March Madness -- Kaplan as Jesus?

Crazy days out there, eh? Let me address a controversy springing up here in Wisconsin:

A professor at the law school earns himself nationwide press for allegedly racist comments he made in class about the Hmong population. (Google search if you are curious). The dean listens to students, talks to the professor, and apologizes for the comments, stating the professor's words should have been better chosen to illustrate his point. So a simple case of miscommunication, right?

A session to discuss the matter was held on campus last night. Sadly, the professor chooses not to explain his remarks*, so that the miscommunication could be discussed openly in the marketplace of ideas. Instead, the rumor mill thrives as though the "truth" could be found by a majority vote, rather than considering and discussing honestly the facts at issue. Obviously, more information is needed.

Some now suggest the professor may be choosing an opposite tactic: modeling himself after Jesus**, a bit of performance art perhaps?

"You intended to compare Kaplan to Christ? Really?" So did you really intend to say that when someone models their behavior on Christ's they are purporting to be the equivalent of him? I'm simply pointing out that the behavior people are finding incomprehensible is a core example for behavior in our tradition.
12:41 PM.

Sadly, the university, alum, and current students are the losers here. They have worked hard over the years to "brand" Wisconsin law school. Words written in haste can quickly undo years of honest work.

That nationally known blogger linked above contributes by making the Jesus claims, and spouting without a solid grasp of the materials at hand. Today, she erred in claiming a linked article was written by a student in the class, Gerald Cox. I sent the blogger this letter, since I had been following the coverage myself:

Fwiw, I think you made a mistake in characterizing one of your links today.

Gerald Cox wrote a column recently in the Badger Herald. People write in online to comment. What you linked to, I believe, was a representation from an online "round up" of comments -- those 3 paragraphs being 3 separate comments the Herald editorial staff chose from the thread. Representative, well written, most in agreement with the Herald editorial? I'm not sure.

But I'm pretty sure Cox is a columnist, not a student in the class.

No response, but a commenter new to blogger as of March 2007 writes in shortly after, making this observation: The poorly written letter in the Badger Herald was written in response to Gerald Cox, not by Gerald Cox. It also appears to be a posted comment, rather than a printed letter, and as such has not been edited for clarity or spelling. The writer claims to be a law student; if this caliber of writing is typical, you and Mr Kaplan have my sympathy, Ann.

You know who else loses here? Gerald Cox. "The letter by Gerald Cox is surprisingly poorly written. I hope this letter isn't indicative of the intelligence of students at your university."

Remember,
it was not his work being criticized, but a compilation of three independent letters, which directly contradicted one another. Somehow I doubt it's all performance art to the students. Words written in haste can quickly undo years of honest work.

But maybe we're all getting a good lesson in promoting your own interests on the backs of those aiming for something more.
-----------

*UPDATE: So why didn't the professor show up to explain "his side"? That nationally known blogger, who touched on the topic today in the NYT, adds this:

The event was set up as an educational session, with an expert who was supposed to teach about the Hmong experience, not as an examination of what happened in the class. The offended students were to be given time to state that they were offended but were not going to go into the story of why they were offended. That was made ABUNDANTLY clear to me before the meeting. To blame Kaplan for not showing up and CHANGING THE PLANNED SUBJECT is absurd. Get YOUR facts straight. You want things in context. THAT's the context. Now, care to reframe what you've said? 10:17 AM

Maybe the law school thought it would be a typical classroom exercise, where they would "educate" in their style, and no one would ask pointed questions of the speaker. That would have been an excellent opportunity to address those concerned, and openly correct the miscommunication in detail. Opportunity lost.

But there's a hint of a promise:
the nationally known blogger is making comments to the media that her colleague is working with lawyers to craft his version of what was said in class that day, how those examples were designed to illustrate the day's lesson. A written statement is expected shortly. Hopefully sooner rather than later, for the school's sake.

That class session was almost a month ago, on February 15. How hard can it be to honestly recount your "truth" of what you said in class? Damn attorneys must be getting paid by the hour.
---------

**Funny, but if I remember the story correctly, even Jesus himself showed up in the Garden that night to face his accusers. I sure hope we're backing away from viewing the silence as Christ-like. (Remember how well that one worked for the Beatles?) Plus, I don't remember him needing many lawyers to get his truths across.