November 30, 2007
Dear Rotary Member:
We are the concerned law students directly involved in the University of Wisconsin Law School/Leonard Kaplan Incident (Incident). We have learned that Mr. Kaplan is speaking at your upcoming Rotary meeting on December 5, 2007. In light of the Rotary’s commitment to developing respect and understanding among peoples, we hope that you, as a member of the Rotary keep in mind that there is another side of the story. We ask that you critically evaluate the information Mr. Kaplan will present.
Throughout the Incident, we remained hopeful that the situation would be amicably resolved. This Incident stemmed from statements Mr. Kaplan made in his Legal Process class on February 15, 2007. In response, we met with him for two hours on February 19th. We also spoke with various Deans and members of the University of Wisconsin administration. Further, at Mr. Kaplan’s suggestion we coordinated a public forum where he initially agreed to attend. However, he later reneged. On March 8th, we offered to mediate the situation. Mr. Kaplan declined. When the Deans of the Law School and Mr. Kaplan’s colleagues first confronted him about the statements, Mr. Kaplan did not deny making the statements. It was not until weeks later that Mr. Kaplan responded, through a press release, denying the statements.
As you listen to Mr. Kaplan’s story, we ask that you use the Rotary’s own four-part test to critically assess the entire Law School Incident. The four-part test, established by The Chicago Rotarian includes asking:
1. Is it the truth?
2. Is it fair to all concerned?
3. Will it build goodwill and better friendships?
4. Will it be beneficial to all concerned?
As a reputable, long-standing organization, it is our hope that you will continue your mission of developing respect and understanding among all peoples.
For your convenience, we have enclosed the formal complaint filed with the University of Wisconsin Provost Office.
We thank you for your attention.
Respectfully,
Kashia Moua
Kashoua Yang-Thao
Lee Vang
Nancy Vue
Kanha Vuong
Mai Der Yang
Vue Yang
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Initial Letter to UW Law Dean Davis
February 16, 2007
Dean Kenneth B. Davis, Jr.
Dean of University of Wisconsin Law School
975 Bascom Mall
Madison, WI 53703
Cc: Walter J. Dickey
Dean of Academic Affairs
975 Bascom Mall
Madison, WI 53703
Dear Dean Davis,
We are writing regarding offensive remarks made by Professor Leonard Kaplan during his Legal Process class on February 15, 2006. The following remarks were made in the context of Professor Kaplan’s lecture on the Langdellian method and American Jurisprudence:
1) “Hmong men have no skills other than killing.” Professor Kaplan then commented that Hmong men’s only roles are as warriors and killers. The implication is that Hmong men contribute little or nothing to civil society. This comment is particularly detrimental considering current events and the environment in which the comment was made. In light of the Chai Vang case in the north wood of Wisconsin, hate crimes against the Hmong community and the recent homicide of Cha Vang in Marinette, it is obvious that the stereotype of Hmong men is of a violent, lawless and ignorant. Furthermore, Professor Kaplan made the comment in a classroom full of undergraduates and law students, many of whom have had little or no contact with the Hmong community. These comments frame these students’ future interaction with members of the Hmong community, and will most likely taint their perspective.
2) Professor Kaplan also implied that Hmong women were better off with Hmong men dead. He stated, “What do you think happened after ten years? The Hmong men started to die and women started to do better. Women did handicrafts and other things…” This is particularly degrading considering the view of Hmong women and men it projects. It implies that Hmong women are nothing more than handicraft makers. Like Professor Kaplan’s previous comment, this comment also makes explicit that Hmong men contribute nothing to society and in fact are detrimental to the health and welfare of their families.
3) Among the mischaracterizations of Hmong culture that Professor Kaplan espoused was that a Hmong man would go and buy himself a wife. What Professor Kaplan characterized as a purchase is actually a dowry. Professor Kaplan further stated that the husband probably thought he spent too much.
4) Professor Kaplan also stated that the second generation of Hmong-Americans were involved in gangs and in crimes. He further stated that this is prevalent among all immigrants of the second generation.
5) Professor Kaplan also lamented that the state department did not relocate the Hmong refugee population to the Colorado mountains as they were mountain people and thus more likely to fit into Colorado as opposed to Wisconsin.
