w00t

so that paper i posted up, i ended up getting a 9.9/10 =D good shit!

Writing Process

This is going to be a damn long post. I just turned in a paper that's supposed to simulate an in firm email to a partner. Honestly, I've never really been one to do multiple drafts during undergrad, and while I felt I was a knowledgeable and capable writer, I did understand there were ways I could improve. Anyways I just wanted to share the process from my initial drafts to my final product.

Briefly, the situation is the client's son was part of the men's high school volleyball team and I was supposed to research if the school had discriminated on the basis of sex by cutting the men's team and not the female's volley ball team.

Initial Draft -

Question

Under Title IX, is Franklin D. Roosevelt (F.D.R.) High school in non-compliance when they eliminated only the men’s volleyball team and not the women’s volleyball team?

Brief Answer

No. Title IX does not ensure each sport will have both a male and female program. The purpose of Title IX is to correct the historic discrimination against various minority groups and it seeks to remedy inequity in the opportunity to participate in athletics as a whole. Based upon the given facts, our client’s situation does not meet the requirements established to determine the school is in violation of Title IX.

Statement of facts

Our client’s son, Jacob, was a member of F.D.R. High’s men’s volleyball team. F.D.R. utilizes federal resources to help fund their athletics programs and the school has traditionally offered disproportionately more opportunities for male participation in sports than for women. Since the creation of Title IX thirty years ago, F.D.R. has opened up their athletics program to women and has attempted to keep the ratio of female athletes as close to males as possible. F.D.R. has told parents they plan to eliminate men’s volleyball, men’s fencing, and women’s fencing due to both budgetary concerns and lack of spectators.

Discussion

Congress created Title IX to prevent discrimination against participation based on gender in schools that receive funding from the Federal Government. It states: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C.S. § 1681(a) (2010). After the enactment of Title IX, Congress instructed the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) to prepare and publish regulations implementing Title IX. Miami Univ. Wrestling Club v. Miami Univ., 302 F.3d 608, 611 (6th Cir. 2002). HEW published these rules June 4, 1975. 40 Fed.Reg. 24,128 (June 4, 1975) (codified at 45 C.F.R. § 86.1) HEW was later split into two departments with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) under the Department of Education overseeing enforcement of Title IX and the rules regulating athletics were recodified as 34 C.F.R. § 106.41. Miami Univ. Wrestling Club v. Miami Univ., 302 F.3d 608, 612 n.3 (6th Cir. 2002). These rules state that “No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be treated differently from another person or otherwise be discriminated against in any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics offered by a recipient, and no recipient shall provide any such athletics separately on such basis.” 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(a) (2010). The rules also provide that “A recipient which operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics shall provide equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes.” 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c) (2010). In order to clarify the meaning of “equal opportunity,” HEW released a policy interpretation in 1979. Miami Univ. Wrestling Club v. Miami Univ., 302 F.3d 608, 612 (6th Cir. 2002). The Office of Civil Rights reaffirmed this interpretation in 1996 in a clarification of the 1979 Policy. Clarification of Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Guidance: The Three-Part Test, Department of Education ED.gov, http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/clarific.html (last visited Oct. 7, 2010).

The policy establishes a three-prong test to assess if an institution is providing non-discriminatory participation opportunities for both sexes. Id. The OCR will examine if “(1) Whether intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or (2) Where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the members of that sex; or (3) Where the members of one sex are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, and the institution cannot show a history and continuing practice of program expansion, as described above, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program.” 44 Fed. Reg. 71413, 71418 (1979).

In, Miami Univ. Wrestling Club v. Miami Univ., the court ruled that the 1979 policy interpretation has “controlling weight” in determining compliance with Title IX. Miami Univ. Wrestling Club v. Miami Univ., 302 F.3d 608, 615 (6th Cir. 2002). F.D.R. only needs to satisfy one of the three criteria listed in the test to comply with Title IX. Not only does F.D.R. keep athletic participation opportunities for male and females proportionate to their respective enrollments, they also have a continuing history of program expansion towards the gender that was and still is under-represented. Compliance with Title IX does not mean every sport must have equal programs for men and women; schools may even eliminate the programs of overrepresented genders to comply with the statute. Miami Univ. Wrestling Club v. Miami Univ., 302 F.3d 608, 615 (6th Cir. 2002); Cohen v. Brown Univ., 101 F.3d 155, 174 (1st Cir. 1996); Neal v. Bd. of Tr. Of Cal. State Univ., 198 F.3d 763,770 (9th Cir. 1999).

