Georgetown Ends Investigation of Ilya Shapiro for Bad Tweet, Will Not Fire Him
"I look forward to teaching and engaging in a host of activities relating to constitutional education," said Shapiro.

Georgetown University has concluded its investigation into libertarian legal scholar Ilya Shapiro, who was hired to run the university's Center for the Constitution but placed on leave shortly before beginning the job. At issue was Shapiro's poorly-worded tweet about President Joe Biden's choice of Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court.
The administration has decided that since the tweet was sent before Shapiro formally joined the university, he was "not properly subject to discipline" for it. As such, Shapiro can return to work and begin his job.
"At the same time," Law Dean William Treanor wrote in a statement, "Mr. Shapiro's tweets had a significant negative impact on the Georgetown Law community, including current and prospective students, alumni, staff, and faculty, and they recommended that I put in place actions to address the negative impact that the tweets had on the law school community."
The tweet in question was this:
Objectively best pick for Biden is Sri Srinivasan, who is solid prog & v smart. Even has identify politics benefit of being first Asian (Indian) American. But alas doesn't fit into the latest intersectionality hierarchy so we'll get lesser black woman. Thank heaven for small favors?
Because Biden said he's only consider[ing] black women for SCOTUS, his nominee will always have an asterisk attached. Fitting that the Court takes up affirmative action next term.
As I explained in the wake of his suspension, Shapiro's wording was indeed ill-considered, as he himself freely admitted. But:
It's not right to say he had asserted that black women as a category would make poor Supreme Court justices. Rather, he indicated that he thought the absolute best choice—from a progressive standpoint—was a specific judge, Sri Srinivasan (an Indian American and member of the Hindu faith, which would also be a first for the Court). In his tweet, Shapiro was lamenting that Biden's commitment to choosing a justice who fits a specific demographics profile would preclude him from making this selection.
And in any case, Georgetown's commitment to free speech certainly protects such speech. As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education noted in its defense of Shapiro, the investigation itself was "antithetical to the tenets of liberal education and cannot be squared with [the university's] promise to provide 'all members' of its community 'the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn,' even if others find it 'offensive, unwise, immoral, or ill conceived.'"
In a statement, Shapiro said that he was relieved to finally get to work.
"I look forward to teaching and engaging in a host of activities relating to constitutional education," he said. "As befitting a Center for the Constitution, all students and participants in my programs can expect to be accorded the freedom to think and speak freely and to be treated equally: a diversity of ideas will be most welcome."
Georgetown purports to welcome a vigorous exchange of diverse ideas; the best way to honor that commitment would be to refrain from conducting such investigations in the future.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Why would a progressive be a good candidate to teach about the Constitution?
They're talking about supreme court candidates, not constitutional law professors. I'm pretty sure that his point was that Srinivasan was the best choice among progressives for the position. Which may be a "tallest midget" kind of thing, but that's another quesstion.
"Objectively best pick for Biden is Sri Srinivasan, who is solid prog & v smart. "
At first I thought he meant the best pick from Biden's perspective, because the guy best met Biden's criteria.
And then that "Thank heaven for small favors?" about the lesser black woman; I could have read that as his actually being relieved that "Oft evil will evil mars", and Biden's determination to only pick a black women had resulted in a rather squishier prog, thank goodness!
But then Soave defends him: "In his tweet, Shapiro was lamenting that Biden's commitment to choosing a justice who fits a specific demographics profile would preclude him from making this selection."
But, why would any LIBERTARIAN lament the failure to pick a solid prog for the Supreme court??? "Progressives" are hardly libertarian, after all; In many respects they're anti-libertarian, being devoted to the notion of positive rights, and ready to trample any negative right they don't like. They're even terrible from a rule of law perspective.
So, all in all the exchange left me wondering why the hell the Cato institute had a guy who thought like this on his staff, and then horrified at the realization that Cato seems to have actually gotten LESS libertarian with his departure.
It's not right to say he had asserted that black women as a category would make poor Supreme Court justices. Rather, he indicated that he thought the absolute best choice—from a progressive standpoint—was a specific judge, Sri Srinivasan (an Indian American and member of the Hindu faith, which would also be a first for the Court). In his tweet, Shapiro was lamenting that Biden's commitment to choosing a justice who fits a specific demographics profile would preclude him from making this selection.
Adding a second asterisk to your preferred candidate doesn't really help.
I am sure the first part of that tweet could have been worded differently, but the intent of the entire thing was spot on. If you aren't a black woman, you were not in the running for the position.
