The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
More Judicial Clerk Fallout from Campus Protests
Supporting Hamas butchery of Israeli civilians is beyond the pale
The extraordinary outpouring of support on American university campuses for the events of October 7th has, unsurprisingly, led to some backlash from alumni, donors, and future employers. Big donors to elite institutions are realizing that something has gone terribly wrong on college campuses and have reconsidered their support. Big law firms have questioned whether students involved in such political activities would be acceptable employees.
Judges are reassessing as well. Judge James Ho became the face of a threatened conservative judicial boycott of hiring Yale law students as clerks after some high-profile assaults on conservative student speech. Yale Law School took steps to try to improve the situation.
Judges are looking at student actions in the wake of October 7th and drawing a line in the sand for those who would want to clerk for them. Judge Matthew Solomson said,
To me, it's a simple proposition that just like no judge would hire anyone who endorsed the KKK or the Nazis, anyone who endorses or approves or otherwise gives comfort to — in writing — Hamas, should not be hired.
Sarah Isgur reports on the Advisory Opinions podcast that Judge Lee Rudofsky has written to his own future clerks asking them to confirm that they have not condoned the October 7th massacre or engaged in acts of antisemitism or Islamophobia. He, quite appropriately, added that he had no problem with his future clerks holding or expressing a wide range of views about the Israeli-Palestinian situation and the current war, so long as they stopped short celebrating or advocating the targeting of civilians for abduction, torture, or death.
I would expect that other judges are contemplating similar steps in light of what we have seen over the past month.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
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
Should be extended to all staff of Representatives Priapism Slap-a-Jap, Ra-shit-a Hijab, Andre the Giant Antisemite Carson, Ilhan Mullah Omar, and any staff of Representatives that didn’t vote to Censure Slap-a-Jap (I’m talkin bout you, Hakeem the Bad Dream Juffuhson)
Frank
Looks like The Onion continues to think you guys are full of shit:
https://www.theonion.com/house-votes-to-censure-66-of-americans-for-antisemitic-1851006017
Given that the hostages are still held, they are, bare minimum, useless shits.
Thanks for making clear your racism and Islamophobia.
“Islamophobia”?
A phobia is an irrational fear of something.
It is very rational to fear someone whose entire life is devoted to destroying you and your country.
Islamoterrorphobia?
It is not exactly a secret that both the U.S. and Israel have engaged in “targeted terrorism”, i.e., assassinations, as a political tool over the past decades. Both nations have also invaded other nations, either in “self defense” (in the case of Israel) or because the other nation was “evil” (in the case of the U.S.). There was also the time Israel “murdered” 34 men aboard the U.S.S. Liberty back in 1967. How about applying whatever rules employers want to use to everyone? I can see a law firm asking prospective employees on their views of murder as a political weapon, but the acceptability of the answer shouldn’t depend on who is the murderer and who is the murderee.
Really?
the USS Liberty bullshit?
someone steal your “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”??
Frank
Leave him alone, he’s just a little cranky because he couldn’t find his armband and pressed brown shirt for the march this afternoon.
“targeted terrorism”, i.e., assassinations
You clearly don’t understand what “terrorism” means. Also, your over-use of quotes is ridiculous.
Pretty sure those serve for the “finger quotes” he used his first few years on the Internet. Before he realized punctuation worked “better”.
His inability to differentiate between “people” who target civilians in their homes and music festival attendees and those who kill the people who target those civilians is a sign of either a mid-double-digit IQ or a Gullibility Level over 9,000.
And how many children were targeted, expressly targeted, for personal decapitation? Your personal standards suck if you equate the two.
“Terrorism” is mass killing of rando civilians, to punish the population as a whole for going along with the powers that be.
“Assassination” is killing a particular person, usually in a political context, to get them out of the way.
Viewpoint-based restrictions on government employment? Sounds like an unconstitutional condition.
If you’d served in the Military (I know, “Homo, much better now”) you’d know they ask all kinds of questions about “Viewpoints” before you get a chance to “Turn and Cough”
Frank
Indeed. And one with a very low likelihood of “success”. How many of his law clerks does the judge expect will decline to provide the appropriate pledge?
