Free Speech

Why I Wouldn't Recommend Adjunct Teaching at Law Schools Now

|

Over the years, many successful lawyers have asked me how they might get an adjunct teaching job—a part-time job teaching one specialty class in a subject they know well, usually in a weekly 2-hour block. (Some examples of such classes, though not necessarily ones I've been asked about: Business Torts; Family Law Mediation; Entertainment Guilds; and of course many more.)

I used to tell them: "First, think of adjunct teaching as a very expensive hobby." A typical 2-unit class pays maybe $5000 to $10,000 or so. In exchange, the teacher likely has to spend, each week, about 2 hours teaching; let's say an average of about an hour or so in transit (remember when people would actually have to drive to and from the university?); and probably about 4 to 6 hours preparing for class (much more the first time, perhaps somewhat less later, though each year there could be new developments that would require further preparing), plus talking to students after class and outside class and the like. The teacher would also have to compose and then grade the exam, and in many classes grade student papers (in law school, professors do their own grading, rather than delegating to teaching assistants).

That probably amounts to about 7 to 10 hours per week over the 13-week semester, plus some time before and after, or $40-$100/hour. For most experienced private-practice lawyers—the very lawyers whom law schools most want as adjuncts, at least in non-criminal-law, non-public-interest cases—that means tens of thousands in foregone billings.

Of course, as with other expensive hobbies, some people still want to do it. They may view teaching as a welcome intellectual break from their day jobs (which, even if interesting, can get repetitive). They may be invigorated by being around smart, eager young students. They might also see such teaching as a valuable credential for getting clients, though I'm not sure how much of a factor that tends to be.

In any event, many top-notch lawyers have been willing to teach as adjuncts. That has generally been good for students, who get teachers with specialized knowledge and deep experience. It has been good for law schools, who get coverage of material that the standard tenure-track teachers might not know much about, and can offer their students a good mix of classes taught by the (usually) more theory-minded research faculty and the (usually) more practice-minded adjuncts. And presumably it has been good for the adjuncts themselves, in emotional benefits though not financial ones.

But these days, I wouldn't generally recommend adjunct teaching: Any sufficiently controversial statement, in class or out, can lead to a firestorm of accusations of bigotry, prompt denunciation and firing by the dean, and huge risk to your day-job career. Of course, precisely because the job pays so little, the firing by itself won't cost much (though it would doubtless leave a sour taste). But the news coverage, I think, can be professionally and economically devastating, especially since the coverage won't focus just on the accusations by the students, but the endorsement of those accusations by the law school administration.

This partly stems, of course, from the willingness of university administrators to give in to student demands, including demands for firing. But it also stems from all of this happening so publicly. We're not talking here about a quiet parting of the ways, a discreet conversation in which the Dean tells an adjunct, "we won't need you to teach the course next year." We're talking about public excoriation by students and public condemnation by administrators, often leading to prominent media stories, which will routinely come up whenever the adjunct's name is Googled.

Now full-time tenured faculty may have the same concern, and we indeed have even more to lose, at least by way of immediate salary. But we at least have some degree of security:

  • Our tenure contracts provide both procedural and substantive protections.
  • We are more likely to have friends among the tenured faculty, who often have a good deal of power at the law school.
  • Even tenured faculty members who aren't our friends can easily think, "There but for the grace of God go I," and thus come to our defense as a mean of defending their own institutional interests.

It's much less likely, I think, that powerful faculty members or the administration will treat adjunct faculty with equal concern.

Nor is it easy to stay safe just by avoiding controversy in class, or even by teaching a seemingly uncontroversial topic. As we saw in the Georgetown incident, you can get publicly fired for things you say outside class, if you don't realize you're being recorded (or if you don't realize you're being overheard). You can get publicly pushed out of the job even if you don't say the things, but someone you're talking to says them and you don't object.

You can get publicly fired for seemingly accurately discussing important subjects that naturally come up in your job, such as a disproportionate number of lower grades coming from black students. You can get publicly fired for that without regard for whether your statement may be accurate. You can get fired for it even if tenured faculty members have made similar observations in their scholarship.

You can likely get fired for condemning the government of China in a blog post, if you say "China" five times and then say "Chinese" to refer back to the Chinese government's actions (the theory being that you're bigoted against ethnic Chinese, even if context it's clear that you're referring to the government and not the ethnic group). To be precise, a University of San Diego tenured faculty member with nearly 30 years of teaching experience has been publicly condemned by his Dean for that, and is being formally investigated within the law school. It seems pretty likely that, had this been an adjunct, he would have been swiftly dismissed.

You could of course get fired for accurately quoting slurs in discussing a case from the readings. A tenured undergraduate faculty member has been fired for that, with the school faulting him not just for quoting "nigger" (from a leading precedent that had quoted the word 19 times)—I'm sure all adjuncts know now how unsafe that would be—but also "fag" from Snyder v. Phelps (the near-funeral picketing case, in which the Court overturned a tort verdict based on signs that, among other things, said "God Hates Fags").

Other tenured faculty members have likewise been condemned for saying "fag," though I expect that many practicing lawyers in fields where this comes up often (e.g., employment lawyers) would have thought they could quote the word in class (e.g., when quoting Pam Karlan's 2019 argument from the Bostock sexual orientation discrimination case). What if you're an adjunct teaching trademark law; can you safely say "The Slants," the subject of the leading Supreme Court case Matal v. Tam? I imagine most trademark lawyers would be surprised to think that they should expurgate it ("The Sla-word"?), but who knows?

And of course a tenured University of Illinois (Chicago) law school faculty member has already been publicly condemned by his administration for including "n_____" and "b____" in a fact pattern on an exam—not the actual words, but the expurgated versions. Again, I suspect that many lawyers coming from practice would have thought that of course the expurgated versions would be safe. Not any more, it seems.

Moreover, in many similar incidents the faculty members have reported that they had taught the class without objection in previous years. They thought it was safe; indeed, they hadn't even considered that it might not be. Indeed, they might have thought of themselves as progressive, and in sync with the politics of the campus. But we're in a different time now.

I very much doubt, for instance, that the USC business school lecturer (and fluent Mandarin speaker) who gave the Mandarin word "nei-ge" as an example of a filler word (the analog of "um" and "er") in a class on business communication expected controversy. But students publicly denounced him, and the Dean then promptly publicly condemned him and pulled him out of teaching the course in the middle of the semester. And the professor was the subject of national and international media coverage—not all negative, to be sure, given how badly the administration came off in this, but also not the sort of thing that's generally good for one's career. That lecturer, at least, likely made a decent salary in exchange for running this sort of risk (and might still keep his job, especially in light of the apparent faculty pushback). Not so for the adjuncts that I'm describing.

So, look, if you want to be an adjunct, and think you can avoid these risks—including the things that aren't even controversies yet but will become controversial next year or the year after—that's great. Law schools and law students will profit from your boldness. And maybe you think you

  1. have a safe enough underlying subject matter,
  2. can avoid anything controversial coming up in your stories from practice (e.g., stories that discuss gender or race dynamics in court or in negotiation), your off-the-cuff responses to student questions, or anything you say in a foreign language that might sound controversial in English,
  3. can stay away from any outside-class controversial statements about the class, whether talking to colleagues or others,
  4. can stay away from any controversial statements in Tweets, blog posts, or other publications, and
  5. won't find it oppressive to constantly be watching everything you say, again in class or out (something that can affect all adjuncts who are trying to avoid trouble, not just the few that do end up in trouble).

Or maybe you're confident that the administrators at the particular law school you'd teach at will stand behind their adjuncts even in the face of student demands and of Twitter mobs.

But if a friend of mine now asked me whether I'd recommend going into adjunct teaching, I'd say: For the sake of your legal career, your peace of mind, and perhaps your dignity and self-respect, stay away.

NEXT: Duty to Stop Reporting Highly Incomplete Reports of Legal Proceedings

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. Actually, it is an unethical way to meet women.
      Next question.

      1. That’s not what he asked, nor what evolution asks.

        1. That does not make his approach ethical.

          As for his question, women are going to perceive him as a sleaze whether he is standing in front of the class or sitting in the back.

          1. Svelte shiksas schlobber Shlomo’s schlong!

      2. Whoooosh!

    2. Say the wrong word, or they research you posts for the past 10 years, get reported. Now you are dealing with the hours required by regulatory investigations. These hours should be billed to the school, of course, under respondeat superior. It is their crybaby students that caused the damage.

      University teaching has become the nightmare scenario at any salary. Prof. Volokh should grow up, start doing legal stuff in the real world. Of course, all PC is case. PC and cancel are 100% the fault of the most toxic occupation in the nation, 10 times more toxic than organized crime.

      1. 10x may be a gross underestimation. The top lawyer-pols sling tens of trillions, so they can benefit millions via spouses who are curiously great at the stock market, a graft ratio of 0.000001% to damage.

        1. You two deserve each other.

      2. David,
        Your rocking on that hobby horse is just a source of noise without a signal.

        1. What is your obsession with hobby horses?

          1. It is not an obsession, James.
            You might learn the meaning of figures of speech even if you agree with Behar’s null signal to noise ratio.

