Free Speech

Three Excellent Items on TrapHouseGate and Yale Law School

|

  1. David Lat (Original Jurisdiction), "The Latest (Ridiculous) Controversy At Yale Law School".
  2. David Lat, "The Yale Law School Email Controversy: An Interview With Trent Colbert" (Colbert is the student who wrote the e-mail), and
  3. Conor Friedersdorf (Atlantic), "A Worrisome Peek Inside Yale Law's Diversity Bureaucracy".

NEXT: The Second Amendment vs. the Seventh Amendment: Procedural Rights and the Problem of Incorporation

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. Not sure blog aggregating is what people come here for.

    1. Well, I like to give readers what they want -- but I also like to give other writers credit where credit is due, when they've done considerably more work than I have on a subject that I've been writing about. Readers who want to follow the links will, readers who don't won't.

      1. Professor V, I concur.

        Criticism directed at you should be rooted in such things as your narrow conception of state action or your position that there is a libertarian case for mandatory administration of experimental medicine particularly where the basis of such a position rests upon a plethora of erroneous assumptions of fact.

        1. And when he is posting on those topics, commenting on your disagreement would be germane. Not particularly interesting, but germane.

      2. Thanks for posting these. I've read them already, but they deserve wider attention. David Lat is a new find, but I've subscribed to the Atlantic for 30 years of more and always read Conor Friedersdorf, even if I don't always agree with him.

        1. I agree. The article was very good, and I likely wouldn't have seen it if not for it being linked here. Sadly, the tepid criticism (but still criticism) of the likes of Ruth Marcus and others is basically trying to stipulate away bad facts, but I suspect that the DIE offices of most universities are like that.

      3. Professor Volokh, the links were helpful. Thank you.

      4. Forget the nitpicking that goes on around here. These people are worthless bookworms, and clueless about the real world.

        Yale should lose its tax exemption immediately for engaging in indoctrination instead of providing education.

    2. Speak for yourself - I was happy to see links to articles I didn't know existed. If you're a kiddie, you might not know that 'hyper-links' were the whole point of the World Wide Web. We're not in a locked room here - there's more to learn and think about.

      What a strange response. Maybe no breakfast.

      1. Not sure blog aggregating is what people come here for.

        I'm pretty sure that comments like that one aren't what anyone comes here for.

      2. Not "strange" at all, I'll bet. More likely motivated by a desire to pull the curtain over his team clowning itself.

    3. To be a little plainer, I do like when you're linking to other articles and talking about them. I'd rather see that.

    4. Look at that. 124 replies and counting. Looks like the post did its job.

    5. How many posts here are straight aggregation versus discussion? If this was the norm for half the posts then you've got a valid complaint but as it stands this is just wider reading for a topic already covered here.

    1. Do you expect Prof. Volokh or the Volokh Conspiracy to acknowledge that issue?

      1. His readers don't want to hear about it.

        1. Except perhaps accompanied by nods, smiles, and whispers at Federalist Society events.

          1. "whispers at Federalist Society events."

            I just go for the chicken.

            1. The Chick-fil-A chicken they buy to lack-of-virtue signal to gay-bashing bigots or the fried chicken they feature to bait liberals and amuse racists?

              Not that the distinction matters much

              1. It's just chicken, Arthur. Calm down.

                They're both delicious.

        1. MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING

    2. From that link: "If there had been a serious denial or a complete mea culpa by Clanton, this would be a very different situation. As the reporter for the Post said...'We all do stupid things when we are young, and some of us do terrible things. We should allow some space for repentance and forgiveness. But there is no evidence of repentance here...'"

      That sounds reasonable, but unfortunately there are many cases where a sincere apology is simply not accepted and people still have to endure "consequences/accountability" for many years after they've long been sorry about their past mistake. So, one might understandably conclude that even if she were to apologize, the goal post would simply move yet again...

      1. This is less about her than it is about Pryor. If there is no public record of a remorseful apology, then Pryor needs to explain there was one (or the story was fake), because otherwise it seems like he’s countenancing anti-Black racism in his chambers. Which calls into question his ability to be a fair judge.

        1. Pryor doesn't "need" to do anything. The fact that members of the chattering class wish to complain about something that is none of their business does not impose any obligation upon others to respond.

