The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
U.C. Hastings Faculty Send Letter To Concerned Students
"Moreover, we understand that statements of commitment to diversity and inclusion ring hollow when salient issues of racial equity are ignored or discounted in the service of prioritizing the ideal of free speech."
A group of U.C. Hastings faculty, including Professor Rory Little, sent the following letter to students:
Dear Concerned Students,
We write in our individual capacity and not on behalf of the institution to explain where the Administration's community email, The College is Committed to Academic Freedom and Free Speech, does not represent our priorities or articulate our commitments to providing you an equitable learning environment.
First and foremost, we condemn the recent comments from Ilya Shapiro regarding President Biden's commitment to nominate an African American woman to the Supreme Court. We find Shapiro's tweet unequivocally racist and misogynistic. We refuse to remain silent in the face of white supremacy. We wish you did not have to live in a society where vile, hateful, and ignorant speech directed towards communities of color is a regular occurrence.
While the Administration's statement mentions in passing the pain experienced by communities of color the past two years, it does not discuss the law school's role in perpetuating the marginalization of our current students. We are aware from conversations with our students of color over the years, and particularly our African American students, that they do not experience UC Hastings as a welcoming learning environment. As professors, we are committed to combating the implicit and explicit messaging UC Hastings students of color too often receive that they are being tolerated instead of embraced and valued. We recognize that these unwelcoming messages are expressed in the doctrines we teach, the context we may fail to provide when teaching them, in the comments made by some community members, and in an environment where so few of UC Hastings faculty and administrators share the life experiences of so many of our students or meaningfully engage in understanding them.
We write to affirm your right to an educational environment where you are nurtured as students and where you can thrive as future lawyers. We strongly believe in the essential value of free speech in an academic setting. We also recognize that context matters because speech does not exist in a vacuum; it happens within the context of unequal power and structural inequalities. Moreover, we understand that statements of commitment to diversity and inclusion ring hollow when salient issues of racial equity are ignored or discounted in the service of prioritizing the ideal of free speech.
UC Hastings has much work to do before a speaker such as Ilya Shapiro could represent just an abhorrent point of view, instead of appearing to be yet another painful reminder to students of color that the institution—through its actions and inactions—fails to convey that students of color belong here as full-fledged members of our community. We sincerely hope that the Administration will continue to work to gather a deeper understanding of the experiences of students of color and provide student leaders with the appropriate guidance and resources for engaging in productive dialogue meant to edify the diverse community that we are so lucky to have at this university.
In solidarity,
Mark Aaronson
Alice Armitage
Alina Ball
Richard Boswell
Betsy Candler
Veena Dubal
Nira Geevargis
Brittany Glidden
Miye Goishi
James Higa
Juan Carlos Ibarra
Rory Little
Shauna Marshall
Stefano Moscato
Karen Musalo
Christine Natoli
Ascanio Piomelli
Gail Silverstein
Linh Spencer
According to the metadata, the document was created by Professor Ascanio Piomelli.
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
How nice of these people to publicly identify themselves as those that need to be fired.
Agree. All need to be cancelled. Zero tolerance for woke. Woke is masking ideology for the interests of the Chinese Commie Party to destroy our country from within.
People like this need to be cancelled.
According to the metadata, the document was created by Professor Ascanio Piomelli.
PDFs have been a regular part of legal practice for at least 15 years. Maybe this author just didn't care, but if you still don't know how to scrub the metadata off your PDFs, you're behind the times.
Why would he need to scrub it? He signed the thing, after all. It's not like he's trying to hide his support.
You think he can feel safe after writing that letter with Ilya Shapiro waking around the streets as a free man? In fact we should lock up Ilya Somin too, just to make sure.
That's what the whole.demonstration, and the letter were all about: safety. Of course he is concerned.
"We find Shapiro's tweet unequivocally racist and misogynistic. We refuse to remain silent in the face of white supremacy. We wish you did not have to live in a society where vile, hateful, and ignorant speech directed towards communities of color is a regular occurrence. "
People who call others racist are called race whores. Zero tolerance for race whores. They are creating a hostile work and school environment. If they are not fired on the spot, the school needs to be investigated, then sued for its Title IV violations. End all federal privileges and subsidies immediately.
Putin, a lawyer, needs to be killed.
If you ask Davie how his schizophrenia is he'll tell you he's of two minds about it.
There is my Queenie. Still working on the latter. What is your race, Sweetie?
"We recognize that these unwelcoming messages are expressed in the doctrines we teach, the context we may fail to provide when teaching them, in the comments made by some community members, and in an environment where so few of UC Hastings faculty and administrators share the life experiences of so many of our students or meaningfully engage in understanding them."
This is pure Commie self criticism. Such admissions resulted in one way trips to the Gulag or to the firing squad.
My thoughts exactly
The above comment illustrates how conservatives love canceling people when they're the ones doing the canceling. Firing professors for sending a letter, you'd make a fine little totalitarian.
These professors are backing students who violated the honor code. That's pretty much incompatible with their position in the university.
Not to mention that these closed-minded crybabies (students and professors alike) do not have the mental toughness to perform in a demanding field.
I mean they said something that directly showed how unfit they were for their job. Its one thing to make an 'insensitive' tweet. But calling Shapiro's tweet white supremacy is like an astronomer arguing in favor of a flat earth. Also a signed letter is a lot more intentional than the stray quotes leftists like to get conservatives cancelled for.
It isn't that guys like AmosArch don't see the bigotry exhibited by the likes of Ilya Shapiro; it's that they like it.
Carry on, clingers . . . your betters will establish how far and how long.
The only bigotry displayed by Ilya Shapiro was pointing out progressives bigotry.
bigots/progressives simply dont like anyone pointing out their bigotry
So, "I'm only going to hire a Black woman" isn't bigotry?
What Rule of Conduct did Shapiro's opponent violate by showing support for the disrupters?
These are not professors. They are servants of the Chinese Commie Party seeking to destroy our nation from the inside.
These people are teaching upcoming lawyers, and what are they teaching?
That arguing in favor of a minority is "white supremacy" if the ethnicity of the minority is not the listener's preferred one;
That trespass and disruption of private events to silence those the listener disagrees with is not only not illegal, it is a virtuous behavior to be encouraged and repeated;
The school rules and codes of behavior can be broken at will without consequence as long as the listener feels the cause is good;
And that feelings supersede truth and law.
These people are unfit to be teaching anywhere. That's why they should be fired.
These professors are adherents of the methods of Mao's Cultural Revolution and servants of the interests of the Chinese Commie Party. They should be fired and blacklisted.
This remark was dumb the first time, even as a wokester's satire of complaints against woke cancellations. After about the 10th time, it suggests the intelligence of a scratched gramophone record.
In an interview, Jacques Vergès talked about his representation of Djamila Bouhired. He said that, if the French military government of Algeria had executed her, he was prepared to assassinate the head of the government.
Same attitude.
One sound solution to cancel culture is mutually assured destruction.
The other way to look at cancel culture is that cancel culture is a form of weaponized robbery. It takes away the person’s ability to make a living for themselves and their family for no good reason. The response to cancel culture needs to be horrifically scary for those who perpetrate it just like it would be horrifically scary for a robber to break in my house and put my family at risk. Anyone who tries that crap with me better realize they’re pushing all their chips to the center of the table and they have a very good chance of losing everything. If enough people response like that, cancel culture ends.