Conclusion

Elimination of the athletic program of a specific gender is not a violation of Title IX and in fact is sometimes encouraged if a school is not in compliance with the statute. F.D.R. traditionally offered more athletic opportunities towards men and since the passage of Title IX they have expanded their athletics program to include more women. While men are still overrepresented in athletics at F.D.R., they have kept the ratio of women to men in relation to their enrollment as close as possible. Considering the statute, federal regulation, case law, and the given facts of our client’s case it is highly unlikely the court will rule F.D.R. violated Title IX by closing solely the men’s volleyball team and not the women’s team.

Rev 1

The issue is if Franklin D. Roosevelt (F.D.R.) High School is in non-compliance of Title IX when they eliminated only the men’s volleyball team and not the women’s volleyball team. The brief answer is no, Title IX does not ensure each sport will have both a male and female program. The purpose of Title IX is to make athletic participation equal by increasing opportunities to a historically underrepresented group and sometimes decreasing the opportunities for an overrepresented group. From the given facts, our client’s situation does not meet the requirements established to determine the school is in violation of Title IX.

Our client’s son, Jacob, was a member of F.D.R. High’s men’s volleyball team. F.D.R. utilizes federal resources to help fund their athletics programs. The school has traditionally offered disproportionately more opportunities for male participation in sports than for women. After the creation of Title IX thirty years ago, F.D.R. has opened up their athletics program to women. Although women are still underrepresented, F.D.R. has attempted to keep the ratio of female athletes as close to males as possible. F.D.R. has told parents they plan to eliminate men’s volleyball, men’s fencing, and women’s fencing because of both budgetary concerns and lack of spectators. Assuming the elimination of these programs causes men to become the underrepresented gender, F.D.R. will still pass the three prong test established to determine compliance with Title IX.

Congress created Title IX to prevent discrimination against participation based on gender in schools that receive funding from the Federal Government. 20 U.S.C.S. § 1681(a) (2010). The rules regulating athletics recodified in 34 C.F.R. § 106.41 provide no person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in or otherwise be discriminated against in any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics offered by a recipient. 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(a) (2010). The rules further state “[A] recipient which operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics shall provide equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes.” 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c) (2010). To clarify the meaning of “equal opportunity,” The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) released a policy interpretation in 1979 that the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) reaffirmed and further clarified in 1996. Miami Univ. Wrestling Club v. Miami Univ., 302 F.3d 608, 612 (6th Cir. 2002); Clarification of Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Guidance: The Three-Part Test, Department of Education ED.gov, http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/clarific.html (last visited Oct. 7, 2010) (quoting 44 Fed. Reg. 71413, 71418 (1979)).

The policy establishes a three-prong test to assess if an institution is providing non-discriminatory participation opportunities for both sexes. Id. The OCR will examine “(1) [W]hether intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or (2) [W]here the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the members of that sex; or (3) [W]here the members of one sex are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, and the institution cannot show a history and continuing practice of program expansion, as described above, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program.” 44 Fed. Reg. 71413, 71418 (1979).

The 1979 policy interpretation has “controlling weight” in determining compliance with Title IX. Miami Univ. Wrestling Club, 302 F.3d at 615 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984)). F.D.R. only needs to satisfy one of the three criteria listed in the test to comply with Title IX and F.D.R. can reasonably argue they have met all three. Id. Not only does F.D.R. keep athletic participation opportunities for male and females proportionate to their respective enrollments, they also have a continuing history of program expansion towards the gender that was and still is under-represented. If there have been no complaints by women, F.D.R. can argue they have effectively and fully accommodated the interests and abilities of the members of the underrepresented sex. The history of overrepresentation of men in F.D.R.’s athletics programs makes it difficult to establish a Title IX claim of discrimination against men.

Assuming, arguendo, the proposed program cuts push the representation of women in athletics substantially over men, F.D.R. must fail to satisfy the two other prongs to make a Title IX claim. In addition to being the under-represented gender, F.D.R. must fail to prove the program fully and effectively accommodates the interests of men, men must have been under-represented in the past, and a historical lack of program expansion towards men must exist. A claim can be made that cutting men’s fencing and volleyball does not fully and effectively accommodate the interests and ability of men at F.D.R.. However, F.D.R. will satisfy the second prong of the policy interpretation because F.D.R. has traditionally offered more opportunity in athletics to men. 44 Fed. Reg. 71413, 71418 (1979).