          1. It's hard to see how the activities of government employees is none of the public's business.

            1. How many reporters cover the "who got hired as a federal appellate law clerk" beat? A couple hundred people, give or take, get hired for such jobs each year. Can you name all the others, and direct me to the stories providing complete analyses of each and every one of their social media and texting histories, going back to age 18?

              1. Nonresponsive. Whether many people care is an entirely separate question from whether it's their business.

      2. Standard, good, advice, is never apologize if you have nothing to apologize for .The Wokers take it as a sign of weakness. They smell blood in the water and will come for you twice as hard. Remember: they aren't truly offended: the point is to find a good opportunity to show your power to ruin people. For example, eminent Prof. Bright Sheng at Michigan apologized abjectly for showing Othello in his class, and it did him no good whatsoever.

        1. Remember: they aren’t truly offended: the point is to find a good opportunity to show your power to ruin people.

          I actually am truly offended that one of the most powerful members of the federal judiciary is 1) appearing to countenance anti-Black racism 2) is utterly contemptuous of the public who has an interest in non-racist courts by refusing to comment.

        2. Maybe other people have apologized for things they shouldn't have, but are you suggesting that this statement is okay and the sort of thing no one should ever apologize for:

          "I hate black people. Like f--- them all … I hate blacks. End of story"

          'Cause that's what we're talking about here; not showing Othello in a classroom.

    3. This has been discussed repeatedly...

      You have a single 4 year old text from a woman to a single person, a text she says she has no recollection of, and which she says doesn't represent her values then or now. You have zero other incidents of any alleged racist behavior from this woman.

      And you'd like to deny her a clerkship based on it an alleged screenshot of a text from 4 years ago, and presumably the rest of her career.

      What you're engaging in is cancel culture at it's worst. And it's extreme hypocrisy because it's clear you don't hold your own politicians to anywhere near the same standard.

      1. Not true: after she left TPUSA she was sharing racist memes about Arabs.

        1. "Sharing a racist meme about Arabs"?

          That's some really weak sauce there. Not even a comment on her own, not even about the same race (but Arabs, who are technically White), but "sharing a racist meme"?

          And don't think we didn't notice the complete lack of a link of any sort, so there's no way to put your characterization in context....

          I mean, are you stalking this poor woman, and this is all you have? Sharing a "racist meme about Arabs"?

          1. It was in the New Yorker article, dude.

            And "poor woman" give me a break., She's associated with some of the most powerful people in the country, she doesn't deserve your pity.

            1. So, you don't actually know the meme or the context?

              Interesting....

              1. https://www.mediaite.com/online/exclusive-clarence-thomas-wife-hired-ex-tpusa-staffer-known-for-saying-i-hate-blacks/

                My apologies. The meme story was in Mediaite. Make of that what you will. (I know you'll claim HOAX!) so don't bother responding.

                1. I see. So the apparently super racist individual was working for....the African American wife of the only African American Supreme Court Justice.

                  Wow.

                  And the "Racist meme" was a picture of a maybe Arab, maybe white with a caption "Just thinking about ways to do another 9/11.” Which of course couldn't be published for some reason...

                  Why do you hate this woman so much?

                  1. “So the apparently super racist individual was working for….the African American wife of the only African American Supreme Court Justice.”

                    Literally going with the some of my best friends excuse, huh?

                    “ Why do you hate this woman so much?”

                    I don’t. What I hate is a federal judge appearing to tolerate racism in his chambers and refuse to explain himself.

                    1. Literally going with the some of my best friends excuse, huh?

                      No, he's going with the "I am an idiot" excuse. Ginni Thomas is not African American.

                    2. That too. I was being charitable.

                    3. Apologies...I didn't memorize the race of Ginni Thomas.

                      There's no racism here. She said those comments don't represent her views.

                  2. Is Ginni Thomas African American ?

                    1. My bad.

                    2. Certainly not for most people. But if she self-identifies as such ( an hypothetical) then we should agree that she is.

                2. I do cherish how the woke believe any cultural attack is racist. Anti-China? RACIST! Anti-Islam? RACIST!

                  The woke also don't understand the phrase Actions Speak Louder than Words.

