{"id":124471,"date":"2025-06-27T08:17:23","date_gmt":"2025-06-27T16:17:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/06\/27\/law-school-dean-shrugs-off-trump-judge-giving-top-grade-to-constitution-is-for-white-people-paper\/"},"modified":"2025-06-27T08:17:23","modified_gmt":"2025-06-27T16:17:23","slug":"law-school-dean-shrugs-off-trump-judge-giving-top-grade-to-constitution-is-for-white-people-paper","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/06\/27\/law-school-dean-shrugs-off-trump-judge-giving-top-grade-to-constitution-is-for-white-people-paper\/","title":{"rendered":"Law School Dean Shrugs Off Trump Judge Giving Top Grade To \u2018Constitution Is For White People\u2019 Paper"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Earlier this week<\/a>, the New York Times<\/a> reported that University of Florida law professor \u2014 Trump-appointed federal judge, by the way \u2014 John L. Badalamenti awarded the top prize in his course to a student on the strength of a paper arguing that the Constitution was written for white people and therefore we shouldn\u2019t have voting rights protections and we should shoot-to-kill migrants making unauthorized border crossings. <\/p>\n

Aside from everything else, the University of Florida law school community has\u2026 concern<\/em>s.<\/p>\n

In an effort to address those worries, Florida dean Merritt McAlister wrote an email to the greater UF Law community to explain the school\u2019s position on the paper. It falls flat. She lays out the requisite affirmations that the paper \u201cdo[es] not reflect the values of UF Law, its faculty, or its administration\u201d and that \u201cWe welcome all, we discriminate against none, and we aim to create a community where students feel a sense of belonging and connection\u2014without experiencing fear or threats or hatred.\u201d<\/p>\n

But from there the letter jumps into so here\u2019s why our top-20 law school is cool with giving top grades to Nazi Constitution fan fiction. <\/p>\n

\n

I understand that these events and this article have caused many in our community pain, disappointment, and fear.\u00a0 I know that many of you are outraged at the law school for not taking the book award away from the student.\u00a0 But the administration does not second-guess grading decisions at the law school, except in very narrow circumstances, and those circumstances did not apply here.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

But this completely misunderstands the problem. The issue isn\u2019t really about changing the grade THIS paper got \u2014 schools shouldn\u2019t generally change grades after the fact \u2014 it\u2019s what the hell is the school doing to prospectively address a professor who thinks this kind of paper is good.<\/p>\n

\n

The paper\u2019s views also in no way reflect the views of the professor in this course.\u00a0 The professor had no knowledge of this student\u2019s history at the law school or his deeply held personal views.\u00a0 The professor took the paper on its face\u2014as a student paper attempting to use originalist methodology to reach a detestable and extreme position.\u00a0 As abhorrent as the paper\u2019s thesis may be, that work still falls within the bounds of academic freedom and the First Amendment, and, as such, was graded consistent with the grading standard for the course.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

No one\u2019s arguing that it falls outside \u201cthe bounds of academic freedom and the First Amendment,\u201d they\u2019re arguing that a paper making a batshit insane argument ripped from the Ku Klux Klan\u2019s online CLE course shouldn\u2019t be the top grade in the class. Isn\u2019t this a law school class? Because part of that requires student work to, you know, REFLECT THE ACTUAL LAW. In Josh Blackman\u2019s contrarian effort to defend the paper<\/a>, he applauded the Bluebooking which the journal editor in me appreciates, but law schools shouldn\u2019t be in the business of giving out top grades for meticulously cited slop. Unless it\u2019s actually the 1L legal writing course maybe.<\/p>\n

This claim that \u201cThe professor took the paper on its face\u2014as a student paper attempting to use originalist methodology to reach a detestable and extreme position\u201d is dubious at best. <\/p>\n

If a student took the Civ Pro issue spotter and wrote \u201cI don\u2019t know about this International Shoe<\/em> stuff because the plaintiff should not accept the authority of the district court because it is an Admiralty Court with gold-fringed flags,\u201d it wouldn\u2019t matter if the prose read like someone put Faulkner, Tolstoy, and Bryan Garner into a human centipede and gave it a typewriter. <\/p>\n

