Sex O and the law
This semester, my schedule includes "Sexual Orientation and the Law" among other Con law II-esque classes. As you might imagine, it's a smallish seminar with about two dozen students -- gay, straight and non-disclosed. It is taught by adjuncts, two young (and CUTE) men who are openly gay associates at major law firms in town.
In class last week, we had a discussion about the alterative title for the course which is offered for students who would prefer to have "Modern Topics in Constitutional Law" on their transcript instead. As one might imagine, the discussion surrounding this choice was ... not heated but definitely intense. No question that a number of folks had very personal and strong opinions on the topic.
A number of students -- both gay and straight -- felt that the availability of an alternate title stigmatized the class and that it should not be an option unless all classes with potentially controversial names had alternates (e.g., so an Afghani woman with plans to return to her country would have the option of listing "Modern Topics in Constitutional Law" for a "Feminism and the Law" class). Others argued that the option was necessary for those -- gay or straight -- who might choose to practice in a less tolerant community or for those whose parents support their education and would not approve of such a class. Interestingly, the profs, who had taken the class together when they attended my law school, each chose something different. One opted for the alternative because he felt that with his internship at Lambda Legal and other places, that he didn't need or want more credentials on issues of sexual orientation. The other prof, who was not out during his summer associateship, decided to go with the Sex O name on his transcript.
I can definitely understand why this issue sparked such debate -- and I certainly understand the various arguments. However, I think it's easy for someone who has never experienced discrimination to push for the no-alternative option because they don't understand that people's risk thresholds differ. But then again, if you don't push the envelope, how will societal views change? In the end, I believe that it's okay for a person to make that decision for him/herself, but one cannot make such a personal decision for others. So the option must stay. And I would certainly support the creation of alternative titles as an option for other courses -- not just by special request, but as a no-questions-asked option, as with this course.
Finally, one student offered what I believe to be the best reason for keeping the name on the transcript: to demonstrate expertise in the substantive legal issues. I completely agree. I would also add that I plan to keep the Sex O title for another very important reason: if that course on my transcript makes anyone question their assumptions about me or think twice about their own biases, then we'll have education outside of the classroom.
In class last week, we had a discussion about the alterative title for the course which is offered for students who would prefer to have "Modern Topics in Constitutional Law" on their transcript instead. As one might imagine, the discussion surrounding this choice was ... not heated but definitely intense. No question that a number of folks had very personal and strong opinions on the topic.
A number of students -- both gay and straight -- felt that the availability of an alternate title stigmatized the class and that it should not be an option unless all classes with potentially controversial names had alternates (e.g., so an Afghani woman with plans to return to her country would have the option of listing "Modern Topics in Constitutional Law" for a "Feminism and the Law" class). Others argued that the option was necessary for those -- gay or straight -- who might choose to practice in a less tolerant community or for those whose parents support their education and would not approve of such a class. Interestingly, the profs, who had taken the class together when they attended my law school, each chose something different. One opted for the alternative because he felt that with his internship at Lambda Legal and other places, that he didn't need or want more credentials on issues of sexual orientation. The other prof, who was not out during his summer associateship, decided to go with the Sex O name on his transcript.
I can definitely understand why this issue sparked such debate -- and I certainly understand the various arguments. However, I think it's easy for someone who has never experienced discrimination to push for the no-alternative option because they don't understand that people's risk thresholds differ. But then again, if you don't push the envelope, how will societal views change? In the end, I believe that it's okay for a person to make that decision for him/herself, but one cannot make such a personal decision for others. So the option must stay. And I would certainly support the creation of alternative titles as an option for other courses -- not just by special request, but as a no-questions-asked option, as with this course.
Finally, one student offered what I believe to be the best reason for keeping the name on the transcript: to demonstrate expertise in the substantive legal issues. I completely agree. I would also add that I plan to keep the Sex O title for another very important reason: if that course on my transcript makes anyone question their assumptions about me or think twice about their own biases, then we'll have education outside of the classroom.
<< Home