These comments generate a racially hostile learning environment by promoting racial stereotypes and misinformation about the Hmong community, their cultural practices and their history. Such racial stereotyping and inaccurate portrayal of a minority group harm all students in this law school. The creation of such an environment should not be acceptable to any administration.
In this context, some may argue that we are trying to censor academic freedom of speech. As students, we understand that academic freedom of speech is integral to a dynamic learning environment. However, we do not believe that Professor’s Kaplan’s comments are a legitimate exercise of academic free speech. These comments were unsupported by academic research done by Professor Kaplan. Furthermore, they were irrelevant to the topic of formalism, American jurisprudence and legal process. These racial stereotypes and misinformation cannot be defined as academic freedom of speech simply because they were made in a classroom by a professor.
We cannot accept the racially hostile environment created by these comments. Therefore, we ask that Professor Kaplan apologize to the class, acknowledging the stereotypes they promote and their inaccuracies. In light of these comments, the events affecting the Hmong community in Wisconsin and the University of Wisconsin’s imperative to promote as open a learning environment as possible, we ask that the administration take proactive and concrete steps to prevent the occurrence of intolerant or racist acts and the environment which fosters them.
Sincerely,
Law Students
Dean Kenneth B. Davis, Jr.
Dean of University of Wisconsin Law School
975 Bascom Mall
Madison, WI 53703
Cc: Walter J. Dickey
Dean of Academic Affairs
975 Bascom Mall
Madison, WI 53703
Dear Dean Davis,
We are writing regarding offensive remarks made by Professor Leonard Kaplan during his Legal Process class on February 15, 2006. The following remarks were made in the context of Professor Kaplan’s lecture on the Langdellian method and American Jurisprudence:
1) “Hmong men have no skills other than killing.” Professor Kaplan then commented that Hmong men’s only roles are as warriors and killers. The implication is that Hmong men contribute little or nothing to civil society. This comment is particularly detrimental considering current events and the environment in which the comment was made. In light of the Chai Vang case in the north wood of Wisconsin, hate crimes against the Hmong community and the recent homicide of Cha Vang in Marinette, it is obvious that the stereotype of Hmong men is of a violent, lawless and ignorant. Furthermore, Professor Kaplan made the comment in a classroom full of undergraduates and law students, many of whom have had little or no contact with the Hmong community. These comments frame these students’ future interaction with members of the Hmong community, and will most likely taint their perspective.
2) Professor Kaplan also implied that Hmong women were better off with Hmong men dead. He stated, “What do you think happened after ten years? The Hmong men started to die and women started to do better. Women did handicrafts and other things…” This is particularly degrading considering the view of Hmong women and men it projects. It implies that Hmong women are nothing more than handicraft makers. Like Professor Kaplan’s previous comment, this comment also makes explicit that Hmong men contribute nothing to society and in fact are detrimental to the health and welfare of their families.
3) Among the mischaracterizations of Hmong culture that Professor Kaplan espoused was that a Hmong man would go and buy himself a wife. What Professor Kaplan characterized as a purchase is actually a dowry. Professor Kaplan further stated that the husband probably thought he spent too much.
4) Professor Kaplan also stated that the second generation of Hmong-Americans were involved in gangs and in crimes. He further stated that this is prevalent among all immigrants of the second generation.
5) Professor Kaplan also lamented that the state department did not relocate the Hmong refugee population to the Colorado mountains as they were mountain people and thus more likely to fit into Colorado as opposed to Wisconsin.
These comments generate a racially hostile learning environment by promoting racial stereotypes and misinformation about the Hmong community, their cultural practices and their history. Such racial stereotyping and inaccurate portrayal of a minority group harm all students in this law school. The creation of such an environment should not be acceptable to any administration.
In this context, some may argue that we are trying to censor academic freedom of speech. As students, we understand that academic freedom of speech is integral to a dynamic learning environment. However, we do not believe that Professor’s Kaplan’s comments are a legitimate exercise of academic free speech. These comments were unsupported by academic research done by Professor Kaplan. Furthermore, they were irrelevant to the topic of formalism, American jurisprudence and legal process. These racial stereotypes and misinformation cannot be defined as academic freedom of speech simply because they were made in a classroom by a professor.