They don't deserve to be fired for sending a letter. They do, however, deserve to be fired for the demonstrated failures of logic and honesty in the letter. Being stupid is incompatible with the job description of a university professor.
I thought it was a resignation letter.
After all if you admit you are figures of authority in a racist organization that's currently oppressing your students, well quitting is your only option:
"it does not discuss the law school's role in perpetuating the marginalization of our current students."
Yes, I find it strange how they're so willing to work for a white supremacist institution that actively harms its students.
"These people said something I don't like. Therefore they should be fired."
Yeah, that's a good way to show your support for freedom of expression, tolerance of opposing viewpoints, etc.
'No tolerance for the intolerant'. Isn't that what the SJWs like to say?
The ones who pretend to be smarter cite Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance" as an excuse to be intolerant.
They never get around to addressing the second half of what he wrote about it, that intolerance is a last resort when all the normal mechanisms to limit someone else's intolerance fail. Intolerant leftists do not like the effects of the laws they pass and the policies they institute across so many organizations. They think their bad implementations of questionable ideas mean the mechanisms are flawed, leaving only intolerance as a response. They are wrong, of course.
The "paradox of intolerance" becomes an issue when somebody tries to coercively impose their view (rather than merely express it).
These days, that's *usually* the left...although when the right occasionally does it, that's wrong too.
support for freedom of expression, tolerance of opposing viewpoints, etc.
I do think this is something of a close question, since these views aren't great to have in a teacher, and makes me question their efficacy on the job.
I tend towards freedom of expression on campus, but this is in the direction that would make me want to review their job performance.
these views aren't great to have in a teacher,
What views are those, Sarcastro?
I think some of the statement is a bit overwrought - "UC Hastings has much work to do before a speaker such as Ilya Shapiro could represent just an abhorrent point of view" - and I certainly think shouting down Shapiro was seriously unacceptable behavior, should not be tolerated, and should be disciplined.
But much of the letter refers to the atmosphere at UC Hastings, of which I, and I suspect most of those commenting, know nothing. Are the complaints described reasonable, or "snowflaky?" I don't know but it seems like a real stretch to say that expressing sympathy with them is cause for termination.
I have no problem with telling the students their outrage is valid.
But expressing sympathy without saying you don't get to shout down speakers you don't like is an endorsement of the heckler's veto by implication, if not directly.
This letter alone? Not determinative of anything requiring sanction. But not a philosophy I want expounded to kids; I just want to make sure the teachers aren't telling kids to crusade against wrongspeech.
I just want to make sure the teachers aren't telling kids to crusade against wrongspeech.
Fair enough. I agree, if by "crusade against" you mean "attempt to disrupt or silence," rather than, "argue against the content of."
Yes, talking purely about heckler's veto.
I wouldn't be here if I wasn't into arguing against people who were wrong 😛
Lawyer teachers encouraging their students to violate laws and school rules? That's more than "something I didn't like".
Saying they disagree with Shapiro - even calling him racists - is, well, the act of idiocy, but ok. Encouraging the misbehavior of students to harass, disrupt, and silence people that say things they don't like is quite a bit more, and reveals that these people should not be allowed to teach, anywhere.
"Yeah, that's a good way to show your support for freedom of expression, tolerance of opposing viewpoints, etc."
Freedom of expression at universities is an interesting idea, and maybe we can convince academics and universities to try it sometime. But in the meantime, there's no reason for these unqualified idiots to be teaching.
I don't agree with firing/cancelling people who misguidedly call for cancelling others. It's tempting, but we must resist getting on the left's level.
Lead by example, defending the free speech of even your enemies.
The solution to bad speech is more speech. Only, and always.
"Sticks and stones might break my bones, but names will authorize us to use the power of government to silence our opponents!"
"What? It can't? WELL WE WISH IT COULD IN OUR UNOFFICIAL CAPACITY!"
Using their rules, not the rules of free speech, shouldn't they be fired or cancelled for creating an unwelcome environment for free speech?
How nice of these people to publicly identify themselves as those that need to be fired.
Au contraire. They are doing the minimum necessary to keep their future job options open. Should they ever apply for another position at a different law faculty, or should they be nominated for a State or federal judgeship, how else could they possibly answer the first interview question :
"You were at UC Hastings when the anti-fascist students prevented the fascist Shapiro from speaking (have you got that the right way round ? - Ed)
And you didn't sign the letter ? Really ?"
It's just the modern version of the Thirty-nine Articles. Sign or dig turnips for a living.
Actually, I'm pretty sure this would not come up in an interview.
I'm old enough now I know a few people on the legal academic treadmill now.
It's okay, if you've got nothing, to just not post rather than pretending certainty about something you just made up.
You have grasped my point precisely. Do you disagree with it?
"Ed" in this context does not, alas, refer to you. It refers to Bill Deedes, the former editor of the Daily Telegraph in London. The full trope, paying homage to Deedes' status as a world class imbiber is "Shurely shome mishtake - Ed" , and is used to insert fictional editorial comment when draft copy appears to have the story backwards. Deedes is alleged to have been Evelyn Waugh's inspiration for William Boot in Scoop.
But it seems likely that Deedes would have agreed with your view.
Have all the white professors quit their positions at Hastings so that a person of color can be hired in their place? No? Why not?
That is a proper question for all wokes. Stop talking woke. Start acting woke. Resign to be replaced by a diverse.
First UCLA,
and now South Texas Houston,
lathering their rubes.
Disaffected profs
whine at the official blog
of the clingerverse.
Artie, again, you old, white, male supremacist? Quit. Then come back and talk big.
A group of law professors who can’t read and comprehend simple English. Somin’s “white supremacy” in which he demands an Indian-American be nominated to the court. Did they even read what they wrote? Can someone please tell us who is white and who isn’t?
So, they mention that they want to provide an “equitable” learning environment. Equitable means the same for everyone, right? Do the white students at the law school (whatever color they are) also get coddled whenever something happens that hurts their feelings?
This letter is just pure stupidity. You wish the school would come down on these people hard just to watch them switch and scream about their speech rights, which they’re so dismissive of when applied to other people. Fucking hypocrites are the worst.
No lawyer can read the plain. low grade level English of the constitution. They just make shit up in promotion of rent seeking and of empowerment of their failed leadership and of their ownership of the government.
Well. This is exactly "it".
The students claim they are not "fully accepted, but instead feel as if they are only tolerated". Sooo...after getting in with substandard grades and test scores, they now want to whine because "some people" assume their inferiority (wrt the academic tasks at hand). And their response is not to prove those assumptions wrong, but to insist actions be taken to demonstrate acceptance of their excuses (their "life experiences").
Thing is, a client expecting a certain level of lawyering skill has no obligation to accept less. Unless they want to legislate that lowered expectation into existence, and also legislate against said client complaining.
It should be explained to them that sympathy for their difficult upbringing (and I'm pretty sure a lot of these kids are the children of successful black families anyway) does not extend to excusing substandard work or disregard for the schools' policies. Instead, the school panders to their claims that pointing out the uncomfortable reality (they got a pass into a school they weren't really qualified for) is just too painful for them to endure.
