Free Speech

Letter from Several USD Law Professors to the Dean, About the Criticism-of-China Investigation

|

I think this is quite correct; for more, see the post below:

Dear Robert,

We have read your email to the law school community as well as your email to one of us. Here is our reaction.

The faculty member in question made a political comment in forceful language. He has the right and perhaps the obligation as a citizen and an academic to comment on matters of public concern such as the Chinese government's handling of COVID, and to do so in evocative and forceful language. No fair, much less lawyerly way of reading what he wrote would conclude anything other than that "Chinese cock swaddle" was referring to propaganda of the Chinese government and surely not denigrating people of Chinese origin or descent. The context makes this perfectly clear.

Blog posts by academics fall within the bounds of academic freedom as defined by the AAUP. Student concerns about discrimination should always be considered soberly. Yet, an academic institution committed to free inquiry cannot allow misplaced accusations of bigotry to become an all-purpose tool for silencing critical comment. To allow such accusations to undermine academic freedom ultimately ensures an environment of fear and suspicion for all members of the academic community, undermining rather than ensuring a welcoming and respectful discourse. Describing the disputed comments in this case as "offensive language in reference to people from China" of a piece with "hate crimes directed against the Asian and Pacific Islander (API) community [and] racist commentary" inevitably creates the impression that judgment has been rendered in advance and the outcome of the promised review has been predetermined.

We are concerned that treating these complaints the way you are doing validates student reactions and strained interpretations that are misguided, that reflect a lack of critical thinking, and that will chill faculty members' teaching and scholarship. We sincerely hope it will be possible to work together to find a better way.

NEXT: Biden Stimulus Bill Provision Targeting State Tax Cuts Might be Struck Down by Courts for Same Reasons as Trump Efforts to Pull Federal Grants From Sanctuary Cities

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. “Describing the disputed comments in this case as “offensive language in reference to people from China” of a piece with “hate crimes directed against the Asian and Pacific Islander (API) community [and] racist commentary” inevitably creates the impression that judgment has been rendered in advance and the outcome of the promised review has been predetermined.”

    Yeah, I noticed that too.

    1. As a noted jurist once put it – “Sentence first – verdict afterwards.”

      1. In another context I’d consider the free-expression implications if a professor criticized a racial or ethnic group as such – eg, by denouncing “chineseness” or “whiteness,” etc. – but even discussing this hypothetically would be conceding too much to the censors – suggesting that their interpretation of the prof’s words was somehow rational or plausible.

        1. Exactly. Leaving aside the legal aspects of the matter and the implications for academic freedom, I am appalled that such a wide range of presumably intelligent people, ranging from the student association to the dean of the law school, are incapable of understanding a fairly straightforward piece of English prose.

          1. Most of whom were likely native English speakers. I’d say it must be difficult to go through life not being fluent in your native language, but the administrators have apparently done well enough for themselves.

        2. I recall one Chinese person glowingly describing something the Chinese government did ~20 years ago as “so very Chinese.”

          Is this supposed to be off limits to talk about?

    2. Why are these professors being so diplomatic and respectful?

      1. The law school dean is on the arrest list of the lawyer hierarchy.

    3. I appreciate the new vocabulary word each day. Today’s was not on the Eleventh grade vocabulary list. It should have been.

      1. Must be gratifying to the lawyer. Use of a crude term got more attention than scholarly essays. What are you, children?

    4. Sorry, lawyer scumbags and PC Chinese agent traitors. Here is a fact to interrupt your self serving garbage.

      “• Asians had the lowest rate of violent victimization among
      all racial or ethnic groups.1”

  2. Remarkably short and to the point, for an academic letter 🙂

  3. “hate crimes directed against the Asian and Pacific Islander (API) community”

    What I don’t understand is how something — worst case situation — was directed at persons of Chinese ancestry instantly becomes directed at “the Asian and Pacific Islander (API) community.”

