The preceding protest stems from Professor Michael McConnell’s use of an unredacted historical quote containing the N-word in one of his classes at Stanford Law School. Professor McConnell began the quote with a warning and followed it with a condemnation. He intended to show how this nation’s founders were not unblemished heroes but also embodied deeply racist attitudes that have been part of our country’s history since its inception. In other words, Professor McConnell was making an anti-racist teaching point. After talking with concerned students at Stanford, he has said that he will not use the N-word again.
Some members of this Law Review determined this should not be the end of the matter, and this protest ensued. Parts of the protest statement highlight a desire to address racial inequities at our law school and within the Law Review. I applaud that desire. I hope that the protesters—and the rest of us—will hold our leaders accountable to recent commitments to pursue racial equity and racial justice. These commitments are achievable with time, money, and focus on specific initiatives. But they will be difficult to attain without a clearly defined purpose, something that most institutions of higher education struggle to name with particularity. If this law school wants to commit to addressing systemic and structural racial injustice, then it should say so, and it should do so.
While I stand with the protesters in their desire to address racial injustice, as the faculty editor of the symposium that follows, I object to this protest for four reasons. First, the protest does not belong in a symposium on law and religion. Second, there is disagreement as to whether Professor McConnell actually violated an academic norm. Third, the protest creates ambiguities for current and future classroom norms. Finally, because Professor McConnell has already committed to changes in line with what the protesters presumably demand of him, the protest appears more punitive than change-oriented.