Search the Lounge


« Southern University Law Seeks Faculty | Main | North Carolina Law Authorizes the Use of Prisoners as Slave Labor to Maintain a Confederate Cemetery »

December 04, 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Doctor Trombonephoneloandrone

1) Put the monument back in the exact place it was located before; thus, no relocation, thus, compliance with above statute.

2) Build cheap new building entirely around monument, with one small glass window available through which one could view the monument.

3) In front of glass window, place plaque explaining the history and purpose of confederate monuments and the collective shame that all good people should feel with respect to the confederacy.

Or just put it right back where it was and let the people do with it what they may.


Weak argument about the term "jurisdiction": courts regularly refer to the jurisdiction of campus police, the jurisdiction of the rules of student conduct regulatory efforts, etc.

The contention that because the term "museum" is also ambiguous (or, that an "education center" is a "museum") means that the term "jurisdiction" doesn't mean "UNC Chapel Hill" is an even weaker argument.

Finally, the focus on the term "honor" seems bizarre.

So, the conclusion of this law professor: Defy the clear terms of the statute (i.e., break the law) and put the statue in a museum (that denigrates the University to boot)!


Would the North Forest be "a site of similar prominence, honor, visibility, availability, and access?" Whatever that means?

I'd just ignore the statute as impossibly vague. ::shrugs::


"a site of similar prominence, honor, visibility, availability, and access"

The words "visibility, availability, and access" do not seem to be vague at all in this context.

"Prominence" and "honor" might be vague, in this context; but aren't.

"Prominence" means "the quality, state, or fact of being ... conspicuous." "Honor" means "to give recognition to."

What is so impossible about interpreting the referenced clause of the statute?


“What does all this mean? It means that the law is not mandating outcomes about Silent Sam. Political judgments are.“

That’s preposterous. The writer is correct that the “museum” and “honor” requirements place UNC’s proposal outside the bounds of what the law mandates, but the law does mandate an outcome. It is not unusual that there is some uncertainty or debate over what, exactly, that mandate is. This happens frequently with laws. This is why we have courts to help us better understand and apply the mandate of the law to the facts at hand.

Of course the writer, a professor of law, knows all that. What motivates his arguments is a preference, not a fair presentation of what he knows to be the legal process.

Jean Davison

I think clearly building a 5 million dollar building to house this statue that the majority of students and faculty oppose is a waste of taxpayers $$ and student's fees. The town of Chapel Hill opposes it and should have a voice too since they too must "guard" it and protesters within their jurisdiction. Perhaps our state law needs to be re-visited and changed!

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad