Academic Freedom

Emory Law Journal Refuses To Publish Conservative Professor's Dismissal of Systemic Racism

"The editors found my views to be 'hurtful' and refused to publish them," says Lawrence Alexander.

|

Lawrence Alexander is a professor at the University of San Diego School of Law. He is known for having co-authored an infamous article in The Philadelphia Inquirer with University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax arguing that the decline of "bourgeois values" in the U.S. was associated with various negative social developments. They wrote:

That culture laid out the script we all were supposed to follow: Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.

These basic cultural precepts reigned from the late 1940s to the mid-1960s. They could be followed by people of all backgrounds and abilities, especially when backed up by almost universal endorsement. Adherence was a major contributor to the productivity, educational gains, and social coherence of that period.

That essay proved to be deeply controversial, and was followed by several more controversies involving Wax. She was recently accused of racism after stating that Asian immigration should be curtailed, largely on the grounds that most Asian immigrants vote for Democrats.  Her university has already taken steps to prevent her from teaching her class, which is a blow to basic principles of academic freedom, no matter how wrong those views may be.

Now Alexander is facing an even more obvious violation of basic principles of academic freedom; he was recently asked by the Emory Law Journal—a publication of Emory University's law school—to contribute to a "festschrift" on the works of Michael Perry, an Emory law professor. A festschrift is a collection of writings intended to honor a particular scholar, even if they critique elements of that scholar's thinking.

Alexander's contribution was indeed critical of Perry's work on disparate racial impact and equal protection. "I focus on it, not to find a bone to pick somewhere in Michael's
impressive body of work, but because his error in that early work has an analogue in today's political discourse, which makes that error of many years past of contemporary importance," wrote Alexander.

He writes from a conservative perspective, and undoubtedly takes a view that the presumably liberal editors of the Emory Law Journal disagree with. But they did not merely register that disagreement and proceed with publication: They told Alexander the essay was racist and would have to be substantially revised.

"We take issue with your conversation on systemic racism, finding your words hurtful and unnecessarily divisive," wrote Danielle Kerker Goldstein, the editor in chief. "Additionally, there are various instances of insensitive language use throughout the essay (e.g., widespread use of the objectifying term 'blacks' and 'the blacks' (pages 2, 3, 6, 8, etc.); the discussions on criminality and heredity (pages 11 and 14), the uncited statement that thankfully racism is not an issue today (page 18)). And, crucially, the discussion on racism is not strongly connected to your commentary on Professor Perry's work, which is the focus of the Issue and the purpose behind the publication opportunity offered."

Kerker Goldstein did not respond to a request for comment.

Readers can take a look at the essay and judge for themselves. Speaking only for myself, I have a hard time agreeing that the language is insensitive and objectifying. Alexander does indeed refer to "black" and "blacks," but he also refers to "white" and "whites." He invokes criminality and heredity merely to set the matter aside entirely. And his views on whether racism is an important issue today are certainly relevant to his rejection of Perry's philosophy.

Alexander refused to modify the piece. "I wrote about how I see the racial situation in the U.S. today," he tells Reason. "The editors found my views to be 'hurtful' and refused to publish them, despite the fact that I had been invited to write for a festschrift issue in their journal."

Two other contributors have withdrawn their submissions in protest of how the journal treated Alexander. The point of the festschrift is to include a range of perspectives on Perry; singling out Alexander's undermines the validity of the project.

"This opera isn't over," wrote Gail Heriot, a professor of law at the University of San Diego Law School and a contributor to the Volokh Conspiracy, which is hosted on this website. "Two law professors (one conservative and one liberal) have withdrawn their essays from the ELJ in protest over its treatment of Larry. Two more professors, both of whom I believe to be left of center, have said that they will publish only if they can include a blurb in front of their essays that protests the decision not to publish Larry. They do not necessarily agree with everything in Larry's essay. But standing up for him doesn't require agreement."

Read Heriot's article here.

NEXT: January 6 Doesn't Justify Wrecking the Filibuster

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It fascinating to see how Leftists can twist themselves into knots trying to find the justification to do the wrong thing because they cannot stand having their worldview challenged. I guess Black Lives Matter should be verboten because that name is objectivying?

    1. I remember having a conversation with a couple black coworkers when I was a young man about the word nigger, and how black people could use it, but whites couldn’t, and where that could lead to problems with other words and phrases being used for manipulation in the future.

      One of them just wouldn’t accept that my intention wasn’t that I wanted to be able to call black people niggers. The second one was more open minded and we had a good conversation, but still wasn’t convinced it was a problem. This was before “people of color” became widely used.

      Years later I ran into the second one, and I asked: Why is “colored person” so offensive, but all of the sudden “people of color” isn’t? She couldn’t answer, and ceded my point from the initial argument. She still didn’t grasp the deeper point of WHY this happened the way it did though.

      The left, like with many other topics, has granted themselves the authority to determine which words are racially appropriate, by who and in what context, and can change those rules as needed to always paint their enemies as racist.

      1. And for the record I didn’t really understand the WHY yet during the initial conversation, I just saw hypocrisy.

        1. Start working at home with G00gle! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour.

          I work thr0ugh this link, G0 to tech tab for work detail.………__>>> Visit Here

      2. That has led to problems with the n-word being considered beyond the pale for white kids but part of black kid's every day slang. If you want that word out of standard usage it has to unacceptable for everyone, regardless of their race.

        1. I don’t remember that rapper, but years ago there was a rap concert where the rapper pulled up a white girl on stage to sing the lyrics along with him. When it got to the word nigger she just kept singing along with the rapper. Then the crowd started booing her. I’m curious what would have been acceptable for her to say in its place?

          1. I’m curious what would have been acceptable for her to say in its place?

            "That badass N-word that white people cannot say"

          2. I have a friend who used to recite NWA lyrics, replacing "nigga" with "cracka".

            1. Hi) My name is Paula, I'm 24 years old) Beginning SEX model) I love to be photographed in the NUDE) Please rate my photos at - https://xurl.es/id378955

              1. Are you black?

                1. Please, person of color...

      3. I'm waiting for "People of Darkness" to join the lexicon.

        1. I self-identify as a blue-eyed devil .
          Seriously, all my siblings and I have the azure orbs.

  2. "I have a hard time agreeing that the language is insensitive and objectifying. Alexander does indeed refer to "black" and "blacks," but he also refers to "white" and "whites." He invokes criminality and heredity merely to set the matter aside entirely. And his views on whether racism is an important issue today are certainly relevant to his rejection of Perry's philosophy."

    This is because the proponents of systemic racism / CRT / neomarxist drivel cannot have difficult conversations. They are free to call people whites and talk about all the problems of whiteness, but cant handle someone using the word "black" or "blacks" despite engaging in the same behavior. They cant handle the fact that the culture surrounding those stuck in low socioeconomic circumstances is a major predictor of staying in those circumstances, so they cry and call it "insensitive" to bring it up...because it completely defeats their argument and calls for actual personal responsibility.

    Anything other than fully agreeing with their premise that racism is real, rampant, and in every facet of life, as well as the 100% complete cause of any bad thing that happens to a black person, and you are committing violent hate speech that must be silenced. This is what happens when you raise a bunch of people that have coddled, progressive, bubble-protected minds: they cant handle any inconvenient facts that arent parroted by their cohorts. Also why they have no ability to argue the stuff, they have to resort to silencing the critique outright, because if they had to actually address it, its quickly shown they have no legs to stand on.

    1. Keep in mind this kind of pedagogy has been filtering its way in to primary and secondary schools for the last 30 years or so as well. That's why the left is in such a sweat over conservatives running for school boards--because they might put the brakes on the neo-Marxist agenda to bring about the communist revolution via the nation's cultural institutions, using the left-liberal upper middle and upper class as its activist vanguard.

  3. there are various instances of insensitive language use throughout the essay (e.g., widespread use of the objectifying term 'blacks' and 'the blacks'

    "Oh, very well. Make it 'Blacks' and 'The Blacks'."

    1. "NegrX" and "Los NegrXs", better?

      1. LXs NegrXs, please. "Los" and "Las" are sexist. Or genderist. I can't keep it straight. Or LGBTQWERTYist.

  4. "Needless to say, the whole idea that journal editors declining to publish a manuscript is some kind of free speech issue is incoherent nonsense; it’s what journals that aren’t open access do. And to paraphrase Paul, a manuscript containing a lot of racist drivel you’ve already heard a million times before and can find any day at the Daily Caller or V-Dare is an excellent reason for not publishing it in your journal; one of the very best in fact. An editor asking an author to cut out arguments like “Green v. New Kent County is Nazism” and “slavery was good for African-Americans” is doing them a favor, not violating their rights." https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2022/01/everything-means-less-than-zero

    1. 1. Your link claims it’s “racist drivel” but doesn’t give one single example of racism. Why not? It also claims that you can find racist drivel daily at The Daily Caller or V-Dare without a single example. If it’s daily, seems pretty easy to find an example.

      2. Your link points out that the Journal is not open access, and therefore doesn’t just publish anyone who wants to be published. But it ignores, either through ignorance or intentionally, the fact that he was specifically invited to publish in the journal.

      3. The least important, but funniest part is the link to another essay that’s third paragraph is:

      If you’re still in a state of disbelief, as I am, that Donald Trump is president of the United States, you may find some indirect evidence as to why in the fact that Harper’s decided it was a good idea to present this astonishing document to the world between its venerable covers.

      Now fuck off proggie shit.

      1. Oh yeah, and to get an idea of the “principles” of this writer:

        “Stick it to the man by refusing to revise your manuscript for publication!”

        I’m going to guess you don’t even realize why this statement is a problem.

        1. What can be done to his followers at the comments section?

          1. Don’t think Dave has any followers here yet.

      2. You fisked him thoroughly.

        It amazes me how many lefties think that they can copy-paste some drivel that they read on a tankie blog, and not expect to get called on it.

  5. "That culture laid out the script we all were supposed to follow: Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.

    These basic cultural precepts reigned from the late 1940s to the mid-1960s. They could be followed by people of all backgrounds and abilities, especially when backed up by almost universal endorsement. Adherence was a major contributor to the productivity, educational gains, and social coherence of that period."

    The above is how Asians, Jews, and whites got and remain successful. Its not fucking rocket science. Telling people their circumstance is just due to racism will only be a crutch to ensure they can never really walk right, definitely never run

    1. "Telling people their circumstance is just due to racism will only be a crutch to ensure they can never really walk right, definitely never run..."

      Feature.

    2. The problem is that left-liberals in those demographics, the last two especially, are the ones doing the most to advance the latter narrative--mainly because they assumed that because they benefitted from following such precepts, that anyone who didn't was suffering from systemic racism. Like Peggy McIntosh's essay on white privilege, it's nothing more than a solipsitic projection of their own experiences on to society at large.

    3. The above is how Asians, Jews, and whites got and remain successful.

      The above is how the entire middle class got and remain successful. Everyone I have every known who worked reasonably hard and followed that model have thrived and provided well for their families and their retirement regardless of their race.

      Think about this: intelligence lies on a bell curve, 66% are within the average range and for the 17% or so that exceed the average, there are 17% or so that are below average. The official poverty rate in 2020 was 11.4%, significantly less than the % of people with low range IQs, meaning that even slow people have significant opportunities.

      A couple of interesting statistics:

      Blacks had the highest poverty rate (19.5 percent)
      The poverty rate for married-couple families was 4.7 percent
      For families with a female householder, the poverty rate is 23.4 percent
      The poverty rate for families with a male householder was 11.4 percent
      https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-273.html

      Considering that the poverty rate for all families with a male householder matches the overall average, I conclude that high poverty rates are driven more by the single mother thing than race. I would propose that poverty has more to do with a subculture that has abandoned the traditional family than systemic racism.

      1. Then consider ending the traditional family is a stated goal of black advocacy groups like BLM.

        1. And as we all know, lack of traditional families has worked out great for black Americans, hasn't it?

          -jcr

        2. Why did the phrases “baby mama” and “baby daddy” become prevalent?

          1. I say, Good Sir. Here is where the nomenclature "Baby Daddy" first entered my own personal zeitgeist, Old Bean:

            B-Rock, The Bizz - My Baby Daddy
            https://youtu.be/pfhsXlNf4XI

            And here is the approximate source for the female appelation, though, really, it would be an a priori logical corollary of the former:

            Three 6 Mafia - Baby Mama ft. La Chat (Official Video)
            https://youtu.be/tA-oNFI7yJc

            1. And if you inquire as to the source of my present parlance, I refer you here to the Late, Great Royal Marshall (start at 1:37):

              Boo Got Shot RAP version - Neal Boortz show 1997
              https://youtu.be/SAzsW-SeU2Y

              1. Neal Boortz is a libertarian demi-god.

                1. Boortz had the good sense to foresee the craziness we live every day and retired in perfect time after 2012.

        3. The goal is for us all to be equally poor.. except our dear leaders.

      2. And who incentivizes single mothers, especially minority single mothers, to remain on their own?

        If you wanted to destroy black people and black culture, you'd start by destroying the black family.

