The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Theater Prof Facing Possible Firing for Not Being Sufficiently Outraged
From the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education; I missed it when it was first posted (Oct. 20):
Dr. Steven Earnest [of Coastal Carolina University] … was suspended from teaching after criticizing student protestors who staged a walkout because they saw the names of students of color written on a whiteboard and mistook the list as malicious. In fact, it turned out to have been a list of students who might want to hang out together….
On Sept. 16, a visiting artist was working with two students of color after class, and one student expressed that she felt isolated and would like to get to know other non-white students in the department. The visiting artist asked about whether it might be helpful for non-white students to connect as a group, and she and the students wrote out the names of other non-white students on the classroom whiteboard while brainstorming ideas.
The names were still on the board when the next class arrived, and several of the entering students were offended, believing that whoever had written the list must have been singling out non-white students. They decided to hold a protest in a campus courtyard on Sept. 21 instead of attending class.
After discussion with the students and faculty involved, the Department of Theatre's Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee determined that the names on the board had been presented "as a resource for newer students who are looking to be in community with other BIPOC students." Nonetheless, the DEI committee apologized to the offended students, writing in an email to the theater department that the "faculty and students involved as well as the Theatre Department as a whole are deeply sorry to anyone who was affected by this incident." The visiting artist who helped create the list of names also apologized profusely, calling her participation "thoughtless and careless."
Earnest did not agree. He responded to the email, stating (as written): "Sorry but I dont think its a big deal. Im just sad people get their feelings hurt so easily. And they are going into Theatre?" He received several responses criticizing his remark, and responded again to clarify that he was "just defending our guest artist."
Students critical of Earnest's emails accused him of being racially insensitive and dismissive of students of color. Several also called for Earnest to be fired and protested by boycotting theater classes.
"It was upsetting to be accused of racism by students and others with whom I have never interacted," said Earnest. "But it was even more upsetting to have these false accusations ratified by a university that I have called home for over fifteen years."
On Sept. 20, Claudia Bornholdt, the dean of Coastal Carolina's College of Humanities and Fine Arts, told Earnest not to come to his classes and to send her his syllabus, effectively suspending him from his teaching duties.
Earnest contacted FIRE and is now working with the Faculty Legal Defense Fund to defend his rights. FLDF provides free legal assistance to faculty at public universities whose civil liberties are in jeopardy. Launched this year, it has successfully worked (and is still working with) over a dozen faculty members whose rights or livelihoods have been threatened by their public universities….
FIRE wrote to Coastal Carolina on Sept. 29, reminding the university that professors have the right to speak freely on matters of public concern. Additionally, the fact that others found Earnest's emails offensive does not diminish the emails' protection under the First Amendment. As a public institution, Coastal Carolina is bound by the First Amendment and required to protect the free speech of its faculty.
FIRE received no response to its letter, but Earnest's attorney told FIRE that rather than backing down, the university is launching a termination process against Earnest….
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"...several of the entering students were offended, believing that whoever had written the list must have been singling out non-white students."
IIUC, they were in fact singling out non-white students.
It's like "discrimination", objection to which seems to imply that you ought to be indiscriminate.
Yes, in much the same way that affirmative action programs do.
I assume that those students who complained about this are even more outraged by formal affirmative action programs.
" the Department of Theatre's Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee"
The Theater department has its own DEI committee?
And oddly enough, it put it's stamp of approval on something that was the exact opposite of diversity and inclusion.
Indeed, and it asserts that posting a list of students who "identify as" BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) students "without context" is "dehumanizing and hurtful" indeed, a incident of great "gravity" and that how to handle requests to self-segregate in the future will be a subject of discussion in the future between the Department of Theater DEI Committee and students and faculty.
https://www.thefire.org/email-from-the-department-of-theater-dei-committee-september-17-2021/
LOL!
"We've Got to Protect Our Phony Baloney Jobs!" Governor Lepetomane
Le Pétomane is Kookland. But he's not a Governor. Are you thinking of another one?
If the theater department has its own diversity, equity and inclusion committee, then why was it necessary for those non-white students to reach out to a visiting professor in order to find ways to feel included?
2
There are lots of common-sense explanations for that. Here's just two:
a. Possibly these newer students did not know all the resources available to them. (I am sure I did not know 10% of the resources available for me, at my undergrad, and my grad, and my law schools.).
b. It can be embarrassing or even humiliating for a student to admit to being lonely or sad, etc etc. It is totally understandable why someone might not want to go to an administration group, but would share those feelings with a family member, or a trusted friend...or even a particular instructor.
Aren’t you letting this committee off too easily?
They are supposed reason for existence is to make minority students feel included. If they are not performing this job, or the students are unaware of their existence, it is their failing.
Furthermore, instead of worrying about the allegedly horrible occurrence of names being written on the blackboard, shouldn’t they be investigating why these minority students felt isolated in the first place? Wouldn’t that be the more important issue?
Between 1/4 and 1/5 of the student population is, according to Wikipedia, either non-Latino black or "mixed race". This is a non-STEM Department in what was historically (until 1993, iirc) a Junior College. I think we may take it as a given that there is in fact not much of a shortage of BIPOC faces, and that the idea was a lame one.
Well, there's your problem right there.
I think there's a DEI committee to ensure all departments 1. Have a DEI committee, and 2. That the DEI committees themselves are DEI-committee-compliant.
