Drug lord, Frank Lopez (Robert Loggia) gives important business advice to Tony Montana (Al Pacino) in the 1983 film, Scarface. His most memorable pearl of wisdom: Don’t get high on your own supply.
Jason
Kilborn is not a character in a Robert Ludlum spy novel. He’s a professor at
the University of Illinois Chicago Law School. While he is not a household
name, he is more famous than he would like to be.
He would not
be at all famous had it not been for the final exam he gave his students in December
2020 on the unsexy topic of civil procedure. Kilborn is a tenured professor who
has taught at the university since 2010.
The exam
included a hypothetical question that had been included in his previous final
exams. This question presented a real-life scenario that essentially asked: What
would you do if you were a lawyer in this situation?
This
real-life scenario contained two real-life words that are not used in civil
conversation. The first word is one I never use and never did use.
One
student’s reaction to those two words set off a cascade of events that placed
Jason Kilborn’s reputation and career squarely on the DEI chopping block.
The
hypothetical question had to do with a Black woman who quit her job and was
suing her employer for fostering a hostile work environment. As the plaintiff
in the case, she alleged that, in a meeting, other managers in the company had
called her a “n _ _ _ _ _ _” (racial slur) and a “b __ _ _ _”. (rhymes with
witch). Those words were intentionally not spelled out on the exam.
I can’t use
the female student’s name because her identity has been kept anonymous. We only
know that she was a member of the UIC Law School chapter of the Black Law
Student Association (BLSA).
BLSA issued
this statement about “the inexcusable usage of ‘n_____’ and ‘b_____’ words on
the exam: “The slur shocked students, created a momentous distraction, and
caused unnecessary distress and anxiety for those taking the exam.”
According to
BLSA, one of their student members complained that seeing the two words on the
exam had given her “heart palpitations.” We don’t know if this student had
taken the exam or if she heard about it from another student. Did she suffer
first-hand palpitations or second-hand palpitations?
BLSA jumped
into action by circulating a petition with a list of demands, which included
suspending the professor from teaching his classes. He was then summoned to
meet with the law school dean where he learned that the dean sided with BLSA.
To put it
mildly, Professor Kilborn was caught off-guard by the student response and by
the dean’s reaction to that response.
He
immediately issued a public apology for using the “offensive language"
that he had previously used without incident and with the knowledge of the
school’s administration.
Believing
that there was a huge misunderstanding, Kilborn agreed to meet with a BLSA leader
to try to clear the air. It was a Zoom meeting that lasted for about four
hours. Kilborn’s impression of the meeting was that it was amicable and had
gone fairly well. He breathed a sigh of relief.
And then he learned that the meeting had resulted in a new
allegation against him that would get him suspended from his teaching duties
and would cost him a scheduled annual pay raise.
About 90
minutes into the Zoom meeting, the BLSA leader asked Kilborn if the dean had
shown him the written BLSA statement. Kilborn said the dean had not, and added that
“maybe she’s afraid if I saw the horrible things said about me. I might become
homicidal.”
The law
professor, having been lulled into a false sense of mutual understanding, was
joking. Big mistake! You don’t joke around with a DEI cop – even an unofficial,
self-appointed DEI cop. Dropping his guard was a serious rookie mistake.
BLSA
reported the “homicidal” comment to the university administration which
determined that Professor Kilborn was a “safety threat,” barred him from
setting foot on campus, and ordered him to meet with mental health
professionals for an assessment.
When he was
allowed to return to campus, his courses had been either canceled or reassigned
and he learned that he was under investigation by the university’s Office of Access
and Equity (OAE) – the official DEI cops.
The
investigation uncovered an even more damning slur uttered by the professor. The
allegation was made that a year before the exam question had generated the
uproar, Kilborn referred to Black students as “cockroaches”.
Now BLSA had
all the ammunition they needed to demand that the tenured professor be fired. Meanwhile,
Kilborn left on a long-planned sabbatical, which I imagine he needed more than
ever. In his absence, BLSA conducted
three campus rallies to pressure the administration to drop the ax on their undeniably
racist professor.
One of the rallies
featured a guest appearance from none other than the 80-year-old Reverand Jesse
Jackson who, standing in solidarity with the protestors, proudly proclaimed: “Students
deserve an environment that’s not hostile. We must act! We will act!”
Before being
allowed to return to his classes, Kilborn had to agree to the satisfactory
completion of a battery of required training courses that included eight weeks of
diversity and sensitivity training, weekly 90-minute sessions with a diversity
trainer, and submission of “self-reflection” papers.
Self-reflection papers? Seriously?
Meanwhile,
the cockroach allegation got legs. The allegation was covered by the local
press and played up on social media. And without a shred of evidence, the university’s
Office of Access and Equity verified that it was true.
And then,
aha!
A recording
of the incident surfaced. Kilborn had indeed used the word cockroaches. He used
it in a class to describe plaintiffs seeking to profit by filing frivolous lawsuits.
Race had absolutely nothing to do with it.