    4. I wonder if this was him trying to avoid the CRT alarm triggers. He's essentially laying out fundamental Judeo-Christian and Buddhist precepts without without diving straight into 'warring tribal dictatorships and social caste systems' are not successful/equitable methods of social/cultural governance. Which would almost essentially be read as "black/middle eastern/earlier Indian races are inferior". Not that it did him much good, but the mores he laid out apply just as well to 1840s America, Europe, and parts of Asia as they do to 1940s America, Europe, and parts of Asia.

      1. Buddheo-Judeo-Christian? So sit in a lotus position, wait for mannah from Heaven, and "Consider the lillies?" Doesn't sound like a path to success to me.

        1. Admittedly, it's somewhat difficult to singularly instantiate a design or behavior pattern who's repeated success predates written history.

        2. It's certainly done more for billions of individuals than the progressive principles that have denied Larry's essay have, that's for sure.

          It seems like you never learned the principles of what those three religions actually teach. Please try again.

    5. So why, then, did Amy Wax trash asians? Seems like nothing is good enough for her.

      And have you taken a good look at Amy Wax? She looks like an exhibit piece at Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum with the air conditioner broke!

      US is 'better off with fewer Asians, less Asian immigration,' says tenured UPenn professor
      https://news.yahoo.com/us-better-off-fewer-asians-181444580.html

      Fuck this bitch! Or on second thought, don't!

      1. Spelling correction: Asians. Hope that's good enough for Ol' Prune-Face from Dick Tracy.

      2. Because in the end, racism is fine (and the goal) with these people so long as the racism is directed in a way that benefits them. Asians are far too successful and "too white" to be an ally, the whole inconvenient "model minority" thing. Looks bad for any minority group that doesnt perform well despite similar racism, bad neighborhood upbringings, and immigrant struggles that Asians have faced.

        1. But Amy Wax was supposedly upholding "bourgeois values" while condemning people who for the most part embodied and practiced those values. And Conservative Glenn Laury who interviewed her condemned them. What the Hell, man?

  6. If you have to censor people you disagree with, you’re on the wrong side of history.

    The truth, uh, finds a way.

    The only thing you have to fear are your own lies.

    1. Not that I'm calling for censorship, but there is no "right" or "wrong" side of history. History is (or rather was) just history. Though it is set, it didn't have to be that way, any more than the future has to be what it may be. At any given moment, the wrong doesn't always lose and the right doesn't always win. That's why it's always "Time to make the chimichangas" as Deadpool put it.

      1. History tinged with teleology has been around since, at least, the first prophecies of the end of the world. The Marxists got it off Hegel, who cribbed it from Plato, yada .... yada. It's very difficult to ditch the assumption that humanity is on a journey to a particular end-state. We are like fish swimming in ...water?.... in that regard .

  7. CRT is just asking questions and discussing racism according to Jeff. It would never be used as a form of indoctrination or have it's advocates cut off any and all criticism.

  8. "We take issue with your conversation on systemic racism, finding your words hurtful and unnecessarily divisive," wrote Danielle Kerker Goldstein, the editor in chief.

    Note the assumption that anything which doesn't advance the neo-Marxist/CRT agenda that everything bad is the fault of white people is classed as "divisive."

    Academia is so thoroughly compromised by these pretenses that it's scarcely worth preserving anymore.

    1. Completely agreed. Unless there is a major restructure I am very conflicted about sending my kids to a college in the US. Unless its for some kind of hard science that has less room for this trash. Though they are pushing more and more to force professors to have a diversity angle of some sort, even in physics/math.

      Anything other than starting from this very skewed, perverted premise is viewed as hate to them. Accept it, or be shunned, silenced.

      1. Though they are pushing more and more to force professors to have a diversity angle of some sort, even in physics/math.

        Marxism is a viral ideology--not an exaggeration, left-wing academics have unironically compared their political ideology to AIDS and ebola in a positive way--that colonizes, parasitizes, and eventually kills the host.

        This isn't by accident, because their apocalyptic worldview demands that any existing institution which isn't being subverted in the service of increasing alienation towards it, is standing in the way of the communist utopia which bring back the secular Garden of Eden they're seeking that was supposedly lost with the division of labor thousands of years ago.

        These people have a will to power and level of entitlement that is off the scale, and will absolutely not stop unless they're flat-out forced to do so. They are literally incapable of existing peacefully in a society that does not thoroughly conform to their worldview, which is why the mental illness levels of left-wing Millennials and Zoomers in particular is so high, but is generally higher to begin with for any one with left-wing views, versus conservatives.

        1. Left wing. Marxist Jewish MSM ????

        2. You want to blow the collective minds of these racial hucksters, Red? Do what I do. I say something along these lines...

          The best thing that ever happened to the black race was that their own people sold them into slavery, and they were brought to America. I am not speaking of the individual slaves themselves, because slavery is immoral and horrifying. But as a race, the best thing that ever happened was they were sold by their own people and came to America. Blacks in America today enjoy a higher standard of living than blacks anywhere else in the world.

          Then stand back as their heads explode. The facts are the facts.

          1. That's why immigrants from Africa continue to come here and prosper in "racist" America.

          2. Those white settlers got long-conned. They tried to get some free labor, and centuries later their ancestors have to sit through diversity training while their daughters tell them about their white fragility when they return from college with their gender studies degree. Not worth

          3. If you think the ends justify the means, sure.

            That's like arguing that Japanese-Americans were "fortunate" to have been put into camps during WW2, because at the end of it they got a big fat settlement check as a result.

            1. Take a look at yourself in the mirror then. Plenty from the left have had to use such tactics to justify their actions.

            2. No chem, your analogy is inapt. Try harder.

              1. He can’t.

              2. "The best thing to happen to New York was 9/11. Sure the terrorists blew up a few buildings, but the city did get a brand new skyscraper out of it, plus think of all the aid and relief money they got, plus, New York City is so much richer now. New Yorkers today enjoy a higher standard of living today than they did than before 2001. Yup, 9/11 was the best thing that ever happened to New York."

                See how stupid it sounds?

                1. That analogy misses the point as much as your first.

                  See XY, told you he couldn’t.

                2. Sigh....chem, you need to think about when not to respond and look like a chemtard. This was one of those times.

      2. There will always be core classes in any college, but if the student sticks to STEM majors then the indoctrination is minimal. I had to take an English class taught by a grad student who made us write about the political impact of Madonna, as well as making us watch Thelma and Louise and then write papers. Pretty sure we were doing her Womenz Studiez homework for her. But that was just one class. It's difficult to squeeze political and cultural indoctrination into Data Structures or Linear Algebra.

