An E-Mail from Georgetown Law Center Dean William Treanor

"Next Steps in Our Commitment to Racial Justice"

|

Eugene blogged about a situation at the Georgetown University Law Center involving an adjunct professor who was dismissed for comments she made on Zoom. I encourage everyone to also read a post Eugene wrote about the risks for adjuncts at law schools.

A current student at Georgetown University Law Center sent me an email that Dean Treanor distributed to the community. I plan to write about it in the near future. Here, I would like to share the message:

From: Dean William M. Treanor <treanorwm@georgetown.edu>
Date: Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 6:04 PM
Subject: Next Steps in Our Commitment to Racial Justice
To: Dean.William.M..Treanor [Organization] <treanorwm@georgetown.edu>

Dear Georgetown Law Community,

Like many of you, I spent most of spring break reflecting on recent events and thinking deeply about how we move forward together. The comments about Black students, made in a conversation between two adjunct faculty charged with preparing students for leadership and service in the legal profession, had a profound and adverse impact on Black students. But the harm inflicted did not stop there. Our entire community is grappling with the painful and difficult effects and the significance of the video.

Words alone will not, I know, be enough to move us forward. Yet, I want to begin by apologizing on behalf of Georgetown Law to the students, faculty, staff and alumni who have been impacted by this incident. I expect more of this law school than what we saw in that video. We can and will do better.

In recent days, I have been speaking with students, faculty and administrators across the University to discuss policies and strategies that we can deploy in restoring our community and guarding against other similar events. Some of the responses will take time and call for the involvement of the faculty and administrators. There are, however, other steps that I can take more quickly. I am writing to tell you about five items that will be implemented in the next few months.

First, we will be conducting non-discrimination training for our faculty before the start of the fall 2021 semester. At the start of this academic year, in response to requests made by the SBA, BLSA, and other affinity groups, I appointed a committee headed by Professor Robin Lenhardt to develop such training and that effort is underway. The first session was held in January, and we will be holding three additional sessions before the end of this academic year. We will also make available additional programs, including those that discuss bystander intervention; these will be easily accessible to all faculty, including adjuncts. I am additionally considering whether we will make such programs mandatory for all faculty. (Currently, non-discrimination and anti-harassment training is required for new full-time hires.)

Second, we will be re-examining the past teaching evaluations of all faculty currently teaching, starting with the past three years. This second look will allow us to ensure that we have responded appropriately to any reports of discrimination or harassment. We will also utilize this review to improve our processes to better identify and address these instances in the future.

Third, I will be providing grants for faculty members who wish to work over the summer to develop curricular materials addressing racial justice, racial inequities, and the experiences and agency of traditionally marginalized groups. We have always provided summer grants for faculty who wish to wish to engage in substantial curricular development. This year, I will specifically encourage faculty members to develop curricular materials addressing these important topics. I am especially interested in developing new materials that can be incorporated into the courses they and others already teach. While significant longer-term changes to our curriculum will take time and faculty discussion, this will help jump-start that project.

Fourth, I have in the past week heard the voices of students from underrepresented groups about their experiences at Georgetown and their desire for additional forms of support. As part of our response, we will significantly increase the funding for the RISE program next year and going forward.

Finally, the SBA, BLSA, and our other affinity groups requested that the Law Center "implement a reporting system that allows students to document bias-related incidents in the classroom . . . modeled off of the Main Campus Bias Reporting System administered by" the University's Office of Institutional Diversity, Equity, and Affirmative Action ("IDEAA"). After consultation with Olabisi Okubadejo, a Georgetown Law alumnus who was recently hired as Associate Vice President, Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action and Compliance, we are convinced that IDEAA provides the appropriate reporting mechanism for the Law Center. Although this is not a new system, we will ensure that every student is aware of that process and how to use it. The bias reporting process is a robust reporting system for tracking and addressing incidents of bias, and for referring formal complaints of harassment or discrimination to IDEAA. Under the leadership of Associate Vice President Okubadejo and Vice President Rosemary Kilkenny, also a Georgetown Law graduate, IDEAA is well positioned to handle reports from students thoroughly, confidentially, and efficiently. Going forward, we will share information about the bias reporting system and IDEAA's complaint process with incoming students, and every semester, we will send a reminder to all students about how to report incidents to IDEAA. Because the bias reporting system regularly publishes statistics about the number and type of reports it receives, anyone in our community will be able to track the progress of our work to reduce bias, harassment, and discrimination.

