Over the weekend, there was yet another clash between protesters over a Confederate monument. This time, the monument in question was an equestrian statue of General Robert E. Lee, located in Charlottesville, Virginia. On June 5, the Charlottesville City Council voted to change the name of the park where the statue is located from Lee Park to Emancipation Park, following up on its February decision to remove the statue. It was one block away from this location that two separate protest groups squared off: the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan versus a crowd of counter-protesters calling for the statue’s removal. The clash resulted in 22 arrests, according to the Washington Post.

The controversy over the Lee statue in Charlottesville is only the latest in a string of decisions and incidents relating to the removal of Confederate monuments. Read on to learn which statues have been removed so far and what both sides of the debate are saying.

Charleston Shooting Spurs Confederate Flag Debate

The catalyst for this debate was the 2015 Charleston church shooting, in which 21-year-old Dylann Roof killed nine parishioners of the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. Upon his arrest, Roof admitted to police that the shooting was meant to start a race war. Roof’s manifesto website and Facebook page were also discovered to contain photos of himself posing with several racist symbols, the most prominent being the Confederate flag.

Following the shooting, protesters took to the South Carolina State House in Columbia to demand the removal of the Confederate flag, which had flown on the state house’s grounds since 1961. Several South Carolina legislators supported the flag’s removal, but the cause only received national attention after police arrested 30-year-old Bree Newsome for climbing the flagpole and removing the flag on June 27, 2015. Two weeks later, the legislation passed and the flag was lowered for the final time.

Thousands gathered to watch the flag-lowering ceremony, but not everyone was celebrating. War reenactor Kenneth Robinson and his fellow “soldiers” held a vigil at the state house to “remember the 650,000 casualties of the Civil War,” he told WRAL. “Nine lives matter,” Robinson said referring to the church shooting victims. “All deaths matter, period.”

Cindy Lampley, another reenactor and a descendant of Confederate soldiers, worried that the flag removal would dishonor her relatives. “I think it’s important that we remember them,” she said. “It’s a sad day for me that my ancestors will no longer see their flag flying next to their memorial.”

Which Monuments Have Been Removed So Far?

The debate over the removal of the state house’s Confederate flag has since branched out to include all monuments and memorials to the Confederacy. As opposition grew, state and local lawmakers began to remove several of the Confederate symbols. Here are some recent examples:

New Orleans

Shortly after the Charleston church shooting, New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu called for the removal of four Confederate era monuments. The monuments consisted of three statues of Confederate leaders–Lee, General P.G.T. Beauregard, and President Jefferson Davis–as well as a memorial to the Battle of Liberty Place, an 1874 insurrection by the Crescent City White League.

The New Orleans City Council voted to remove all four monuments in 2014, but it wasn’t until April 2017 that the first of them–the battle memorial–was finally removed. The rest of the statues quickly followed suit, and the final Confederate statue of Lee was removed in May. The city replaced the statues of Lee and Davis with public art and a flag, respectively, but has not disclosed plans for the relocation of the actual monuments.

“These monuments celebrate a fictional, sanitized Confederacy; ignoring the death, ignoring the enslavement, ignoring the terror that it actually stood for,” Landrieu said as Lee’s statue was hauled away by crane.

Charlottesville

Aside from voting to change the name of Lee Park and remove its statue, the city council also voted 3-2 last February to change the name of Jackson Park (after General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson) to Justice Park. However, the city is running into unexpected legal trouble.

The Monument Fund, the Virginia Division Sons of Confederate Veterans, and other groups filed a lawsuit against the city in June, claiming that renaming the parks would be illegal. Attorneys also claim that the deed in which the park land was granted to the city specifically states that the park cannot be renamed. The court has not filed an injunction preventing the city from renaming the parks, but the Lee statue will remain in place until a hearing begins next month.

Richmond

Mayor Levar Stoney announced on June 25 that he had charged a 10-member commission with finding ways to contextualize the city’s Confederate monuments. The Monument Avenue Commission has set up a website seeking public input to “make recommendations to the mayor’s office on how to best tell the real story of [the] monuments.” There are no concrete plans currently in place.

Stoney went on to say that he does not support the outright removal of the monuments. “I wish these monuments had never been built, but like it or not they are part of our history in this city, and removal will never wash away that stain.”

Baltimore

Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, the former mayor of Baltimore, ordered the city to put up interpretive signs beside the city’s four Confederate monuments. The decision came with less than three months left in Rawlings-Blake’s term. She admitted that it was a “short-term solution.” The city council had previously recommended that the city remove tributes to Lee and Jackson, along with a statue of Roger B. Taney.

The current mayor, Catherine Pugh, told the Baltimore Sun in May that she is exploring the possibility of removing the monuments altogether.

Mississippi

The Mississippi flag incorporates the Confederate flag in its top left corner. Carlos Moore, a black Mississippi resident, says the flag constitutes “state-sanctioned hate speech,” and has taken his grievance all the way to the Supreme Court. Moore intends to argue that the flag is a symbol of racism and violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection for all citizens. In October, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to take the case.

In addition, the city of McComb and all eight of Mississippi’s public universities have stopped flying the flag. The University of Mississippi announced last week that it will post signs on campus denoting which buildings were built with slave labor.

Washington, D.C.

While the nation’s capital has not removed any Confederate monuments as of yet, Georgetown University renamed two of its campus buildings in April. The move was meant to atone for the university’s ties to slavery. The original names honored two school presidents who oversaw an 1838 sale of 272 slaves to fund the school. The buildings’ new names honor Isaac Hawkins, the slave whose name appeared first in the bill of sale, and Anne Marie Becraft, a 19th-century black educator. The university is also giving admissions preference to descendants of the 272 slaves. Mary Williams-Wagner, one of Hawkins’ descendants, said that the university needed to take further steps, such as identifying all descendants of the slaves sold by Georgetown.