Compliance with Title IX does not ensure every sport must have equal programs for men and women. Horner v. Kentucky High Sch. Ath. Ass'n, 206 F.3d 685, 697 (6th Cir. 2000). Schools may even eliminate the programs of overrepresented genders to comply with the statute. Miami Univ. Wrestling Club, 302 F.3d at 615 (6th Cir. 2002); Cohen v. Brown Univ., 101 F.3d 155, 174 (1st Cir. 1996); Neal v. Bd. of Tr. Of Cal. State Univ., 198 F.3d 763,770 (9th Cir. 1999). A Title IX claim will not be successful on the ground that F.D.R. eliminated only the men’s volleyball team.

Elimination of the athletic program of a specific gender is not a violation of Title IX and in fact is sometimes encouraged if a school is in non-compliance with the statute. F.D.R. traditionally offered more athletic opportunities towards men and since the passage of Title IX they have expanded their athletics program to include more women. While men are still overrepresented in athletics at F.D.R., they have kept the ratio of women to men in relation to their enrollment as close as possible. F.D.R. must fail the three prong test in relation to men for our client to succeed. However, it is only possible for F.D.R. to fail two of the prongs at most because of F.D.R.’s history in offering a disproportionate amount of athletic opportunities to men.

Final Draft

Our client’s son, Jacob, was a member of Franklin D. Roosevelt High School (FDR) men’s volleyball team and wants to know if FDR is in non-compliance of Title IX when they eliminated only the men’s volleyball team and not the women’s volleyball team. Unfortunately, FDR will not be in violation of Title IX for their actions because the purpose of Title IX is to make athletic participation equal by increasing opportunities to a historically underrepresented group and not to ensure each sport will have both a male and female program.

Congress created Title IX to prevent discrimination against participation based on gender in schools that receive funding from the Federal Government. Patsy Takemoto Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act 20 U.S.C.S. § 1681(a) (LexisNexis 2010). The rules regulating athletics recodified in 34 C.F.R. § 106.41 provide no person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in or otherwise be discriminated against in any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics offered by a recipient. Discrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Prohibited; Athletics, 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(a) (LexisNexis 2010). The rules further state “[A] recipient which operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics shall provide equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes.” § 106.41(c) (LexisNexis 2010). To clarify the meaning of “equal opportunity” and determine compliance with the statute, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) utilizes a three pronged test. Letter from Norma V. Cantu, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Dep't of Educ., Clarification of Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Guidance: The Three-Part Test (Jan. 16, 1996), http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/clarific.html. The OCR will examine “(1) Whether intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or (2) [w]here the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the members of that sex; or (3) [w]here the members of one sex are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, and the institution cannot show a history and continuing practice of program expansion, as described above, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program.” Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; A Policy Interpretation; Title IX and Intercollegiate Athletics, 44 Fed. Reg. 71,413 (Dec. 11, 1979) (to be codified at 45 C.F.R. pt. 88). (“1979 Policy Interpretation”).

FDR utilizes federal resources to help fund their athletics programs and is subject to compliance with Title IX. 20 U.S.C.S. § 1681(a) (LexisNexis). The school has traditionally offered disproportionately more opportunities for male participation in sports than for women. Since the creation of Title IX thirty years ago, FDR has opened up their athletics program to women. Although women are still underrepresented, FDR has attempted to keep the ratio of female athletes as close to males as possible. FDR has told parents they plan to eliminate men’s volleyball, men’s fencing, and women’s fencing because of both budgetary concerns and lack of spectators. Assuming the elimination of these programs causes men to become the underrepresented gender, FDR will still pass the three prong test established to determine compliance with Title IX.