I recognize that students have asked for additional changes. I share the sense of urgency. Some of the requests are not a matter of decanal authority and will take time. For example, the SBA, BLSA, and our other affinity groups have recommended that the Law Center mandate a critical race theory unit in all first-year criminal justice courses, and consider establishing a two-credit racial justice requirement for all students. At the start of the academic year, I charged the Academic Standards Committee with considering this proposal; they hope to make a recommendation to the faculty by the end of this academic year. Other student requests include making faculty attention to diversity, equity, and inclusion an explicit part of our tenure standards, hiring practices, and salary reviews. I am beginning conversations about those requests with the relevant faculty committees as part of the Law Center's faculty governance processes. And I am still considering other suggestions that are committed to my discretion, including the request for an increase in BLSA funding. As we move forward, I will continue to give you updates on our thinking and planning, and I invite you to continue to contribute your ideas.

Finally, I would like to say something a bit more personal. It was clear at the listening session with students that I held before the break that some question this school's and the administration's commitment to diversity. To the extent the video eroded students' trust in that commitment, that loss of trust pains me deeply. From the beginning of my deanship, making progress on issues of diversity, equity and inclusion has been my top priority. And though we have done so, I reaffirm my commitment to this work. In the last decade, we have increased the percentage of students of color in our entering classes by 40%, including an entering class this year comprising 15% Black students -- the highest proportion in the school's history by several percentage points -- 32% students of color, and 57% women. In the decade since I became dean, 41% of our new full-time faculty have been people of color, up from 11% in the preceding five years. We have created the position of Director of Equity and Inclusion, a role held with distinction by Dr. Pérez-Caro.

In addition, thanks to generous donations from many of our graduates, we have dramatically increased our financial aid awards in the past decade, doubled the number of Opportunity Scholars, and significantly increased the percentage of students who are the first generation in their family to attend college. And three years ago, we created the RISE program to better support students from historically underrepresented backgrounds. These achievements have been the product of a community-wide effort -- from students working to recruit a diverse entering class, to faculty hiring decisions, to staff leadership of initiatives, to generous alumni support -- and I am proud of what our community has achieved.

I list these changes not to suggest that we are finished. We still have much to do. But I hope you understand my commitment to ensuring that Georgetown Law is a place in which every individual -- student, faculty and staff -- feels welcome and thrives. I am dedicated to the important work that lies ahead, and I know that our faculty and staff are as well.

Sincerely,

Bill

NEXT: Asymmetrical Nationwide Injunctions

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. Non-discrimination training sounds like a lot of fun.

    1. Of course, I identify as a black transgender illegal alien. I expect GU admissions to respect my identity and to adjust its criteria accordingly. My exams will be in Ebonics.

      1. Because of course black persons speak and write in Ebonics for David.

        A raving lunatic and racist.

        1. You need to stop marginalizing me with mean spirited, hurtful comments. I feel bullied by you.

          1. Sometimes it wearies me that we are not in Britain, or Deadwood, where I could justifiably call you a cunt without fear of retribution.

            1. Call me anything you want. I just told you, I identify as your hurtful discriminatory, hostile environment insult. You would be violating the Fallacy of Irrelevance and would sound intellectually frustrated.

      2. What no one is allowed to say is that Ebonics is the dialect of the White slave overseers who were the most brutal oppressors in that brutal system. I forget where in England they came from -- and England is big-time into dialects -- but they are using the accent and dialect of the A-holes who were whipping them.

        Why are they honoring their oppressors in this manner?!?

