Worth reading and considering, the author sums up my thoughts on the matter better than I could have.
I call shenanigans.
MacLeod teaches at Faulkner Law, located in Montgomery Alabama, a self-described "Christian law school," and one of the most conservative law schools in the entire United States. And we're supposed to believe that the 1Ls there are raging liberals, brainwashed by undergrad PC profs? Is this guy for reals?
We're also supposed to believe that the proper response is to place all sorts of restrictions on ideas in the classroom? You fight intellectual fascism with... more intellectual fascism?
• Racism is an unproductive term? Welcome to Alabama.
• Sexism is an unproductive term? Because... women are never treated like second-class citizens? See above.
• Since when did younger people consider older generations are morally superior? Is that actually a problem? Does he really not understand what ageism is, or why ageism is a genuine problem?
• How is suppressing all discussion of racism, sexism, ageism and so forth any better than suppressing any other type of opinion?
• Has anyone here even glanced at the Code of Hammurabi? Allow me to quote a few sections of it:
2. If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.
7. If any one buy from the son or the slave of another man, without witnesses or a contract, silver or gold, a male or female slave, an ox or a sheep, an ass or anything, or if he take it in charge, he is considered a thief and shall be put to death.
22. If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death.
110. If a "sister of a god" open a tavern, or enter a tavern to drink, then shall this woman be burned to death.
154. If a man be guilty of incest with his daughter, he shall be driven from the place (exiled).
192. If a son of a paramour or a prostitute say to his adoptive father or mother: "You are not my father, or my mother," his tongue shall be cut off.
193. If the son of a paramour or a prostitute desire his father's house, and desert his adoptive father and adoptive mother, and goes to his father's house, then shall his eye be put out.
209. If a man strike a free-born woman so that she lose her unborn child, he shall pay ten shekels for her loss.
Much of the code deals with managing agricultural conflicts, issues relating to slaves, quite a few about incest, dealing with multiple wives, dowries, and so on. Some of the punishments are extreme -- death penalties, cutting off hands, drowning, putting out eyes, flogging, cutting off ears and more. Others are trivial by modern standards.
Now, I agree that there can be much value to reading the Code of Hammurabi. However, to say that the document is offensive to the modern student -- liberal or conservative -- is an understatement. I.e. a good teacher, instead of telling students to shut up, should explain to the students
why they are reading a document that is, by modern standards, highly problematic.
Ultimately, despite a few decent points, he's not actually advocating for a critical perspective on the law. He's just declaring "my way or the highway," in an environment where students are not allowed to speak back. The idea that this essay is a triumph of liberty and freedom is ludicrous.