The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"The Rise and Fall of Jews at Law Schools"
An interesting essay by New York Law School professor Rebecca Roiphe. A taste:
Many, if not most, students have bought into academic lessons peddled in the 1980s and '90s as an outgrowth of what's often called critical legal theory. Among them:
Law is not a neutral institution designed to ensure the peaceful resolution of disputes in a diverse society.
Neutrality is not an unachieved but noble goal.
Legal institutions are just a vicious guise that allows the powerful to exploit the weak.
The law is not a flawed but worthy process to improve, but an evil institution to weaponize or dismantle.
The lecture halls in our law schools are now filled with professors and students who believe these things. In their view, the profession is no longer an essential gatekeeper of the rule of law, a key component of the American founding. Instead, it's a part of the problem: a white, racist, oppressive clique that uses its claims of fairness to mask its oppression of the powerless.This kind of thinking is a big problem for Jews.
As they say, read the whole thing. I think there is also much more to say on the topic about how Critical Legal Studies and its offshoots were and are rebellions not just against formerly dominant legal liberalism, but against a particular kind of mid-century legal liberalism among whose champions Jews were wildly disproportionately represented, and the triumph of which coincided with the rise of Jews in the legal profession and (especially) the legal academy.
It's not a coincidence and it surely did not go unnoticed that when students at Harvard and Yale back in the mid 80s started protesting the oppressive liberalism and "white" demographics of the Yale and Harvard faculties, the old WASP faculty was largely gone or going, and replaced by a plurality or majority of Jewish professors. The sort of radicals who found the liberals of Jewish descent like Owen Fiss, Harry Hillel Wellington (who had felt obliged to change his last name from Weinstein back in the day), and Nazi refugee Guido Calabresi as representing an institutionally (if not personally) racist old guard were hardly likely to be sympathetic to Jewish concerns as they gained power.
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
It's a good essay on two levels.
First, bias against [American] Jews is undeniable. For example, Americans of African descent are not held responsible for the acts of kinsmen dictators now controlling African nations, yet Americans of Jewsish lineage are held responsible for the acts of their kinsmen in Israel.
Second, the chilling effect of deliberate speech suppression is undeniable. "[T]he new ideological fervor [... It] has contributed to an environment that stifles debate, first by branding certain views morally unacceptable, then by categorically excommunicating them."
The author appropriately notes that "the rights of minorities are best ensured by robust protection for open dialogue, even though this means we may have to tolerate offensive, bigoted, hateful speech."
I think that there is such a thing as a morally unacceptable viewpoint. I once heard someone say that his only objection to the Holocaust was that it wasn't actually successful in eradicating the world's Jews. I consider that a morally unacceptable viewpoint and would have nothing to do with someone who held it.
The problem is that it doesn't take that much mental effort to expand the concept until it takes in any political or social position with which one disagrees. Give me any viewpoint on any issue and my creative mind will come up with an argument for why that viewpoint is morally unacceptable.
So while I do believe there is such a thing, I also think it requires a far better definition than any I've heard so far. And no such definition is likely to be forthcoming that everyone will agree to.
"I once heard someone say that his only objection to the Holocaust was that it wasn’t actually successful in eradicating the world’s Jews."
Did the person actually believe that? Or was it a |/dev/null -- a simple way of ending a conversation by taking a position so extreme that no further debate was possible?
He was an elder in the white supremacist church I grew up in. Yes, I think he really believed it. He thought Jews were the enemies of God and needed to be exterminated, just like cockroaches (also his words).
Do you know what we call someone who espouses Nazi views? A Nazi.
Nopoint: "Do you know what we call someone who espouses Nazi views? A Nazi."
One problem is that you and your ilk don't limit applying the term "Nazi" to individuals who espouse Nazi views.
For example I've seen Thomas' billionaire friend described in these very threads, recently, as "an actual Nazi".
And you show a related inability to make distinctions in describing Krychek's acquaintance. Wanting to kill all the Jews is an desire that existed in this world long before Hitler was born.
I had a colleague who would, somewhat inconsistently, say that Palestinians needed to be exterminated to the last man while also claiming they didn't exist in the first place.
While that's "unacceptable", I also recognized that it was not an opinion he was likely to personally implement or do anything about. The best response was to firmly but politely disagree, and to otherwise engage in normal conversation on other topics.
