Earlier
this
week,
the
New
York
Times
reported
that
University
of
Florida
law
professor
—
Trump-appointed
federal
judge,
by
the
way
—
John
L.
Badalamenti
awarded
the
top
prize
in
his
course
to
a
student
on
the
strength
of
a
paper
arguing
that
the
Constitution
was
written
for
white
people
and
therefore
we
shouldn’t
have
voting
rights
protections
and
we
should
shoot-to-kill
migrants
making
unauthorized
border
crossings.
Aside
from
everything
else,
the
University
of
Florida
law
school
community
has…
concerns.
In
an
effort
to
address
those
worries,
Florida
dean
Merritt
McAlister
wrote
an
email
to
the
greater
UF
Law
community
to
explain
the
school’s
position
on
the
paper.
It
falls
flat.
She
lays
out
the
requisite
affirmations
that
the
paper
“do[es]
not
reflect
the
values
of
UF
Law,
its
faculty,
or
its
administration”
and
that
“We
welcome
all,
we
discriminate
against
none,
and
we
aim
to
create
a
community
where
students
feel
a
sense
of
belonging
and
connection—without
experiencing
fear
or
threats
or
hatred.”
But
from
there
the
letter
jumps
into
so
here’s
why
our
top-20
law
school
is
cool
with
giving
top
grades
to
Nazi
Constitution
fan
fiction.
I
understand
that
these
events
and
this
article
have
caused
many
in
our
community
pain,
disappointment,
and
fear.
I
know
that
many
of
you
are
outraged
at
the
law
school
for
not
taking
the
book
award
away
from
the
student.
But
the
administration
does
not
second-guess
grading
decisions
at
the
law
school,
except
in
very
narrow
circumstances,
and
those
circumstances
did
not
apply
here.
But
this
completely
misunderstands
the
problem.
The
issue
isn’t
really
about
changing
the
grade
THIS
paper
got
—
schools
shouldn’t
generally
change
grades
after
the
fact
—
it’s
what
the
hell
is
the
school
doing
to
prospectively
address
a
professor
who
thinks
this
kind
of
paper
is
good.
The
paper’s
views
also
in
no
way
reflect
the
views
of
the
professor
in
this
course.
The
professor
had
no
knowledge
of
this
student’s
history
at
the
law
school
or
his
deeply
held
personal
views.
The
professor
took
the
paper
on
its
face—as
a
student
paper
attempting
to
use
originalist
methodology
to
reach
a
detestable
and
extreme
position.
As
abhorrent
as
the
paper’s
thesis
may
be,
that
work
still
falls
within
the
bounds
of
academic
freedom
and
the
First
Amendment,
and,
as
such,
was
graded
consistent
with
the
grading
standard
for
the
course.
No
one’s
arguing
that
it
falls
outside
“the
bounds
of
academic
freedom
and
the
First
Amendment,”
they’re
arguing
that
a
paper
making
a
batshit
insane
argument
ripped
from
the
Ku
Klux
Klan’s
online
CLE
course
shouldn’t
be
the
top
grade
in
the
class.
Isn’t
this
a
law
school
class?
Because
part
of
that
requires
student
work
to,
you
know,
REFLECT
THE
ACTUAL
LAW.
In
Josh
Blackman’s
contrarian
effort
to
defend
the
paper,
he
applauded
the
Bluebooking
which
the
journal
editor
in
me
appreciates,
but
law
schools
shouldn’t
be
in
the
business
of
giving
out
top
grades
for
meticulously
cited
slop.
Unless
it’s
actually
the
1L
legal
writing
course
maybe.
This
claim
that
“The
professor
took
the
paper
on
its
face—as
a
student
paper
attempting
to
use
originalist
methodology
to
reach
a
detestable
and
extreme
position”
is
dubious
at
best.
If
a
student
took
the
Civ
Pro
issue
spotter
and
wrote
“I
don’t
know
about
this
International
Shoe
stuff
because
the
plaintiff
should
not
accept
the
authority
of
the
district
court
because
it
is
an
Admiralty
Court
with
gold-fringed
flags,”
it
wouldn’t
matter
if
the
prose
read
like
someone
put
Faulkner,
Tolstoy,
and
Bryan
Garner
into
a
human
centipede
and
gave
it
a
typewriter.
Oh,
it’s
an
originalism
course
so
he
was
just
graded
on
his
ability
to
use
originalism
to
justify
horrible
stuff.
That’s
not
hard!
It’s
kind
of
the
whole
point
of
originalism!
Actually,
scratch
that…
the
whole
point
of
originalism
is
getting
to
a
whites-only
constitution
without
looking
like
that’s
what
you’re
doing.
