John Marshall Law School Cancels John Marshall

"Despite Chief Justice Marshall’s legacy as one of the nation’s most significant U.S. Supreme Court justices, the newly discovered research regarding his role as a slave trader, slave owner of hundreds of slaves, pro-slavery jurisprudence, and racist views render him a highly inappropriate namesake for the Law School.”


The John Marshall Law School is no more. The University of Illinois at Chicago, which recently acquired the formerly-private law school, has approved the name-change.

The vote comes after months of review by a task force that gathered input from students, faculty, staff, and alumni, conducted research and proposed principles to guide the institution in evaluating a potential name change.

The task force report noted, "that despite Chief Justice Marshall's legacy as one of the nation's most significant U.S. Supreme Court justices, the newly discovered research regarding his role as a slave trader, slave owner of hundreds of slaves, pro-slavery jurisprudence, and racist views render him a highly inappropriate namesake for the Law School."

"The university has arrived at this new name following a thorough and carefully studied process that included input from all corners of the institution and beyond, considered issues of racial injustice and aimed to ensure that our university continues to be a place where diversity, inclusion and equal opportunity are supported and advanced," said UIC Chancellor Michael Amiridis.

John Marshall has officially been canceled. The greatest jurist in American history has been summarily excommunicated. Inclusion demands exclusion. These purges will not stop with slavery. None of us are safe.

I previously wrote about efforts to cancel Marshall here, here, and here.

NEXT: Don't Dilute My Coca-Cola with Your Concealed Carry

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “And in further protest against John Marshall, we shall now view his nationalist constitutional theories with suspicion and…ha ha, I was only kidding, we’ll keep that part of his legacy, we’ll just try not to acknowledge it specifically.”

    1. I strongly support the cancellation of the traitor, John Marshall, for Marbury. It violated Article I Section 1. It caused the Civil War through Dred Scott. In addition, he was deeply corrupt. His name should be banned from all school books, his being a traitor and a criminal. This is from me.


      THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 2007
      Marburygate or Misconduct in Marbury v. Madison

      John Marshall is the greatest Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, 1803, the most important case. These are accepted dogma down to grade school. Arcane lawyer textbooks mention ethics problems, but quickly gloss over (1,2). Critical reviews go unread, not even referenced (3).


      1. Double Dipping. Marshall was Secretary of State for Pres. John Adams, until inauguration, March 4, 1801. He served as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court February 4, 1801. Jefferson won the election, breaking an electoral tie, February 17. Article I, Section 6, the Incompatibility Clause, prohibits simultaneous service in the Executive and Legislative branches. Service in the Judicial branch is not expressly forbidden (4).

      2. Nepotism. James Marshall, the brother was assigned the task of delivering the Justice of the Peace Commissions. These were not judgeships, but at will, executive branch agency jobs for the
      administration of the District of Columbia. Salary was to come from the executive branch. James failed to deliver Marbury’s commission prior to midnight, March 3. Jefferson was cousin to Marshall. They hated each other.

      3. Personal Involvement. The undelivered commissions were left in the office of the Secretary of State Marshall. Marshall judged his own conduct in this case.

      4. Supreme Court Jurisdiction. Mr. Marbury claimed the Judiciary Act of 1789 permitted a trial at the Supreme Court on a writ of mandamus. Article III, Section 2, The Original Jurisdiction Clause, assigns appellate jurisdiction in such matters. The Supreme Court so held, to their credit. But it chose to go on with the case. It held Section 13 of the Judiciary Act, conferring such jurisdiction to be unconstitutional. Although, it felt it proper to grant Marbury his writ, the unconstitutionality of that Section precluded doing so by lack of jurisdiction.

      5. Conflict of Interest. There was a little tension between Federalist Court and Republican Congress. They canceled the Supreme Court sessions of June and December, 1802. They repealed the Circuit Court Act, forcing the Justices to ride circuit, once again. They removed Justice Pickering for alcoholism and insanity. They impeached Justice Chase, but failed to remove him.

      6. Misreading. Section 13 of the Judiciary Act allows mandamus remedy where the Court has jurisdiction. It does not extend jurisdiction, in violation of Article III. If it were read properly, Congressional discretion to enlarge jurisdiction, in the Exceptions and Regulation Clause, would permit enlargement of jurisdiction. The central holding is therefore incorrect (5).

      7. Judicial Power to Increase Judicial Power. In its trickiness and dodging, it is equally wrong to refrain from carrying out a duty to mandate delivery of a commission. May a Judge “refuse to do justice under the law in order to advance his own personal power and that of other judges”? (6)

      Judge Disqualification in 1803

      In English common law, judges could be disqualified for money interest in a case (7). The Act of May 8, 1792, permitted disqualification if the Judge was “concerned in interest,” had “acted in the cause, or had “been of counsel.”(8). In those days, judicial temperament was supposed
      to overcome bias, as a judge duty.

      Judge Disqualification Today

      28 USC Section 4559 applies to Federal Judges, including those on the Supreme Court (9).

      Marbury grounds for modern disqualification would include: “personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts”, “served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness”, “a person within the third degree of relationship”
      is involved.

      No waiver from the party adversely affected is permitted (Section 455 (e)).


      There is no mechanism of enforcement if a Supreme Court Justice refuses to recuse voluntarily.

      Exclusionary Rule II

      What product or method of service from 1803 is acceptable today? None. If someone tried to sell carriages from those days for daily use, tried to practice the medicine of those days, they deserve to be arrested as a threat to public safety.

      Why is a corrupt decision from 1803 holding sway? The answer is lawyer cover up, indoctrination of the nation, and worse, of themselves, and lawyer self-dealing. This cover up is for power, in furtherance of judge tyranny.

      Summary impeachment is appropriate for challenged judges who violate federal statute on disqualification. Congress is unlikely to go through that difficult, time consuming process.

      Failing impeachment, the decision should be voided automatically by statute. It is not enough to cancel the vote of the disqualified Justice. Given the secrecy and cover up at the Court, it is unknown if the disqualified Justice tried to convince, made deals, or otherwise influenced peers. That decision must be voided as “bearing the fruit of the poisoned tree.” Marbury v Madison should be the first case so voided.


      1. Barron, JA, Dienes, CT, McCormack, W, Redish, MH: Constitutional Law: Principles and Policy Cases and Materials. LexisNexis, Newark, NJ, 2002. Pp.11-12.
      2. Chemerinsky, E. Constitutional Law, Principles and Policies. Aspen, New York, NY. 2002. Pp. 39-46.
      3. Paulsen, MS: Marbury’s Wrongness. Const Comment. 20: 343-357, 2003.
      4. Id. at 350.
      5. Id. at 353, summarizing several critics of this misreading.
      6. Id. at 357.
      7. Flamm, RE: Judicial Disqualification, Recusal and Disqualification of Judges, Aspen, New York, NY, 1996. P. 9.
      8. Id. P. 10.
      9. Bassett, DL: Judicial Disqualification in the Federal Appellate Courts, IA L Rev 87:1214-1256, 2002.

      1. I need to cancel Kind Edward I from the Hall of Great Law Givers in the House of Representatives. He was Longshanks in Braveheart. This French fop also hired Henry of Bratton who wrote the English Common that is so disturbing and disruptive today.

        He gathered 400 Jewish money lenders and killed them. He banned the Jews for 400 years in England by a law. Not too good. But he also killed a million Scots, Welsh, and Irish white people. He had French scumbags impregnate all new brides on their wedding nights. He threw a gay from a window of a high tower. It goes on.

        Edward I needs to be cancelled.