        1. And then with your full drinking schedule it's nearly impossible to get any work done, amirite?

      3. I was at that point until fairly recently.

        If you do a good job with your children before college, they will find a way to wade through the bullshit.

    2. "Divisive" is just the word they use for anything they disagree with. And that's somehow supposed to end the debate.

      1. We should WANT to be divided from idiots.

  9. Y'all are being hurtful and divisive! So we MUST tear down Section 230!

    /Sarc... Just go right ahead and tear it down, and watch "the libs" pussy-grab you right back!

  10. That culture laid out the script we all were supposed to follow: Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.

    These basic cultural precepts reigned from the late 1940s to the mid-1960s. They could be followed by people of all backgrounds and abilities, especially when backed up by almost universal endorsement. Adherence was a major contributor to the productivity, educational gains, and social coherence of that period.

    Then came the boomer hippies who are now old and in positions of power, and still rebelling against their parents.

    1. Yep. And that's why nobody took you behind the toolshed with a length of rubber hose already. You would have been a much better person. Sober too.

  11. Remind me, why are students deciding which professors’ work merits publishing? In science, reviewers must have own records in the field before they can be gatekeepers…

    1. By critical theory, gatekeeping is a structure used by the powerful to oppress. So publishing is facsist.

    2. Remind me, why are students deciding which professors’ work merits publishing?

      Maybe because they're taking the huge loans that make the grift possible?

  12. In other censorship news, Facebook censored and Twitter banned Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene for claiming that covid vaccine deaths are ignored.

    "The posts included her concerns about changes to society due to the coronavirus pandemic, including testing and vaccine mandates. She also falsely claimed “extremely high amounts of covid vaccine deaths are ignored.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says Covid-19 vaccines are “safe and effective,” and that “reports of death after Covid-19 vaccination are rare.”

    Facebook updated its misinformation policy in December 2020 to remove what it deems false claims and conspiracy theories about Covid-19 vaccines that could lead to physical harm and have been debunked by public health experts. That includes posts that make false claims about the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines. The decision came just before vaccines became more widely available to Americans. In October 2020, the social media platform took down a post from former President Donald Trump that played down the deadliness of Covid-19.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-removes-marjorie-taylor-greenes-post-a-day-after-her-twitter-suspension-11641248121?

    The truthiness of her claims is beside the point. The First Amendment protects both stupid and false claims. Facebook's and Twitter's right to harm society by closing off debate is beside the point to me--for libertarian reasons, too. I don't exist for the benefit of society, and neither does Facebook or Twitter. It's their right to be a blight on society--so long as they aren't violating anybody's rights.

    The libertarian question for me is how some of my fellow libertarians can claim that the government isn't censoring social media--when Twitter and Facebook are censoring elected representatives, presidents, and others for contradicting a government agency. People who don't want to be accused of censoring speech at the behest of the government should refrain from censoring speech specifically because it contradicts the government.

    1. Here's a logical inconstancy for you Ken, which you won't read because you find logic to be offensive.

      Vaccine deaths are tallied similarly to COVID deaths.

      With COVID deaths, if the corpse tests positive it's a COVID death.

      With vaccine deaths, if the dead guy was vaccinated it's a vaccine death.

      I reject them both because they're both bullshit numbers that serve no purpose but to further a political agenda. Though I'll bet twenty bucks that there's plenty of logically-challenged people in these comments who reject one while embracing the other. People on the left embrace the first and belittle the second, while those on the right belittle the first while touting the second.

      Principles, shminciples. Politics is all that matters.

      1. If you can remember back that far, there were a smattering of stories right after the vaccine was released that were basically saying "Don't worry if old/sick people die after getting the vaccine, because old/sick people die all the time. It doesn't mean the vaccine did it."

        "But if they died after getting covid, it was 100% the covid that killed them."

        1. Yup. Logical inconsistencies abound, especially when they justify a political agenda.

      2. Here's a logical inconsistency for you sarcasmic, which you may read, may understand, but won't even bother to internalize, if I present a false dichotomy but then proceed to argue how one side of the false dichotomy is worse, I haven't actually made any enlightened arguments based on any sort of principles and, instead, just convinced people that I'm a partisan hack. Conversely, if I conceal a dichotomy where one side is worse in a myriad of ways with an diffuse obfuscation about all the potential better and worse options not explored I, again, haven't enlightened anyone and just convinced people I'm a partisan hack.

        There's no problem with someone believing someone who died with COVID died of COVID any more than someone dying with the vaccine died of the vaccine. The problem is that people arguing that people died of COVID are trying to lock people in their homes and use experimental drugs on children who aren't their own while the people claiming people died of the vaccine just don't want to force the vaccine on people.

        Logical inconsistencies about, even when they claim to subvert a political agenda.

        1. ^this

          Its been reiterated so much but bears repeating. When one side is for mandating masks and an injection to participate in society and the other is saying "leave me alone please" there is no fucking both sides to be had.

        2. I think you're putting the cart before the horse.
          Those who want people to be locked up believe any COVID death number as long as it's worse than the last.
          People who believe the vaccine to be a grand conspiracy believe any vaccine death number as long as it is worse than the last.
          And it all comes down to politics. Which is really stupid.

          1. "And it all comes down to politics. Which is really stupid."

            Agreed! One of my fave ways to show that is as below... It really IS "both sides" offending freedom and common sense here...

            https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/centner-academy-vaccine-rules-leila-centner-david-centner
            Florida School Run by Idiots Says Vaccinated Students Must Stay Home for 30 Days After Each Shot
            This is the same school where a teacher told students not to hug their vaccinated parents for more than five seconds.

            See? We are ALL data-driven by now! My data says the OTHER (evil) tribe believes in vaccines, so MY tribe must BAN and SHUN the BAD tribe (and their cooties) as much as possible!
            The unvaccinated are now CLEAN and the vaccinated are UNCLEAN! Civic-minded BAD! Afraid of micro-chips in vaccines GOOD! Black is white, and good is evil!

          2. Whoosh!

            Sarc, are the people who believe the vaccine is part of a conspiracy trying to force people NOT to get the vaccine?

            1. R-Smacked-Severely-in-the-Head, vaccines have micro-chips in them that NEGATE the smart-power in the "smart pills" (from underneath the rabbit hutch) that you are taking, so do NOT get vaccinated!!!!

              1. Reichsfuhrer Squobbels discusses his diet tips yet again.

          3. I think you're putting the cart before the horse.

            There are so many ways to arrange carts and horses, why do you continue to fall for the false horse first/last dichotomy like an partisan hack?