Oh, it\u2019s an originalism course so he was just graded on his ability to use originalism to justify horrible stuff.<\/em> That\u2019s not hard! It\u2019s kind of the whole point of originalism! Actually, scratch that\u2026 the whole point of originalism is getting to a whites-only constitution without looking like that\u2019s what you\u2019re doing<\/em>. So even by the measure of originalism it\u2019s falling short. Anyone can point out the Constitution was intended to benefit a white, slaveholder ethnostate\u2026 the trick of originalism is getting back there through all those pesky Reconstruction amendments. Just handwaving those away is bad originalism.<\/p>\n

\n

Rescinding the honor might feel righteous, but it would betray those principles and set a dangerous precedent in a law school that trains students to confront unpopular ideas and represent unpopular clients.\u00a0 Defending free expression is easiest when we approve of the speech; it is hardest when, as in this instance, the speech tears at the fabric of our community.\u00a0 But that is precisely when our commitment must hold.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Free speech is not a \u201cGet out of being dumb free\u201d card. The kid can write whatever trash viewpoint he wants, but this strays so far from any basic understanding of how constitutional law works that it\u2019s mind-boggling how it could be graded so highly outside of a Roger Taney lookalike contest.<\/p>\n

The paper\u2019s thesis was that putting \u201cWe the People\u201d meant white people originally so therefore we shouldn\u2019t have to honor voting rights protections. We\u2019re not talking about a Brandeis brief here. The Supreme Court wrote \u201cwell-regulated militia\u201d out of the Second Amendment and it\u2019s in the same sentence<\/em>. Even they would balk at porting the first three words of the preamble into striking down the Fifteenth Amendment. It\u2019s just a bad argument unless it\u2019s intended as satire to rip originalism, which it (a) wasn\u2019t and (b) there\u2019s no indication the professor mistakenly thought it was.<\/p>\n

Honestly, the school would be in better shape if instead of \u201cThe professor took the paper on its face\u201d they were able to say \u201cthe professor thought this was the originalism corollary to Jonathan Swift\u2019s Modest Proposal.\u201d That could actually be a quality paper. But that\u2019s not the story. <\/p>\n

\n

We have protected academic freedom and the student\u2019s First Amendment rights while also prioritizing the safety and security of our community.\u00a0 As soon as the student\u2019s conduct became threatening and substantially disruptive, in collaboration with UFPD and UF administration, the student was barred from campus.\u00a0 We heightened security across the college.\u00a0 It is important to note that the escalation in the student\u2019s conduct that led to his trespass happened three months after the book award had been announced in January.<\/p>\n

Sadly, this article has given an extremist provocateur exactly what he wanted: a platform for greater visibility.\u00a0 And it has caused hurt and pain within our community in the process.\u00a0 I also regret that this has led an honorable public servant\u2014one who has served his country for decades as a federal public defender and a federal judge\u2014to receive death threats because of an impartial grading decision he made.\u00a0 No one deserves that treatment for selflessly teaching as a part-time instructor in a law school.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Blaming the messenger? This email is really playing all the hits! Everything was fine before you pesky kids started \u201casking questions about our white nationalism grades!\u201d Yes, it\u2019s very wrong that anyone is getting death threats, but don\u2019t try to foist the blame on people very understandably concerned about the standards at a highly ranked law school. <\/p>\n

It\u2019s probably tough heading a public law school in Florida when Ron DeSantis keeps ranting the institutions of higher learning are just Antifa Hogwarts<\/a>. But it\u2019s one thing to \u201cdefend to the death his right to say it\u201d and another for the dean to shrug off the fact that the school\u2019s credibility is on the line when it hands a gold star to: \u201cWe the People\u201d Means Never Having To Say You\u2019re Sorry (\u2026To Women and Minorities!).<\/em><\/p>\n

Or maybe there really wasn\u2019t any student in the class capable of a better reasoned paper. In which case, Florida would have far, far deeper problems to deal with.<\/p>\n