            1. It’s not an obsession. It’s just something you can’t stop thinking and writing about. Totally different.

        2. And your comment, and mine here, are more of that noise.

          1. Unfortunately that is so

        3. Don. You are a lawyer and a denier. Go get an adjunct job. Report back about the effect on your life.

          1. David,
            Please go away. Or add some signal to the usual train of baseless insults

            1. I am not destroying $2 million in our economy every year I live, as you are. You are toxic, that is a fact. Multiply by 1.3 million of you, it is a serious problem. You are a denier, defending the rent.

              1. He’s right. You’re one-note and bitter.

      3. ” These hours should be billed to the school, of course, under respondeat superior. It is their crybaby students that caused the damage.”

        The students are customers, not employees, so your respondeat superior claim is going to come off as you trying to pretend to be a lawyer, and not quite understanding the lingo.

        1. Are students supervised? Is the school in loco parentis?

          1. I hate it when people say that “students are customers.” When technically true, it’s also a silly comparison. You don’t pay your tuition like you pay your cable bill; you pay your tuition to be allowed to participate interactively.

            A boxing student at a boxing school is also a customer. They don’t pay to pitter-patter around. In fact, if you pay tuition at a boxing school and never learn to hit or be hit, the school is failing you.

            1. “…the school is failing you.”

              Right, and the market will sort that out. Unless you come to find that customers of boxing schools aren’t actually interested in learning to hit, or be hit.

              One of my favorite aspects of the hit show Cobra Kai is that Johnny Lawrence if often teaching his students lessons they need but don’t want. Some of them leave his dojo and find what they are looking for at a rival, though, and they are entitled to do so.

              1. The market is sorting itself out, I’d say, because a bachelor’s degree to this generation is what a high school diploma was a previous generation, and a masters is now what a bachelors used to be to the generation before that. Moreover, that nobody expects them to be worth much either, except in certain more practical fields.

                On a side note, I did watch the first 4 episodes of Cobra Kai that I pirated and really liked it. It’s possible (take note here Disney for Star Wars) to treat legacy characters with respect and be realistic about it.

                1. “The market is sorting itself out, I’d say, because a bachelor’s degree to this generation is what a high school diploma was a previous generation…”

                  I can’t tell if you’re arguing that a bachelor degree is worth less or more, at least in your view. My original sense was you thought a bachelors today was worth less since it was the equivalent of the (mostly free) high school diploma prior generations received. Of course if you were evaluating the worth of a thing based on its inflation-adjusted price, this generation views a bachelor degree as being far more valuable than either a high school diploma or bachelor degree back then. That is, the market value of a bachelor degree has gone up, if the price is any indication. (Acknowledging government intrusion has had a significant role on the exponential increase in higher ed.)

                  I am an employer, and while I don’t have any illusions about how little people learn in college (since I went there, too), I’m still somewhat reluctant to hire a person without a bachelor’s degree, even for entry level jobs, at least without some kind of persuasive explanation. Part of this is for the reason you stated; since everybody has one, it’s the equivalent of a high school diploma. So not having one raises some questions I’d like answered before I commit to paying someone tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. In that sense having one is worth quite a bit at least to me, in my capacity as an employer.

                  1. BA degrees, except in technical fields, are worthless as a measure of knowledge acquisition. People often come out of college MORE ignorant than when they went in because they learn things that are wrong even if commonly accepted. Moreover, studies find zero improvement in the ability to think critically and write well after 4 years. That is, what horsepower you possess going in, you have coming out.

                    What they do is just signaling human capital that you *currently possess* (but not learned through college) limited cognitive functions related to reading/writing/showing up most of the time and paying attention. Thus, they hold value to the possessor of the sheepskin as a signaling device to potential employers.

                    I don’t know what business you’re in, but I suspect a pre-employment test would give you a similar level of ability to separate the wheat from the tares. Nothing is perfect of course, but my understanding is that court decisions and employment law make this difficult to implement.

                    1. “BA degrees, except in technical fields, are worthless as a measure of knowledge acquisition.”

                      I generally agree, but that cuts to the heart of the matter. You may think the value of a BA is tied to “knowledge acquisition” but the customers who buy BAs are not under any obligation to view their value the same as you. As you note, signaling is another value.

                      “I don’t know what business you’re in…”

                      I’m a lawyer. The lawyers I hire obviously have to have undergraduate degrees because of the barriers to entry for the profession. But I hire non-lawyers, too. And all of them have BAs as well (so far). A pre-employment test might be a good way to evaluate whether a 20 year old has the skills necessary to succeed, but that’s not the same as them showing they have the drive necessary to complete long term tasks. What questions would I ask to prove that? “Are you willing to complete long term tasks?”

                      I don’t like signaling and think college is an outrageously expensive signaling method. But I doubt a pre-employment test would operate as a good replacement. If it did, that shift would already have happened.

                    2. Hmm, pre-employment tests used to be way more common. One has to ask, then, what changed? And if something changed, is this change what is preventing them from being used like they used to be?

                      Court case after court case related to disparate impact made them less useful, and less common. Simultaneously, the “everyone goes to college” push led to college degrees being a somewhat useful proxy.

                      As for field of law, there is another labor market manipulating mechanism, the Bar (in other fields this is certification of various sorts), which is supposed to set a floor of competence. But what it actually does is limit supply in order to increase the price of the commodity or service.

                    3. • 71% of Americans failed the civics knowledge test;
                      • 51% of Americans could not name the three branches of government;
                      • The average score for college seniors on the civics knowledge test was 54.2% (an “F” by any standard);
                      • The average student’s test score improved only 3.8 points from freshman to senior year;
                      Freshmen at Cornell, Yale, Princeton, and Duke scored better than seniors on the civics knowledge test.
                      • 79% of elected officials that took the civics knowledge quiz did not know the Bill of Rights expressly prohibits the government from establishing a religion.
                      • 30% of office holders did not know that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are the inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence.
                      • 27% of politicians could not name even one right or freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment.
                      • 43% did not know the purpose of the Electoral College.
                      • 39% of lawmakers believe the power of declaring war belongs to the president.
                      • The average score for college professors who took the civics knowledge quiz was 55%.

                      See: https://thenewamerican.com/report-finds-college-students-fail-basic-civics-test/

                    4. @mad,

                      “Court case after court case related to disparate impact made them less useful, and less common.”

                      Can you name several of these court cases? Lots of employers still use pre-employment tests. (They are common at large tech firms, I’m told.) But employers also supplement that with educational requirements for the signaling advantage.

                      I agree with you re: the Bar. I have to employ people subject to rules that I don’t agree with. I didn’t make those rules. But that is why I specifically focused my discussion, upthread, on my non-attorney hires. Even though I am not required to only hire BAs, I generally do, because of the signaling aspect.

                    5. ” Lots of employers still use pre-employment tests. (They are common at large tech firms, I’m told.)”

                      IT in general makes broad use of professional certification in hiring decisions. If I were hiring someone to manage an infrastructure of Red Hat Linux servers, I’d be interested to see which candidates had gotten Red Hat to certify their competence at managing Red Hat Linux.
                      The danger, of course, is running into someone who has the skills to pass the test rather than someone who has the skills tested.
                      There’s a reason they don’t just give law licenses to people who score well on the LSAT.

                    6. “• 79% of elected officials that took the civics knowledge quiz did not know the Bill of Rights expressly prohibits the government from establishing a religion.”

                      Perhaps they know that it does not. Rather, it says the Congress is not permitted to make laws regarding the establishment of religion.
                      It also says unreasonable searches will not be performed. Which does not, in and of itself, block a single unreasonable search. The Constitution is just a piece of paper, it doesn’t really DO anything. People do things.

              2. My favorite aspect of Cobra Kai is its constant reminder that it’s only been 37 years since a major movie studio cast Ralph Macchio as a champion-caliber practitioner of karate.

              3. “One of my favorite aspects of the hit show Cobra Kai is that Johnny Lawrence if often teaching his students lessons they need but don’t want.”

                Johnny himself, however, remains resistant to learning lessons he needs but doesn’t want. As is also the case for Daniel-san. These characters are locked to their backstory, and can’t change in any meaningful way.
                the revelation that Daniel won the tournament by cheating has been lying in wait this whole time. Johnny needed to lose the tournament for the “right” ending to the movie (which, for complicated reasons, doesn’t happen until around ten minutes into the sequel.)
                But this isn’t a film criticism blog, so…

          2. “Is the school in loco parentis?”

            No. It is no longer 1956.

            1. When I started teaching full-time, roughly half my students were older than I was.

        2. But the investigators are employees….

          1. Good point. The students are not cancelling. The school is.

  1. Adjunct; when you’re a masochist who couldn’t get enough of the pain and despair of grad school.

    1. What you talkin’ bout, Willis? Grad school was a blast. then again, I was studying IT security, which has fun homework.

      1. James, I think he was talking about the POLITICS OF grad school — which in an IT field, back then (but not now) you were able to avoid.

        1. There you go again, correcting me about details of my life…

    2. The argument is that serving as an adjunct builds one’s CV so that — at some point — one might actually have a chance at a real teaching position.

      I imagine that a lot of successful lawyers who’d like to become a judge do it to burnish their CVs (or whatever wanna-be judges have).

      However, I do it for beer money…

      1. You also might do it to try out a different institution than one that you have already had experience in.

  2. This is silly moral panic.

    1. There are probably tens of thousands of adjuncts teaching at law school across the US most days of the year every year and yet the number of cases where they have been punished for the kind of thing you are writing about probably doesn’t even rise into three digits for any given year.