                  1. If you are anti-Chinese and not simply anti-CCP/Chinese government then that is racist. Or bigoted if you want to make fine distinctions.

                3. I'd be a lot less likely to suspect a hoax if they had actually provided any evidence of these supposed racist posts. But they didn't, and I'm done with assuming news reports that can't be bothered to provide evidence are trustworthy.

        2. LTG,
          In what sense are ethnic comments racists?
          Arabs are Caucasian. as are other Mediterranean people

      2. Which politician that i “support” said took the time
        To write they hate an entire race of people? And again this is more about Pryor than the clerk. Does he endorse this? Why did he pick her when she lacks most of the traditional qualifications judges like him look for? Does he worry how this makes him look to black judges and litigants? Shouldn’t he clear that up? Again would you trust a judge who hired a mediocre clerk who is only famous for saying they hate Jews, for instance?

        1. Oh pick one... Pick Obama and his noted friendship with antisemite Reverend Wright and his close pictures with major anti-semite Louis Farrakan. And that's just their public comments, god knows what they said in private....

          Pick Joe Biden who has a long history of racist comments, and loves to eulogize KKK members as his mentor.

          And then there's the entire Squad....

          If you're going to cancel someone, you should start with these people. Because this is PUBLIC support and comments from these people. Denounce these politicians. Vote against them.

          Move on from this poor woman who allegedly made a single text, in private, which she doesn't recall, and says doesn't represent her views.

          1. Which one of these politicians said they "Hate Black People?"

            Also I could vote against them, by what, voting for a party that supports open racist Donald Trump? Okay, great strategy there.

            1. Look at those goalposts move....

              You can be best-est friends with a KKK member, but as long as you don't say the magic words "hate black people" then you are A-OK in LTG's book...

              1. You know that KKK member apologized, regretted his actions and became a prominent liberal on racial issues, right?

                1. "...became a prominent liberal on racial issues..."

                  He even took the position that niggers could be white! Not that's liberal!

                  1. Hey. Someone just casually throwing out the n word. Totally normal. Great person to listen to on race issues.

                    1. Yup. I'm quoting the guy that you're defending.

                    2. He apologized. Also you don’t have to write it out. Also that wasn’t even the quote. So you were just saying it on your own.

                    3. Lol. He said it in 2001, way after he had already apologized for all the klan stuff. How many apologies does he get?

                      And he said it twice. And he said, "I'm going to use that word."

                      And of course I wrote it out. The newspapers that quoted him wrote it out as well. I sure wouldn't want any confusion about what he said.

                    4. But you didn’t actually write out the quote. You wrote a paraphrase.

                    5. So?

                    6. But you didn’t actually write out the quote. You wrote a paraphrase.

                      IIRC the quote was...

                      "I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time."

                      You're right. That's totally different!

                2. Ah yes, noted liberal icon Robert Byrd... Joe Biden's mentor, who Biden speaks so fondly about. Let's review some of his actions...

                  1. Byrd recruited 150 of his friends and associates to create a new chapter of the Ku Klux Klan in Sophia, West Virginia.
                  2. , Byrd had heard that "the Klan defended the American way of life against racemixers and communists
                  3. A letter by Byrd to a US Senator. "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
                  4. As a senator, the noted liberal icon Robert Byrd FILLIBUSTERED the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
                  5. He also voted against the first African American Justice, Thurgood Marshall on the SCOTUS...
                  6. Then voted against the confirmation of the second African American Justice on the SCOTUS too, for good measure.
                  7, Then for good measure, he opposed gay marriage, opposed allowing gays to serve in the military as well.

                  A noted "prominent liberal". Good thing he apologized for all the major racist actions he took...that's OK.

                  But a single text message sent that a person has no recollection of, and that the person says doesn't represent them or their views. That person, well, should never be hired as a law clerk.

                  The difference here is stunning. That you can't see it shows your dramatic blinders...

                  1. I am not a fan of anything Robert Byrd related, but one might want to note the difference between doing racist stuff in 1946 or 1964 and doing them in 2015.

                    1. Allegedly making a single text to a single person...and then no other racist actions (against African Americans) is very different from starting up your own chapter of an organization designed to lynch African Americans.

                    2. As we all know mean tweets are the ultimate human rights violation. Recruiting people for an organization known for lynching blacks pales by comparison.