    We’re talking about peoples who really do not like each other — and that is an understatement. They’ve got racial hatreds that date back thousands of years, their racial issues makes ours look like a children’s squabble at a Sunday School picnic.

    It’s actually arrogant Western ignorance of their cultures that lets us consider them all the same — THEY don’t!

    1. Here’s what I wrote many years ago about this, about people calling Michelle Malkin a “self-hating Asian” for defending the WWII internment of the Japanese:

      Now I’m very glad that there’s been a serious debate about the merits of Malkin’s work (including, quite prominently, by Eric Muller while guest-blogging on this very blog). But the debate is not advanced by illogical name-calling.

      “Asian” is a funny sort of term, which purports to cover a madly heterogenous group of people from Japan to the Philippines to Burma and (in many contexts) India and Pakistan. Many whites and some American Asians may see the group as “Asian.” My sense is that most Asians and many American Asians do not; they see the group as Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, and so on.

      Michelle Malkin is the child of Filipino immigrants. She is writing a book that is defending the internment of Japanese-Americans. Other than being from the same huge part of the world, and having similar eye shapes and hair colors, Filipinos and Japanese have little in common with each other. It’s true that racists have often lumped the two together, and that the hostility towards (and often hatred of) Japanese immigrants during World War II flowed partly from general hostility to Asians. But it also flowed, of course, from matters peculiar to the Japanese.

      So even if one could somehow show that Malkin is motivated by hatred of people of Japanese extraction — and I have no reason to believe that this is true, and I accept it only to separate the various parts of my argument — the “self-” coupled with the “Asian” in the phrase “self-hating Asian” is especially nonsensical. To be accurate (again, assuming for a moment that some hatred is involved) rather than an illogical smear, the assertion would have to be “World-War-II-era-Japanese-hating Filipina” (where Japanese is used to include “of Japanese extraction,” as are “Filipina” and “Asian”). To be still more accurate, absent any evidence of hatred, it would have to be “World-War-II-era-Japanese-internment-defending Filipina.” A somewhat different-sounding criticism than “self-hating Asian,” no?

      1. “calling Michelle Malkin a “self-hating Asian” for defending the WWII internment of the Japanese … Michelle Malkin is the child of Filipino immigrants”

        In the context of WWII, the ‘Co-Prosperity Sphere’ notwithstanding, it wasn’t really Asians vs. Honkies; it was Asians+Honkies vs. the Japanese. The Filipinos, Koreans, and Chinese were very much at war with the Japanese.

        In general, the Japanese didn’t find much sympathy from other Asians. They had a shotgun alliance with Thailand, the Dutch were such overbearing colonial overlords that the people of the Dutch East Indies viewed them as liberators for a time, and Bose’s Indian National Army numbered 40K some men (vs a couple of million Indians who volunteered to fight for the Empire).

        Thinking that, in WWII, being Asian meant support for Japan is pretty profoundly ahistorical.

        (none of this supports the notion that the Japanese internment was right … just that the primary victims of the Japanese were their fellow Asians)

        1. I knew an elderly Japanese woman about 30 years ago that was telling a story about her childhood in prewar Taiwan. Japan had taken Taiwan from the dying Qing dynasty in 1895.

          Her father was the Japanese ‘mayor’ of a Tawainese town, but she was complaining because none of the other kids liked her because her father was the tax collector, and taxes and collection methods were not shall as we say equitable.

          She thought her treatment was very unfair because her father didn’t get to keep the money.

        2. “(none of this supports the notion that the Japanese internment was right”

          Malkin makes the point that (a) Japanese espionage/sabotage was a credible threat in California, (b) they could blend into the larger Japanese/America culture for cover, and (c) the FBI (et al) had no Japanese/American agents to find them.

          There had been sabotage during WW-I (the 1916 Black Tom explosion) and Japanese submarines had shelled the US and Canadian coasts. (Their marksmanship was atrocious but at least two different subs fired their deck gun at multiple targets and could have done a lot of damage if they’d actually hit anything.)