The 1979 policy interpretation has “controlling weight” in determining compliance with Title IX. Miami Univ. Wrestling Club, 302 F.3d 608, 615 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984)). FDR only needs to satisfy one of the three criteria listed in the test to comply with Title IX and FDR can reasonably argue they have met all three. Miami, 302 F.3d at 608. FDR meets the first requirement by keeping athletic participation opportunities for male and females proportionate to their respective enrollments. Horner v. Kentucky High Sch. Ath. Ass'n, 43 F.3d 265, 274 (6th Cir. 1994), aff’d, 206 F.3d 685 (6th Cir. 2000). They also pass the second requirement by having a continuing history of program expansion towards the gender that was and still is under-represented. Id. at 274. If there have been no complaints by women, FDR can argue they have effectively and fully accommodated the interests and abilities of the members of the underrepresented sex to fulfill the third requirement. Horner, 43 F.3d at 275 (quoting Cohen v. Brown Univ., 991 F.2d 888, 898 (1st Cir. 1993), aff’d, 101 F.3d 155 (1st Cir. 1996)). While FDR's history of program of expansion towards women makes it clear FDR complies with Title IX, the historical over-representation of men in FDR's athletics makes it difficult to establish a Title IX claim that FDR has discriminated against men.

Assuming, arguendo, the proposed program cuts push the representation of women in athletics substantially over men, FDR must fail to satisfy the two other prongs to make a Title IX claim. Horner, 43 F.3d at 275. FDR must fail to prove the program fully and effectively accommodates the interests of men, men must have been under-represented in the past, and a historical lack of program expansion towards men must exist. Id. at 274. “[A]n institution is not required to field a team in response to, e.g., the pleas of "one talented softball player," so a sufficient number of individuals to form a team must complain for FDR to fail to prove they have fully and effectively accommodate the interests and ability of men at FDR. Id. at 275. However, FDR will satisfy the second prong of the policy interpretation because FDR has traditionally offered more opportunity in athletics to men. The Policy Interpretation, 44 Fed. Reg. 71413, 71418 (1979).

A Title IX claim will not be successful on the ground that FDR eliminated only the men’s volleyball team because compliance with Title IX does not ensure every sport must have equal programs for men and women. Horner v. Kentucky High Sch. Ath. Ass'n, 206 F.3d 685, 697 (6th Cir. 2000). Schools may even eliminate the programs of overrepresented genders to comply with the statute. Miami, 302 F.3d at 615 (6th Cir. 2002); Cohen v. Brown Univ., 101 F.3d 155, 174 (1st Cir. 1996); Neal v. Bd. of Tr. Of Cal. State Univ., 198 F.3d 763,770 (9th Cir. 1999).

Elimination of the athletic program of a specific gender is not a violation of Title IX and in fact is sometimes encouraged if a school is in non-compliance with the statute. FDR traditionally offered more athletic opportunities towards men and since the passage of Title IX they have expanded their athletics program to include more women. While men are still overrepresented in athletics at FDR, they have kept the ratio of women to men in relation to their enrollment as close as possible. FDR must fail the three prong test in relation to men for our client to succeed. Assuming conditions most favorable to our client, it is only possible for FDR to fail two of the prongs at most because of FDR’s history in offering a disproportionate amount of athletic opportunities to men.

The days go by

Research for my 10-12 page legal memo

Worksheet on Bluebook (legal format) citation, it's a 9 page worksheet -_-

Begin redrafting my outline for Contracts =/

woopdie dooo, just received an new assignment in the mail!

hahah yes the days go by

Hello Again World!

One month into law school. The reality of it all has certainly set in and I can say I have begun a new phase in my life. I’m currently procrastinating on my assignments and one thing I’ve been putting off since I touched down here is writing some entries. Nearly 4 months have passed so I think an update is in order.

I decided to go to Hawai’i. I was pretty much feeling down and out in my last post and overall, which helped facilitate my decision. I also mentioned my folks were quite hesitant about Hawai’i, after finding out that Manoa rejected their friend’s daughter who went to law school they ended up switching their attitude. I think now they genuinely are proud of my accomplishment though, so that did help ease my decision.

I booked my flight without telling my parents and was actually surprised two months later when I found out my dad wanted to go with me (I was still in that not talking much phase with my parents). Luckily, there were four seats left on my flight and he was able to catch one a few rows in front of me. Leaving Honolulu 20 years ago it was raining when we touched down in San Diego, and I couldn’t help but feel a sense of nostalgia as the sky was blanketed by clouds when the plane took off.

There was no transition from working full time. My last day of work was Friday and orientation was the very next Monday. In that time my dad reacquainted himself with Oahu, we found out the Navy Exchange was rebuilt in a new location and is pretty ballin’. Last year, before I even considered the thought of going to school here, I had a dream of our home here out of the blue. I did somewhat take it as a sign the moment I got my acceptance call. However, we did try going back to our home at the Army housing. It was somewhat depressing because it’s demolished and under construction. But the good is that those houses have been there since the 70s, so the folks who are going to live there in the future are going to have better accommodations.

