-thumb-110x110-461780.jpg)
Simply Wrong Food: IHOP's Holiday Pancakes
Eat My Blog: Blogger Bake Sale Will Benefit LA Foodbank
DVD Review: Kobe Doin' Work
-thumb-110x110-461916.jpg)
Alice Cooper, Ace Frehley @ Nokia Theater 10/28/09
Review: Living In Emergency
Dean Ken Starr of Pepperdine's School of Law is representing Prop 8 today at the California Supreme Court, which has alumni angry. "As dean of our alma mater, your advocacy on behalf of Proposition 8 is not only disappointing, it is a disgrace," an open letter to him posted on Facebook says. "While we support any individual's right to free speech, your views and actions are a de facto representation and reflection of Pepperdine University School of Law, as you are its figurehead, and we strongly urge the School of Law to make a public statement underscoring its desire for diversity, which includes lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students." The University did distance themselves from Prop 8 commercials before the November election, but no press release is posted on their website stating the school's separation from today's case. Full press release from alumni is below.
Subject: Pepperdine School of Law Alumni protest Ken Starr’s representation of the Yes on Prop 8 coalitionOn Thursday, March 5, 2009, Ken Starr, dean of Pepperdine University School of Law (SOL), will go before the California Supreme Court to defend the validity of the Proposition 8 ballot measure banning gay marriage in California. A diverse group of alumni (Alumni) from the SOL, straight and LGBT alike, have crafted a letter in opposition to Mr. Starr’s advocacy on behalf of the Yes on 8 coalition. “We have no issue with Dean Starr’s personal right to free speech on Prop 8, but the School of Law has not made any effort to separate itself from Mr. Starr’s upcoming appearance before the Supreme Court on this divisive issue, nor has the school made any statement affirming its desire for diversity and inclusion amongst its student body,” said Vikki Karan, one of the Alumni organizers.
The Alumni wish to express their disappointment in Mr. Starr’s advocacy of the Yes on 8 coalition for three reasons:1. Mr. Starr is the figurehead and public face for the SOL and his personal position on Prop 8 has, in effect, become the de facto position of the SOL.
2. The SOL promotes the “diversity” among its student body to prospective students and purports to strive for diversity. Mr. Starr’s representation undermines the validity of those claims and stated goals.
3. The effect of Mr. Starr’s personal actions has a real impact on the SOL’s reputation, current students’ experiences, and the value of its alumni’s degrees.
The former students are requesting a statement from their alma mater that Dean Starr's actions are not representative of the SOL’s position on Prop 8 and that the school supports equality. "We want Dean Starr and Pepperdine School of Law to know many of its students, past, present and future, support full equality not only in California but across the country," said Jeremy Black, an Alumni organizer currently residing in New York.
The Alumni have created a Facebook group entitled, “Pepperdine Law Alums in Support of Repealing Prop 8” and are encouraging members of the group to update their status to speak out for marriage equality and against Dean Starr’s role as advocate for the Yes on Prop 8 groups. The Alumni intend to deliver the letter to Mr. Starr and other officials at Pepperdine University on March 5, 2009, the date of the hearing.
Starr's defense of Prop 8 coincides with this weekend's Pepperdine SOL Alumni Reunion. Starr himself will be attending the 32nd Annual Law School Dinner which begins 6:30pm on Saturday, March 7th at The Beverly Hilton Hotel in Beverly Hills, California. Other activities include a Conversation with Justice Antonin Scalia at 12:30pm on Monday, March 9th at Pepperdine School of Law in Malibu, California. Justice Scalia wrote the dissenting opinion in the landmark 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case, LAWRENCE V. TEXAS where he railed against the "so-called homosexual agenda" and “homosexual activists.”
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
as an alum, I doubt the university will say anything to the public about this. but sadly, I would bet that most people at pepperdine hope starr succeeds.
the facebook group you mention is an encouraging step towards the christian principles of equality and loving your neighbor, but one thing that's disappointing (at least to me) is that for every person who thinks what gays want to do is their own business, there are probably twice as many people in the pepperdine community who not only think that gay marriage is an abomination, but are fully convinced that gay people are sinners and will be punished by God. I live with two guys I graduated with who both are really smart guys but fall into the latter category (and who are also republicans from the south...go figure).
It's amazing how close-minded some of these people are at an academic institution of all places — simply citing interpretive scripture written hundreds of years ago as the basis of their beliefs. And strangely enough, this doesn't seem to bother the abnormally large gay male population at pepperdine's undergraduate college.
for sure a strange brew at pepperdine...
Just goes to show you don't have to be uneducated to be ignorant.
I find it interesting that attorneys can represent murderers, rapists, sports stars and others we may disagree with. But when Dean Starr represents a group that we have issues with it is somehow outrageous and demeans the law school. What small minded people. Dean Starr is a pursuasive orator and we should commend him for the fine job he did and how he upholds the principles of the adversarial process. Three cheers for the school and the Dean.