          When you look at how much our rights have been suspended over the past year — for the perceived common good — it does raise questions.

          1. Also do not think that the Japanese were Boy Scouts during WW-II.
            The “rape of Nanking” comes to immediate mind, and while the “Bataan death march” involved US troops captured in The Philippines, I don’t think that the Japanese were much nicer to the Filipinos.

            While the racial hatreds in that part of the world predated this, most everyone has legitimate issues with what the Japanese did to them during WW-II. Some of the stuff they did was actually worse than what the Nazis did — medical experimentation, etc.

      2. “Other than being from the same huge part of the world, and having similar eye shapes and hair colors, Filipinos and Japanese have little in common with each other. ”

        They have some common history from WWII, I understand. Well, they interacted, anyway.

        1. Yes, the interaction was my point exactly (and I suppose it is indeed “in common,” but a very different sort of “in common”).

      3. Thanks for this Prof. V. Some folks may not know it, but some “White” Americans whose ancestors came from England used to mistreat other “White” Americans whose ancestors came from the other shore of the Irish Sea (“No Irish need apply”, etc.)
        To pretend that everyone whose ancestors came from the several countries and multiple cultures of eastern Asia is part of the same “race” or “ethnicity” — and then to add in people from that great stretch of islands between Asia and (what? Hawaii?). Isn’t that crazy? Isn’t it crazy for Americans — Americans! — to indulge in such foolishness?

    2. Conspirator Bernstein had several posts on the ridiculous race classifications set up by, I think, the DoJ, which slowed down the vaccine trials for no good reason, and have made a hash of affirmative action categories, among other problems.

    3. “It’s actually arrogant Western ignorance of their cultures that lets us consider them all the same — THEY don’t!”

      It’s worth keeping in mind that plenty of the attacks against Asian Americans (and yes, I’m intentionally using that term here) in the last year or two have come against people of other East or Southeast Asian ancestries. If people are out there targeting Japanese or Korean folks because they think that their targets are Chinese, then in this case they do need to be considered together.

      1. And how many of these attacks have been Black thugs being thugs?

        Of course we can’t say that….

        1. NB: Said thugs most often victimize other Black people — that’s why support for sometimes draconian criminal sanctions is often higher in the Black community than elsewhere — they *fear* said thugs.

        2. That’s because the word “thug” is racist toward Indians (of the South Asian variety).

        3. And how many of these attacks have been Black thugs being thugs?

          Most of them. But I’ve been assured that it’s not their fault because those Svengali-like white supremacists have somehow managed to dupe black Americans into doing the latter’s dirty work for them, or…something.

  4. Link to the letter in full ?

    1. That is the letter in full (other than the “Sincerely” and the signatures).

      1. If we saw the list of signatories we could then watch to see if those individuals experienced repercussions for writing the letter.

  5. Academic Freedom Alliance, assemble!

    Smite USD with the hammer of truth, fry them with the energy blast of legal liability.

    1. Also, Antifa the dean. It works with Democrats. They burned down our cities. Now Democrats are in all commercials and in all movies. All woke corporations should be boycotted by real Americans. These America haters are really offensive.

  6. How did so much on-campus power shift from the faculty to the administration? Why can’t the faculty demand the resignation of misbehaving administrators?

    1. It’s the students who hold the power. In the present case, student activists complained and the administration is genuflecting to the students.

      1. Appears the donating alumnus hold the power. They are getting exactly what they are paying for.

        1. No — current alumi donations are not really part of the operating budget, with the exception of fiscally destitute IHEs like Hampshire College, where they are outright asking their alumni to rescue them.
          Alumni donations usually go into either the foundation budget, used for things like new buildings, or into the endowment with only the income being used, and then usually earmarked for things like endowed chairs.

          In fact, a school dipping into its endowment for operating expenses is a red flag to the accreditors. Yes, some IHEs are doing it — there are a lot of fiscally shake IHE out there right now, many of which will go under soon.