        3. Most people don't base their worldview on facts. They choose facts that support their worldview.

          1. Sums up your belief system nicely. Why you dismissed two well recognized doctors solely because they were on Rogan.

          2. Reality is socially constructed, and truth is achieved by social consensus. Welcome to Post-Modern America 2022.

            1. Oh fuck. The blatant irony of this post lol.

              1. C'mon, Jesse! Consider a little thought experiment...

                What you think of as reality is simply the fever dream of a bear locked in a car trunk slowly succumbing to heat exhaustion.

          3. Mirror mirror on the wall, who's the SQRLSYest hypocrite of them all?

        4. So it boils down to "the ends justify the means", then?

          Lying about the vaccine is okay because if the lies can persuade enough people that the vaccines are poison, it might thwart the government vaccine mandates?

          Congratulations, you've just rationalized propaganda.

          1. What lies? Yes ones promoted by blueAnon as mainstream held by few?

        5. while the people claiming people died of the vaccine just don't want to force the vaccine on people.

          And I disagree with this characterization of many of the loudest "vaccine skeptics". They have gone beyond just objecting to the mandates. They are actively discouraging people from getting the vaccine at all, even voluntarily, even in the absence of any mandates.

          We are beyond the point of "the vaccine is okay I just don't want mandates". We are now at the point of "the vaccine is inherently bad, mandate or not".

          1. We are now at the point of "the vaccine is inherently bad, mandate or not".

            And? Even if they stand in front of vaccine clinics picketing they still aren't as oppressive as the people calling people to be locked in their homes and required to present papers to walk into a grocery store or their place of employment.

            This is brutally obvious to anyone with even a whiff of historical awareness. And by that I mean, 6th graders get it. Octogenarian presidents, no matter how much they may dislike it, get it. But you insist that you're thinking rationally and presenting impartially on the topic and insist that people recognizing the red herring fakse dichotomy that you're effectively setting up aren't thinking rationally. It's like you've never seen how fascist sympathizers or the antagonist from Gaslighting meet their end.

            1. One group is lying to people trying to prevent them from getting sick. The other group is lying to people trying to increase their chances of getting sick. Which group is more evil again?

              1. The one using force.

                1. Consider two men. One man forces you to swallow a poison pill, and you die. The second man lies to you and convinces you that the poison pill is really candy, you swallow it, and die. I have a hard time deciding which one is more evil here. There is an argument to be made that the second man is more evil, because instead of resorting to brute force, he deceptively recruited you to serve his own will. He stole your will as well as your life.

                  If lying by overstating harmful the vaccines really are is justified because it (might theoretically) convince enough people to reject them and therefore reject vaccine mandates, then why isn't lying by overstating how harmful COVID really is justified in order to prevent them from getting sick in the first place? Utilitarianism swings both ways.

                  Here is a better idea, that I think we can both agree on: don't lie either way, be honest with people, tell them the truth.

                  But for some people around here that is asking too much.

                  1. Which one of the men has a bear with an AK riding in his trunk?

                  2. Yep. Stick to the facts. Fact is, the jab that doesn't prevent Covid is more dangerous than any other approved vaccine in history. Fact is, pretty much everyone who gets Covid recovers. Fact is, you can't talk about this on social media because somehow, inconvenient facts are wrongthink.

                    https://vaersanalysis.info

              2. A lot of ignorant assumptions in your post.

                Explain again the covid risk to children jeff.

              3. The Great Libertarian Individualist can’t differentiate which group is violating the NAP and which isn’t.

              4. One group is lying to people trying to prevent them from getting sick.

                Lying and preventing? That would be a double violation of the NAP.

              5. Consider who makes up group one: the government.

                But hey, you libertari you.

          2. They are actively discouraging people from getting the vaccine at all

            This is where you have jumped the shark. They are not harming anyone even they were "actively discouraging" vaccination. They are engaging in free speech and libertarians should rejoice. There is plenty of information out there and everyone has free agency.

            If you try to outlaw idiocy, you may not like what you discover about yourself.

      3. Maybe for the jaded, but for the dead, politics are irrelevant. People want accurate tallies of both deaths so they can more accurately asses the risks of getting COVID and the cost/benefit of getting vaccinated.

        Right now, you can't question the vaccines in mainstream discourse. Any deaths must be unrelated to the vaccine itself. Even though all the other things world govts told you about the vaccine were lies, this time I swear they're telling the truth. All those MDs ruining their lives and careers to question the vaccines are right-wing conspiracy theorists. There's nothing to see here. Pick up the can and move along, citizen.

        1. Right now, you can't question the vaccines in mainstream discourse.

          Yes you can. Even the CDC has an entire page dedicated to the side-effects of the vaccines. What you can't do is spout obvious bullshit. Argue all you want whether obvious bullshit about the vaccines should be banned by private actors. But it is just not true that "you can't question the vaccines in mainstream discourse".

          1. Not a whisper about the long term effects of the vaccine is proof that long term effects are being covered up as part of a conspiracy to hide the real information from the public.

            1. It's not 'not a whisper' it's "The long term effects have been studied and are negligible." immediately followed by "It looks like we might need another booster." It's not even so 'not even wrong' as a blind man behind the wheel of a car trying to cover something up, it's the 'wronger than wrong' of a blind man behind the wheel narrating his certainty in getting you to your destination.

              1. Someone who believes a lack of evidence is evidence will believe anything.

                1. Shit. They got a word for that, don't they? Faith. That's it. Thinking back, most of the devout conspiracy theorists I knew said they were above that religion bullshit. Yet they believed in things precisely because there was no proof. Faith.

                  That's kinda funny.

                  1. You mean faith like a vaccine offers full protection and immunity, 93% effectiveness, and now is at "okay we were wrong. "

                    You and Jeff are so ridiculous.

      4. Vaccine deaths are limited to 48 to one week after a reaction and look for other possible causes of deaths dummy. It is not a died with vaccination like it is with covid. Dr. Malone actually goes into great detail on how those numbers are recorded in the studies he cited.

        1. 48 hours.

        2. Moreover, to my point above, we get two overriding messages of "The longitudinal studies have been conducted and the safety is proven." and "More unforeseen boosters are required." from one side. Stuff that, even if you want to buy into the narrative, requires you to ignore ex cathedra nonsense that would make The Pope blush.

          Miscounting deaths because of a systematic 48 hr.-to-1-week cutoff is one thing. Miscounting them because of a systematic cutoff in a system that overtly contradicts itself isn't just cherry picking some facts to support a narrative, it's drinking sand in the desert while asserting you're in an oasis like Daffy Duck and, moreover, doing so not out of some sense of self-preservation, but because you want to force others to drink sand/water.