        1. Queenie, Edward I threw a gay from a window, starting that practice picked up in Iraq.

          Wave if you can still see me.

          1. Edward I invented making Jews wear Stars of David when going outside, not Adolf Hitler.

            1. That is where the law of today’s scumbag lawyer profession comes from, Edward I.

              1. Mayor McNutt.

      2. Thanks for reminding me I can mute you!

        1. You can’t. You are addicted.

  2. Those involved in issuing that statement should be canceled for referring to enslaved people merely as “slaves”, thereby un-personing them, and for suggesting that John Marshall “owned” rather than kept or held enslaved people in bondage. Their racism and white supremacist beliefs are now on open display for all the world to see.

  3. University of Illinois at Chicago acquires law school, renames it University of Illinois at Chicago School of Law. Film at 11!

    1. I know. I remember when CVS canceled all the Peoples….

    2. You’d have a point except that the quotes certainly suggest that they expressly opted to change the name out of disapproval of Marshall.

      (Unless, of course, Prof. Blackman tendentiously or deceptively chose what to quote and what not to. But what are the odds of that?)

  4. I anxiously await for the cancellation of every object bearing the name of Martin Luther King. The guy was a misogynist and must be punished.

    1. And plagiarist — and it apparently wasn’t just his BU dissertation.

    2. He was a white supremacist, too. He said that he wanted his children to be judged not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character. That’s white supremacy.

      1. The conservative story on MLK: there were a few bad apples and MLK gave a speech at a March where he only criticized affirmative action, the bad apples disappeared and then some of MLK’s followers misunderstood his message and have been engaged in racist terrorism of white people ever since. The End.

        1. White supremacists often try to hide their views, but they always slip out sooner or later.

          1. That is why Republicans are doomed to failure in the American culture war. Most Americans — especially the better ones — no longer are willing to appease right-wing bigots.

            Plenty of whimpering and whining still to be heard among the losers, though.

        2. The conservative story on MLK is that he started out enunciating admirable principles that every person of good will could agree with, then abandoned them when he was offered unprincipled shortcuts that looked like they could deliver up social and economic equality faster than the principled approach.

          But instead they just poisoned race relations.

          1. To quote Kenny Powers: you said it, not me.

          2. Ayn Rand, 1963:
            This accumulation of contradictions, of shortsighted pragmatism, of cynical contempt for principles, of outrageous irrationality, has now reached its climax in the new demands of the Negro leaders.
            Instead of fighting against racial discrimination, they are demanding that racial discrimination be legalized and enforced. Instead of fighting against racism, they are demanding the establishment of racial quotas. Instead of fighting for “color-blindness” in social and economic issues, they are proclaiming that “color-blindness” is evil and that “color” should be made a primary consideration. Instead of fighting for equal rights, they are demanding special race privileges.

            1. Ameliorating disadvantage is not ‘special race privileges.’ In fact, not doing so would be, but in the opposite direction.

          3. The conservative story on MLK is that he was a moderate, patient, and justified objector to bias that was practiced in his time. But the Deep State saw that he was winning and couldn’t stand that race might stop being an issue. So they had him murdered, and unfortunately the “heir apparent” to his ministry – Jesse Jackson – did not share King’s good character. So the grift of race-baiting goes on.

            1. “But the Deep State saw that he was winning and couldn’t stand that race might stop being an issue. So they had him murdered”

              Poe’s law yet again.

    3. You have to love when triggered anti-anti-racists engage in the ‘I’m going to call hypocrisy because the anti-racists don’t live up to the extremist caricature I have of them’ (Michael P above does the same).


        1. Said every person who wanted you sliding down the slope, ever.

      2. ” ‘I’m going to call hypocrisy because the anti-racists don’t live up to the extremist caricature I have of them’”

        The claim that anti-racists believe that it’s racist to say slave instead of “enslaved person” is an extremist caricature? Maybe facts that you don’t like are extremist?

        1. The fact is that very few anti-racists do or would support canceling someone who made the statement linked to above. I’m sure you can dig up some activist who said something crazy, but one can do that with any movement (I can point to ‘libertarians’ here who say some crazy things but that wouldn’t make the claim ‘libertarians believe X’ a general fact about much of anything.

          1. “The fact is that very few anti-racists do or would support canceling someone who made the statement linked to above.”

            True. Anti-racists believe that the people who made the statement should apologize for the pain caused by referring to enslaved persons as “slaves”. And canceled if they decline to apologize.

            1. How many anti-racists have called for the makers of the linked statement to apologize? Show your work.

              1. How about a wager? If, in a week, there is a large groundswell of calls for an apology regarding the linked statement I will admit here that anti-racists are indeed becoming far too ‘touch-y’, but if not you will admit here that it is anti-anti-racists that are so. We on?

                1. Well, no. anti-“anti-racists” are not too “touchy” regardless of whether people demand that theses folks apologize.

                  1. The anti-anti-racists here like you saying this response you’ve dreamed up is totally reality based and warranted here but aren’t willing to bet it will, you know, be confirmed in reality, aren’t being too ‘touch-y?’

                    1. I said they were crazy. I didn’t say they were predictably crazy.

                    2. Maybe you can’t predict them because you’re ignorant of how and what they think?

                    3. We cannot make up the people who say that “enslaved person” is a good usage “precisely because ‘enslaved person’ is a repellent contradiction in terms”:

                      Or those who go on Wikipedia-editing sprees and announce that changing English is mandatory. The federal government has also made it clear which set of language is acceptable. (I would provide links for those two claims, but Reason doesn’t like providing more than one link per comment.)

      3. If not for double standards, “anti-racists” would have no standards at all. They don’t consistently apply what they hold out as rules because they know their rules are not actually practicable.

    4. Rename them to Martin Luther. Let people wonder if the object is named for the heretic against papal supremacy or the heretic against white supremacy.

    5. And Lincoln as well (although, I guess that is already in the works in some circles)… How can we not only have national monuments honoring but also schools and streets named after a person who declared in the September 18, 1858 Lincoln Douglas debate [emphasis added]:

      I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position, the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes…. But as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give the most solemn pledge that I will, to the very last, stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. I will add one further word, which is this: that I do not understand that there is any place where an alteration of the social and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made, except in the State Legislature,-not in the Congress of the United States; and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent if, that the Judge be kept at home and placed in the State Legislature to fight the measure. I do not propose dwelling longer at this time on this subject.

      1. He kinda backed away from that later, wouldn’t you say? Unlike Marshall.

        1. Again, they want to criticize the anti-racists for lack of nuance and then get mad when the anti-racists actually display it.

        2. Did he?

          He was clearly against slavery (as he stated in this debate) and followed through on that.

          However did he ever come out and publicly refute what he said in this debate and assert that “negros” were every bit completely equal to whites and that he had switched his views dramatically between September of 1858 and his death, less than seven years later, in April of 1865? I honestly don’t know — any cites?

          If a modern white supremacist made such a statement today, would you accept that she was a “changed woman” if she made whatever retraction that Lincoln may have made and seven years hadn’t passed since her racist statement and her death?

      2. I think the angle they use to attack Lincoln is his war against the Plains Indians where he had some people hanged.

        1. “Abraham Lincoln — the symbol of the abolition of slavery in the US — was also under fire, accused by some of having played a role in the massacre of Native American tribes.”

  5. “These purges will not stop with slavery. None of us are safe.”

    You can always count on Josh to rationally put things in their proper perspective.

    1. Would you agree that cancel culture has picked up steam lately?

      1. I would not, what’s changed is who might be canceled has changed.

      2. No, not really. Cancel culture is a new name for something that has existed forever. Regardless, it is renaming a law school. Who the hell cares?

