Shaping Justice Conference

Alex Haden '17
Editor-in-Chief

This weekend, February 3rd-4th, the Shaping Justice conference will kick off at UVa Law. The conference is being held in honor of the Mortimer Caplin Public Service Center’s twentieth anniversary. The conference’s goal is to inspire both students and practitioners to take the formation and processes of the law into their own hands in order to provide justice to all people. Participants will be encouraged to collaborate and discuss the various means to use the legal system in order to fix the injustices that exist in the country and the world.

The Public Interest Law Association (PILA) has been very involved in the planning and creation of the event. PILA President Teresa Hepler noted that:

“The goal with the conference was to bring UVa more into the spotlight when it comes to public interest and to allow students in the region to collaborate on ways to provide equal access to justice to those who are still not receiving it in the 21st century.  We are honoring the Public Service Center’s 20th anniversary in the launch of the conference, because the office has done so much to expand public interest at the law school and put students in careers that allow them to “shape justice.”  The conference is nonpartisan, providing varying viewpoints about particular crises in justice (criminal, environmental, housing, etc.) and hopefully inspiring students to ask more questions about the legal system and generate ideas on how to improve it.  We also wanted to give students not just ideas but tools on how to implement those ideas, hence the workshops.”

The event kicks off on Friday, February 3rd with a welcome address from Dean Risa Goluboff. Following her address, participants may choose between a set of three concurrent panel sessions: (1) Building Wealth: Expanding Economic Opportunities through Land, Housing, and Development (sponsored by the Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law); (2) Before, During, and After: Issues Facing Women in the Criminal Justice System (sponsored by Women of Color, Feminist Legal Forum, and the Virginia Law in Prison Project); and (3) Environmental Justice and the Law: Attorneys’ Many Roles in Combatting Environmental Injustice (sponsored by Virginia Environmental Law Forum).

A second set of concurrent panel sessions will immediately follow: (1) Crime, Youth, and Justice: A Multidisciplinary Approach (sponsored by the National Lawyers Guild, UVA Chapter and Child Advocacy Research and Education); (2) Invisible Violence: Increasing Awareness and Improving Aid for Domestic Violence Victims in Underrepresented Communities (sponsored by the Domestic Violence Project, LAMBDA Law Alliance, and the Virginia Journal of Criminal Law); and (3) Fair Housing and Civil Rights in Virginia (sponsored by the Black Law Students Association, UVA Chapter and Center for the Study of Race and Law). A networking reception will follow immediately in the Karsh Student Center Atrium (right outside of Admissions).

The next day, the conference starts with a breakfast session where students interested in various practice areas can gather in groups to discuss various ideas and tips pertaining to that area of public interest law. The next event is a set of concurrent sessions of workshops designed to help students learn how to apply the tools they have to the issues that have been discussed throughout the conference. These workshops include client interviews, identifying human trafficking, handling trauma with clients and victims, community organizing, and lawyering in the field of civil rights. 

The main event of the day is a lunch with the Keynote speaker, Robin Steinberg. Hepler noted that Steinberg was selected as the keynote speaker because she embodies the goals of the conference, since she founded the Bronx Defenders in order to provide legal services to people who were in real need of those services. Steinberg’s list of accomplishments is lengthy and impressive, as shown on the program website:

“Robin Steinberg is a leader and a pioneer in the field of indigent defense. In 1997, Robin founded The Bronx Defenders, where she developed holistic defense – a client-centered model of public defense that uses interdisciplinary teams to address the underlying causes and collateral consequences of criminal justice involvement. She is the co-founder of The Bronx Freedom Fund, the first charitable bail organization in New York State, and the project lead for Still She Rises, Tulsa, the first public defender office in the country dedicated exclusively to the representation of women with children. Robin has been honored by the National Legal Aid & Defender Association for her “exceptional vision, devotion, and service in the quest for equal justice,” and by the New York Bar Association for her “outstanding contributions to the delivery of defense services.” She has taught trial skills at various law schools and travels nationally and internationally speaking about holistic defense.  Robin is the author of a number of articles, including: “Police Power and the Scaring of America: A Personal Journey” (Yale L. &; Pol’y Rev. 2016); “Shared Roots and Shared Commitments: The Centrality of Social Work to Holistic Defense” (Hamishpat  L. Rev., 2016); “Broken Windows Policing and Community Courts: An Unholy Alliance” (Cardozo L. Rev. 2016); “Heeding Gideon’s Call in the 21st Century: Holistic Defense and the New Public Defense Paradigm” (Wash. & Lee L. Rev., Summer 2013); and “Beyond Lawyering: How Holistic Lawyering Makes for Good Public Policy, Better Lawyers, and More Satisfied Clients” (N.Y.U. Rev. L. &; Soc. Change, 2006), among others.”