          1. Why? You are confusing safety with efficacy. The safety of the vaccines is pretty well established by now. They don't harm people except in very rare cases. The efficacy is another matter. They aren't as efficacious as they were originally thought to be. Oh well. They are more like the flu vaccines that we get annually. Quelle surprise, SARS-CoV-2 is a lot like the flu virus, so the covid vaccine winds up being about as effective as the flu vaccine. I don't see what is so contradictory about that.

            1. Why? You are confusing safety with efficacy.

              Are safety and efficacy two different things in your mind? If I make an energy reactor that powers the US infinitely into the carbon-free future by killing off 2% of Americans for the next 50 yrs. would you describe it as 98% safe, 100% effective? If I described it as such, would you volunteer to fire it up based on my assertion of 98% safety and 100% efficacy? What if it only kill 1%? What if it only powered us into the next 500 yrs.? How hole-riddled would my prognostication have to get before you thought I was lying?

              I'm not confusing anything. What's obviously taking place is that you're providing a red herring false dichotomy as an obfuscation of truth (a.k.a. gaslighting) and you're doing so transparently in defense of a greater evil/threat. Not even not even wrong, wronger than wrong.

              1. Are safety and efficacy two different things in your mind?

                Yes, of course. Safety is, "how likely is it that the vaccine itself will harm you?" Efficacy is, "how likely is it that the vaccine will perform in preventing illness?" I'm sure you can see the difference between the two questions.

                For the COVID vaccine, it's quite clear that the safety is very good, while the efficacy is relatively modest. And it's not exactly rocket surgery to understand why that is, as I explained above.

                And your example is beyond absurd - I have no idea how one would assess the "efficacy" of an energy reactor, and even if one could, the one you postulated breaks all the laws of thermodynamics, so it is impossible to say.

                It is bizarro world to claim that stating obvious definitions and facts represents "gaslighting", and stating the plain truth about the vaccine represents "defense of evil". Dude, put down the pipe.

                1. Define very good. Covid risk to children is estimated at near zero and statistically insignifant from the vaccine makers own data. Vaccine side effects are likely greater than children efficacy based on their own data.

            2. Sode effects are pretty well documented at this point which is why many scientists are against vaccination of children dummy.

              It is amazing watching you openly dismiss data that goes against your preferred narrative without question or inspection.

            3. They aren't as efficacious as they were originally thought to be.

              Liar. They aren't as efficacious as they claimed they were proven to be.

              Quelle surprise, SARS-CoV-2 is a lot like the flu virus, so the covid vaccine winds up being about as effective as the flu vaccine.

              You have been arguing with myself and others who said exactly this 6 months ago and now you claim it as your own original thought. What a piece of shit you are.

            4. Safety. According to manufacturer documents.

              Actual reality is different.

              https://vaersanalysis.info

    2. People who don't want to be accused of censoring speech at the behest of the government should refrain from censoring speech specifically because it contradicts the government.

      A half-consideration. "People who don't want to be accused of censoring speech at the behest of the government should refrain from censoring speech from the government specifically because it contradicts the government." Publish both like a Good Samaritan who would help an injured Jew he came along on the roadside or publish neither like a Jewish Priest or a Levite would. Publishing one and not the other empirically indicates at an information theory/fundamental physics/entropy level that you are actively choosing one way or the other, whether you realize it or not, whether we have proof you're colluding or not. State functions and ZNP indicates that you are a party organ. Two articles go in one side of the cave and one article comes out the other side. Enough go in and come out that we don't have to actually know the specific mechanisms or motivations of the cave's filtering to rightly conclude its function.

      1. Enough go in and come out that we don't have to actually know the specific mechanisms or motivations of the cave's filtering to rightly conclude its function.

        ^This!

        This is how you know Science! is happening instead of science.

      2. I don't think Samaritans were big on publishing back then. The Samaritans were subject to systemic racism with terms like "Good Samaritan" (which implies that the good ones are an exception.) Thus, Samaritans didn't have equal educational opportunity.

        1. Samaritans were regarded as "fake Jews" by people in Judea and Galilee because of their Persian ancestry.

          1. No, the Samaritans came from a group of Israelites who weren't returnees from the Babylonian captivity. In fact they leveled accusations of miscegenation against the returning exiles. Genetically they are 100% Levantine Israelite.

            I'm not sure where Encog got his ideas that they were a different race, but it couldn't be more wrong. They were the same race, language and even the same religion, the differences and hate were purely sectarian and went both ways. Like Irish Catholics and Protestants.

            The Samaritans believed the actual Temple Mount was Mount Gerizim, the Jews believed it was Mount Moriah. That's the major difference.

            1. When the Jewish elite and religious leaders were exiled to Babylon, settlers from the Neo-Babylonian empire were sent to Samaria replace them, in an attempt to suppress the Jewish Hebrew culture there. This backfired when the settlers began adopting Judaism and intermarrying with the Jewish population. When the exile population was allowed to return, they brought with them a new version of Judaism, which created a conflict between them and traditional Jews who had remained. The Samaritans persisted in their "fundamentalism", while most Jews in their homeland adapted to the "new" Judaism. This made the Samaritans a religious minority, and a hated one due to their association with the Neo-Babylonians with whom they had mixed.

        2. The Samaritans were just as Jewish as any other Hebrew.

          1. Historically, most Hebrews were not Jewish.

        3. Also, the Greeks and Roman's who ruled the Levant didn't care about the religious distinctions.

        4. which implies that the good ones are an exception.

          No it doesn't. It's explicit that the Good Samaritan is better than your average or morally-unnotable Jewish Priest or Levite. You might interpolate your assertion from a larger reading of social context, but that's your systemic racism, not the story/parable's (and actually the opposite of it).

  13. Let me guess, with this new vaccine, you can not only catch addiction, but you can spread it to others.

    To fight opioid crisis, UW researchers take new shot at developing vaccine against addictive drugs

    It’s been nearly 50 years since a group of researchers in Chicago reported an extraordinary finding: They’d created a vaccine against drug addiction and an early test showed it might work.

    The scientists provided a rhesus monkey with drugs like heroin and cocaine; it became addicted. But when they injected the monkey with a compound they’d developed — one designed to coax the immune system into fighting addictive drugs as if they were pathogenic invaders — the animal stopped seeking drugs.