So
even
by
the
measure
of
originalism
it’s
falling
short.
Anyone
can
point
out
the
Constitution
was
intended
to
benefit
a
white,
slaveholder
ethnostate…
the
trick
of
originalism
is
getting
back
there
through
all
those
pesky
Reconstruction
amendments.
Just
handwaving
those
away
is
bad
originalism.
Rescinding
the
honor
might
feel
righteous,
but
it
would
betray
those
principles
and
set
a
dangerous
precedent
in
a
law
school
that
trains
students
to
confront
unpopular
ideas
and
represent
unpopular
clients.
Defending
free
expression
is
easiest
when
we
approve
of
the
speech;
it
is
hardest
when,
as
in
this
instance,
the
speech
tears
at
the
fabric
of
our
community.
But
that
is
precisely
when
our
commitment
must
hold.
Free
speech
is
not
a
“Get
out
of
being
dumb
free”
card.
The
kid
can
write
whatever
trash
viewpoint
he
wants,
but
this
strays
so
far
from
any
basic
understanding
of
how
constitutional
law
works
that
it’s
mind-boggling
how
it
could
be
graded
so
highly
outside
of
a
Roger
Taney
lookalike
contest.
The
paper’s
thesis
was
that
putting
“We
the
People”
meant
white
people
originally
so
therefore
we
shouldn’t
have
to
honor
voting
rights
protections.
We’re
not
talking
about
a
Brandeis
brief
here.
The
Supreme
Court
wrote
“well-regulated
militia”
out
of
the
Second
Amendment
and
it’s
in
the
same
sentence.
Even
they
would
balk
at
porting
the
first
three
words
of
the
preamble
into
striking
down
the
Fifteenth
Amendment.
It’s
just
a
bad
argument
unless
it’s
intended
as
satire
to
rip
originalism,
which
it
(a)
wasn’t
and
(b)
there’s
no
indication
the
professor
mistakenly
thought
it
was.
Honestly,
the
school
would
be
in
better
shape
if
instead
of
“The
professor
took
the
paper
on
its
face”
they
were
able
to
say
“the
professor
thought
this
was
the
originalism
corollary
to
Jonathan
Swift’s
Modest
Proposal.”
That
could
actually
be
a
quality
paper.
But
that’s
not
the
story.
We
have
protected
academic
freedom
and
the
student’s
First
Amendment
rights
while
also
prioritizing
the
safety
and
security
of
our
community.
As
soon
as
the
student’s
conduct
became
threatening
and
substantially
disruptive,
in
collaboration
with
UFPD
and
UF
administration,
the
student
was
barred
from
campus.
We
heightened
security
across
the
college.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
escalation
in
the
student’s
conduct
that
led
to
his
trespass
happened
three
months
after
the
book
award
had
been
announced
in
January.Sadly,
this
article
has
given
an
extremist
provocateur
exactly
what
he
wanted:
a
platform
for
greater
visibility.
And
it
has
caused
hurt
and
pain
within
our
community
in
the
process.
I
also
regret
that
this
has
led
an
honorable
public
servant—one
who
has
served
his
country
for
decades
as
a
federal
public
defender
and
a
federal
judge—to
receive
death
threats
because
of
an
impartial
grading
decision
he
made.
No
one
deserves
that
treatment
for
selflessly
teaching
as
a
part-time
instructor
in
a
law
school.
Blaming
the
messenger?
This
email
is
really
playing
all
the
hits!
Everything
was
fine
before
you
pesky
kids
started
“asking
questions
about
our
white
nationalism
grades!”
Yes,
it’s
very
wrong
that
anyone
is
getting
death
threats,
but
don’t
try
to
foist
the
blame
on
people
very
understandably
concerned
about
the
standards
at
a
highly
ranked
law
school.
It’s
probably
tough
heading
a
public
law
school
in
Florida
when
Ron
DeSantis
keeps
ranting
the
institutions
of
higher
learning
are
just
Antifa
Hogwarts.
But
it’s
one
thing
to
“defend
to
the
death
his
right
to
say
it”
and
another
for
the
dean
to
shrug
off
the
fact
that
the
school’s
credibility
is
on
the
line
when
it
hands
a
gold
star
to:
“We
the
People”
Means
Never
Having
To
Say
You’re
Sorry
(…To
Women
and
Minorities!).
Or
maybe
there
really
wasn’t
any
student
in
the
class
capable
of
a
better
reasoned
paper.
In
which
case,
Florida
would
have
far,
far
deeper
problems
to
deal
with.
(Full
email
on
next
page….)
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.