I'd hope the school, and these teachers, would unequivocally state that everyone brandishing a Hastings degree earned it, and their expertise is up to snuff. Or maybe these kids figure they'll get hired as diversity tokens anyway and they really WON'T have to be good at the lawyerin'. In which case, caveat emptor.
I guess any ab initio reluctance to hire black lawyers can just be tantrummed against. It worked in law school, after all.
I would like the names of the student disrupters. I doubt any will be African.
Shapiro, not Somin.
Somin still needs to be held accountable. The fact that he had noting to do with the comments doesn't mean that the pain of people who confuse him with Shapiro is any less valid.
That is the Laugh of the Day.
I second that. But seriously: off with Somin's head. It's only right.
You know who else claimed to have nothing to do with Shapiro's racist comments?
Progressives' attempts to redefine racism so broadly as to include mere insensitivity/tone-deafness is...well, not progress.
"white supremacy” in which he demands an Indian-American be nominated to the court"
I seem to recall that Indians are Aryans, which makes them extra-whitey-white.
Also, any apparently-nonwhite person who gets the approval of a white supremacist is automatically considered an honorary white - or a dishonorary white, to be more precise.
Also, it's known that asian-Americans are stalking horses for the white supremacist conspiracy which seeks to pit the BIPOC against each other while collecting their white-people profits.
Sorry Dilan I grabbed the wrong name. Gotta admit those guys’ names (first and last combo) are much closer than should be allowed by law.
Cal - I want my fair share of white people profits. Where can I get them? Of course white supremacists like Shapiro will probably judge me impure because of the Cherokee thing. Am I eligible? Fuckin’ Elizabeth Warren probably got some because her blood is pure.
"I want my fair share of white people profits. Where can I get them?"
The offer probably went to your spam folder. Check there and open any message which says you're getting free money - that should...have a result.
Ah, but they'll be happy to explain to you that while their speech rights should be respected, yours shouldn't -- because you're a "hater"! (Who says? They do!) See how it works?
The letter is nothing short of hysterics. It is an embarrassment to the law school that these professors are so ideologically driven so as not to be able to read with a modicum of ideological detachment.
Religious fanaticism...under the guide of something less vile.
No, it's the same old vile. Smoke and mirrors and madness of crowds and they need a copy of the Emperor's New Clothes.
This sounds as bad as the whining from Heterodox Academy.
Neither group seems likely to be very persuasive to the liberal-libertarian mainstream.
Disavow your ideological kin as much as you want, the family resemblance is too great to hide.
The same is true with respect to you and Strom Thurmond, Cal Cetin. And you and James Earl Ray. And you and every Catholic Church abuser of children.
This is why you have lost the culture war, Cal Cetin. Low character and shabby associations.
Why don't you and your friends Sirhan Sirhan and Pol Pot and Stalin glory in your victory?
And I've noticed that the Pope is leftist and woke, just like you.
The future is leftist, Cal Cetin. About the only thing you can look forward to is being replaced.
By your betters.
Carry on, clingers.
Well, at least I won't be replaced by *you.*
That is correct. You will be replaced by a younger (teenaged), reasoning, tolerant, modern, better American.
I am no longer a teenager.
Who will replace *you*?
Or are you irreplaceable?
And maybe your corporatist masters will send that teenager off to a foreign war to die.
I will be replaced by someone who largely shares my preferences.
That's how a culture war -- like democracy -- works.
May the better ideas continue to prevail.
Keep your creepy Otaku Sailor Moon fetishes to yourself.
Keep stammering, you gullible right-wing bigot.
If a teenager replaces you, it would simply be impossible for them to be more absolutely insufferable and abysmally ignorant than yourself. It probably wouldn't be possible for them to even equal you in these respects.
Rev. The resignation or STFU. You, an old, white male supremacist, need to resign to be replaced by a diverse.
So let’s not hear any more talk about how the problem is the students being immature or acting up.
Shapiro's blasphemed against the special people and now their sacred feelings are in danger of being disturbed!!
These professors have a zeal to protect and cater to those sacred feelings. They won’t tolerate sinners like Shapiro in the venerated places where the special people walk.
This sucks, but I'm not seeing causality.
Again, student activism being lawless and unthinking is not some new thing that recently developed as faculty got more liberal.
And no, faculty has not made much of a practice of punishing students in the past when they acted up with sit ins and the like either.
Your special people narrative is just grievance writing what you're sure is in other people's minds. Pop-psychoanalyses of the other side is fun, but a vice that leads towards self-radicalization.
Is it just grievance whining?
Are the white students at this las school coddled like this? Asian students?
I agree that Ben seems permanently wrecked by partisanship, but you’ve got yet another example here of one group separated out for extra sensitive handling to the point that a group of professors will publicly make absolute fools of themselves . What would you call it?
Plenty of white students are probably protesting too. Asians as well.
Race being a hot-button issue doesn't mean the emotions of nonwhites are somehow elevated on an individual basis.
Take it from me - I'm a liberal, and I care about everyone's feelings both on an individual and broader policy level; a utilitarian policy that doesn't take into account psychology is dumb and bad. Most of my fellows do as well.
Though I also think some emotional reactions stem from the worse parts of human nature and shouldn't be coddled. But everyone thinks that; they just disagree.
There's different forms of coddling. We can allow for disagreement about how much sympathy to have for the students' demands for censorship, but no serious adults (especially in academia) should be entertaining the thought of actually accommodating it.
I agree with you there - these teachers are wrong in my opinion.
Whether that means any kind of formal sanction is another question, and one I'm not sure about without more facts - this alone is not determinative.
"… Ben seems permanently wrecked by partisanship…"
I just echo their nonsense and their attitudes back at them. If you think it’s annoying then I’ve successfully communicated it.
When they stop doing this sort of bullshit then we can all go back to being reasonable and civilized.
You echo your distorted fiction about what their attitudes are back at your strawman of them.
Great for self-validation; not great for interfacing with reality.
Echos are always distorted. So what?
You're not predicting anything. You're looking back and saying you totally predicted that.
It's lame.
^He said, complaining about what others say, without offering any insight himself.
(Prediction: Sarcastr0 will respond that this post is a complaint about what others say. Or he would if I hadn't predicted it. So he'll just say something mean or dismissive to end the conversation thread.)
I try not to offer insight on things I don't think I have any insights in. This includes generalizations about what's going on in other people's heads.
That's a side splitter.
How many blacks are in the military?
How many student protests were there in the Vietnam era, or now?
Do prosecutors drop charges against BLM/Antifa rioters more than others?
Is there any media bias?
What's "my view"?
There are all recent things you have no insight on that you've felt free to argue that you know - even though you didn't know and had never looked up any data about before making your pronouncements.
Yes, I have been wrong before. And been mocked, and took the correction.
That doesn't mean I just go full fiction about conservative mindset based on my own partisanship like Ben did, and like you're defending.
How many student protests were there in the Vietnam era, or now?
This is burden shifting. Unless you deny there were anti-Vietnam protests, they serve as a counterexample for those arguing the novelty of this most recent student action.
Just FYI, from the Gray Lady, on self censoring on campuses. FWIW[1] this wasn't the campus culture I experienced.