I have no firsthand knowledge, and I'm not excusing this person's statements — just trying to explain the inconsistency:
When someone says that Palestinians don't exist, what they typically mean is that Palestinians don't exist as a distinct nationality, not that they're imaginary. It would be like someone proposing that the Rhode Island people be eliminated, and someone else saying, "There's no such thing as the Rhode Island people." Obviously there are people who live in Rhode Island, but there's no ethnic grouping "Rhode Islander." They're as a group indistinguishable from people from Connecticut, Massachusetts, etc.
"A similar missive went out when anti-Asian hate crimes were on the rise after news that the pandemic had begun in China."?
Did this happen? All those black-on-Asian assaults, were they really because Trump called CIOVID the China Virus? Or was it because black crime spiked during and after the Floyd riots, and the on-Asians bit was mostly confirmation bias?
I found the essay rather cringy, as is this complaint about Jews being blamed for allegedly bad acts by Israel. The author seems to swim in campus opinion like a fish in water, and it's off-putting. "Why won't you accept that we're just as progressive as you are? Didn't we march in the Civil Rights protests? Why don't you take notice of all the GoodJews denouncing Israel?"
Yecch.
Harry Hillel Wellington
If Wellington nee Weinstein continued to use his middle name I doubt he fooled very many people.
He did so later...
Do you have a beef with Wellington?
Well done. (Your comment, not the beef.)
I'm just here to chew the fat.
Only if you end it with a Napoleon for dessert.
Napoleon: No…No…No…No…It’s not what I had in mind. It should have more cream between the crusts and no raisins.
Chef: But the last thing you said was raisins!
Napoleon: NO!…If this pastry is to bear my name it must be richer…MORE cream! My spies tell me that my illustrious British enemy is working on a new meat recipe which he plans to call Beef Wellington!
Chef: It will never get off the ground!
Napoleon: We must develop the Napoleon before he develops Beef Wellington! The future of Europe hangs in the balance!
Name the film!
“Love and Death”
Diane Keaton's great in everything
She's the worst.
“I think what we’re seeing, when DEI speakers awkwardly tiptoe around antisemitism, a kind of intuitive understanding that there are modern victims of antisemitism as well as those who use putative “antisemitism” as a sword to victimize others”
IQ Telecom is a VoIP Service Provider Company based in Newark, DE, United States. Which provide High Quality VoIP Service with 24*7 Online remote Support, International Virtual Numbers, Cloud Based Call Center Dialer, Toll Free Numbers, Hosted VoIP Server, Hosted IP PBX, Virtual Call Center Solutions, Asterisk Solutions, Free VoIP Reseller Account, VoIP Mobile Dialer, VoIP CDR Portal, Advanced IVR System at Affordable price. We also provide Carriers with extremely low rates for international calls to ANY destination worldwide. We focus on the quality and services to our customers.
https://www.iqtelecom.net/
(I get that you're a spammer who copied this from somewhere (as an ingenious way to get people to read your spam comment?), but I'll reply anyway.)
Hmmm... Do you think there are those who use putative “racism” as a sword to victimize others? Is it "racist" to even suggest such a thing?
Very interesting article.
Of course, I wouldn't call this sort of thing a problem peculiar to law schools. We see this in academia and in politics - with politics adding funny-but-scary ideas like Rothschild weather machines.
The latest flavors of racism are not just bad for the jews, but bad for whites, for asians, and indeed for anyone regardless of race who isn't part of the racist gravy train.
I hope Jewish activists aren't content to simply have themselves added to the roster of victim groups in DEI policies - though I don't think that would be permitted anyway. Why not take the old liberal Jewish approach of defending equal opportunity and warning against the depredations of racist mobs?
with politics adding funny-but-scary ideas like Rothschild weather machines
Go ahead, laugh. Few appreciate the depth of the Rothschild threat.
Generally, I don’t think bad ideas can be laughed away altogether, but at least some people can be persuaded to reject a bad idea by its sheer ludicrousness.
I mean, who appeared more ridiculous to sensible people than [Godwin edit]? Yet laughter didn’t work against him; he was a threat who needed to be taken seriously.
I did read somewhere that the custom of dueling was mocked into oblivion, but I don’t know how accurate that is.