        1. Do you think people just wake up one morning and choose their dialects?

          1. I like to think they are bright enough to understand where the dialect came from -- and, upon learning that, perhaps deciding not to defend/promote the dialect?

            If you can learn a foreign language, you can also learn proper English and if I learned that I was speaking the dialect of my oppressor -- I'd stop...

            Lots of people stopped speaking German after Hitler -- the language of science switched from German to English. Sure they had accents -- but they stopped speaking the language of the people who had turned their relatives into soap...

            1. I'd like to think they were bright enough to understand that Kwanzaa wasn't a real African holiday. You're generally disappointed if you expect ANY large group to be "bright enough to understand" things.

              1. "Kwanzaa emerged not from Africa, but from the FBI’s COINTELPRO. It is a holiday celebrated exclusively by idiot white liberals. Black people celebrate Christmas"

                See: https://anncoulter.com/2019/12/25/happy-kwanzaa-the-holiday-brought-to-you-by-the-fbi-6/

                Ann Coulter's father was a FBI agent...

        2. Same reason they turn into Muslims, biggest slavers of al timel, up to today. They hate America.

          1. No, they hate the Western Christian Liberal Enlightenment, the values of which are perhaps best stated by the ethical code of the IDF. Yes -- Israel, a Jewish state, best articulates these values -- which transcend both region and religion and respect the value of the individual.

            Slavery didn't start in the West -- but the West sought to END slavery...

        3. In December 1996 the Oakland (CA) School Board recognized Ebonics as the 'primary' language of its majority African American students and resolved to take it into account in teaching them standard or academic English.

          1. There is an interesting word in Ebonics -- "Cash Language" which just happens to be standard American English.

            People realize that if you want to make money, you have to speak that language, and not Ebonics. QED they don't want young Black children growing up to adults who can make money. So much more power if they remain helpless and destitute.

            It's not just the soft bigotry of low expectations...

            1. Doctor, I always learn from your comments.

              1. It is a coincide you became a lawyer in old age. 1L did not totally eradicate your mind.

      3. Ebonics, aka African American Vernacular English, is a spoken language rather than a written one. I will assign you an "urban" guy with the thickest accent I can find to administer your exam.

        1. The classical "Maine" accent -- and there actually are more than a hundred -- is actually archaic English. Maine (unlike the rest of the US) was isolated from immigrants and hence the old English didn't change into the modern version.

          The Maine version actually supports double and triple negatives -- the triple negative being a negative and the double not being one.

        2. As they do in the news, subtitles will be required to translate.

        3. "I will assign you an “urban” guy with the thickest accent I can find to administer your exam."

          Maybe the guys from Airplane! are available.

  2. So are they going to race blind admissions??

    1. Of course not. Why would you think that?

      1. So if they went to race blind admissions would too many Blacks get in because of high LSAT scores?? So would their goal of “diversity” be undermined if race isn’t a factor?? I’m just trying to figure out why it is necessary to use race in admissions.

        1. Because the Dean and his cronies want to guarantee a race quota. It is that simple

          1. I'm actually curious. For what nefarious purpose do you think the Dean and his cronies want a certain quota of students from certain groups.

            1. They're trying to limit the number of new law graduates by accepting a wide swath of law students who won't be able to complete a law-school curriculum, of course. This means that the graduates who DO find work can demand higher starting salaries.
              and all kinds of white dudes can complain that they WOULD have gotten into Georgetown except for the fact that they're white.
              win-win-win

              1. Why be so cynical? Maybe GU believes in it's stated mission which celebrates a diversity of peoples and cultures and so would like to see that reflected there. Maybe they think they are preparing their students for an ever diverse world and so having a diverse faculty and student body will give them some helpful experience in that.

                I work some at a college and when white parents visit they often remark positively about how diverse the school is for the latter reason. We know that high schools are often quite lacking in integration so college is where you might get that important experience.

                I'm not sure or sold on race based affirmative action but the unwillingness on the part of many who oppose it (not saying you) to recognize the arguments and situations that might lead administrators to desire it is hard to understand sometimes.