    2. What would the alternative be? What magical occupation is there where you can say whatever you want without fear of any repercussion? Corporate America? As if. Mom and Pop stores? Don’t say anything that will offends Mom or Pop. The military? Self and institutional censorship is commonplace there…Watching what you say and people sometimes jumping to take offense is a long and constant fact of life. The only thing that may have changed recently is that now some of the things that white male straight men used to be able to say with impunity might now be called into question.

    1. I agree fully. You have freedom of speech in the United States but you do not have freedom from the consequences of that speech. A society that is intolerant of intolerance will be more inclusive and more open to alternative views that aren’t bigoted. Diversity of skin color and not diversity of opinion is what drives social capital and preempts a vibrant, generous community.

      1. Are you kidding? Our society, at present, is intolerant of anything that challenges the left-wing orthodoxy and it is intolerant to the point of seeking to destroy the financial livelihood and social standing of anyone who transgresses against those views. That is not a society that is “more inclusive and more open to alternative views that aren’t bigoted.” It is quite the opposite, particularly since “views that aren’t bigoted” always means only those views that agree with me. “Diversity of skin color” really means give people jobs and appointments to positions of authority and spots in colleges regardless of whether they deserve them as long as they’ve got the currently approved correct skin color. Not to mention that the insulting treatment given to “people of color” if they hold conservative views.

        1. I support cancel culture. All agencies should purge the cultural Commies or get shut down.

          1. That’s some old-school idiocy. Remember when a Senator would be brave enough to state publicly that they have, right there in their hands, a list of all the Commies? Whatever happened to those days?

            1. The real Americans have yet to reply to the Democrat and tech billionaire attack on our way of life. Watch out when it does.

              The idea that whites will be a minority is a myth. The idea that immigrants are left wing is a myth. The idea that woke is in any way acceptable is a myth.

              1. The idea that you are an idiot is not a myth.

            2. “Remember when a Senator would be brave enough to state publicly that they have, right there in their hands, a list of all the Commies? Whatever happened to those days?”

              “Those days” have, unfortunately, returned. But now it’s lists of “domestic terrorists” and “White supremacists.”

              At least that Senator was drunk….

              1. I wonder what it would be like, to live in the world where all these things you imagine in your fever dreams ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

        2. Racial inequity is a sign of racial bias. Until equity is achieved in all aspects of our society, we must relentlessly work to dismantle white supremacy. As 13% of the population, Blacks should be represented by 13% of the professors at an Ivy League university. As ~ 60% of the population is white, Jews should also be represented by having 60% of the professorships at Ivy League universities.

          1. Somin must support the recognition of the Indian law license, so that thousands can come here to become law professors. It is based on the British common law. Until he supports the admission of thousands of law professors, appreciative of a $25000/year salary, he should STFU.

          2. Now I know you are just yanking my chain.

          3. “As 13% of the population, Blacks should be represented by 13% of the professors at an Ivy League university.”

            And be restricted to no more than 13% of the players in the NBA & NFL as well. That’s the flip side of this…

        3. ” Our society, at present, is intolerant of anything that challenges the left-wing orthodoxy”

          Ah. That explains the Fox News bankruptcy.

          1. 95% of all media are straight out of Chinese Commie interests. The tech billionaire owners want access to the China market and support its interests and talking points.

            1. Who owns most US broadcast licenses? Hint: not leftists.

              1. “Who owns most US broadcast licenses? Hint: not leftists.”

                Enough of this myth that big business is conservative — it isn’t any more. And a broadcast license isn’t what it was 50 years ago.

                1. And the owners don’t control what the stations actually air, right Ed?

    2. You are forgetting for every national case there are 1000 that never see the light of day. Equally egregious and horrible. The difference is either the person takes the abuse because that is just easier or does not want the publicity in the age of the internet.

      Liberals don’t ever want to own up to the consequences of their actions, but here is yet another example of the fallout. Time to take ownership of your stock libs.

      1. Your just surmising, and likely about a subject you don’t know much about. But again, this is no different than any workplace anywhere and ever (in fact, in most workplaces what you say is something you have to watch more closely).

        1. I don’t think one is just “surmising” when Facebook has publicly stated that they have modified their bias algorithms to factor anti-minority bias as a greater threat than anti-white bias. As a white-presenting Jew, I am glad that social media companies recognize that racism is a mixture of racial bigotry AND racial power. Black people might describe “wypipo” as “albino apes” or “cumskins” but they don’t have the institutional power needed to oppress white people. Without that structural element to racial bigotry, Black folx can’t be racist, in the true sense of the word.

          1. You’re proving my point as Facebook is a major corporation, not a university.

          2. So, Rabbi, if I call you a kike, that’s okay with you if I don’t happen to have the power to do anything beyond calling you that name?

            1. As the Holocaust was the worst crime in all of human history, the Jewish people are the most oppressed in the entire world. Empirically speaking, all Goyim are more powerful than the Jews and so anti-Semitism is the worst instantiation of racism possible.

              1. “As the Holocaust was the worst crime in all of human history, the Jewish people are the most oppressed in the entire world.”

                This might be accurate, if the Commies hadn’t gotten their (stuff) together and kicked Nazi butts back to Berlin. But they DIDN’T take over the world, and stopped Holocausting a couple of generations ago.
                Obviously, the most oppressed people in the whole world are white Christian males in the US, because they keep getting told they can’t establish their preferred religion into the government.

                1. With that degree of straw-manning, somebody must have really hurt your feelings in junior high.

                  1. The damn Nazis. The American ones, not the Germans.

                2. James, Stalin killed more people than Hitler. Depending on how you calculate things like the Holodomor, also more Jews.

                  For perspective, the Holocaust is estimated at 12M (6M Jews), the Holodomor *alone* estimated at 7M-10M but no one talks about that. Or the Armenian genocide, or Pol Pot, or the ChiComs…

                  1. “Dr.” Ed; mosquitoes killed more people than Hitler and Stalin combined. Fleas killed more Europeans than all the Khan’s hordes.

                    Spare me your math where you tell me that 7M-10M is more than 12M. We’ll just go ahead and chalk this up as ANOTHER time you chose to spout off without really knowing wtf you were spouting about.

          3. Cancel Facebook. Seize its assets in civil forfeiture. Auction them like the Ferrari of a drug dealer.

              1. Nah, this is heading in an interesting direction. Put Sinclair Broadcasting next in line. Darn liberal media.

                1. Does Sinclair host billions of federal crimes a year on its platform? If you can show that, put it on the list.

                  1. billions? You’re hallucinating.

                2. Yes, Sinclair may technically own the stations, but when they tried to run an editorial on them, the bleep hit the fan….

                  They don’t control the stations….

                  1. Right… doesn’t it hurt your ears, what with the bullshit detector going off every time you start to write?

        2. The difference between a university and standard private workplace is that the university has a part of its mission to come down hard on people in the name of “diversity” and “inclusion.” Indeed, it has entire administrative apparatuses staffed with armies of administrators who have nothing else to do but make examples of every single day. Your average private company tends to be more concerned about selling widgets and revenue. But from your ignorant statement above I suspect you have never worked in the private sector or you would know the difference.

          1. I work primarily in the private sector and adjunct regularly. In both workplaces I have mandatory diversity training and such. Many major corporations have statements about diversity in their missions. On the other end, Mom and Pop’s regularly and for always have had their eccentricities specific to Mom and Pop that you have to watch what you say concerning. There is no place where you can just say what you want without consideration of repercussion. That’s called life.

            1. However, EV is correct about teaching being an expensive hobby. Still it does have its rewards that can be diminished it means driving through the LA traffic on I-405 which is bad at any hour.

              1. I get the bad about adjuncting-your paid less than people doing the same kind of thing. But there’s nice parts (no faculty committees).

                Do you have to watch what you say? Sure, but as I’ve pointed out, that’s most places these days.

                1. I agree with you.
                  People should learn to watch what they say as a good habit in any circumstance.
                  No one ever buys, “I was only joking.”

            2. Diversity training is highly offensive. Any agency engaging in it should be investigated and shut down.

              1. Diversity training is why we have to listen to YOU.

              2. Why bother to investigate if you’re always going to shut them down anyway?

                1. To maintain lawyer rent seeking jobs? With an investigation, we need a prosecution, a defense, a judgment.

                  1. I cannot believe I am being sucked into replies to the crowd of usual dipshits here.

                    1. That’s because you’re a loud idiot who cannot see the incongruity in pretending to be offended by diversity training.

                    2. lol

                      At least they are not the paid shills from other websites. They are propagandized shills.

                    3. “I cannot believe I am being sucked into replies to the crowd of usual dipshits here.”

                      You ARE the crowd of usual dipshits.

              3. It is only offensive to those who are themselves offenders

            3. “adjunct regularly”

              God bless those students.

          2. “Your average private company tends to be more concerned about selling widgets and revenue.”

            Your average private company worries about bankruptcy…

            1. “Your average private company worries about bankruptcy…”

              Not if it’s well-run.

        3. One wonders how much YOU know about the subject of Jimmy the Dane. You seem to have zero sense of humor, can’t recognize or tolerate sarcasm of the lightest or heaviest tone, and in general have an intolerance which is typical of woke scolds. One surmises your surmises are pretty worthless.

