The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
George Washington U. Rejects Requests to Stop Justice Thomas's Co-Teaching of Law School Class
Prof. Glenn Reynolds (InstaPundit) passes along this e-mail from the GWU Provost and Law School Dean, which I applaud:
Dear Members of the George Washington University Community,
Since the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade, we have heard from members of our community who have expressed feelings of deep disagreement with this decision.
We also have received requests from some members of the university and external communities that the university terminate its employment of Adjunct Professor and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and cancel the Constitutional Law Seminar that he teaches at the Law School. Many of the requests cite Justice Thomas' concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, in which he called the substantive due process doctrine a "legal fiction." Justice Thomas has been a consistent critic of the Court's legal philosophy on substantive due process for many years. Because we steadfastly support the robust exchange of ideas and deliberation, and because debate is an essential part of our university's academic and educational mission to train future leaders who are prepared to address the world's most urgent problems, the university will neither terminate Justice Thomas' employment nor cancel his class in response to his legal opinions.
Justice Thomas' views do not represent the views of either the George Washington University or its Law School. Additionally, like all faculty members at our university, Justice Thomas has academic freedom and freedom of expression and inquiry. Our university's academic freedom guidelines state: "The ideas of different faculty members and of various other members of the University community will often and quite naturally conflict. But it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals within or outside the University from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive."
Just as we affirm our commitment to academic freedom, we affirm the right of all members of our community to voice their opinions and contribute to the critical discussions that are foundational to our academic mission.
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
Good For GWU.
This refusal to cancel Thomas triggered me. I am verklempt, now. His classes should be started with clear trigger warnings.
Thomas is a Yale indoctrinated member of the lawyer hierarchy. He is all Swamp, one of them. No cancel culture for Swamp.
Good. I'm actually shocked, as canceling seems to have become the norm.
You expected the administration to deny their students a prime assassination opportunity?
Wow, that's pretty dark and cynical, even from you. I like it!
Too busy nipping at mainstream heels and ankles to muster a comment about election subversion, Eastman, insurrection, Clark, in-American right-wing conduct, and your side’s hero, Donald Trump, professor?
You have been in America for some time; how long might it take you to become patriotic?
Rev. Cool comment, bruh. It is evident you had Top Tier legal trainin'.
What'd I miss with all the references lately to the Rev's "legal training"?
I thought the Rev is a lawyer. There has never been any evidence of any legal training in any of his remarks. Then he mocks the school where Josh teachers. I just thought he must have attended a better one. He has yet to reply to these questions.
I find the Rev's comments so well thought out, so compelling, so perduasive, I thought this quality of legal analysi reflects excellent training. I want to recommend his school to any prelaw I run into. It will be a great bet.
Ever see anything from the Rev. even remotely suggesting or hinting at legal training? One hundred or more comments a week (guesstimate), loads of sneering, you’d think something would slip out over the course of all this activity to reveal an actual interest in law. But no. Zip, nada, nothing. Not ever.
And yet he criticizes conspirators for the quality of the institutions where they teach but never anything of substance. I’ve known inferior attorneys and there seems to be an correlation with the quality of law school attended which also correlates with IQ. But, Arthur holds the distinction of making the perceived stature of the institution not just a comment on the quality of the students but also of the teacher. Also, his borrowing of the name Arthur Kirkland, the name of an cinematic parody of a lawyer from “And Justice for All”, suggests some part of this is online performance art combined with politics.
Jerry/Arthur's does all the guys on Cellblock C.
Sometimes he even helps with their legal problems....
Whoa!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frank/"Dice" Drackman
Does anyone here have a good method of getting ketchup out of wallpaper?
Yes. Crush the lawyer hierarchy. They are the cause of all ketchup stains.
Not all, david
Trump was a weak leader who got played by the lawyers. He should have fired the FBI, DOJ, State. Replaced them with real police, street prosecutors, and deal makers who put America first. Then he should have all his disloyal lawyers on the spot.
“ Then he should have all his disloyal lawyers on the spot.”
Pedantic attitudes are the worst sign of the lawyer profession but did you drop a verb here? Maybe “feted” is what you meant to say?
Now, we will have DeSantis, Harvard indoctrinated scumbag lawyer. You scumbags won for now. There is no legal recourse to save this country from your scumbag, failed profession.
All the utter failures will continue under DeSantis.
I fear you are right “David”
Estragon....if you are serious about your question, yes.
You'll need Dr. Bronners castille soap, white vinegar, a rag.