          The operating expenses comes from four places:
          1: Tuition & Fees: (Law schools are particularly tuition-driven.)
          2: Grants. Mostly Federal, some state, some foundations.
          3: Licensing, particularly of IP (also the school’s name & logo).
          4: State Allocation: Usually only if a public IHE.

          As to law schools, I blame the ABA because it could end this foolishness overnight by threatening to yank accreditation.

          1. More likely to threaten to yank accreditation of schools that don’t join in, I hope you understand.

            1. I don’t doubt that — the APA has been explicit in this regard on the LBGT++ agenda and accreditation for the psych license.

              The ABA has been building this woke foolishness over the past two decades if not longer, I see the deans as mere puppets on strings.

              1. It was more toward IHEs in general and not law schools, but some of the stuff Betsy DeVos tried to do with redundant accreditation sought to address some of this. Even though all she has is a BA in Business Economics, she probably was the most effective person in Trump’s cabinet, but I digress.

                Remember that outside specific accredition as a prerequisite for licensure, the only relevance of it is ability to accept Federal FinAid monies, i.e. your students receive them. This will eventually come to a head with religious colleges and the LBGT++ stuff.

  7. Some random thoughts.

    Maybe I am showing my age but I can still remember being taught ‘sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me’. It still seems to me that this retort to name calling puts the name caller in the position of being shamed by the implication that they are afraid to physically do any thing and have to resort to name calling.

    I would also like those students that signed on to the, at least to me, false claim that the insult was aimed at Chinese peeps and not the government of China be required to take a remedial English class since they have not mastered the English language sufficiently at what seems like a basic level to me.

    I am still bothered by the courts accepting and expanding the concept of fighting words. My understanding is that a basic 1A concept is the answer to bad speech is more speech; not restricting speech and certainly not physical violence to silence speech.

    1. Maybe those students aren’t the only person who might benefit from a remedial English class in this context. No one familiar with the term “cock swaddle” would have used it in this context. A professor making that mistake — if that is what occurred — is particularly shabby.

      1. Nothing to see here, comrades, the Chinese government’s handling of the American coronavirus has been outstanding, and if you don’t believe it, they’ve got the very best WHO officials to back them up!

      2. “No one familiar with the term “cock swaddle” would have used it in this context.”

        Finally, a topic where Kirkland is more knowledgeable than the rest of us! We bow to your superior understanding of cock-swaddling.

        And perhaps, of swallowing cock swaddle in particular.

        1. I had to look it up, which is apparently more than this clinger law professor did before using the term.

          I don’t blame right-wing academics for blindly sticking together like this — the support of each other is about all these fringe-inhabiting culture war casualties have left, especially at strong schools.

          1. But you looking was conveniently lazy. Because all you wanted to do was cast insults. My how you cling to your ill-will.

            1. Looking up words? Using the dictionary is white supremacy. The professor was being a “good” liberal by not doing so.

          2. “I don’t blame right-wing academics for blindly sticking together like this…”

            Why am I not surprised that Kirkland thinks the issue is about the proper use of the term “cock-swaddle” and doesn’t understand the larger issue?

      3. Kirkland, I thought you were a “Reverend”…
        From the King James Bible, Luke 2:7:

        “And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.”

        While currently out of vogue, “swaddling” involved wrapping a child so as to restrain the child’s arms and legs. I imagine it also served as a sort of diaper.

        1. Keep flailing, clingers. Some of us enjoy watching your pathetic attempts to remain relevant as modern America progresses against your wishes and efforts.

          1. The usual BS from a mean-spirited troll.

          2. Kirkland, did it ever occur to you that the Bible might also be a historical record of how infants were cared for at that time and place? Or are you so arrogant (and asinine) that you believe that history didn’t exist before your birth?