          1. Oh the leaden dead joyless weight of right-wing sarcasm and the dull lecturing monotony of its 3rd-rate-preacher-defenders.

            1. I got a good chuckle off this sarcastic irony…

    3. No, the moral panic is on the part of students and law schools. And it isn’t silly, it’s insane. Certified mental.

      This OP, on the other hand, is just a reasonable perspective and advice, and some may evaluate the question differently.

      But to answer your questions – First, you ask “what magical occupation is there. . . .” Remember, EV pointed out that this is an expensive hobby. Not the job that you need to put food on the table. So you’re off base right from the start.

      Second, no, nothing else remotely compares to the academic campus as a hotbed for left wing lunacy. It is the birthplace of modern day Bolshevoks and soft-minded snowflakes.

      1. How insane can it be if it exists in nearly every workplace and often to a higher degree? That’s the norm. You really think people at Google or Target are more free to speak their mind than at Georgia Tech or Syracuse?

        1. “How insane can it be if it exists in nearly every workplace…”

          Having grown up in the Jim Crow south, ‘everyone is doing it so it must be OK’ is not an argument I find particularly persuasive.

          1. If it’s an argument about *uniquely* bad something is in one area then yeah, it should be particularly persuasive if it’s going on everywhere and in some places even worse.

          2. It’s Jim Crow-level bad – but not even Eugene Volokh’s concerned tralwing for cases can turn up much more than some administrative heavy-handedness.

            1. Allow me to elaborate.

              Jim Crow was enabled by two things – one of course was various laws enforcing segregation. But those were in turn enabled by a virulent cancel culture. If you spoke out that, hey, that black kid actually deserved a fair trial or something heretical like that, you would get canceled. If you owned the hardware store, you would get boycotted. If you worked for someone, you got laid off.

              This monoculture of thought was enforced by a virulent, vocal minority. They didn’t want dissent or an open debate about their racist ideals. A cancel culture that suppresses dissent enables oppression. When people have to ‘watch what they say’, you don’t get the vigorous debate society needs to make progress.

              1. Yeah, reporting someone who says something racist in the workplace to HR is the moral equivalent of boycotting a shop for selling goods to black people. My God imagine comparing the social ostracism, economic sabotage, threats of violence and actual violence of Jim Crow to even the most heated hysterical nonsense Republican fake version of so-called ‘cancel culture.’ No wonder you need to make voting difficult to hope to win elections.

                1. Cancel culture is a dress rehearsal for mob violence, historically speaking. Good thing we haven’t had that yet. Last summer was very peaceful.

                  1. It’s not a dress rehearsal for anything. It’s part of a shift in socially acceptable behaviour. Last summer there were civil disturbances because of police brutality and killings. Nothing to do with ‘cancel culture.’ If you want to draw a line to Jim Crow, it was the cops doing the enforcing to quash public dissent in both eras.

                    1. You might want to review what occurred prior to the Armenian Genocide, and particularly what occurred prior to the Rwanda genocide. There are very clear historical parallels. The press began to demonize the Hutus by giving them a hatred image among the public, something that, of course, doesn’t happen today.

                      Oh, those “civil disturbances” that led to billions in property damage and murders of innocents…yea there never any pressure to conform to a certain ideological narrative or else something would happen to your business or you personally. People wouldn’t throw up a BLM fist/Roman salute to try to placate the mob.

                    2. Demonised like you do antifa? BLM? Liberals as socialst commies coming for your guns? Democrats as baby-eating pedophiles? A whole election fraudulently stolen? A fakedemic to destroy western civilisation? Wokeness and cancel cuture as threats on the order of genocide? Yes, I see. A lot of hatred and fear being fanned there.

                    3. “If you want to draw a line to Jim Crow, it was the cops doing the enforcing to quash public dissent in both eras”

                      That is factually incorrect. If Joe Blow wrote a letter to the editor saying ‘the way we treat blacks as sub-human is an abomination’, no police came to his door to arrest him. Instead he lost his job, the grocer told him to find somewhere else to shop, his kids got hassled in school, and on and on.

                      Cops did a lot of terrible things, but opening themselves up to a slam dunk 1A suit wasn’t one of them. Federal lawsuits were the last thing the Jim Crow south wanted.

                      FWIW, the Nazis used very similar methods of coercion prior to assuming power (after which, of course, they could use the police directly). If that is news to you you might find ‘The Nazi Seizure of Power’ by William Sheridan Allen informative.

                      If you are unaware of how previous tyrannies were created and maintained, how can you be sure you aren’t stumbling into one now?

                    4. ” The press began to demonize the Hutus by giving them a hatred image among the public, something that, of course, doesn’t happen today. ”

                      Unless you happen to be paying attention when it happens. Sinclair broadcasting management gave the local stations scripts to be produced as part of the local newscasting.

                    5. ‘That is factually incorrect.’

                      None of that meant much if it wasn’t backed up by a police force willing to pick people up and beat the shit out of them or frame them to feed the prison-labour system or look the other way or take part in a lynching or set the dogs on protesters.

                      ‘If you are unaware of how previous tyrannies were created and maintained, how can you be sure you aren’t stumbling into one now?’

                      I refer you to my previous comment about who is being demonised by whom.

                  2. Naw, constantly talking about how violence is coming is a much stronger corollary with actually becoming violent.

                  3. “Cancel culture is a dress rehearsal for mob violence, historically speaking. ”

                    John Lennon was taken out by a lone gunman. Now he’s free to discuss relative popularity directly with Jesus.

                2. I don’t know what planet Nige resides on, but here on Earth, it IS that bad — that is what January 6th really was all about.

                  “social ostracism, economic sabotage, threats of violence and actual violence” — I’ve personally seen all of it.

                  1. A mob whipped up after demonising the other side by lying about them having stolen the election? Yeah, that’s what I said.

                    You want real violence, see what happens when you step up and object to the police murdering people.

                  2. Were you there to smear poop on the walls, too?

    4. “This is silly moral panic.

      1. There are probably tens of thousands of adjuncts teaching at law school across the US most days of the year every year and yet the number of cases where they have been punished for the kind of thing you are writing about probably doesn’t even rise into three digits for any given year.”

      Do you think professors generally feel free to read, say, MLK’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” without in class without consequence because there are only a few such instances or do you think they avoid it?

      Indeed responses from the left to these incidents fall into two categories: Your response, and claims that any professor in 2021 should know better.

      So it’s hard to argue that it’s a moral panic.

      1. I had a few classes taught by adjuncts a decade ago. Con Law was taught by the US Attorney, Telecommunications Law was taught by the city attorney who led a lawsuit that forced the cable company to open its wires to competing service providers (before being overruled by the Telecommunications Act of 1996), and antitrust was taught by a partner in a local firm who was elevated to the federal bench a short time later. At that time we had a full-time (very popular) professor take leave to run (successfully) for the state AG position, and another took time off to run (unsuccessfully) for the Senate. I don’t remember the politics of any of them leading to calls for dismissal. Perhaps the local environment of Portland, OR wasn’t as toxic as some people would have you believe.

        1. That was two dozen years ago. Times change.

            1. Indeed, but I’m Gen X.

          1. Your math skills are poor. 2010 was not two dozen years ago.

            1. Hint: Start reading at the first sentence, which was “I had a few classes taught by adjuncts a decade ago.”

              From this, you decided that I was talking about something that happened two dozen years ago. I thought lawyers could read.

          1. I read that. It sounded a lot like someone who’s heard of Portland, but hasn’t actually been there. As an example, absolutely nobody from Portland would establish their bona fides by detailing when they moved there from California. Outing yourself as a former California is something that can only be done from outside Portland.

      2. ‘So it’s hard to argue that it’s a moral panic.’

        The way you’re telling it, it’s a bit of a mild conundrum.

    5. It isn’t only teaching where this happens. We had a HR investigation over the use of the term “head pressure”. It was overheard by a female intern and reported as a sexist remark to HR. For those of you who don’t know “head pressure” is the pressure that a standing column of fluid has at the base of the column. We were designing a water cooling system at the time and “head pressure” has to be taken into consideration..

      1. An intern ignorant of the business made a mistake. She reported her wrong impression to HR which had an obligation to investigate.
        Now tell us what happened.

        1. Don’t go spoiling people’s fun like that.

        2. “There’s seamen on the poop deck.”

          (Not sure why that old joke popped into my brain after hearing the above “head pressure” story.)

          1. As a pedant, I’m offended by improper subject-verb agreement, and will be sending a severe note to your management!

        3. We were lucky to have a smart HR rep. She came to us and asked what were we talking about. When we told her and showed her the term in a reference book, the problem was resolved. The intern was an intern for HR. She was given an assignment to compile a list of engineering and technical terms that might be misconstrued by someone unfamiliar with them. We turned her paper into a booklet that is given to all new hires and interns. What bothers me is that she felt that she had to report something that she heard as she was walking by an open door. Something that was not directed at her. I found out that her coordinator from her university told her to report ANYTHING that might be considered sexist. as I said we were lucky. Other places have a fire first investigate later policy.

      2. jimc5499, the purgatorial cesspool of academia is overflowing….

    6. Maybe you didn’t read it well enough. The level of pay, $5-10k is not worth the commensurate lifetime risk of bad publicity for a career. The sort of bad publicity that lives forever on the internet. He was very specific that it was the PUBLIC way the firing is done.