We cannot accept the racially hostile environment created by these comments. Therefore, we ask that Professor Kaplan apologize to the class, acknowledging the stereotypes they promote and their inaccuracies. In light of these comments, the events affecting the Hmong community in Wisconsin and the University of Wisconsin’s imperative to promote as open a learning environment as possible, we ask that the administration take proactive and concrete steps to prevent the occurrence of intolerant or racist acts and the environment which fosters them.
Sincerely,
Law Students
Complaint Filed With University of Wisconsin
April 13, 2007
CERTIFIED U.S. MAIL
Dean Kenneth B. Davis, Jr.
University of Wisconson Law Building
975 Bascom Mall
Room 5211A
Madison, WI 53706-1399
Re: Chapter 9 Statement
Dear Honorable Dean Davis:
I am writing you on behalf of my clients regarding the following Chapter 9 statement requesting administrative procedure to resolve the events occurring on and after February 15th, 2007, within Professor Kaplan’s Legal Process Class.
1) My clients are law students at the UW Law School. During the Spring 2007 semester, they were all enrolled in Legal Process with Professor Leonard Kaplan.
2) My clients are filing this complaint about 1) Professor Kaplan’s statements during his February 15th lecture and 2) for his behavior during a February 20th meeting with my clients.
3) Attached for your review, is a letter documenting the students’ recollection of Professor Kaplan’s statements which was delivered to Dean Davis. Also attached, is a post event transcript of the subsequent meeting with my clients.
4) My clients are prepared to give, under oath, the same statements within the informal transcripts if necessary.
5) My clients, as future attorneys, shall be stewards and defenders of the Constitutions of Wisconsin and the United States. Incumbent in this is the responsibility to ensure that the basic rights and fundamental equality afforded to all human beings in the Bill of Rights shall be defended at all costs and will not be swept aside or be violated under the guise of academic freedom.
6) My clients are fully committed to resolving their concerns through the University’s administrative procedures as outlined in Chapter 9 and if necessary, Chapter 36.
7) My clients’ concerns stem from the classroom statements made on February 15th which Professor Kaplan did not deny when they were discussed at length in the meeting on February 20th, 2007. In fact, Professor Kaplan referenced his statements on several occasions during the meeting. This is contrary to his public statement made two weeks after the classroom incident.
8) Professor Kaplan’s statements were patently offensive regardless of intent. My clients have always assumed that Professor Kaplan’s intent was not malicious.
9) Professor Kaplan’s offensive and inaccurate statements about the Hmong community in Wisconsin served little academic purpose. Instead of dispelling myths and stereotypes, Professor Kaplan propagated and reinforced them. The students were not challenged regarding their views of the Hmong community in Wisconsin, as Professor Kaplan only made these comments after ascertaining that no one in the class was familiar with the Hmong people. Professor Kaplan also failed to provide other examples of cultural clash, other racial stereotypes or other examples of racial imbalances in his lecture on legal formalism.
10) Professor Kaplan’s offensive and inaccurate statements regarding the Hmong community in Wisconsin are particularly harmful because Professor Kaplan is in a position to greatly influence the perception of the students in his class. This is especially true as Professor Kaplan made these statements after determining that there was no one familiar with the Hmong community in his classroom. Thus, these statements would be taken at face value.
11) Professor Kaplan’s inaccurate statements made in class referring to the Hmong community were only substantiated by his anecdotal beliefs. Not once during the February 15th lecture did Professor Kaplan cite a study or published work to support his presentation of these purported facts. In applying a higher burden to his students than to himself, Professor Kaplan demanded my clients provide sources and citations. My clients then organized a forum with twice-nominated Nobel Peace Prize candidate, Dr. Jane Hamilton-Merritt, to satisfy Professor Kaplan’s request and to prove the inaccuracy of his classroom statements. Professor Kaplan failed to attend after confirming in writing that he would be present at the forum.
12) At the advice of the Law School Administration, my clients met with Professor Kaplan on February 20th, 2007. This meeting lasted for over two hours. A concerned law school administrator eventually checked in on the progress of this unusually long meeting and overheard parts of the meeting.