It's a shame he is probably going to be apologizing and capitulating about it for the rest of his career. It's never a good idea to bend the knee to the outrage crowd because they are never satisfied.
That tells you everything you need to know about the man and his character: titles and institutions are evidently more important than principles.
Cato Institute, leading filer of court briefs, loses its principles
"Why? It moved politically to the left, away from free speech. The Cato Institute lawyer who filed the brief in October 2021 — the outspoken free-speech advocate Ilya Shapiro — left the Cato Institute in early 2022. Shapiro seems to have lost an internal power struggle to other Cato Institute staffers further to his left who are less willing to defend speech they view as right-wing or “hateful.”
16 other amicus briefs were filed this week in the Supreme Court, in support of the free-speech argument — by civil liberties groups, a gay law professor, conservative and religious groups, and state legislators. But not by the Cato Institute.
It would have taken the Cato Institute virtually no effort to simply resubmit its earlier brief. It could have just changed the caption of the earlier brief and a few other things in it, and resubmitted it...
The fact that the Cato Institute didn’t bother to make even this minimal effort to resubmit its brief in favor of free speech is because it didn’t want the brief to be read by the justices. It didn’t want to promote “freedom for the thought that we hate” — in this case, opposition to same-sex marriage, which the Cato Institute avidly supports.
In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Cato Institute’s then-lawyer, Ilya Shapiro, filed a famous amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down bans on gay marriage, which the Supreme Court did in that landmark ruling, which made same-sex marriage a constitutional right.
Out of principle, Ilya Shapiro later chose to defend the free speech of someone whose speech he passionately disagreed with (an opponent of same-sex marriage), in the 303 Creative v. Elenis case.
But Shapiro has now left the Cato Institute. And the Cato Institute’s principles have apparently left with him.
By not filing a brief in support of free speech, when it would be effortless to do so, its current staff have chosen not to defend “freedom for the thought that we hate,” even though a principled First Amendment advocate would do that."
You could see the same cancer start to eat away at Reason too, over the last decade.
Certainly, the TDS riddle articles by Sullum and others while giving Biden nearly no criticism during Presidential election, were sad. Shackford isn't even pretending to not support groomers and pedophiles. ENB is crazy, as always. On and on...
But what is really obvious is the lack of articles on certain topics. J6 protestors being held for months without bail, but charged with non-violent crimes. Crickets. Ashlii Babbitt murdered by police. Crickets. Recently, Hillary Clinton lawyer found innocent, despite explicit proof he lied to FBI. Still crickets. (Many other examples, just a few off top of my mind...)
It's almost like Reason editors have a political team and narrative to protect.
Nobody gives a shit about your pet local stories, we have national hookers day to worry about
Here was Sullum on the court ruling which forbade Trump to block followers on his personal Twitter account:
As I stated in previous discussions about this, if "they're a private company" is your central principle, then the President's twitter account belongs to Twitter, and Twitter gave the president a "block button" to use as he saw fit. The fact that the government effectively nationalized a 1' x 1' square of Twitter and called it "freedom of speech" is bizarre to the point of nonsensical.
The contortions required to not only note that this was not an official government account, but Trump's personal account, yet because he said presidential-ey things on it therefore made it a Public Square was impressive indeed.
Yet when this 1' x 1' square of Twitter was banned by Twitter itself, suddenly the public had no right to see or read what Trump was saying because Twitter was a private company and any interference with said company was a grave violation of Twitter's first amendment rights.
That level of cognitive dissonance is jaw-dropping.
Principals not principles, not just a funny saying anymore.
"That level of cognitive dissonance is jaw-dropping."
That and a lot of "Fuck You, That's Why" too.
Indeed. Here's a fine example:
http://reason.com/archives/2016/12/05/time-to-end-discrimination-against-gays
You would think that a libertarian publication would defend the private employer's right to make his employment decisions without government interference.
And how is this remotely a libertarian or constitutional position?
Well, "libertarian" and "constitutional" don't always play well together, because the Constitution isn't an entirely libertarian document. (Though as the old bon mot goes, it's better than what we have now.)
So, if gay marriage wasn't pretty much automatically going to lead to atrocities like Masterpiece Cake, (Which, of course, it was.) I could see a libertarian case for it, but not a constitutional case.
On the other side of that, while the rule of law isn't precisely a libertarian value, it has enormous utility from a libertarian standpoint, because it's much easier to work around a government that is constrained by it. And Obergefell was hardly a triumph of the rule of law, more the rule of judges.
