William Brown, a Navy veteran, is founder of Veterans For Education and is studying International Law at Rutgers Camden School of Law – Camden.
Brown writes this about a question on an exam he recently took:
Imagine you are an Iraq Veteran and everyone in your class knows you are an Iraq veteran. Everyone in your class is going to read the below exam question that portrays Iraq veterans in the worst possible stereotype. Would it be reasonable to conclude that the Professor or that Rutgers in general is promoting negative stereotypes of military and veterans by misconstruing how men and women accurately deal with PTSD?
This is one example of several (although the most blatant) that I have found in Rutgers Camden Law School Exams that portray Military and Veterans in a negative fashion. I believe that this far from accurate portrayal of an Iraq veteran who kills an unarmed child looking for candy while in Iraq continues to influence Law School students towards negative sterotypes that minimize honorable military service and how men and women accurately deal with PTSD. This exam is published on a exam data base at Rutgers Law Camden and is used by students to study for their exams which consist of a 100% of their grade.
Professor Clark Rutgers Camden Law
SPRING 2009 SEMESTER QUESTION THREE
Mullaney is an Iraq veteran. While he was in Iraq, his wife entered into a relationship with another man. When Mullaney returned to the United State she told him that she wanted a divorce and moved her stuff out of the marital home. Nevertheless, she returned from time to time to deal with joint finances and taxes and they had occasional sex. Mullaney made numerous pleas to her to return to him. He is a devout Catholic and deeply committed to the sanctity of marriage, although he realizes that his wife had been unfaithful in the past. Meanwhile he was dealing with what the VA doctors described as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It was brought about by the whole experience in Iraq and specifically by his realization that he had killed an unarmed child who approached him in what he now realizes was a request for candy. His wife worked at nights in a convenience store and Mullaney visited her there for coffee at about 3 am. He drank most of a bottle of Jack Daniels to accompany the coffee. He again pleaded with her desperately to return to him. He then went to the home shared by his wife and her new partner. Apparently Mullaney tried to reason with him to encourage the wife to return. The new partner said “Drop dead, buddy, she’s mine now.” He then grabbed an ax handle that was lying nearby and tried to hit Mullaney. He missed. Mullaney grabbed the handle and bashed the other repeatedly over the head. He died at the scene.
Erehwon has no death penalty. It continues to be abolitionist as it was in the territorial period. When it incorporated the common law as part of its law, it adopted the common law definition of murder as modified by the Pennsylvania law of 1794 creating degrees of homicide. Punishment for first degree murder is mandatory life imprisonment. Punishment for second degree murder is any term of years up to life. Punishment for manslaughter is up to 20 years imprisonment.
You are working for the District Attorney. She asks you for a memo exploring all the potential legal issues and prosecution and defense strategies. Her instincts are that a plea bargain might be an attractive way to deal with the case, especially as Mullaney seems to be some kind of talk show hero. Write the memo.
What do you think? Is the question a legitimate scenario meant to teach law students or does it unfairly cast veterans in a negative light?
Post your comments below. (Your e-mail address will not be published.)
1) I will not stand by and let circles within academia promote the worst types of negative stereotypes of veterans in the class room. We should learn from the horrible way our brothers and sisters from Vietnam where treated because of negative stereotypes.
2) The 1st Amendment gives me the right to voice my expression. I have chosen to voice my expression in the greatest mediums available to me. “The internet.”
3) I’m going to go graduate Law School and then I’m going to use the legal education I’m currently engaging in to further advocate for military and veterans.
4) “Lawvet” notice how I put my name on all of my comments.
This institution has a long way to go still. Bias and animosity still permeate the administrative ranks like weeds. The question was written by a very well known anti-war critic who has written several books on the matter. To say there was no agenda is illogical (for all you law STUDENTS on here). Personal attacks are unnecessary and unwelcome, those who engage in such are of low moral character and lack fortitude.
