Talk:Antonin Scalia Law School

Rename to "Antonin Scalia School of Law" has legitimacy, but reportedly on hold pending state approval

Late on 31 March (GMT time) this article, along with George Mason University were fully protected due to the suspicion of an elaborate April Fools' joke, whereby the new initials of the institution would spell out a vulgarity. I personally now believe the proposed rename to hold truth, and am setting aside the conjecture of a prank. I came to this conclusion when doing more thorough research, given more resources have become available since the announcement of rename was first made.

However, incidentally, and unrelated to my decision to protect the articles, it appears the name change is still not formal. The Wall Street Journal and others accurately stated the Board of Visitors approved the rename, and an announcement was made from the school. A news report from the university detailing the announcement can found here, where they clearly state (towards the end) that The name change is pending approval from the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia. Other sources seem to support this: Washington Post, Bloomberg, and ABA Journal. The latter suggests this is slated to occur in July.

For this reason, coupled with the apparent controversy around the name change, I believe the full protection should stay in place at least until the wave of vandalism passes over on 2 April. From there we can together decide what's best for the articles, but unless sources clearly state it to be the case, I do not think we should go about renaming them entirely. We of course should make prominent mention that the rename has been formally approved by the university, and that it is only pending approval from the state. This is my opinion based the aforementioned sources I've compiled, but the fate of the current page title shall of course be in the hands off community consensus.

Pinging involved editors and colleagues who helped me with this earlier today, to share my new findings @Gadfium, Kelapstick, DragonflySixtyseven, Kathydodd, Fireflyfanboy, and Masonalum.

Thank you — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Renaming issue

At this point, there is no longer any dispute that the school has made and announced the decision to change its name. As such, this fact, with appropriate sourcing, should be included in the article. Given that any previous good-faith doubt no longer exists, there is no longer a basis for full protection that I can perceive and I suggest that it be lifted very promptly.

I agree with MusikAnimal that the article title should not be moved to the new name until the name receives the required approvals and actually takes effect. Until that time a redirect from the proposed/announced to the current name, with mention of that name in the existing article, should be sufficient. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Protection modified

Given that it has been several hours since I commented above and no one has objected to lifting the full protection, I am doing so. At this point it is clear that the announcement of the rename is real, and I see no basis for waiting.

The article may therefore be edited to reflect the announced change of name. I'd make the edits myself, but I don't want to be perceived as having lifted protection for the purpose of adding my own content. To be balanced, the edit should reflect the announced change of name but also the required further approval, with citation to sources as above.

I considered whether to leave semiprotection in place, but I think it would be premature to speculate as to whether this article will be unusually subject to vandalism (or today, to foolery). If vandalism or foolishness does transpire, any admin should feel free to semiprotect without consulting me.

I have instated move protection for up to one month to allow for discussion on the talkpage as to whether and when the article should be moved to the School's new name. The School appears to be using the name immediately (see their website here), but there is a requirement of further approval as discussed above, so the issue should be discussed. (I have also inserted a hidden comment at the top of the article to this effect.) If a consensus develops in favor of a move, any admin may lift the move protection. In the meantime, I've created redirects from Antonin Scalia School of Law and Antonin Scalia School of Law at George Mason University to this article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, finally. But let's not pretend there ever, ever would have been this nonsense, or indeed any restriction on an immediate change if Scalia had been a left-leaning appointment instead of a right-leaning appointment.

It has nothing to do with politics for me, in fact I had never heard of him until he died. I really still don't know much about him, or any decisions he may have weighed in on, as they have no effect on me, as I am not American. My concern was that the new acronym of the school ASSoL sounds an awful lot like asshole if you say it. And that plus the day it was announced, suggested to me that we should exercise some prudence in the matter. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 10:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Update regarding change of name

For those updating the article, please note that the precise new name of the school has been tweaked. Please see here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. We're still waiting for the final approval from the state board before changing the article name, right? ElKevbo (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Correct, if we wanted to be fully accurate. I think mentioning the new name in bold as we are now is sufficient, given how the institution has adopted it as if it were official — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

They have renamed on their website, so I think that should be noted. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this should definitely be noted in the article but the title of the article shouldn't be changed until the name of the school is actually changed. Right now it's still pending approval from the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia; this article from the Roanoke Times published today indicates that the university hasn't yet submitted an application to the council to begin the approval process. That some state Democratic lawmakers are whining about this may also be notable especially if they try to take some sort of action to protest or block the renaming. ElKevbo (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The school is claiming that the new name will take effect on July 1 pending approval from the state council. ElKevbo (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed the giggle reference in the lead to the name that never was. I don't think it's encyclopedic to keep it considering Scalia died recently. The whole point of not using that name was to avoid subjecting both Scalia and the school from ridicule. Since the name never took place, we shouldn't be memorializing that ridicule as it was a 1 day twitter trend. --DHeyward (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Tuition section

While some are wasting time with the school's name change, the rest of the article is in need of correcting rather some large mistakes. For example the article currently states The total cost of [in state] attendance (indicating the cost of tuition, fees, and living expenses) for the 2015-2016 academic year at Mason Law is $25,351. However the source states that is just for tuition. The source states that additional costs (eg room and board) are $23,688, which would the actual in-state cost $49219.