            And if you have an IQ above 12 (do you?) and have ever been around an infant, you would understand that had the baby not been restrained, it either would have fallen out of the manger and/or knocked the manger over. Not to confuse you with the facts, though…

            While the advantage of the King James Bible is that it is in English (sort of) — you can also look at other cultures (e.g. Egyptian) and find evidence that infants were swaddled there and then as well. Or look to Soviet history and you’ll find that Joseph Stalin was also swaddled as an infant — one professor I had alleged that caused what he later became…

            1. You seem to be focusing misleadingly and irrelevantly on the “swaddle” part. Far more important would be what that professor meant by his poorly chosen words; has he attempted to explain, or is he luxuriating in the attention mindlessly provided by his like-mined partisans?

              1. provided by his like-mined partisans?

                Talk about being in the same vein….

    2. Maybe I am showing my age but I can still remember being taught ‘sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me’.

      Same here. But at the current trajectory, I fear we’re about a generation away from losing whatever scraps of that mentality remain.

  8. “To allow such accusations to undermine academic freedom ultimately ensures an environment of fear and suspicion for all members of the academic community, undermining rather than ensuring a welcoming and respectful discourse.”

    Well, of course. That is the objective, nearly realized.

    1. If I were the Chinese government, I’d be pleased as punch the efforts to control the western narrative, by way of threatening Hollywood releases and manufacturing plants, was going so swimmingly.

  9. Maybe it’s a misprint in the transcript. Maybe he meant to say something about the way male chickens walk, in China. “Chinese cocks waddle.”

  10. The students who made the ridiculous, defamatory accusation should face consequences. They have caused real harm. So too have other law students in other situations over the past few months.

    1. Well I suggested above the students should be forced to take a remedial English class since they seem to have problems understanding English. The thing is it is a double secret probation insult to an Asian student to accuse them of not understanding English.

      But realistically what consequences would you impose on them? As a rule students don’t usually have resources so a monetary settlement is not realistic. I am not sure there are any real options.

      But this is a larger problem than just some students making wild eyed claims. There are lots of other examples of peeps with little or no resources damaging someone and not facing any punishment because they are immune to normal penalties. When someone has no home, no job, no money, and lives on the street putting them in jail may simply mean they have a place to sleep, food to eat, and what some would view as a better life.

      Bottom line is if someone is judgement proof there is not much you can do to them.

      1. Academic dishonesty (or garden-variety dishonesty), which is doubtless prohibited in the student handbook. Whether the accusation was in the nature of score-settling or just plain malice, it was obviously in bad faith. It was not (as you suggest) the result of misunderstanding the English language.

        1. A cock swaddle is a jizz rag, according to online sources. I could not find another definition, at least not quickly. It was the downscale law professor who appears to have misunderstood the English language. But he apparently is a clinger, so he’ll get a pass from this blog and its conservative fans.

          1. If you’re hoping for some kind of reward from the Chinese Communist government, be assured that to them you are quite worthless to them, except of course as a jizz rag.

          2. The law school should be defunded and shut down. Zero tolerance for PC. All PC is case, the lawyer profession must be stopped to save our nation. Chinese adversary is using your woke language against the weak effeminate lawyer diplomats of the Democrat Party. The tech billionaires want to please China for its market. They are Chinese agents, thus their media bullshit against Asian hate crimes. Asians have better than white privilege. They are crazy rich, top performers.

            1. The law school should be defunded and shut down.

              Yes, abolishing the victim’s place of employment (and that of a large number of other innocent faculty members) would be a great way to vindicate him.

          3. “I could not find another definition, at least not quickly.”

            You couldn’t find where it referred to a blanket with a picture of a rooster on it?

            Get an education.

          4. A cock swaddle is a jizz rag, according to online sources.

            And there you have it. Our self-proclaimed intellectual better relies on Urban Dictionary as an authority on the usage of English. As if more reasons were needed to not take him seriously.

        2. A. Friend you may need to replace the batteries in your sarcasm detector.

          I suspect any student handbook honor code would not include in it’s definition of academic dishonesty writing letters complaining about real or perceived insult. I am not trying to defend the students who wrote the letter, just pointing out I don’t see any formal rule against it.