More information is available on PILA’s website, found here: http://pilaatuva.weebly.com/program.html. 

---

ach7pa@virginia.edu

Safe Spaces and Why You Already Believe in Them

Rachel Gallagher '19
Guest Columnist

 I am writing this article in response to, but not debating, all the points made by the article “Don’t Give Me Shelter” by Betsy Hedges. 

I think a lot of people have some misconceptions about safe spaces, what they are, where they came from, and how long they’ve been around. To many people, they are a product of the millennial generation, associated with stereotypes regarding hurt feelings, political correctness, extreme feminism and the modern day “social justice warriors.”

    What is a safe space? To me, the first thing that comes to mind is not the cordoned off rooms the Law School provided in the wake of the presidential election, but perhaps one of the earliest so-called “safe spaces:” Alcoholics Anonymous. AA is the quintessential example of a safe space: a place where members can gather and share feelings or experiences without being criticized, judged, or told that the entirety of their problems lay at their feet; they may also share experiences and thoughts that will not follow them into their daily life. And while I’m painting with a rather broad brush here, I think we can agree that a safe space is a meeting place where people share their feelings and issues dealing with experiences the majority of us might never encountered—including substance abuse, PTSD, eating disorders, the aftermath of rape, or, dare I say it, experiences with racism and unfounded hatred.

As Ms. Hedges hits on, safe spaces do serve a need in the community – the need to discuss real and valid feelings and concerns without fear of them being dismissed, ignored, or held against that person’s character in their daily life. Where we disagree is whether or not it is appropriate for the Law School to provide a room for such a space. Is there really any harm in allowing temporary and limited spaces for people to discuss their concerns and fears following a long year of inflammatory and fear-inspiring rhetoric, even if there have not been any threats of violence on grounds? Especially if the man who has been elected president was endorsed by the KKK, has a history of decrying entire races and religions, and has advocated for war crimes and still had the approval of a large swath of the population? I have no problem with allowing a safe space in this situation, just as I would have no problem with the school letting a room to other group therapy or community healing events.

To be clear, I am not advocating for the entirety of the Law School, or of any school, to transform into a 24/7 expansive safe space where only like-minded people can yell into a liberal echo-chamber and disagreements are not allowed—merely for the allowance for temporally and spatially limited spaces for people to discuss concerns without fear of dismissal or misunderstandings. 

The founder of AA was a former student at my undergraduate university, Norwich University, which is a private military college in the state of Vermont. My second year, I lived in the dorm that bears his name. Today, my alma mater is filled with hopeful military officers who look upon safe spaces and the like in a derogatory and dismissive manner, even as I know several alums who partake in AA for their own problems. I would ask them the same I ask of you: if you are okay with safe spaces for some groups but not for all groups, take a moment of introspection and ask yourself why you believe that some people deserve to have their issues and experiences validated while many others just need to “act like grown-ups.”

---

rad7ej@virginia.edu

MPRE-Weee!

Alex Haden '17
Editor-in-Chief

For those of you who aren’t 3Ls or super gunnery 2Ls, a few weeks ago was 2016’s final iteration of the much-beloved legal ethics test, the MPRE. The MPRE stands for Making People Really Ethical, which is ironic, because no one really prepares for this test for more than a day or two. For that one uncle in your family who always makes “crooked lawyer” jokes at Thanksgiving, you can show him this article to detail the excruciating and needless pain that the MPRE forces law school students to endure.

The first ridiculous thing about the MPRE is that it’s one of those multiple choice tests where you have to select the BEST answer. Not the correct answer. The best answer. Anyone who suffered through these miserable kinds of tests as a kid knows the absolute absurdity of these kinds of questions. For example: “Which of the following is a type of weather? A. games B. pain C. lead pencils D. chair.” The correct answer is B, pain, because it rhymes with “rain.” BEST ANSWER. Get out of here. 