In short, let’s go ahead and mock racism, and take it seriously at the same time.
(Seriously, maybe someone will invent (or claim to have invented) an anti-global-warming weather machine, but if it happens it won’t be because Jews tricked them into it. Which won’t get in the way of conspiracy theories.)
Part of the problem with trying to laugh away [Godwin edit] is that you seem to ignore a lot of what [Godwin edit] was proposing. To a country suffering from a treaty after losing a war that was a terrible treaty and facing riots in Danzig for Germany to reclaim land and citizens it lost through the treaty [Godwin edit] proposing something similar to Make Germany Great Again was not really a laughing matter. Germans were watching their nation turning into the industrial powerhouse of Europe and having to repay war debts with the profits. [Godwin edit] was simply saying this is not fair.
In no way am I trying to excuse all the bad stuff [Godwin edit] proposed but to a lot of Germans it was drown out by a lot of things that made sense to them. Bad ideas that are pure bad ideas are easy to laugh off but when there is a mixture of bad and good sometimes it is hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
My only point was that if laughter was enough to defeat [Godwin edit], then Charlie Chaplin would have defeated him with The Great Dictator.
Still, mockery is a good weapon in the PR arsenal.
I have no point here, I'm just wondering whether the name Voldemort will be replaced with [Potter edit].
I think I liked Godwin’s law better as an observation, rather than a law. As a law it has obvious problems.
It's even more chilling to hear her tell it in person: https://deeprootsathome.com/kitty-werthmann-her-riveting-true-story/
"[Godwin edit] proposing something similar to Make Germany Great Again..."
Trump is arguing for conquest of Lebensraum where?
"The Art of the Deal" is JUST LIKE "Mein Kampf"?
In your circles this is considered humor?
Well -- I have wondered about the Chinese balloons and this warm winter -- The Chinese benefit from paranoia about global warming...
As a Jew with an Irish name (and Howard Stern (pre Rhinoplasty) Schnoz)
got to "Pass" (only realized a few years ago Jack Benny was a MOTT, how did he get snubbed from Adam Sandler's "Chanukah Song"??) Med School was a "Revelation" (get it?) as most of the Department heads were Jews, and 95% (everyone except me and one other guy) were Jesus-freaks, everyone kissed the Attendings ass, but as soon as he left, out came the accents, the "Couldn't hurt!" Tropes
What I love about Atlanta, we might claim to be the "City to busy to hate (stay away when we're not "Busy") but if I had a Shekel for every time I've been called "Hook-Nose" ...(the Nose, it's always the Nose)
Frank
I don’t have the nose – well, not much – and I have a BBC accent, so “passing” is really easy. Having worked mostly in the City of London and then Wall Street, I never heard much in the way of antisemitic comments – though when people assumed I was white and so one of “us”, I did hear some startlingly racist comments. (Amusingly, I had a colleague in London back in the old days who was a fair-haired French Sephardi Jew, and she claimed to have been the first Jew hired by Morgan Grenfell – but only because they didn’t realise that she was Jewish).
My nephews here in the US have graduated from college in the last few years and they said they’d not experienced any issues, but going to Wash U in St. Louis, and BU, both of which have large Jewish student populations, they weren’t likely to anyway.
UMass Amherst had a Hamas chapter doing security in the grad dorm....
And this: https://www.jns.org/opinion/the-scandal-continues-at-umass-amherst/
"...people assumed I was white..."
You're not?
I suppose that I've given up on expecting law professors to talk about their profession or the law like they know what they're talking about, instead of simply reciting black-letter law from their casebooks. But Roiphe's caricature of CLS is depressing. Surely someone professionally engaged to teach the law could bother to open a book at some point.
To be clear, critical legal studies and critical race theory can help us to understand continuing American antisemitism. But there is a complex and evolving relationship between antisemitism, Jewish American identity, Israel and our political and legal systems that Roiphe seems to lack the theoretical toolkit to really untangle. The antisemitism of past generations can help us to understand modern-day Black antisemitism in NYC, for instance, but we would make a mistake if we were to try to connect a direct line between that antisemitism and the charges of "antisemitism" currently used to govern the range of acceptable political opinion among the elite, usually against Black and brown and/or Muslim public figures. I don't think we can really understand modern antisemitism - perhaps "antisemitisms" - without a fuller understanding of the role it plays in a modern identity politics driven by class and race considerations.