Other colleges, such as Harvard, Duke, Yale, Princeton, and Brown, have also addressed their links to slavery and racism. Last February, Yale changed the name of one of its residential colleges from Calhoun College to Grace Hopper College, honoring a distinguished alumna and a “trailblazing computer scientist.”

Arguments For and Against Confederate Monuments

Opposers

So why remove the monuments? The clearest answer is that they are offensive. The statues honor men who fought for the institution of slavery. Those in favor of removing them argue that the current U.S. government should not condone such motivations, even passively. Confederate symbols also played a role in the Charleston church shooting, proving that they can still be seen as symbols of black oppression and white supremacy. Many people are wary that they will inspire another massacre. A good portion of the country would be much happier if the statues were placed in museums and battlefield parks, away from public property.

Supporters

The other side of the debate is a little more complicated. There are those, like Robinson and Lampley, who believe that removing the monuments would dishonor the memory of the Confederate soldiers who fought and died for what they believed in. There are others who see the Confederacy as Southern heritage, and believe that removing its symbols would be akin to removing it from history itself. Others are wary of a slippery slope, pointing out that Washington and Jefferson, along with 10 other presidents, owned slaves themselves. What would stop the country from removing the statues of its founding fathers?

Conclusion

Racial tensions in this country are running high these days, and the debate over Confederate monuments fits in to that conversation. The statues represent a different era, with different ideals and different ways of life. While the modern world has made tremendous strides toward diversity and inclusion, some of these ideologies still persist. The two schools of thought will inevitably clash, and as long as the monuments stand, the protests and counter-protests will continue.

As for the subjects of the monuments, one in particular had some relevant remarks on the subject while alive. In an 1869 letter declining an invitation to a public meeting concerning the war, Lee wrote:

I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Heritage or Hatred?: The Removal of Confederate Monuments appeared first on Law Street.

Michael Slager, the former North Charleston police officer who shot and killed Walter Scott in April 2015, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to charges that he violated Scott’s civil rights by using excessive force. As part of the plea agreement, federal prosecutors will drop the murder charges against Slager. The murder was one of a spate of instances in which a white officer was filmed killing an unarmed black man, and added fuel to the Black Lives Matter movement.

“The defendant willfully used deadly force even though it was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances,” the plea agreement says, according to the Associated Press. “The defendant acknowledges that during the time he used deadly force, he knew that the use of deadly force was unnecessary and excessive, and therefore unreasonable under the circumstances.”

Scott’s death was a galvanizing moment for the Black Lives Matter movement during a year in which, according to a Washington Post database, at least 38 unarmed black men and women were shot and killed by police. The bloody April 4, 2015 episode began as a routine traffic stop. After Slager pulled over Scott’s Mercedes Benz because of a broken taillight, the 50-year-old Scott ran away.

A video, filmed by a local barber, captured the rest of the scene: the two men began to tussle over Slager’s Taser. Scott once again fled from Slager, who fired eight shots at his back; five hit their mark, killing Scott, and igniting national outrage. Slager was immediately fired and, a few days later, charged with murder. Last December, the murder trial ended in a hung jury.

Slager was facing two life sentences: one for the murder charge, and one for the civil rights charge. Because he entered a plea deal, it is unlikely Slager will face life in prison. Slager appeared in federal court for a hearing on Tuesday. Local journalists captured the scene:

The family of Walter Scott entering the courthouse #walterscott #MichaelSlager @postandcourier pic.twitter.com/EurZ42ZtTM

— Michael Pronzato (@MichaelPronz) May 2, 2017

The hearing lasted less than 30 minutes. #WalterScott‘s family wiped away tears as the details of their loved one’s death were retold.

— Janae Frazier (@JanaeFrazier) May 2, 2017

Plea deal does not state possible sentence. Charge carries between no prison time and life behind bars. #WalterScott #chsnews

— Andrew Knapp (@offlede) May 2, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Officer Who Killed Walter Scott Pleads Guilty to Civil Rights Charge appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday morning, Dylann Roof, who is accused of shooting nine people at a church in Charleston in 2015, will be representing himself in court. Federal judge Richard Gergel called his request “unwise” but said that he would reluctantly accept it, since he has a Constitutional right to represent himself. “I do find [the] defendant has the personal capacity to self-representation. I continue to believe it is strategically unwise, but it is a decision you have the right to make,” Gergel said.

Judge Gergel and Roof’s lawyers advised him against dismissing them, but to no use. Jury selection in the case was also delayed in the beginning of the month after Roof’s lawyers had questioned his ability to understand the case against him, but it resumed on Monday as well. His former defense team will still be present during the trial and can assist Roof, if he wants help. Reporters present in the courtroom described attorney David Bruck as “frustrated.”

David Bruck now whispering emphatically to Roof. Can’t hear him, but looks frustrated. Bruck turns away and shakes his head. Roof smirking.

— Mike Hayes (@michaelhayes) November 28, 2016

In total, 516 jurors were scheduled to appear in court to be personally questioned by the judge to see if they qualify. After 70 are picked from that group, the lawyers can choose to strike the ones they don’t want until they have 12 jurors and 6 substitutes.

Juror has been qualified. 5 of 70 #DylannRoof

— Sam Tyson (@SamInteractive) November 28, 2016

Roof is accused of killing nine parishioners at the historic black church Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston in June 2015. He is facing 33 charges, including hate crime charges, murder, and obstruction of religion. He’ll represent himself, so he could end up questioning the victims’ family members if they are called to testify, creating a pretty unusual situation that spurred some reactions on social media.

#DylannRoof is setting himself up to be a martyr. For him to be able to question his victims families. Sickening!