I don't know (but wouldn't be surprised) if there has been infighting over the ASSOL acronym, but if you've been pushing such BLP violating nonsense, you should reexamine your priorities. That man from Nantucket (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Antonin Scalia School of Law

This former new name should be mentioned in the article. Why is it being deleted? epicgenius 18:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, how can you violate BLP when there is no BLP violation to speak of? I can't find anything mentioning "offensive acronyms" in the policy page. epicgenius 18:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I won't address BLP but this is such a trivial item that it doesn't seem like it's worth mentioning at all. ElKevbo (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm only mentioning BLP because DHeyward was mentioning it, too. But yes, now that I think about it, it does seem kind of minor. epicgenius 19:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I explained it in Section 3 after a BRD cycle with the IP (I removed, IP reverted, I commented). I don't see the IP. Sorry, I just put in the other title section but I should have put it in a new section. I don't think it's a clear BLP violation, only that the law school took care not to make it offensive to his legacy. It seems rather unencyclopedic and against at least the principles upon which BLP is founded to say "No, no, no, too late. It's now in the lead." Not very many reasons to keep one-day twitter trend, some human decency reasons to remove it - after all Scalia being recently deceased doesn't have any say on any of it and WP shouldn't be the place for the last laugh. --DHeyward (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a BLP violation, but I also think it is insignificant enough to not warrant inclusion. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I see. It is too insignificant to mention the social media controversy. Should we include the "Antonin Scalia School of Law" name at all, though? epicgenius (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The school was going to be renamed something, but it was never officially renamed. Then they changed their minds and decided to rename it something else, because the first name they chose wasn't a very good idea. While I generally don't agree with That Man from Nantucket, he's right, the priorities of this article should be reevaluated. Adding content about the previous name that never was is low hanging fruit since it's recent. Really the focus of this article should be on improving it on the whole, not deciding if a name, that the school never officially had, should be included in the article. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

OK. I guess the school rename is low-priority now. Thanks to all of you, though, for your comments. epicgenius, presented by reddit.com/r/funny (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Antonin Scalia Law School/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Was this article written by a GMU law student or someone in the admissions office, because it unjustifiably praises the law school. First of all, GMU is not "one of the top law schools in the nation." It is currently ranked #34 by U.S. News and World Report. "Top" law schools are generally those schools ranked #s 1-15, possibly #s 1-20. The most prestigious firms throughout the country tend to recruit only from law schools within the top 25 of the rankings; I do not know of any prestigious, large law firms outside of Washington, D.C. that recruit at GMU. Though GMU's reputation is building in the Washington, D.C. area, it is still largely unknown by law firms outside of the Virginia/D.C./Maryland region. GMU Law is the third best law school in the D.C. area alone, much less a "top" law school nationwide. Secondly, GMU most certainly does not boast "one of the most rigorous legal research and writing programs in the country." Where is the authority for that bold statement? Many, many law schools require their students to pursue a required course of two years' worth of legal writing and research. I highly doubt that GMU's legal research and writing program is more demanding than the top schools' programs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SBush1 (talk • contribs) 10:28, July 17, 2007‎

Last edited at 21:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 16:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Library section revision needed

I don't know whether it was a condition of the funding by the anonymous donor or the Koch Foundation mentioned elsewhere on this talk page, but shortly after the renaming, law library access was restricted to GMU alumni, faculty and students. Such usually happened only during law school exam periods, but last summer the restrictions continued. The rationale then given was that the library was being renovated. Actually, it got a lot smaller, I believe as the career services office was moved into the library's first floor to allow expansion of the law and economics area elsewhere in the building. Last month, I attempted to review some legal periodicals there, and learned the restriction had become permanent in late June. As far as I know, this is the only law library of a publicly funded Virginia law school to do so. The example orally given for the closure was George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C., which is a private institution. I was later given a list of law libraries allowing access, ranging from the Library of Virginia (two driving hours away) to the nearby county law libraries (with very restricted hours) to the private American University and the public Library of Congress (both in Washington, D.C. and with shorter hours than this library). These restrictions may not be consistent with it being a government repository as mentioned in this article, although the particular research I was doing needed legal periodicals, and the government repository mentioned here conceivably could have been moved to the other library on GMU's Arlington campus, which I didn't try to access (but which I've accessed previously for wikipedia articles involving Virginia legal history). Frankly, neither document was a press release, so I wouldn't know how to cite them to revise the now-misleading library section of this article.Jweaver28 (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

New York Times quote in lede

@Professor.history.2: Why did you revert one of my edits without any explanation or discussion? Your edit removed this sentence:

The school is known for its conservative ideological leaning in law and economics.

and replaced it with this sentence:

In 2023, The New York Times described Antonin Scalia Law School as "a Yale or Harvard of conservative legal scholarship and influence."

Why are you insisting that the lede of this article include a quote from a single source instead of a summary of what multiple sources say? ElKevbo (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Both of these sentences seem to be saying basically the same thing. Doesn't seem worth arguing over to me. It's possible we could merge the two sentences and say something like "The Anton Scalia Law School is known for its conservative ideological leaning in law and economics; in 2023, The New York Times described the school as 'a Yale or Harvard of conservative legal scholarship and influence.'" Marquardtika (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

But why would we want to include the quote in the lede at all? Is it really critical that readers immediately know about that one specific quote when they begin reading or skimming this article? ElKevbo (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the quote in the body. I don't particularly care if it's in the lede or not, but I do think it's a noteworthy quote and should be somewhere in the article. It gets at the fact that the school isn't just conservative, it's "the" school for legal conservatives. Marquardtika (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

References