A White Nationalist Wrote a Law School Paper Promoting Racist Views. It Won Him an Award.

As to your point, Still nothing in his posts say he is defending anything bad that the kid said.

Not one thing

 

You really don't see his initial post on the topic as a defense? I mean, the part that his paper probably isn't offensive and offers some insightful perspective? Not a defense, Tilly? Really? For some more perspective, his first paper was about how all non-white people should be given 10 years to get out of the country ... his second paper was about how all constitutional rights should be stripped from non white people ... he admitted in a Times article that calling him a Nazi 'would not be manifestly wrong' ... but yeah, his work probably isn't offense and offers insightful perspective....

 

The 99% is definitely satirical. I also went to law school and conservatives were definitely in the extreme minority; legit around 70% if I had to put $$$$ on it.

 

I read the man’s paper. Grammatically good but certainly White Nationalist, racist crap.



Conclusion

Our Constitution will survive only if “the people share a common, historic commitment to certain simple but fundamental principles which preserve their freedom.” One of those principles, accepted by our Founders who as a whole “unambiguously conceived of the United States as a White country,” was nationalism—specifically, racial nationalism. If we abandon that principle while turning over America to a non-White majority, a majority that will not share a common, historic commitment to anything, what else shall we abandon along the way? If non-Whites believe that America’s White nationalist founding “deserves a place of dishonor’ in our history, then—given the fundamentality of this principle in the original constitutional framework—what is to stop any other constitutional provision from being similarly repudiated?

The Supreme Court and inferior federal courts have the power to arrest the dispossession of White America. All they must do is substitute bad landmark precedent for good landmark precedent. Failure to do so is not judicial humility, but, at best, judicial surrender in the face of a terrible crime. At worst, it is complicity in that crime. The People cannot be expected to meekly swallow this demographic assault on their sovereignty. If the People are not granted relief from the government—which includes the judiciary—then, if they are to survive as masters in the land of their ancestors, they must exercise “their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow” the government. And that will be a process which no deskbound jurist can gleefully look forward to; for it will be a controversy decided not by the careful balance of Justitia’s scales, but by the gruesome slashing of her sword.

 

I said he did not defend anything wrong. He said ha had not read it. My assumption is he would not defend anything wrong.

 

2000 mules guy that defended George Floyd’s killer - among other things?

A very bad assumption. “Would not defend anything wrong” isn’t just being overly generous with the benefit of the doubt, it’s lunacy.

 

Maybe someone should read something before starting in with the 'its probably not offensive, you libbies are just looking for something to shout "racism" about" crap...

 

I don’t know enough about law school assignments or grading policy to really gauge the content academically. But why give someone an award for that opinion? It’s in no way novel, and generally gross, although I guess with rising racism in society it’s at least worth debating a little, but bad look for Uf.

 

It's surprising it was graded as the best paper. Based on the description, I had expected something just as racist but better argued and more coherent. I know a good bit about the history of anti-Blackness and the arguments against the legitimacy of the Fourteenth Amendment, so I had an expectation in my mind about what he might try to argue based on cherry-picked evidence. This wasn't that.

 

Ok. I agree. But that still a long way from your assessment. So maybe both of you should take a breath and wait it out.

 

I didn’t go to UF Law but the only class I had that wasn’t fully predicated on the final was research and writing. This could have been an assignment for a course similar. I will say those courses are more concerned about the structure of the arguments than the actual context.