By Nathaniel Rattansey (1L)
Last year while many of us were studying the finer aspects of easements and promissory estoppel, Columbia Law School—along with Harvard and Georgetown—decided to allow students the option of postponing their exams for those who were traumatized as a result of the controversial Eric Garner and Mike Brown grand jury decisions. The initial request to postpone exams was brought to the dean by the Student Coalition as a part of a larger demand for the school to recognize the detrimental impacts the decision had on the student body. At the heart of this demand, many students felt overwhelmingly preoccupied with marches and protests and thus could not focus on their upcoming finals. Members of the Coalition also felt “legal violence” had been done to Garner and were unsatisfied with the response (or lack thereof) from the administration in reaching out to affected students.
I have to admit my initial knee-jerk reaction was disbelief at how the administration allowed such a move. While I had casually been following the Garner story, I didn’t think the decision was so bad as to warrant providing the option to postpone exams for students.
However, further exploration into the issue offered me a more nuanced perspective (surprise, surprise, not everything in life is black and white). Certainly if one were to just go by the sensationalist headlines of students postponing exams or the disparaging comments made on the blogosphere that question the “toughness” of Columbia law students, it becomes very easy to scoff and dismiss the value behind the school’s decision. Many see the administration as simply coddling the students—the students should be left alone to develop a thicker skin. Some members in the legal profession believe that as future lawyers these students will have to deal with similar types of unsettling cases not uncommon in the profession. Other cynics criticize the students as pretentious and privileged, and frame them as a looking for a free pass to escape exam duties.
Probably for the casual observer the Garner decision was just another unfortunate story in the media cycle—and an unfortunate outcome in the justice system (after all, Lady Justice is blind and sometimes she gets it wrong). But for many this is not just another sad news story; such simplistic explanations and arguments against the policy ignore the deep historical and political trajectory of race relations in the United States. The Eric Garner case represents the tipping point in a series of high-profile, controversial cases that have occurred over the last year (the Zimmerman and Michael Brown incidents are all too fresh). I do not think that these types of cases can be chalked up to some trivial event in the lives of Columbia minority students. For many, the decision—especially in its implications on police-citizen relations—reinforces their notion that the “system” is vehemently against them.
I think it should be stressed that many of the students who wanted to make use of the policy were doing so to participate in protests and marches to make their frustrations and disappointment with the current state of affairs heard. Critics like Professor Rudenstine at the Cardozo School of Law questioned the student protests citing other national tragedies, for instance the lack of student outcry back when JFK was assassinated. However, the Garner decision is different type of national tragedy. It reflects what many believe is an ongoing national tragedy, and serves as a damning indictment of scholars who believe that America has moved towards a post-racial society.
Along with the option to postpone exams, Columbia also made professors available to talk with students about their concerns and anxieties, made a counsellor available, and held a forum to discuss the implications of the case.
It remains to be seen what would happen in future controversial decisions—if there is another Eric Garner-like decision that captivates a national audience and disturbs the sensitivities of students at law schools in the United States. The letter, written by the Coalition Students of Colour to the administration, mentioned the policy as one of the ways “black and brown” students can feel welcome on campus.
Without resorting to other colours of the rainbow, I ask: what about students from other cultural and ethnic groups? What kind of events in the public realm would justify the law school once again coming out and sympathizing with students? With Columbia Law School accommodating the concerns of the Coalition it has clearly recognized (privileged?) a certain type of “national tragedy” that demands support from the administration. Let us be clear: there are lots of unsettling events that make the news cycle both locally and internationally. Maybe these events have to strike a certain chord not only among students but across the nation.
Given the debate surrounding Columbia’s decision to postpone exams, a more interesting question is whether such accommodations would ever be approved here at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law. Historically it’s hard to find a Garner or Mike Brown equivalent that reached a certain critical mass across the nation. However, if a certain situation comes along that requires action, a voice, a protest, a march—maybe exams can wait. Postponing exams doesn’t necessarily equate to escaping the obligations of life; it just means making the time to take a stand.