The MPRE is supposed to test us on our ability to be ethical lawyers by posing various hypotheticals to us. The laughable part of these hypotheticals is that somehow we, as junior or less-than-junior attorneys, could ever be in such positions of power where we could be unethical. The only applicable question is the one where your supervising attorney tells you to do Action X, even though you think Action X violates the Rules of Professional Responsibility. The laughably “correct” answer is that you shouldn’t do Action X and tell your boss exactly why. I’d like to meet the first-year associate who informs the partner, “Your conduct might be running afoul of one of the Model Rules and I’d like you to reconsider your action.”

The MPRE is also somewhat useless because we are being tested on the Model Rules, which very few, if any, states actually have adopted in their entirety. It seems silly to learn about rules that may not actually be applicable for our jurisdiction, especially if the real rules are actually the opposite of the Model Rules. If only there were a test designed specifically for our jurisdiction that was designed to make sure we were competent for that specific jurisdiction. But since there isn’t any such test that we will have to take after law school, we are forced to take the MPRE to become ethical. 

The other substantive annoying aspect of the MPRE is that we have to learn about the judicial code of ethics. As in, the code of ethics for JUDGES. Why on earth would that be necessary for us to be proper lawyers? Most of us will never become judges, and for the few of us who will become judges, that career move won’t happen for at least three decades. We’ll be lucky enough if we remember torts when we’re that age, let alone remembering what campaign contributions are acceptable for us to receive from family members and political parties. 

Then there are the 500 crazy procedural hoops that you have to jump through just to get to test day. First, you have to pay a ridiculous sum of money – ninety-five dollars – just to be able to sit for the test. Heaven forbid that you miss the early registration deadline, or else you are subjected to the late registration fee: $190. Do you know how many drinks at the Bilt that is? Enough to make you more ethical than the MPRE will help you to be. Also, the test is only offered three times a year, at extremely inconvenient times: (1) right around spring break; (2) in August, during vacation time after working for the summer; and (3) in November. Usually we’re busy working on our no-shave November beards right now. So these times aren’t really great for our schedule.

Then, you have to carefully print out your exam ticket (don’t be fooled, it’s not a fun kind of ticket). You then have to secure a passport photo that you can attach to the ticket. You might be confused by this requirement. Wouldn’t a government-issued ID be much more simple to prove your identity? You’re right, but a government-issued ID is ALSO required to take the test. The passport photo is just gravy on top of your passport or driver’s license, which apparently isn’t all that official or valid for the MPRE administration. So you’ve gotta march down to CVS and get your passport photo taken, which costs a whopping $13. CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS MADNESS? IT’S LIKE CVS AND THE MPRE ARE IN CAHOOTS! FOLLOW THE MONEY. Plus, that guy at CVS who takes the photos is very chatty and asks a lot about your day and law school, and I’m really just trying to get home and talk to no one. 

Then, once you’ve secured said passport photo, you have to tape – NOT STAPLE – the photo to your admission ticket. However, the photo has to fit inside of the specified box, and the box is too small to fit a standard passport photo. So you have to cut your photo down to an acceptably small but not too small size, just to appease the MPRE Gods who will rip up your ticket and your future if you fail to follow their exact instructions. You are also forbidden from bringing a cellphone, which makes some amount of sense; however, the testers will suggest that those who accidentally brought a phone should hide it in the bushes outside for “safekeeping.” 

The rest of the requirements are also strict and draconian. The MPRE subscribes to the ridiculous requirement that we use number two lead. I don’t even know what that means. It has something to do with how soft the lead is, but what does that mean? Don’t answer questions with questions please. Also, it’s 2016. It’s time that we make a machine that can read pen like a freaking adult. You also aren’t allowed to bring a watch in, because knowing the time is unethical. Unless you’re billing for it. But you can’t bill for the MPRE. Or for being ethical. And apparently, at UVa, you’ll have to contend with screaming sorority girls outside of your testing room for half an hour. 

All in all, the MPRE is a series of nonsensical hurdles that require you to bend, twist, limbo, and contort yourself to attempt to pass. And if you don’t manage to pick enough of the “best” answers, you have to repeat the entire process. One day, someone in power will realize the folly of this test, or we’ll all get smart like Maryland and stop requiring it. But until that time, I wish you luck on the test, and remember, always pick the second-most ethical answer. Which is answer B. 

---

ach7pa@virginia.edu

---

1     Or you can just have some more Thanksgiving cheer, a.k.a. vodka and cranberry sauce.

Get into the Holiday Spirit

Jacqueline Malzone '19
Guest Columnist

It is finally Christmastime! (Like officially; not that day-after-Halloween crap that had Elf memes plastering my Facebook newsfeed.) It is undoubtedly the best time of the year– everything is lit up beautifully, the crisp air brings the scent of snow, the best cookies are made, the jolliest songs are played, Starbucks cups are red, and of course we cannot forget about the endless Secret Santa exchanges! I don’t know how more people are not already getting into the spirit.