      3. Ah, so both queens here are on the same page, unsurprisingly.

        Theoretically, you can say that Socrates was cancel cultured, as was every newspaper not favorable to Napoleon that he shuttered, which was all of them, or everyone who didn’t shout Heil Hitler at the appropriate time.

        However, let’s look at this in an empirical way. Please appease my curiosity, and give me examples of historical cancel culture of days of yore. Let’s stick to America since it’s founding, and within the same realm of meaning as when we say “cancel culture” today, so people fired, historical figures removed from the public record, people losing publishing ability, etc.

        1. In the 1940’s and 50’s people were fired and boycotted if they were thought to be ‘communists’ or sympathizers.
          In the 1960’s and 1970’s people were fired and boycotted for expressing anti-war/draft views.
          In the 1980’s people were fired for expressing opposition to the War on Drugs or for expressing homosexuality.
          In the 1990s anti-Iraq War sentiment could get you fired or boycotted.
          Just recently the people complaining about ‘cancel culture’ rushed to join Dear Leader in asking for those who do not stand for the anthem to be canceled.

          We didn’t start the fire.

          1. But that’s exactly what’s wrong with your assertion, or am I wrong that you think those things were wrong in a liberal democracy? I thought we reached a consensus that such actions should be lamented and repudiated.

            If you are now saying that punishing people for having the wrong beliefs is okay, as long as you punish the beliefs that deserve it, then you are just engaging in partisan hackery.

            I think the things you identified were miscarriages of justice and wrong, just as I think today’s Cancel Culture pogroms are. So I’m not one of these people “recently” complaining. I think it’s an anathema in a free society.

            1. I don’t think you can get around the idea of people not wanting to associate with people they think hold outrageous (in a moral sense) views (and that’s really what much ‘cancel culture’ boils down to). What are you doing to do, make them associate with them? Make them not urge other people to do not associate? I think we can urge tolerance and demand it of our government but beyond that I don’t see any solution to this age old and very human tendency that wouldn’t violate more liberty than it fosters.

              1. That’s really non-responsive, but sounds very much like you want to maintain the right to cancel people who deserve it, according to your morality.

                I agree that people as individuals do have the right to not associate with people they don’t want because of moral views. Of course the law school can change its name if it so chooses. The principle at stake here is that no Founding Father can pass the standard the law school has established for itself. That’s a dangerous illiberal development. Because it doesn’t stop there. Anyone who disagrees with its application inevitably will be categorized as a bigot, which I’m sure people like the good reverend here will heartily endorse.

                That’s my lesson from the 1950’s red hunt. I have no reason to believe the people in favor of this new standard will behave any differently. The oppressed are more than willing to become the oppressor, because they are morally correct. Plenty of people ready to ostracize Trump supporters just like outed communists were in the 50’s. The claim, both then and now, is that their beliefs were a threat to the American way of life. Meet the new boss!

                1. I thought I answered you, but I’ll try again: I don’t care for some of what’s called ‘cancel culture,’ but I think a lot of what’s called that is just people deciding they don’t want to associate with (and urge others not to associate with) people they think say or do morally outrageous things, and I think that’s a very human thing that’s not going to go away unless maybe we use government power in a way that is far more illiberal than what it’s meant to combat. I hope that’s more clear…

                  “The principle at stake here is that no Founding Father can pass the standard the law school has established for itself. ”

                  Where do you get that from? I mean, they just rejected Marshall who did in fact own other human beings, traded other human beings and arguably supported that system. I’m not sure I agree with them here but that’s some pretty bad stuff! There’s a fair number of Founders to whom this doesn’t apply and a fair number of Founders that I see no serious efforts to ‘cancel.’

                  ” Anyone who disagrees with its application inevitably will be categorized as a bigot”

                  Where’s your evidence for this? I mean, this very decision was a 6-1 decision. Do you think the dissenter is going to be canceled? I’ll make a friendly wager with you that they will not.

          2. None of those targeted beliefs were ever in mainstream US political thought. None of the movements to fire or boycott people were pushed by major corporations or backed by the media. Only the Red Scare — which was a response to a superpower that wanted to undermine and overthrow our country, and used spies and traitors to advance that goal — was ever as widespread as cancel culture has become.

            Now? In 2011, the American president’s official position was opposition to gay marriage; in 2015, that was unconstitutional. In 2012, thinking Russia was a major geopolitical adversary got you mocked; in 2016, thinking they were not our worst enemy meant you were a Russian stooge. In 1990, it was hilarious for a kindergartner to say “boys have a penis, girls have a vagina”; in 2020, it is horrible hate speech.

            How many more examples do you need?

            1. I need just one example of someone currently whining about “cancel culture” who wasn’t perfectly fine with it when it was happening to political opponents. To all the people complaining of “cancel culture” who weren’t complaining about it when it was his side cancelling his opponents, meh. so that turned around a nd bit you in the ass, didn’t it?

              1. I guess I was wrong about you being smarter than QA, because you are borrowing her stupidly false equivalence schtick on this topic.

                All these novel orthodoxies are things that used to be outside looking in — first it was “we need to allow the things”, then it became “this is the better way to talk about this”, now it is “you should be fired for disagreeing”. That progression is the essence of cancel culture, and how it is fundamentally different from the things that went before.

                1. ” it is fundamentally different from the things that went before.”

                  Yeah. fundamentally different in the sense of being not at all different. Gasp! John Lennon joked that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus! Kick him out of the country!

        2. “within the same realm of meaning as when we say “cancel culture” today”

          The problem is that the term “cancel culture” is a slippery and ambiguous one – and deliberately so. So far as I can tell, it’s “cancelling” when your side is affected, and “consequences” when it’s the other side.

          Still, going back to the founding era, it would be safe to say that Thomas Paine was cancelled for his ideas. Scores of people on both sides of the slavery abolition issue were cancelled if they deviated from the local majority. Pretty much every single person involved in the early labor movement was cancelled in some form or another.

          In terms of losing publishing ability, pretty much all of the early newspapers were party-controlled, so anything outside of that party’s line would be cancelled. In terms of being fired, America has always mostly been “at-will”, so anyone saying anything their employer did not like would be subject to cancellation.

          1. “So far as I can tell, it’s “cancelling” when your side is affected, and “consequences” when it’s the other side.”

            So far as I can tell, the term describes a “woke” movement whose intolerant fanaticism is matched by their belief in largely-false ideas – or their taking true ideas and transmogrifying them into false and hateful ideas.

            Maybe a modern Thomas Paine would have to worry about being cancelled in some social milieus, but as Kirkland reminds us, the woke* are the wave of the future and the unwoke are rapidly losing their powers – thus woke cancellationism is more of a threat than some evangelical cow college in flyover country firing a Tom Paine devotee.

            *Whom he calls liberals/libertarians

            1. “So far as I can tell, the term describes a “woke” movement whose intolerant fanaticism is matched by their belief in largely-false ideas – or their taking true ideas and transmogrifying them into false and hateful ideas.”

              The woke got the Dixie Chicks kicked off C/W radio stations?

  6. Let’s put it this way…

    Does John Marshall deserve to be cancelled? Perhaps.

    Does the public deserve to have him cancelled? No.

    1. Let’s put it this other way. I don’t particularly give a crap what the John Marshall Law School chooses to call itself. If the people who run it DO care, that’s THEIR problem and it’s up to THEM to fix their problem.