                    3. You're seriously equating an alleged stupid text message with not just being a member of, but actually founding a chapter of the KKK by labeling both as "doing racist stuff"?

                    4. You're seriously claiming that "I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like fuck them all…I hate blacks. End of story." is merely "stupid" rather than racist?

                    5. You’re seriously claiming that “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like fuck them all…I hate blacks. End of story.” is merely “stupid” rather than racist?

                      Not at all, which is why I didn't even imply that. Are you saying that it isn't stupid?

                      See, the difference here is that your claim was that the difference of note between the two things was the span of time between when they happened and the present, vs the very, very substantial differences in the very natures of the actions. My point was that as indications that someone is in fact "racist" at heart, one of the two constitutes far stronger evidence and is far more damning than the other.

                3. Wait, you like Nathan Bedford Forrest now?

      3. based on it an alleged screenshot of a text from 4 years ago

        An alleged screenshot that no one is allowed to see but the reporter writing the column, mind you.

        It's like Joseph Smith's golden plates.

        1. Stop lying dude. If these weren’t real she would have said so.

          1. The proverbial tempest in a teapot.

            OMG! Horrors of horrors! Prospective law clerk may have expressed racist sentiment 4 years ago in a text the proof of which has not been established.

            1. Yeah. I'm going to take a lost causer seriously on issues of race and politics. Lol.

          2. Sometimes people send texts from other people's phones as a practical joke.

            1. Wow. We're just really making stuff up now to justify this, aren't we?

              1. She says she has no recollection of sending the texts. Do you have any evidence that she did?

                1. 1) There were screenshots
                  2) Provided by her coworkers, who later ended their professional association with her when it came to light.
                  3)She hedged! She asked not to be judged, an implicit acknowledgement that they were real and she sent them. If someone else had, she could have said that.

                  1. LTG,

                    If I was to borrow your phone, and send a racist text from it... As a joke...Funny, right?

                    Should you be banned from employment for life based on that?

                    1. "As a joke…Funny, right?"

                      Absolutely not funny in the least, what is wrong with you?

                      "Should you be banned from employment for life based on that?"

                      Not getting one of the most prominent clerkships in the country is not even close to the same as being banned from employment for life.

                      Seriously, the entitlement mentality here is ridiculous.

                    2. Sounds like a yes.

                      Gosh. I hope no one ever borrows your phone and sends a text... You'll never recover career-wise.

                      No clerkships, no judgeships, despite all your work you'll be condemned to some grunt-work as a glorified legal clerk. Maybe....

                    3. Why are you inventing facts? If she didn't send it, she could have said, forthrightly — as I would if someone accused me of something similar¹ — "I did not send that. If someone claims I did, they are lying or it was forged." Here's what I would not say: "Well, I don't remember saying that." Because of course I would remember.

                      ¹In fact, about two decades ago there was a rabidly racist Phillies fan on usenet, who was called out by many, including me, for his racism. He responded by creating a fake Geocities page in my name with vile racist stuff on it. (He ultimately ended up going to prison for various hacking shenanigans, though none related to what he did to me.) It was impossible to find someone at Geocities to deal with it, so I couldn't ever get it taken down except by driving Geocities out of business. So from time to time someone would ask me about it — and I would say just what I said above: it's a forgery. I didn't write it.

                    4. You're going to remember ever text you ever send? Really?

                    5. "Because of course I would remember"

                      Out of curiosity, how much do you text?

                      Because we're in the geriatric set, when my wife got a smart phone we signed up for one of the 5 cents a text plans, because who is going to send more than a text or two a week, right? A few months later the monthly bill was like $60 a month. That's 1200 texts a month, 40 a day, day after day.

                      I dunno where that lies on the scale of college age girls, but that's a lot of texts to remember.

                      My wife also only posts when sober (because she doesn't drink). Perhaps some college students post when drunk, which might make recall more difficult.

                      Mostly, though, I'd like to see the context of the text. For example, someone who just spent a fun day at the DMV might text 'we should just kill all the bureaucrats' without my actually worrying they were an incipient mass killer.

                      If we saw the whole thread of texts, we could better assess what the text in question says about the young lady's character.