So I’m living at an off campus dorm run by the YMCA. It’s been here since the 1930s around the time when the campus was founded. A month in, my room is still a horrible mess, but it does feel like home. There are lots of international students, but what surprised me the most is that there’s folks from San Diego here. The first one I met is from Poway; afterwards I met another Pilipino from Mira Mesa who’s doing his Master’s in education, and then two weeks ago another kid from PQ moved in. It’s good to know there’s some older folk here, asides from the dude doing his Master’s there’s an international doing law who’s a 2L (second year law), and another one who’s a first year Med student.

Orientation was surreal. As I said in my previous post, I was accepted into the Part-time program, which I think they’re changing to Evening program because it definitely does not feel part time. But I got to meet my cohort which was a varied bunch. At first I felt bad cause it seemed like everyone was working full-time, there are a few parents trying to transition to new work for their children. But I eventually met some other students who didn’t get into the full time program and aren’t going to be working.

It definitely does not feel like part time. Maybe it’s the nature of the curriculum or that it’s a graduate program, but I literally have things I could be doing every second. A technique that my legal research and writing professor gave in order to avoid fatigue was to switch to one of the other multiple tasks I have in order to keep the brain energized, which I was doing until now haha. My first real writing project was to write an “email” to an associate attorney that dealt with a hypothetical client asserting American Indian hunting rights. That was a page and a half. The week before it was due we were also assigned to write a 10-13 page memo on another hypothetical client that happened to be parents whose daughter was from being cyber bullied at a prep school because she was smart and low income. This was intentional to simulate working for a firm.

Being Part-time they won’t allow us to go over 11 units (12 being full time). So I only have the legal research and writing class and one of the traditional 1L courses Contracts. Contracts is typically a two semester course, but they compressed it into a 1 semester course, so I have my final for it next month O_O. After having 5 years of the quarter system, it is nice being in the semester system.

That’s it in a nutshell really. Not only am I studying during the week, but if I don’t do work over the weekend I fall behind. Fabulous. Though honestly, I am enjoying the hell out of it so far. It’s been awhile since I’ve been challenged academically and it is nice being back in school. I just hope the economy clears up soon. So for now I’m off to interpret some Pennsylvania statutory law! -_-

this feeling of having nothing left for me where i'm at, i really wonder if i'm just having a repeat of how i felt after graduating high school. this desire to leave, hoping, wishing, things will be better somewhere else.

Getting my Life in Order

I got three main categories stuck on my mind right now: Law School, credit card debts, relationship issues.

As far as credit card debt goes, right now I've got a hefty one. I have finished writing up a repayment schedule and it's got good news and bad news. The bad news, after my contract work with sony, I'll have absolutely no cash. Good news: I'll be credit card debt free. It's definitely a strict budget and I haven't accounted for finance charges so it's really a rough draft contingent on how much I actually work and that I don't get sick.

Relationship wise, frankly I feel I have nothing left for me in California. Family is family and they'll always be there no matter how rocky the relationship is, but in terms of friendships and romance...I just don't know. I feel that I purposefully neglected forming strong relationships with friends in Irvine out of some fear of being that person who forgets their friends from high school just cause they left. It was a big mistake on my part because I don't really feel that those friendships I prioritized were that strong in the long run. Needless to say I feel pretty alone sometimes and that I'm in a position where I can't get full understanding sometimes.

Which gets me to law school. It's been a month since I was accepted to the part time program at the William Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaii Manoa. Since then I've been rejected at Berkeley, UCLA, USC, UC Irvine, Duke, USD and have been placed on the waitlist for USF and Santa Clara University. My only other acceptance was to the McGeorge School of Law at the University of the Pacific with a scholarship package of $12k as well as first year books and $12k for the remainder of the years contingent on securing a spot at the top 30%. Even though it's a part time offer, I'm pretty set on going to Hawaii.