      1. Who denies that? But then, who denies that they can be criticized if they’re stupid?

        1. Besides you?

  7. “These purges will not stop with slavery. None of us are safe.”

    Good grief. Just try not to engage in or advocate for things like slavery, Jim Crow or race-based eugenics (which one would think people who call themselves ‘libertarians’ and rage against ‘tyrannies’ like mask mandates would find kind of appalling) and you’re probably going to be OK.

    Also, this is hardly a ‘purge.’ It’s not like Marshall can’t or isn’t going to be mentioned on campus, it’s just that they no longer want to *honor* him by naming their institution after him. So let’s stop with the silly hyperbole.

    1. When a few hundred people breaking into the Capitol is, “An existential threat to Democracy”, as I’ve seen many Liberals claim, accusing others of hyperbole is – hyperbole.

      1. I don’t think ‘many Liberals’ claim the hundreds breaking into the Capitol *apart* from the context of Trump and the GOP’s efforts to overturn the election results in an unprecedented fashion was the existential threat to Democracy.

        But, look, hundreds of people violently swarming the seat of power fits a threat to democracy more than calling a name change a ‘purge.’ I can guarantee you Marshall is going to be widely discussed on that campus on a regular basis. If you want to say we are wrongly dishonoring an American hero or something, ok, that makes more sense, but ‘purge’ is just a lazy, hyperbolic attempt to trade on the emotional resonance of what the Soviets and the like did. It’s cheap and inaccurate and Josh as a scholar is better than that. Leave that to the Hannity and Maddow’s of the world.

        1. So if a red state removes MLK Blvd from every street name because of….reasons….you will be completely chill with that right?

          1. I don’t know what you’re talking about but I also suspect you don’t either…

          2. “So if a red state removes MLK Blvd from every street name because of….reasons”

            Why was every street named MLK Blvd? Let me guess… reasons, right?

      2. What is the appropriate term when a few hundred people break into the capitol with the intent of violently preventing the certification of election results?

        What is the term for those who chanted “Hang Mike Pence,” because he insisted that the results had to be certified?

        1. I would apply the same term that I would apply to those who showed up at a Federal courthouse night after night and both attacked it and law enforcement – including with with incendiary devices. What term do you use for those people?

          (My preferred terms for many such people are “criminals” and believe all should be spending months, at least, in prison contemplating their poor life choices and being very concerned about Bubba’s interest in them.)

          1. Incendiary devices against stone buildings? Spray paint is only incendiary if the paint propellant is flammable.

        2. What is the appropriate term when a few hundred people break into the capitol with the intent of violently preventing the certification of election results?

          “Bullshit” is the appropriate term for that claim. A few hundred people did not “break into” the capitol, let alone do so with the intent of violently preventing anything.

          1. All those videos and indictments were staged, like the Moon Landing!

            1. The staged moon landing was OK for its time. It just doesn’t hold up fifty years later. Fifty from now the phoniness of the Capital “insurrection” will be just as obvious. Prove me wrong.

              1. To people who desperately WANT to believe it, it’s already true. But the TV cameras were recording it as it was happening.

                1. You say TV cameras. I say deep fake.

                  If there are people crazy enough to think the moon landing was fabricated, give it a few years and a large percentage of the US electorate (I’d guess the % that supports Trump, more or less) will honestly swear the capital insurrection never happened. Even now, an IPSOS poll shows >50% of Republicans think it was a left wing false flag operation designed to make Trump look bad.

                  What used to be the fringe nut jobs all reasonable people rolled our eyes at (both sides had them) now control one of our two major parties. Nothing is too deranged for them to argue insistently is empirical reality. All bets are off. We’re through the looking glass.

                  1. To people who desperately WANT to believe it, it’s already true.

      3. “When a few hundred people breaking into the Capitol is, “An existential threat to Democracy”, as I’ve seen many Liberals claim, accusing others of hyperbole is – hyperbole.”

        The fact that the insurrection was incompetently led reduces the likelihood that it will achieve its goals, but that doesn’t make it less of a threat to break something.

  8. Because Junius, Julius Caesar and Augustus were all slave holders, we should cancel June, July, and August, and move strait on to September.

    1. I thought June came from Juno?

      1. Ah, you’re right so we can just cancel two months

        1. I’m not sure how apt your analogy is. To illustrate, the Irish hate Cromwell but they don’t much hate Gaius Suetonius Paulinus. That doesn’t demonstrate that they are hypocrites.

          1. Who is talking about the Irish.
            You’re confusing “wake” with “woke”

            1. It’s an analogy Don. Do you really expect the Irish to be equally upset with Cromwell and Gaius Suetonius Paulinus? That’s not how humans and their societies work. It’s quite natural.

    2. Not an analogy.

      1. Not an analogy.

        Right. One is an example of something named after a slave owner, while the other is an example of multiple things named after multiple slave owners.

        1. Roman slavery was far different from black, imported slavery, where skin color alone meant you had no rights.

          1. If the left are willing to erase history to avoid honoring individuals who held or traded in slaves, then why don’t they continue to the logical conclusion and “cancel” Islam? The people in Africa who sold the slaves to colonial traders were and still are Muslims, and they are still at it today in most of Africa. Why isn’t anyone in the US demanding at least sanctions against the countries that are doing it?

            If the Left are willing to ignore this problem because they consider Islam above all criticism, they might as well convert and have done.

            1. “honoring individuals”
              “The people in Africa who sold the slaves ”

              I love it when some one answers themselves without knowing it…There’s something to deconstruction after all!

            2. ” The people in Africa who sold the slaves to colonial traders were and still are Muslims”

              These Muslims sure do live a long time. Must be Allah’s will, or something.

            3. “If the left are willing to erase history”

              Hate to tell you this, but
              “If my conclusion is true, then my conclusion is true”
              is poor logical construction.

          2. “Roman slavery was far different from black, imported slavery, where skin color alone meant you had no rights.”

            Yes, Roman slavery was far, far worse.

            They crucified slaves by the tens of thousands, worked them to death on mines and galleys. Treatment was so bad there were multiple mass rebellions that needed actual battles to suppress.

            But yes, all races could be enslaved. Much better.

            This US slavery was the worstest ever is massive historic revisionism.

            1. American slavery was unique because of how profoundly slaves outnumbered slaveholders, and how much the slaveholders’ way of life depended on their slaves.

              This lead to a fear of revolt that created a system of terrorism and dehumanization. Black people were not just enslaved, they were broken, their names stripped from them, their language, their faith, their family. That was not something even visited on the slavs or any system in Islam. Teaching a slave to read was a crime, because keeping blacks in dehumanized ignorance was a requirement of the system.

              Ad that doesn’t mention the forced breeding, often via forced rape. Another uniquely monstrous aspect of the American institution.

              Fear of revolt lead to an affirmative policy of breaking up families and keeping black people terrorized.

              And all of this in a country that considered itself a beacon of liberty among all mankind, a blindness and hypocrisy that must also be factored into American slavery’s towering awfulness throughout history.

              1. Slavery in the Americas generally was monstrous, not just in the United States. If a slave captured in Africa was sent to Brazil and survived the trip, he would be dead in about four years, to be replaced by another African import. Brazil was essentially a death camp.

          3. At the very least its very silly to think American blacks must be as offended by Roman slavery as American slavery or else they are hypocrites or something.

            1. You either abominate the concept of slavery or your don’t.
              I don’t buy absence of moral principle in “I am not offended as long as it is not my people.”

              1. I don’t quite agree. For a lot of cultures, slavery is akin to peasantry. (e.g. Serfs, slavs, etc)

                Not that a moral society has such people either, but the statement that all slavery must be equally abominated is missing some semantic nuance.