First, let the stain dry. Gently scrape off dried kechup from wallpaper
Second, 1 tsp castille soap to 1 cup water. Gently daube, then rub gently
Third, let dry
Four, with a damp towel, daube away the castille soap
If the stain is still there after two cycles. Now you will need to be extra careful, test on a very small area. Important note, this step only works for white-ish wallpaper. Do not do this step on dark colored wallpaper.
In a cup, put 1oz (shot glass) white vinegar, then fill the cup with warm water (to get to 8oz). Daube this mixture, then let dry. Sponge off with damp sponge. Max of two attempts.
After this, you're screwed.
Good luck, hope this works out for you.
Instead of throwing good food on the wall, why not throw a worthless lawyer on the wall?
Burn the wall.
Go outside and play, Artie. Grownups are talking.
Being born in a society antagonistic toward America could explain a deplorable dislike for modern American society and progress. What is your excuse for being similarly un-American, Seamus?
Unpatriotic right-wingers too cowardly to address un-American conduct — conspicuously trying to change the subject — are among my favorite culture war casualties.
NPC Alert.
Imagining whether, up to a couple of years ago, he just stood at the lectern and stared at the students for an hour or so. Qui tacit..., and all that.
Mr. D.
Better than babbling on like that Idiot Breyer did
You want your students to learn the law, and by definition a Supreme Court Justice is the law. Whether he can give an objective overview, or even know what he is talking about, is beside the point.
Eh, I'd love a course on statutory interpretation or ERISA from Thomas but his jurisprudence isn't going to become widely adopted anytime soon.
Yeah that's your opinion but should his opinions be censored? That was the issue
Censored?!
Dude, no one has a right to a teaching gig.
And GWU is a private institution, IIRC.
Go pass another blanket ban on mentioning homosexuality and then complain your side is getting censored again.
Sheesh.
There is no ban on mentioning homosexuality. There is a ban on you and your sodomist friends from getting up in front of 5 year olds and grooming them for your sick little games.
"And GWU is a private institution, IIRC."
OK, should the private institution censor him, or not?
I couldn't help but notice GWU didn't hire Kagan to teach. Is she getting censored?
Did she apply? My understanding was Thomas was already a teacher and they wished him not to be .
Thats censorship.
Sheesh!
Deciding not to hire someone because they're not teaching what you are interested in getting taught is normal university stuff.
Now, as has been pointed out by everyone left right or center here, that would be unwise.
But calling it censorship is insisting the other kids play with you even if you keep calling them fat and smelly.
You have the right to your opinion absent government sanction, not to everyone treating it as cool and good.
"But calling it censorship is insisting the other kids play with you even if you keep calling them fat and smelly."
Thomas called people fat and smelly?
You really enjoy semantic masturbation, don't you.
Do you know what a metaphor is? Because you sure look like you don't based on this comment!
Thomas has been doing the equivalent regarding everyone else's jurisprudence and liberalism as an institution for decades.
"Thomas has been doing the equivalent regarding everyone else's jurisprudence and liberalism as an institution for decades."
Um, he's been saying that they're wrong. Which is his job.
Have you even heard of Clarence Thomas, TiP? "The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years," a former clerk remembered Thomas – who was 43 years old when confirmed – saying, according to The New York Times. "And I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years."
Again, hire him. But despite his spiteful and antisocial views.
“ Have you even heard of Clarence Thomas, TiP? "The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years," a former clerk remembered Thomas…”
Lol. Talk about moving the goalposts. Nobody is talking about firing him for that comment.
But if they were, you’d still be wrong.
I mean, do you disagree that he’s making liberals lives miserable?
Not the case. They were deciding whether to basically fire him from his co-teaching position based on his opinions. Which really are pretty well established.
Nobody is calling anyone fat or smelly. It is censorship. He's been a judge for decades so its not like it's some new radical teaching , e.g. CRT or eugenics (not new but radical)
It is censorship
For one thing, it didn't happen - you're super mad about your counterfactual.
For another, censorship does not mean every Justice is entitled to be hired to teach anywhere regardless of their views.
He's been a judge for decades so its not like it's some new radical teaching
You...what the hell? You don't lose your radicalism because you've been tilting at windmills for so long everyone is used to your insanity.
Thomas is very smart, one of the best writers on the Court, amazing at analyzing complicated statutes, and does a great job hiring clerks with more diverse backgrounds than any of his colleagues. He is also really out there when it comes to the Constitution and wants some changes that would be very radical.
And he continues to be unable to garner support even among his right-wing colleagues for a lot of his takes.
You seem to think Thomas has some kind of entitlement to be hired, and if he's not it's censorship.