                    6. Out of curiosity, how much do you text?

                      Dozens per day. I've got two kids running around from activity to activity, and my wife and I text each other when we're on opposite sides of the house, and my law partner texts for everything though I've been desperately trying for months to get him to use Slack. And yet, in all of the hundreds of texts I send a month, I have never once said "I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like fuck them all…I hate blacks. End of story."

                      So while I might not remember the, "Please pick up some milk at the store on the way home," or "the electrician called and he's running late" ones, which are a dime a dozen, I definitely would remember, and did not send, anything remotely like Clanton's.

          3. If these weren’t real she would have said so.

            She said she has no recollection of ever having sent any such text.

            1. Then she hedged, implicitly acknowledging them.

            2. Which is an obvious lie, as Armchair Lawyer would know if he were a real lawyer.

              1. "Which is an obvious lie"

                I certainly don't remember every text I ever make. Perhaps you do. But most people don't have that sort of memory.

                1. certainly don’t remember every text I ever make.

                  So, did you ever send a text that said, "I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like fuck them all…I hate blacks. End of story."?

                  1. I don't recall ever making such a text.

                    1. So you think you might have?

              2. But of course he is not. He is just an Armchair

      4. a text she says she has no recollection of,

        Um, that's what someone says when he or she is smart enough to know that a denial would be a provable lie. We're not talking about a message like, "I'm hungry; want to grab some pizza?" There is no universe in which a person does not recall texting, "I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like fuck them all...I hate blacks. End of story."

        (Unless, of course, the person has sent so many similar texts that this one doesn't stand out.)

        1. Um, that’s what someone says when he or she is smart enough to know that a denial would be a provable lie.

          There's a flip side to that, though. The most blazingly obvious way to prove it was a lie is quite coincidentally the same as the most blazingly obvious way to prove it happened in the first place: to publish the actual text message exchange the journalist alleged to possess. The fact that she has chosen not to do so over nearly 5 years seems telling enough that either the words she purported to quote were not an actual quote, or the broader context of the exchange doesn't support her narrative.

          1. Indeed. Never seems to have been done.

            Hey look! I have a picture of a screenshot of a text from a David Nieporent from 2016. It says "I hate white people sometimes".

            Did David send it? Can he absolutely positively assure me that he remembers every text he made in 2016 and that's none of them match that?

            1. I can absolutely positively assure you that I do not remember every text I made in 2016, but also that none of them match that. If you have such a screenshot, then it's a photoshop or some other form of hoax. Because I can categorically say that I never sent that.

              (See how that works? I don't need to hedge and say that I don't remember.)

              1. If you don't remember every text you made, how can you be absolutely positive that they weren't possibly sent from your phone?

                1. I do not remember every place I have ever been. I nevertheless remember that I have never been inside the governor's mansion in Albany. I do not remember every person I have ever been introduced to. I nevertheless remember that I have never been introduced to Kate Upton. I do not remember every statement I have ever made. I nevertheless remember that I have never said, "I hate white people," or "I hate black people," or other equally vile stuff such as "I love the New York Yankees."

                  See how that works? One need not remember quotidian details of one's life to remember extraordinary ones.

                  And saying "I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like fuck them all…I hate blacks. End of story.” is a pretty extraordinary statement.

                  1. > “I love the New York Yankees.”

                    C'mon man. Not even in jest. Beyond the pale.

          2. The most obvious obstacle is that not everybody keeps their text messages for years.

            1. Yeah, I see I used "she" ambiguously. I was talking about Jane Mayer at the New Yorker who ran the original smear piece. I'd certainly hope she wouldn't churn out an article like that and then toss her only supposed basis for it. But I also would have hoped she would just publish or otherwise disclose the text message itself instead of being so implausibly cagey about it, so who knows.

        2. Bullshit. Take anyone going through a rough break up and you could get similar statements in an over emotional and possibly drunken time. Now if you only choose the worst interpretation that's you.

          1. No. This may come as news to people who travel in certain milieus, but neither being emotional nor drunk causes one to say racist things unless one actually thinks those racist things in the first place.

    4. Yeesh. Professor Volokh is the new Taylor Swift.

      1. No. Just a guy with a vague emerging pattern of devaluing Black feelings.

        1. "vague emerging pattern of devaluing Black feelings."