                1. Hon, all PC is case. The school is avoiding ruinous litigation by vicious, rent seeking , nasty lawyers. People who care about minorities would not admit unqualified applicants who will not do well in school nor in the job market. Referring some to votech would also double their salary after graduation.

                2. QA,
                  I think that the reason stated in your first paragraph is accurate.

              2. "They’re trying to limit the number of new law graduates by accepting a wide swath of law students who won’t be able to complete a law-school curriculum, of course."

                No, what's worse is that they are defining who is entitled to legal representation -- and who will be unable to purchase it at any price.

                I say this as someone who a decade ago was unable to purchase legal representation at any price -- and what this is doing is essentially denying segments of the White Male population the protection of the law. The untold story of January 6th is that most of the people willing to invade the Capitol probably had been pushed there by this.

                Even during the worst of racism, there *were* Black lawyers (I actually was surprised to learn this) and they represented Black clients in the non-glamorous stuff that people need representation for. What's happening now -- increasingly now -- is that working class White guys are f*cked.

                We're f*cked -- *our* legal rights mean nothing. And *that* is why I worry about a second Civil War.

            2. " For what nefarious purpose do you think the Dean and his cronies want a certain quota of students from certain groups"

              The soft bigotry of low expectations.

              They consider everyone in these groups to be -- bluntly -- stupid. Too stupid to get in on their own, so they are honoring the "Great White Burden" of letting them in anyway...

              1. Under this logic any charity or favor comes from the 'soft bigotry of low expectations.'

                1. Yes -- and???

                  "We think that the savages of (wherever) are an inferior race and hence we have the White Christian Duty to do -- well, all the things that Western countries did during imperialism.

                  You've never read any of the "White Man's Burden" stuff? Really?

                  I'm not saying that you need to agree with it (I don't), but, damn it, you really need to READ it so that you at least understand where these people were coming from. And to understand how they are doing the same thing now....

                  1. You’re not going to believe this but maybe all of the evil shit the West did wasn’t even nominally paternalistic, but was just run-of-the-milll exploitation.

                    1. True, but it was justified as being paternalistic.

                      Just like this stuff is...

            3. Because they say so explicitly.

  3. What is an under-represented group? If they got into school according to the merits of their application, how are they underrepresented? Let me guess. We need to have the same percentage of minorities if our classes that exist in the general population, EXCEPT for Asians, and regardless of whether as a result whites with better qualifications will not be accepted to the school.

    1. And except for Jews.

    2. "What is an under-represented group? "

      This isn't rocket science, it's a group for which there's far lower representation at the institution than in the population it sees itself as serving.

      1. The new class is 15% black and 57% female so are white males now underrepresented?

        1. I already answered this: are they far lower underrepresented at the institution than in the population it sees itself as serving?

          Also, do you have a citation that the new class at GU is 15% black? Honestly curious.

          1. Reading comprehension is your friend. Here is a direct quotation from the dean's letter. While I take it at face value feel free to call him a liar.

            "And though we have done so, I reaffirm my commitment to this work. In the last decade, we have increased the percentage of students of color in our entering classes by 40%, including an entering class this year comprising 15% Black students -- the highest proportion in the school's history by several percentage points -- 32% students of color, and 57% women"

            1. Thanks for the citation.

              As to the point, he concedes there that this class is a historical outlier and only involves the entering class, no?

              1. And you think the next one will be White Only?!?!?

                1. Since law school has three years involved it would take more than a single entering class at representation to solve under-representation at an institution.

                  1. You do understand that admissions policies usually aren't year specific, don't you?

                    As you, yourself, state, law schools change on a 3-year cycle so if he maintains this for the next two years, what do you think will happen?

                    You really aren't that stupid, are you????

                    1. "You really aren’t that stupid, are you????"

                      Oh, Man, you just broke my irony meter.

      2. "it sees itself as serving."
        Aye, there's the rub.

    3. "whites with better qualifications will not be accepted to the school."