My favorite part:
"During a feminist theory class in my sophomore year, I said that non-Indian women can criticize suttee, a historical practice of ritual suicide by Indian widows. This idea seems acceptable for academic discussion, but to many of my classmates, it was objectionable.
The room felt tense. I saw people shift in their seats. Someone got angry, and then everyone seemed to get angry. "
Oy vey. What next ... you can't object to the holocaust if you aren't German?
[1]I know, merely my anecdotal experience, don't have a peer reviewed study with statistical significant results, etc, etc.
Saying that doesn't make it so, Sarcastro.
I mean, Ben is just saying that, it doesn't make it so.
You don't have access to other people's thoughts. Stop being certain what they think.
It’s a way to understand and predict their behavior. When people act like religious zealots and their behavior can be predicted and understood by asking "what would zealots do?", then it doesn’t really matter that their true motives are only very similar but not precisely the same as religious zealotry.
You don't predict anything, you after the fact fit whatever you see into your narrative, and declare you're right again about how evil your cartoon political enemies are.
Sure Sarcastr0.
Keep telling people they don’t understand anything about anything while also refusing to explain what’s happening or providing any understanding or thoughts of your own.
You’re so sure it’s not something but you have nothing at all to say about what it is.
Dude. You're telling me what *I* think.
I think I have standing to say when you're full of shit on that front.
It’s not about you. Not everything is about you.
1) I'm a liberal, you're talking about liberals.
2) https://reason.com/volokh/2022/03/03/ilya-shapiro-is-shouted-down-at-u-c-hastings/?comments=true#comment-9388404
I’m pretty sure you think the feelings of minorities are sacrosanct and that anyone who threatens to injure those sacred feelings commits a sin.
You’d use different words, obviously. But you value the feelings of the special people very, very highly. And you'd never claim otherwise, even for the sake of argument, because it might threaten your place in the intersectional congregation.
That was a reply to me on the 4th.
Whatever, Sarcastr0. You don’t deny it or offer any clarifying thoughts on it. You have expressed racial favoritism in the past. Recently your "insights" are almost entirely complaining about what others say.
That doesn’t make the UC Hastings letter about you.
Why not just agree that people should neither be treated better nor worse because of their race?
Why not agree that feelings of people upset by Shapiro's tweet are owed no more or less deference than the feelings of Shapiro, or the feelings of the people upset by the response, or the people upset by the protest, or any other feelings?
Let’s have one standard.
(But no, you only respond with complaints about what others say. How's that for a prediction?)
I did deny it. That's what saying you're full of shit is.
Why not agree that feelings of people upset by Shapiro's tweet are owed no more or less deference than the feelings of Shapiro, or the feelings of the people upset by the response, or the people upset by the protest, or any other feelings?
Except this is nonsense. As I said yesterday if you cared to read:
"Take it from me - I'm a liberal, and I care about everyone's feelings both on an individual and broader policy level; a utilitarian policy that doesn't take into account psychology is dumb and bad. Most of my fellows do as well.
Though I also think some emotional reactions stem from the worse parts of human nature and shouldn't be coddled. But everyone thinks that; they just disagree."
Yeah. I read that. Does it mean anything? Maybe someone can decipher it.
I think it says you’re taking all sides of every argument about the subject, but only partly taking some sides…?
Either there’s a specific duty to cater to the feelings of the special people or there isn’t.
And if you believe there isn’t, then maybe stop complaining every time someone says there isn’t.
I think it says you’re taking all sides of every argument about the subject, but only partly taking some sides…?
You said something about how I think. I told you you're wrong, and explained how I think. There is no special duty to cater to the feelings of any particular group, but some emotional responses are better than others.
Any confusion is on you.
Yeah, it was super-liberal of those law students to shut down Shapiro's talk. And it was super-liberal of their professors to applaud them for it!
Unacceptable to a leftist. It would be "unfair" / "inequitable." We must tilt the playing field in favor of (fill in the blank: minorities, women, "the poor," etc.)
Ok, if there’s no duty to cater to the feelings of special people then there’s absolutely no basis for anyone's complaints about Shapiro's tweet (except his own complaint that it might not have perfectly communicated his intent, but that’s his call).
Then why do you spend so much time complaining when zealotry is pointed out? Why try to muddy the waters for the benefit of zealots?
Zealots bullying someone based on a mistaken or false belief system is bad. Reasonable people should be able to agree on that.
Can you actually provide some evidence that student disruptions in the 1960s and 70s were either as common as they are today, or that they were treated the same?
By the second half of the 60s they were probably a lot more common than today, but those students were a lot more motivated because as to at least the males their asses were in the jackpot.
My memory is that there was a lot more head cracking than there was coddling.
We don't even have stats on events on campus today, Toranth, much less then. Doesn't stop you from being super certain your view is statistically supported.
I'm pushing back on those mistaking anecdote for data here; the burden is on the people insisting this is 1) new, 2) widespread, 3) caused by faculty more than student agency, and 3) intentionally so.
There's a *lot* of assumptions in that narrative, but it seems to be the dominant one.
There’s no "burden" to state an opinion. Don’t be ridiculous.
You made a factual statement about how liberals think. You are very certain of it. And you provided no support.
Being certain of your negative opinions of another group is not a healthy way to be.
There are no factual statements about what someone else thinks.
The entire idea that it could ever be a factual statement is ridiculous.
There are opinions and impossible-to-verify secondhand accounts only. Zero verifiable facts, ever.
What someone thinks is a factual assertion. That person can validate it.
Though if you want to keep admitting you've just got a strawman fetish, I won't stop you.
That person can validate it or not and there’s no more factual information afterwards because there’s no way to determine whether they’re being truthful.
So there’s never a question of it being a fact or not. It’s always an opinion, obviously.
Don’t continue being ridiculous.
Lots of studies and whatnot are done by self reporting. They are not all invalid because they don't allow for someone lying.
Bottom line - you've got a story you're very committed to telling yourself about liberals. You like to act like you have more than that. But you don't.
"Lots of studies and whatnot are done by self reporting. They are not all invalid…"
They have little validity.
"You like to act like you have more than that. But you don't."
Versus the nothing that you have to offer, other than complaining about what others say and playing meaningless word games.
How about just stop the race preferences and then we don't have to talk about why leftists treat some races better at the expense of others? If leftists would stop doing bad stuff, no one would wonder what their twisted motives were.
Congrats on discarding the majority of political surveys, and psychology, and a bunch of other stuff.
Your general cynical misanthropy is not shared by most normal people.
Rejecting racial favoritism is called "cynical misanthropy" now.
"I'm pushing back on those mistaking anecdote for data here; the burden is on the people insisting this is 1) new, 2) widespread, 3) caused by faculty more than student agency, and 3) intentionally so."
What assumption on this would have saved Ilya Shapiro from these sorts of people?
What are you talking about?
Having bad hot takes on the Internet doesn't save anyone from anything.
Anyone else besides you would have understood the question.
Shapiro would have avoided trouble if he had understood that there was a predatory inquisition looking for sinners to punish. And had he understood what they considered sinful: anything that might disturb the feelings of the special people.
But keep telling people they’re completely safe as the number of victims grows.