1. These comments prompted me to put up a post on why I think judges do have latitude to select (or reject) clerks based on views about law and justice, see here
2. If a prospective clerk has spoken out in favor of Hamas, and tells the truth about it to a judge, the clerkship offer would likely be quietly withdrawn. But if the prospective clerk lies about it, and the judge finds out (not implausible, given that some of the commentary has been public, or at least may be known to classmates), the clerk will be fired. Such a firing may leave him with a difficult to explain entry on the resume (if the clerkship had already begun). It may also lead to more scuttlebutt among classmates, judges, and others about the firing, and may make it harder for the person to get another clerkship, or even a law firm job: Even employers who don’t care about applicants’ pro-Hamas statements might well care about the applicants’ having lied to a judge. So there’s considerable practical incentive, as well as perhaps some sense of moral obligation, to tell the truth even if it is likely to cost you this particular clerkship.
This is fine, but then just don’t cry when judges start requiring loyalty statements from prospective clerks about their commitment to diversity, transgender rights, immigrants, the establishment clause, anti-Zionism, etc. etc., all of which are “views about law and justice.”
And abortion! No pro-life clerks, that’s for fuckin’ sure.
Why would I cry about that? Many liberal judges have long hired just liberal law clerks. I think there’s no First Amendment barrier to that. Likewise, many conservative judges have long hired just conservative law clerks. Of course, some other judges have hired from both sides of the aisle, but many have focused just on people with a certain ideology. If a judge wants to hire just clerks who are committed to the judge’s notions of “diversity,” it seems to me that the judge is entitled to do that.
There’s a difference between generally like-minded and “sign this litmus test of particular stances.”
Would a policy of not hiring pro-Israel people be in violation of a state “no boycotts of Israel” law?
I suppose I have less confidence than you that the judge would likely learn of the offending speech in time to fire the clerk. Then again, I did not grow up livestreaming every aspect of my life, so I find it hard to believe anyone would “inevitably” discover my every past indiscretion…
one can hope that support for Hamas will one day be treated the same as supporting a Nazi…
Given who is cheering the Hamas terror attack it’s much more likely to be viewed like communism.
In other contexts, it’s allowed all the time. Do you really think that D congressmen can be required to hire R congressional staffers or vice versa?
Yes, there are probably some allowable restrictions on employment decisions but it is not even close to true that all viewpoint-based restrictions are presumptively unconstitutional.
I don’t have much of an issue with this, but this seems pretty performative so far.
The prohibition against “celebrating or advocating the targeting of civilians for abduction, torture, or death” may prove troublesome. Isn’t that something one or more formal political parties in Israel favors? Jabotinsky stopped with his toes perhaps slightly inside the line, but it’s probably time to make the line a bit brighter: at what point does it become inappropriate — torture — to implement an Iron Wall and actively “remove all hope” from a disfavored ethnic group? Did the Venice ghettos cross the line? The Polish ghettos? The ghettos created by Israelis for disfavored Arabs?
(see https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/quot-the-iron-wall-quot )
Jabotinsky most definitely did not “advocate the targeting of civilians for abduction, torture, or death.”
Now that very specific people see threats, some are finally taking some action.
Where were they before? Humanities in US universities have been a fever swamp for decades.
The time to stick up for western values was before so much was destroyed. Now you guys think some bland tactics at the two minute warning are going to save you?
Which universities? The conservative-controlled (nonsense-teaching, roundly bigoted, censorship-shackled, science-suppressing, reason-disdaining, strenuously discriminating, fourth-tier) campuses?
Clingers can’t be replaced — in the natural course, by better Americans– fast enough.
OK, “Reverend”
I get your hard feelings about Penn State (actually I don’t, they let you retire at 55)
and how’s that motion for a new trial going? still think your best bet is a Commutation from your Stuttering US Senator.
Why do you associate with a polemical blog that attracts such a remarkable concentration of conservative bigots, faux libertarians, and antisocial right-wing rubes, Prof. Whittington? You seem to be trying to position yourself as a voice of reason on the right . . . and contributing to the Volokh Conspiracy disqualifies you (from a mainstream perspective).
