When Sandy Rivers, 3L, signed up for Communications Law in a Post-Gender World, she had no idea that she was unwittingly subjecting herself to a semester’s worth of class with a “disgusting” number of former Section 3 upperclass J.D. students.
“It was a nightmare,” said Rivers, formerly of Section 4. “At first I thought, alright, maybe some of the students in class are just talkative.” Quickly, the realization hit her that her fellow students were not only talkative, but preferred to generally speak about topics that were only tangentially related to whatever the professor was actually trying to say. Instead, the former Section 3 students “just went on and on about absolutely nothing,” confided Rivers.
Of the fourteen students in Rivers’s seminar, eight had enrolled in Georgetown’s Curriculum B. According to Rivers, each of these students had a “pet issue” that he or she (“and they always insisted on using the pronoun ‘she’”) would bring up multiple times in each class session.
One student managed to relate satellite communications to the plight of Ugandan refugees, while another spoke up at one point to announce that communications law was anthropocentric and should be deconstructed to allow for non-verbal, non-human forms of communication, like echolocation and rectum-sniffing.
Rivers is now leading an Student Bar Association petition to further segregate law school classes, and allow Curriculum A students to select courses with 25 percent or fewer students formerly from Section 3. “I’m normally not a proponent of ‘separate but equal,’ but even the Black Law Students Association is on board with this petition,” claims Rivers.
“Also, if I have to hear about the drawbacks of our capitalist, post-colonial society one more time, I’m going to club a baby seal and vote against gay marriage,” said a distraught Rivers.