A Confederate Memorial in Baltimore

Ruckstull, Frederick Wellington,
Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument, 1903

Art has the power to remove noise and highlight what the artist thinks is essential about the subject he or she depicts. But what about when the artist gets it wrong—what about when he or she focuses upon the wrong element, or depicts something that does not in fact exist? I recently discovered an outdoor monument in Baltimore that I think illustrates this problem.

On Mount Royal Avenue, just a few blocks south of West North Avenue, sits Frederick Wellington Ruckstull’s 1903 Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument. Depicted is a winged goddess of victory with flowing vestments and up-opened wings. With her left hand high, she clutches a laurel wreath in an act of solemn presentation. With her right arm, she braces a dying Confederate soldier, giving him support as his one hand grips his chest, and his the other hand holds the battle standard of the Confederacy, tip pointing slightly downward. The soldier’s head is tilted toward the bosom of the goddess and the eyes on his weary face are closed—perhaps the last fitful moments of the young soldier's life. Among the inscribing upon the sculpture’s plinth are the Latin words Gloria Victis (“glory to the vanquished”), Deo Vindice, (“God vindicates”), and the phrase "Glory stands beside ov'r grief."

Let’s make sure we get this right. God vindicates . . . the Confederacy?

Buberl, M. Caspar,
Appomattox, 1889

I think it is useful to contrast Ruckstull's work with another Confederate memorial, this one in Alexandria, Virginia. Caspar Buberl's 1889 Appomattox depicts an unarmed Confederate soldier, standing in a contrapposto pose, his head down with heavy eyes and a sunken face, arms crossed, and with one hand tightly gripping the cloth of his shirt, and his other hand gripping his hat.

I think Buberl's monument utterly suits the subject that it seeks to memorialize. It doesn’t glamorize the Confederacy, or whitewash its horrors. Quite the contrary; the veteran could just as easily be standing over the graves of dead comrades as he comes to the realization that the Confederacy fought for a benighted end. Erected by the Robert E. Lee Camp of the United Confederate Veterans, the sculpture nevertheless speaks to a far larger audience than those who identified themselves with the Confederacy. An emancipated slave, now proud and independent in his freedom, could easily have have looked upon the work and been moved by it. The emancipated slave could easily have seen a veteran who fought for a lost cause—and a man whose dedication now recoils upon him.

Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument, detail.

And therein lies the genius of Appomattox. The sculpture is one of those rare artworks that serves as a lens for our view of the Confederacy through its depiction of the emotional pain of the veteran. It is the kind of work that allows us to imagine what the veteran is thinking—and also imagine what he should be thinking. More than one hundred years after its making, the sculpture still imparts a valuable lesson.

In contrast, Ruckstull's far larger monument seeks little more than to propagandize the glory of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy. It's not surprising given Baltimore's southern sympathies during the Civil War, but its statement in the present moment is jarring. And consider that Ruckstull even depicts a man in his last moments of life. Ruckstull's work depicts the more graphic and tragic horror, but his depiction manages little more than to trivialize it. 

Appomattox, detail.

And even more than that, Ruckstull's work is a finger in the eye of anyone who would disagree with its message that death for the Confederacy was a glorious end. The same emancipated slave moved by the subtle conflicts of Buberl's Appomattox would be left horrified by Ruckstull's Soldiers and Sailors Monument. How could he not? While clearly a work of technical mastery, with its ascendent angelic wings, flowing drapery, and the tortured face of its dying hero, Ruckstull's monument ultimately advances little more than a moral corruption. Gloria Victis, Deo Vindice.

According to the New York Times' coverage of a speech Ruckstull gave before the people of Boston in 1903 and the same year of his Soldiers and Sailors Monument, Ruckstull believed that “the functions of open air statuary are to delight, to refine, to console, to stimulate.” These are worthy goals for public art. It’s a shame then that Ruckstull's own monument here in Baltimore did not live up to his stated ambition.