No disagreement that Dean Starr is a persuasive orator, but it's disappointing to me, as a gay Pepperdine Law alumn, because of what it says about the school and how it will stand out as being on the wrong side of history. Since the school hasn't made any statement distancing itself from Dean Starr's representation of the pro-Prop 8 groups, his position is now the de facto position of Pepperdine. It's unfortunate also because current LGBT students must feel even more marginalized knowing their dean is doing everything he can to strip rights away from them. You can call me small minded, but those of us who have an association with Pepperdine are very much impacted by Dean Starr's actions and have every right to speak up about it.
nick you've got it wrong. attorneys who represent murderers, rapists, etc do so under the banner of the adversarial process, one of the principles of which is that every court defendant has a right to competent counsel. this ensures all defendants are afforded a fair trial. So generally, an attorney representing a murderer in court is not really *supporting* the murderer, or murder itself, but is making sure the murder defendant gets a fair trial.
But, what Ken Starr did had nothing to do with the adversarial process. He was advocating for a sweeping constitutional amendment that deprives a huge group of people of basic civil rights. Completely different kettle of fish. He may be a skilled orator and a smart lawyer, but that is no defense for advocating for a dumb, petty idea.
I work at Pepperdine, and you can count me in as someone who believes in gay marriage. However, I am an agnostic liberal, so I probably don't represent the majority of the staff.
I agree that the school will probably not say anything public about this, unfortunately.
Here's a letter I just sent to Ken Starr in attempts to defuse the whole matter instead of just taking sides:
Dear Dean Starr,
Here is a link to a short article:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html
WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? [9.9.08]
By Jonathan Haidt
One of its premises is that when people have very visceral, strong emotions about something, it effects their ability to think rationally about that subject. The article describes a study the author did in this area that demonstrated this phenomenon quite plainly.
In religious and moral matters, there are many areas that fall into this category. This is sometimes tough to discern, since, for example, regarding murder, it is tough to not get viscerally emotional. Emotion aside, murder also has a rational reason why its not tolerable. However, the rational and emotional aspects of the subject of murder are seldom separated.
Homosexuality invokes the same type visceral emotional response in many people. And that's ok. What's not ok is that it gets confused with what is rational. That's why all the fear and scare tactics are in effort to justify simply how a group of people "feel" about it. The supporters of Prop. 8 are driven by their fear of something that is just too different and alien for their minds to accept. So, it becomes bad, get's irrationally justified, Biblically and otherwise, as bad, and gives otherwise rational individuals, such as yourself, cause to use your resources to abolish it.
An example of what I am trying to communicate: I can tell you from personal observation that the scare tactics, such children exposed to the "immoral character models" of gays makes them immoral, is far more emotionally driven that by reason. What is claimed about moral upbringing doesn't happen any more, or less, in a gay household than in a straight one.
Obviously, the above is in explanation of why I believe you should seriously reconsider speaking out against Prop. 8, and also to please reconsider your position regarding mandatory divorces for some 18,000 married gay Californians in our State.
Thanks for your time and best regards,
Jerry Johansen
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Here's a letter I just sent to Ken Starr in attempts to defuse the whole matter instead of just taking sides:
Dear Dean Starr,
Here is a link to a short article:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html
WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? [9.9.08]
By Jonathan Haidt
One of its premises is that when people have very visceral, strong emotions about something, it effects their ability to think rationally about that subject. The article describes a study the author did in this area that demonstrated this phenomenon quite plainly.
In religious and moral matters, there are many areas that fall into this category. This is sometimes tough to discern, since, for example, regarding murder, it is tough to not get viscerally emotional. Emotion aside, murder also has a rational reason why its not tolerable. However, the rational and emotional aspects of the subject of murder are seldom separated.
Homosexuality invokes the same type visceral emotional response in many people. And that's ok. What's not ok is that it gets confused with what is rational. That's why all the fear and scare tactics are in effort to justify simply how a group of people "feel" about it. The supporters of Prop. 8 are driven by their fear of something that is just too different and alien for their minds to accept. So, it becomes bad, get's irrationally justified, Biblically and otherwise, as bad, and gives otherwise rational individuals, such as yourself, cause to use your resources to abolish it.
An example of what I am trying to communicate: I can tell you from personal observation that the scare tactics, such children exposed to the "immoral character models" of gays makes them immoral, is far more emotionally driven that by reason. What is claimed about moral upbringing doesn't happen any more, or less, in a gay household than in a straight one.
Obviously, the above is in explanation of why I believe you should seriously reconsider speaking out against Prop. 8, and also to please reconsider your position regarding mandatory divorces for some 18,000 married gay Californians in our State.
Thanks for your time and best regards,
Jerry Johansen
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656