    I walked into my apartment after coming back from Thanksgiving in New Jersey, and my roommate says to me, “Aren’t you a strange little Jewish girl with your box of Christmas decorations!” My only response was that I was shocked that she did not have her own box of holiday décor! Yes, I am proudly Jewish, but the evergreen back at home is not a Channukah bush, it is a Christmas tree. The fireplace is lined with stockings, Santas and reindeer are scattered throughout the house, and a wreath hangs outside our front door.

    Christmas has never been about Jesus for me. Christmas is a time to be with family. It is one of the rare times that my siblings and I bond when we trim the tree and decorate the house, reminiscing over old Christmases and stories of past snow days. My Catholic grandma comes home from church to teach me all her special holiday recipes. I get the chance to prove how well I really know my family and friends when I find them the perfect gift and get to see the look of pure joy when they open them. 

I’m not the only Jew who loves Christmastime. I will never forget the time I bonded with my very Jewish grandfather over the holiday. We picked him up for lunch one day, and my dad went to turn off the Christmas music in the car, so as not to offend him. To our surprise, though, he scolded my father and made him put the music back on! His reason for loving the music? “Jews wrote those songs,” he said, so nonchalantly, as he went on to hum along with the tunes. Christmas is a time for spreading joy to everyone, regardless of religious background or upbringing. Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, and agnostics alike – we can all benefit from spreading a little Christmas cheer.

When you walk into my apartment, you are all but assaulted by the holiday explosion; but it feels like a hug when you sit on the couch, all the lights glowing and the smell of our seasonal candles wafting in the air. We go to law school, and as much as we all want to be here because we want to be lawyers, we have to admit (especially the 1Ls) that this time of year sucks for us. We spend as much time as possible in the library, meticulously editing outlines, stumbling through practice problems, and wondering what the future will hold for us. And let’s not even delve into the mess of anxiety people are feeling after the elections year. With all this stress just piling on, we need a source of comfort!

You might be wondering what makes me so sure that Christmas is the kind of comfort we require. There is proof that Christmas is comforting to people generally. Not many people at this school, I would guess, are old enough to remember a time when holiday music was not played non-stop on the radio for weeks before Christmas day. However, it was not until 9/11 that this became regular practice. The reason? People were scared and depressed and entertainers felt that putting all of us in the Christmas spirit would help give the nation hope and relax for a short while. This is why we need Christmas spirit now. Call it a distraction, call it a security blanket, call it whatever you like. But no matter who you are, it is okay to feel that Kris Kringle mood and want to spread a little joy to your fellow Lawhoos. If you are anywhere near as stressed and anxious as I am, then you could definitely use some cheer in your day.

So head over to Michael’s or Bed Bath and Beyond down at Barracks and pick up some string lights, a wreath, or a tree. Stop at Harris Teeter or Kroger and buy some eggnog and gingerbread cookies. Hop into Yankee Candle and get a crackling candle that smells like cookies. Switch from your usual playlist to the Christmas stations on Pandora or Spotify or iHeartRadio – whatever you prefer. Sit down and soak in the Christmas. Share it with your friends and take that deep breath and relax.

It might not be snowing in Charlottesville, but we can do everything else to make it the perfect holiday season. It’s the most wonderful time of the year– embrace it!

---

jem7my@virginia.edu

In Defense of Safe Spaces

Tex Pasley '17
Guest Columnist

In the barrage of post-election commentary, I was unsurprised to see that some students objected to (or mocked) the law school’s provision of “safe spaces” in light of the election results. While I grasp the spirit of these responses, the underlying reasoning belies a misunderstanding both of what safe spaces are for, and the very damaging hyper-political effects Trump’s campaign and election on has had on our society in general, and students at this Law School in particular.

This column makes three claims. First, we need an appropriate definition of what a “safe space” is, and the function it serves. Second, with this understanding, I think we can see that the Law School already provides “safe spaces” for all students. Finally, by recognizing that Donald Trump’s election already stands as an historical event that transcends politics, I think we will find that the administration’s response was entirely appropriate, and will probably not produce thin-skinned lawyers in the process.

When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.