But who checks the DEI committees?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Nice one....Who watches the watchers. 🙂
I'm so old I remember when racial segregation was a bad thing.
A listing of people like you to hang out with informally is hardly 'racial segregation.'
Segregating people (ie, forming a group of people separate and apart from others) by race is not racial segregation. Got it.
It's almost like racial segregation in our past was something a bit more than 'forming a group of people' to possibly hang out with each other....But hey, why be careful in our speech when hyperbole is so much freaking fun!
Ultimately it was about excluding people from something based on the color of their skin. The purpose of the group was NOT to "hang out" with a group that included, among others, people of a given racial ethnicity. It was to form a group that *excluded* those of a given racial ethnicity.
No, no ultimately. You're trying to wiggle out of your absurdly high level of abstraction here. Racial segregation was using force for the practice of restricting people to certain circumscribed areas of residence or to separate institutions. This is a list of people who might want to hang out with people like them. By your definition the NAACP was practicing 'racial segregation' it's entire history. It's goofy, just own your mistake, there would be more dignity in it.
You're trying to wiggle out of your absurdly high level of abstraction here.
I'm not wiggling out of anything, nor am I abstracting anything to absurd levels.
By your definition the NAACP was practicing 'racial segregation' it's entire history.
Then you have an idiot's understanding of my definition of segregation (which is not really my definition at all, but the definition), as well as of the NAACP. The NAACP does not...and did not...exclude non-"colored people", nor was it's purpose to provide such people a way to associate with one another to the exclusion of others. (In fact, the majority of the NAACP's founders were...white, and it has many white members.)
there would be more dignity in it.
You wouldn't know dignity if it bit you on your pathologically dishonest sock puppet ass.
No, you're definition is yours alone I guess.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/racial-segregation
Again, it's plain the practice of restricting people to certain circumscribed areas of residence or to separate institutions =/= a list of people of the same racial identity who might want to hang out with each other. The only way you equate them is to go to a laughable level of abstraction (hey, they both involved considering people's races, so totes the same!).
I mean, I guess you think a flyer at a school for an interest meeting in forming a Young Republicans chapter is an act of 'political segregation.' Lol.
The fact that you conflate racial segregation with armed racism is on you and your obtunded vocabulary.
Btw, I discriminate all the time and there's nothing wrong with that.
E.g., I discriminate between whole milk, which I like, and fat-free milk, which is blech.
It's that same cutesy equivocation that FuzzWuzz stepped in my dancing amigo.
"you conflate racial segregation with armed racism"
Me? Your beef is with the Encyclopedia Britannica.
There's some conflation going on indeed, but it ain't from me. I'm not conflating people making a list of people like them they may want to hang out with to Selma 1963 so I can piggyback the emotional resonance of the latter onto the former.
That you think I've "equivocated" when in fact I've been unequivocal about how deeply I despise you is another reason to refer to you hereafter as Queenie Brokenbrain.
Of course you've equivocated between two senses of the term 'discriminate.'
As with "racially segregate" the term "discriminate" has a meaning and subset applications of the meaning, not two different meanings.
What part of "or to separate institutions" (from your own source) is having the most difficult time penetrating that chunk of solid concrete that your skull appears to be? (Pro tip: Try to not be too pedantic with regard to the notion of an institution.)
Bonus points question: Do you suppose these groups of "non-white" students will be including any white students who wish to join them?
Ok, braniac, what 'separate institution' is going on here? It's a list...of people like them...that they may want to hang out with. It's totally Selma 1963!!!
"Try to not be too pedantic with regard to the notion of an institution"
Uh oh, now Wuzzy wants to have careful use of language! Lol.
What 'institution' was formed here that people were restricted to here Fuzzy? And don't be pedantic with the term institution now...
It's a list...of people like them...that they may want to hang out with. It's totally Selma 1963!!!
I've sometime wondered who you are a sock puppet for. You're displaying some Krychek levels of stupidity, dishonesty and childishness here...so that seems like a strong possibility. I'm not completely convinced about that yet, but it does go to the top of the list.
Ah, so you have no answer to the institution question. I see.
I do. "The visiting artist asked about whether it might be helpful for non-white students to connect as a group..."
I'd bet there is already a fee-supported Black Students Association at the school, merely not yet one in the Theater Dept.
And I'd also bet there is NOT a fee-supported WHITE Students Association.
Racial segregation for me but not for thee. Who, whom.
Had the NAACP been what you evidently imagine it to have been it would absolutely have been a racially segregated organization, but my understanding is that it included from the beginning one Henry Moskowitz and other whites.
It's the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, so essentially it's the Klan for black people, amirite?
I can't recall YOU ever being right about anything.
And what part of "included from the beginning one Henry Moskowitz and other whites" eluded comprehension by your broken brain?
I mean, surely all organizations trying to advance people of a particular race are totes the same, amirite my tiny dancer?
Another reading comprenension failure by Queen Brokenbrain.
I repeat, "I can't recall YOU ever being right about ANYthing."
Apparently the problem is that you can't understyand sentences or their implications even if you read them twice. So sad to be you.
Gandy: You're a big dumbhead!
Queen Brokenbrain, I'M not the one who was so cretinous as to derive from my observation that the NAACP from the beginning included whites that it made sense to conclude -- TWICE! -- that it made sense to accuse me of thinking the NAACP was a black version of the Klan.