      Mom and pop stores, or even some mega-corporation, if you say something like “Hitler did nothing wrong” as a joke and are fired, are not going to leave a lifetime scar.

      1. It could very well launch a lucrative career in conservative media.

        1. Or, like most people, lead to a spell on unemployment and diminished lifetime earnings.

          1. It’s a bit of a crap-shoot, saying Hitler did nothing wrong.

            1. That’s deflection. And I chose a hyperbolic example for a reason, to point out that even being fired from a mom and pop store or a corporation for saying something that is a jokingly famous internet meme that nobody really believes wouldn’t have permanent repercussions because, for starters, they don’t put out press releases on it. One could easily have this issue for saying something like “trans women are not women” in a breakroom chat at a university.

              The point is, that like the original post by EV, that doing perfectly normal things like having n______ and b_____ on a exam or using Chinese words that sorta kinda sound like nigger would lead to a very public firing and then, a lifetime earnings loss as the internet never forgets.

              1. Those seem like edge cases though. Are you saying you can’t fire someone for using racial slurs or inappropriate sexual remarks or homophobic comments in the workplace because of contentious cases like the ones you mention, assuming they are in some sense ‘normal.’

                1. Totally normal things like having n—— and b—– on an exam draw criticism, and rightly so.

    7. “What magical occupation is there where you can say whatever you want without fear of any repercussion?”

      That’s certainly true. The trend among private sector employers to try to train people to “be less white”, and similar things, is worrying. But that doesn’t mean that we should ignore what’s happening at universities.

      1. !2″
        ” try to train people to “be less white”, and similar things”
        Wherever did you get that idea?

        1. From “diversity training” available on linked it and allegedly promoted by Coca-Cola.

          1. You’re not linking sources, but I’d wager this is more of your pattern of misreading things in ridiculous and unrealistic ways in order to be outraged at how ridiculous and unrealistic academia is.

            1. Googling ‘coca cola diversity training’ finds a web full of articles. It was widely reported at the time. Here’s one.

              1. You linked to a story where Coca-Cola is explaining that what you think they were doing is not what they were doing, as evidence that they were doing what you wish they were doing.

    8. “There are probably tens of thousands of adjuncts teaching at law school[s]”

      And tens of thousands of women attending colleges & universities.
      With about a similar chance of being raped by a total stranger.

      Some things are so horrific that actual exposure to the risk on a percentage basis doesn’t cut it…

      1. How odd that your mind turns to raping women when you think about college.

  3. I generally advise young men to avoid college campuses these days. It just is not worth the risk. Instead of spending all that time and money getting may be a mediocre education jump into a job with a real career ladder and consider further education after 3-4 years doing that and making money.

    Many companies are re-establishing good old fashion training programs to fill the gaps that a college education used to provide. Best part of these, as far as a young man is concerned, is that they are free and focus on real skills. Want to learn how to be a good manager? Your local grocery store chain will pay you well and teach you how to do that. Take advantage of that opportunity. If college is in the card, it will always be there for you. No need to jump into such a toxic environment at the age of 18.

    1. Do you think that those working as a manager for a national grocery chain don’t have to watch what they say? That’s laughable.

      You know the general advice they give young people not to post on social media, that ain’t because they’re worried universities are uniquely going to be potentially upset about it.

      1. When does a person’s speech become protected by artistic license? Can I still listen to “Real Muthaphuckkin’ G’s” by Eazy-E or are the transphobic lyrics now verboten?

        1. “When does a person’s speech become protected by artistic license?”

          When they speak truth.

      2. What is funny is you read feminists constantly complain about how “such and such” stops them from just “doing their job.” Reality is most men just want to go into work and do their job. They keep their head down and get done what needs to be accomplished. But, still, they are merely “targets of opportunity” or people who are out to get anyone with the “wrong” identity.

        At at any run-of-the-mill business that makes money they largely don’t care about what you post on social media as long as it is not beyond the pale. They want employees who help them make money and don’t have time for the manufactured outrage.

        1. You really need to get out more. Again, there’s a reason that advice to watch what you put on social media is general advice, not just to those in academe. Corporate America is pretty convinced that certain kinds of talk, if associated with their brand, will do the opposite of help them make money and therefore when they encounter it they are going to be *more* harsh precisely because, as you say, they want to make money very badly.

          “as long as it is not beyond the pale”

          Good lord, that’s always the rub with speech, one person’s ‘beyond the pale’ is often not anothers. So big companies who chase the long tail are very careful about having an expansive sense of what is ‘beyond the pale.’ Why take the risk? And they don’t have any speech or first amendment values even ostensibly in their missions so they are much more free and quick to act about it.

          1. As I said “beyond the pale”…

            Cash is king. Businesses want to make money. If you help the business make money that will be the end of it 99.9% of the time. You just never hear about the times the manager picks up the phone, it is some Karen talking about how an assistant manager posted something she didn’t like, and the manager says “that is nice thanks for letting me know” while hanging up the phone thinking “crazy Karen…” with nothing else happening.

            1. First of all, I’m beginning to suspect it’s you that have not worked in the private workplace. Homo Economicus is not as common there as you think. Managers and owners are full of things that they want in their workplaces that often outweigh total maximization of potential revenue. At some level, you know this (think about Hobby Lobby or Chik-fil-a, closed on Sundays) even if you’re partisan leaning is making you not admit it right now.

              Second of all, as I’ve said, your argument undercuts itself. Yes, if a company wants to make money then they will not hesitate to nip anything in the bud that undercuts that, and many companies think that communications by staff that get associated with their brand can hurt their brand. And they don’t even have any piffle about free speech built in their mission they have to dance around like universities do, you would just be gone.

            2. Jimmy ,
              As QA said, “Why take the risk? ”
              I am at a top 5 university and I’ll admit that their are many reasons to watch what you say, especially now in light of the BLM and DEI movements. BUT there is no reason to open your mouth at meetings and even less to make poorly considered remarks in the classroom.
              Your not their to entertain, convert, or sermonize students. Just present the discipline staying away from race, gender and sex related topics.

              1. You’re not there… (my bad)

              2. “Just present the discipline staying away from race, gender and sex related topics.”

                And linguistic discussions, and discussions about policies of foreign governments, etc.

                And of course, it’s difficult to stay away from race, gender and sex related topics if your discipline touches upon them. Like Law, for example.

                1. Very true, 12-inch.
                  All the more reason to be careful about what you say. And present documented evidence rather than made up hypotheticals.

                  1. But don’t read from primary sources, whatever you do.

                  2. “Documented evidence” like actual cases?

                    1. Absolutely not! No actual cases!

          2. My hope is that corporate America completely suppresses all transphobic opinions. Questioning the validity of lived, transgender experiences is violence. Full stop! I hope tens of thousands of young trans kids can fully, medically transition to their identified gender and live a full, loving life. I’m sure that Jazz Jennings will be married to a successful Jewish doctor or lawyer and she will have 3 – 5 children with a natural birth.

            1. “I’m sure that Jazz Jennings will be married to a successful Jewish doctor or lawyer and she will have 3 – 5 children with a natural birth.”

              You believe it would be bad if Jazz Jennings became a nun?

            2. “My hope is that corporate America completely suppresses all transphobic opinions. Questioning the validity of lived, transgender experiences is violence. Full stop!”

              No, it’s just stupid ignorance.

          3. Younglings have no idea of how much their social media posts undermine their career. The psuedo-friendships are not worth the potential damage.

        2. “At at any run-of-the-mill business that makes money they largely don’t care about what you post on social media as long as it is not beyond the pale.”

          Depends entirely on whether whatever you post on social media affects their ability to “makes money”.

      3. “Do you think that those working as a manager for a national grocery chain don’t have to watch what they say? That’s laughable.”

        Sure, SD&E fired someone for cracking his knuckles in a way that some people thought was racist. So everything is totally normal.

        1. Well, that’s his story and he’s sticking to it. The case is now in litigation, so we will eventually see what SD&E’s story is and whose story better fits the evidence.
          As a habitual knuckle-cracker myself, I tried very hard to crack my knuckles the way he said he did. They didn’t crack.

          1. So the fact that his knuckles crack differently than yours makes him a racist? Dude’s not even white, and the OK sign isn’t a white power symbol.

            1. Yeah, that’s what CJColucci said.

    2. Framework for Action: Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

      Kroger strives to reflect the communities we serve and foster a culture that empowers everyone to be their true self, inspires collaboration, and feeds the human spirit. Through our Framework for Action, we are committed to standing together and mobilizing our people, passion, scale and resources to transform our culture and our communities.

      https://www.thekrogerco.com/community/standing-together/

      1. So clearly you have never worked for a private company before as your ignorance is showing…

        1. Jimmy: You should go work for a grocery chain.
          Me: It’s the same if not worse there.
          Jimmy: No it’s not, university’s have diversity as part of their mission.
          Me: Uh, so do grocery chains, here’s the proof from one of the largest chains own website.
          Jimmy: You just don’t know about the private workplace!!!

          Lol.

          1. Well if you worked for any private business, then you would understand that companies put out that BS to keep the identity politic hustlers at bay.

            The result in practice in the day to day operations is just about nil. You would know this if you were a productive citizen who has ever contributed to the bottom line of a company.