No, I do not believe it is meant to be negative. As soon as I read it, I took Mullaneys side. I think in this small paragraph its intention was to provide a multiple of possible strategies that could be used in a court of law in his defense, and to provide much insight to what the prosecution may try and use to build a case against him. Theres allot of info here – Iraq Vet – PTSD – kills child accidently (obviously it was never a cold hearted decision because his deep sorrow and remorse brings on this horrible disorder of PTSD) – wife moves out, returns for occasional sex (messing with his head in hopes she will be wanting to return with him) – he is a devout Catholic (a moral man) – his wife has been unfaithful in past (yet obviously he deeply loves her still, a forgiving man) – VA docs prescribe med that he is still so depreszed while on he tries to mask his pain with alcohol (he is desperatly in pain and trying to cope) – he goes to her and her lovers residence (not I.n anger- but in humility, begs her lover to give her back) – the man says shes mine, tries to hit Mullaney with an axe handle – Mullaney is unarmed, defends himself – disarms the man – kills him in the heat of the moment. I cant see Mullaney as the bad guy, tje other two, are immoral, and the wifes boyfriend illhearted, and dangerous, not Mullaney.
William,
At first it was amusing to read your rants filled with grammatical errors and delusional rhetoric. Now it’s sad. PLEASE stop promoting this page.
“1) I will not stand by and let circles within academia promote the worst types of negative stereotypes of veterans in the class room. We should learn from the horrible way our brothers and sisters from Vietnam where treated because of negative stereotypes.”
To try and tie this into to what went on during Vietnam is an insult to veterans who fight for a real issues. THIS IS FROM A PRACTICE EXAM LIMITED TO LAW STUDENTS IN HIS CLASS! Do you honestly think the info contained in that question could ever persuade someone in the slightest bit as towards how they feel towards veterans? You’ve lost it if you do. You fought for our freedom of speech. This professor did not “promote” his agenda during class and if you feel that way, you are truly disillusioned. If you found a REAL example of him promoting negative stereotypes in school then fine. Otherwise, stop making our school look bad by having people question how you even got in. Seriously, how did you get in? What are your grades? What was your LSAT? I only ask so that you can bolster your credibility as someone capable of making a coherent argument. Thus far, it looks like you’re just trying to pick a fight for the sake of it.
PLEASE DIRECT YOUR ANGER TOWARDS A REAL ISSUE. Not that the promotion of negative stereotypes isn’t a real issue…just find a better example to go after.
An old law school practice exam hidden in a library that 99% of students don’t even check for exam prep??? Sighhh
Benjamin Zieman of Mount Laurel New Jersey, please take note that your comments on this link have represented Rutgers in very poor fashion.
Interesting scenario.In my opinion it does not show veterans in a bad light or negativism for veterans it depicts a sad result of fighting in a war where we shouildnt be it shows the trauma of war and the terrible effect it has on the empotional state of those who fight for our freedom.
All he ever asked for was a happy return home instead he was met by infidelity divorce and disrespect. He was turned out by the very government that sent him to Iraq and did not provide adequate treatment and counseling. How can anyome go through the trauma that this man went through and then face a crushing situation at home.Mullaney acted instinctively to a threat doesn’t self defense statutes allow you to defend your self with equal force and to do what you have to to protect your life obviously the other guy was intent on doing him in or at the very least causing severe injury to him
Really sucks, why not make him an attorney or politician instead of a veteran
“why not make him an attorney or politician”
- A valid question. One of the problems here is how out of context this question was taken. This was ONE problem on ONE exam. Keep in mind there are multiple problems on each exam and MANY exams that this professor has given (emphasis on the MANY as he has been teaching for years). Therefore, there are questions regarding conduct by attorneys, politicians, and a variety of other scenarios which is solely there to reflect potential real world situations. This type of question is set up with a purpose. It’s purpose is to give an uncomfortable scenario to students and to see if they’re capable of giving a proper answer, regardless of how uncomfortable the facts are. As you know, lawyers often represent white supremacists, serial killers, doctors, and your friendly neighbor. It would be a disservice to society if we only prepared our law students with easy scenarios and then hang them up to get shocked when they step into the real world. There is no point going into the complex legal arguments that these facts create. But lines that some people such as William put into question are there to separate people who only see it for what it is on it’s face and the better students who are able to see the deeper meaning of how to intertwine those facts with a complex legal argument. Clearly, William wasn’t one of those students. And that’s okay, not everyone was meant to excel in law school. What I suggest is William spend more time allocating his efforts to making a real difference rather than complaining over an exam question that was never intended to reach the general public – hence this wasn’t used to indoctrinate Joe the Plumber. Fortunately, William did that for us by posting it on the internet.