(Full email on next page\u2026.)<\/em><\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: Trump Judge Gives Nazi-Sympathizing Law Student High Marks For Rehashing Klan Legal Theory Calling For Minority Disenfranchisement And Murdering Immigrants<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Law School Dean Shrugs Off Trump Judge Giving Top Grade To \u2018Constitution Is For White People\u2019 Paper<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Earlier this week<\/a>, the New York Times<\/a> reported that University of Florida law professor \u2014 Trump-appointed federal judge, by the way \u2014 John L. Badalamenti awarded the top prize in his course to a student on the strength of a paper arguing that the Constitution was written for white people and therefore we shouldn\u2019t have voting rights protections and we should shoot-to-kill migrants making unauthorized border crossings. <\/p>\n

Aside from everything else, the University of Florida law school community has\u2026 concern<\/em>s.<\/p>\n

In an effort to address those worries, Florida dean Merritt McAlister wrote an email to the greater UF Law community to explain the school\u2019s position on the paper. It falls flat. She lays out the requisite affirmations that the paper \u201cdo[es] not reflect the values of UF Law, its faculty, or its administration\u201d and that \u201cWe welcome all, we discriminate against none, and we aim to create a community where students feel a sense of belonging and connection\u2014without experiencing fear or threats or hatred.\u201d<\/p>\n

But from there the letter jumps into so here\u2019s why our top-20 law school is cool with giving top grades to Nazi Constitution fan fiction. <\/p>\n

\n

I understand that these events and this article have caused many in our community pain, disappointment, and fear.\u00a0 I know that many of you are outraged at the law school for not taking the book award away from the student.\u00a0 But the administration does not second-guess grading decisions at the law school, except in very narrow circumstances, and those circumstances did not apply here.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

But this completely misunderstands the problem. The issue isn\u2019t really about changing the grade THIS paper got \u2014 schools shouldn\u2019t generally change grades after the fact \u2014 it\u2019s what the hell is the school doing to prospectively address a professor who thinks this kind of paper is good.<\/p>\n

\n

The paper\u2019s views also in no way reflect the views of the professor in this course.\u00a0 The professor had no knowledge of this student\u2019s history at the law school or his deeply held personal views.\u00a0 The professor took the paper on its face\u2014as a student paper attempting to use originalist methodology to reach a detestable and extreme position.\u00a0 As abhorrent as the paper\u2019s thesis may be, that work still falls within the bounds of academic freedom and the First Amendment, and, as such, was graded consistent with the grading standard for the course.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

No one\u2019s arguing that it falls outside \u201cthe bounds of academic freedom and the First Amendment,\u201d they\u2019re arguing that a paper making a batshit insane argument ripped from the Ku Klux Klan\u2019s online CLE course shouldn\u2019t be the top grade in the class. Isn\u2019t this a law school class? Because part of that requires student work to, you know, REFLECT THE ACTUAL LAW. In Josh Blackman\u2019s contrarian effort to defend the paper<\/a>, he applauded the Bluebooking which the journal editor in me appreciates, but law schools shouldn\u2019t be in the business of giving out top grades for meticulously cited slop. Unless it\u2019s actually the 1L legal writing course maybe.<\/p>\n

This claim that \u201cThe professor took the paper on its face\u2014as a student paper attempting to use originalist methodology to reach a detestable and extreme position\u201d is dubious at best. <\/p>\n

If a student took the Civ Pro issue spotter and wrote \u201cI don\u2019t know about this International Shoe<\/em> stuff because the plaintiff should not accept the authority of the district court because it is an Admiralty Court with gold-fringed flags,\u201d it wouldn\u2019t matter if the prose read like someone put Faulkner, Tolstoy, and Bryan Garner into a human centipede and gave it a typewriter. <\/p>\n

Oh, it\u2019s an originalism course so he was just graded on his ability to use originalism to justify horrible stuff.<\/em> That\u2019s not hard! It\u2019s kind of the whole point of originalism! Actually, scratch that\u2026 the whole point of originalism is getting to a whites-only constitution without looking like that\u2019s what you\u2019re doing<\/em>. So even by the measure of originalism it\u2019s falling short. Anyone can point out the Constitution was intended to benefit a white, slaveholder ethnostate\u2026 the trick of originalism is getting back there through all those pesky Reconstruction amendments. Just handwaving those away is bad originalism.<\/p>\n