I think what we're seeing, when DEI speakers awkwardly tiptoe around antisemitism, a kind of intuitive understanding that there are modern victims of antisemitism as well as those who use putative "antisemitism" as a sword to victimize others - and these are usually not, but possibly could be, the same people. It's thus not clear to these under-educated consultants exactly how to speak about it. But the right response to this unease is not a return to received platitudes or the status quo ante, as Roiphe seems interested in suggesting. It is to delve deeper into the theory and to see where it leads on precisely this question. There is a lot that CLS and CRT can tell us. We just need to employ the tools they provide us; not the silly caricatures some choose to promote on FoxNews.
"In conclusion, Libya is a land of contrasts."
“I think what we’re seeing, when DEI speakers awkwardly tiptoe around antisemitism, a kind of intuitive understanding that there are modern victims of antisemitism as well as those who use putative “antisemitism” as a sword to victimize others”
So, they get paid to teach about racism but “awkwardly tiptoe around” one of the most enduring examples of racism?
It’s like teaching about wars involving the U. S. while avoiding the Civil War because it’s too controversial.
But I guess the good news is that accusations of racism are only misused where antisemitism is concerned.
As a life long Florida Man who grew up in Miami in the 1950s and 1960s I always had lots of friends from Cuba, PR, and South America. My best friend as a junior in high school was a Cuban who married a beautiful lady from Columbia. Truth be told back in the day (I am talking about the 1500 and later) Columbia was basically all of South and Central America and Columbians have an attitude that this is still true and Columbians are the nobility and the rest of Hispanics in the New World are their surfs. On the other hand every Hispanic not from PR views peeps from PR as the lowest form of humanity.
Americans too often make the mistake of thinking ethnic groups like Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, and others are monolithic while the truth is there are pecking orders in all of them and at times can be worse than any racism in the US.
I've never met an Asian -- and you haven't either.
They all have very specific identities, i.e. Japanesr, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc...
“I think what we’re seeing, when DEI speakers awkwardly tiptoe around antisemitism, a kind of intuitive understanding that there are modern victims of antisemitism as well as those who use putative “antisemitism” as a sword to victimize others ”
As a WASP who grew up in a largely Irish Catholic suburb of Boston, I never realized the anti-WASP bigotry I encountered on a daily basis until I discussed antisemitism with a Jewish friend in grad school. My childhood experiences were identical….
So much for any moral authority for any of this garbage.
"Flagged for moderation."
Well, that's a new one. Trying out the shadow-ban, are we?
The only comments I've ever seen "flagged for moderation" here are ones with multiple hyperlinks. Presumably for anti-spam reasons, they only allow one link per comment. Did you inadvertently violate that rule?
But you're also right - nothing "flagged for moderation" here ever actually gets moderated. Comments with more than one link stay in limbo forever.
My comment contained no links. It was critical of Roiphe, but that's about it.
I'm fairly certain David flagged it. He was responding to other comments at roughly the same time it had to have been flagged (given the timestamp of the most recent comment left in the thread).
I flagged something else, yours may have been responding to that.
Nope. Top-level comment, responding to you.
You're a coward and liar, David.
Ah, well if I did that, it was a mistake. You're not enough of a crackpot to be worth worrying about, sorry to disappoint you.
Anyone can flag comments for moderation. I can. You can. There's a button for it right next to your comment. It wasn’t necessarily David.
Shocker.
The lecture halls in our law schools are now filled with professors and students who believe these things. In their view, the profession is no longer an essential gatekeeper of the rule of law, a key component of the American founding. Instead, it's a part of the problem: a white, racist, oppressive clique that uses its claims of fairness to mask its oppression of the powerless.
Yes, there were some who became a caricature of the anti-American leftist academic.
But Critical Legal Theory even at it's height of about 15 years ago was accepted but never the mainstream teaching of law school.
My quite liberal law school, perhaps a bit after the height of CRT, threw in a speluncean explorers judge with a CRT perspective and that was about all.
There was apparently one prof who taught criminal procedure who was into it. That's it.
But yes, it is a thing that whenever intolerance gets to a certain point, Jews invariably become one of the targeted groups. Dunno if that means CRT is going to give rise to antisemitism; it can be dumb and reactionary independent of that.