              2. “You either abominate the concept of slavery or your don’t.”

                All them slaves look alike, anyway.

      2. Because you say so. Understood.

    3. “and move strait on to September”

      Would sure save on the air-conditioning bill!

      1. At least some people got the point of the comment

    4. Tell the Aussies to skip winter and just go right back to another fire season. Not sure they’ll jump at the chance.

  9. What about Washington, D.C. Named after a slave owner.

    Let’s rename it. New Mecca sounds about right.

    1. If you’d take the time to talk to some anti-racists and listen you might be surprised to find that many of them find Washington and honoring him to be complicated, on the one hand he did own slaves (iirc he married into that) but also by the end of his life manumitted them.

      1. No, I won’t raise my fist. No, I won’t “say his/her name.” No, I won’t “take the time to talk to some [annoying self-absorbed malcontents].” It’s still a free county, damn it! (Well, at least to that extent.)

        (I get the feeling that the “anti-racist activists” are less bothered by racism than by the fact that no one pays attention to them.)

        1. Wow, talk about touchy. I said ‘if,’ it was a suggestion, not an order, in case you wanted to, I dunno, understand the people you want to yell about. But go ahead and yell at caricatures if it makes you feel better…

        2. “(I get the feeling that the “anti-racist activists” are less bothered by racism than by the fact that no one pays attention to them.)”

          …says the guy getting visibly irritated that nobody is paying attention to him.

    2. Yep, the most powerful, prosperous, and free nation in the history of the world is and always has been evil, and at war with eastasia. Just ask Kirkland.

    3. “What about Washington, D.C. Named after a slave owner.”

      DC comics now credits the creators of the iconic characters they continue to profit from. Bill Finger got the shaft for several decades, but now gets billing with Bob Kane for creating Batman. Siegel and Schuster get credit for the strange visitor from another world. The standard contracts are quite restrictive, but not really in the realm of “slavery” and the creators are free to leave.

  10. The truth is the entire federal government — judiciary, executive and legislature — was controlled by slave interests right up until the 1850s.

    1. Sure that is correct to some extent. Slaves were property and most of what the federal government did during that era was protect property and keep interstate commerce regular. Also, traditionally, the role of government is to protect property and property rights. So you are really just saying the government did what it was designed to do during a period it was supposed to do that almost exclusively. So do we need to cancel the racist federal government now?

      1. You don’t seem to recognize the distinction between black people and horses. They’re not both property.

        During the entire period up to the Civil War, a majority of the Supreme Court were slaveowners. Those who weren’t tended to be supportive of slavery (e.g., Taney).

        For 50 of those 72 years, the President was a slaveowner. The ones who won two terms were all slaveowners. Only the two Adamses were anti-slavery and each served only one term.

        And because of the 3/5 rule, Congress was overwhelmingly controlled by slaveholding interests. By the 1840’s it was still in Southern hands despite the South having only one fourth the voting eligible population.

      2. “So do we need to cancel the racist federal government now?”

        No, that was (largely) fixed in 1868.

    2. If it was controlled by slave interests up until the 1850’s, then what was the Missouri Compromise in 1820 all about?

      The truth is that Slavery interests were fighting a rearguard retreat the the whole of the 1800’s, new slaves were barred from importation by the constitution, the non-slave states were growing faster and asserting their opposition to slavery.

      1. When Oregon was petitioning for statehood, they tried to stay out of the slavery/abolition debate via the simple expedient of prohibiting black persons from living in the state. Must’ve worked, because Oregon was admitted to the Union.

    3. I wouldn’t say controlled, I’d say significantly influenced. And that’s what’s kind of sad about this to me, there are plenty of Founders and leaders of the early Republic who did the right thing relative to their time on this issue, we don’t need to cling to role models that fell far, far short even compared to their peers.

  11. “Marshall’s legacy as one of the nation’s most significant U.S. Supreme Court justices”

    His real legacy is judicial review. I trust these iconoclasts will now oppose judicial review as a product of slavery.

  12. So outrageous Biden should declare Marshall Law….I’ll see myself out.

    1. Super Joe who graduated in the top half of his law school. Except that he didn’t. Who got caught lifting five pages from a law review article and claimed it as his own.
      Super Joe who makes live tough for his staff by peppering them with lots of questions on minor issues. It’s his way of showing his superiority to people that he is afraid may be smarter than him. Just keep asking questions where they won’t know the answers.

      1. You know what they call the guy who plagiarized in law school but got more than 270 electoral votes?


  13. It has been awhile since I have read Camp of the Saints, but isn’t canceling all the Western historical figures a subplot in it? Seems I recall exactly what that book predicted would happen is taking place as we speak.

    1. “It has been awhile since I have read Camp of the Saints”

      Drew Brees wrote a book?

  14. Third-rate law school changes its name. BFD.

  15. John Marshall has made its decision, now let them enforce…

    Oh. Well played.

  16. From recent news:

    “Emily Wilder, a journalist and 2020 graduate of Stanford University, started a new job as an Associated Press news associate based in Maricopa County, Arizona, on May 3.

    Two weeks later, she was unceremoniously fired by the news outlet after conservatives resurfaced old social media posts that drew attention from Republicans as prominent as Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton.”

    I eagerly await the principled opponents of “cancel culture” to take up her cause.

    1. Or the journalist denied tenure at UNC this week.

      Again, cancel culture is the norm, and those complaining about it love it when it suits them.

      1. I love the framing – a discredited hack gets a prestigious journalism-professor appointment, but the appointment is (potentially) limited to a mere 5 years. Which is five years more than she should have gotten, so she should look at the glass as half-full.

        1. “a discredited hack”

          Are you talking about Richard Epstein (who has tenure at Chicago)?

          See, one partisan’s ‘discredited hack’ is another partisan’s ‘more than qualified candidate.’ As you can see from my example these kind of people get tenure commonly, the difference here involves all the elements of what your side complains of as ‘cancel culture’ (coordinated social media and special interest campaign to deny her because of her views). But, as we can also see, your side thinks this is totes justified when it works your way, because you can always rationalize it as ‘well, her views were *wrong* so she deserved it!’

          1. I hadn’t even heard of this Epstein fellow. If he was a discredited hack at the time he was hired he shouldn’t have been hired much less given tenure. (I said *if* – I’m not simply going to rely on your unsupported claims against him.)

            Are you seeking a truce where each side gets to appoint its own hacks to university positions? Or are you engaging in the *totally useful and productive* activity of Internet mind-reading?

            1. “Are you seeking a truce where each side gets to appoint its own hacks to university positions? ”

              I thought I answered this when I said “one partisan’s ‘discredited hack’ is another partisan’s ‘more than qualified candidate.’”

              Conservatives don’t like the 1619 project and they think it’s been DISCREDITED and therefore this person associated with it is a HACK.

              But you know, liberals just as much hated John Lott’s work and will swear it has been DISCREDITED and therefore he is a bona fide HACK.

              A coordinated attempt to deny either of these two by the respected offended side is exactly what ‘cancel culture’ is supposed to be. It’s not justified because you think your side has totally DISCREDITED the person. These things are more subjective than that.

              The woman in question has won awards that if your kid as a parent of if your faculty as a Dean had won you’d be beaming about. She’s more than qualified, she should have been given tenure. But she was the target of a halfway successful cancel campaign.

