Why? Well today, because of this post:
Brooklyn Law School Student Bares All
Posted by Peter Lattman
It was hard to ignore the front page of this morning’s New York Daily News. Reads the headline:
LEGALLY BLONDE
Top law student’s crazy naked stunt backfires badlyIt seems that Adriana Dominguez, a third-year at Brooklyn Law School, appeared naked in a Playboy TV series that has now made the rounds on the Internet. Dominguez isn’t shy about her exploits, posing for a News photographer yesterday and granting an exclusive interview.
“I wanted to do something a little crazy before I graduate and do become a lawyer . . . do something kind of out of character,”the 24-year-old told the News, adding,”Lawyers can be boring.”She also said she wouldn’t mind if opposing counsel saw these pictures of her.
Dominguez (U.Penn undergrad) has interned with a domestic violence unit in the Brooklyn DA’s office and served as treasurer of her law school’s Legal Association of Activist Women. She reportedly met with Brooklyn Law administrators over the video. Said a law school spokeswoman to the News:”We don’t want this to ruin the career of a young lawyer.”
Law Blog Question of the Day: If Dominguez passes the bar, New York’s Committee on Character and Fitness will have to decide whether to grant her admission. If you sat on the committee, would you?
Yes you asshole, I would. I’m not a fan of Playboy, to put it mildly, but I don’t think nudity is an ethical violation.
–Ann Bartow.
NB: Link via a male blogger who reportedly goes topless at the beach, and quite possibly showers daily without any clothing on whatsoever.
Ann,
Might there not be a way to express our disgust or disdain or contempt (what have you) without indulging in an abusive ad hominem?
Perhaps. Yet I have recently learned that the WSJ is not asking a similar “fitness” question about another law student that was also in the video who was, wait for it, male. So I’m not exactly feeling contrite about my foul mouth at the moment. Also, if appearing nude in photographs is a character and fitness issue, I’d like to know why distributing and viewing pornography shouldn’t be as well.
I don’t think Playboy is simply ‘nudity.’ Nudity would be if this woman went to a nudist beach or took snapshots of herself nude, as you say, takes showers unclothed like the male blogger.
Playboy is pornography. She participated in creating pornography and was presumably compensated for her participation. This makes her, by extension, something of a sex industry worker. I think that this is a valid question for the character and fitness committee to consider.
As between the sexist-crap-couched-in-polite-terms of Lattman’s post and Ann’s mild epithet, I find “asshole” far less abusive.
I totally agree with Eric. If the law student wants to pose nude, I guess that’s her choice. I may not necessarily hire her to work for me at my firm, but I certainly would not consider it any kind of “character or fitness” issue for admission to the bar. (I do wonder about her apparent failure to connect porn and domestic violence/violence against women.) Someone in my law school had posed as an undergrad in the Playboy issue about “undergrad of the Ivy Leagues” or whatever it was, and that didn’t keep her from going to law school or becoming an accomplished corporate attorney.
Class of 03: I am not a big fan of porn, but I think calling her a sex industry worker is a bit harsh. Moreover, I agree with Ann — should any law students who recreationally view Dominguez’s pictures also be questioned when it comes time for admission to the bar? If not, isn’t that like blaming the prostitute but not the john (to use your sex industry worker metaphor)?
sometimes in the interest of clarity our words must be simple and to the point. Ann seems to have perfect vision!
Thanks Eric, MS and Bobc, for the input and for not expecting me to be ladylike. There is a song YouTube will play in your honor here:
Don’t worry Patrick, it’s the PG version :>)