More likely to just branch out into it, than give rise to it. Looking at people like Farrakhan and Sharpton, antisemitism hardly needs to be given rise to on the left, it has a long, long left-wing pedigree, going back as far as Marx, at least. And CRT's linkage to black radicals just reenforces that.
CRT actually provides the analytical tools necessary to critique and evaluate Marx’s antisemitism, such as it is, and allows us to say something about it besides just, “Hurr durr, Marx used common antisemitic tropes!”
It’s actually a fairly interesting topic. Modern left-wing “antisemitism” shares with Marx the basic mistake of conflating Israel and Jewish identity with more fundamental critiques about class and power. But Modern right-wing antisemitism is much more about race, ethnicity, and religion, and serves as an instrument of patriarchal white supremacy. Black nationalism occupies a strange space in between these, where you find Black civil rights activists in the 60s and 70s seeking to address and reconcile with the Jewish community, who were themselves an important part of the civil rights movement, but then you also have figures like Farrakhan, whose antisemitism is as senseless as it is counterproductive (and is more like right-wing antisemitism – and is consistent with Farrakhan’s broader conservative ideology).
Antisemitism has a long pedigree on both left and right. Simplifying, in more recent times, on the right because we're communists and the left, because we're capitalists.
I am fond of asking non-Jews in such discussions what they think the world population of Jews is. Guesses usually range from 50 million to 200 million, with the higher values being more common. They tend to be shocked, and look at things a little differently, when they find out it's 16 million or so.
Why? It just means each one of us is that much more powerful.
I messed up, so it's fair you got off track.
But CRT and CLT are different.
CRT is not at all anti-American, and is pretty hopeful in the end; it was formed in reaction to CLT's general bleakness.
CRT’s linkage to black radicals just reinforces that
Yeah, that's not how that works. No guilt by association. Deal with the content.
antisemitism hardly needs to be given rise to on the left, it has a long, long left-wing pedigree
Also fuck off with this. Don't deflect concerns about antisemitism to your own partisan bullshit. That's a great way to ignore an actual problem.
Here's a related article from the same publication:
https://sapirjournal.org/social-justice/2021/05/critical-race-theory-and-the-hyper-white-jew/
I'd say it's a big problem for anyone who isn't unproductive & shiftless (who, obviously, prefer a free-for-all to the rule of law).
Leftism is the ideology of the unproductive & shiftless. A Soviet dissident talked about "its purely lumpen character."
Ed prefers "if you don't work, you don't eat"
Funny to hear this complaint from a law school scholar working hard to undermine the mid-century highly Jewish liberal mainstream with a return to the false liberties of the Lochner area, undermining the New Deal-era discrediting of that orthodoxy. And I'm not sure where Professor Bernstein is on the Second Amendment fetishism afflicting many professors on this blog, but that is an undermining of mid-century legal orthodoxy with very bloody consequences.
That he seems to be progressing towards getting his head unstuck from his ass doesn't seem "funny" to me.
I doubt this is really such an issue. What IS an issue is that as the left becomes more pro-Palestinian (which, to be clear, is their right-- there are two sides to the conflict and both sides raise some compelling arguments), it also is becoming more anti-Semitic. And there's a danger that colleges will become more rife with open anti-Semitism as a result, which obviously would be terrible for Jewish students and faculty.
I was struck by the phrase "federal data showing that Jews are the most common targets of hate crimes" which seems incorrect; antisemitic hate crimes are the most common among those that are religiously motivated, but federal reports say there are more anti-Black hate crimes than religiously motivated hate crimes.
The point being made is correct; ignoring hate crimes against Jews is very bad and particularly so for the described individual's role. (Nor should other categories of discrimination be ignored, whatever the number of hate crimes.)
But misrepresenting federal reports leads one to suspect that there may be other misrepresentation going on; possibly the administrator's point was that discrimination against federally protected classes was already covered in that training.
The most common hate crimes are against whites, but the Feds don't count those.
Setting aside the tiresome, as well as biased, practice of making ANY generalization about Jews without stating any evidence of why, this "critical" attitude about the way the law is supposed to operate ought to automatically disqualify anyone who expresses agreement with it from ever being a judge or attorney of any kind whatsoever. Otherwise the system becomes corrupt, just as it does when believers in critical race or gender theory are allowed to hold jobs which carry with them the power to hire and fire.