      The problem is you think these schools have the following mission: "to locate and educate those identified as having the better Qualifications (as measured by this or that 'objective' criteria)."

      But here's the thing
      1. Why should that be their mission? Public schools take tax dollars from all groups, is it right when then some groups are barely represented? GU is a Catholic Christian university, is Catholic Christianity all about locating the 'best' people and pouring resources into them?
      2. As an empirical fact, that is not their stated missions. Here's GU's: "Established in 1789 in the spirit of the new republic, the university was founded on the principle that serious and sustained discourse among people of different faiths, cultures, and beliefs promotes intellectual, ethical and spiritual understanding. We embody this principle in the diversity of our students, faculty and staff, our commitment to justice and the common good, our intellectual openness and our international character."

      1. Obviouisly, that mission statement you quoted has been superseded. At least the part about "intellectual openness" and "sustained discourse."

        1. Of maybe there's tension between competing values sometimes?

          1. Not the way these guys do it!

      2. As an empirical matter, their stated mission involves a diversity of "faiths", "cultures" and "beliefs".

        As you can see, they've pretty solidly rejected that in favor of a monoculture of beliefs held by a carefully curated rainbow of people who all think alike.

    4. When I went to college many years ago the administration had recently switched from "minorities" to "underrepresented minorities" in its race-aware policies. Sounds better than "minorities, except for Asians" or "minorities, except for Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans." I don't know if Asians were considered monolithic.

  4. At least one does not need a Rosetta Stone to understand the handwriting on the wall.
    The Provost should appoint the President of the BLSA as Dean and be done with it. It's always better to cut out the extraneous middle-man

  5. Frankly, the whole thing sounds like Beijing University Law School in today’s China. If certain statistics is in fact low, to say that it is law is to state a fact. Why should a teacher be fired for stating a fact?

    1. Sorry about the typo. I mean to say “to say that is is low is to state a fact”.

    2. "Why should a teacher be fired for stating a fact?"

      Do you think stating a fact is always a good idea or defensible? They made an entire movie about this with Jim Carrey in it.

      1. “Why should a teacher be fired for stating a fact?”

        Depends. Is the fact that was stated a failure on the part of the teacher to do their job?

        1. There is no way for you or anyone else to know that.
          The job of the university instructor is to present material (including problem sets) relevant to the mastery of the topic. It is the job of students to master the topic by active learning on their part

      2. Stating a fact is always defensible, and especially so in a private conversation. Stating a fact may not be a good idea in context, but no one should be "cancelled" just for that reason. To do so would be a deterrent from stating facts at all.

        1. [N]o one should be “cancelled” just for [stating a fact]. To do so would be a deterrent from stating facts at all.

          No shit. Isn't it obvious that that's precisely what the "cancellers" want? As John Derbyshire put it, they don't want people to "notice [any] aspect of reality that contradicts the Ruling Class Narrative."

  6. Dean Treanor needs an editor.

    1. So does this blog. It seems to be a common problem.

  7. What is the politically correct way of saying that most students who did well at mathematics this semester are Axxxxxx?

  8. Where is my post about Beijing University Law School in today’s China?

    1. The ChiComs used the Soros computer to censor it, duh.

      1. Hilarious! You obviously absorbed a lot of Limbaugh or its equivalent, at least enough to snark. But your shallow and rather self righteousness idiocy is not lost on anyone. It works on Twatter, but not here.

        1. Oh, suck it buttercup.

    2. "Where is my post about Beijing University Law School in today’s China?"

      Blocked by the Great Firewall?

  9. Pain, pain, pain,pain, pain. Pain causes money to flow. Money assuages pain. Until it is time for more pain, and more money.

  10. The Dean of Georgetown Law Center may want to talk with the Director of the Propaganda Department of the CCP Committee of Beijing University Law School about controlling faculty members’ speech.

    1. Or perhaps, if in need of a paid propagandist, aka professional liar, he could consult with Michael Caputo, I hear he's available.