            1. Now, let’s start at the beginning. You said universities were uniquely bad because they have diversity in their mission. But now it seems your claimed pc free utopia, the grocery chain, has the same. So your fallback is ‘well, they don’t mean them.’

              Again, your argument is pure surmising, totally evidence free (in fact, there’s evidence counter to you, so you have to surmise it’s just lip service).

              Every major company has HR. That you seem clueless about this makes me think again its you that doesn’t work.

              1. I said that universities have entire arms of administration that manufacture outrage to justify their existence. It is part and parcel of the modern campus. Private industry does not have such an apparatus. Sure they have HR (which mostly processes paperwork) and diversity policies, but largely, they are there to make money, and that is what they do.

                At your local grocery store, there isn’t someone sitting at a desk waiting for red alert to go off because of some diversity incident, real or fake. They have a job to do and unless you give them a real good reason to stop doing that job (which makes money) they don’t care about a lot of stuff.

                1. Do you really not know about this thing called Human Resources or Personnel? I guess since you don’t work a real job you might not, but I assure you they are at most places and like all departments they are working to justify their existence quite a bit.

                  1. “they are working to justify their existence quite a bit.”
                    Gee, another thing about which I must agree with you today.
                    If only they were more competent at their jobs.

                  2. I just sat through four hours of training that was based on diversity. All it told me was because I am a white, male, heterosexual everything is my fault.

                    1. I’ve sat through much more training for decades and I did not get that message.

                    2. “I just sat through four hours of training that was based on diversity. All it told me was because I am a white, male, heterosexual everything is my fault.”

                      You get the message you’re prepared for, apparently.

                2. “At your local grocery store, there isn’t someone sitting at a desk waiting for red alert to go off because of some diversity incident, real or fake.”

                  No, they’re waiting around to respond to a shoplifting incident, real or fake. God forbid they should open enough checkout lanes to avoid wasting their customers’ time.

                  1. James,
                    You want your groceries, then wait in line like the rest of us.
                    Next thing you’ll be wanting an instant covid vaccine.

                    1. “You want your groceries, then wait in line like the rest of us.”
                      Nah. The store wants my money, they can stop holding me in queue hoping I’ll pick up some items from the “impulse racks” by the registers.
                      “Next thing you’ll be wanting an instant covid vaccine.”
                      I’ve been on a waiting list even though some local counties are already moving on to the next tier of people, which happens to be “any adult who wants a vaccine”.

                  2. This whole thread is funny. I tend to agree that universities are particularly bad, but that’s because their customers (i.e., the students) are particularly sensitive. But if you think this stuff doesn’t go on elsewhere, you’re kidding yourself.

                    I know a pilot for a major airline. Got talking about the work and joked about his announcements. He said he doesn’t do them anymore because people dislike them (they interrupt movies). Besides, the airline had a long list of taboos to avoid. This included “ladies and gentlemen,” as it may offend someone who does not identify by a binary gender. He was dead serious.

                    ALL companies are afraid of offending others because it hurts the bottom line. You just hear about it more at universities and major corporations because the risk of offending someone is greater with greater consequence. If you’re Acme Ditch Diggers, nobody really cares if someone on the crew says something crude because there are no customers present ready to be offended and take regular business elsewhere.

                3. “I said that universities have entire arms of administration that manufacture outrage to justify their existence. It is part and parcel of the modern campus. Private industry does not have such an apparatus. Sure they have HR (which mostly processes paperwork) and diversity policies, but largely, they are there to make money, and that is what they do.”

                  Your knowledge of private employers seems to rival your knowledge of universities in terms of the misinformation you’d like to present as fact. Both universities AND private employers have to deal with liability for poor management. Because of this, both of them take steps to limit their liability by improving the management. Youth groups put in policy that put two adults into every private interaction with a minor, on the theory that two-person teams of people are less likely to engage in sexual misbehavior than individuals are. Title IX created liability for educational institutions that failed to provide equal educational opportunities for both men and women. This (amazingly) produces an incentive to make sure you aren’t providing unequal educational opportunities for one or the other.

          2. “Jimmy: No it’s not, university’s have diversity as part of their mission.”

            So do all the arms of the US military, thanks to Mr. Truman.

            1. That’s not the mission of the military, despite it being used for social engineering by the left.

              The purpose of a military is to kill people, break things, and occupy territory, and thus win wars. We don’t win many wars these days. Making tranny rights a mission of the military has something to do with that.

              1. Bad move for us to have integrated the Service then, seems like.

                1. It was in some respects a difficult transition, in other respects it wasn’t. But by the time Truman integrated the services, it wasn’t that big of a deal. It wasn’t a generation earlier. After WWI you had black troops with arms training and combat experience who were treated and equals and liberators in France, who had a difficult transition when they came back to the states. Lots of conflicts related to that if you know your history (which you generally don’t).

                  If anything, the military is where nobody gives a shit about your race and background because your primary identity is as a member of that service, and promotions/advancements are at least mostly based on competence and longevity and not diversity.

                  There are several reasons that the U.S. doesn’t win wars these days, but one of them is focusing things like trannies and pregnancy flight suits instead of, you know, killing the enemy.

                  1. Yea that’s where the military is. But seems there was a period of transition where fighting power was degraded as we started to integrate.

                    By your short-term view of the military in a vacuum with no societal implications, seems to have been a bad move.

                    There are several reasons that the U.S. doesn’t win wars these days, but one of them is focusing things like trannies and pregnancy flight suits instead of, you know, killing the enemy.
                    Our military does not suffer from a lack of lethality, you yutz.

                    1. “But seems there was a period of transition where fighting power was degraded as we started to integrate.”

                      Interesting. That’s news to me, and my father was serving during the transition. Can you flesh it out some?

                      (there was surely a post-WWII degradation in combat effectiveness, because the experienced soldiers got out and were replaced by green troops who, given the U.S. nuclear monopoly, couldn’t imagine actually going to war and didn’t train like that could actually happen – see, e.g., the early days in Korea. But I don’t think there was an integration angle there.)

                      (society outside the military still had problems. My dad used to travel with small detachments of soldiers between bases in the south during the 50’s. Many, but not all, restaurants would make an exception to the whites only policy for black servicemen in uniform, so dad would take them in and sit down. If anyone objected to the black soldiers, he’d have them all get up and leave together.)

                    2. My understanding was that there was friction within the ranks. Lack of unit cohesion is bad for unit performance.

                      That’s all you need.

                      ‘we should only optimize the military to maximize current lethality’ is myopic, and ahistorical.

                    3. “My understanding was that there was friction within the ranks. Lack of unit cohesion is bad for unit performance.”

                      Interesting. I heard of racial tensions in Vietnam, though not usually in combat units. I haven’t heard of problems in, say, the early 50’s when integration happened. And after Korea Dad was stationed in South Carolina, so you’d think we would have heard.

                      I’m sure there were people who objected, but in that army, when your sergeant told you to shut up and do what he said, my sense is he wasn’t kidding. Kinder, gentler, and all volunteer came a lot later.

                    4. The order came out in 1948. Army resisted. So did the Marines.
                      The last of the all-black unit was abolished in 1954.

                      Not as smooth as you might suspect.

              2. Don’t you watch the ads? The mission is to bring exciting new employment opportunities to people who sign up.

                I’m going to point out that we don’t win many wars these days because we haven’t declared war since 1942. We’re actually undefeated in wars since then.

            2. Is it weird that the military doesn’t receive the same sort of scrutiny as colleges do? Military bases are murder and suicide capitals of the US, to say nothing of bullying, sexual assault and harassment incidents. Yet when somebody at a college says a thing and somebody else complains and the administration flails a bit it’s, well, a federal case. Maybe on a legal blog there isn’t an overlap, but conservative media is ALL OVER college stories constantly and endlessly, ridiculing what is oten certainly ridiculous, while there’s this whole simmering, hidden pot of evil and dysfunction funded with trillions of tax-payers dollars, and apparently lawless? Also: law enforcement and intelligence, far more of a threat to people’s rights than college politics. Anyway, weird. Or maybe not.

              1. ‘Maybe on a legal blog there isn’t an overlap’

                I mean with the specific specialities of the bloggers. But surely first amendment issues can pertain?

              2. “Military bases are murder and suicide capitals of the US…”

                That’s not even remotely true for murders.

                For suicides…

                1. … “…after controlling for differences in age, suicide rates among troops are roughly equivalent or lower than the U.S. population.”

                  source.

                2. It was hyperbole! Just seems like a massive blind spot, is all.

      2. There you can find this national grocery chain’s commitment to:

        Provide Unconscious Bias training to every leader in 2020 and DE&I training for every associate by May 2021.
        Ensure our media partners align with Our Values and that we reach diverse customers through our marketing spend, partners and strategy.
        Etc.

        Yeah, hate to break it to you, but you’re not going to escape having to watch what you say as a grocery manager…Again, it’s part of what is called ‘life’ not some uniquely academic thing (but I get that for partisan reasons you need to see it that way).

        1. OK fair question, and please be general about it, have you ever worked for a private business before? Your assertions seem to indicate the answer is “no”.

          1. I already said I primarily work for a private workplace (and I adjunct regularly at a private university on the side). I have for decades. Anyone who works in any occupation knows that what you would call ‘pc’ sensibilities are common there.

            What field do you work in which has been kept pristine from this?