Indeed. It is no more "libertarian" to advocate for "gay marriages" than for the "right" of boys to play on girls' athletic teams.
You call this a victory? It is a day of shame for Georgetown U. They deliberately let Shapiro twist in the wind. Some employer.
OTOH, Shapiro showed the world why he is not executive caliber talent with that idiotic tweet.
St Ignatius of Loyola would not recognize Georgetown U.
Shapiro's tweet said more about him than he realized. Nothing good comes from social media but especially for those who lack self-regulation.
Shapiro only fault was apologizing
Ah yes, the tried and true progressive tactic of vile attacks without substance. What was wrong with that tweet? From his perspective there are objectively better progressive lawyers but they are not black women so they won't be considered by the Biden regime. What is the problem with that statement? Need to confer with Jeff and Tony for a bit to figure it out?
Yes, Georgetown behaved reprehensibly. Yet, for some reason, Shapiro still wants to work for them.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/03/second-circuit-judge-judge-jose-cabranes-on-deeply-troubling-aspects-of-contemporary-university-procedures/?comments=true#comment-9526290
Pure speculation but one must wonder what the result would have been if he had voted for Trump.
actions to address the negative impact that the tweets had on the law school community
Free thumbsuckers?
A few weeks of idiot prog students "REEEEE"-ing in his face will fix that.
Shapiro's statement wasn't poorly worded. It was smart-ass. I wonder if, had Shapiro been around when the first George Bush chose Clarence Thomas to fill an SCt vacancy, he would have moaned that instead of a first-rate conservative Bush was appointing a "lesser black man".
A college professor certainly has license to be a smart ass. A dean is supposed to be, in effect, a politician/salesman. Since Shapiro had already been chosen for the spot, it would have been too much to dump him, but he should remember that, as a dean, he'll be expected to toot the horn of others, not his own. I know lawyers have a hard time not making sure everyone knows how smart they are, but Ilya needs to make an effort here.
Did George H. W. Bush ever declare, in advance of Thomas' nomination, that he would select a nominee based on race, religion, gender, etc meaning that he would NOT select the best candidate if that candidate didn't happen to meet the race, religion, gender criteria?
Well, Bush denied feeling constrained to nominate a black to fill Thurgood Marshall's seat, but let's be real, it's not an accident he picked a black guy.
He just understood that he wasn't supposed to come out and SAY he had a racial quota for the seat.
Was Shapiro wrong? The qualification was "black female" with the implication that she would be left-leaning. But black female was the litmus test. It is what it is. Don't blame a guy for noticing.
If you're not being facetious, folks jumped on him for saying "lesser black woman" because people chose to read that the worst way possible. That is, folks chose to read it as him saying black women were lesser.
So they, like Robby are ignorant progs capable of arguing only in bad faith. If you actually read the tweet he makes a comparison and because Biden's litmus test isn't for the most qualified he indeed chose the lesser legal mind to fill the SC spot.
From a libertarian point of view, Shapiro is wrong in wanting to work for Georgetown, in particular after this "investigation".
But worry not, the progressive sharks have tasted blood and they are circling. He is entering a hell of his own making.
that hair is a fireable offense.
Wait... didn't Joe Biden threaten to filibuster Janice Rogers Brown, who would have been the first Black Woman on the DECOTUS 20 years ago, if he cou;d bring himself to allow a Republican (W) to appoint the first Black Woman Justice.
Why is soave working in the inceldom that is the hill? that place just repets the mainstream media narrative that female sports are not a thing for incels and femcels and that feminism is not a hate movement.
The fact that Shapiro wants to work for Georgetown tells you everything you need to know about the kind of statist authoritarian and establishmentarian he is.
"...As I explained in the wake of his suspension, Shapiro's wording was indeed ill-considered, as he himself freely admitted..."
Perhaps we didn't need your explanation to realize it was a bullshit maneuver.
He's not gonna teach a single day. Students will protest, say they feel threatened, etc. and the university will knuckle under to them. Shapiro will either be confined to a desk job or be paid off and asked to leave.
"At issue was Shapiro's poorly-worded tweet"
(cue Jack Nicholson)
YOU CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
He was comparing two things. "Lesser" is the correct way to identify the one, in your opinion, which is not the "greater".
He used English, not Newspeak.
Well, Shapiro has a backbone after all: he has resigned from Georgetown. Good for him and a loss for Georgetown.
Good for him to string this along and to call out the ring kissing the DEI gestapo would have him taking part in. The man has a spine, and they don’t. Enough of this SJ nonsense, This cancer is destroying many freedom of thought.