  11. What if the GU AD had said, on a taped zoom, "I hate to say this, I end up having this angst every semester that I have so few and even among them a lot of my lower performing athletes are Jews. Happens almost every season. And it's like, 'Oh, come on.' You get some really good ones, but there are also usually some that are just plain at the bottom. It drives me crazy."

    Let's say there are indeed very few Jewish athletes at GU and even fewer 'elite' ones.

    Nothing at all to see here?

    1. No, not protected speech, and fellow coaches should be required to do a "bystander intervention" and claim that most of the good athletes are Jewish.

      1. None of it is 'protected speech' as GU is a private religious institution. It's only 'protected' in the sense of what GU may have contractually bound itself to have to refrain from taking action against.

        And were I the President of GU and my AD said this I would call them in and say 'Knock that off. First, even if what you've said about our Jewish athletes is true your comments are likely to insult and demoralize them. We don't want ADs doing that to the students we serve (and as part of our Christian mission). Second, we don't want GU to be see as the kind of place where Jewish athletes don't want to be recruited to (heck, the next Sue Bird might be considering us one day and here your comments). Third, we don't won't to be seen to the community at large as one that is unfriendly to Jewish athletes, that kind of thing can easily hurt our giving, or numbers, etc, it damages this institution.'

        1. Not just the President, anyone who is nearby when the AD utters such a toxic comment is duty-bound, on pain of firing, to "correct" the AD's remarks. Just point to the champion Jewish players like Kareem Abdul Jabar. The "correction" doesn't have to be accurate, after all, its just a matter of avoiding getting fired, so long as you're indignant and contradict the AD your job is safe.

          1. That's quite funny. It's funnier you can't even imagine a legitimate non-strawman opposing position here.

            1. So what's the true position about bystander responsibility?

              1. Again, you're asking because I guess you can't even imagine one.

                1. How about putting away the crystal ball, stop trying to read minds through your computer screen, and enlighten me on why this bystander-responsibility policy is such a wonderful idea.

                  1. I see where the letter references 'bystander intervention' training, I don't see the term 'bystander responsibility.' I've explained an example of the former below, the latter I'd need to know what you're referring to.

                    1. "Bystander intervention" actually sounds more sinister than my phrase "bystander responsibility."

                    2. Does it? They said they will have bystander intervention training which I can bet you will be 'if you see someone saying X you should say Y to them' in the manner I described below. That's what you call 'sinister?'

                      The place I work at sends out a regular email that says 'sometimes people will gossip in the office about how things are going in the business, if they do please show them these latest quarterly numbers'.

                      How sinister!

                    3. Not at all sinister.

                      Let's say that some professor or student is at a social event, and blurts out something racist like "there should not be racial preferences for or against any group" or "the cop was well within his authority to shoot Michael Brown."

                      Who should do the intervention? The person standing closest to the offender? The faculty member with the highest rank? Or should students have priority?

                      Or should they all simultaneously rend their garments and shout "unclean! unclean!"

                    4. There ought to be an app that you can summon on your phone the moment you hear someone be racist or sexist, or mention the name "Bruce Jenner," or what have you.

                      Just briefly describe the forbidden content of the person's remark, and a set of pre-written talking points will show up on the screen, and you just have to read from them.

                      "Transwomen are women, you bigot!"

                      "There are no differences in grades, and it's due to racism!"

                      "5 out of 4 coeds are raped every year!"

                    5. The Stasi specialized in bystander responsibility. When the wall fell and the books opened, we learned that many citizens of the GDR had bystander responsibility, i.e. they were recruited as snitches. The Dean's message sounds like GT Law Center is going to be more like the Stasi than unlike.

              2. Imagine an officer on a Marines base who says "“I hate to say this, I end up having this angst every year that I have so few and even among them a lot of my lower performing Grunts are Jews. Happens almost every year. And it’s like, ‘Oh, come on.’ You get some really good ones, but there are also usually some that are just plain at the bottom. It drives me crazy.”