The conservative attempt to insist they be liked and accepted and provided a platform for whatever nonsense they want is getting really weird.
"You seem to think Thomas has some kind of entitlement to be hired..."
Nobody seems to think that.
Otherwise it is censorship. This is what others, including you, are arguing.
“ Otherwise it is censorship. This is what others, including you, are arguing.”
Nobody is arguing that any school that doesn’t hire Thomas is censoring him, and you’re not dumb enough to think that they are. You’re just lying because you don’t have an argument.
Deciding not to hire someone you don't currently employ is not the same as firing someone you do already employ.
"I couldn't help but notice GWU didn't hire Kagan to teach. Is she getting censored?"
Depends on the circumstances, of course.
I know you're not really this dumb, Sarcastro, You might not like the fact that people use the term censorship to apply to private institutions, but it has a meaning in this context, even if you choose to pretend it doesn't.
For one thing, it didn't happen - you're super mad about your counterfactual.
For another, censorship does not mean every Justice is entitled to be hired to teach anywhere regardless of their views.
He's been a judge for decades so its not like it's some new radical teaching
You...what the hell? You don't lose your radicalism because you've been tilting at windmills for so long everyone is used to your insanity.
Thomas is very smart, one of the best writers on the Court, amazing at analyzing complicated statutes, and does a great job hiring clerks with more diverse backgrounds than any of his colleagues. He is also really out there when it comes to the Constitution and wants some changes that would be very radical.
And he continues to be unable to garner support even among his right-wing colleagues for a lot of his takes.
For one thing, it didn't happen - you're super mad about your counterfactual.
He didn't say it happened, so there is no counterfactual to be mad about..."super" or otherwise (what are you, a 12 year-old girl?) So why are you lying and claiming that he did say that? Oh, right...that's just what you do. It's all you do.
Conservative attitudes towards Thomas are puzzling.
On the one hand, they venerate him, and brush away the ethical issues surrounding his wife's political activity.
On the other, when anyone expresses concern about his stated views on Griswold and the like, they claim he's just a crackpot who should be ignored.
These clingers certainly pick a strange forum -- a right-wing blog that repeatedly imposes viewpoint-driven, partisan censorship on liberals and libertarians who bother conservatives -- to express outrage about (illusory) private censorship.
Conservative attitudes towards Thomas are puzzling.
You're easily puzzled by a great many things.
"On the one hand, they venerate him, and brush away the ethical issues surrounding his wife's political activity."
Good thing his wife's not on the court, eh?
"On the other, when anyone expresses concern about his stated views on Griswold and the like, they claim he's just a crackpot who should be ignored."
Who says he's a crackpot? The idea that SDP is a contradiction in terms is a serious, reasonable, position.
"they claim he's just a crackpot who should be ignored."
Citation? I did not see anyone here say that, although I admit I do not review every posting, or even every OP.
My take, as you know, is, no one is interested in outlawing birth control. So there will be no case for the justices to review and decide whether to ditch Griswold or not.
I've heard people call him a crackpot, but none of them were conservatives.
I think he's occasionally wrong, but he generally has some reasoning behind even his mistakes, and unlike most of the rest of them, just doesn't give a damn whether people like what he concludes is the correct legal position, which I find refreshing.
I sure hope not but he is becoming more and more influential on the Court.
Ha ... they think that they are doing a favor to Thomas by allowing a supreme court justice to teach a class for almost no pay? Now that's chutzpah!
Well, I suppose it's a favor of a sort, since he wouldn't do it if he didn't want to, and surely isn't doing it because he needs the money.
I have no idea why he does it and stop calling me Shirley.
"Justice Thomas' views do not represent the views of either the George Washington University or its Law School."
What the dean should have said is something like this: "No faculty members in their professional capacity as teachers and professors speak for the law school. The school provides the institutional structure in which its faculty and students may advance and critique one another's views with respect, charity, and forbearance."
Why shouldn't a school distance itself from archaic, fringe beliefs if it prefers to be part of the liberal-libertarian mainstream?
Artie, as of the past several days you are now on the WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY it would appear on abortion and guns. Shouldn’t you applying the characterization ‘archaic’ to the side disfavored by history which we now know to be YOUR side?
Even if you hate Thomas's guts, and you think is legal approach is ass backwards , sitting through his class helps you to learn your enemy so you can win cases in the face of their opposition.
These pathetic children are like a sports team that refuses to watch videos of the other team before the game.
Precisely so. I despise Thomas, and were I a budding lawyer, I would want him as one of my teachers, if only to harangue him in an academically acceptable manner.