          Oh noes, a "vague" pattern of "devaluing" "feelings". The horror.

          Complete with capital letter on black.

          1. Lol of course you don't care about other people's feelings. That is demonstrated. In fact, you're pretty proud of it.

            1. Appreciate the clingers’ intolerance, tone-deafness, and low character. It is a large part of what has enabled better Americans to dominated the culture war and shape our decades of national progress against the conservatives’ wishes and efforts.

        2. "No. Just a guy with a vague emerging pattern of devaluing Black feelings."

          Not everybody's feelings deserve to be completely validated, no matter what race they are.

          1. Weird, then, how he seems to go out of his way to devalue theirs specifically.

            1. Oh, so its not just the clerk or Pryor who are racists, but EV too.

              Do you realize how stupid that sounds? EV is one of the most decent people around and you are accusing him of racism.

              No shame.

              1. "Do you realize how stupid that sounds? EV is one of the most decent people around and you are accusing him of racism. No shame."

                Lol, who's the moral scold now, eh? And yeah I am. Or did you miss his million part series where he kept writing the n word about how he absolutely needs to say it in class OVER the objections of his Black students. Saying the n word a lot is not decent, it's actually being a huge asshole who doesn't care about students. Here's a good thread about why that's the case:

                https://twitter.com/MatthewStiegler/status/1271169563607040001

                1. How awful that one does not submit to the demands of the racial grievance racket.

                  1. Oh wow. I don’t want to hear the n word at school all the time is the “racial grievance racket” now.

                2. "And yeah I am."

                  Any liberals commenting here want to weigh in? Is EV racist?

                  1. He has a politically aligned blind spot, at best. But Kozinski, Pryor, and the Federalists think he is dreamy, so he is content.

                3. I'm glad Matthew Stiegler whitesplained why EV was wrong. But he left off the splainin' and just asserted.

                  1. I think his examples illustrated the point fairly well. You don’t need to just show or say a bunch of awful things to prepare people for the real world.

                    1. I don't think his examples did at all. He just said, "I wouldn't do that," or "You don't have to do that." He also misleadingly implied that EV was doing these things gratuitously, as if he'd walk into the lecture hall and yell a racial slur just to see how the students would react. But that's not what EV does (or not what he says he does; I'm not there); rather, when the word is relevant to a given topic — for example, if it's used in a case they're discussing — he chooses not to expurgate it.

                4. The lady doth protest too much.

        3. I don't really think that's fair. I think his last post on the subject directly acknowledged why the original e-mail may have created some discomfort for black readers.

          1. For strident clingers, that discomfort is just good sport.

            Until replacement, of course. Eventually, the stake, ugly thinking dies. As it should.

      2. No offense to the professor, but I'm going to guess he doesn't look *that* good in a dress.

    5. Playing the hypothetical game, if the student said "I hate Christians [or Jews or white people, etc]" and was subsequently hired as a clerk by a liberal judge, does anyone here believe that none of the Conspirators would have nothing to say about it, or that the commentariat would be saying, "Meh, we all say goofy things when we're teens"? What matters more, principle or tribe?

      1. Some random clerk who has never been alleged to have actually done anything to anyone? And you’re saying this clerk was alleged to have said this years and years ago?

        It might warrant a remark. Pretty boring stuff though.

    6. At some point, your kind of behavior crosses from being on an off-topic hobby horse to thread-shitting, stalking and apparent attempts at negging.

      That point was several threads ago.

      1. “Stalking and negging?” LOL. Well that says more about you than it does me. By far. And it’s not off-topic: Eugene wants to talk about law students and race? Well there it is, right in front of him.

        1. I see you don't deny it, but merely give a weak attempt to evade the topic. By your own argument, that is proof that the accusations were true.

          1. I don’t think you know what stalking is. And people who use the word “negging” tend to be awful. And I don’t think you’re using it correctly at any rate. I actually am not trying to insult Eugene to take advantage of his insecurity to have sex with him later. As for
            “Thread-shitting” that’s in the eye of the beholder. And based on the reaction from people on this topic, and the non-one from VC, you all deserve it. Someone has to keep you accountable.