Awesome how you returned to your old fan fiction about how liberals think.
Full circle; very elegant.
How they act.
And I don’t call them "liberals" because speech policing isn't "liberal". It’s the opposite of liberal.
Have fun with your private semantic jerk-off; the rest of us will be using a common terminology and communicating.
Mr. Shapiro tried to communicate. How did that go?
You are pushing anecdote as an antidote to anecdote, and claiming to be more accurate? Also, what's "My View", as you put it? I don't believe I've expressed an opinion on that topic here, so where are you getting your conclusion from?
Also, you've reviewed the literature to see that there was no data on the 60s and 70s OR today? Is this like your review of data on how many blacks were in the military?
Because not only is there data on the topic, the 60s and 70s have been heavily researched - to the point there specific classes offered on the topic of student protests during the Vietnam era, above and beyond the general history of the anti-war, civil rights, and counterculture movements.
Incidentally, the student protests of the 19th century also have a LOT of data and research behind them, as they were... somewhat influential.
A few minutes with a search engine can reveal a great deal to someone willing to look for data. Have you ever considered trying it?
Counterexamples can be anecdotes. And given the broad generalization here given without support, that's all I need.
I'm quite comfortable saying there's not an easy quantification of the level of protests across the nation. Maybe there's some bank shot take in social science lit, but it's pretty esoteric if so.
You don't have any data, you don't know if there is data, you are unwilling to look for any data.
You therefore declare the "fact" that the data does not exist, and therefore your anecdotes are better than someone else's.
If someone else using an anecdote as evidence is bad, then you using an anecdote as evidence is bad. Your anecdotes are not special, and do not become conclusive arguments just because you says so. If you want to criticize someone for using an unsupported argument, that's a rational argument. Claiming you have disproven their argument because with the data - without any attempt to gather the necessary data - to back it up, though, is just lying.
And incidentally, I'll ask again - Why are you attacking "my view"? Where did you even discover what "my view" is? Did you have an evidence for that, or is this another case of making things up and lying about it?
My thesis is merely that Ben and Brett are wrong. Counterexamples serve for that function.
You came in asking me for stats; taking Ben and Brett's assertions as...assumed, I guess?
Maybe I shouldn't have said *your* view was that those positions were well supported, but you did a great impression of someone who axiomatically believed something new was happening with students generally on accounta the liberalz.
But you provided no counterexamples.
My critique of you is that you were, once again, declaring things as facts without providing evidence. I didn't need to apply the same to Ben or Brett because there were already others - including you, if you haven't forgotten - were already doing so.
I wouldn't have even bothered responding to you, except that you'd made the same claim repeatedly, in several threads. I would have been impressed, even convinced, if you had data to back it up... but unsurprisingly, you didn't.
"We don't even have stats on events on campus today, Toranth, much less then."
I submit that buzzcuts were more common on campus in days gone by than today. Aside from sailors, bellbottoms weren't common until the 1960's, etc. Now, I wasn't walking around with a clipboard tallying hair and pants styles; these are just the casual observations I made, at the times and places I happened to be, and consuming the media of the day.
Let me guess - I don't have hard stats, my personal observations are just anecdotal. There just isn't any way reasonable people today could make reasonable inferences, etc, etc.
I'd accept that from someone who was just really quirky for data purity, but it's funny how partisans - on both sides - get so much more enthusiastic about data purity when the limited data at hand disagrees with their narrative du jour.
This is why I provided counterexamples.
Personal experience reputational evidence is a fine initial assumption. But it can be rebutted with counterexamples. Or at least called into question.
Barring a direct challenge to the relevance or accuracy of the counterexample, you're then in a good old fashioned anecdote-off. That won't prove anything, you need to escalate to statistics.
That's my take on how these discussions should go if you want to stay tethered to reality.
"This is why I provided counterexamples. "
??????????
The student protests for civil rights and against Vietnam.
Those would be definitive counterexamples to the thesis 'there were no student protests prior to 2000'.
They don't shed any light on what I have been saying, which is 'Generally speaking, my experience has been that societal civility is declining over time'.
If someone said 'the climate is warming over time', then '1972 had a hot summer' is not much of a counterargument.
First, your original thesis was that protests like this one were more common now, not something about general civility.
Between how general the word civility is and your use of general and societal, you've smeared your take out to the point that it's just O Tempore O Mores, which is still untrue, but for a different reason - everyone thinks their own time is especially fraught. Has been happening since Cicero.
I do have the opposite bias - I have an irrational and unsupported tendency to think we're living in a world and country where things are better than most other times.
I do agree that partisanship is louder and more present than it's been in the past, but I don't know how much of the country that really is. Plus it seems to skew older, and it's already aging out.
"First, your original thesis was that protests like this one were more common now, not something about general civility. "
I disagree that that was my original thesis.
I will grant that my first comment "Nope, Brett is right here. this is a new phenomenon." could be construed that way, even though that was not my intent.
That was followed a little while later with "The SDS doing sit-ins was bad, but it didn't compare to today's society wide belief that shouting down the opposition was OK.".
This is why I am mystified that you seem to think I was unaware that the SDS was doing sit ins, or was only discussing on campus activities.
I was taking your thesis to be more focused on protest. But today's society wide belief that shouting down the opposition was OK.". is also unsupported, though it's something I'm less reflexively willing to contradict, I remain unsure that's true versus feeling true due to confirmation bias.
With respect to kids these days, maybe it's how I'm steeped in STEM student interactions, but politics has not taken over student life.
More generally, beyond these campus heckler's veto incidents, I'm not seeing other like incidents happening that often. Sometimes a politician will be refused service or heckled at, but that's still enough of an outlier to make headlines. Plus it happened in the early 1900s as well (and was similarly headline-making).
Sarcastro, we don't need to determine anything about the causality or prevalence in order to know how wrong this was. So let's start with that.
Just like when injustices happen that the left is more concerned about...we can agree on the wrongfulness of the specific event, and then argue separately about things like root causes and widespread prevalence, etc.
Yes, I'm taking as a given this was bad.
I'm pushing back against the generalization, and, worse, turning this into some kind of campus conspiracy.
It’s literally a letter signed by 19 people on a campus.
What do you think a conspiracy is?
Not a public letter, lol.
The student disruptions of the 60's were widely variable in nature reanging from bombings of the Weather Underground to the Berkeley Free Speech Movement of Mario Serio to sit-ins to decide whether there should be a sit-in at UChicago. At the more severe end of the spectrum, the protests today are fewer. At the median, today's protests are more dispruptive and aimed at decreasing dialogue rather than increasing dialogue in contrast to the teach-in of the anti Vietnam war movement.
"Your special people narrative is just grievance writing what you're sure is in other people's minds."
It’s a description of what’s happening. Certain people are treated as special and their feelings are catered to. And the ones who do it are very happy to cause whatever hardship to anyone else not in that special category. It’s bigotry and intolerance in action and they’re not hiding it at all.
If Shapiro had understood the zeal and the veneration for the feelings of the special people he would have avoided the inquisition he faces now. That’s the time to understand: before finding out the hard way.
Anyone who wants to get ahead in "schools" like these would be smart to learn what the zealots want to hear and how to manipulate them.