My folks are pretty hesitant about me going and I'm trying to pinpoint what their issue is. I understand their argument about it being a move and the difficulty in going back home. I think it stems from the fact that cousin Ralph has been at UCLA and suffers from homesickness quite a bit. However, I do not get homesick; throughout my time in Irvine I rarely felt the need or desire to drive back home and often disliked commuting back and forth all the time. They're really pushing me to visit the school to "make sure" I want to go there. I think there's an underlying issue that U of H isn't a big name like Berkeley or Harvard and deep down they're upset they can't brag about it to their friends who, like themselves, have no understanding of law schools and the legal market. Which is also to my benefit. While Hawaii respectably sits ranked 72 out of 195 law schools, placing it in the tier 2 category, most t2 schools are regional in nature in terms of employment aspects. So my actual stay is more along the lines of 5-8 years rather than 4.

I have given this a lot of thought. I reviewed the employment statistics coupled with the average salaries of law firms in the region. I coupled this with a projection of how much federal loans I will be using to complete my 4 years of school, which at worst case scenario comes to about $170k before adding in the interest.

I've considered how I plan to repay this if I take up a career in private practice, but the main path I want to go is the public service sector. Seeing as I will be taking federal loans they have income based repayment plans which will limit your monthly payment depending on your earnings as well as a public service debt forgiveness option where the government will pay the remaining balance and interest after 10 years working in a non profit or local/federal/military career.

Another option I have been looking into is working as a JAG (Judge Advocate General) for the military which would qualify for the debt forgiveness, in addition they have incentive bonus for JAG officers which I think is around 20k per year of service. They start off at 0-3 upon bar passage with an auto promote to 0-4 after 6 months which seems alright in terms of pay.

I think the thing I'm trying to convey is that I've done a lot of thinking. I'm not going in with wild expectations of making top of the class and transferring to Harvard, though it would be awesome. I'm just getting ready to start school and be awesome. My folks want to go with me in July to visit the school, I mean I'm already set so if they want to give me a free trip to Hawaii, I'm down.

What I do need to take care of is:
securing my housing (i sent in an application and deposit)
finding a way to transport my items
getting my vision corrected again
getting a new notebook

Post on UC Racial turmoil

Despite the election of a Black (or Half Black, depending on your perspective) President, we are far from the Promised Land that Martin Luther King Jr. saw. Lots of disappointing and sad events have happened within the past few weeks for students of the University of California system, but one silver lining is that it has sparked a serious discussion about the ways we look at oppression and the very systemic exclusion and marginalization of people since the passage of Prop 209 that ended Affirmative Action in California.

Racism has become an extremely loaded term, especially after being co-opted by the Right isle of the political spectrum to denote anything that points out differences in color. So now in society if you mention someone is Black or White some people believe you are being Racist. As such, I would like to clarify my perspective. When I think of Racism I think of Institutional Racism as coined by Stokely Carmichael, which would be described as the differential access to goods, services, and opportunities in society to promote the superiority of one race over the other. I don’t find programs like Affirmative Action (AA) to be racist because while they may give preferential treatment to certain groups they were not created with the idea of superiority and the end results of their establishment do not subjugate Whites. In fact the greatest beneficiaries of AA have been White womyn. To me, racism deals with issues of actual power, so I can’t buy into this notion of Reverse Racism because there aren’t hundreds of board rooms filled with non-White people saying Whites are an inferior breed of humanity so let’s deny this one a job. One analogy an African American Studies professor gave me was you have one man standing with his foot over the throat of another man. It means an entirely different thing when the man whose throat being stepped on says: I’ll kill you, than when the man doing the stepping says the exact same thing. With that said, I do not believe individual acts, such as name calling or the events I’m going to describe, can be classified as racist. I believe individuals can discriminate or be discriminatory, but not racist unless they are in a position of power. However, the occurrences of such discriminatory acts are the inevitable results of institutional racism and this is what needs to be addressed far more than punitive action for individuals (which doesn’t mean to say no punishment should be given.)

Wow, that actually took longer than I thought. As many of you know, February is Black History month in the United States. A few weeks ago, just 20 minutes away from my home in the suburban community of Mira Mesa, a group of students who belonged to a fraternity seemed upset that Black History month exists. So they decided to throw a themed party called the “Compton Cookout” in which attendees were to arrive dressed up in every derogatory stereotype of Blacks that they could conjure up from their very privileged experiences. These privileged experiences most likely lacked actual experiences with Black people because one would have a lot more respect and not to mention common sense than to make an appearance at such a party.