            1. Then you largely understand management has no time and little concern about feeding the diversity monster sacrificial victims in private industry. Sure, they have all the statements and trainings. That is window dressing any modern business must have. But, when it comes down to actual management practices, all that lip service is well and good but the bottom line is all they care about in reality.

              1. No. My company has an HR department. And it doesn’t want to be sued or to have its brand associated with something its potential clients would find to be controversial. So they would take action against someone in a heartbeat if the person was doing something they were told by the handbook not to do.

                There’s a reason why I post anonymously. My employer exists only if clients come to us, if anything I said upset a potential client they are not going to be happy.

                And that is mostly everywhere. I mean, you didn’t hear about all the people fired for participating in the insurrection? Many of them were working for private companies.

                1. You are just talking in circles now. But I think that is because you like to hear yourself talk…

                  1. There’s no circles. Anyone out there knows that you either work at a big corporate entity, in which case they are on board the diversity (and other forms) speech police bandwagon (because they are trying to protect their brand and avoid lawsuits) or a Mom and Pop, where the unique eccentricities of the owners have to be taken into account. You’re trying to deny this because as an extreme partisan with universities ‘on the other side’ you have to paint them out to be so much worse. Ironically it’s the kind of thing someone who only works at a college would do.

                    1. You seem to not be able to grasp the difference between policy and practice.

                      Yes, big corporations have a lot of policies and statements. Those are mostly “window dressing” to keep the identity politics hustlers at bay or to make Jane Liberal feel good about shopping there.

                      In practice though big corporations don’t care much about that. They care about money and the bottom line. Yes, if you do something egregious enough to make management care, they will start caring and do something. But otherwise, they have no interest in the daily outrage.

                    2. “You seem to not be able to grasp the difference between policy and practice.”

                      Says the guy who keeps doubling down on his lack of knowledge of either one.

                  2. “You are just talking in circles now. But I think that is because you like to hear yourself talk”

                    Was this your attempt to answer the question you were asked?

              2. “comes down to actual management practice”
                There is a tiny nugget of a truth in that. The usual resort it to “do it strictly by the book.”
                The key is to stay well back of the line of a tort or illegality, make sure the supervisory chain has a solid line of evidence and then let the employee sue.

                1. “The key is to stay well back of the line of a tort or illegality’

                  The thing is, you do this by training them about what your company will tolerage, and cutting loose the ones who won’t follow the plan.

              3. “Then you largely understand management has no time and little concern about feeding the diversity monster sacrificial victims in private industry.”

                Meanwhile, out here in the real world…

                Things just do not agree with Mr. The Dane’s feelings.

      3. Kroger must be boycotted and taken down with ruinous litigation, to deter its woke.

        1. That is your right David. Don’t stop there and fill a law suit.

    3. “I generally advise young men to avoid college campuses these days. It just is not worth the risk.”

      The risk of what? Learning something?

      1. Being accused of rape without evidence and after paying tuition is a good deterrent.

        1. Shut up you racist rapist!

          Feel better?

    4. Jimmy is right. More than he can imagine.

      1. If only you had access to a clue…

        1. I want you to walk into your bathroom. There is an object in most of them that reflects light back at the source, you’re likely has one of said objects. I want you to look at it. Once you have done that, repeat the words from your comment three time out loud.

          1. Then you’ll come out?

  4. One thing that seems completely lacking in academia is courage or leadership.

    If I’d raised any of these concerns in the liberal college and law school I attended to, I would fully have expected to get laughed out of the room…

    And, indeed, that’s what these Deans should be doing. But I believe they are so afraid for their own standing and positions, they cave to the most ridiculous of claims.

    Or these people – students, deans, etc. – are all so awash in this “cock swaddle” that they’re participating in some sort of mass-hysteria event that we can only hope, some day, they come out of.

    1. Leaders in Academia learn their lesson quickly. If you try to lead out of something, the constituency eats you up faster than anything. Look at Larry Summers. Better to be a spineless hack that feeds the occasional person to the diversity monster. Far better for your personal sanity and career.

      1. New speech codes a year?
        Keep the Goyim in fear!
        Activist tears and donors bellowing?
        Better keep the shekels flowing!

      2. Jimmy — it’s lack of competition.
        What price did Harvard pay for what they did to Summers?
        Could Harvard ever go bankrupt?

        1. “Could Harvard ever go bankrupt?”

          turns out that sitting on a big pile of money is a good place to be, regardless of your political leanings.

          1. Particularly if the government keeps subsidizing you notwithstanding your “big pile of money.”

            1. They do good research. Their profs win grants.

              1. It’s not only the research. The government heavily subsidizes tuition, which allows the universities to raise their tuition to the sky.

                And much of the research is garbage.

                1. ” much of the research is garbage.”

                  If you could do better, YOU’D be the one sitting on the big pile of money.

        2. The lack of real world consequences does allow these morality plays to go on and on at any university. Most are “too big to fail” in the sense that if a private businesses dedicated the amount of resources a university gave to the manufactured outrage of the day, it would go belly up. And that means tons of people without jobs.

          There is no similar pressure at a college. Sure they do occasionally feel the belt tighten but almost everyone, regardless of the “side” is still going to get a paycheck and continued employment at the end of the day. And the sacrificial lamb usually gets a payout too in the form of judgement, severance, or reappointment.

          1. It doesn’t matter if you know what you’re talking about, if you tell people what they want to hear. Sometimes, it doesn’t even matter what you say, people will only hear what they want to hear.

            For example, the category of “college” includes a lot of businesses that are run largely on a shoestring. And a lot of the these businesses, that Jimmy says are immune to financial pressure, are closing.

    2. >cock swaddle
      Please avoid the use of vulgar, gendered language. There might be sexual assault survivors browsing the comment section.

    3. Mike,
      While “Courage” is a common enough, articulated institutional value in the UK. It certainly at best uncommon in the U.S. in both the private and public sector enterprises.
      Nevertheless, that does not mean that the hierarchy cannot show good sense.

    4. “One thing that seems completely lacking in academia is courage or leadership.”

      I disagree. Students are quite courageous in demonstrating to University faculty and administrators how they think a University should be run, and quite effective at convincing faculty and admin to conduct and express themselves in the manner that students think they should.

      1. Just like the old days.

  5. Volokh is right. Don’t take these jobs.

    Hiring committees unable to fill their online adjunct slates are invited to contact me, and I’ll see what I can do.

    Mr. D.

    1. Good point for Eugene. If you just ignore the problem, it won’t go away. Conservatives have gone on for years about how biased colleges are but always claimed that students would see the light once they started working a real job. Well, that didn’t turn out as expected since private companies have adopted the same ideology being promoted in the colleges.

      1. “Don’t piss people off” is good career advice, regardless of what career you’re being taught.

        1. Good advice. When one side is elected to carry the mantle social justice and guided by moral clarity, the people on the opposite side must truly be scumbags.

          1. It’s good advice wherever the scumbags may happen to be at the time.

        2. Finally, I agree with you.

        3. ““Don’t piss people off” is good career advice, regardless of what career you’re being taught.”

          You know what really pisses people off? Bad grades.

          1. “You know what really pisses people off? Bad grades.”

            Not nearly as much as you seem to think. People who earn bad grades tend to know why. For example, when I was in graduate school, during a writing class I was offered a contract to write some material and the paid gig got my attention and my best writing.
            What people won’t tolerate is bad grades that don’t reflect the work they did.

    2. Adjuncts have always been expendable — and what I don’t understand is why they are necessary for core law school classes. There ought to be law faculty able to teach them — you HIRE law faculty able to teach them.

      1. law faculty are expensive. adjuncts are cheap, and easily replaceable.

        1. They should unionise.

          1. Sort of like a lawyers union.

  6. Putting this in the “history rhymes” category. Students having some control over the university/faculty was a hallmark of the medieval university. Although the particulars are different now, the theme is the same.

  7. “Any sufficiently controversial statement, in class or out, can lead to a firestorm of accusations of bigotry, prompt denunciation and firing by the dean, and huge risk to your day-job career.”

    How is this different from private practice, beyond who might be doing the expected firing? Say the wrong thing in court, and being fired is a risk, along with being fined or even jailed. You’d think practicing lawyers would be experienced in watching what they say.

    1. If the lawyer hierarchy is oppressing the public, it is doubly oppressing the lawyer. It is triply oppressing the non-appellate court judge. It must be stopped to save our nation. Arrest them. Try them for an hour, with their legal utterances as the sole evidence. Execute them in the courthouse basement.

      1. If an idiot posts nonsense on the Internet, does it make a sound?

          1. No but Media Matters combs through many different sources to get pull quotes, most of which are out of context, in an eternal game of “gotcha” to manufacture controversy…

      2. “First thing we do is kill all the lawyers!” – Richard the Butcher, member of Cade’s rebellion, Henry the VI part 2.

        Even back in Shakespeare’s day, there was a reason that line would be instantly understandable to his audience.

        1. Hint: The guy who said it is a villain of the piece.

          1. Of course, you obtuse philistine. But it was said to give a sense of understanding to the audience that the mob had a point, even if it was a mob.

            Cade goes onto say “hast put [poor
            men] in prison, and because they could not read, thou hast hanged them when indeed only for that cause they have been most worthy to live” (4.7.36-40)—the line spills ragged passion.