— Makeda Nzingha Hill (@makedanzingha) November 28, 2016

Over the weekend, Judge Gergel held a hearing to determine whether Roof was mentally fit to be on trial, which included testimony from a psychologist. Because of that, the hearing was closed to both media and the public to prevent jurors from being affected by any statements or information. This caused some complaints from relatives of the victims, but according to the judge, this is one of the steps taken to make sure that the trial will be fair. According to attorney Chris Adams there are three reasons why defendants might want to defend themselves. He said:

They don’t have faith in their legal team, they want to die, and or they want to conceal their mental illness. In this case, Mr. Roof had a great defense team, so I don’t think there would be any sane reason to not trust them.

Adams believes that Roof wants to hide his mental issues and doesn’t wish to persue a non-death sentence. As his defense team includes Bruck, who is a renowned death penalty lawyer who has argued that the death penalty is excessive, and given that the team claimed that Roof might not be mentally fit for trial, it certainly seems like Roof has no interest in securing himself a lenient sentence.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dylann Roof Will Represent Himself in Church Shooting Trial appeared first on Law Street.

On October 8, Steve Crump, a veteran WBTV reporter, was in Charleston, South Carolina reporting on the cleanup efforts following Hurricane Matthew, when he was accosted by a racist. Crump told the Washington Post that the man said, “‘There’s a black guy here. No, wait a minute, he’s a slave. No wait a minute, he’s a ‘n-word.'” At that moment he had a choice–ignore the white man’s casual use of the “n-word,” or confront him. He chose the latter, and he caught it all on tape.

“Say that a little bit louder,” Crump said to the young man sitting outside the Saint John the Baptist Roman Catholic Cathedral filming the neighborhood with his iPad. “Come on, what did you just call me?”

“I called you ‘Sir,’” said the man later identified as 21-year-old Brian Eybers.

“No, you did not call me ‘Sir,’ ” Crump shot back. “You called me the n-word, right?”

To which an eerily calm Eybers replied, “I believe I did call you the n-word.”

Eybers then argued that “the Constitution of the United States” gives him the right to call Crump a n***a and a former slave. In fact, it even makes him “superior.”

“You do have a First Amendment right,” said Crump.

“Yeah I have a Second Amendment right, I got a Third amendment right. I got a Third, a Fourth, a Fifth, a Sixth, Seventh, Eight, Nine, and Ten, and that’s just the Bill of Rights,” quipped Eybers.

This is where Crump lays down some quality knowledge for this desperately naive young man.

“So what’s the Ninth and the Fourteenth?” replied Crump. “If you knew your Constitution about the Ninth and the Fourteenth, you wouldn’t have done what you just did.”

“Got ’em!”

In case you were wondering (cough) Eybers (cough), the Ninth Amendment reads:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And the Fourteenth Amendment–since I’m sure you didn’t know that one either– reads in part:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Perhaps if he had actually known the text of the Bill of Rights he was so quick to list off–as well as the Constitution–he would have had a second thought before using it as justification for his racist and offensive behavior.

But it’s ok, because there is such a thing as karma!

Police later arrived, arrested Eybers, and charged him with disorderly conduct and possession of drug paraphernalia, specifically a glass crack pipe.

However, Crump holds no ill will for the man. He told the Charlotte Observer that he’s forgiven the man and is praying for him.  He also hopes “he gets help by enrolling in an anger management program or drug counseling.”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Steve Crump is a Hero: Black Reporter Schools Racist on the Constitution appeared first on Law Street.

Dylann Roof is accused of killing nine people at a Charleston, South Carolina church last summer, and was charged with 33 federal offenses and received the death penalty. On Monday, Roof’s defense attorneys filed a legal challenge to the capital punishment, arguing that the death penalty is unconstitutional.

#DylannRoof’s federal attorneys try to throw out death penalty as ‘unconstitutional’: https://t.co/zNPsJJp1Hy pic.twitter.com/rkFDTu95r7

— The Root (@TheRoot) August 2, 2016

In a 30-plus page motion, his defense team wrote, “this Court should rule that the federal death penalty constitutes a legally prohibited, arbitrary, cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by both the Fifth and Eighth Amendments.” The motion went on to say, “The facts of this case are indisputably grave. But if, as we contend here, the FDPA [Federal Death Penalty Act] is unconstitutional, no one can be lawfully sentenced to death or executed under it, no matter what his crimes.”

If federal prosecutors drop the pursuit of the death penalty, Roof’s lawyers say they will drop the challenge. Why the complication? The challenge comes from the prosecution’s unwillingness to accept Roof’s guilty pleas and multiple life sentences without parole.

Roof, a white male who is now 22-years-old, was indicted on 33 counts of federal hate crimes and firearm charges last summer. He is accused of killing nine black worshippers at a Bible study in the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina.

The Justice Department is strongly pursuing the death penalty because Roof targeted his victims on the basis of race and religion.

“The nature of the alleged crime and the resulting harm compelled this decision,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in May about the decision to pursue the death penalty. A month after the shooting in July 2015, she said, “To carry out these twin goals of fanning racial flames and exacting revenge, Roof further decided to seek out and murder African Americans because of their race.” She went on to say, “An essential element of his plan, however, was to find his victims inside of a church, specifically an African-American church, to ensure the greatest notoriety and attention to his actions.”

The judge who is presiding over the case, Richard Gergel, did not immediately rule out the filing to challenge the death penalty. However, Twitter users immediately reacted.

#DylannRoof should absolutely be given the death penalty when found guilty. If you MURDER people, you have sacrificed your own right to live

— Josh Nelson (@RoarFromIA) August 2, 2016

 

Foreign terrorists don’t get to challenge a death penalty, why should domestic terrorists? #DylannRoof #KillDylannRoof

— TW: White female. (@karmapolitical) August 2, 2016

#KorrynGaines & #DylannRoof news this AM. IF you’re going to kill the woman who might have shot someone, then kill the man who murdered 9.

— Austin Saunders (@Widlcat77) August 2, 2016

Yeah, #DylannRoof doesn’t deserve the death penalty. They should randomly go into his cell & violently murder him. That would be “fair”.