Sir, this is an Arby's.
"Here's an ideology that purports to get its moral virtue from the fact that it focuses on the interests of minority groups, but in fact it's quite selective regarding which minority groups it finds worthy of concern. And given that it's otherwise bad anyway, that undermines its strongest defense."
If an ideology that purports in its essence to be about uplifting and protecting groups victimized by racism, and it can't figure out why Jews, even American Jews who currently live with armed guards at their synagogues, community centers, and schools, are among those groups, it speaks poorly not of Jews who point this out, but of the ideology.
David has evidently decided that there are some points of view he disagrees with, but doesn't care to engage; at the same time, he cannot allow them to go unanswered. Hence, putting them in moderation purgatory.
He nuked my own critical but perfectly in-bounds comment. I wonder what inspired this new cowardice?
I read your comment. I wondered what happened to it. It was completely on-point and addressed important aspects of the allegations, which are dishonestly made of university antisemitism and against CLS or against CRT.
Mitchell Plitnick provides some illuminating information on false allegations of antisemitism in International leaders push social media companies to ban anti-Zionist speech.
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/florida-jewish-journal/fl-jj-first-jew-of-color-american-jewish-museum-resigns-20210505-ekbsg5ws65fvfnmxwcbtuuoztq-story.html
“Moyo had planned to talk about how to cultivate leaders from marginalized groups…”
Since Roman destruction of Judea in 73 A.D., Jews have been pretty fucking “marginalized”…
I'd actually suggest that this is one of the reasons that it's dangerous for Jews to describe Antisemitism as racism. We tend to do that both because it's a shorthand for the kind of hatred seen as most evil in the US and because the Nazis treated Jews as a race. But Antisemitism doesn't function the way that racism (and if you want to call anti-Hispanic bias ethnocentrism, that too) has tended to function in America. It's its own kind of hatred, with a different set of accusations, often of Jews being *too* skilled in certain areas. That makes it something that can creep into the views of any race. Calling it a form of racism results in people saying "but I'm of X minority group, so I can't be Antisemitic!" Instead, people of any race can be Antisemitic, the same way as people of any race can be sexist or homophobic. And in turn, the same way that white Jews can be racist against Black folks, white Jews can also be racist against Black Jews, and Black Christians can also be Antisemitic against Black Jews, and those forms of discrimination and hatred look different from one another.
Queenie is pulling your chain. Don't put more effort into debunking her crap than she puts into shitting it out.
One is the reason for the other. And the "Critical" part of CRT can neglect the fact that white supremacy was not and is not the only form of oppression or whatever you want to call it in the US. But thinking it is, is why we have black police officers in a majority black city run primarily by black politicians abusing a black man, and just like for a hammer everything is a nail, to many of a certain mindest the perceived problem that led to the assault is "white supremacy," rather than some people with power, if not properly trained, supervised, and not expecting consequences if they abuse that power, will abuse it, and that police departments naturally attract a certain percentage of people prone to violence.
Well, it's problematic to call it racism even when it's based on racist theories primarily b/c CRT has defined racism as "privilege plus power," and antisemitism is often directed against Jews precisely because they are seen as the ones with privilege and power. But if you take the traditional definition of racism, along the lines of hating and or wanting harm to come to people because of their perceived "racial" background, it fits well for many examples of antisemitism.
Check out racism against Asians. The idea that racism is definitionally about a race being strictly inferior is incorrect.
Not that Jews are a race, either. In fact, I rarely hear that.
CRT is not the same as CLT.
I don’t know much about CLT these days, but I think you’re a step behind in the ‘everything is white supremacy’ characterization of CRT.
From Will Baud’s podcast where he interviewed a practitioner, CRT has gone well beyond race these days. Intersectionality talks about all sorts of subcategories; Prof. Khiara M. Bridges talks to Prof. Baude about white women’s unique issues with respect to abortion, among other things.
Though appealing to incredulity that black people can’t be part of furthering a white supremecist system is not even a good criticism of your behind-the-times strawman CRT.
(I do think white supremacism as the adjective of choice has connotations other than those meant and should be avoided, but so far that's what they're still going with)
They always were marginal.
Compared with you?