            Cade is referring to what is perhaps the most concrete example of literacy-motivated social favoritism for lawyer:
            benefit of clergy. Benefit of clergy was a practice that allowed a literate man to avoid prosecution on one occasion by reading a Bible verse. Illiterate Englishmen had no such
            recourse.

            Plus, lawyer jokes are timeless.

            1. ” lawyer jokes are timeless.”

              The old ones are still kinda old-sounding.

            2. “Of course, you obtuse philistine. But it was said to give a sense of understanding to the audience that the mob had a point, even if it was a mob. ”

              Shakespeare created sympathetic villains, but they definitely remained villains. The ideas the villains proposed were still quite villainous. He wasn’t writing for people who’d cheer the black hats.

  8. One would think that if someone is so interested in becoming an adjunct professor they would be capable of going a semester without saying nigger.
    Generally adjuncts are worse teachers anyway, although they do bring more to knowledge and experience to the table.

    1. “Generally adjuncts are worse teachers anyway, although they do bring more to knowledge and experience to the table.”

      YMMV.
      The best teacher I ever had taught the Saturday session of Calculus class for the local community college. When he had a day job (which he had retired from) he was an electronic engineer.

    2. I don’t think that is a good generalization. Had bad, okay, and great adjuncts just like I had bad, okay, and great tenured faculty. And then there are the people who weren’t tenured but were full time lecturers/instructors/visiting. Had bad, okay, and greats of those too.

      I was also on the student committee in undergrad for awarding the yearly undergrad teaching award. Pretty big mix of the different types of professors in all of the nominees.

    3. “One would think that if someone is so interested in becoming an adjunct professor they would be capable of going a semester without saying . . . ”

      This blog can sometimes get through a week without fresh publication of a vile racial slur. Sometimes not. Using that term, often gratuitously, seems important to this blog’s management and fans. Recently, the average number of days between appearances of that vile racial slur at this blog has approximated six.

      1. It’s Okay to be White

        (Does that count as hate speech?)

        1. It’s threatened-by-equality speech.

      2. If you need AK to come out of the woodwork just say the magic word. Unlike in Harry Potter, you only need to say it one time and he will appear…

        1. What’s the magic word to put you back INTO the woodwork?

    4. “One would think that if someone is so interested in becoming an adjunct professor they would be capable of going a semester without saying nigger.”

      You must be lving under a rock if you believe that the issue is limited to that one word.

      And in any event, suppose the adjunct is running a clinic on discrimination law. Do you think that such a word might not be appropriate to use in a session about workplace hostile environment?

      1. Or, to bring it close to my area of expertise (IP law), if the adjunct wants to discuss teh Supeme Court’s decision in Matal v. Tam (2017), where the Supreme Court held that part of the Lanham Act that bars registration of disparaging marks is unconstitutional. And the facts were a group of Asian-Americans wanted to register the name of their band THE SLANTS.

        Do you think there might be some discussion of offensive and/or ethnically disparaging words, and whether one might obtain trademark protection for them?

      2. “’One would think that if someone is so interested in becoming an adjunct professor they would be capable of going a semester without saying nigger.’

        You must be lving under a rock if you believe that the issue is limited to that one word.”

        Doesn’t change the basic premise. Anyone who wants to work as an adjunct, should be able figure out all the things not to say. If they can’t, maybe adjunct teaching just isn’t for them.

  9. It’s a mad house. A mad house.

    1. I hope you are doing better, Grand Moff Tarkin.

  10. I’m an adjunct and thankfully have not had to deal with this. The diversity and inclusion training was simple. The cyber security training was hilarious and worth the time, just as a reminder of how incredibly stupid the administration believes law professors to be. (Presumably they have a good basis for this belief, which is funny but also a little troubling.)

    1. it isn’t just the law faculty that fails to understand cybersecurity. That’s a characteristic of a pretty wide swath of the general faculty, and of the population as a whole.

      A problem is that many of them won’t bother with security until the tools to achieve it become easy-to-use. Even if their poor security habits bite them in the posterior.
      As a system administrator, I had to spend a good deal of time removing malware from other peoples’ computer systems, mostly the computer labs where the students were learning how to use Office and Time Matters at (sigh) MediSoft.

    2. “The diversity and inclusion training was simple.”

      Propaganda works.

      1. It was simple in the sense that the same sort of people who can pass a defensive driver’s exam would pass diversity and inclusion training. The “Propaganda” was stuff like, don’t grab people’s asses and call them honey. There was some of the marginal stuff like implicit bias, etc., but nothing that was so unscientific or idiotic that I would pretend to be offended by it. I didn’t have to agree with everything that was said to pass the test.

        1. “There was some of the marginal stuff like implicit bias, etc., but nothing that was so unscientific or idiotic that I would pretend to be offended by it.”

          Exactly.

          1. It’s not anything that should prove difficult for an adult human being of at least normal intelligence.

  11. Most adjuncts take positions for a mixture of reasons, at least some of which are related to the prestige of being associated with a university. The money is pathetically bad (in my university, teaching assistants can make more in a semester than the adjunct teaching the course). I am surprised that you suggest that a law professor can teach course on 7-10 hours per week … certainly not something I can do.

    The truth of the matter is that academia has become an increasingly hostile environment for both faculty and students. The best and the brightest these days go into industry, not academia … at least in fields where this is possible.

  12. If the whole point of making the costly decision to teach part-time at a university is to get more prestige from the association, then the OP is suggesting that the risks are too great when balanced against the benefit.

    If it’s a question of getting a better-paying job on condition of not expressing your true opinions about the boss, that may be a useful exchange in many circumstances. Because you’re getting high pay in exchange, among other things, for limiting your free speech.

    But if taking a prestige, low-paying job has the risk of making people forever afterwards say “oh, isn’t he the racist who insulted the Chinese people during a wave of anti-Asian violence?” then no way it’s worth it.

    And if the condition of your job is not to say what you think about the boss, at least that’s a known situation and you know what stuff you should say or not say. It’s hardly the same as the standards changing from one day to the next of what you’re expected to say/not say.

    Who could know, until it happened, that it was racist to quote Martin Luther King? Who could know, until it happened, that conversational Chinese is racist?

    In contrast, you can’t claim surprise if you’re fired for calling the boss an asshole.

  13. And I thought the snowflakes would be melting this time of year.

  14. in law school, professors do their own grading, rather than delegating to teaching assistants

    FWIW, as a legal research and writing TA 30 yrs ago, I graded all the papers. That said, the final grade was pass/fail, and of course everyone passed.

    1. 10 years ago, it was still pass/fail, but not everybody passed.

  15. I’ve been an adjunct for 25 years. I have found it incredibly rewarding but i’ve started thinking about the issues discussed in this column and wondering if the costs/risks may soon be outweighing the benefits.

  16. Are there any administrators at any university who will stand up to a Twitter mob? I’m not sure I’ve ever encountered any.

  17. Yeah, leftists are terrible. That’s a very well-articulated point. Do they ever get tired of making things worse for everyone?

    Students who actually want to learn are the people who lose the most, of course. That’s always the pattern: leftists get involved in some institution and everyone loses, but the individuals the institution was created to serve lose the most. Because everyone is defending or otherwise with dealing with evil, dishonest leftist aggression instead of providing the service.

    Some of you guys could take a stand against leftist evil once in a while instead of just lamenting how they were allowed to destroy yet another part of life for you or others.

    1. Do you literally wear blinders? There are plenty of left of center critics of punitive PC. Some are regular commenters here. See also the membership of the Academic Freedom Alliance.

      Meanwhile, for the last four years you’ve been an uncritical apologist for the king of cancel culture.

      1. The 99% of leftists who are evil and are happy to participate in the destruction of innocents and tearing down the institutions of civilization ruin it for the 1% who aren’t onboard with every bit of the agenda. Alas.

        I don’t know what you are referring to in your second paragraph, but it’s off topic because the topic isn’t about me. Attempting to change the subject to distract observers so evil people can continue unobstructed is a common tactic.

        1. All the imaginary leftists that bother you so much would stop bothering you if you’d stop imagining them bothering you.

    2. ‘Students who actually want to learn are the people who lose the most, of course.’

      Well, certainly, but that has nothing to do with conservative anti-university bugbears represented by stories like this one. Conservatives have no real interest in fixing the actual ways universities are failing students which are myriad and nothing to do with ‘cancel culture.’

      1. More attempts to change the subject. Common among defenders of evil.

        1. No, I’m calling you flat out wrong. Probably lying.

          1. ” I’m calling you flat out wrong. Probably lying.”

            No reason not to assume both.

  18. So, your entire issue with adjuncting boils down to “you might get in trouble for saying the wrong thing”, and you have no critique of the hideous exploitation of this system that rips students off for an expensive education, taught by professors with no job security, no health insurance, and no ability to be a support network in the future as those relationships with professors may have offered people in the past?

    Weird flex, dude. There’s a hell of a lot more wrong with adjuncting than how it affects just one person, try thinking about the bigger picture here. Academic freedom is undermined BECAUSE of adjuncting, as you almost suggested, but its because they’ve undermined and demoralized the work force so badly that they’ve made academia just another Walmart. Powerless people have no freedom whatsoever, and being an adjunct isn’t an “expensive hobby” for many, just the “best” job they’re able to get out of a vast sea of horrible choices.

Please to post comments