Thursday, May 01, 2008

Why Didn't I Think of That?

In March, University of Arkansas-Little Rock Law Professor Richard J. Peltz sued two of his students for defamation after the latter accused him of being a racist, a charge he denies. (Although the lawsuit was filed in March, I just learned about it from the NY Times story that first ran today.) I have been unable to find an online copy of the complaint but the core of the case appears to be this: (1) Professor Peltz is an outspoken critic of affirmative action. (2) He also least insensitive to student concerns about racial justice, as evidenced by, among other things, his in-class display of this article from The Onion. (I would note, by the way, that the piece, as satire, could easily be read as supportive of the civil rights movement, given the implausibility of its central point---that American society has finally moved beyond race. However, given the other views of Professor Peltz, his students may well have been right to read his use of the piece as meant to belittle the civil rights movement. Context matters). (3) Students in Professors Peltz's class and the school's chapter of the Black Law Students Association accused him of racism. (4) Thus, he sued them. Although other stories around the web suggest that Professor Peltz also thought that the school administration did too little to defend him against the charges, the school is not a defendant.

Where to begin? The man-bites-dog quality of the story is delightful, of course. Surely every law professor has at some time worried that an ill-considered comment he or she made, or a bad grade he or she conferred, would result in a lawsuit by a student, but I'll bet it had not occurred to most law professors---it certainly hadn't occurred to me---that we could be the plaintiffs suing our students for, say, lousy course evaluations.

There is also the double irony of this case:

Irony 1. Professor Peltz was not well-known outside of Arkansas legal circles before the filing of this lawsuit, but he is well-known now, and what he is known for is being the law professor who sued his students for accusing him of racism. Arguably, his reputation suffers a much greater injury from the bringing of the lawsuit than from the underlying charges. That's often true of defamation suits by people who are not previously well known.

Irony 2. Professor Peltz teaches First Amendment law and, judging by the titles of his publications and the news of the lawsuit itself, appears to believe in free speech as an affirmative good. It is not hard to see him arguing that the students, in branding him a racist simply for strongly disagreeing with their policy views---for his political incorrectness, in other words---were trying to shut down his expression of those views. But of course, suing students for expressing their own views is not exactly a speech-friendly act.

I don't know nearly enough about the underlying facts to form a clear view about the merits of the suit, but I'd still be surprised if it succeeds. It's almost always a bad idea to call someone a "racist" unless he's an active member of the Klan, defender of slavery or segregation, or what-have-you, but that's as a matter of the social rules of discourse.

The students will almost certainly argue that in calling Professor Peltz a "racist" they were expressing an opinion, rather than making a claim of fact, much in the way that one of my students could defend himself if I sued him for calling me, say, an "asshole." The student-defendant in my hypothetical lawsuit would not be obliged to show that I am, literally, an anus, or even that I am, on balance, a mean person. "Racist," like "asshole," is an all-things-considered evaluative term meant to express the speaker's negative judgment. And the First Amendment overlay on defamation law protects such opinion statements that are not meant to be taken as fact. So unless Professor Peltz can show that the defendants made false statements of fact---e.g., stating he attended Klan rallies when he did not---his lawsuit faces serious obstacles.

Posted by Mike Dorf


egarber said...

So from a legal standpoint, is a professor a public figure, where he has to prove reckless disregard? Or is the standard mere neglect? Or am I misapplying the standard altogether, since this isn't the press / libel?

Michael C. Dorf said...

A law professor COULD be a public figure, who would therefore have to prove reckless disregard, but I very much doubt that all law professors are, ipso facto, public figures.

egarber said...

What if you were to sign on as Obama's constitutional law advisor, and you sometimes appeared in public with him? I wonder if that's enough to cross some line -- vs. law professors running panels that happen to get picked up from time to time in the press.

David Crowley said...

I have to brush up on my defamation law, but I think I remember that you have to establish that you suffer some sort of economic damage; i.e., you can't simply say that you were insulted. As a tenured professor, what damage would Peltz suffer? His job is secure, and he's got no vendors, etc. that will stop dealing with him. It seems like Petlz has an uphill litigation battle.

Sobek said...

"'Racist,' like 'asshole,' is an all-things-considered evaluative term meant to express the speaker's negative judgment."

That's true, and regrettable. The word used to have some kind of meaning, and was therefore useful. David Duke is a racist, not just because he is a scumbag, but because he believes in the inherent superiority of one group based strictly on race.

Now the word is essentially meaningless but still highly damaging, and far too vague to actually defend against. It really means nothing more than an extremely subjective "I don't like you."

Sherry F. Colb said...