—George Orwell, Politics and the English Language 

This to-and-fro over “safe spaces” has become tiresome. The debate really calcified around this very time last year when students at Yale and the University of Missouri successfully forced the resignation of campus officials for different incidents that a large population of students found offensive. From that point, we’ve retreated into two camps, working from two different lexicons. Terms like “trigger warning,” “micro-aggression,” “free speech,” and “safe space” have lost whatever original meaning they had, and are merely verbal grenades, lobbed into the opposing trench with the remote promise of scoring a direct hit.

My hope is that, if nowhere else, we can halt this trend here at UVa Law. So to begin, we need to understand that the term “safe space” is not unique to our political moment; it arose in the gay, lesbian, and feminist movements of the 1960’s and 70’s. As Moira Kenney writes in her book Mapping Gay L.A., safe spaces provided an important stepping stone for gays and lesbians seeking wider social acceptance:

Gays and lesbians live in cities they have mapped for their own purposes: neighborhoods discreetly appropriated in forgotten zones, street corners where kisses can be exchanged proudly, and community centers to provide safe space for coming-out or mobilizing activists. And then there are the places where none of these things can happen, where gay bashing and subtler forms of heterosexism are expected and feared. The experience of being part of, and subject to, the life of the city, combined with the search for specific spaces that permit and affirm one’s own way of being, are the key elements in such maps.

To be sure, the use of explicitly defined safe spaces is controversial within activist movements. Those critiques are not the point of this piece.

But we need to recognize, as a matter of first principle, we all make use of safe spaces. In the quote above, Kenney juxtaposes the “discreetly appropriated” neighborhoods against the city at-large. As humans, we fundamentally require “specific spaces that permit and affirm one’s own way of being,” and we use them all the time. Many of us went home or visited family for Thanksgiving, and I suspect most of us like to unwind from a long week by going to a bar or a friend’s house for drinks. While we don’t call our parents’ house or the local watering hole a “discreetly appropriated safe space,” we should recognize that what we are, in fact, deliberately entering a safe space. Beneath all of this is the simple recognition that, as human beings, we cannot fully participate in public life all the time.

Accepting this understanding, we should further recognize that Donald Trump’s election was not the Law School’s first attempt to create a safe space. Directly, the Office of Student Affairs and Student Bar Association have sponsored events covering issues such as mental health and privilege. One purpose of these events—I suspect—was to offer a safe space where students could communicate with each other in a permissive and affirmative manner on subjects they feel uncomfortable discussing with the wider student body. The upshot is that, afterward, students (myself included) feel more comfortable engaging with their peers. Such a state of affairs should lead to a more dynamic, welcoming, and “collegial” student body.

Indirectly, of course, the Law School Foundation bankrolls student organizations that provide comfortable spaces for all sorts of affinity groups, including but not limited to Democrats, Republicans, women, feminists, and Jewish, Christian, Catholic, and Mormon students (and many others). Universities, and law schools in particular, are designed to be places where ideas are exchanged freely and openly. The inevitable consequence is that everyone, at one point or another in the course of her education, struggles to reconcile her personal convictions with what she learns in class. We should recognize that whenever a student organization hosts a potluck, faculty dinner, or similar outing, it’s providing a safe space to its members. By providing this affirmative space, students can return to class more energized, refreshed, and willing to engage with the wider student body.

Once we attach the “safe space” label to these activities, an unfortunate and inevitable knee-jerk reaction occurs—we are now “coddling” its students. As Betsey Hedges puts it, “the Law School administration is not assisting us in developing the resilience we will need in the legal profession.”

I am not yet part of the legal profession, so I cannot speak to what sort of resilience is required. Yet Ms. Hedges fears that when the school provides us with safe spaces, it treats us like “juveniles”, which will in turn make us ineffectual, namby-pamby lawyers (or something). I find this response particularly troubling in this for two reasons.

For one, while we can all look forward to careers working long hours as we perform intellectually rigorous and morally demanding tasks, I would also expect our administration to recognize that lawyers are abnormally susceptible to depression, substance abuse, and divorce. Not unrelatedly, it is also a profession where people from disadvantaged or historically oppressed backgrounds feel unwelcome. I hope that—as a future training ground for lawyers—our Law School administration is attentive and responsive to these concerns. By unilaterally concluding that a safe space “defrocks us of our sense of responsibility,” all we do is retrench the very real and negative personal consequences we face for choosing this line of work without really giving any of us guidance in how to become (truly) socially responsible and resilient attorneys.