It's true, Ben . . . conservative bigots are being treated differently these days than they were decades ago. Society is less likely to indulge the half-educated racists, obsolete misogynists, superstitious gay-bashers, backwater xenophobes, and disaffected Muslim-haters of the Republican Party and can't-keep-up backwaters.
Culture wars have consequences. Magnificent ones, in this case.
In this case, the conservative profusely apologized for an *accidental* implication of bigotry, whereas the left is engaging in *actual* bigotry and real hate...and sticking to it.
Is Shapiro one of those "conservatives"? I don’t even know.
It’s not like it matters. Had he been wary of the inquisition, he might have avoided becoming their target.
Hopefully most of us can agree that the people going after him are really terrible people and are behaving badly.
No, they aren't. In fact, they'll accuse you of bigotry and intolerance if you object. The sheer gall!
That’s just a tactic they use. It’s 100% meaningless.
It’s not even noteworthy except to point out the contrast between how they demand the special people be treated versus their own (bad, sometimes criminal) behavior toward others.
Look at the difference in behavior between JK Rowling and her critics for a good example. She insists on a way for women to be safe, the people on the other side send death threats for years and burn books and try to end her career. Are the death-threat-senders The Good Guys…?
Now do for Jan 6 tourists sitting as political prisoners in DC!
Goody news - none of the tourists in DC on Jan 06 are in jail.
But a number of the disaffected, disgusting Jan. 6 criminals are being awarded government housing for three or four years!
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
I look forward to observing the prize ceremonies for the leaders of that operation. Maybe Rhodes will get 20 years.
The valediction "In solidarity" is, to me, a red flag in itself.
The media loves monikers like "The Gang of Six" or stuff like that. I say we call these people "The Band of Useful Idiots".
Doesn't make a good acronym.
"targets" is shorter.
The trustees of a university, in my own humble opinion, could certainly set limits to "academic freedom" on campus, though fairness would require that students and faculty be warned in advance of what bright lines they must stay away from.
But the initiative of regulating expression ought to be with the trustees, not any random student mob. If the university deems a speaker worthy of addressing students, then disrupting the speaker should be treated as seriously as, say, scribbling an ethnic joke on a bathroom stall.
...or marching through a faculty meeting while they're counting ballots in a faculty election, to use an example some people can relate to.
All of these professors should be publicly shamed. They should be condemned. And that's all. Don't fire them. Don't "cancel" them. They should be made objects of scorn and derision. That is punishment enough.
Ah the good old White Savior complex. "Don't worry people of color, white people are here to save you!" "This time though we will do it right!"
A lot of higher ed is going online. Maybe invited speakers can go online too. To disrupt the speech, the activists will need to coordinate a denial-of-service attack, but for such geniuses, that shouldn't be difficult.
I thought Shapiro’s tweet was tasteless and crude, but this reaction is a wildly over-the-top, embarrassing display of abject groveling.
Most of this blog's carefully cultivated collection of conservative commenters think Shapiro's tweet was glorious (because they tend to favor racism and misogyny to varying degrees, and seethe because mainstream America no long salutes such bigotry).
Wouldn't be using only the race of an applicant to determine if they would be considered sort of the definition of racism?
How did this right-wing blog become so odds-defyingly male and exceptionally white?
Are you saying that EV actively discriminates, or that he merely fails to proactively pursue demographic diversity?
It's an important distinction (even if you believe that either would be wrong).
I think an ugly confluence of factors has brought The Volokh Conspiracy to its current condition -- remarkably white, strikingly male, reliably disingenuous ("often libertarian," without mentioning movement conservatism), a magnet for bigots.
Nobody thinks the tweet was good, including the person who did it.
The disagreement is about what kind (and severity) of wrong it was.
PDFs have been a regular part of legal practice for at least 15 years. Maybe this author just didn't care, but if you still don't know how to scrub the metadata off your PDFs, you're behind the times.
He did not care. To the contrary Piomelli prides his status as a leading social justice warrior.
How does free appech conflict with racial equity?
Stop feeding them attention. Put U.C. Hastings on your do not hire/recruit list and move on.
"We find Shapiro's tweet unequivocally racist and misogynistic. We refuse to remain silent in the face of white supremacy. We wish you did not have to live in a society where vile, hateful, and ignorant speech directed towards communities of color is a regular occurrence."
This is utterly delusional. Shapiro readily admits that his poor phrasing had inadvertently created an implication he did not intent, and apologized for it. None of that can reasonably be characterized in those ways.
The intolerant bigots do not care. They are only interested in performative White Saviorism, which is their current method of expressing their white supremacist beliefs.
"their white supremacist beliefs"
That's some weak judo there.
Also, why do you assume the letter signers are white?
I just checked and of the first five signers two seem to be POC.
The irony of this kind of thing from a Shapiro supporter here is certainly a bit too on the nose...
"apologized for it"
A second mistake. Fat lot of good it did him, his enemies rightfully took it as a sign of weakness.
These people live on a different planet.
Sadly, that "planet" runs academia, big tech, and most media organizations and corporate boards.
But fortunately, they're less than half of the actual population...and shrinking. So, there's still hope for a preference cascade...
You figure conservatives are position to diminish . . . or to stop . . . or even to reverse the tide of the culture war?
The liberal-libertarian mainstream has shaped our national progress for so long as any of us has been alive. It builds and controls the institutions that lead our nation. Conservatives get the legislatures of can't-keep-up states, though, and a couple of hundred low-quality religious schools. Plus the 'rasslin, car racing, and rattlesnake-juggling operations.
With respect to the future, our nation becomes less rural, less religious, less backward, less bigoted, and less white essentially daily. The consequences of that continuing evolution of our electorate for Republican and conservative prospects in America seem relatively predictable.
Calling for a conservative victory in the American culture war? That's the level of thinking that causes some intolerant, disaffected hayseeds to focus on a few immature, boorish students shouting down a downscale speaker rather than on the many backwater legislatures and governors arranging statutory censorship with respect to what they call critical race theory.
Carry on, clingers . . . so far as your stale, ugly conservative thinking could carry anyone in modern America, that is.
I don't see it as quite so binary...I think there's a shot for the dust to settle in a place where most people accept that we're a pluralistic society, and that tolerance and inclusion need to be mutual and reciprocal (to be meaningful).
Then, mainstream conservatives *and* mainstream progressives can simply agree to disagree and leave each other the hell alone...while each side helps keep their own "crazies" in check, to maintain some sense of civility.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...
When do you expect "mainstream conservatives" to stop pushing abortion absolutism? Gun absolutism? White grievance? Limitless special privilege for religion? Race-targeting voter suppression?
I do not expect any (or, at least, most) conservatives to stop pushing those causes. I expect them to be defeated by the liberal-libertarian mainstream.
We all have our confirmation biases, making the other side's "absolutists" seem like they're a larger share than they actually are, while also downplaying it as an aberration when it's our own side.
For example, I rarely see the "libertarian" part of what you keep calling the "liberal-libertarian" mainstream (which seems to be how you regard today's mainstream center-left). And yet, it's probably there somewhere...
How substantial a force in the current Republican Party are anti-abortion absolutists, in your judgment? (Equally telling: How influential are abortion views other than those of the absolutists in the current Republican Party.)
