Good
news:
the
woman
who
collapsed
during
the
New
York
bar
exam
at
Hofstra
reportedly
survived.
That’s
worth
saying
up
front
because
nothing
that
follows
should
overshadow
that.
But
now
that
we
know
she’s
alive,
we
can
get
back
to
the
other
glaring
issue:
What
in
the
actual
hell
is
wrong
with
the
people
running
this
exam?
When
we
first
covered
this
story,
we
called
the
Board
of
Law
Examiners
seeking
a
statement
and
learned
that
they
weren’t
answering
their
phones
because
—
apparently
—
they’re
out
of
the
office
the
rest
of
the
week
after
the
bar
exam.
Because
why
might
anyone
need
to
contact
the
people
running
the
bar
exam
immediately
after
the
bar
exam?
However,
the
Board
eventually
did
make
a
statement
claiming
that
their
“priority”
was
the
candidate
suffering
a
medical
emergency.
The
passive
voice…
the
last
refuge
of
the
scoundrel.
Witnesses
—
plural
—
disagree
with
this
assessment.
Several
examinees
took
to
social
media
to
describe
the
situation
and
while
details
differ,
the
consistent
theme
is
that
test-takers
sounded
the
alarm
that
someone
needed
help
and
the
proctors
seemed
temporarily
reluctant
to
act
and
in
all
events
refused
to
stop
the
test
as
if
firing
up
the
defibrillator
and
yelling
“clear”
was
just
another
ambient
noise
on
par
with
a
cough
or
dropped
pencil.
Note
that
the
test-taker
they
got
on
camera
appears
to
be
using
a
pseudonym.
Bar
examiners
signaled
during
COVID
that
they
were
willing
to
retaliate
against
critics,
making
people
reluctant
to
call
them
out.
Aside
from
everything
else,
the
fact
that
examinees
even
entertain
the
idea
that
speaking
up
for
someone
who
almost
died
might
cost
them
their
license
amounts
to
a
genuine
legitimacy
crisis.
If
the
bar
examiners
can’t
be
trusted
to
accept
“perhaps
don’t
let
people
die”
as
a
note,
their
reputation
as
a
good
faith
actor
is
shot.
Writing
on
LinkedIn,
another
examinee
shared
their
experience:
On
day
two
of
the
bar
(MBE
day)
about
15
minutes
before
the
end
of
the
AM
session
a
young
woman
sitting
about
ten
feet
from
where
I
was
sitting
collapsed.
Initially,
people
around
her
thought
she
was
experiencing
a
seizure,
but
it
soon
became
clear
that
it
was
more
serious
than
that.
The
proctors
urged
everyone
in
the
area
to
continue
their
exam
and
began
to
attend
to
her,
but
there
was
nobody
on
hand
with
medical
expertise.
The
proctors
did
not
make
an
announcement
asking
if
there
was
a
medic
in
the
room
(of
which
there
almost
certainly
was
given
that
there
were
over
a
thousand
examinees
in
the
room)
as
they
would
on
an
airplane.
Examinees
did
not
have
their
phones
and
so
could
not
call
911
and
proctors
were
hesitant
to
do
so
for
some
reason,
only
calling
for
help
after
students
begged
them
to.
It
took
about
ten
minutes
until
campus
security
arrived
and
began
to
administer
CPR
and
another
couple
of
minutes
until
a
defibrillator
was
brought.
All
the
while,
examinees
were
told
to
continue
their
exam
and
stay
in
their
seats.
I
literally
saw
students
scribbling
away
on
their
exam
papers
at
the
table
right
behind
the
young
woman,
just
inches
away
from
where
medics
were
administering
chest
compressions
to
try
to
save
her
life.
Proctors
didn’t
bother
moving
the
examinees
in
the
immediate
proximity
to
clear
space
for
the
medical
personnel
once
they
arrived.
Only
after
the
session
was
over
did
they
allow
people
to
leave
their
seats.
So
when
the
Board
says
the
tests
were
“quickly
collected
and
the
candidates
were
dismissed
for
lunch”
it’s
like
saying
the
Titanic
“concluded
its
journey
early.”
It’s
trying
to
create
the
impression
that
the
proctors
put
a
stop
to
the
test
as
opposed
to
the
event
happening
close
to
the
scheduled
end
of
the
session.
That’s
just
clumsy
ass-covering
because
it’s
an
easily
discoverable
detail.
It’s
also
such
a
stupid
deception.
A
breakdown
that
delays
medical
attention
carries
series
legal
implications
so
they
can
be
expected
to
spin
that
response,
but
the
decision
to
stop
the
test
for
everyone
else
during
the
emergency
is
a
separate
matter.
If
they
said,
“we
think
our
proctors
dealt
with
the
medical
emergency
appropriately,
but
we
acknowledge
that
in
the
future
the
test
should
have
been
immediately
suspended
for
the
other
examinees
and
will
develop
new
protocols
for
this”
they
wouldn’t
be
conceding
anything
while
showing
at
least
some
sense
of
the
gravity
of
the
situation.
But
they
couldn’t
bring
themselves
to
do
that
because
it
would
require
admitting
—
for
even
a
second
—
that
something
might
be
more
important
than
this
dumb
test.
That,
more
so
than
even
the
response
in
the
moment,
is
the
real
indictment
of
the
bar
exam
as
an
institution.
They’ve
had
time
to
think
about
this
and
they
still
can’t
comprehend
a
response
that
might
involve
stopping
the
test.
The
ritual
cannot
be
compromised!
The
woman
survived.
But
the
legitimacy
of
the
bar
exam
remains
in
the
toilet.
And
if
the
best
the
Board
can
offer
is
a
press
release
version
of
“we
did
everything
right,”
then
maybe
they’re
more
out
of
touch
than
we
even
thought.
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.