And second, in the context of the most recent election, this response displays a blissful unawareness of our political reality. The most recent Law Weekly contained plenty of able commentary on this point, and I’m not going to rehash it here; the world certainly does not need another Donald Trump think-piece. But we must acknowledge that Donald Trump is a disturbing president-elect.

No major party presidential candidate in my lifetime, and probably no candidate since Richard Nixon or Barry Goldwater, has appealed so directly to the racist and sexist id of our electorate. Either on Trump’s own, or through his surrogates, he has suggested policies or made remarks that goad others to act on their base impulses by—for example—suggesting we reinstate the Eisenhower administration’s “Operation Wetback” program, suggesting that all Muslims entering the United States sign up for a registry (citing the WWII use of Japanese internment camps as precedent), and doubling down when he was accused of sexual assault by multiple women during the campaign (suggesting they were not attractive enough for him to assault). 

Of course, that does not necessarily mean Donald Trump, the person, holds these views, or that he will implement these policies. But many people—including many students at this law school—are rightfully scared about the consequences and their own personal safety. The election of Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, or whoever else is not the same; it’s a difference between being upset about the normal political consequences of an election, and being actually fearful for your safety. 

When the name of our next President is appearing next to swastikas and the Ku Klux Klan is again a public presence, we have a responsibility to push back and reach out, both in general and within our law school community. By acknowledging the potential effects of this election, and providing students space within our community to process those effects, the Administration took the appropriate steps. 

---

crp5vw@virginia.edu

The Impermanence of Progress

Hunter Hampton '19
Guest Columnist

Still reeling from a loss we never saw coming, progressives are grasping for an explanation: Why? Here’s one answer: Progressives lost because our message was directed towards an America we wanted to exist, rather than the America that does exist. 

Although many great successes have been achieved over the last eight years, the march to full equality is never complete. It’s a sad fact of life that no victory is ever fully won, but it’s the truth, and there’s a grave danger in pretending that the promise of America has ever been fully achieved for anyone. Progress isn’t permanent. It can decay, which is exactly what is happening in America’s forgotten Heartland. 

Now, the present situation of blue-collar white Americans is not as dire as that of African-Americans in the time of the Jim Crow laws. It’s not as dire as that of Asian-Americans during the Chinese Exclusion Act or Japanese internment during World War II. It’s not as dire as that of the millions of law-abiding, but undocumented, Latino immigrants who came to this country because to them, America still embodies the promise of freedom and opportunity. No. Theirs was, and is, a worse lot. The problem is that, rightly or wrongly, blue-collar white Americans fear that they are headed in the same direction. Donald Trump won because he—crudely, coarsely, racist-ly—tapped into those fears. But this does not mean that his supporters are crude, coarse, racists. Rather, it means that they are scared of what the future holds for them, and it means that no one else was acknowledging that fear. This is precisely where we progressives dropped the ball. Our blindness to the impermanence of progress cost us this election.

November 8th made one thing clear: progressives can’t just stand up for those who are already the victims of oppression and disadvantage. We must also stand up for those who fear oppression and disadvantage, whether or not they have yet to be oppressed or disadvantaged. Don’t scoff. You might think that this is ridiculous, that progressives would obviously never oppress blue-collar white folks. But that thinking is not only wrong-headed, it’s dangerous. To ignore the fears and grievances of one group of Americans may not be active oppression, but it is passive oppression. It is condescending and patronizing to an entire group of people to say that we know better, and that they have nothing to worry about. This, despite the fact that cities, towns, and rural areas all across the Rust Belt and Appalachia are shedding jobs in the thousands while a drug epidemic sweeps in to fill the void left by a lack of opportunity, a future, and a voice for change. 

Here’s an oft-forgotten fact: it was not until 1856 that all white men could vote. Before this, many states required property ownership before you could cast a ballot. Rich white people have never been oppressed in the United States, but poor white people have. It was just a lot longer ago than we tend to remember. In this election, we operated under the assumption that the fullness of liberty and opportunity had already been extended to all white people, conclusively and permanently. But as it turns out, many of them felt the promise of America slipping away. 

In advocating our vision for the future, we can never take for granted the progress achieved long ago. Now, in the shambles of our defeat, we need to reach out beyond our liberal bastions, where the victory already seemed won, to the Americans who were rolling their eyes at our own smug blindness. Because in their towns, our victorious mindset seemed hopelessly out of touch.

---

hah8ew@virginia.edu