13) Professor Kaplan did not address my clients’ concerns during the course of the meeting.
14) Rather, Professor Kaplan conducted himself in a threatening, patronizing and unprofessional manner. He rose from his seat, raised his voice, threateningly leaned towards the students and pounded his fist on the table. Professor Kaplan chose to conduct himself in this manner despite the fact that at many points in the meeting one or more of my clients was visibly shaking and in tears.
15) Professor Kaplan’s hostile conduct clearly harmed my clients’ trust in the University of Wisconsin and the UW Law School.
16) My clients are entitled to a learning environment in which they are not subjected to hostility for defending their beliefs, cultural heritage and desire for a truly diverse academic classroom environment.
17) The incident has already resulted in multiple retaliations against my clients including hate emails and personal verbal attacks. Furthermore, various professors have denounced the students in both local and national media forums. Other professors have also made disparaging remarks in the classroom regarding this situation.
18) My clients have made numerous attempts to resolve this issue with Professor Kaplan, including meeting with Professor Kaplan, meeting with his colleagues, and eventually requesting third party mediation. Professor Kaplan and his attorney have failed to adequately respond to these attempts.
19) My clients’ primary interest is to create a safe educational environment which has been damaged as a result of Professor Kaplan’s statements and subsequent course of conduct. My clients are also concerned with the harm caused to the Hmong community and others affected by Professor Kaplan statements and conduct.
20) My clients wish Professor Kaplan to acknowledge the fact that his statements were offensive and an inaccurate description of Hmong people in Wisconsin as well as across the United States. Additionally, Professor Kaplan must understand that regardless of his intent, that such statements have had a detrimental affect and will continue to have a harmful impact on all Hmong people, unless his statements are publicly corrected.
21) My clients’ objective is not to ruin the UW Law School’s reputation. It does not serve their interests or that of their colleagues to damage the Law School’s reputation.
22) My clients have always protected the Law School’s reputation by not discussing the incident in detail, either in recounting the classroom incident on February 15th, 2007 or the subsequent meeting on February 20th, 2007.
23) As stated, my clients are committed to resolving these concerns through the University’s internal administrative procedures. However, the resolution of this conflict must satisfy the greater community demand for accountability as well. See attached letter from various members, WABA, NAPABA-MN chapter, SEARAC.
In closing, please do not hesitate to contact me with any further questions or comments.
Best Regards,
Attorney at Law
CERTIFIED U.S. MAIL
Dean Kenneth B. Davis, Jr.
University of Wisconson Law Building
975 Bascom Mall
Room 5211A
Madison, WI 53706-1399
Re: Chapter 9 Statement
Dear Honorable Dean Davis:
I am writing you on behalf of my clients regarding the following Chapter 9 statement requesting administrative procedure to resolve the events occurring on and after February 15th, 2007, within Professor Kaplan’s Legal Process Class.
1) My clients are law students at the UW Law School. During the Spring 2007 semester, they were all enrolled in Legal Process with Professor Leonard Kaplan.
2) My clients are filing this complaint about 1) Professor Kaplan’s statements during his February 15th lecture and 2) for his behavior during a February 20th meeting with my clients.
3) Attached for your review, is a letter documenting the students’ recollection of Professor Kaplan’s statements which was delivered to Dean Davis. Also attached, is a post event transcript of the subsequent meeting with my clients.
4) My clients are prepared to give, under oath, the same statements within the informal transcripts if necessary.
5) My clients, as future attorneys, shall be stewards and defenders of the Constitutions of Wisconsin and the United States. Incumbent in this is the responsibility to ensure that the basic rights and fundamental equality afforded to all human beings in the Bill of Rights shall be defended at all costs and will not be swept aside or be violated under the guise of academic freedom.
6) My clients are fully committed to resolving their concerns through the University’s administrative procedures as outlined in Chapter 9 and if necessary, Chapter 36.
7) My clients’ concerns stem from the classroom statements made on February 15th which Professor Kaplan did not deny when they were discussed at length in the meeting on February 20th, 2007. In fact, Professor Kaplan referenced his statements on several occasions during the meeting. This is contrary to his public statement made two weeks after the classroom incident.
