Stanford Politics

Two weeks ago, first-year women of color at Stanford Law School (SLS), in alliance with various 2L and 3L students, hoisted a banner on the backside of Crown Quadrangle. In vivid, red lettering set against a black canvas, any passersby could see the eye-catching statement, “Racism Lives Here Too.”

The banner, accompanied by posters scattered throughout the hallways of the law school, mostly addressed troubling commentary overheard in the corridors. Any visitor within the past days was due to encounter posters declaring, “Mexicans are diluting our country” and “Minority students are just not as intelligent as white students,” plastered on the walls, explicit reminders of the injustices that are still occurring at institutions such as Stanford Law School.

The Racism Lives Here Too (RLHT) movement, led by a group of first-year minority women and supported by a number of faculty of color, came to life after a law student received anti-immigrant hate mail in their mailbox nearly three weeks ago. While the hate mail incident is what arguably pulled the underlying issue of systemic racism from the shadows, a campus climate characterized by recent discussions of racial discrimination and an array of social justice movements can better be called the precursor to the nascent resistance.

In an op-ed received by the Stanford Daily and in a statement provided to Stanford Politics, students affiliated with the movement outlined their claims of inequalities still present within the Law School. Overall, the leaders claim that “forces of racism, bigotry, and white supremacy are not merely external,” but also “pervasive within the Stanford Law community” in the form of overt acts and microaggressions.

Instances specifically referenced by the movement include a campus visit from the controversial leader of the “counter-jihad” movement, Robert Spencer, the aforementioned anti-immigrant hate mail, and the hanging of recruitment posters for the white supremacist group Identity Evropa during a Diwali event at the Law School this past fall. In addition to to these occurrences, the following quotes (which were featured on posters hung by RLHT at the law school) were all spoken or overheard by faculty and students within SLS:

• How much force are the police legally allowed to use against black people?
• Don’t you have something to add on this discussion on racial disparities?
• Don’t tell me that you don’t swipe left immediately for people from a particular ethnicity!
• Minority students are not as intelligent as white students.
• I just don’t think Asian boys are attractive.
• If someone is really starving, slavery starts to seem like a great deal. You get free food and shelter and only have to give up a few rights.
• Mexicans are diluting our country.
• That’s such a good LSAT score for someone of your race.
• Okay, but it’s not like students at SLS experience racism. Like once you get to this level, racism doesn’t exist.
• Well, the general view is that YOU Indians are dirty and gross!
• How does it feel to be rich and black? You know, since most black people are poor.
• YOU Indians are the least preferred…after Arabs!
• I have trouble with Chinese names. I am much better with German or Italian names.
• I love the vibrancy and diversity of your people.
• Why should we pay for the education of an illegal’s children?
• Black people just commit more crime.
• I wish they would focus on diversity that actually mattered.
• What happened to George Zimmerman was a travesty of justice. He should never have been charged in the first place.
• I forget you’re black sometimes!
• You guys should take cultural appropriation as a compliment.
• Can I see your Stanford ID?…There’s been so much package theft recently.
• Disparate impact should be unconstitutional. Certain racial groups are just more obedient than others.
• Minimum wage workers can’t debase themselves any further.

The RLHT movement emerges in the context of a campus currently stricken by polarization and vibrant with calls for social justice. In recent months, several controversial issues have come to light. In January, Kimball Hall students were targeted for hanging immigrant resource posters in the corridors, and the student held responsible for the behavior responded by questioning the nature and prioritization of free speech on Stanford’s campus. The RLHT movement adds a new and previously overlooked narrative to the evolving climate of social equality on the Stanford campus.

In addition to the generic claim of perpetuating racism, bigotry, and white supremacy within the law school, the movement has also raised specific objections to the school’s curriculum. Students claim that the current curriculum at Stanford Law School does little to promote genuine conversations about the historical aspects of racial discrimination in the legal system, and point out that SLS has no mandate requiring students to take courses that address issues in racial, gender, and socioeconomic disparities.

SLS students also cite the routine reactions and lack of preventative measures taken by the administration, another symptom of institutionalized discrimination. The op-ed states that “The law school’s reaction [to racist incidents]is often reactive, not systemic” and that “responses from the broader community are rather limited, generally including a teach-in or meeting with administrators where students of color take a disproportionately heavy burden” for seeking action in such instances. And while the authors of the Stanford Politics statement and Stanford Daily op-ed recognize that consolations from the administration in response to such claims are good-natured, they still argue that the statements don’t do enough to solve the underlying discrimination.  

While the phenomena described and referenced by the leaders of the movement undoubtedly raise important questions and concerns about systemic abuse within Stanford Law School, other members of the student body have criticized the movement as a “credulous misrepresentation” of racism and claim that the movement “detracts from the gravity of actually racist actions and increases racial discord on campus.”

These views were illustrated in an op-ed published in the Stanford Review this past week. The author of the piece makes the general accusation that the leaders of the movement have exaggerated a select group of quotes to characterize SLS as an inherently racist environment, and goes further to criticize students for “nurturing a culture of unjustified victimization that will only encourage currently minimal racial divisions to grow into precisely the resentful, noxious environment they claim to be fighting.”

Despite criticism from a select group of students at Stanford, the movement has nonetheless spread to other law programs across the nation and even expanded in the scope of issues it aims to represent.

Indeed, movement at Harvard Law School sprung up last past week and culminated to an op-ed published in the Harvard Law Record. Like the op-ed published by activists in the Stanford Daily, Harvard Law students not only brought up concerns relating to an overarching theme of racial discrimination among its students, but also called for a broader conversation on issues such as xenophobia, white supremacy, ableism, and social inequality.The Harvard piece outlined specific claims pertinent to their respective environment, raising explicit concerns about their lack of graduates who pursue jobs in public service, the financial hardships commonly incurred by a majority of its minority students, and curriculum-specific problems that fail to address societal issues in race and ethnicity.

Even though the formal development of the RLHT movement is fairly new, it nonetheless accompanies a variety of other social justice movements vying to make their voices heard not only on Stanford’s campus, but also across the nation. Within just a matter of weeks, the movement has captured the attention of students and faculty alike. As the movement progresses, its proponents hope that it will ultimately lead to an educational environment that sparks new conversation on institutional discrimination and leads to a campus climate where the experiences of all can be fully recognized and appreciated.

Stanford Politics reached out to the authors of the original Stanford Daily op-ed when covering this story, in response to which we received a prepared statement. We attempted to solicit responses to follow-up questions regarding more specific instances, including more individualized student perspectives on the environment of systemic racism at SLS, along with potential claims of discrimination involved with the practice of standardized testing in law school admission. Additionally, we reached out to an SLS professor who specializes in civil rights and anti-discrimination law to inquire about the claims from a faculty perspective and to understand how faculty view the situation. Stanford Politics has not received any responses to the follow-up questions posed to the respective parties.