So VERY sad to be you.
Talk about cretinous...If you think a group of minority college students listing others like them they may want to hang out with is Selma 1963 because it's making racial distinctions that's the kind of thinking that equates the Klan with the NAACP because, hey, they both want to advance a specific race!
The only one who's mentioning Selma 1963 is YOU, Queenie Brokenbrains.
So EXTREMELY sad to be you! How can you bear it?
Of course. When Wuzzy brought up the 'when racial segregation was bad' he was talking about the practices of the Mongols.
He was talking about racial segregation practiced by whites then (and now) being considered bad and comparing it with racial segregation practiced by blacks now being considered good, as even your broken brain comprehends, even if you can't help embrassing yourself with obvious lies about what he was saying.
It's the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, so essentially it's the Klan for black people, amirite?
The claim that the NAACP is an organization that excludes people based on race was yours, not anyone else's. Try again, dipshit.
No, it has as its mission to advance people based on their particular race. I'm old enough to remember a time when racial discrimination was bad....
No, it has as its mission to advance people based on their particular race.
Which does not consist of excluding people from their group.
OK, so if they had listed only BIPOC people to help advance then it wouldn't have reminded you of the bad old days of racial discrimination?
WuzYoungOnceToo: "The purpose... was to form a group that *excluded* those of a given racial ethnicity."
Queenie Brokenbrains, then: "By your definition the NAACP was practicing 'racial segregation' it's entire history."
Queenie Brokenbrains, now: "No, it has as its mission to advance people based on their particular race."
You thought the NAACP excluded whites. Just stop embarrassing yourself and demonstrate that you can for once be honnest and admit your ignorance.
There is no element of "use of force" in the concept of racial segregation. Self-segregation (such as 'white flight' and exclusive private clubs) is decried as also bad.
The NAACP does not, however, practice racial segregation. They have at times endorsed it - and their selective endorsement (allowed for blacks but forbidden to whites) was part of why they lost credibility among those of us who actually believe in evaluating people based upon the content of their character rather than on the basis of their victimhood status.
Of course there was an element of use of force in racial segregation as practiced in the United States (remember, FuzzyWuzzy was recalling a historical period "I remember when racial segregation was a bad thing.").
And, let's be clear, even absent the use of force, social racial segregation such as not serving or doing business with minorities =/= an underrepresented group seeking out people like themselves socially on a college campus. They are as much the same thing as shooting an attacking psychopath and shooting someone because they're a Ravens fan are the same thing (I remember a time when shooting someone was a bad thing!).
You've lost this idiotic argument of yours for restricting the meaning of "racial segreagation" to only some instances of racial segregation, so get over it.
He himself hath said it!
Pound that table Gandy, pound it harder!
Who said what? Your meaningless incoherence is reaching a terminal stage, Queenie.
remember, FuzzyWuzzy was recalling a historical period "I remember when racial segregation was a bad thing."
You do realize that yesterday (or 5 minutes ago, for that matter) are in the past, and are "historical periods"....right?
But by all means, continue with this simple-minded tangent you're on.
Sure Wuzzy, you were obviously talking about the discrimination of the Aztecs!
Queenie Brokenbrains is too historically ignorant to know that "the Fuzzie Wuzzies" is an admiring reference to the Hadendoa warriors who fought the British army in the Sudan and Eritrea.
https://www.poetry.com/poem/33216/fuzzy-wuzzy
So to be clear, if that list had been a list of white people chosen only because of their skin color as candidates to hang out with, you'd be equally okay with that list and defending the group from accusations of racism. Do I have that right Queen? You are now defending white flight and exclusive private clubs?
If it were white people at, say, a HBCU looking for the names of other white people they might want to connect with? Sure. And it most certainly wouldn't remind me 'of a time when racial segregation was bad.' That would be silly hyperbole, at best.
There's something fishy about this student's claim that she can't find any blacks to hang out with.
2019 CCU demographics CCU Students
Black/non-Hispanic 17.4%
Asian/Pacific Islander 1.0%
White/non-Hispanic 67.7%
Hispanic 5.2%
Multi-Racial 4.4%
an underrepresented group seeking out people like themselves socially on a college campus...
...to the exclusion of people not just not like themselves, but to the exclusion of people from one specific ethnic category (whites).
Keep trying, some of this ridiculously simple stuff might sink in eventually.
What exclusion? They wanted to know of other people like them they might want to connect with.
And again, that's not Selma 1963.
What exclusion?
So the meaning of "non-white people" is exceeding your feeble grasp as well.
Where's the exclusion Wuzzy? Certainly it shouldn't take you several posts to point out this to someone with my feeble grasp.
Certainly it shouldn't take you several posts to point out this to someone with my feeble grasp.
And yet your feeble grasp is clearly doing the job.
Ah, I see. You gots nothing.
Not surprising.
They wanted to know of other people like them they might want to connect with.
This sounds awfully like "all brown people are the same."
Queen's obliviousness to her own racism is rapidly as approaching Legendary levels.
There are also many other things that are bad that aren't racial segregation and don't become racial segregation because they are bad.
True, but these facts demonstrate the problems with a world that tries to simultaneously (1) defend acts of racial segregation perpetuated by minorities and (2) attack, with significant career and other consequences, even the suggestion of racial segregation by a white.