              1. The historians Sean Wilentz, Victoria Bynum, James McPherson, James Oakes, and Gordon Wood (would you consider them deep-cover right wing operatives?) wrote the Times, in a spirit of constructive criticism, challenging several points of her narrative, eg, that the American Revolution was fought to defend slavery. When the Times doubled down on its claims, Wilentz doubled down on the criticisms in an article for a right-wing fake-news source called The Atlantic:


                Without the aid of a Helm of Telepathy, you have no way of knowing whether I support academic appointments for Lott or Epstein, so your attempt at whataboutism fails.

                1. (Even though Walter Duranty and Hannah Nicole-Jones both won Pulitzers, I wouldn’t recommend academic positions for either of them. Not even for Duranty, who in his current condition is less of a danger to students.)

                  1. “Even though Walter Duranty and Hannah Nicole-Jones both won Pulitzers, I wouldn’t recommend academic positions for either of them.”

                    Ms. Nicole-Jones was offered a five-year contract, so denying her tenure hasn’t prevented her from working in an academic position; she’ll keep the same office at UNC-Chapel Hill unless she’d rather work somewhere else. This has been on the local news in Raleigh quite heavily, although I think some people were disappointed that the protests on the matter didn’t result in riots.

                    1. “denying her tenure hasn’t prevented her from working in an academic position”

                      Who said it had?

                    2. You weren’t recommending an academic position for her last weekend, remember?

                2. Some historians ‘challenged several points of her narrative’ and that is supposed to mean she’s a discredited hack?

                  You do know lots of other historians supported her work including those ‘several points of her narrative,’ right?

                  And you do know that pretty much every historian (or any other academic in any field) has had ‘several points’ of their work challenged, right?

                  I mean, was Stephen Hawking a ‘discredited hack?’ Because he was more than challenged on ‘several points’ of his cosmological ‘narrative.’ Einstein had several major parts of his ‘narrative’ ‘challenged’ (indeed, we know now he was flat wrong about some things! What a DISCREDITED HACK!’).

                  See, this isn’t about ‘whataboutism’ it’s about you applying an unrealistic standard as a rationale for supporting this instance of what would otherwise be called ‘cancel culture.’ And guess what? Most people who support any instance of ‘cancel culture’ are doing something similar.

                  1. “Some historians ‘challenged several points of her narrative’ and that is supposed to mean she’s a discredited hack?”

                    No, what makes her a discredited hack is the fact that (to quote the Wilentz article), she used “falsehoods, distortions, and significant omissions,” and her work was so bad as to warrant comparison to neo-Confederates and other Southern apologists:

                    “Assertions that a primary reason the Revolution was fought was to protect slavery are as inaccurate as the assertions, still current, that southern secession and the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.”

                    1. By all means, compare her to Stephen Hawking and Einstein if you’d like, it certainly bolsters your cause.

                    2. First of all, how are they ‘falsehoods, distortions and significant omissions’ as opposed to possibly being ..wrong or ignorant of some things? I mean, again, Hawking and Einstein were, according to current consensus, flat wrong about several things each in their field. Were they wrong by ‘falsehoods, distortions and significant omissions?’ Should we assume they were discredited hacks who should have been denied tenure?

                      Wilentz (the letter writer) thinks the 1619 Project’s ‘narrative’ (dude, when you’re talking ‘narratives,’ which is an interpretation of history, you’re going to get lots of contesting, there can be lots of reasonable and evidence based ‘narratives’ of historical moments) was wrong and I guess even ‘false, distorted, etc.’ But that narrative was based on and supported by other professional academic historians as reputable as the letter writer. To quote the Times response to Wilentz: “The work of various historians, among them David Waldstreicher and Alfred W. and Ruth G. Blumrosen, supports the contention that uneasiness among slaveholders in the colonies about growing antislavery sentiment in Britain and increasing imperial regulation helped motivate the Revolution. One main episode that these and other historians refer to is the landmark 1772 decision of the British high court in Somerset v. Stewart. The case concerned a British customs agent named Charles Stewart who bought an enslaved man named Somerset and took him to England, where he briefly escaped. Stewart captured Somerset and planned to sell him and ship him to Jamaica, only for the chief justice, Lord Mansfield, to declare this unlawful, because chattel slavery was not supported by English common law.

                      It is true, as Professor Wilentz has noted elsewhere, that the Somerset decision did not legally threaten slavery in the colonies, but the ruling caused a sensation nonetheless. Numerous colonial newspapers covered it and warned of the tyranny it represented. Multiple historians have pointed out that in part because of the Somerset case, slavery joined other issues in helping to gradually drive apart the patriots and their colonial governments. The British often tried to undermine the patriots by mocking their hypocrisy in fighting for liberty while keeping Africans in bondage, and colonial officials repeatedly encouraged enslaved people to seek freedom by fleeing to British lines. For their part, large numbers of the enslaved came to see the struggle as one between freedom and continued subjugation. As Waldstreicher writes, “The black-British alliance decisively pushed planters in these [Southern] states toward independence.”

                      The culmination of this was the Dunmore Proclamation, issued in late 1775 by the colonial governor of Virginia, which offered freedom to any enslaved person who fled his plantation and joined the British Army. A member of South Carolina’s delegation to the Continental Congress wrote that this act did more to sever the ties between Britain and its colonies “than any other expedient which could possibly have been thought of.” The historian Jill Lepore writes in her recent book, “These Truths: A History of the United States,” “Not the taxes and the tea, not the shots at Lexington and Concord, not the siege of Boston; rather, it was this act, Dunmore’s offer of freedom to slaves, that tipped the scales in favor of American independence.” And yet how many contemporary Americans have ever even heard of it? Enslaved people at the time certainly knew about it. During the Revolution, thousands sought freedom by taking refuge with British forces.”

                    3. So now you’re persisting with the Hawking/Einstein comparisons, and making a prominent Princeton professor – whose progressive credentials were heretofore impeccable – the heavy? What sinister agenda could he have?

                    4. “By all means, compare her to Stephen Hawking and Einstein if you’d like, it certainly bolsters your cause.”

                      Do you dispute Hawking and Einstein had several “points of their narratives challenged?” In fact, there’s a much greater consensus among academic physicists that in several areas their narratives are not just challenge-able but appear to be flat wrong.

                      So are they discredited hacks? What’s your criteria for whose work falls into that category (I suspect it’s ‘I don’t like what she posited’ which would at least be consistent)?

                    5. “making a prominent Princeton professor – whose progressive credentials were heretofore impeccable – the heavy? ”

                      I’m making no one a heavy, I’m sorry if that’s your go to understanding of this. Academics disagree about the correctness of each other’s work all the time, they say the other’s conclusions or ‘narratives’ are wrong because they failed to consider X or omitted Y or described Z dishonestly. This is especially true in a ‘soft’ or ‘humanities’ field like history. There is no ‘heavy’ or ‘hero,’ that’s for people who are partisans I guess. It’s just the nature of the game. And because someone disagrees with your narrative or you theirs that doesn’t make them a ‘discredited hack.’

                      I mean, take someone like Camille Paglia. Some people think her academic work, including her early work like Sexual Personae, was full of omissions, distortions, etc., in order to fit things into the ‘narrative’ or hypothesis she was asserting. Other people think it was largely insightful and supported. But she’s hardly a ‘discredited hack’ who should be denied tenure if the former people are, say, correct by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ (which is about the only standard you’re going to make stick in these fields).

                      This is about partisanship. People don’t like what the journalist said. She’s obviously a very capable, smart, productive journalist. The most that can be said is that her work is supported by many academics and criticized by some. Nothing to deny tenure in there.

                      But, if you add ‘people were mad about what she said’ now it makes sense.

                      But that’s cancel culture to a T.