8) Professor Kaplan’s statements were patently offensive regardless of intent. My clients have always assumed that Professor Kaplan’s intent was not malicious.
9) Professor Kaplan’s offensive and inaccurate statements about the Hmong community in Wisconsin served little academic purpose. Instead of dispelling myths and stereotypes, Professor Kaplan propagated and reinforced them. The students were not challenged regarding their views of the Hmong community in Wisconsin, as Professor Kaplan only made these comments after ascertaining that no one in the class was familiar with the Hmong people. Professor Kaplan also failed to provide other examples of cultural clash, other racial stereotypes or other examples of racial imbalances in his lecture on legal formalism.
10) Professor Kaplan’s offensive and inaccurate statements regarding the Hmong community in Wisconsin are particularly harmful because Professor Kaplan is in a position to greatly influence the perception of the students in his class. This is especially true as Professor Kaplan made these statements after determining that there was no one familiar with the Hmong community in his classroom. Thus, these statements would be taken at face value.
11) Professor Kaplan’s inaccurate statements made in class referring to the Hmong community were only substantiated by his anecdotal beliefs. Not once during the February 15th lecture did Professor Kaplan cite a study or published work to support his presentation of these purported facts. In applying a higher burden to his students than to himself, Professor Kaplan demanded my clients provide sources and citations. My clients then organized a forum with twice-nominated Nobel Peace Prize candidate, Dr. Jane Hamilton-Merritt, to satisfy Professor Kaplan’s request and to prove the inaccuracy of his classroom statements. Professor Kaplan failed to attend after confirming in writing that he would be present at the forum.
12) At the advice of the Law School Administration, my clients met with Professor Kaplan on February 20th, 2007. This meeting lasted for over two hours. A concerned law school administrator eventually checked in on the progress of this unusually long meeting and overheard parts of the meeting.
13) Professor Kaplan did not address my clients’ concerns during the course of the meeting.
14) Rather, Professor Kaplan conducted himself in a threatening, patronizing and unprofessional manner. He rose from his seat, raised his voice, threateningly leaned towards the students and pounded his fist on the table. Professor Kaplan chose to conduct himself in this manner despite the fact that at many points in the meeting one or more of my clients was visibly shaking and in tears.
15) Professor Kaplan’s hostile conduct clearly harmed my clients’ trust in the University of Wisconsin and the UW Law School.
16) My clients are entitled to a learning environment in which they are not subjected to hostility for defending their beliefs, cultural heritage and desire for a truly diverse academic classroom environment.
17) The incident has already resulted in multiple retaliations against my clients including hate emails and personal verbal attacks. Furthermore, various professors have denounced the students in both local and national media forums. Other professors have also made disparaging remarks in the classroom regarding this situation.
18) My clients have made numerous attempts to resolve this issue with Professor Kaplan, including meeting with Professor Kaplan, meeting with his colleagues, and eventually requesting third party mediation. Professor Kaplan and his attorney have failed to adequately respond to these attempts.
19) My clients’ primary interest is to create a safe educational environment which has been damaged as a result of Professor Kaplan’s statements and subsequent course of conduct. My clients are also concerned with the harm caused to the Hmong community and others affected by Professor Kaplan statements and conduct.
20) My clients wish Professor Kaplan to acknowledge the fact that his statements were offensive and an inaccurate description of Hmong people in Wisconsin as well as across the United States. Additionally, Professor Kaplan must understand that regardless of his intent, that such statements have had a detrimental affect and will continue to have a harmful impact on all Hmong people, unless his statements are publicly corrected.
21) My clients’ objective is not to ruin the UW Law School’s reputation. It does not serve their interests or that of their colleagues to damage the Law School’s reputation.
22) My clients have always protected the Law School’s reputation by not discussing the incident in detail, either in recounting the classroom incident on February 15th, 2007 or the subsequent meeting on February 20th, 2007.
23) As stated, my clients are committed to resolving these concerns through the University’s internal administrative procedures. However, the resolution of this conflict must satisfy the greater community demand for accountability as well. See attached letter from various members, WABA, NAPABA-MN chapter, SEARAC.
In closing, please do not hesitate to contact me with any further questions or comments.
Best Regards,
Attorney at Law
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)