— Faustslaughter (@Faustslaughter) August 2, 2016

Roof’s federal trial is set for November 7 in U.S. District Court. A murder trial in South Carolina state court is scheduled for January.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dylann Roof’s Lawyers Seek Life Sentence Over Death Penalty appeared first on Law Street.

The attacks in New York City on 9/11 brought together a nation that every year since has unified on social media and internet outlets under “#9/11” and “#NeverForget.” When a mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut claimed the lives of 20 children, as well as six adults on December 14, 2012, we prayed and posted: “#PrayForSandyHook” and “SandyHook.” The terrorism in Paris on November 13, 2015 bonded the world through posts and photographs captioning “#PrayForParis.”

“Pray for Paris” courtesy of [Bensun Ho via Flickr]

Following the police shootings and misconduct of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, and so many more, a movement ensued highlighting “#BlackLivesMatter,” which morphed into the debated “#AllLivesMatter” movement. We picketed. We rioted. We protested and stood divided across the nation. We demanded societal change. When a mass shooting claimed the lives of nine people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopalian Church, we worked to mend the broken community and sent virtual support with “#PrayforCharleston” demanding more stringent gun control laws and mental health screening.

We have been victims and survivors. We have been divided, yet banded together. We have fought and we have been loud. So where is our unifying and our fighting fervor now? Where is our voice recognizing the 380,000 Nigerian brothers and sisters living within the United States whose families and friends in Nigeria are experiencing sheer terror at the hands of Boko Haram?

Boko Haram, an Islamic militant group whose name loosely translates into “Western education is a sin,” has been waging a murderous war in the poorest part of Nigeria in an effort to overthrow the Nigerian government. While the group has been slowly establishing itself between 2005-2009, it gained worldwide recognition in 2014 when it kidnapped 276 schoolgirls, most of whom have not returned to their families to date.

Mohammed Yusuf, has, over the years, rallied a following to the group through the widespread distribution of his speeches on tapes. So far, his followers have treated human beings like animals–slitting throats without reprieve. In 2009, Yusuf was killed in a security bust, which left the elusive and merciless Abubakar Shekau in charge of Boko Haram. His unforgiving and relentless tactics to make Northern Nigeria an Islamic state have left almost 20,000 people dead–slaughtered. There have been approximately 2.5 million people displaced from their homes and villages, children parentless, mothers widowed, and mass graves full of innocent bodies.

Image courtesy of [EU/ECHO/Isabel Coello via Flickr]

The scariest part? Boko Haram has made good on essentially every threat and every hellish promise made. Most recently, Boko Haram took to bombing the village of Dalori, in the northeastern part of Nigeria, where 86 people were shot, burned, or killed by suicide bombs. A man hiding in a tree heard the shrieks and screams of the children trapped in burning huts as Boko Haram soldiers and supporters destroyed the city. Government troops were unsuccessful in overpowering the militant group.

Boko Haram has pledged its allegiance to ISIS/ISIL and its members have set out to spread terror upon all those who are not willing to join them in their absolutely extremist path to form an Islamic state.

So where is the coverage? Why has the U.S. mainstream media failed to highlight this horrific situation in any detailed capacity? Where are the Twitter feeds and Facebook posts flooding with “#PrayforNigeria” statuses? And where is the action? There has been no lack of military action against ISIS and its ideologies, so where is the same level of response to a terrorist organization that has pledged allegiance to ISIS and has killed thousands? Forget the basic human need and the widespread teachings of terror–are we just willing to help if we have some personal or political interest in mind?

As media dictates the important issues that today’s society will focus on, particularly during election year, has our censorship failed the people of Nigeria?

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Boko Haram and Widespread Terror in Nigeria: Where is the Outrage? appeared first on Law Street.

The sister of Dylann Roof launched an online campaign just a few days ago to raise money to pay for her wedding and honeymoon. Amber Roof’s wedding was abruptly cancelled after her brother massacred nine people in Charleston, South Carolina. The couple was to be married on June 21st, four days after Dylann Roof gunned down nine people at the historic Emanuel AME Church. Dylann Roof told officials that he wanted to start a “race war.” He has now been charged with nine counts of murder. His actions have been labeled an act of terrorism by some, and many are still trying to cope with the pain of this tragedy. However Amber Roof’s actions are coming across to many as more insensitive than sympathetic.

Dylann Roof’s sister creates GoFundMe page asking for $5K to cover cost of cancelled wedding: http://t.co/D9WOLKTW7F pic.twitter.com/uGLzgIQYXS

— Rachelle Spence (@RachelleWSPA) July 2, 2015

The fundraiser was just removed from GoFundMe last week. Before it was removed, Roof stated that she and her fiance cancelled the wedding “to protect our family and mourn the lives of those lost” but now they want another chance at happiness. She went on to say that the media abused their privacy and destroyed the first day that they were going to share together. Her GoFundMe Page was titled “A Fresh Start For Michael and Amber.” She stated,

Our wedding day was suppose to be the most important and special day of our lives. It was suppose to start our lives together with our new family. Our day was the exact opposite. Our wedding day was full of sorrow, pain, and shame, tainted by the actions of one man.

Roof raised over $1,700 out of her $5,000 goal before the campaign was taken down. No one is sure if she took the campaign down herself or if it was removed by those in charge of GoFundMe. Despite receiving some support, the page attracted some very harsh comments as well. One woman posted:

This has to be the most self-centered and insensitive fundraising page I’ve ever encountered and I’m shocked that gofundme hasn’t erased you from their existence already! I can’t imagine the anguish and sorrow that your own brother has inflicted on so many wonderful and kind people and all the while, you are fantasizing about letting others fund your honeymoon!!

For Roof to say that she has endured sorrow and pain due to their wedding cancellation is something I see as selfish and ridiculous. She stated on the fundraising page, “We know money cannot replace the wedding we lost and our perfect day, however it will help us to create new memories and a new start with our new family.” But what about the lives that cannot be replaced? I am honestly shocked that Roof had the nerve to refer to her wedding as such a huge loss when people had family members that they lost and will never be with again. There is no comparison between canceling a wedding and having a family member killed. People have described Amber’s want for money as disgusting, tacky, and some even joked that there needs to be a “Defund Me” site created just for her.