Guns present a similar point.
The liberal-libertarian mainstream is at least as libertarian as are conservatives in today's America. Abortion. Treatment of gays. Marijuana. Abusive policing. Torture. Other recreational drugs. Treatment of Muslims. Treatment of women. Criminal procedure.
Military adventurism. Censorship. Military spending. Race-targeting voter suppression. The death penalty. Endless detention without trial. Conservatives stumble over their authoritarianism -- if not fall on their faces -- on each of those issues, and more.
Intent matters, even in matters of life and death. It's the difference between first-degree murder and a mere lawsuit for negligence.
We MUST hold the line of how important intent is when it comes to offensive comments.
It's now more important than ever that Shapiro NOT be fired and KEEPS being invited to mainstream universities, over and over again. A heckler's veto cannot stand.
I disagree. His intent is his own business. We shouldn’t be trying to judge whether his sins against the feelings of the special people were an accident or not.
We should be firmly and conclusively telling the inquisition to fuck off. And getting ready for the next steps if they won’t take "fuck off" for an answer.
What next steps?
Whining more?
Whimpering louder?
More strenuous, lame attempts to change the tide of the culture war?
Some firmly worded comments at a white, male blog that caters to disaffected, defeated right-wingers?
So why would any self respecting person want to attend school there?
What is your estimation of a person who wants to attend Liberty, Grove City, Ave Maria, Hilldale, Regent, Wheaton, or Ouachita Baptist?
Isn't BYU law ranked higher than Hastings now? Lol.
Yes. But any review of that list establishes that conservatives are failures at law school operation, vividly outperformed by their betters (the liberal-libertarian mainstream).
The lower reaches of the rankings of schools (legal or general), in particular, are devastating to clingers.
1. For most our nation's history our government actively placed obstacles in the way of women and blacks fostering negative stereotypes of inferiority (or being 'lesser') which then in turn worked as obstacles as well. That's why Shapiro's tweet was met with such outrage, it calls back to and might perpetuate those negative stereotypes.
2. We don't know Shaprio's intent. It's certainly plausible that he did not intend to use such offensive language ('lesser black...') and meant something like 'lesser qualified black...' or what have you. He apologized for it but iirc only after there was outrage, so his actual intent is going to be unknown.
3. Having said that we can't have students shouting down an entire lecture. For the liberals here imagine if LGBT Alliance speakers or anti--war speakers of what have you were treated like that.
4. A lot of people here miss that college departments have a 'community' or near 'family' feel to them (when they work correctly), so it's not surprising the faculty of one might feel and express sympathy for their students even if they acted badly. However, the letter is more than a bit over the top and brings the department into conflict with the statement of the University on the matter. That's a 'bad look' at the least and they should get a reprimand from the administration (of course they shouldn't be fired or some such nonsense as many here suggest, that's the same kind of hysteria that's being aimed at Shapiro.
"might perpetuate those negative stereotypes"
Among people who already hold those stereotypes, perhaps.
As for myself, at the higher policy-making levels of government I don't see anything wrong with affirmative action. The question in each case is whether it's a good form of affirmative action.
As for the militant tactics of the students, I suspect this is the wave of the future, and we'll be getting more of it rather than less. Eventually (if it hasn't already happened), criticism of such tactics will itself be classified as racist. You'll have a ruling class determined to stomp on enemies and force "progress" down throats, and everyone who isn't on board - no matter how progressive and woke they may have been in the past - is going to be stomped on, too.
"Among people who already hold those stereotypes, perhaps."
How do you think stereotypes get perpetuated? I think one way is when they get repeated. You hear people make a joke or observation ascribing a characteristic to this or that group and it sticks in people's heads to some degree.
"As for the militant tactics of the students, I suspect this is the wave of the future, and we'll be getting more of it rather than less"
I'm not as pessimistic. For one thing this has a fairly long history. In the 60's campus buildings got occupied and stuff a lot. But I do worry that traditional liberal free speech principles seem less and less compelling to many minority groups. I get their thinking-an awful lot of terrible things happened to them in history with the First Amendment sitting there at the same time and bad actions often start with bad ideas-but I think it's got a potential for some bad (and, for those groups ironically, self defeating things).
" In the 60's campus buildings got occupied and stuff a lot."
I attended college in the late 70's and early 80's. Our campus had an administration building that was fairly new, and the architectural features would have been familiar to a medieval castle designer. All the external windows were slits too narrow to squeeze through. The internal layout allowed anyone entering to be subject to cross fire from protected locations, and there were protected lines of retreat with jogged hallways to provide cover.
It would not have shocked me if there were murder holes and a hot oil dispensing system hidden above the suspended ceiling. The administration was prepared to fight back if anybody tried to occupy THEIR building.
Yes, protesters behaving badly we've seen before. The problem today is that they're behaving badly with the backing of the school administrations. The student radicals of the 60's have become the administration and faculty radicals, who see their job as enabling student radicals, not forcing them to behave. They direct their ire towards the same people the student radicals are attacking.
The problem today is that they're behaving badly with the backing of the school administrations
That is not in evidence. This letter is not the whole faculty by a longshot, and is also after the incident.
If you need to resort to unsupported conspiracies, maybe the problem is less real and more your seeking facts to fit your feeling of constant victimization by liberals.
The evidence is that we have not heard of the students involved being disciplined.
Oh, thought you might be interested in this, one of the strangest students-behaving-badly incidents I've ever read about (and it was in 1907).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Dog_affair#Riots
Hmmm. thank you, I hadn't heard about that one before. A controversy that dogged England for quite a long time.
Hi, Queenie. Great comment. Will put in my letter as an example of good analysis. The problem? It will anger all current adminstrators in all top ranked schools. Keep it out of the letter then?
As a mainstream conservative who seeks mutual detente and reciprocal tolerance in the culture wars, I find the Queen's assessment there pretty fair for a seemingly left-leaning person. Props.
The authors of the letter are driven by fear of loss of power.
Polls show that at least 70% of Americans currently agree on most topics, including topics of "wokeness." This historically high level of agreement strikes fear in the 30%-or-less whose authority and power (and often wealth) results largely from vocal dissent. I regret that they are afraid.
Sometimes, a whiny brat really does need a spanking. Bus operators were once spanked and responded by allowing non-whites to select any available seat. More recently, mask-mongers were spanked and responded by announcing a newfound change in "scientific fact" permitting widespread liberty. Are such spankings bullying? Yes, but so is a heckler's veto.
Bullying by the majority is as acceptable as bullying my a rabble fringe minority. The authors of the letter perhaps should be more careful in their selection of tone: they are a powerless minority which grows weaker by the day. [See https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/02/17/democrats-worry-about-decline-with-rural-voters/ ]
"my a rabble fringe"
Well, you probably got that part right...
Memo
To: Georgetown U Trustees
Subj: Stand By Your Man! (meaning, Professor Shapiro)
Are you going to, anytime soon?
Signed,
Concerned Citizen Watching In Wonderment...
If Georgetown has learned anything, it is likely 'don't hire any more Ilya Shapiros.'
A useful lesson, in my judgment. Let the clingers congregate at conservative-controlled schools. Strong schools should not emulate our weakest schools by hiring additional movement conservatives for faculty or administration positions.