            1. Your unhealthy obsession is with the clerk whose name you are trying to drag through the mud, not with Prof. Volokh.

              1. It’s actually with Pryor doofus. You know the chief judge of the federal circuit court who with life tenure who appears to tolerate extreme racism? Have you read anything I wrote?

                1. The only extreme thing here is your prejudice.

                  1. Prejudice against anti-black racism? Thanks for the compliment.

      2. "thread-shitting, stalking and apparent attempts at negging"

        That is his entire oeuvre.

        He's not stopping now.

        1. I’d call it lecturing people who deserve it immensely.

        2. Whimpering, bigoty racists are among my favorite culture war losers.

          And this blog’s core audience.

    7. Dorf:

      The only statements Clanton made about this text were, “I have no recollection of these messages and they do not reflect what I believe or who I am and the same was true when I was a teenager.” There was no denial of the statements, and there was no apology.

      Now, why would she apologize for a statement she has no memory of and that she says does not represent her sentiments?

      Clanton was not a teenager when she left TPUSA, so her words indicate to me that "the well-respected[by whom?] reporter Jane Mayer" didn't even indicate to Clanton that that was when the purported text was supposedly sent.

      ...there has been awful conduct by the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Bill Pryor who, because of life tenure, is not subject to official punitive sanctions, but reveals in an awful way how racist our society continues to be.

      His "awful conduct" being hiring Clanton as one of his clerks. But we don't even know that this text exists. No one's seen it.

      John Ryan O’Rourke, the former Turning Point employee who received the text messages from Clanton, requested that the messages “not be used in any article or background information concerning Turning Point” and declined to comment on them. Kirk said in an e-mail that “Turning Point assessed the situation and took decisive action within 72 hours of being made aware of the issue.” Soon after, Clanton left the organization.

      Whistlebolowers are always accused of being "disgruntled emplyees". And sometimes they are. Like that former employee of a burger joint who claimed that the patties contained worms whose case appeared on this blog recently. Well, here we have an apparently disgruntled former boss as a possibly motivated source for a possible hoax. Let's do a little forsensics on that email before we accept it as gospel, shall we?

      Pryor's actual "awful conduct" seems to be nothing more than that he believe's Clanton's denial. If you've got more than that, show me.

        1. Weird. First time I went there from duckdg the actual article was behind a popup paywall, second time I got unfettered access. Any idea why/when the NYT does this?

          1. Why would the NYT put up a paywall on the New Yorker's site? No idea.

      1. Then he needs to say that. Now. He has an obligation to the public, to the bar, to the litigants that appear before him, to assure them his chambers are not infected with anti-Black racism. We can’t take his silence as confirmation, a judiciary not-tainted by racism is too important.

        1. "an obligation"

          Does God explain?

          Neither do federal judges.

          1. You may feel comfortable being servile to arrogant but mediocre intellects without accountability making rules for the rest of us, but I have more self-worth than that.

            1. "mediocre intellects"

              That is a description few would apply to circuit judges.

              Most are really smart. All I know about are smarter than you.

              It doesn't much matter if I am "comfortable" with their attitude, its reality.

              1. That’s embarrassing dude, have some self-respect. Circuit judges are the most overrated intellects on the planet. In fact lawyers in general are. We have a three year degree in reading case excerpts written by other lawyers and checking footnotes in between drinking. That doesn’t make us smart or wise. Take Jim Ho for example, he thinks he can get away with citing one MLK quote to negate all of CRT. Only someone incredibly ignorant and dumb (or dishonest) would think that. But alas, you think he’s “smart.”

                1. "But alas, you think he’s “smart.”"

                  I do think future Justice Ho is quite smart. That is why he is "future Justice" Ho.

                  If you are ashamed of being a lawyer, stop being one. It will save the rest of us embarrassment.

                  1. Not ashamed. Just not full of my intellectual abilities like you and federal judges. YOU should be ashamed because you don’t believe in public defense. That’s actually embarrassing, a lawyer who doesn’t believe in fundamental fairness in criminal proceedings. (And I guarantee you any public defender could put lawyer you on any topic at any time)

                    Do you really think it’s smart to pretend MLK only said said one thing? I mean maybe it is “smart” but it’s incredibly dishonest.