\n

Rescinding the honor might feel righteous, but it would betray those principles and set a dangerous precedent in a law school that trains students to confront unpopular ideas and represent unpopular clients.\u00a0 Defending free expression is easiest when we approve of the speech; it is hardest when, as in this instance, the speech tears at the fabric of our community.\u00a0 But that is precisely when our commitment must hold.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Free speech is not a \u201cGet out of being dumb free\u201d card. The kid can write whatever trash viewpoint he wants, but this strays so far from any basic understanding of how constitutional law works that it\u2019s mind-boggling how it could be graded so highly outside of a Roger Taney lookalike contest.<\/p>\n

The paper\u2019s thesis was that putting \u201cWe the People\u201d meant white people originally so therefore we shouldn\u2019t have to honor voting rights protections. We\u2019re not talking about a Brandeis brief here. The Supreme Court wrote \u201cwell-regulated militia\u201d out of the Second Amendment and it\u2019s in the same sentence<\/em>. Even they would balk at porting the first three words of the preamble into striking down the Fifteenth Amendment. It\u2019s just a bad argument unless it\u2019s intended as satire to rip originalism, which it (a) wasn\u2019t and (b) there\u2019s no indication the professor mistakenly thought it was.<\/p>\n

Honestly, the school would be in better shape if instead of \u201cThe professor took the paper on its face\u201d they were able to say \u201cthe professor thought this was the originalism corollary to Jonathan Swift\u2019s Modest Proposal.\u201d That could actually be a quality paper. But that\u2019s not the story. <\/p>\n

\n

We have protected academic freedom and the student\u2019s First Amendment rights while also prioritizing the safety and security of our community.\u00a0 As soon as the student\u2019s conduct became threatening and substantially disruptive, in collaboration with UFPD and UF administration, the student was barred from campus.\u00a0 We heightened security across the college.\u00a0 It is important to note that the escalation in the student\u2019s conduct that led to his trespass happened three months after the book award had been announced in January.<\/p>\n

Sadly, this article has given an extremist provocateur exactly what he wanted: a platform for greater visibility.\u00a0 And it has caused hurt and pain within our community in the process.\u00a0 I also regret that this has led an honorable public servant\u2014one who has served his country for decades as a federal public defender and a federal judge\u2014to receive death threats because of an impartial grading decision he made.\u00a0 No one deserves that treatment for selflessly teaching as a part-time instructor in a law school.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Blaming the messenger? This email is really playing all the hits! Everything was fine before you pesky kids started \u201casking questions about our white nationalism grades!\u201d Yes, it\u2019s very wrong that anyone is getting death threats, but don\u2019t try to foist the blame on people very understandably concerned about the standards at a highly ranked law school. <\/p>\n

It\u2019s probably tough heading a public law school in Florida when Ron DeSantis keeps ranting the institutions of higher learning are just Antifa Hogwarts<\/a>. But it\u2019s one thing to \u201cdefend to the death his right to say it\u201d and another for the dean to shrug off the fact that the school\u2019s credibility is on the line when it hands a gold star to: \u201cWe the People\u201d Means Never Having To Say You\u2019re Sorry (\u2026To Women and Minorities!).<\/em><\/p>\n

Or maybe there really wasn\u2019t any student in the class capable of a better reasoned paper. In which case, Florida would have far, far deeper problems to deal with.<\/p>\n

(Full email on next page\u2026.)<\/em><\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: Trump Judge Gives Nazi-Sympathizing Law Student High Marks For Rehashing Klan Legal Theory Calling For Minority Disenfranchisement And Murdering Immigrants<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Law School Dean Shrugs Off Trump Judge Giving Top Grade To \u2018Constitution Is For White People\u2019 Paper<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Earlier this week, the New York Times reported that University of Florida law professor \u2014 Trump-appointed federal judge, by the way \u2014 John L. Badalamenti awarded the top prize in his course to a student on the strength of a paper arguing that the Constitution was written for white people and therefore we shouldn\u2019t have […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":124325,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-124471","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/Headshot-300x200-9WTq7v.jpeg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124471","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=124471"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124471\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/124325"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124471"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124471"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124471"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}