Personally, I think it's (2) that has to go. It's one thing if schools are actually requiring racial segregation. That's terrible. But something on a blackboard? The correct response is to tell the students "this is meaningless, go back to class".
"The correct response is to tell the students "this is meaningless, go back to class"."
And the head if Yale DEI pointed out, if the DEI office doesn't get a resolution to these issues, it makes the office look ineffective.
Many of these offices were created in response to lists of student demands. If these students occupy the dean's office with a different list, these quys are out of jobs.
By definitionb whites OR blacks choosing to racially segregate is absolutely racial segregation.
"A listing of people like you to hang out with informally is hardly 'racial segregation.'"
I actually agree. That's true if they're black, and equally true if they're white. At least, if it's 'racial segregation', it's not wrongful racial segregation, since it's just an exercise of freedom of association. Which unlike freedom from discrimination, is an actual human right.
That said, I can't recall that I ever, even once, felt the urge to hang out with people based on their skin color. The whole idea seems bizarre to me, perhaps because I was never raised to view my skin color as having any significance beyond my proclivity to sunburn.
There's more basis for a right of freedom from discrimination in our Constitution than there is for a right of free association.
" can't recall that I ever, even once, felt the urge to hang out with people based on their skin color."
A very white thing to say!
There's more basis for a right of freedom from discrimination in our Constitution than there is for a right of free association.
OK, I'm game. Do tell.....
You've got the Reconstruction Amendments which are about freedom from discrimination, but the right to free association must be in the back of Article XII....
You've got the Reconstruction Amendments which are about freedom from discrimination
That's like saying that 1A gives you a right to not be booed when you give a speech.
No, it's not like that at all.
No, it is like that. The reconstruction amendments give you a right against government discrimination. "No State shall", "nor shall any State". Unless you're an agent of the government, they don't apply to you. The only one of the Reconstruction amendments that's binding on private individuals is the 13th amendment.
You have no right whatsoever to "freedom" from my choice to discriminate against moronic lefty loons.
Still cranky about a disaffected clinger's life under the heels of better Americans, Gandydancer . . . and knowing that situation will never change?
Your proclamations about the future are as moronic as they are tedious, Asshole.
My statements reflect the recent (50 or 60 years), current, and predictable conditions in America.
You get to whimper about it as much as you like, of course. Just like this White, male, right-wing blog.
How can the entire history of the country be one complete exercise in white supremacy and "I can't recall that I ever, even once, felt the urge to hang out with people based on their skin color" be a very white thing to say!"
You cannot have it both ways!
"A listing of people like you to hang out with informally is hardly 'racial segregation.'"
Thank You! That what I keep telling people. But when I whip out my skin tones pallet to see if I can put people on my list they look at me funny.
Except no one was talking about who they didn't want to hang out, they were trying to identify people to create connections with.
I mean, this is the kind of thinking that the United Negro College Fun is racist because they only raise money for scholarships for a particular race...
Except no one was talking about who they didn't want to hang out
They wanted to "hang out with" non-white students. There's a clue there...or at least there would be if you had an IQ higher than that of the average potato.
Except no one was talking about who they didn't want to hang out, they were trying to identify people to create connections with.
Let's go to the tape :
she felt isolated and would like to get to know other non-white students in the department
That would be "other non white students." Which if that's tricky to parse, I'll do for you. It means any other students excluding those who are white.
I also have a weeny problem with the insistence that all non brown people are the same. Non white people actually come in a range of attractive colors, have a range of interesting home backgrounds, some are tall, some short, some mouthy, some meek, some are sporty and some are couch potatoes. Lots of non-white people are not like lots of other non white people. No really.
So "like me" = "not white" sounds like a gal who, if she is not going to squander her good fortune in getting into college, urgently needs to get out more and meet people who are not like her.
sorry non brown s'b brown
"...trying to identify people..."
If this individual thinks only blacks are "like her", well, more than 1 in 5 students at the college is black. Is she blind?
...it's not like she wanted to hang out with philatelists, who could be hard to pick out in class.
I thought philatelists were required to register with their local police department.
If they declared the group to be only for white people would it pass the test because the group in question was declared to be a group without white people.
One gets you expelled and the other empowers you.
Queenie Blockhead:
FIRE:
o, yes, the proposal was indeed to form a racially segregated "group".
I would worry if I saw a list of students' names, based on race, without identifying the source or purpose of the list.
This isn't to say I support the treatment this professor got, but it's to say that it was right to look into it. Who's making racially-based lists and why?
Of course, my initial hypothesis would be that it was some multiculti thing, and I would have been right, but I wouldn't insist on everyone accepting my hypothesis without investigation.
I guess so. What gets me is that email literally says that the list 'without context' could be seen as troubling, then it supplies the context and then *continues* on to say 'but of course this doesn't undermine any hurt feelings over this.' It should have stopped at the context, end of story.
I would worry if I saw a list of students' names, based on race, without identifying the source or purpose of the list.
I'm betting that you would have also bothered to look into the matter and find out what the list was about rather than just jumping to the most woke-expedient conclusion and protesting.
Me too, if I saw it at a Klan rally. But in a college classroom, what exactly would you be worrying about?
Apparently colleges are full of Klansmen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Learning
I wouldn't say full but it's not unheard of...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer#Early_life
Indeed. Some of them even go on to be Democrat governors.