                Bystander interventions might include saying to the officer "hey, knock that off, we're one corps here, that kind of talk will only demoralize our Jewish Grunts, make it harder for us to recruit what may be excellent Jewish Grunts and makes our corps look bad to outsiders."

                1. Is that really an ideal comparison you chose?

                    1. Above, you quoted the Georgetown mission statement, including the part about "sustained discourse."

                      Is an un-nuanced commitment to academic-style "sustained discourse" transferable fully to a military setting?

                2. No, the (pre-Biden) USMC would have said that the Jewish recruiter wasn't doing his job and instead was recruiting Jewish candidates who had no chance of making it in the USMC.
                  Further inquisition by the NCIS would reveal that he was engaging in fraudulent means to recruit these candidates, and he'd be court martialed.

                  That's what would happen and there'd be neither talk of ignoring recruits who couldn't make it through basic nor about demoralizing anyone.

        2. True, but -- well, what would you say were they to adopt a "White only" policy? That they only wanted White Males to become lawyers...

          At what point does the state step in and say "if you want to be a gatekeeper to the legal profession, you can't discriminate"?

          1. Or say adopt Catholic teaching and only admit *married* female students? You either prove your virginity or have a husband -- otherwise you can't be admitted.

            Have a problem with that???

            1. "You either prove your virginity or have a husband — otherwise you can’t be admitted."

              I'm not sure that's Catholic teaching.

              1. "I’m not sure that’s Catholic teaching."

                But Ed knows that it is. The problem is that, like yogi might have said, he doesn't know half the things he knows.

              2. Not exactly -- but I know of live-in staffers who wanted their soon-to-be husband to move in on them to save on living expenses and had to get married twice. The Catholic school required that they be married before the husband could move in, and a Priest officially married them, but they agreed to allow the woman to have the formal church wedding the following spring after she graduated.

                30 years ago, when the Catholic schools were still Catholic, this was not uncommon.

                1. " I know of live-in staffers who wanted their soon-to-be husband "

                  Perhaps it was the polyamory that the Catholics (though not catholics) objected to. And, how do you get all this done with just two weddings?

                  Back to Ed's specious claim which is that a Cathoilic university would prohibit unmarried female students unless they passed a virginity test and that this prohibition was a matter of Catholic teaching.

                  1. It's not a matter of Catholic teaching to prohibit unmarried female students.

                  2. It's not a matter of Catholic teaching to require virginity tests, no matter what the priesthood would like.

                  3. When Ed says "not exactly" he doesn't mean, not exactly exactly. What he means is not at all.

                  A university's policy with respect to staff and university supplied housing has no relationship to its policy with respect to admitting female students. Private universities may demand all sorts of behavior standards, but not even the Mormons require their female students to be married, or probed, and I doubt that any Catholic university, within living memory, ever has either. The most restrictive moral standards for students of which I am aware have been at Liberty, founded by a man whose first sexual experience was with his mother in an outhouse and later led by a freak who gets off watching his wife have sex with menial employees. NTTAWWT.

        3. "And were I the President of GU and my AD said this I would call them in and say ‘Knock that off. First, even if what you’ve said about our Jewish athletes is true your comments are likely to insult and demoralize them."

          Imagine you were in charge of objectively evaluating academic performance of students, or athletic ability of students if you prefer, and you felt that you were doing your best to be objective, but you had to flunk all the black students (or cut all the Jewish athletes). Wouldn't you feel angst? Your position is that the President should just tell people to shut up about the angst? That doesn't sound like good leadership.

    2. "First, we will be conducting non-discrimination training for our faculty before the start of the fall 2021 semester. "

      Why? I'm sure les autres have already been suitably encouraged.

  12. "This thing that I control doesn't work out very well for (X) students"
    I am of course deeply offended by claims that I am biased in some way against (X).

    1. Exactly, and once Georgetown releases data about its grades and proves that only in this person's class do black students do poorly, then there will be a case of racism to be made against the professor - I'm just surprised they didn't do that, so they could make the charges stick more firmly.