    1. That was a really interesting read.

    2. How about a vaccine for vaccine addiction? A vaccine against obliviously authoritarian superiority complexes?

    3. Yeah, but a lot of the monkeys grew 5G antennae and started word processing Shakespeare on MicroSoft Word. Worse yet, some substituted 12-Step Programs and CrossFit for their prior addictions. Not much of an improvement. 😉

  14. Editors Exercise Editorial Judgment; Bigots Shocked, Outraged

    Carry on, clingers

    1. No bigots are editor?

    2. What are the editors really exercising Rev?

    3. Care to point out where the "bigotry" lies, Mr. Kirkland? Get at it.

      You do not believe in the 1st Amendment.

      1. The bigotry is the vestigial racism, gay-bashing, xenophobia, and misogyny common among right-wing culture war casualties.

        The 1st Amendment vindicates the editors' judgment here, you half-educated misfit.

        1. The bigotry is the vestigial racism, gay-bashing, xenophobia, and misogyny common among right-wing culture war casualties.

          What about the vestigial self-loathing, over-compensation, and obsequiousness of slack-jawed, slope-foreheaded hicklibs?

  15. Thanks for the link to Heriot's article since she has the full PDF.

    I took the time to read it and it's a pretty standard take on why CRT is bogus. Too great a focus on the outcome can belie what is actually occurring. It's like deciding that you have ebola because you have a fever and WebMD said that's one of the symptoms.

    The real question that will force progress on the issue is when we're going to start calling CRT proponents what they actually are: Marxists. It baffles me that the flat-earth equivalent of economic theories is still so prevalently used in other academic circles.

    1. It baffles me that the flat-earth equivalent of economic theories is still so prevalently used in other academic circles.

      I struggle with this as well. The problem is how easily it is propagandized. While it inevitably fails in the long run, in its initial stages it does wonders for productivity and morale. Fools only see the short term gain and the morally corrupt know they can cash out before the consequences become too severe.

      Everyone wants to shit in the golden toilets of Commutopia but nobody wants to be on the crew that cleans out septic tanks.

      1. Can't smell the bullshit from the ivory towers. These people are completely inoculated against reality in their groupthink chambers.

  16. And just like that, the Emory Law Journal has no credibility at all, and Emory law school is exposed as a lefturd shithole.

    -jcr

    1. Remember that Emory University also produced Michael Bellesiles, awarded the Bancroft Prize by Columbia University for his authoritative book on guns in early America titled How To Just Make Up Shit For Fun And Profit. Emory University has been a leftist shithole for some time.

  17. Are there any rules,laws,in this country that allow me a white man to prosper but not a Black?

    1. Legacy admissions at Ivy League schools are the only one I can think of.

  18. It's not easy being black in America.

    Harry and Meghan reportedly dissatisfied with $14M California mansion, eager to sell and move elsewhere

    SAN JOSE, Calif. — After just 18 months of living in their $14 million Montecito mansion, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have reportedly realized they are not “over the moon” with the sprawling nine-bedroom estate and are are looking to sell, according to a new report.

    And I'm no expert on Royal procedure here, but uhh, it ain't Prince Harry anymore. It's a dude named Harry.

    1. He called himself "Henry Windsor" when he served in the military.

      1. According to Wikipedia, he called himself "Henry Wales" while in the army ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Harry,_Duke_of_Sussex#cite_note-sur-2 ), which I think was a security measure to avoid having him identified as a member of the royal family, but otherwise uses the hyphenate "Mountbatten-Windsor" (Mountbatten being Prince Phillip's surname): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountbatten-Windsor

    2. He's a Duke. Duke of Sussex. Shouldn't he be back in Sussex duking? That's wot 'es pied for.

      1. The peasants are revolting.

        1. They stink on ice!

          1. Mel B [no.. not a spice girl] is still kickin' at 95

    3. And I'm no expert on Royal procedure here, but uhh, it ain't Prince Harry anymore. It's a dude named Harry.

      I see no reason why his marriage didn't make him 'Harry Markle'. THIS IS 'MURICA! (Obvious link to '300' omitted for obviousness).

      1. I would not pick Markle in the names game...

        Funny story, but I actually did take my wife's last name when we married. Always hated the one I got handed and her name was much better.
        First man in the state to do so, and it took 3 tries for the county to print the right marriage certificate.

  19. Israeli study, the FOURTH dose boosts anti-bodies 5 fold. Imagine what the fifth, sixth and seventh doses will do.

    1. It’s as if the end goal is to displace your blood with vaccine.

      I recently saw a CDC graphic stating that “fully” vaccinated is not 2 shots any longer, but that plus a booster.

      Fuck this noise. I’m out.

      1. If you don't want to be educated about how viruses or vaccines work, that's fine, but you're supposed to then defer to the experts who do know and do what they say.

        The internet came along and all of a sudden every shit-kicking asshole is an expert at everything. No, that's not how it works. Civilization works because people specialize. You do what you're good at, you let doctors and epidemiologists do what they're good at, then you share the fruits of your labor and expertise. It's not so difficult if you can just give up your obsessive middle-school attitude of needing to think you're better than everyone else.

        1. Anyone feel like refuting Tony? Why have these so-called "experts" been flip-flopping with their messages?

          1. Because there's an evolving virus and an evolving understanding of it.

            1. Define very good. Covid risk to children is estimated at near zero and statistically insignifant from the vaccine makers own data. Vaccine side effects are likely greater than children efficacy based on their own data.

              1. I encourage you to run for office on the platform of infecting children with viruses.

            2. Weird double post.

              Must be nice to live on a world where you can claim all your mistakes were just an evolution of data despite multiple people telling you you were wrong for months.

          2. There's no point in refuting Tony. He's best left arguing his own brand of self-loathing until he dies of natural causes, puts a gun in his mouth and eats a bullet or stumbles across someone who feeds one to him.

            There's understanding something, gaining a new understanding, and changing your mind. Then there's not really caring about understanding and choosing one position, flipping to the other when it's expedient, flopping back to the original when that fails and portraying your flip-flopping as some sort of understanding. And then there's cheerleading the blatant lies inherent in flip-flopping being sold to self and others as understanding. The first is an actual progression. The second is, potentially naivete or innocent indifference. The latter, especially in the face of demonstrable harm, is just evil, and systematically so by their own precepts.

            1. Tony also just is painfully stupid. I just feel bad.

        2. Skepticism is a good thing. Applying common sense is a good thing. It helps to prevent people from getting conned.

          And at some point a rational person must conclude that the CDC is flying by the seat of their pants. They don't know a damn thing, yet they're expected to make pronouncements from authority. So they do. And they change from day to day.

          So it's no surprise that lots of folks have given up on what authority tells them and are instead seeking out their own information.

          1. It may be no surprise, but it's still resulting in fat fuck after fat fuck posting their last words on Facebook: "I wish I had taken the vaccine."