Yeah, I'm sure Spencer spent his time in college writing the names of black students on class whiteboards so that he could... um... reasons... something.
Funny, I thought my comment was about the fact that there certainly have been and are neo-Nazis on college campuses.
Any time you get the impulse to write "I thought" you should reconsider until you do. The actual subject is Cal Cetín's "I would worry if I saw a list of students' names, based on race, without identifying the source or purpose of the list." I repeat, a Nazi would write that on a classroom whiteboard, why?
"I repeat, a Nazi would write that on a classroom whiteboard, why?"
To create fear, usually. I get that you think you're making some kind of rhetorical point, but that's the kind of thing neo-Nazis actually do, not a hypothetical.
Nonsense. An actual neo-Nazi (much less numerous than fake neo-Nazis, btw) wuyld write something more pungent than a ~"context-free" list of names. What did the REAL tiki-torch guys really chant? "Jews will not replace us!", iirc. (And they didn't salt the lineup with "black Nazis", either, LOL!)
Seems like the idea of There is a black mouth moving, but a white idea running on the runway of the tongue... is just as racist as anything Spencer would say.
But claims that black people who think independently are engaging in "white supremacy by ventriloquist effect" aren't being made by fringe people on the left, they're being made by the credentialed academic experts that the left-wing media bring in to explain the current state of race-related scholarship.
I would assume a student group had used the classroom or a project/presentation schedule was being arranged during the class before. The only "bad" thing I could think of it being would be some degree of a "hit" list, and why in God's name would somebody arrange that on campus, on a white board, and then leave it all up? Either of my assumptions would be far more likely correct, likely enough I'd just move on with my day.
Another opportunity to actually teach these complaining students something about life lost.
To the contrary, the way Professor Earnest is being treated is definitely going to teach them something about life. The University did not miss this opportunity in the least.
Clearly, none of the wokesters read 'The Imporetance of Being Earnest'. Ah, the irony.
I'm fed up with the racists who alone care about race. It's time to re-legalize freedom of association, including for business owners.
'I hate racists so much I want to remove their fetters!'
I'd remove everybody's fetters, regardless of whether or not I hate them. I gather you only want people you like to be free?
Since she insists determinedly that I think the NAACP is a black version of the Klan I'm pretty sure she thinks I ought not have my fetters removed lest I be free to go about writing racist lists on whiteboards. Or something.
Another day, another cheap lathering of the right-wing rubes by a strikingly White, archaically male, movement conservative, faux libertarian blog . . .
Does the Volokh Conspiracy produce obsolete racists, or merely attract them?
(Better Americans are just grateful neither the proprietor nor one of this blog's carefully cultivated collection of conservative racists has used a vile racial slur this time . . . well, at least not yet.)
Seriously, Rev. Go back to the Post where your likeminded bigots can admire your hate-filled screeds.
Do you encourage the Post to stop publishing the regular contributions of that newspaper's clinger whisperers (Abernathy, Parker, Thiessen, Hewitt, etc.)?
It's a marketplace of ideas . . . may the better ideas win!
I recognize, of course, that's easy for me to say.
Along a similar line . . . should UCLA, Georgetown, Chicago and similar strong, modern, liberal-libertarian mainstream law schools send the Conspirators back to the hillbillies and hayseeds of conservative-controlled and -friendly institutions?
(Is that the newest Conspirator on Ellie May's lap?)
You do know there is a mute button, and that trolls thrive on attention, right? Negative replies are surely music to a trolls ears. Why reply to him and validate his sad, sad existence?
If you didn't care for trolling, you wouldn't be here.
This entire blog is one pathetic trolling of the successful, victorious liberal-libertarian mainstream, which continues to shape our national progress against the hope and dreams of every Conspirator and most of this White, male, obsolete blog's followers.
Now, it's time for another post about how mean modern America is to the 'traditional values' population because it won't hire more bigoted wingnuts for positions on strong law faculties . . .
Been a bit since I've been to VC; what was once a fairly civil place has descended into threads of trolling and counter trolling.
Yes, the likes of Arty and Queen "Brokenbrained" thrive on the attention for whatever pathological reason. I suppose, as the Irish like to say, that "contention is better than loneliness."
Or even better summed by writer Neil Stephenson:
“Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”
Yeah. I have those 2 muted, also Behar (who may not be a troll, hard to tell sometimes, may just be an odd person). Just those 3 really quiets down the comments section. There are others I find off putting, but nothing near the level of those 3.
What a coincidence, they are the exact two I have muted. It's clearly (bad) trolling, but bad trolling still gets people somehow. I haven't muted Behar because sometimes it's amusing but I also don't think he's a troll, just the special kind of crazy anti-government circles attract.
He's not a troll, he just genuinely believes the legal profession (and the rest of the world) is run by Jews.
" Yes, the likes of Arty and Queen "Brokenbrained" thrive on the attention for whatever pathological reason. "
I want to help anyone who might stumble onto this blog, see that it is populated by law professors from (in some cases) good schools (without recognizing that these clingers are misappropriating the franchises of UCLA, Georgetown, Chicago, etc. much as they masquerade as libertarians), and fail to recognize that this blog offers not learned debate but instead mostly cranky old White male conservatives wallowing in racism, gun nuttery, xenophobia, misogyny, gay-bashing, old-timey superstition, general backwardness, Federalist-Heritage-Olin-Bradley-Scaife nonsense, virus-flouting ignorance, and low-grade ankle-nipping.