I’m conflicted: Dylan Roof’s sister has a GoFundMe for her wedding ’cause “the media destroyed our dream day”. The MEDIA?!

— Joe Flynn (@fenian2153) July 2, 2015

Why do I log in to find out Dylan Roof’s sister has a GoFundMe for her canceled wedding. There aren’t enough “I can’ts” in this world.

— #JeSuisCharleston (@radrebellion) July 2, 2015

Before Amber’s GoFundMe was launched, rumors were going around that over $4 million was raised for the murderer himself. Although these claims have not been proven to be true, there are some people who do actually support Dylann Roof. Amber’s a different story–I do not think that Amber Roof should be punished for the actions of her brother nor do I think that she should never have her dream wedding. But this was not the appropriate time or way to go about making that happen. She should not be thinking only about herself during a time that has rendered pain, hurt, and fear in the hearts of so many people.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dylann Roof’s Sister Launches GoFundMe: Sympathetic or Offensive? appeared first on Law Street.

GOP presidential candidates are nervously returning money and double checking their finances this week. An investigation recently revealed that the leader of the white supremacist group that is said to have radicalized Dylann Roof, the 21-year-old white man who murdered nine black people during a bible study in Charleston last week, has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Republican campaigns.

Sixty-two-year-old Earl P. Holt III is president of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC), a self-declared “conservative activist group” that opposes “race mixing” as a religious affront and that “vilifies blacks as an inferior race.” Holt has donated $65,000 to campaign funds in recent years, including 2016 GOP presidential candidates Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Rick Santorum. According to Federal Election Commission filings, Holt has provided $8,500 to Senator Cruz since 2012. Another $1,750 was given to Senator Paul’s action committee, and $1,500 was donated to Senator Santorum, who attended Sunday’s memorial service at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in South Carolina. A spokesman for Cruz’s campaign was quick to say that the money donated by Holt would be immediately refunded. Also in hot water to return money funded by this extremist organization is Paul, who said today that he would also be foregoing the money donated by Holt. Santorum  finally denounced the funding on Monday afternoon, saying he would be donating the money to the victims’ families.

GOP candidates got cash from white nationalist cited by Charleston shooting suspect http://t.co/sLN6nNSdYV pic.twitter.com/d1Gqsdz9D4

— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) June 22, 2015

Over the past four years, a user named Earl P. Holt III has posted racist comments on The Blaze, a conservative news outlet. On a February 2014 article, the user–who is suspected to be the same Earl P. Holt III who is funding Republican campaigns–wrote that black activists would “kill you, rape your entire family, and burn your house to the ground.” Roof echoed these chillingly racist remarks as he complained to his victims in Charleston last week, saying: “You rape our women and you’re taking over our country, and you have to go.” A close associate and former director of the CofCC, Jared Taylor, was asked by Holt to handle all media inquiries relating to the Charleston massacre. When asked about the online user going by Holt’s full name, Taylor stated: “If there’s a statement that is ‘Earl P. Holt III’, he probably made it.”

On Saturday, Internet sleuths discovered that Dylann Roof had a website complete with a racist manifesto, which states that he learned about black on white crime from the CofCC website. Roof says it was the Trayvon Martin killing and his opinion that George Zimmerman did no wrong in shooting the unarmed black teen that began his obsession with “black on white violence.”

In an online statement, Holt said he was not surprised that Roof had learned about “black-on-white violent crime” from the CofCC. He stated that the Council is one of the few brave activist groups that are not afraid to “accurately and honestly” disclose “the seemingly endless incidents involving black-on-white murder.” Holt said the Council of Conservative Citizens should not be held responsible for Roof’s actions just because he gained “accurate” information from the website.

Santorum has declared the statements made and sentiments held by Holt to be “unacceptable.” But isn’t it unacceptable to have your campaign financed by individuals and groups that represent the beating heart of racism? It’s easy to wonder if Cruz, Paul, and Santorum knew that their campaigns were receiving donations from a man who runs a white supremacist organization. Moreover, if the media had not exposed Holt’s status as a white supremacist, would the candidates have donated and refunded the money? Hopefully this exposure will shed light on the often amoral campaign financing process and lead to more scrutiny about where our presidential candidates are getting their money.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP Candidates in Hot Water After Receiving Donations From White Supremacist Leader appeared first on Law Street.

Sharonda Coleman-Singleton.

Reverend Clementa Pinckney.

Cynthia Hurd.

Tywanza Sanders.

Myra Thompson.

Ethel Lee Lance.

Reverend Daniel L. Simmons.

Reverend Depayne Middleton-Doctor.

Susie Jackson.

So, fellow white folks. Know any of these names? Any of these lives?

No?

But we all know the name in the headline.

Stop saying his name. Stop sharing his manifesto. Infamy was one of his goals. #Charleston #DontSayHisName

— David M. Perry (@Lollardfish) June 20, 2015

That’s why you clicked on this post, right? Outraged, right, because we would never pick up a gun and murder Black people, in a church for crying out loud, so how can we possibly all be this killer kid?

But we don’t need a gun and we don’t need a confederate flag to be the Charleston shooter.

Because the murderer in Charleston was, yes, an individual young person, but the murderer was also all of us white folk.

It’s all of us who tweeted #notallwhitepeople after the shooting but criticized Black people in Baltimore for rising against state violence.

We know #NotAllWhitePeople are racist; we're attacking a white supremacist system, so stop whining. pic.twitter.com/Y5wR0ebSVv

— • J a y n a • (@jxchristine_) June 18, 2015

It’s all of us who let him say that he slaughtered Black people to “protect” white women, and we still remained on the proverbial sidelines, letting him murder people in our name.

