of our community seriously undermine our school's commitment to intellectual diversity. They send a troubling message that certain ideas, while subjects of legitimate scholarship, are not open for discussion in our community.

I have made mistakes that members of our community are rightfully upset about. The timing of/context surrounding my expression of the beliefs at issue could give the harmful impression that I do not recognize the value of the contributions of certain student groups. This impression could not be further from the truth, but I see how my actions have given rise to it. I am deeply sorry for this. I offered to remove myself from the SBA's decision making process in recognition of this. I do not understand why this was not enough. My behavior was impolitic and imprudent – but it does not come anywhere close to calling for the drastic action of removing me from office as I have never, nor could I be shown to have made a decision as SBA President in consideration of the belief at issue.

I am sick about the fact that I have let my classmates down. Serving on the SBA is one of the greatest honors I have known, and I have enjoyed it immensely. Northwestern Law has shown great leadership among law schools by adopting policies that make our student body - and by extension our school - something special. I hope that it will continue to do this by embracing a commitment to diversity of all kinds, including intellectual diversity. I hope that it will recognize the value of an environment in which all students from of all walks of life and from any place on the political spectrum can raise sensitive issues at sensitive times without severe consequences. I will continue to try and reflect well on this institution. My sincerest apologies to all I've offended and let down, and my thanks to the many who have reached out in support. Please feel free to still consider me your SBA President in an advisory capacity as my years of service have given me a good idea of how things work around here.

Thanks, best regards, and sorry again,

Peter

* The complete list of students that I recommended for the breakfast: The SBA Executive Board and 1L Rep, Law Review board members, 2 Editors-in-Chief of academic journals, Federalist Society President, Fed Soc Board Member who has been exceptionally active on SBA Committees and in SFPIF, ACS President, STMS President. After two students responded that they could not attend, and in response to concerns that only two 1Ls were included in a group of 28, I recommended two 1Ls active on SBA and in student organizations. Of my 18 recommendations, at least 6 were of diverse ethnic background. The administration approved ALL of these recommendations in addition to inviting at least 10 students without my recommendation.

Free Expression and Identity Politics in an Academic Environment
by Peter Pattakos

Events leading to my resignation as SBA President raise important issues relating to the appropriate balance of free expression, diversity and collegiality in an academic environment. Those who pressured me to resign have taken action that threatens that balance. There is a great deal of difference between questioning the organizing principles of student groups and questioning whether those groups and individuals in those groups make valuable contributions to our community. This is the difference between expressing a reasonable view that some may find offensive, and one that provides good cause for people to feel uncomfortable in the community. The latter expression truly undermines the school's efforts to maintain a diverse, collegial community; the former, while offensive to some, must be permitted in an environment where free expression is necessary. The administration, SBA Executive Board, and certain community members failed to recognize the difference between speech that is merely offensive and speech that is truly damaging. There was and is a legitimate and relevant issue to be discussed. Paradoxically, the issue itself is the primary reason that a productive discussion has not yet taken place.

My chief concern is with the consequences of ethno-cultural groups acting on incentives to overemphasize their otherness. The prevalence in academia of a mode of thought that favors the interpreter of an action over the intent and agency of the actor permits groups formed around cultural similarities to assert a self-defined narrative that is virtually immune from criticism. The incentives for the group to own the narrative by overemphasizing its otherness are powerful and obvious. Criticism from outside of the group can never be authentic because it comes from the "other." Anyone who questions such a group's established narrative is subject to being labeled as intolerant and "damaging to a diverse and supportive community." In this environment, a question about double standards regarding what we tolerate from artists and those who wish to quote their art in appreciation is labeled as "racially offensive” and attempts to discuss the issue are met largely with silence, or personal attacks. In this environment, a private email vaguely labeling a handful of student organizations as “relevant” is immediately read to publicly label all other student organizations “irrelevant.” In this environment, a legitimate question about the organizing principles of student groups is the last straw. Good faith on the part of the actor is not discussed. The consequences of this kind of cultural relativism should concern anyone who believes in the importance of free expression – not just those who think that a "melting pot" is a more worthy metaphor for America (and a student body) than a "quilt."*

I recognize that my failure to express my views in a politic manner has caused unnecessary offense and I have apologized for this. I understand that ethno-cultural groups are often organized around ideas in addition to ethnicity and that these groups make valuable contributions to our community. The trouble comes with the strong incentives that these groups have to overemphasize their otherness. When these groups act on these incentives objectivity becomes a casualty of identity politics and a community divides. Circumstances surrounding my resignation – particularly the absence of any evidence that my personal views caused me to treat student groups unfairly - illustrate how this happens. This does not have to happen, and will not if we maintain our focus on our similarities rather than our differences.

*See Goldstein, Jeff at http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php?/weblog/entry/id and related links for more on the ideas expressed in this paragraph.