Aren’t you associating with this blog? You are one of its most loyal readers. I see your comments here every day.
LOL, Meat. Still prattling on your nonsense?
Your Betters are still watching.
How should students who are gay-bashing bigots be handled, Prof. Whittington? What about trans-hating bigots? Race-targeting vote-suppressing bigots?
How should students who endorse Israel’s lethal right-wing belligerence with respect to settlers, or students who applaud the deaths of Palestinian civilians (say, those who were instructed by Israel to travel to certain areas, which were then bombed a few days later by Israel) be handled? Or students who endorse the Israeli voices for war crimes against Palestinians? Or students who applaud the placement of barbed wire in a river (known to be used by migrants, including children) along the American border by xenophobic bigots?
Carry on, clingers.
Have you looked at the recently revealed Nashville shooter’s manifesto?
so long as they stopped short {of] . . .advocating the targeting of civilians for . . . death
I would wager my house (no mortgage) that Judge Rudovsky would allow exceptions for some targeting decisions involving (thousands of) civilian deaths.
Carry on, clingers.
That’s 3 “Klingers” in under 15 minutes, keep doing that and you’ll put your (Brown) eye out!
Frank
That’s because the “Rev” only has cut & paste responses in lieu of actual discussion.
Advocating for the forceful elimination of Israeli elected officials is ok then.
“asking them to confirm”
FFS, I hope he’s better at fact finding in court. Even the most ardent Hamas supporters here think they are not Jew haters so will have no problem “confirming” this.
If you are serious, you have to check their affiliations [“Jewish” Voice for Peace or Students for “Justice” in Palestine are red flags] and check their social media.
One does have to wonder if the same standard would apply to those who support and glorify the 1/6 terrorist attack on the US Capitol.
No need for wonder at the Official Legal Blog of Un-American Right-Wing Insurrectionists.
Just ask John Eastman. Or Jeffrey Clark.
Carry on, clingers . . . but only so far as better Americans permit.
According to his bio, Judge Solomson is a Trump appointee who, before being elevated to the bench, practiced in-house at military contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. So far as moral judgments go, his should be paid no mind. And as to his hiring practices, I highly doubt he was selecting candidates from very far outside the FedSoc pool to begin with.
Is Matthew Solomson merely a right-wing culture war casualty who seeks to hire gay-bashing bigots or, instead, also a gay-bashing bigot himself?
What does he think about Brown v. Board of Education?
Carry on, clingers. If you want to devote the time you have remaining (before replacement) to hypocritical whining, knock yourself out.
I have no issue with not hiring someone who supports the murder of civilians but I don’t think that’s what’s happening here.
FTA:
In a private conversation with Penny Pritzker, senior fellow of the Harvard Corporation, Mr. Griffin urged the university to come out forcefully in defense of Israel, he said in an interview.
It was a move that would have put Harvard firmly on the opposite side of 30 student groups who had said that “the Israeli regime” was “entirely responsible” for the mass killing and kidnapping of Israelis that took place, and complicate the university’s policies promoting free speech on campus.
Saying Israel was responsible isn’t supporting the murder of civilians, it’s saying that Israel’s policies towards Palestinians are so unjust as to create the kind of violent extremism that leads to groups like Hamas and the attacks.
You can disagree with that position, but the fact they choose to misframe it instead tells me that they’re not willing to acknowledge with largely indefensible Israeli policies like Settlement expansion.
Riiight… And “from the river to the sea” is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate. You bet!
https://nypost.com/2023/11/07/news/house-on-track-to-censure-rep-tlaib-for-defense-of-hamas-and-calls-to-destroy-israel/
Slogans mean different things to different people. Some people say that slogan wanting to destroy Israel, some want a single Democratic State, some want a two state solution where people have rights in both states.
Anyway, if calling for the elimination of a state is so beyond the pale then doesn’t that make the Settlements just as bad? What’s the end game of the Settlements if not Israeli sovereignty “from the river to the sea”?