It’s all of us who prioritize our white tears over the lived experiences of people of color.

It’s all of us, even when we don’t remain passive in the face of state violence.

Because even when we don’t remain passive, we can travel down the street–or even run down the street–confident that we won’t get shot by cops.

Because even when we do protest against white supremacist state violence, we benefit from it.

We benefit from it, and we can do nothing to change that except, maybe, beginning to acknowledge it, and encouraging other white folk to acknowledge it, too.

Because the Charleston shooting is not an exception. This young man’s racism and racist violence are not exceptions.

Dylann Roof is not an extremist, he's the logical expression of #WhiteSupremacy & nostalgic settler-colonialism: http://t.co/Q1f822CCpG #USA

— Kamal Fizazi (@kamalfizazi) June 23, 2015

He has been honest. He has been explicit about what every single structural foundation of this country is entrenched in.

The young man who took so many lives in Charleston is simply more honest than the rest of the country. He explicitly states what all of these foundational fixtures of U.S. society implicitly yet violently impose on people in this country and across the world every day–from our slavery-defending and genocide-based Constitution; to the racist “war on drugs” that is actually a war on communities of color; to the fact that Black History Month is the only time narratives by any kind of POC are highlighted in our schools; to the microaggressions that dominate the workplace, internet, media, and just about everything else; to the environmental racism that is killing even more people of color than police violence–white supremacy.

White people — all of us, no matter how radical our politics or how intersectional our identities (my dis/abilities and queerness do not make me any less white)–materially benefit from and participate in white supremacy.

So yes, we are all Dylan Roof.

And if we don’t want to be?

Well, acknowledging our positions in a white supremacist country and turning off our white tears in favor of genuinely prioritizing those that white supremacy kills is a fine place to start.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fellow White Folks: We Are All Dylan Roof appeared first on Law Street.

Update: 5:09pm

Hundreds of people gathered at the South Carolina capitol Saturday evening to advocate for the removal of the Confederate flag from near the state capitol building. The “Take the Flag Down” event was held in response to the recent massacre of nine people at Mother Emanuel AME Church, an African American church in the heart of Charleston. Several pictures released after the shooting portray the suspect, Dylann Roof, displaying a Confederate flag. The police believe the shooting to be a hate crime, and protestors are now crying out for the removal of the flag.

South Carolina State Representative Doug Brannon, a Republican, referred to the flag as a symbol of both hate and “a symbol of pride in one’s hatred” when speaking with the Associated Press. He stated:

I just didn’t have the balls for five years to do it. But when my friend was assassinated for being nothing more than a black man, I decided it was time for that thing to be off the Statehouse grounds.

At Saturday’s rally many hoped for unity, as the event included a variety of speeches and many chanted the slogan “take it down.” “The country is calling for togetherness instead of division, so if the country truly wants togetherness then this is a way to bring it down,” said Angie White, one of the participants, stating:

My heart has been pierced by the tragedy that happened in Charleston, South Carolina, overwhelmed with grief and the hate that has permeated our country. I want to see anything that can make things better, including taking the flag down from the State House grounds. Anything that can make us a better nation, a better people, a people that the forefathers intended us to be, I want it to be done and I choose to be a part of that change.

The Confederate battle flag has long proved to be one of the most divisive issues in state politics, as it has consistently served as a symbol of intolerance and white supremacy. President of the South Carolina NAACP, Dr. Lonnie Randolph stated:

We all know what it stands for: colored bathrooms, separate and unequal, hostile treatment of people, lynching, murdering of people, raping women and children. That’s what it stands for.

Past protests, boycotts, rallies, and movements have all failed to remove the flag from the building’s grounds. While many are not opposed to the idea of removing the flag, many believe that this weekend was not the best time, as the family and friends of the Emmanuel AME Church victims are still grieving.

In light of the recent rally, South Carolina Governor Nikki Hayley is expected to address the public this Monday afternoon. It is said that she’ll call for the removal of the flag, although it will be up to the state legislature to make the final call.

State Representative Doug Brannon is planning to introduce a bill in December to move the flag to the Military Museum. Brannon acknowledges that this will likely cost him re-election, but plans to introduce the bill as early as he can, which won’t be until December.

While many argue this weekend’s rally didn’t leave family and friends proper time to grieve for the loved ones they lost in the massacre, this weekend’s rally does show the continued need to fight for an end to racism in the United States.

Update: 5:09pm: In a 4PM press conference, South Carolina Governor Nikki Hayley spoke about the controversial issue of removing the Confederate flag from the state’s capital.

She stated:

Fifteen years ago after much contentious debate, South Carolina came together in a bipartisan way to move the flag from atop the capitol dome. Today, we are here in a moment of unity in our state, without ill will, to say it’s time to move the flag from the capital grounds.

The murderer now locked up in Charleston said he hoped his actions would to start a race war. We have an opportunity to show not only was he wrong, but that just the opposite is happening.

The General Assembly wraps up their year this week, and, as governor, I have the authority to call them back into session under extraordinary circumstances. I have indicated to the House and the Senate that, if they do not take measures to ensure this debate takes place this summer, I will use that authority for the purpose of the legislature removing the flag from the Statehouse grounds. That will take place in the coming weeks, after the regular session and the veto session have been completed

I also ask that the focus still remains on the 9 victims of this horrible tragedy. […] We all deserve time to grieve, and to remember, and to heal. We will take it, and I ask that you respect it.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Take Down the Flag: Protestors Rally Against Confederate Flag in South Carolina appeared first on Law Street.

America has a race problem. America has a gun problem. America has a violence problem. America has a problem with racially motivated gun violence.

A massacre occurred Wednesday at the historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina when nine black people were fatally shot during their weekly bible study. Twenty-one-year-old Dylann Roof confessed to shooting and killing these nine people. The massacre is being reviewed as a hate crime and was almost certainly racially motivated.