Thomas has more legal acumen in his (long redacted) than are wet dreamt of in your Philosophy.
Why do you "despise him?" Do you think killing babies is the highest attribute of humanity?
Abortion isn't killing babies, so stop lying.
I despise him because, among other things, of his consistent reluctance to concede that a criminal appellant might be innocent, or mentally retarded, or severely mistreated. Note that he dissented in Taylor v- Riojas, for example. That in every case where he finds for the state defendant, he writes at great length about how vile the appellant's crime is, to conceal the paucity of his argument undet the cover of "look how evil the defendant is, so it's ok to rule against him".
By any sensible standard abortion IS sometimes killing babies. I don't know what else you can rationally consider it to be, post viability, when you could just deliver the child alive instead of going out of your way to kill them.
Pre-viability you can argue about it, but post viability there's just nothing to argue.
No infant is "viable" in the sense that they all depend on their environment to survive. Viability is a bizarre threshold line for abortion.
There is no environment that yet exists that will allow a fetus less than 20 weeks old to survive outside the womb. My grandson was born at 22 weeks, weighed one pound, and required about 4 million dollars worth of "environment" in order to survive. There could be a threshold line in there somewhere, I suppose. A shifting one. Even 20 years ago I'm not sure my grandson would've made it.
Indeed. Of course, no one is forced to take the class, but if I were a law student, I would jump at the chance to take a course from a Supreme Court justice, whether the most conservative, most liberal, or anywhere in between. What an incredible opportunity.
These pathetic children are like a sports team that refuses to watch videos of the other team before the game.
The letter says,
We also have received requests from some members of the university and external communities ...
Maybe that includes some law students, maybe not.
"Justice Thomas' views do not represent the views of either the George Washington University or its Law School."
Well, yeah, but every law student needs to learn Justice Thomas's views. OTOH, nobody gives a shit about the views of either the George Washington University or its Law School.
I'd wager a bunch of the paying students care.
I'll go further and say that the views of GWU and its Law School don't even exist.
*On issues like abortion, etc.
Man, I've got bad news for you about what this Citizens United decision says about institutional views.
Man, I've got bad news for you about what this Citizens United decision says about institutional views.
It says absolutely nothing about "institutional views". It does however speak to the views of individuals in certain upper management positions.
I didn't say that institutions can't be said to have views, I said that universities can't be said to have views on abortion.
CU says nothing about that.
I cannot follow this hair you split. Having views is legit, just not on abortion rights?
Gonna need more than just saying that for it to track.
It makes sense to say that a law school values diligent study of law. It makes no sense to say that a law school likes its eggs over-easy.
What does it mean to say that a law school university has a view on abortion rights?
A law school is it's professors, and if there is one thing I've learned on law blogs, it is that law professors have views on pretty much everything.
*its
I'd say all of the above . Free speech means all of it.
The school should immediately expel any student who called for Thomas to be cancelled. They are clearly incapable of being a lawyer if they took such an action and are nothing but a black mark on the reputation of the university.
This is a sizzling hot take! Non cancellation is such a glorious concept it’s hard to disagree. Let Clarence be heard. Will you be around for the open thread Thursday? I have some questions about ketchup and carpets and brandenberg I’d like to smash you with. Love, E
Sounds like you had a fun weekend ketchup and all. My suggestion is pineapple juice. That ought to do it.
Jimmy! Jimmy! Jimmy! Are we becoming friends? Please let’s continue Thursday, unless of course the proprietor sees fit to comment on the most riveting congressional testimony since John dean before then! Eugene! Anything to say???
Hmmm pineapple juice might not be enough. Try two parts apple cider vinegar, one part water, and one part almond milk. That should fix your problem.
Ha ha it was about as riveting and fake as Christine Blasey Ford.
Maybe the J6 committee should vet their guests a little better than Jerry Springer.
Replies like this bring to mind Carl Sagan:
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.“
“The bamboozle has captured us. ”
You are referring to the belief that an protest was an insurrection, I presume. Or that a bunch of riots were civil rights protests or that Antifa violence was seeking redress from the government, or that an coordinated attempt by an outgoing administration to plant false evidence of Russian collusion was No Big Deal. That what you’re talking about?
"Eugene! Anything to say???"
Silence is a relatively reliable signal of un-American cowardice.
Prof. Volokh may not be American by birth, but his staunch defense of First Amendment is quintessentially American.
(And then we have you, with your undisguised hatred for your fellow Americans...)
Prof. Volokh's defense of the First Amendment is -- like his self-proclaimed libertarianism, and his position on John Eastman and profoundly un-American conduct -- remarkably congruent with movement conservative political positions.