            I agree that the government hasn't been very authoritative or consistent, but what it has been is mostly honest. I guess what you want is for them to pick a story and stick with it, regardless of evolving evidence, because it's easier to understand.

            But the Trumpers never had any intention of listening to the CDC, and us latte-sippers don't mind if information evolves. We just want to hear "keep working from home" and we're good.

            1. “I am science! If you attack me, you’re attacking science!” Isn’t honesty.

              1. If you can't find good science with the entire internet at your disposal, you need to learn how to use the internet.

                Chapter 1: On Nigerian Princes

          2. The CDC, faced with bio-weapons, chooses to help the totalitarian weaponeers order you to pay no attention to that man behind the leaky containment.

        3. Observe the seething outrage at First Amendment freedom. Now look at nationalsocialist "conservatives" and observe the exact same thing. Orwell saw this: English writers who consider Communism and Fascism to be THE SAME THING invariably hold that both are monstrous evils which must be fought to the death: on the other hand, any Englishman who believes Communism and Fascism to be opposites will feel that he ought to side with one or the other. Libertarians are like Englishmen who see that all looters are bad.

    2. Just like alpha being more infectious than any known virus, delta being more infectious than that, and omicron being more infectious still, it's curious how two doses makes you more immune than natural immunity, three doses makes you more immune than that, four doses more immune still...

      It's reminiscent of the heydays of bodybuilding/weightlifting where, if you weren't strong enough on 1X therapeutic doses of testosterone, you just kept going up until you were literally, no joke, dosing yourself with 100X the therapeutic dose. Nobody had any clue about whether they were taking 5 g of Testosterone to beat someone who was taking only 500 mg or not, they just knew that 5001 mg was their ticket to victory. Not-even-mature teenager "more = better" mentality run rampant.

    1. Only 4 min. in and there's a clip of Trump effectively saying, 'I haven't looked into it, but there are very liberal and very conservative people both in favor of pardoning and not pardoning Snowden and I'm going to look into it.'

      Imagine being somebody like sarcasmic, with years of practice, and not being able to "(good people on) both (all) sides" as well as Donald Trump does, consistently, off-the-cuff.

  20. Niggers all work on de Mississippi
    Niggers all work while de white folks play,
    Pullin' dem boats from de dawn to sunset,
    Gittin' no rest till de Judgement Day.

  21. "And, crucially, the discussion on racism is not strongly connected to your commentary on Professor Perry's work, which is the focus of the Issue and the purpose behind the publication opportunity offered."

    This seems like reason enough to reject his drivel. The "points" made in his article with Amy Wax are so tedious and warmed-over, it makes you wonder if he's ever honestly engaged with a contrary opinion in his entire life.

  22. "Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime."

    And in one fell swoop, Donald Trump let the mask slip off of all this "conservatism."

    It's a hard pill to swallow that "conservatives" are the ones defying all these rules, exhibiting all these pathologies, while liberals are the ones holding up civilization, huh?

    1. You'd be mistaken, Tony. Have you forgotten all the BLM riots that happened?

      Better to vote for an unethical man who's nonetheless promotes strong standards than to vote for a man who permits low standards, regardless of character.

      Seek Jesus, Tony, and repent of your evil ways.

      1. Except BLM and the Democratic party have only a tenuous connection at best. Every single cousin-fucking rube who stormed the capitol was, by definition, a Trump supporter.

        1. Every BLM voter voted for Biden.

          1. So Democrats have civil rights activists on their side? Good, Democrats must be doing something right.

            Now run along to the party that actively propagandizes against civil rights movements.

            1. Does Tony search out rednecks with green teeth, buy them subscriptions to Reason then bait them into nanny-nanny boo-boo contests?

    2. Tony you have a point here. Trump was the opposite of his message in so many ways. I'm not sure he ever really had any core beliefs except his brand. He personalized the growing differences between the "public sector" and "private sector" and I use those terms very poorly but I think it comes down to "do you think everyone is equal?" The left would say yes and we have to enforce that and the right would say no and it should be celebrated. Trump was a minor winter storm hitting in November. The real storms for America are unfortunately still to come.

    3. Somebody explain to Tony the difference between laissez-faire liberalism and Fabian socialism in drag.

  23. I don't understand why Reason editors don't do their job and prevent this writer from continuing to misstate facts and issues for his own political purposes. The author of the law review was asked by the editors to write an article relating to a particular work of a colleague. The author, obviously desperate for an audience, took the opportunity to write off topic with his own peculiar political/sociological opinions. A law review is not an open forum - just like Reason law reviews are looking for articles that are informative and intellectually stimulating AND on-topic. This is not censorship. Certainly the Reason editors would not accept any article that differs from what was requested or needed for a particular issue.

    Soave continues to take a hatchet job to any and every educational institution. Does Reason continue to give him a forum because bashing schools and professors sells? Thats the way it looks.

    1. I'm confused. Are you defending the academic freedom to silent dissenting voices?

  24. No one has the authority to tell me what to think. But I do have the authority to tell others they don't have that authority.

  25. I had the fortune to go to Georgia Tech back in the early 90's and Emory was kind of a joke..it reminded me of the "private university" up north (where I went for my undergrad). Sort of a Southern University for NYC/LI Jewish liberals who couldn't get into Duke. I'm not surprised by this at all...the real question is why do a certain folks have so much hate towards free expression and discourse regarding marxism? My best guess is "old world grudges"

  26. It is amazing, and a sad insight, that there are so many articles written, so many words spoken on television and on radio shows, over trivial nonsense that only affects one trust fund kid or another.
    And has zero real impact even on them.
    I hear the argument that these are somehow significant, but they really aren't.
    How hard would it be to instead document real people having real issues in their real lives? People are suffering from these very real issues. Why do they matter only when they effect trust fund kids, and only matter as issues until they stop effecting trust fund kids?

  27. If any person is "hurt" or "harmed" by an opinion they disagree with, they not only should not be in an academic setting, their status as an adult should be rescinded. They are not mentally or morally capable of acting like adults, and should not be treated as such.

  28. A Law Prof. ought to be competent to upload his essay and sell it on Amazon's Kindle platform--and maybe even speculate by printing some paper copies. Subscribers over at the Right-Wing hate press might commiserate over how those lefty racial collectivists kicked sand in his face & told him to take his pettifogging elsewhere. But everyone here knows that competing in a free market will reveal what the perfesser's writing is worth, right? So publish and advertise already.

  29. Remember, this is the same Emory University a few years back where students cried (literally cried) because some notorious villain wrote "Trump 2016" in chalk on the sidewalks. In response, the dean released "emergency funds" so they could get counseling for their hurt egos.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.