                    6. Did Einstein and Hawking make use of “falsehoods, distortions, and significant omissions”? Were they worthy of comparison with neo-Confederates for the absurdity of their conclusions?

                      Just as a reminder, Sean Wilentz ought to be able to out-woke the New York Times or just about anyone else. His works seek to shift historiography in a more progressive direction. He’s written for publications so woke that they make the New York Times look like the old Manchester Union-Leader.


                      His attack on a fellow-wokester is man-bites-dog, pretty much a declaration contrary to his own interest. And similar considerations apply to at least most of the other historians who joined him in protesting to the New York Times.

                      In what scenario would Wilentz et. al. risk their precious woke points to attack the historical equivalent of Einstein or Hawking? Jealousy, perhaps? Perhaps they were bought off by the white supremacists?

                    7. “Academics disagree about the correctness of each other’s work all the time”

                      Do they routinely denounce each other in the pages of the New York Times and the Atlantic, invoking the spectres of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin and fake news?

                      “The New York Times has taken a lead in combatting the degradation of truth and assault on a free press propagated by Donald Trump’s White House, aided and abetted by Vladimir Putin’s Russia, and spun by the far right on social media. American democracy is in a perilous condition, and the Times can report on that danger only by upholding its standards “without fear or favor.” That is why it is so important that lapses such as those pointed out in our letter receive attention and timely correction.”

                      Is that routine?

                    8. (Incidentally, I would have to presume that the 1619 Project, when taught in schools, is taught with the reservations and understandings you mention – that Jones’ interpretation is simply one perspective among many, that academics like her disagree with each other all the time, that history is a soft science where you should be cautious about hard and fast conclusions.)

                    9. Cal,
                      Wilentz seems to have a long history of crankiness and injecting himself into debates more political than academic. You know, he sent his letter to quite a bit more scholars than the four who signed it with him, others who refused thought the tone, the kind of charges of falsehoods and distortions, was over the top.

                      Also, you don’t know much about the far Left and especially the academic segment of it. Nasty infighting is quite common. And anyone who thinks a former editor at the New Republic is on the far left of woke culture, well, thanks for the laugh today. What you’ve got is an older Left-Liberal who is very angry about the work of someone doing what Fox news would call critical race theory, and yes that can get nasty (again, Wilentz kind of has a history on this).

                      So, you’ve got one major historian who writes a letter and four sign it that attack her work, and you’ve got many other major historians who support it. You do get this is like any field at any time, right? Freud v. Jung. Rogers v. Mayo. Chomsky v. Skinner (to take some examples from my field). Few academics who took Jung’s side over Freuds or Mayo’s or Chomsky over Skinners would think the others were therefore ‘discredited hacks’ who should be denied tenure.

                      But cancel culture folks that didn’t like what those people said? Yeah, they’d be all in.

                    10. Also, since we’re talking Hawking, I mentioned him because I just happened to finish a biography of him recently. I’m no expert in this field, but the biography talked about how Einstein, for example, put things in his ‘narratives’ just because he didn’t like to think of the universe being otherwise (like his ‘biggest blunder’ the cosmological constant debate with Hubble). And Hawking seemed to have been accused of playing fast and loose with his conclusions, changing his tune to make his past statements seem less wrong, taking credit of others, etc.

                    11. I hadn’t known those things about Einstein and Hawking – I’m afraid it isn’t really my field, either.

                      At least we’re making some progress beyond this simply being between “[my] side” (right) and yours (left) – there’s also some “[n]asty” left-wing “infighting” involved, and I suppose you could say that conservatives have *pounced* on it – understandably agreeing with those leftists who strongly disagree with Jones’ interpretation of our country’s founding.

                      So what is your “side” to do when “our side” gets ahold of a nasty controversy among left-wing academics and uses it to “our” advantage?

                    12. Cal, this happens on the Right side of scholarship too, see for example Jaffa vs. Weaver or Posner on…well, lots of people :).

                      It certainly doesn’t mean any of them were discredited hacks.

                    13. Well, I suppose we’re approaching the key issue – will her historical idea be taught your way – as one viewpoint among others, with disagreement even on the progressive side – or in a dogmatic way, with grade-schoolers and university students told that her perspective represents True History and that other perspectives are Soft on White Supremacy.

                      I don’t know if high school history textbooks still have little “teach the conflict” sidebars, but I suppose when they get to the causes of the Revolutionary or Civil Wars, they could have sidebars about diverse perspectives (The Civil War wasn’t about slavery! Yes, it was! The Revolutionary War was about slavery! No, it wasn’t!).

                      And on the journalism-school level, I suppose it’s possible (during her lamentably short five-year tenure, unless renewed) that Jones will tell her students the importance of seeking out multiple sources of info and not shoving everything into a narrative.

                      I can’t prove that those things *won’t* happen.

                      Of course, this assumes that her attitude allows for the sort of nuance you acknowledge.

                      I’d link to the Washington Post about her attitudes to critics, but it’s paywalled and I’ll link to this quotation from the article (using, sadly, a right-wing site, but they say they’re getting it from the Post):

                      “Hannah Jones reportedly became furious when Stephen’s oped came out. “She sent vitriolic emails to both Kingsbury and Stephens ahead of publication. She also tweeted that efforts to discredit her work ‘put me in a long tradition of [Black women] who failed to know their places.’ She changed her Twitter bio to ‘slanderous and nasty-minded mulattress’— a reference to the trailblazing journalist Ida B. Wells, whom the Times slurred with those same words in 1894.””

                      But maybe she got over herself, or not:

                      “The Washington Post notes, too, that Hannah-Jones has walked back some of her ire at the reporting of the project’s problems, writing that “she acknowledges that for all the experts she consulted, she should have sat down with scholars with particular focus on colonial history, the Revolutionary War and the Civil War.”

                      “”I should have been more careful,” Hannah-Jones said, “because I don’t think that any other fact would have given people the fodder that this has, and I am tortured by it. I’m absolutely tortured by it.””


                    14. Again,

                      “she should have sat down with scholars with particular focus on colonial history, the Revolutionary War and the Civil War”


              2. “she should have been given tenure. But she was the target of a halfway successful cancel campaign.”

                The faculty tenure committee recommended tenure, and now THEY’RE hacked off because their recommendation was ignored.

                1. “their recommendation”

                  Non-binding, I suppose.

      2. I’ve got no problem with not rewarding someone for shoddy and dishonest journalism.

        If the lesson the journalism department wants to teach is that the way to promote a political and social justice agenda is to distort history in a divisive campaign, then they should give her tenure.

      3. “cancel culture is the norm, and those complaining about it love it when it suits them”

        Bring it on. Its lib dominated media and entertainment areas most affected.

        A few conservatives getting caught is unfortunate but well worth it.

      4. Why do you think that a person at tenured at one university automatically gets tenure at another. It does not work that way. Calling that “being cancelled” is just a bit of sophistry to defend the odious practice of the drumming people out of positions that they hold based on holier-than-thou attitudes

        1. “Why do you think that a person at tenured at one university automatically gets tenure at another. It does not work that way. Calling that ‘being cancelled'”

          The faculty at her own school wanted her to be given tenure.

    2. IIRC, the AP was vulnerable after proclaiming that it had *no idea* it shared a headquarters building with Hamas.

      It’s a matter of framing – do we lead with “conservatives pounce at old tweets by Stanford graduate” or “newly-hired AP reporter once equated white conservatives and zionists, referred to prominent Jewish conservatives with rhetoric about naked mole rats and turds.”