In response to sobek, I think the term "racist" continues to have some content, but there are a variety of approaches to what that content might be, and the resulting confusion causes the problems that he articulates. At the very least, calling a person a racist is a way of making a normative judgment about that person's views on matters of race, and I think that is why the accusation is as damaging as it is. Some differing definitions are: one who believes that one group is inherently superior to another (or inherently entitled to greater rights than another), simply based on race; one who does not believe that members of different races should have close relationships with one another, all things being equal; one who takes positions that are out-of-step with those of the mainstream of a particular community (e.g., the black community/the blue collar community, etc., not that any of these is a monolithic group) on matters pertaining to race. Part of its potentially devastating impact is the conflation of the various meanings that people ascribe to racism. For example, some people consider anyone who opposes affirmative action to be a racist; other people consider anyone who supports affirmative action to be a racist. I think that neither of these positions is productive and that they tend both to water down the force of the racism accusation when applied to something truly reprehensible and simultaneously to stigmatize and ostracize people who have not expressed a view worthy of condemnation. Why can't we all just get along?

Sobek said...

" who takes positions that are out-of-step with those of the mainstream of a particular community ... on matters pertaining to race."

That is apparently the sense in which Prof. Peltz' student intended the word, but (in my opinion) the least useful. Suppose we have a race, the vast majority of which believes that it is inherently superior to all other races. Then suppose a member of that race disagrees with the majority, and thinks that all races are equal.

Under my proposed definition, and Prof. Colb's first two definitions, the majority of the group itself is racist, and the dissenter is not. Under Prof. Colb's third definition, the group is not racist because their majority view by definition is not out of the mainstream, and the dissenter, who believes in racial equality, is a racist.

All that assumes that what "the mainstream" believes can actually be ascertained with any kind of reliability.

Ivanomartin said...

How about defining the word to mean "someone believing in the concept of race"? A concept, incidentally, that is in decline in anthropological circles.


Sobek said...

David, that would ironically mean every one of Prof. Peltz' students/defendants is a racist.

Ivanomartin said... point, perhaps.

Sobek said...

Of course the fact that the definition seems open for debate underscores the fact that the word has lost all meaning.

Anonymous said...

免費A片, ut聊天室, AV女優, 美女視訊, 免費成人影片, 成人論壇, 情色交友, 免費AV, 線上a片, 日本美女寫真集, 同志聊天室, 聊天室交友, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 色情網站, 辣妹視訊, 美女交友, 微風成人區, 色美媚部落格, 色情影片, 成人影片, 成人網站, 免費A片, 上班族聊天室, A片,H漫, 18成人, a漫, av dvd, 一夜情聊天室, 微風成人, 成人圖片, 成人漫畫, 情色網, 日本A片, 免費A片下載, 性愛, 成人交友, 嘟嘟成人網, 嘟嘟成人網, 成人貼圖, 成人電影, 成人, 中部人聊天室, 080中部人聊天室, 成人貼圖, 成人小說, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人遊戲, 微風成人, 愛情公寓, 成人電影, A片, 情色, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 做愛, 成人遊戲, 成人影城, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 寄情築園小遊戲, 色情遊戲, 成人網站, 麗的色遊戲, 色情網站, 成人論壇, 情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 言情小說, 愛情小說, 色情A片, 情色論壇, 自拍, 癡漢, , 俱樂部, 豆豆聊天室, 聊天室, 色情影片, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊交友90739 情人視訊網影音視訊聊天室 免費視訊聊天室 視訊聊天 視訊交友 美女視訊 視訊美女 視訊 免費視訊 免費視訊聊天 視訊聊天室 辣妹視訊 一夜情 色情a片 aio交友愛情館 情色電影 情色視訊 色情遊戲 色情 情色小說 一葉情貼圖片區 色情小說 色情聊天室 情色交友 成人論壇 成人網站 色情網站 情色論壇 小高聊天室 女同志聊天室 6K聊天室 080苗栗人聊天室 080聊天室 聊天室尋夢園 UT男同志聊天室 男同志聊天室 尋夢園聊天室 UT聊天室 聊天室 豆豆聊天室 A片 成人電影 成人貼圖 嘟嘟成人網 美女交友 本土自拍 成人交友 成人影片

Anonymous said...

It is the knight noah which makes me very happy these days, my brother says knight gold is his favorite games gold he likes, he usually knight online gold to start his game and most of the time he will win the knight online noah back and give me some cheap knight gold to play the game.

Anonymous said...

酒店喝酒,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,制服店,便服店,鋼琴酒吧,兼差,酒店兼差,酒店打工,伴唱小姐,暑假打工,酒店上班,日式酒店,舞廳,ktv酒店,酒店,酒店公關,酒店小姐,理容院,日領,龍亨,學生兼差,酒店兼差,酒店上班,酒店打工,禮服酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,經紀 彩色爆米花,經紀人 彩色爆米花,酒店傳播,酒店經紀 彩色爆米花,爆米花,童裝,童裝拍賣,童裝大盤,童裝寄賣,童裝批貨,酒店,酒店,童裝切貨,酒店,GAP童裝,酒店,酒店 ,禮服店 , 酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工

Anonymous said... .
[url=]puma shoes[/url]
[url=]chaussures puma[/url]
[url=]nike air max ltd[/url]

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店工作, 專業酒店經紀, 合法酒店經紀, 酒店暑假打工, 酒店寒假打工, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店工作, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店經紀, 專業酒店經紀, 合法酒店經紀, 酒店暑假打工, 酒店寒假打工, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店工作, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店經紀,,