The Great Law School Time-Suck

By Michael Stone

It was December 2009. Being the proto-typical political science major, I devoured all the news I could get my hands on—university news, local news, state news, and national news. I engaged in op-ed warfare with a conservative person on the university newspaper staff. I would tell others: “You have a DUTY to keep up with current events!”

I lived and breathed this mantra. I balanced school, work, leisure, and news. I felt like Mr. Responsible Citizen, and I was more than a little smug.

It’s now April 2013. That guy from December 2009—yeah, that guy is a jerk. Yesterday I managed to listen to a podcast on my way to law school from my unpaid internship. I wasn’t really listening because I was mentally running a presentation on Fourth Amendment searches through my head. I disagreed with a comment on the class blog today—my uncle’s comment in fact. I’m too tired to fight with him. I keep telling myself, “You have a DUTY to do well in this internship and school in the hopes that you can secure some sort of job after law school.”

I drag my carcass around with this mantra. I devote most of my time to classes, preparation for classes, writing for classes, and the internship. I had to put a reminder on my Google calendar the other day to remind me to eat lunch. I prioritize an hour or two to spend with my fiancée.

I hear that news occurs—though I rarely see it. My name is Mr. Generic Law Student, and I am more than a little exhausted.

Baltimore's Costly Cars

By Dean Fleyzor


In 2011, Baltimore's Labor Day Weekend inaugural Grand Prix left the city in a tough financial position. Initially, the Baltimore Sun claimed that the races were a success because profits for hotel revenue in the downtown area increased by $270,000 and food and drink sales increased by $155,000 compared to 2010's Labor Day Weekend. Although the 160,000 attendees at Baltimore's first Grand Prix in 2011 brought money into the city, the event amassed $47 million due to the increased presence and spending of tourists. However, the races failed to bring in $23 million needed to meet the city's goal of $70 million from hotel, food, entertainment and shopping revenues.

2011 map (from Wikimedia Commons)

The impact of this past Labor Day Weekend’s Grand Prix may never be fully known. According to the Baltimore Sun, in September 2012, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said Baltimore would not conduct an "economic impact study" of the race's revenues to the city.

Unofficial estimates report that the impact of the race in its second year was around $42 million, a 10% drop from the inaugural Grand Prix. While the official numbers may never reveal the failure of Baltimore’s second Grand Prix, there might have been some positive impacts to the city. Anirban Basu, owner of an economic policy-consulting firm in Baltimore, told ABC News that the Grand Prix "continues to be a risk for Baltimore but the reward may eventually be priceless."

The race could possibly grow in reputation in the coming years, and eventually see profit. Basu noted that if the racetrack could be redesigned to induce more people to walk to Federal Hill or Little Italy, the economic impact could dramatically increase. Some changes were already implemented after the Grand Prix in 2011, such as efficient exits for spectators and race times that increased the impact of tourism downtown. The city has a contract to host the Grand Prix races through Labor Day 2015.

Tom Noonan, President of Visit Baltimore, said he saw an increase in the number of organizations interested in holding conventions in Baltimore after the Grand Prix began. So there may be a silver lining in the underwhelming Grand Prix after all. If the races can attract the eye of more investors, the short-term financial loss may increase the chance that Baltimore will host more large events in the future.

The Top 5 Careers I Considered Dropping Out of Law School For

How Not To Report a National Bombing Attack

By Josh Swanner

Another act of senseless violence is currently impacting the nation, coming through on the news waves. And with it, another chance for hate mongers to spew their hate, and continue to contribute to a false, ignorant fear of the other.  Today, that “other” is people of Middle Eastern descent.

After hearing about the bombings, which took place during the Boston Marathon, I immediately went to the Internet to see what I could find. So I clicked through various blogs until I happened upon this headline on Drudge in bright red—“NY POST: Suspect apprehended… Saudi national under guard at hospital…”

I immediately smelled a rat. The NY Post is known for being a bombastic news rag, leaning to the right (owned by Mr. Rupert Murdoch since 1976). And right before reading this I had just watched President Obama on CNN live at 6:10 PM, and on the bottom of the screen I read no suspect had been apprehended. Wait, what?