Dylann Roof has been charged with 9 counts of murder and one weapon possession charge in the #CharlestonShooting: http://t.co/l3EcsDWT1I

— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) June 19, 2015

Several interviews with former friends of Roof have raised a concern that I simply can’t disregard. One of Roof’s friends said in an interview in response to the massacre on Wednesday:

It was a race thing because he had told me that black people was taking over the country…that he wanted it to be segregation[…]white with the white, black with the black[…]I mean he was drunk one night and he was just talking about him wanting to hurt a whole bunch of people. And whenever he was saying he was wanting to do something crazy, I just blew it off and didn’t really pay attention to him because he was intoxicated.

The fact that one of Roof’s friends didn’t think anything of his seemingly constant racial slurs, threats of violence against black people, or the plans he revealed to him about the massacre is horribly disconcerting. What Roof did is obviously not this friend’s fault. But the reality is that in 2015, a young man can get drunk and spout off plans to murder people because of their race and his friends can brush it off. They’re desensitized to racist banter, to threats of violence, to prejudice, and to xenophobia. The American society that Dylann Roof lives in brushed off and “didn’t really pay attention” to his grossly discriminatory views because, unfortunately, they aren’t uncommon.

From politicians to a young man from South Carolina, animosity toward minorities in America is a systemic, institutionalized, and far-too-accepted issue that is somehow only discussed in depth when we encounter a tragedy. I couldn’t help but notice the us-versus-them narrative present in both Roof’s remarks to the people in the church at the time of the shooting and in Donald Trump’s presidential announcement from earlier this week. It has been reported that Roof said to the victims, “I have to do it… You rape our women and you’re taking over our country, and you have to go.” Just a few days ago, Trump made similarly racist remarks against Mexicans as he announced his candidacy:

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you… They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.

Both Roof and Trump use “you” collectively, grouping an entire race in Roof’s case and an entire country in Trump’s, in an attempt to justify their disgusting prejudices. Both men use rape as a tool–a justification for their hatred–even though these beliefs are completely unfounded. Roof alleged that black people are taking over the country, and Trump declared that Mexico is “killing us economically.”

Summary of #DonaldTrump's speech: "I'm white & rich and I only like other white rich people… & all Mexicans are drug dealers & thugs, bye"

— Neighborhood Queer (@MartyredWisdom) June 16, 2015

While I seriously doubt that Donald Trump’s presidential campaign speech was anywhere on Dylann Roof’s radar, the point I’m trying to make is that the roots of racism run deep in this country’s core and we overlook them far too often. Whether this problem arises out of ignorance or out of naivety I’m not quite certain, but either way, it needs to stop.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post America Has a Huge Racism Problem appeared first on Law Street.

Church members of the historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina gathered together on Wednesday evening for their weekly prayer meeting. No one would have ever predicted the horrific events that took place later that night when a visitor came into the church and changed many people’s lives forever.

The evening seemed to be going as normal, like every other week. About an hour into the meeting, a man who was sitting in the church the whole time and mingling with others suddenly pulled out a weapon and began to fire, leaving nine people dead. The Pastor of the church and South Carolina state senator Clementa Pinckney, 41, was killed during the shooting. Pinckney was also one of the black community’s spokesmen after the slaying of an unarmed man, Walter Scott, by a North Charleston police officer earlier this year.

The suspect has been identified as Dylann Storm Roof, a 21-year-old white male. He was seen on the church’s surveillance camera and then found on facebook. His Facebook page also carries a photo of him wearing a jacket with patches of the racist-era flags of South Africa and Rhodesia.

Have you seen Dylann Roof? @FBI confirms 21-year-old as #CharlestonShooting suspect. http://t.co/3ijYaNanPM #chsnews pic.twitter.com/6blL5HGMLX

— The Post and Courier (@postandcourier) June 18, 2015

After the shooting Roof escaped onto the streets of the city’s historic downtown, an area normally overflowing with tourists. According to CBS News police have just brought the suspect into custody this afternoon after finding him in Shelby, North Carolina.

There were 13 people inside the church when the shooting happened–the shooter, the nine people who were killed, and three survivors, according to South Carolina state senator Larry Grooms as told to CNN. Two of the survivors were not harmed. A five-year-old girl reportedly survived the attack by following her grandmother’s instructions to play dead.

Charleston NAACP President Dot Scott told CNN that a woman who survived says Roof told her he was letting her live so that she could tell people what happened. Scott said she heard this from the victims’ family members.

I did not hear this verbatim from the almost victim, I heard it from at least half a dozen other folks that were there and family of the victims. There seems to be no question that this is what the shooter said.

After the shooting 50 or more church and community members gathered together at the Embassy Suites hotel near the church to pray. Charleston Police Chief Greg Mullen vowed that they were committed to finding the gunman. He also said,

This is a tragedy that no community should have to experience. It is senseless and unfathomable in today’s society that someone would walk into a church during a prayer meeting and take their lives.

“The only reason someone would walk into a church and shoot people that were praying is hate,” Charleston Mayor Joe Riley said. Events such as these terrify and anger people around the world. Community organizer Christopher Cason told the Associated Press that he felt certain the shootings were racially motivated. “I am very tired of people telling me that I don’t have the right to be angry,” Cason said. “I am very angry right now.”

Cason feels just as many other people do. The hashtags #CharlestonShooting and #PrayersForCharleston have begun trending on Twitter, as tweeters express how they feel about this awful incident.

No words. On our knees with you. #PrayersForCharleston

— Jennie Allen (@JennieAllen) June 18, 2015

Make no mistake, this was terrorism, this was mass murder, this was driven by racial hatred. This is American history. #CharlestonShooting

— . (@Bhattousai) June 18, 2015

if it was black, he’d be a thug if it was a muslim, he’d be terrorist but bc he’s a white gunmen, he’s excused w illness #CharlestonShooting

— semi hiatus julianne (@djagonalley) June 18, 2015

It is evident that everyone is disgusted by this tragedy. I am truly saddened that we are living in a time where there are constantly killings or disturbing incidents happening due to someone’s race. Church is a safe haven for many, and now countless people will worry about their safety every time they step into one. President Obama delivered a statement today about the Charleston shooting on CNN stating, “It is in our power to do something about it.” I hope that people will take what he said and truly realize that we have the power to change our community and change our country.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Developing: Shooter Arrested in Charleston Church Shooting appeared first on Law Street.