Our strongest law schools would disdain the regular publication of vile racial slurs, the partisan censorship, and the low-grade polemics that mark this blog. Yet UCLA, George Mason, Chicago, Berkeley, Georgetown, and others are stained by having their names associated publicly with this White, male, right-wing blog and its carefully cultivated corps of bigoted, downscale commenters.
It's a marketplace of ideas. That involves counterpunching, questioning, identification of hypocrisy and deceit, and, where appropriate, mockery (looking at you, South Texas "We're Number 192 of 193" College of Law Houston). The issues -- gun safety, abortion, voter suppression, racism, immigration, the Supreme Court, a pandemic, expression -- are important. Too important to leave to the hypocritical, racist, misogynistic, gay-bashing, misleading, Muslim-hating, inaccurate, xenophobic, humorless, archaic content the Volokh Conspiracy offers.
The Volokh Conspiracy aims to make movement conservative positions and thinking more palatable among a broader audience. I aim to correct the record and demonstrate that right-wingers tend to be roundly bigoted, superstitious, poorly educated, obsolete losers in modern America and in the American culture war.
If I bother you enough, ask Prof. Eugene Volokh to censor me for being too liberal or too libertarian. He has done it before. Perhaps he is prepared to do it again.
Asshole is still whining about having his posts deleted by the NYT when Volokh was being hosted there, never mind that the fact that he still gets to infest these precincts proves that his claim of "partisan censorship" is obvious nonsense, never mind that EV has specifically denied doing any such thing.
That's the longest wall of text I've ever seen from him. Somebody touched a nerve. I only scanned it part way, though.
The New York Times never deleted one of my comments. Neither did the Washington Post, a far more relevant point.
When the Volokh Conspiracy has censored me -- vanished my comments for using a pun to describe conservatives, warned me that it forbids my use of "sl_ck-j_wed" to describe conservatives, banned Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland for making fun of conservatives a bit too deftly for right-wing tastes -- it has been done directly, expressly, and in writing by Prof. Eugene Volokh (to his strong credit, he doesn't hide behind vagueness or deniability -- he communicates directly and unambiguously with respect to the censorship he imposes, as he is entitled to do, at his blog).
It would be quite simple for Prof. Volokh to question my recounting of the record in this context. He could simply write 'I never told anyone to stop using 'sl_ck-j_wed' or 'I never removed any comments containing "c_p succ_r." Or 'I never told anyone that Artie Ray was banned.' He does not. I believe it is because he is disinclined to lie about these things -- again, to his credit. Also, he probably recognizes that I still have the emails.
Prof. Volokh may appreciate your sycophantic support, Gandydancer, but you don't know what you are talking about. Your arguments are based on falsehoods. You also are a roundly bigoted, disaffected, right-wing culture war casualty -- precisely the type of antisocial, obsolete, conservative loser this blog increasingly cultivates as a fanbase.
If I am misstating anything here, Prof. Volokh, please correct me. If you need pointers (timestamps) with respect to the relevant emails, or copies of those emails, please let me know and I will provide them.
Other than that, Gandydancer . . . great comment!
Your calling that OK volleyball player who refused to be assimilated by the Borg a racist is exactly when I stopped merely deriding you and started calling you an asshole, Asshole.
Are you contending you had a better perspective than the teammates who considered her a gay-bashing, knuckle-dragging racist?
Your abilities as a ventriloqust don't extend that far, never mind that I recognize your sphinctered voice and know perfectly well that they said no such thing. Not that I doubt much that the roster contained coach-encouraged and -enabled minions but, yes, I absolutely have a better perspective than that of any that might have participated in the evil and stupid way you suggest and model.
Do your own research, you racist, homophobic, disgusting, destined-for-replacement rube.
And open wider . . .
The guy who only supports his statements with YouTube videos ^^^^ demands that I should go on a fools errand to search the internet for support for his lies.
Tell us another, Asshole.
Anyone majoring in theater at Coastal Carolina is stupid in the first place.
Notable Alumni Include: "Michael Kelly, Adam Roberts, Caroline Cuseo, Bailey Hank" I do like the "include", like there is an academy award winner they aren't mentioning.
Quick perusal says Kelly is a regular working actor but the others. Um. Hank sole film credit "2010 Step Up 3D NYU Tour Guide" for instance.
Might as well burn the cash.
You know that "theater" is not synonymous with "film," right?
Her theater and tv resume is not much better
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey_Hanks#Film
If you are going anyplace but Yale Drama or USC film school or a very few other places, its a complete waste. Only an idiot thinks Coastal Carolina is just the place for the arts.
Bob, I don't tell conservative blowhards who counts as notable in their circles, either.
That list isn't for you, or I.
Trying to play superior to a subgroup for not properly engaging with you or wikipedia is pretty pathetic.
"Anyone majoring in theater at Coastal Carolina is stupid in the first place."
What is your judgment concerning the people who stuck -- against all evidence and judgment -- with declining towns and dying industries in desolate Can't-Keep-Up, Ohio all these years?
Compared with the years you've spent here stalking EV, repeating idiocies, and drooling, Asshole?
Damn, U-Mich bragging about Ann B. Davis doesn't sound so weak anymore!