He's a faux libertarian and a faux champion of free expression. His silly libertarian costume apparently convinces some particularly gullible audiences, however.
“Silence is a relatively reliable signal of un-American cowardice.”
Floating is a relatively reliable signal of being a witch.
“the most riveting congressional testimony since John dean”
John Dean? The guy who was lured into an DNC honeypot run out of the Watergate? That John Dean?
I think the school should take a strict policy on allowing free speech. They petitioned to silence him so are we to expect the hecklers veto now?
Thats the part that deserves punishment if it happens. You have to actually allow the free speech or else I agree out you go.
"Just as we affirm our commitment to academic freedom, we affirm the right of all members of our community to voice their opinions and contribute to the critical discussions that are foundational to our academic mission."
I'd say bullshit, but it's probably more effective as to say: Have you already forgotten what you did to Ilya Shapiro?
Georgetown not George Washington
George Washington, not Georgetown
It's the Iceberg, Goldberg joke come to life.
Speaking of jokes come to life!
Talking about your "Package" again? Alot of Alzheimer's sufferers do that.
Ilya Shapiro, the bigotty quitter and (therefore) right-wing hero?
Good for them.
We should be thankful Prof. Volokh made it all the way through a discussion about a Black man without publishing a vile racial slur.
That is a welcome rarity. It may be attributable to his focus on strenuous efforts to divert attention from Eastman, election subversion, Clark, insurrection, and un-American conduct by his fellow right-wingers — or perhaps he is confident this blog will maintain its once-each-three-weeks pace for use of a vile racial slur at another time — but why worry about the cause of such an unexpected blessing?
Thank you, Prof. Volokh.
You're really out there on accusing EV of being racist. Have any examples?
His blog -- often its proprietor, personally -- has used a vile racial slur at least 25 times in the most recent 18 months.
That's not 25 uses -- that is is 25 different posts or discussions in which this white, male, right-wing Republican blog published
a vile racial slur, sometimes repeatedly.
(And that occurs at a blog that has banned the terms "sl_ck-j_w" and "p_ssy," at least when used to describe conservatives. A blog that also welcomes calls for liberals to be shot in the face, sent to Zyklon showers, raped, placed face-down in landfills, and gassed.)
In modern America, wreckinball, how many examples does a bigoted clinger require before slinking away sheepishly?
Not even the most ardent fans are willing to try to defend Prof. Volokh's conduct in this context, it seems. Are 25 racial slurs a few too many even for them?
(And 25 is just the ones published at this blog. Imagine what happens in private conservations, at events that are conservative "safe spaces," or even just while driving alone or taking out the trash.)
or up where you live, Cell Block C at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
Frank
That's it? Drackman is the only guy to come to a defense of bigotty, un-American, right-wing conduct at this blog?
Cowardly bloggers attract cowardly commenters? Seems legit.
“A blog that also welcomes calls for liberals to be shot in the face, sent to Zyklon showers, raped, placed face-down in landfills, and gassed.)”
How are we to know when you are in character and when you aren’t Mr. Pacino, er, Kirkland?
It's sad that someone actually taking the right stance is something that needs to be commented on these days. But good for GWU.
" needs to be commented on "
Who said this needed to be commented on?
Any patriotic American would have chosen another recent development to discuss.
You ready for the big July 4th celebration at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx, Jerry?
That Russia is winning the war and the media is once again suppressing news they don’t like? Or did you have something else in mind?
The idea that members of a law school want to bar the teaching/contribution of a sitting Supreme Court justice is so ridiculous that it makes my head spin.
Ridiculous? that peoples actually pay to learn that shit.
Here's another development a white, male, right-wing blog doesn't find worthy of comment.
Carry on, bigoted and hypocritical clingers. Until your betters yank that leash, that is.
Ah C'mon Jerry!(Man!) that link's a well known Kiddie porn Site! you're gonna lose all your "Good Time" (haven't clicked on it, but pretty good guess) You like when your "betters" yank your "Leash" I'm guessing.
Frank "Never Convicted (or charged, or committed) of Child Rape, Unlike Jerry Sandusky
As I understand it the call to remove Thomas came from an Undergrad Philosophy major. So the lose in educational opportunity would not be suffered by him but by students at the law school. It would also just seem short sighted for a law school to deny its students the chance to learn from an active Supreme Court Justice.
"Revenge is a dish best served cold."
Further evidence that nearly everything sounded cooler when said by Ricardo Montalbán.
Well, it might be a Klingon proverb, but it hardly originated on Star Trek.