                    1. *out-lawyer

                    2. LTG,
                      You do realize that you are sparring with one of the least smart people who comments here.

            2. This is why these losers lose. They must like the taste of the soles of their betters’ shoes.

        2. He has no obligation to deny anything for which there is no credible evidence.

          1. You know just because you say it isn’t credible
            Doesn’t mean it’s not. I mean you think there was a “war of northern aggression” so your ability to assess what is and is not credible evidence is extremely suspect.

      2. ...forensics on that email alleged text screencap...

  2. From the first link:

    "But let’s say some minority students at Yale felt offended—and speaking for myself, I don’t doubt the sincerity of their sentiments (i.e., I don’t think it’s posturing)."

    Come now. The knee-jerk 'triggered' complain is a well-worn weapon on college campuses, and it is used because people like Lat bow down to it. It works. Not only do I doubt their sincerity, I am absolutely certain. When you allow a child to act out without disciplining them, you teach them to continue acting out. This is what has been done on college campuses. When you give power to victims, victimhood becomes a goal. This bending-over-backwards generousity is exactly the problem. If administrators told them to suck it up and be adults - and stood firm - the whole complex would collapse.

    1. People can hold bad ideas in good faith. I don't doubt their sincerity at all. But the culture they matured in which led to such sincere beliefs is despicable.

      1. How did you get from "can" to "I don’t doubt"?

        The latter requires "always", not "can".

        I agree with JonFrum. These grievance grifters are too transparently posing, and the rewards for dishonesty too obvious, for me to take them at face value. Maybe they're method actors, but that's about as far as it goes.

        1. I get from "can" to "I don't doubt" because I have higher faith in people than you two do. I believe there are far far more sincerely misguided people than there are "grifters".

          "grifters" requires deep cynicism in all of humanity.

  3. Most people would agree that creating trouble where no trouble existed before is bad behavior. That would make the 9 complainers and the Yale administrators the malefactors in this drama.

    Of course. many lawyers might disagree because creating trouble is their business model. Same for community organizers, union organizers, and activists: peace, happiness and contentment mean no power and no opportunity to fundraise. They all need trouble or they might have to go get productive jobs.

  4. I'll say one thing: when I hire an attorney, I look for someone with knowledge, backbone and grit who will advocate my position forcefully. This 2L who refused to kotow to those oily administrators has just the kind of fighting spirit I look for.

  5. I wonder just how many recordings there actually are. I have a feeling that there are more than two. Call it a hunch. I hope all recordings are released, unredacted.

    Yale does not come out of this looking good at all.

    1. Of course he kept recording.

      In person is legal. Those he did on the phone he'll have to withhold, absent two-party consent.

      1. He explains in his CNN interview why he recorded the conversations: The diversity admins have a reputation for dishonesty about what's said when it isn't recorded. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/10/16/yale-demands-law-student-apologize-to-peers-for-triggering-them.cnn

        1. Hope they get released, in full.

  6. Hmmm. According to the Geosciences chair at Williams college, "This idea of intellectual debate and rigor as the pinnacle of intellectualism comes from a world in which white men dominated..."

    Maybe that's a good use for the affinity groups that are so popular nowadays. We can have white affinity groups for scientists who want intellectual debate and rigor, and other groups from those who want something else.

    1. To question the orthodoxy is a sin.

      It's a religion.

    2. Even white men can be right once in a while.

      1. Which reminds me, I though I saw the Thursday thread earlier, but now I don't see it. Am I losing it?

    3. What do the other scientists (such as Ms. Cohen) want? I bet it has more to do with politics than science.

  7. *pulls up a chair*

    *pulls out the lube*

  8. Does one need "standing" to make a complaint to the Connecticut Bar Association about the Diversity officers?

  9. My recommendation: Take the current endowment of Yale, divide it equally among the currently enrolled students, hand them a certificate of attendance, and then close the doors.

    After a couple months of renovation, reopen the facility as a prison for the antifa arsonists and looters that have spread destruction in several cities (especially Portland) and you have a win-win situation for all! The prison can be staffed by the un-vaccinated, unemployed Seattle and Chicago cops.

    1. Cindy

      Nice sentiments but the endowment is 42 billion. Lot of money for just the students.

      Maybe a lottery for the poor residents of New Haven.

    2. Thank you, thank you, for that round of applause for my most excellent idea!

Please to post comments