"Adam Roberts, who graduated from CCU in 2007 with a degree in musical theatre, recently landed a role in the chorus of "Spiderman" on Broadway.... Following his graduation, he was an entertainer on a cruise ship."
Why, he exceeded even the lofty heights of Skipper Dan's career!
The correct action for the administration to have taken was to call the offended students, one by one, in to their offices while a mental health profession was present. The students should have been urged to seek counseling at the school's mental health clinic for diagnostic sessions and to determine if treatment for paranoia was appropriate. The mental health professional would be observing to see if the student's paranoia constituted a threat to themselves or others calling for a 72 hold in a psych facility.
I also assume that if white students saw a list of their names on the board and feared that they were being targeted for their assumed "white privilege" that the administration would have responded just as they did here.
Thinking Coastal Carolina is the place to major in theater is prima facia evidence of some sort of mental problem.
Lots of jobs require a degree but not having learned anything in particular. Might be an easier grade than even Grievance Studies.
" Thinking Coastal Carolina is the place to major in theater is prima facia evidence of some sort of mental problem. "
Of the nearly 200 American law schools ranked by U.S. News, precisely how many are ranked below South Texas College Of Law Houston?
___ zero
___ one
___ two
I made it multiple choice so everyone would have at least a one-in-three chance at success. Well, everyone except the students and faculty at South Texas College of Law Houston. They, or course, confront much tougher odds.
Any comment about the quality of South Texas College of Law Houston and the gullible, choice-deprived, downscale people who choose it, Bob from Ohio?
Pretty sure that Kirkland is being disingenuous. I don't think that USNews ranks fourth tier schools (which South Texas is).
Aim your Google-compatible device at the rankings, Mr. Nieporent, and learn that South Texas is "tied for 147-193." Last I checked (a year or so ago), 194 schools were ranked.
Can you identify schools ranked lower than South Texas?
Tied for number 193. So much of which to be proud. No wonder Prof. Volokh figured Prof. Blackman would improve the Volokh Conspiracy.
It took roughly five minutes of scrolling to unfurl the entire list, but I learned that U.S. News has added three Puerto Rican law schools (Pontifical Catholic, Inter-American, University of Puerto Rico) this year, yielding a field of 197 law schools.
The sole (single, only, lone) mainland U.S. law school ranked by U.S. News lower than South Texas is still -- believe it or not -- North Texas!
What the hell is wrong with Texas?
It takes Asshole "roughly five minutes" to accomplish a task that a person of normal intelligence could accomplish in one by copying the list into a spreadsheet.
Not enough working brain cells, our Kookland.
Since he demanded that I identify my school I asked for his first. *crickets* I'm guessing no school on the list suffers the disgrace of having graduated him. But, unlike him, I don't pretend to care.
The question of whether one is a lawyer is relevant to a discussion of legal issues.
I am a licensed, practicing lawyer. Are you?
What year, what school, what name?
On the internet any dog can be a Nobel Prize Winner.
Or, in your case, any asshole.
Um, yes, thank you for confirming my point. Your "question" is phrased to insinuate that ST is ranked last. But ST is a 4th tier school, so all USNews does is say that it's a 4th tier school. It could be at the top of the 4th tier; it could be at the bottom. USNews just doesn't say. (Probably because whether a school is 148th or 178th is pretty much irrelevant to everyone.)
He's being disingenuous because South Texas College of Law Houston doesn't even make the list of ranked schools! haha, the jokes on Ar....wait, it's still on Josh.
It's ranked "tied for 147-193." One mainland law school -- North Texas -- and three Puerto Rican schools are currently ranked lower. (A couple of those Puerto Rican schools are on the accreditation watch list, though, so stayed tuned for more exciting developments concerning schools actually ranked lower than South Texas College Of Law Houston, "the home of self-described national thought leaders."
I most certainly wasn't defending Prof. Blackman; I was just pointing out that Kirkland was being dishonest.
but they have a good d1 small school bball team
And they have Blackman, who I am capable of judging on his individual merit.
An AA admit, Sotomayor went to Princeton and Yale. And we've been hearing about Yale recently. So much for that.
Speaking of merit . . . why is Prof. Blackman still mired at a bottom-of-the-barrel law school after nearly a decade of full-time academic work as a self-described "national thought leader?"
He obviously works hard but that pedaling gets him nowhere. He's like the Hanson brothers of conservative legal academia. They crossed themselves, played hard, loved low-grade tactics, made waves . . . but never got out of Johnstown and were roundly considered "a ______ disgrace."
Guess who clerked in Johnstown, by the way!
More Hansons.
And Bob Costas describes old-time hockey in Johnstown.
Maybe they should hand out degrees in "outrage." That is one activity at which today's students seem to excel.
It was here a successful grift, but it worked at Yale too.
Looks like they were looking for an excuse to get rid of him ... thinking that this might be a safe one.
In these kinds of cases, there is often smoke, conveniently left out in descriptions suggesting a completely wronged naif.
Payback; I don't know, the outrage mob likely just stumbled upon an opportunity.
It's evidently "convenient" for you to imagine that but it's hard not to notice that your assertion is fact-free.
What we know him to have written seems sensible enough, apart from the arguably cringing “just defending our guest artist.”
This won't be a popular position but.....I'd reserve judgment on this until seeing more evidence. I see solid evidence that the prof made a statement and some students didn't like it. I see solid evidence the prof was suspended. What is missing is evidence that the first was cause and the second was effect.