The article goes on to say, “Investigators have a suspect — a Saudi Arabian national” who is a “20-year-old … under guard at an undisclosed Boston hospital.” And of course, like magic, “Fox News reported that the suspect suffered severe burns.”

I searched on Google to see what other news outlets were saying. Sure enough, many articles appeared citing the New York Post—here is one local Boston outlet.*

It also seems like I’m not the only one smelling a rat. Eric Wemple at the Washington Post blogged “Boston explosions: New York Post better have good sources.” He posted pictures of headlines of major news outlets, closing with the NY Post’s headlines, adding, “Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Boston Police Department is saying that authorities ‘haven’t been notified of any arrests or anyone apprehended.’”  

In the wake of a tragedy, the impulse to believe “they” did it is strong for those already pre-disposed to being Islamaphobic.

Naturally, then, “news” outlets leaning to the right are spreading signals to those who are primed to give into their hate—here the signal being the word “Saudi.”

"Saudi" implies Muslims, who have become the “other” in American society since 9/11. That “other-ness” has peaked since President Barack Obama’s rise to power in 2008.**

That’s truly disgusting. And what’s more so is the belief that being Islamaphoic is OK, evident through the rise of violence against Muslims in America. These strong beliefs are caused by a myriad of sources, but it sure as heck should not be from “news” reports. Media reports such as the one presented by the New York Post only further cake on layers of unconscious hate towards the “other” in our society. They do us no good.

Stop it New York Post, stop it Fox News. In America we have the luxury of having a free press. Stop being the engines of hate, and start being the purveyors of facts. You call yourselves journalists, don’t you?

-----
*As of 10:40 PM the news article now reads, "Federal officials told NBC News that Boston police were guarding a 'possible suspect' who had been wounded in the blasts, but they cautioned that there was no information at the federal level to consider that person a suspect." This was not what I read earlier, which tells me that in a rush to get a story online, news people tend to put up what they have, then go back later and clean up their tracks after getting all the facts.

**My theory on that phenomenon? Racists in this country cannot be outright racists against Obama, but they sure as heck can be Islamaphobic. So, if the President isn’t a Christian, but a Muslim, eureka! He’s a bad man. But that's a blog post for another day. 

Dream Criminal Law Exam: Hero or Menace – How Link Would Fare Under the Law?

By Michael Stone

Here is the final exam question: The well-intentioned Young Man races to the state prison in the pouring rain. A beautiful Senator sends a secret letter to Young Man, and asks for his help. She knows that the corrupt and well-connected Lieutenant Governor poisoned the Governor. And few know that Lieutenant Governor is actually Crime Boss’ lackey. Lieutenant Governor trumped up some criminal charges and had Senator arrested to silence her. He even bribed some judges to deny Senator bail and delay trial. However, Young Man sneaks into the prison, fights through the guards, and breaks Senator out. The two leave behind a trail of dead prison guards, including the warden. Young Man hides Senator in a nearby church—the preacher is a member of an underground organization that knows the truth about Lieutenant Governor. Discuss all of Young Man’s criminal liability.

*          *          *

I was a gamer before law school swallowed my free time. The exam question is basically the introduction to my favorite game, “The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past.” The plot of the game involves Link (Young Man) traversing the land of Hyrule to search for objects to defeat Agahnim (Lieutenant Governor) and Ganon (Crime Boss), save Princess Zelda (Senator), and ultimately restore Hyrule by making a wish on the Triforce.

I bring it up because last spring break I had the chance to have a free thought: What would legally happen to Link as a defendant? Let’s assume that there is no magic involved, and let’s assume that all events occur in Maryland. How does our hero fare in court?

Defendant aka Link

According to the game’s official history, Agahnim “put the soldiers of the kingdom under his spell” after killing the King. This forces Link to fight every knight in the kingdom he encounters. The game actually includes wanted signs for Link’s arrest, and the knights actively attack Link on sight. I found a map and counted approximately 50 knights that Link would encounter in just one pass of Hyrule.