I believe this question to be somewhat of a stereotype. I do not know the background of this professor, but I DO believe that an Iraq veteran that has PTSD does not necessarily have to kill an innocent child to get PTSD. The most common form of PTSD for soldiers is based on other, more likely circumstances. It is true that some soldiers that have PTSD do drink to help numb the memories of war, but the VA hospitals have very successful programs that help veterans cope with PTSD. This situation is not a common situation at all. If the soldier knows that he has PTSD, he is probably receiving treatment that consists of counseling, anti-depressants/ anti-anxioty drugs, and a whole host of other options.
I see a lot of situations in this question that could have been stated in a different manner and still get the same point across. I see how this could upset a veteran that has been in situations such as these or that feels very protective about his brothers that he/she was in war with. Personally, I feel that this professor could have picked another situation that did not sit so close to home with one of his students on a subject that could be considered degrading and stereotypical.
Strong words for someone who is too cowardly to post their name.
From your personal injury section –
“this firm is ready to due what it takes”
You should proofread your legal website and insert commas where they are needed.
I am no surprised you would call someone a coward. Rather than use a legal argument, you’ve chosen to attack those who call it how they see it. There are those who see a problem like this and freak out that the professor didn’t use a different fact pattern and there are those who are intelligent enough to realize the professor has used many questions over the years covering a wide range of “different” fact sets that could equally offend a wide range of people.
The idea is the only people who come across these difficult questions are those in law school who are mentally stable enough to handle it. A reason why students are given a character and fitness test… you cannot have people freak out when they encounter these types of tough cases in the real world…and a reason why many attorneys try criminal law and then realize they cannot handle it.
@ Still? Is a perfect of an arrogant SOB, who either has already been…or perhaps should be diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Otherwise he could have spared us the arrogant rant about grammar and spelling and would not have found it necessary to disrespect those whose opinions he disagreed. Still, his overwhelming urge to prop up his unrealistically high but fragile self esteem by disparaging others. Sounds like someone who has done nothing to serve his country but yet feels entitled to everything for which we veterans have sacrificed. Not only was his post a lame attempt to prop up his high but fragile self esteem but also unable to understand the comments which he criticized.
First of all, his comment about how the comment about Vietnam Veterans not making sense because the Vietnam Veterans went through something much worse shows he did not understand and made no attempt to understand the previous comment. The previous comment was obviously referring to stereotyping, which undoubtedly took place when Vietnam Veterans returned. Yes, the stereotyping was part of something much worse than is happening today. Yes, the veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are normally treated with respect, whereas Vietnam Veterans were not. However, the stereotyping as “baby killers” is reminiscent of the Vietnam era. If you stereotyped African Americans as “good basketball players” or “good dancers” or some other nonsensical stereotype it would not matter if it were a test question, something would be done about it…and rightfully so. Stereotyping is wrong, whether it is of a race/ethnicity, gender, or those who have served our country. This is how I understood the comment. If the authors of the test wanted to leave room for the defense attorney to use PTSD as a defense they could have been more sensitive and perhaps even consulted a veteran about the question.
Still? says:
Please see a psychiatrist before you hurt someone you love with you’re unfeeling and unthinking arrogance.
I think the people on here against Mr. Brown have a bigger problem with him then with his objection to a question on a practice exam. Mr. Brown is both arrogant and sociopathic. Instead of using reasoning and well crafted compromise to shift other people’s view points, he has made this a battle of ego where he must win despite what may actually be the best approach to accomplishing his so-called “advocacy efforts.” If you google Mr. Brown’s name “William Brown NJ” all that pops up is what a lying, cheating deviant felon he is. Mr. Brown lurks around the building like the hunchback of Notre Dame, and always looks like he is about to literally KILL somebody. He scares me, and the sooner he flunks out, the faster this school can restore its reputation.
Benjamin Zieman of Mount Laurel New Jersey your continued use of a false identities is further proof of your true character. Please refrain from baseless character attacks. Academics, intellectuals and law students outside of Rutgers will be more inclined to see that Professor Clark blatantly played on negative stereotypes of veterans in the above hypothetical exam question. Academics, intellectuals and law students outside of Rutgers will also be more inclined to find that many of the negative attacks concerning my character in this exchange of perspective are distasteful, immature and alarming. For a more accurate perception of me then the Republican slander pieces that where published when I ran for Assembly in 2009 try Googling “William Brown Navy SEAL.”
Making a Great personal ad – Be honest – As I said above what exactly is the point of misleading a person, it is going to only result in disappointment for each of you. If an individual says they are looking for an athletic type it is unlikely they’ll change their mind on a first date and they are also not most likely to trust anything else about you.