Where I work we've now had multiple cases of faculty who did stuff like miss class for weeks, or failed to answer official e-mail, snail mail and even registered mail for weeks or months at a time. When they saw the consequences closing in, they intentionally involved themselves in controversy on identity issues, and then claimed that was the reason. If their skin or gender made it convenient to claim they were the victim of old-style discrimination, they played left. If their skin or gender made it more convenient to claim they were the victim of political correctness, they played right. While their cases dragged the rest of us had to pick up the slack.
So now I'm kind of cynical about these cases. I very much respect FIRE and generally expect they did their homework, but I'd like to see the homework details made public.
Interesting...I'm not saying that's what happened, I can't say one way or the other.
And not to make light of your own situation, but it sounds like the premise for a modestly-amusing movie - professor in some kind of trouble, realizes he can muddy the waters by making it political, takes a "courageous" stand for a righteous and unpopular cause which is in reality righteous...hey, have your people call my people.
Actually it was sort of amusing to see them grandstanding as martyrs for justice when everyone (at least who had to work with them) knew what they'd actually done. Replace them with better looking actors, intersperse it with some Animal House type humor, it might fly.
What the hell are you talking about?
ACTUALLY IT WAS SORT OF AMUSING TO SEE THEM GRANDSTANDING AS MARTYRS FOR JUSTICE WHEN EVERYONE (AT LEAST WHO HAD TO WORK WITH THEM) KNEW WHAT THEY'D ACTUALLY DONE. REPLACE THEM WITH BETTER LOOKING ACTORS, INTERSPERSE IT WITH SOME ANIMAL HOUSE TYPE HUMOR, IT MIGHT FLY.
"Another letter whining about my not showing up for class...I explained that I was too dru...indisposed.
"Hey, look at that demonstration against the University. What are your protesting, young lady?"
"The university is taking away this guy's house to build a parking deck."
"Hey, give me that sign, the one with the curse words on it."
"FIRE wrote to Coastal Carolina on Sept. 29, reminding the university that professors have the right to speak freely on matters of public concern... As a public institution, Coastal Carolina is bound by the First Amendment and required to protect the free speech of its faculty. / FIRE received no response to its letter"
Not seeing why they wouldn't deny the connection if there is none.
Young people are very susceptible to herd mentality. Part of what happens when you become an adult is you decide for yourself where you will draw the line at "this far, but no further."
This was a missed learning moment. The school administration could have pointed out the dangers of jumping to conclusions. Instead, they lead the way.
So what must we conclude? That adults do not run the schools. They may be old enough, bit they are mature enough.
* "aren't", I assume.
What the prof should have said was "grow up.this is university and you need to learn to talk and engage in folks who don't look like you or agree with you" Seems like the college failed at its most basic level...telling their students to grow the hell up
You mean "'dont' look like you".
If you include 'ditch the fairy tales and childish superstition' in 'grow the hell up,' we may have some common ground.
Fairy tales are your specialty, Asshole.
E.g.,
The reference to FIRE is interesting. FIRE claims to be non-partisan, and it does appear that they try to defend free speech of all political stripes. Which raises the question of why the Conspirators seem to be attracted more to cases of leftist cancel culture, and why the Conspirators' commenters turn absolutely rabid over such. It's not as if it's hard to find cases of free speech repression by conservatives on campus; just go to the FIRE website and check them out.
Hmm. Looking at FIRE's Press Release archive their issues seem to be overwhelmingly coming from the left. That is presumably because academia, their area of focus, leans left both in terms of faculty and administration. Doesn't mean there aren't cases on the right, but the hypersensitive cancel culture of today seems to mostly involve the left as far as I can tell.
Nah, FIRE is right-wing of the David French sort, apparently. Anyway, it was one of French's articles that popped up when I duckduckgo'd "Fire academic freedom". And searching the site for "Florida" turned up no mention about the recent kerfuffle about professors getting paid to testify against the State. (The U is in the right IMHO, but it is nonetheless a litmus test.)
The cases of "repression by conservatives" that FIRE has dealt with on my campus are mostly before FIRE became well-known. Since then when conservatives demand some sort of repressive action the university just says no. I would imagine other campuses are similar at this point.
FIRE's support for a vegetarian student group was mentioned here though: https://reason.com/volokh/2019/12/10/truman-state-university-rejects-animal-rights-club/
The time is coming where there will be soon no option for good men to do nothing....
I've said that to Team Stupid, but they think their impunity is forever, no matter what.
You and Gandydancer and Ed and the entire cowardly cohort fighting keyboard brigade are going to die disappointed there never was that big right-wing violence you dream of.
“Never make predictions, especially about the fFuture.” – Casey Stengel
It's safe to say that you're no better at it than The Asshole.
Where did I make prediction of "right wing violence"....? I just said that we need to start saying no to crazies like this and that simply staying silent is going to no longer be an option for most.
I'm still for firing the professor because of the no-apostrophes email.
"send her his syllabus"
This apparently didn't bug anybody else but it bugs me. If it's 'his' syllabus then it's not the department's syllabus to ask for. Maybe Coastal Carolina University has some sort of policy on the matter but I thought it was standard for university teachers who develop their own syllabus to keep ownership of it. That's why other teachers who use content from other teachers' materials accredit it to the person and not the university/department.