          1. Well, the City of San Francisco is trying to criminalize the bad-faith reporting of perceived affronts: https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/20/us/caren-act-911-san-francisco-board-passes-first-read-trnd/index.html

            1. Just another piece of evidence that SF is filled with shitheads

              1. San Fran is very wealthy. Yet, it is a shithole, with a city poop map. The reason? Democrat lawyers.

      2. “But realistically what consequences would you impose on them? As a rule students don’t usually have resources so a monetary settlement is not realistic. I am not sure there are any real options.”

        Aren’t judgements good for 20 years? None of these prospective lawyers will have resources by that time?!?

        More realistically, doesn’t the Dean have to write a “good character” letter in order for grads to take the bar exam?

        We need a dean like Lillian Hellman…

        1. Na we need a dean like Dean Wormer to put them on double secret probation.

          I suspect there would be law suits absent a letter of good conduct from the dean and a suit now with the expectation of collecting in twenty years would be a long shot.

    2. Something to be said for this. If your accusation falls through, the student gets cancelled out of the university instead.

      I mean, it’s about unacceptable thoughts in our modern society, right? And not wildcat thrashing about in service to some politicians, right?

  11. A little OT but I am getting tired of peeps making up words and defining them to suit their purposes. It would interest me to know how the good professor defines cock swaddle.

    1. Is the professor’s first language English? Is it a literal translation of something that makes more sense in the original language?

      That’s where “waterbuffalo” came from — it was the literal translation of the Hebrew(?) word that Rabbis call disruptive boys in religion classes. The student, born in Israel, used it when the loud sorority was disrupting his studying.

    2. Didn’t mean “codswallop”? A synonym for “nonsense”.

      Not a everyday word but I have seen it in print from time to time.

      1. That was what I was guessing, too . . .

      2. Wow — according to Merriam/Webster, it’s also British slang, and I like to remind people that a lot of people in places like Africa & India speak the British version of English and not ours.

        Which again raises the question of where the professor is from — and where are his friends and associates from?

        FYI:
        Definition of codswallop
        British, informal
        : words or ideas that are foolish or untrue : nonsense
        The notion that Scott was waylaid by bad luck is “a lot of codswallop,” said Roland Huntford, a British historian.— Kenneth Chang
        “Some say he died. Codswallop, in my opinion…”— J. K. Rowling
        … I muttered, “Yes, that’s right,” knowing all the while that it was a load of codswallop.— Steven Pinker

  12. ragebot and RAK,
    Please not the following add on Amazon:
    Baby Blanket Vintage Farm House Cock Swaddle Blanket Boys & Girl Soft Silky Swaddling Blankets, Wrap for Newborn Infant, Large 30 X 40 Inches
    Obviously RAK tried not to look very far.

    1. Good catch, but I am far too lazy to look for things like that. Not to mention the ads that show up in my browsing are based on my searches and I shutter to think how the internet software would react to me using the search term ‘cock swaddle’.

      1. the ads that show up in my browsing

        Ads? I highly recommend a good browser swaddle….

  13. So the new race fetish is Asians. Got it. Someone better tell the BLM people that white liberals no longer think they are the bees knees.

    1. I have one friend who not only blames the government of China for mis-handling covid-19 and applying pressure to the World Health Organization but who is still convinced that the virus was developed intentionally as a biological weapon by the Chinese government. She is Chinese, and by no means self-hating. She hates the Communist Party, which is an entirely different matter.

      1. I think she’s right — just that it got out accidentally.

        1. Chinese virologist Dr. Li-Meng Yan? In April she fled Hong Kong and the WHO lab she worked for and sought refuge in the USA. She says her extensive research on the virus proves that it was gene-edited and bio-engineered by the PLA which owns the lab…as a biological weapon.

          I suspect that what she says is true. And you can do all the deboinking you wish of Dr. Yan and Professor Smith. I find both of them admirable and trustworthy.