Unfortunately, it seems as though another law school is feeling the effects of the declining enrollment facing law schools across the country in recent years. George Kosko and Robert Carr, the owners of Charleston School of Law located in South Carolina, have recently announced that they might not enroll a new class of students this coming fall. The statement they put out read:

We cannot in good faith enroll another class when, like last year, the school is spending more money than is coming in; when we cannot assure the students that they will be able to use federal student loans for their full three years; and when we cannot be sure the school will be able to maintain its license and stay open

While this was not a formal announcement of closure, it does not look promising that the school is going to be able to turn things around.

Understandably, many of the students were shocked and confused by this news. The announcement came during the thick of finals season, a bizarre time to announce something that could rattle and greatly affect the futures of the school’s current students. Many students expressed that they were in disbelief that the administration would announce something of this magnitude during finals.

Other students expressed disappointment. Second-year law student Drew Waxler believed that he would finish his three years at Charleston School of Law and then head back home to Burlington, Vermont to start his career. However, it appears that his plans may have to change. He says that, “it is discouraging that you won’t have an alma mater to take pride in after graduation if they do decide to stop taking” new classes of students.

While many of the students were shocked by the news, the school has actually been in trouble since 2013 when its owners announced that a sale to the education company Infilaw was under consideration. At the time, many students and faculty members expressed their outrage with the sale. They explained how the three schools currently under Infilaw are of a lower caliber than Charleston. If the school were to become an Infilaw school, it would decrease the value of a Charleston Law degree. To the relief of many, the sale didn’t go through. However, it appears as though the process has done lasting damage to the school.

So, what does this mean for the students? According to the American Bar Association and state rules, a law school is not allowed to simply close its doors without doing anything for its students. If they decide to close, they will have to submit a “teach-out” plan that details how current students will finish their education programs. So, while certainly not ideal, at least the students can know that they won’t be left to figure things out for themselves.

The owners have stated that they expect to release a formal announcement at some point this week.

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will This Law School Shut Down for Good? appeared first on Law Street.

Charleston Law School has had a tough few years. It was established in 2003–right when that big law school boom was starting– and its first class graduated in 2007. The school began as a way to fill a gap in legal education that existed in Charleston; despite the fact that it’s the second largest city in South Carolina, there was not a law school there when Charleston Law began operating.

In 2013, the school began dealing with a company called InfiLaw, which eventually purchased the school pending approval by the American Bar Association (ABA) and South Carolina’s commission on higher education.

InfiLaw is part of Sterling Enterprises, a private equity company from Chicago, and it operates for-profit law schools. Currently there are three in InfiLaw’s collection–Florida Coastal School of Law, Arizona Summit Law School, and the Charlotte School of Law. Charleston Law would be the fourth. The company’s reputation within the law school field isn’t particularly stellar. There are concerns that InfiLaw is a scam, and predatory–after all, it takes students who can’t get into other law schools, puts them into massive debt, and then those students have a very difficult time finding jobs that can pay off said debt. In an in-depth piece on for-profit law schools that focused heavily on InfiLaw, the Atlantic attempted to pinpoint the company’s motivation:

A Florida Coastal faculty member who is familiar with the business strategies of private-equity firms told me that, in his view, the entire InfiLaw venture was quite possibly based on a very-short-term investment perspective: the idea was to make as much money as the company could as fast as possible, and then dump the whole operation onto someone else when managing it became less profitable.

Regardless of whether or not those are actually InfiLaw’s practices, actually taking over Charleston Law could lead to serious changes at the school.

That’s where this all gets very, very messy. Those two entities that have to approve the sale–the ABA, and the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education (CHE)–have a few different moving parts. It’s a confusing mess, but essentially what’s happened is that one committee of the ABA, the accreditation committee, has approved the sale; however, another part that needs to give its approval, the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, has deferred making a decision. They’re waiting on the CHE, who have their own set of problems with which to contend.

Now CHE is caught in the middle. One of Charleston Law’s founders, a man named Ed Westbrook, doesn’t want the school sold to InfiLaw. He’s in the minority, as the other two founders want to see it go to InfiLaw. Westbrook claims that he can successfully operate it as a non-profit, without taking any money from the state. He’s made vague statements about using his own money to do so. Now, both Westbrook and his lawyers, and InfiLaw and its lawyers are reaching out to the CHE with conflicting proposals and information. Westbrook’s optimism is admirable, I guess, but Charleston Law as it stands seems a bit like a sinking ship. For example, the school’s new President, Maryann Jones stepped down in November. She lasted in the job for a grand total of eight days. Her reasoning was described in an email she sent when she resigned:

The level of vitriol, with all sides making me a lightning rod for an unfortunate situation that was not of my making, makes this truly a situation that I am unwilling at this stage of my life to undertake.

Back to the CHE approval though, which appears to be the lynchpin to this deal. Want to be even more confused? There are 15 seats on the CHE. Four are vacant, and eight are being held by people whose terms have technically expired. Governor Nicki Haley is trying to fill those seats–but that would be in January at the earliest.

So, will InfiLaw succeed in its takeover of the Charleston School of Law? I have absolutely no clue. This tangled web of players, committees, and arguments is a mess–perhaps symbolic of the messy relationship between the ABA, for-profit law schools, and students. Whatever happens, it’s now in the CHE’s hands…and I for one do not envy them.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post InfiLaw’s Attempt to Purchase Charleston Law is a Giant Mess appeared first on Law Street.