Subj: Re: Graduation Pledge -- let's move!
Date: 3/10/1999 11:40:16 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: koehl@lclark.edu (Krista Koehl)
To: paisner@lclark.edu (Jonah Paisner)
CC: west@lclark.edu, gnoske@lclark.edu,
nathan@bits1.com, ehoward@lclark.edu

Jonah-

***
I am not an advocate of using a pledge, with stars by students' names, to express political views at graduation. I have talked to many students over the last month to see how they feel--because I am a representative of the students, and do not feel comfortable expressing my personal views if they are not shared by other students. The students I have spoken with feel that graduation is not the time or the place to express political views. Further, the use of the stars imply honors, not that those students have signed a pledge. If it is used at all, the students I have spoken with think those students should have a tree by their name, because at least that would avoid confusion.

***
[and in a follow-up email on 3-11-99]

This message is merely a response to your questions, and I do not intend to put down your ideas. I feel (and others feel) that the idea of a graduation pledge is flawed and inappropriate. I also feel that the proposed pledge has an environmental/liberal slant. I am not confident that there is language we could use that could get rid of this slant and make students comfortable with the idea. I cannot come up with language that would work.

The primary reason is that the whole idea of the pledge seems to ask people to be aware of the effect their actions as lawyers will have on the environment. I think this alienates students who are not going into or have any interest in environmental law. Further, it will polarize the student body. Some may not feel comfortable signing the pledge because it does have a liberal slant. Others may sign it just to fit in. During my three years of law school, I have felt a strong sense of community here: a cooperative environment, with students open to others views. I am against creating a pledge that will produce negativity and confusion. I think it will further the stereotype nonenvironmental students have about the environmentalists on campus.

An environmental pledge will, in my opinion, unnecessarily create problems. I have confidence in my fellow graduates that they will be aware of the their actions and how it will effect the environment, and I think it is offensive to ask students to sign a pledge to prove this.

Thanks,

Krista

Subj: re: pledge
Date: 3/17/1999 3:04:37 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: riffel@lclark.edu (Shawn Riffel)
To: venskus@lclark.edu (Sabrina Venskus)
CC: [additional recipient email addresses snipped]

Why bother advocating for your proposed pledge concerning making lots of money for corporations? That language will already be the assumption for those of us who do not wish to sign the referendum pledge (for whatever reason)--which is precisely the objection of those opposed to the current pledge.

Additionally, your characterization of SBA as a "neutral body" and the process as "democratic" are loose interpretations that do not fit the perception of many students. Finally, your suggestion that everyone write a pledge that would suit their personal values again feeds the argument of pledge opponents--a graduation is not the appropriate place for displays of personal values. At what point will it end? Are we willing to turn graduation into a day-long affair so that we can all recite our beliefs and pledges?

I am not opposed to the idea that there are people at this school that want to take a pledge of this sort. I just do not think it should be included in the graduation ceremony. If this is truly important to you, I suggest a ceremony away from graduation at which you honor those individuals you believe have had a positive impact on the values recited in your pledge.

Then you would have an opportunity to express your personal beliefs without creating a dichotomy that the rest of us are forced to accept or decline.

Subj: Re: pledge
Date: 3/17/1999 5:45:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: paisner@lclark.edu (Jonah Paisner)
To: sba-list@lclark.edu (Student Bar Association)
CC: [other recipient email addresses snipped]

As the drafter of the Pledge Referendum, I am delighted that only halfway through the election, we have seen so much well-meaning commentary and analysis. Though there is some question whether taking the pledge is personal or political (both grounds have been criticized) there is no doubt that a referendum process IS unabashedly political, and should be. Therefore, all the usual hyperbole, sarcasm, moving-target attacks, as well as thoughtful criticism are in the mix.

My purpose here is offer some thoughts on the pledge, drawn from my own views and those of others who have put the pledge in place elsewhere.

First of all, the pledge itself: "I, ____________, pledge to investigate and take into account the social, ecological, and cultural consequences of any job opportunity I consider."

PLEDGE LANGUAGE: My take on the meaning of this pledge is, roughly, that the person is signing a pledge to be informed. One of the most insidious threats to a just and civilized society is ignorance. Even more detrimental is purposeful ignorance, which can be shape-shifted into "plausible deniability." No one, particularly newly minted lawyers, ought to be proud of a "see no evil, hear no evil" posture towards anything, much less a prospective employer. One dissenter sardonically lamented "trust fund enviros" as the only one's who can sign the pledge because they can afford to work for a presumably non-polluting, non-strike breaking, non-discriminating organization. Well, guess what: becoming aware of organizational ills and working there are not mutually exclusive. Some people even take this route in the hope to work from within.

"ENVIRONMENTAL": Ecological is only one of three operative words along with "social" and "cultural." I notice that all the attacks so far are against the environmental aspect. So does that mean if "ecological" were removed and the other two words remained the objections would end? Sadly, I suspect this is a red herring. As much as the notion pains me, it seems some people simply do not wish to face the true nature of their complicity with social, ecological, and cultural devastation. This pony-tailed writer sagely admits that my job immediately prior to attending this law school was buying and selling technical equipment for use in making military weapons. There is no shame here.

DIVISIVE: What a shock that a complaint by dissenters is that the pledge causes division between the students. What?! Isn't the legal profession by nature adversarial? Class discussions, our elections, our work as students, our papers...all are flavored by the truth-discovering power of two (or more) sides using the dialectic to arrive at a resolution. Besides, this too is ghost: the graduation program already contains a separate listings of those graduating with environmental law or business law certificates. Why isn't the personal decision to pursue one of these specializations and have it noted at graduation considered "divisive"? If this complaint is genuine, why not balance this pledge with something else, as some pledge backers have suggested.

By its nature, this pledge [n. "a binding promise or agreement to do or forbear" -Webster's Ninth] is an intersection of the private and public. What can possibly come from silencing those who wish to bind themselves to society at large with a simple promise to be...informed? Ignorance may be bliss, but tyranny ain't far behind.

Jonah Paisner