          1. Genetically edited and bio-engineered by the PLA as a biological weapon does not preclude accidental release.

            Accidents with conventional weapons have also been deadly — the Port Chicago Disaster during WW-II serving as an example.

          2. After seeing Dr. Yan on TV I am not so sure a deboinking is in order; I would think most males would rather boink her.

      2. I think she’s right, and it was done to get Trump out of office, and Biden in. Mission accomplished!

        Folks wonder aloud who’s running the executive branch, since Biden is obviously a senile, befuddled old man; it’s not Harris, or Pelosi, or any other U.S. politician. It’s the Chinese Communist Party.

        1. It actually did more than that — China was having big-time problems with Hong Kong — and they aren’t now. They also got $$$ for all the masks we bought.

      3. The Epoch Times, run by ethnic Chinese with li ks to Falun Gong, are of the same people. Which makes it interesting to see social media blocking stories from Epoch Times on the ground that they are “racist.”

    2. A “fetish” is frivolous. The propaganda effort we see is part of a strategy.

  14. “Student concerns about discrimination should always be considered soberly. Yet, an academic institution committed to free inquiry cannot allow misplaced accusations of bigotry to become an all-purpose tool for silencing critical comment.”

    Quotable. Whenever apt, I plan on using this in correspondence with any and all academic institutions with which I am affiliated, and perhaps some with which I am not.

    1. One caveat: some deans have drinking problems — “soberly” might be a triggering word.

      So what if it has two different meanings? “Niggardly” only has one, and doesn’t even come from the same Latin root word…

  15. Prof. Volokh seems a strident supporter of free speech such as “cock swaddle” – when he isn’t censoring terms such as “sl_ck-j_w” and “c_p succ_r” (when those terms are used to criticize conservatives).

    That the speaker (who apparently didn’t consult a dictionary before using a term with which he was not familiar) is a conservative makes the inconsistency a bit easier to understand.

    1. You clearly jump to conclusions based on your lazy searching

    2. Why does it bother you that a professor used strong language in criticizing the Chinese Communist government?

      (Or maybe I should say the government of Communist China, to make clear I’m discussing the country of China in its political capacity)

      Would you consider Chinese government officials to be “clingers”?

    3. Rev. can’t defend the dean, so he’s nit-picking the prof’s vocabulary choice, as if that were the only important issue.

  16. From the “APALSA’s Calls to Action”

    “1. Immediate Investigation + Termination of Professor Thomas Smith”

    Why bother with the investigation, just go straight to termination. After all, that’s the CCP way.

    1. The university should direct APALSA to apologize for participating in this dishonesty and ban the organization from campus for a year if they won’t apologize and retract.

      The university won’t though, because they don’t value honesty.

    2. I wonder if the national group is on board with what its USD chapter is doing?

  17. Would the USD law school consider similar sharp criticam of the Israeli, European, or American governments as ethnic bigotry directed at people of Israeli. European, or American governments? Would it consider similar sharp criticism of the Chinese government as ethnic bigotry directed at “Asians and Pacifi Islanders” if made by Chinese citizens or American citizens of Chinese origin?

    If not, it has a Bostock problem.

    1. Make them play by their own book of rules.

      1. I thought Dr. Dealgood set the rules.

        “Get to the weapons. Use them any way you can. I know you won’t break the rules. There aren’t any.”

        1. I had forgotten about the work of that distinguished jurist.

  18. Sorry to interrupt the Democrat violation of the Exception Fallacy with their hate crime, nitpicking lawyer bullshit. Asians are the group least likely to be the victims of violent crime in the US. Stop the incessant, Hate America, Democrat puffery.

    Journalism liability should extend to violations of its Code of Ethics and to its failures to disclose violations of Critical Thinking, e.g. “This article anout Asian victimization violates The Exception Fallacy. ” The failure to provide such disclosures should punished for consumer fraud, with heavy fines, civil forfeitures, liability to majority populations. The Free Press Clause should not immunize consumer fraud.

Please to post comments