This hiring preference should not apply to landscaping, bus driving, food preparation, and cleaning positions. Ideological discrimination in those areas of employment -- although regularly practiced at conservative-controlled schools -- seems wrong.
I can see why you'd think that; he's two things you don't like: Jewish and libertarian.
Similarly, I suppose, you like Shapiro (and like him all the more after his bigoted comment about Judge Jackson) because he is two things that you prefer and that are in diminishing supply in America: A bigot and a faux libertarian (like you, a defensive conservative prancing about in garish, unconvincing libertarian drag).
Rev., you calling people bigots is just too, too...
My preferences for reason, science, inclusiveness, education, progress, and modernity make me a villain and a target -- called a bigot, in particular -- among the fans of this disaffected, right-wing blog.
They also make me part of the winning side in the culture war, which seems to drive the half-educated racists, superstitious gay-bashers, obsolete misogynists, conservative xenophobes, and other Volokh Conspiracy fans crazy.
Shapiro's tweet is a fascinating lesson on the power of our "filters" in how we interpret things.
After all, his literal words mean only that he thinks there's at least n=1 person on the left who is more qualified than Judge Jackson. What if he believes that she's the *second* most qualified? Would that even matter to those calling his tweet racist?
UC Hastings’ reputation has been falling for several years. It is by far the lowest-ranking law school in the UC system. USNews considers it inferior to Florida State.
Now we know why.
This cowardly stunt on the part of Hastings’ faculty will no doubt accelerate their institution’s decline. The more important question, however, is whether anyone in California cares about Hastings’ mediocrity.
Gotta stick up for my 'noles. FSU is in Tallahassee, the state capitol, with a heavy infestation of state agencies. It is common for law school students to get internships or even part time jobs with pols or agencies that have significant power.
Point is many folks think the purpose of law school in particular, or college in general, is not so much what you learn there but the network of connections you develop. Working in the halls of power, even if at a low level, is a big OK.
When I went to LS, the goal was to train the students to be attorneys, to be zealous advocates for their clients. Part of that was to toughen you up for the reality of the profession. It’s not a kind and nurturing profession. It cannot be, and it’s practitioners be zealous advocates for their clients. It has winners and losers. Cases are won and lost, and intimidation is one of the techniques that wins cases. My wife remembers being with her best friend in an elevator alone with opposing counsel. He told the other attorney that if he didn’t settle (on his terms), he would be eviscerated at trial. He said it convincingly enough that they did settle, in short order.
In the practice of law, over 30 years now, despite not having tried that many cases (I am a patent attorney), I can’t even start to count the times that I was screamed at by opposing counsel. They do it because it works - an intimidated attorney is a losing attorney. I am reminded of the early scenes in Paper Chase where the prof almost makes his students cry, when he singles them out in a one-on-one debate. I knew that I would survive LS, and the practice of law, when I survived one of those inquisitions, unscathed, about halfway through Torts as a 1L. Were feelings hurt in those inquisitions by law profs? Of course. But that just prepared us to be ready for it when we faced in as attorneys. Snowflakes, in the main, are going to make horrible attorneys, because they won’t be able to make the conflicts about their clients, but will, often, end up putting their injured feelings above the welfare of those clients.
"Moreover, we understand that statements of commitment to diversity and inclusion ring hollow when salient issues of racial equity are ignored or discounted in the service of prioritizing the ideal of free speech."
I must have missed the update to the Constitution where it now says racial equity trumps free speech.
Historically speaking, is it ever the good guys who censor others?
The Girondists still went to the gallows. Any of these profs transgress the shifting boundaries of GoodThink, they will be treated no better than Shapiro.
I don't view the students' display particularly constructive, and this letter from the faculty is embarrassing.
Still - it's hard to get much worked up over Shapiro being unable to give whatever lecture he was planning to give. Conservative legal professors are trying to make this out into a lot more than it is. Oh no! A bunch of law students didn't get to hear some conservative talking points regurgitated for the umpteenth time! Wherever else will they get reheated and tired notions about law and justice delivered to them with a lack of self-awareness? The VC, perhaps?
A "liberal," ladies and gentlemen.
Unequivocally. You keep using that word I do not think it means what you think it means.
It is truly and absolutely disgusting that so called "Professor" Eugene Volokh has DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help the USA address the increasingly common issue of cyberstalking and online harassment.
Rather, Eugene Volokh has tried his best to HARM victims of cyberstalking by trying to argue, incorrectly and foolishly, that online harassment and cyberstalking is "Free Speech". He fights for the "rights" of a bunch of criminals, sociopaths, and mentally ill malicious individuals who want to use the internet to ruin innocent victim lives.
Eugene Volokh, in his many "papers", completely ignores the impact of cyberbullying, cyber-harassment, doxing, and stalking to the VICTIMS of malicious mentally-ill cyber-stalkers and sociopaths. Instead, he works hard to protect the rights of these mentally ill criminals and leave victims with no legal recourse to regain their lives and stop this atrocious behaviour. Eugene basically supports the criminals.
Who in their right mind thinks "Free Speech" should be abused by plainly malicious individuals who are often mentally ill and are purposely using the internet to harm the victims by revealing private, personal information (doxing) or slandering them online, or posting their personal private pictures?
Rather than help the courts in the USA understand that cyber-harassment is NOT protected speech, Eugene Volokh has taken money ("bribes") from Google, Big Tech to peddle the false notion that harassment websites dedicated to tormenting a victim are "Free Speech" and "one-to-many speech." Eugene has disclosed that several of his "First Amendment" papers were funded by Google. Not surprisingly, all of his papers have concluded that Google should be able to do whatever the fuck it wants while having no responsibility for removing harmful content.
He is a dishonest speaker taking bribes from Big Tech that favour lack of regulation and allowing crimes to take place online.
Plainly, Eugene Volokh's First Amendment absolutism is dangerous for America because it allows cyberstalking, cyber-harassment, doxing, and online abuse to flourish, totally ignoring the social harm of this type of criminal behaviour. Eugene Volokh seems blind to the reality that Free Speech especially on the internet needs to be balanced against other "rights", such as a victim's right to be free from harassment, right to be left alone, right of privacy.
Sadly, Eugene Volokh completely (and purposefully) ignores the impact of these crimes to the hapless victims. He doesn't understand the nature of the internet yet poses as if he's some "First Amendment" expert.
Eugene also tries to make it as difficult as possible for cyberharassment victims to file a civil suit against their perpetrators using a "pseudonym", to protect their privacy from even further harm. Rather than sympathizing with the unfortunate and undeserved situation of the victims and finding ways to help these people stop their attackers, Eugene dishonestly tries to argue that for the victim to file pseudonymously would be somehow "unfair" to the malicious defendant, a psychopath who DESERVES to be held accountable for his criminal and harassing behaviour.
Eugene Volokh reminds me of a wolf in sheep's clothing. He has an agenda - to de-regulate Big Tech so they can maximize profits at the expense of making Americans totally unprotected from cyber-harassment, doxing, and cyber-stalking by mentally ill individuals online. He probably gets a cut of this profit, at the expense of American victims of cyber-stalking.
Try and refute me, Eugene Volokh. Everything I said was fact.