The first one probably wasn’t such a smash hit because a few weeks ago individuals once again attempted to (or did) throw another “Compton Cookout” (this time adding in a II just to make sure people realized they still didn’t understand it probably wasn’t a good idea) and did so under the banner of exercising “free speech.” While I’m all for free speech, folks should understand that also allows other people to exercise their disagreement with the speech you are freeing. Also, speech that places folks under duress such as threats like: I’m going to kill you, legally known as “fighting words,” true story, or yelling bomb in a theater are not protected under the First Amendment.

News of this “Compton Cookout II” spread like wild fire due to the social networking site, Facebook. In addition to catching national attention from various news outlets organizations like the NAACP have commented and are attempting to take action. This came like a sucker punch with the individuals’ own fraternity condemning the party and the UCSD administration making various statements to legally cover themselves by repeatedly mentioning the event was an off campus one not sponsored by the school. Student reaction has also varied as well, with members of a student run shock value paper known as the Koala calling all those in support of the Black students N****rs on campus television. This all came to a boiling point when last week a noose was found at the Theodore Geisel Library, a female student has admitted to being the culprit and has now been suspended.

Across various campuses in the UC system demonstrations have been organized and as of this past Friday a large contingent of students have occupied the office of the Chancellor at UCSD as well as Murphy Hall at UCLA asking for the following demands of the Black Student Union to be met: 1) Closure of UCSD until there is a full investigation of events surrounding Compton Cook Out and the noose left hanging for 3 days in Library, 2) Expulsion of offending students and dismantling of The Koala newspaper, and 3) Diversity needs be met by March 4th. In addition, this past weekend two other instances of hate have erupted. At UC Davis a swatzika was carved into the door of a Jewish student’s dorm and the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource Center on the same campus was found to be severely vandalized.

It’s actually been quite difficult to classify what should be done with these students for people like me who are both for the expression of unpopular ideas and against discrimination (though I do believe racial discrimination is still quite popular just not out in the open like it was in the 40s). While I think one does have the right to shout every Racist I’m superior than you claims they want, this has a very different impact than if I were to say I believe in the fall of Capitalism. It hasn’t even been half a century since the passage of the Civil Rights Act which was created to actually enforce the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments that were passed 145 years ago. To say one is persecuted by an overly politically correct culture is a gross overstatement considering the lack of representation certain groups in our country have received and the very real harassment by our own government other groups have received. Carlos Bulosan, the Pilipino American author of America is in the Heart, died a penniless drunk falling to Bronchopneumonia due to the blacklisting of the FBI because he had pro Socialist leanings. Fred Hampton, a college aged Black Panther was murdered in his bed after being drugged in a planned hit coordinated by the FBI and local law enforcement.

Someone commented how the BSU was over reacting about feeling there safety was threatened by the noose being hung. Whether these incidents were done as a prank or not, they represent real threats just as the Swatzika being carved on a student’s dorm is a real threat. While they are the actions of individuals and not condoned under university policy they are endemic of the UC institution’s drive to heighten their prestige at the cost of their original mission statement to serve the people of California. UCSD has a 1.3% Black population, although 44% of their student body classifies as Asian this does not even delve into the various subcultures of East and South East Asia and also is representative of the campuses attempts to woo foreign students in order to cash in on the out-of-state tuition these students pay. Racial ignorance and intolerance certainly does sprout from a lack of diversified experiences and the recent outbursts of hate and ignorance are indicative of a failure to achieve that diversity not only in the student body but the faculty, staff, and curriculum of the institution as well. The ball is most certainly in the court of the UC administration and Regents; I most certainly hope they can diffuse this racial/sexist/homophobic powder keg they have on their hands.


http://theaggie.org/article/letter-lgbtrc-vandalized - The Aggie Online: UC Davis LGBT Resource Center Vandalized

http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=76212 – ABC News 10: UC Davis: Swastika carved into Jewish student's door probed as hate crime

http://stopracismucsd.wordpress.com/ - STOP THE RACISM, SEXISM AND HOMOPHOBIA AT UC SAN DIEGO, a more detailed account of the occurrences at UCSD

http://stopracismucsd.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/racial-intimidation-at-ucsd-escalates-noose-found-at-geisel-library/ - ““, direct link to the Noose Incident

http://ucregentlive.wordpress.com/ - UC Student Regent’s blog, lots of information regarding the recent events (the hate crimes, student organizing, etc) on all UC campuses can be found here