      1. Yes, she apparently had the temerity to insult Sheldon Adelson in a tweet some years ago, and apparently “equated white conservatives and zionists”, whatever that means. Apparently that is problematic enough to justify cancelling in your mind (a position I’m sure you apply evenhandedly to ideological friend and foe alike).

        1. I’m not saying she was unqualified, by the AP’s standards, to work for them, it’s simply a matter of timing.

    3. I certainly can’t defend the AP’s decision to fire her, they don’t seem to have very strong principles to defend.

      It may just be after their laughable assertions that they had no idea they were sharing office space with Hamas that they needed a sacrifice to divert attention.

      1. “sharing office space with Hamas”

        Is there any proof that this was true? (other than the IDF and State Dept.’s say-so, obviously).

        1. I’ll have to remember that even leftists realize the Biden administration is so bad at evaluating evidence that we can’t trust what members of this administration say in their areas of expertise.

          1. You’re surprised that leftists don’t take the word of the Biden State Department?? You must be one of those guys who doesn’t realize there’s a difference between leftists and liberals, otherwise this is utterly incoherent.

    4. Headline: “AP Fires New Staffer for Supporting Palestine in College…”

      In the text of the article: “A spokesperson for the wire service confirmed that “she was dismissed for violations of AP’s social media policy during her time at AP.”

      Is that saying she did something she shouldn’t have during her brief employment stint, or that AP’s policy is ‘you can’t have ever said anything controversial, even before we hired you’?

      WaPo has an article today that says “On Sunday, she posted on Twitter her criticism of how the news media describes the situation … ‘Objectivity’ feels fickle when the basic terms we use to report news implicitly stake a claim,” she wrote. “Using ‘israel’ but never ‘palestine,’ or ‘war’ but not ‘siege and occupation’ are political choices — yet media make those exact choices all the time without being flagged as biased.”

      It goes on “Wilder acknowledged that she may have violated the company’s social media policies, which ban employees from voicing political opinions, …”

      “The company’s social media policy states that “AP employees must refrain from declaring their views on contentious public issues in any public forum and must not take part in organized action in support of causes or movements.””

      So that sounds like she continued to post after she was hired. I think that AP has a valid business interest in being perceived as an impartial journalistic source. It sounds like she wanted to continue her activism. That’s fine, but it does seem incompatible with what AP needs from its employees.

  17. ” None of us are safe. ”

    Not even Liz Cheney, or the other elected Republicans being canceled by conservatives for failure to support right-wing lies, ignorance, delusion, and bigotry?

    Keep nipping at the ankles of your betters, clingers. It won’t change anything, but it might make you feel better about getting defeated by your betters in America’s marketplace of ideas.

  18. When the ASSOL-class conservatives renamed a law school for former Justice Scalia, were they canceling George Mason?

    I guess you can’t properly lather the rubes these days while being fastidious about reason, principle, consistency, logic, or facts.

  19. I’m curious everyone thinks about Stanford being renamed. Mr. Stanford seems pretty odious, so a natural candidate in 2021. BUT…Stanford ain’t John Marshall law school. A lot of powerful people, including many liberals, are proud Stanford alumni —- who donate a ton of money to the school. I imagine they don’t want their diplomas to be outdated, and to have to call themselves grads of a new school name. Same goes for Yale.

    Will only the third/fourth tier schools be renamed? Or will the convictions be strong enough to overcome elite/donor resistance to renaming Yale and Stanford?

    1. Iirc more than a few top tier schools have renamed buildings, places, etc., within their campuses though any re-naming at the entire institution level I’m not aware of (but then I’m not aware of anyone acquiring them as happened here).

      1. My law school added a name after I graduated…the building has one name, the law school has another name. A dead white man left a lot of money to the law school. But now there is litigation because the law school is not using the endowment in accordance with the terms of the bequest. Such fun.

        1. So a dead guy is suing your law school?

      2. “Iirc more than a few top tier schools have renamed buildings, places, etc., within their campuses though any re-naming at the entire institution level I’m not aware of”

        Don’t know how top-tier their law school is (if they have one) but Ohio State University has it’s football players who go pro call it “The” Ohio State University, in case you confused it for all the other Ohio State universities.

        ” I’m not aware of anyone acquiring them as happened here”

        I went to the Northwestern School of Law, which merged with Lewis and Clark College at some point in the past to become the Northwestern School of Law at Lewis and Clark College. They’ve already gone through their round of introspection over the fact that Clark brought his slave with him on the Corps of Discovery Expedition.

    2. Harvard. Defund and shut down this treason indoctrination camp built on the backs of enslaved people.

  20. Since the Arabs practiced slavery (according to Wikipedia it was still legal in Saudi Arabia until nineteen hundred and sixty two) we should cancel the use of Arabic numbers. Also, since Isaac Newton may have benefited from the slave trade we should cancel the use of calculus.

    1. This is talking about not honoring the man, they’re still going to talk about Marshall quite a bit, so your attempts at being oh so cute worked out about as well as Moff Gideon’s plans with Grogu.

    2. “Since the Arabs practiced slavery (according to Wikipedia it was still legal in Saudi Arabia until nineteen hundred and sixty two) we should cancel the use of Arabic numbers. ”

      Arabic numbers didn’t come from the arabs. they were invented in India, and the arabs adopted them before they got to Europe. Should we cancel the arabic numbers from India because the Indians weren’t here waiting to greet Columbus?

    3. ” since Isaac Newton may have benefited from the slave trade we should cancel the use of calculus.”

      Leibniz didn’t benefit from any of Newton’s slaves.

      You needed a bit more mathematical education than you actually got.

  21. They can name it the Jesse Jackson School of Law. Or they could name it after Thurgood Marshall (though the other Thurgood Marshall School of Law might object). Heck, just prohibit any law school from bearing the name of a white person.

    1. Maybe just prohibit law schools from naming themselves after random dead people who have no connection to the school. Keep alive the system wherein schools and school buildings are named after whichever alumni ponied up the bucks to build them. In that system, you do still have the problem of buildings named after people you’d rather not be associated with, but that just gives you some pull when you hit up the alumni for building money. “Hey, will you kick in some money for renovations on the Hitler building? For $50, we’ll put your name on a brick in the courtyard, or for $500,000 it can be the [your name] building.”

  22. The Amendments appear to be fighting each other. Fourteen to Sixteen seem to have the upper hand, but I wouldn’t count One to Ten out quite yet. There’s a certain epistemic power in originary concepts, however personally unsavoury the 18th c. enlightened ones speaking them might seem to us now.s

    And I have a feeling that Marshall, CJ could have been persuaded away from the prevailing exploitations of the age with a good conversation over a few bottles of Virginia red tavern wine.

    Mr. D.

  23. I’m not familiar with the John Marshall Law School, so I’m starting with an assumption. John Marshall didn’t have anything to do with it, they decided that the John Marshall brand law school would do better than the John Q Randomguy law school, so they went with the first one.
    Their attempt to grab some reflected glory is turning out to have some unfortunate side effects. I have the same sympathy I had for OJ Simpson-branded kitchen knives.

  24. Since LAW is just a relic of white supremacy, we need to abolish law school and replace it with Social Justice school where we guide people (since TEACHING is also a relic of white supremacy) so that they understand power structures, race, and degrees of victimhood.

    In this new system, the person with the most victimhood points will always be the most virtuous and must always prevail in any dispute.

  25. The school should have been renamed after a Pokemon, Super Mario, or Spongebob character.

    At least that way the whole thing would have been treated with the seriousness that it merits.

    1. The Mario Mario school of law sounds like it would be fun to attend.

Please to post comments