      1. Note to adjuncts -- give everyone an A, no one will complain.

  13. "Like many of you, I spent most of spring break reflecting on recent events and thinking deeply about how we move forward together."

    And I'm assuming none of you were so insensitive as to spend spring break socializing with friends, hanging out with family, etc. - I'm not even going the *consider* the possibility you went to the beach.

  14. All this because someone observed that black students do not achieve at the same level as other students? You will notice in none of this does the President say that assertion was wrong.

    1. You'll notice that O'Brien doesn't actually say Winston is wrong about the number of fingers.

      What does this "wrong" have to do with anything? He cares what people say they see, even what they see, but not about what's actually THERE.

  15. Is the training going to tell adjuncts that if all their black students are failing and all their white students are passing, that they shouldn't feel anxious about it? I would feel pretty anxious.

    1. I think the "training" will tell them to inflate grades....

      1. More a matter of implying, I suspect.

      2. Actually, I think the first lesson of faculty training will be, “know when you’re being recorded you fucking idiots.”

      3. Can't wait when US forces are in full retreat the first time their "woke" forces engage the Chinese..I'm sure it will be based on "white supremacy"

        1. "Can’t wait when US forces are in full retreat "

          I bet you can't. Helps get your little pecker hard just thinking about it, I'd guess. Beats the shit our of your unsuccessful attempts at auto-fellation, innit.

          You've been consuming too much Russian propaganda fed to you by the likes of the dumbest man to ever wear a bow tie. Embrace realty, MF, in the end, it's all you have.

  16. It's so hip and groovy to sign serious correspondence solely with your nickname. So very cool and relatable, and not at all a pathetic way to throw your previous education and achievements into the garbage.

  17. The comments here.... no one has bothered to ask themselves or anyone else WHY in the world young people are now of such flimsy backbone that they can't handle words. Even if the words spoken are just despicable, consider the source, realize to speak it doesn't make it true and if it is true of some, it doesn't have to be of the person who hears it. Then, and here's the really hard part apparently, move along. No screaming for a person to lose their job, or demanding 7,000 apologies. Just move on. My God, how unlikable and whiney these up and coming LEGAL STUDENTS must have been as small children.

    1. Because they get name-called and screamed at and ostracized and sometimes officially punished if they think for themselves.

      Because everyone in their lives makes up stories every day to try to scare them. Their world is full of bogeymen, but the stories promise perfect utopian happiness if the bogeymen can just be defeated. (Which never happens, of course. Stories need villains.)

      Because all the authority figures they’ve ever known lie to them every day. And the people who tell the truth are publicly shamed and punished.

      Because no one ever taught them right from wrong. They were taught to substitute their feelings for that. Young people have strong and highly-variable feelings. Words make them feel bad. And feelings are all they have.

  18. What would have happened if Georgetown refused to fire the teacher? Did the harm seem to have been inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of any public official?

  19. Do Deans do any actual work? I’m genuinely asking.

    Cheerleading and mouthing woke religious nostrums don’t count as work.

  20. THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY: Nipping at the ankles of its betters until American law schools stop engaging in affirmative action for right-wingers in faculty hiring.

  21. The private school and the state could develop an interdependent, relationship, where the state may rely on the private school to perform a part of its function.

  22. Hoping the NBA is as woke. As for Georgetown..how many Italians are admitted? Irish? German? You know the "wrong" whites according to the lefties.

    Equal opportunity means everyone is judged the same..your "tribe" doesn't get it done..well look at cultural issues not the govt to force a solution. This is the big myth of the 1960's..the laws were never intended for equal opportunity..they are sold that way but it was always about getting results for your tribe no matter what...which is why we had quotas...and now the new quota rationals...

  23. "Affirmative action" is a euphemism for "invidious discrimination."

  24. I clicked on the "flag" of my own comment to see what would happen.
    The result?
    "Flagged for review"

  25. "Affirmative action" is a euphemism for "invidious discrimination."
    .

Please to post comments