by Christopher Sanchez
Daily Lobo
A group of about 30 students and faculty discussed affirmative action Wednesday at the UNM School of Law.
Suellyn Scarnecchia, dean of UNM School of Law, said the discussion was not to convince students to think about affirmative action one way or the other.
"It's about our views and dialogue in a professional way, and what we can learn about it," she said.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
The School of Law and the Black Law Students Association organized the discussion. Scarnecchia said the discussion, called Difficult Dialogue, is organized by a different student law organization each month in correlation with the School of Law.
Scarnecchia asked the group what it means to practice affirmative action in 2006. She then split the audience into two groups and had one group argue for affirmative action and the other group against it.
She emphasized that people should discuss controversial issues in a truthful, respectful manner.
Law student Patrick Mason was in the group that argued for affirmative action.
"Some people are racist and need to be exposed to different races to get over their racism," he said during the discussion.
Scarnecchia said the discussion prepared them for their future.
"It's training them to be better at their job," she said. "Lawyers always deal with controversial issues."
Not many participated when the audience separated into two groups, so Scarnecchia took matters into her own hands.
"Zealously argue," she shouted at the groups.
She said splitting up the group was not effective in making a strong debate, but it was effective in getting students to take a different position.
After she separated the students into two groups, she had the classroom split into groups of about five and had them discuss whether an admissions committee should practice affirmative action.
Mason said students held back in their answers because they were afraid of offending others.
"They are a little too nice in the dialogue, but it is a good starting point to discuss these controversial issues," he said.
Mason said the ideal discussion would be a heated debate without name-calling.
"It would be more of an intellectual discussion than name-calling," he said. "We are at the point where name-calling is not around, so that is good."
Past Difficult Dialogue discussions included intelligent design and white privilege, Scarnecchia said. She said the discussions have been going well, considering they have only been happening since October.
She said the discussions are mainly for students, but faculty are allowed to join in. Some students write a reflection paper after each discussion to get a credit for attending, she said.
Shammara Henderson, president of the Black Law Students Association, said the discussions allow students to sit down and listen to each other because they are going to be future colleagues.
"It's helpful because we get a better idea of who we are going to school with and who we will be working with in the future," she said.
Henderson enjoyed the discussion, she said, because it is usually presented as a panel rather than an open discussion for the students.
"It gives everyone the chance to speak instead of playing roles," she said.
Scarnecchia said the next discussion will be in March.