Since we are ignoring magic, let’s say the soldiers are just following orders. Assuming knights are equivalent to police, a fully-armed Link is resisting arrest in each violent encounter. Each resisting arrest charge and conviction comes with a maximum three year jail term and/or $5,000 fine. That is 150 years of incarceration and $250,000—a lot for a guy that only carries $40 (according to this exchange rate).

But that is the least of his problems. Link must rob the knights for money, and he’s armed. So Link can be charged with and convicted of 50 counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon. This is a felony, and it carries a maximum of a twenty year sentence for each encounter. That is potentially 1,000 years in prison. By now he should be questioning whether Zelda was worth it.

It gets worse. Link kills every knight he encounters in Hyrule or dies trying. That is a lot of acts of homicide. Link could argue they were all self-defense because they are trying to kill him. But that might be tough considering Link is mute and can’t say he was in fear for his life. Also, he did rob the corpses. Worst-case scenario, the state charges Link with at least 50 counts of first-degree murder (homicide with the intent to kill). In Maryland, each count of first-degree murder has a mandatory minimum of life in prison. Ipso facto, Link could be facing 50 consecutive life sentences. Now facing the slammer, Link could really use some magic.

Of course this doesn’t include Link’s repeated burglaries of people’s homes, animal cruelty (Link attacks chickens for fun), or malicious destruction of property (he destroys people’s hedges and fences). Nor does it include his possession of destructive devices (bombs and other explosive devices), or harboring the escaped fugitive Zelda (let's not even begin to talk about the possible federal conspiracy charges since that crime probably involved by crossing state lines).

The gamer in me still believes Link is a hero. But the law student in me hopes he gets a good attorney.

There's a University of Baltimore?

By Rachael Dirzuweit

Photo by Daniel Lobo

Why, yes, there IS a University of Baltimore. It has nothing to do with the University of Maryland, either. As a graduate of the Jurisprudence program at the University of Baltimore, UB for short, I am asked about this all the time--and I'm sure quite a few people who didn't ask just assumed. There is in fact a University of Baltimore, right next to the University of Baltimore School of Law (yes, there's a law school, too). My undergraduate education prepared me more for law school than I could have imagined.

Aside from the glowing recommendations about UB that I got from various professors and practicing lawyers when I was at Harford Community College pursuing an Associate's degree in Paralegal Studies, I felt partially compelled to select UB from my undergraduate education based on one thing: early entry. 

You see, you when you take the Jurisprudence or History track to get a Bachelor's degree at the UB, UB Law will let you in to the law school if you have a high enough GPA and LSAT score BEFORE you finish your Bachelor's degree education. The last year of your Bachelor's education is waived, and you enter the School of Law to graduate with what is essentially a complimentary (but well-deserved) Bachelor's at the successful completion of the first year of law school. You get an entire year shaved off your cumulative total years of education, a year's worth of undergraduate tuition saved, and the opportunity to graduate law school a year sooner! Aside from that, if you don't qualify for the early entry option, the law school guarantees a seat in the entering law school class for you if you graduate from UB, provided you meet the minimum requirements. 

Lorraine Bright, a practicing attorney and my pre-law teacher in community college, best described UB's Jurisprudence program to me.  "It's like a watered-down version of law school." That's exactly what it was. The classes were taught using the Socratic method, which is used in law school. This saved me the awkward period of adjusting to law classes along with the other pressures of the first year of law school. The reading requirements, the exams, the substance of the classes--all watered-down law school. All I was missing was the law school's mandatory curve. 

When I entered law school, I had a basic knowledge of criminal law, constitutional law, contracts and courtroom procedure--all things many of my classmates struggled to understand. Knowledge of the law is only workable when it's built like a house, which requires a strong foundation. Otherwise, everything you put on top of it crumbles. In law school, each class builds on basic principles from previous classes; if you try to stack knowledge on top of a weak base, you'll never fully grasp what is going on and your legal education will crumble.

The University of Baltimore's Jurisprudence study program gave me the foundation I needed to become successful in law school. And because my foundation was already strong when I came to law school, I didn't have to spend valuable hours going back and filling cracks in with mortar.