So, was the
Office of Access and Equity embarrassed? Were they apologetic? Of course not. Did
BLSA back off from the false allegation? Why would they? It gave them gotcha! material
for their next grievance.
Professor
Kilborn had not hidden his feelings about his persecution. He was angry and upset.
And because he didn’t hide being angry and upset, he of course presented
a threat to the university because he of course made some students feel
unsafe.
Imagine how
different it would have been had the university’s Office of Access and Equity
guided the heart-palpitating student to the counseling she obviously needed
instead of driving the professor to diversity and sensitivity training.
As a teacher
and mentor, Kilborn’s objective was to send her and her fellow students into
the world as mentally tough, savvy lawyers, prepared to defend their clients
against the real-world ugliness that confronts real-world victims. Instead, he,
himself, was portrayed as the ugliness that needed to be confronted.
Why did OAE
and BLSA do it? The simple answer is: Because they could. They were flexing
their muscles and they were riding a high.
After two
years of being a DEI punching bag, Professor Kilborn sued five members of the
UIC Law School administration in federal court, claiming violations of his
First, Fifth, and 14th Amendment rights. The case is currently working its way
through the courts.
Jason
Kilborn continues to teach law at UIC.
And now I
have two questions.
First, who
is the primary victim in this story? Second, given the executive order of
January 20, 2025, and the federal government's ongoing process of eradicating
DEI, does the first question even matter?
I think it
matters a lot and I will tell you why.
It was in a
state of semi-horror that I watched the Watertown School Committee Meeting of
March 21, 2022, on Zoom, at which a consulting company made a presentation, inspired
by antiracist guru, Ibram X. Kendi, whose books were recommended on Watertown
Public School’s website.
The
consulting company used slides to highlight its “equity action plan.” Two sentences
that popped out and permanently lodged themselves in my brain were:
“Adopt an
equity decision-making framework through which all decisions are reviewed. In
order to end individual, institutional, and structural racism and bias in the
district, all leaders must
consistently and intentionally apply an equity lens to every decision made.”
(The highlighting is mine) The presenter acknowledged that this policy was
already in place at WPS.
From my
disbelief, this blog post was born.
WHEN IT COMES TO RACE,
SHOULD OUR SCHOOLS BE TEACHING KIDS WHAT TO THINK INSTEAD OF HOW TO THINK?
I just
reread that blog post and it nearly gave me heart palpitations. The title of that
post is of course a statement thinly disguised as a question.
When kids are
educated in a DEI cocoon, and then land in an institution of higher learning
where, as a direct result of Trump’s executive order, DEI has now been wiped
from their websites and mission statements − like Northeastern and UMass − and DEI
offices have been closed or renamed, some of those students will experience
culture shock.
How will
they cope when they feel “unsafe” and realize there is no cavalry galloping to
their rescue?
The law
school student who experienced heart palpitations and all the students who were
so shocked and upset by seeing the redacted words that it impaired their
ability to take the exam were the real victims in the Jason Kilborn story, but
not for the reasons they claimed.
Though
battered and bruised, Jason Kilborn, like the true professional he is, will continue
to do his job at a high level and prepare his students for real-world
lawyering.
Students who,
early in their educational journey, should have been taught the skills of
critical thinking and media literacy to enable them to determine for themselves
how to separate fact from fiction, make better decisions, solve problems, communicate
effectively, and adapt to change are equipped for life.
Critical
thinkers are more likely to be lifelong learners, who are more likely to be
independent thinkers.
I would
argue that these attributes make for real open-mindedness, which is the
opposite of “Kendi-ish” single-lens indoctrination.
Is there a
future for DEI? Will it be a rebranded, new and improved DEI with a fresh coat
of paint, and maybe a new set of initials?
The last national
election highlighted a widespread anger across racial and ethnic groups − white,
black, and brown − making it painfully clear that many Americans feel
undervalued, underrepresented, and underserved by their government.
Their anger
is fueled by the dominance of progressive voices that claim to champion
equality but often dismiss or overlook the struggles of working-class Americans
of all races who don’t fit their ideological narrative.
This is an
election year in the still somewhat townish and very diverse city of Watertown.
How encouraging it would be to hear the voices of candidates for City Council
and School Committee who believe that any future DEI should be colorblind and
that the best answer to prejudice, born of ignorance, begins with teaching our
children how to think and not what to think.
We should
all be proud and grateful to the local leaders (along with the taxpayers) who
gifted this community with shiny new schools. But if well-intentioned educators
persist in their futile efforts to prepare the road for the child instead of
the child for the road, those shiny new buildings will become symbols of a
false promise.
Because, as many
of us already know, there are times, when out of nowhere life blows up in your
face – a phone call delivering terrible news, a sudden devastating job loss, a life-altering
diagnosis, a tragic something that was nowhere on your radar screen. Perhaps all
of the above.
When life does blow up in your face, it just
might require all the resourcefulness, resilience, and fortitude you can
summon.
Most of you know this all too well, and you have the mental scar tissue as a reminder.
You know
first-hand what others have yet to discover.
That life is
not for the faint of heart.
Bruce
Coltin, The Battle For Watertown
