The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Ilya Shapiro Guest-Blogging About "Lawless: The Miseducation of America's Elites"
I'm delighted to report that Ilya Shapiro (Manhattan Institute) will be guest-blogging this week about this new book of his. From the publisher's summary:
In the past, Columbia Law School produced leaders like Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Now it produces window-smashing activists.
When protestors at Columbia broke into a building and created illegal encampments, the student-led Columbia Law Review demanded that finals be canceled because of "distress." At Stanford, chanting activists, egged on by an associate dean, drove away a federal judge. Yale's hostility to free speech led more than a dozen federal judges to boycott the school for clerkship hiring.
Law schools used to teach students how to think critically, advance logical arguments, and respect opponents. Now those students cannot tolerate disagreement and reject the validity of the law itself. And yet, rioting Ivy Leaguers are the same people who will hold important government positions, fight constitutional lawsuits, and advise Fortune 500 companies.
In Lawless, Ilya Shapiro explains how we got here and what we can do about it. The problem is bigger than radical students and biased faculty—it's institutional weakness. Shapiro met the mob firsthand when he posted a controversial tweet that led to calls for his firing from Georgetown Law. A four-month investigation eventually cleared him on a technicality but declared that if he offended anyone in the future, he'd create a "hostile educational environment" and be subject to the inquisition again. Not being able to do the job he was hired for, he resigned.
This cannot continue. In Lawless, Shapiro reveals how the warping of higher ed—and especially the illiberal takeover of legal education—is transforming our country. We're handing the reins of power to lawless radicals who will be America's future judges, prosecutors, politicians, and presidents. Unless we stop it now, the consequences will be with us for decades.
And the jacket blurbs:
Ilya Shapiro takes the academy to court—and wins. In this thoughtful new book, he makes the case that legal education has been captured and corrupted by left-wing ideologues. He knows it from observation, but also from experience. He pulls no punches and tells it like it is. — Christopher F. Rufo
When did breaking windows become an acceptable activity for lawyers-in-training? Lawless is the shocking story of how our most prestigious law schools were overtaken by student mobs, enabled by faculty and bureaucrats who care more about diversity quotas and "safety" than truth-seeking and the robust exchange of ideas. A sobering must-read. — William P. Barr
It should be axiomatic that the law is followed at law schools. But like much of what transpires on American campuses these days, it has become business as anything but usual. In Lawless, the brilliant Ilya Shapiro catalogues the ideological capture of America's law schools, where woke administrators and bureaucrats are focused on imposing their worldview and preferred social order, not on nurturing young minds to debate ideas freely and – yes – wrestle with opinions with which they don't agree. If debating ideas is too tough a task for aspiring lawyers, they certainly aren't ready for the courtroom, the boardroom, or anywhere else lawyers are required. — Betsy DeVos
I much look forward to Ilya's posts.
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
When the US elects a racist rapist traitor liar fraudster felon as president, why care about a few broken windows?
Don't worry; Biden will be gone in a week.
Molly, Lyndon Johnson was elected 60 years ago...
Don't worry, he can't run again, and his wife lost her one shot at it too.
It would be laughable if it were not so sickening that Bumble, Ed, and Stupid are pretending that they don't know you're talking about DJT, soon to occupy the Oval Office as the only convicted felon to do so. They won and they got exactly the kind of person they wanted.
No one is pretending.
Convicted in a miscarriage of justice.
Jan 20th will honor TWO men so convicted, one who was in Birmingham jail...
It takes a demented mind to compare Donald Trump to Martin Luther King.
When Trump's dumbass can post on Truth social anything remotely comparable to Dr King's Letter from said Birmingham jail - - maybe then and only then would anybody compare Trump's ill conceived and executed coverup of a marital affair to civil disobodience during the civil rights movement.
Let's see what Trump recently said about his trial: "The Radical Democrats have lost another pathetic, unAmerican Witch Hunt. After spending tens of millions of dollars, wasting over 6 years of obsessive work that should have been spent on protecting New Yorkers from violent, rampant crime that is destroying the City and State, coordinating with the Biden/Harris Department of Injustice in lawless Weaponization, and bringing completely baseless, illegal, and fake charges against your 45th and 47th President, ME, I was given an UNCONDITIONAL DISCHARGE. That result alone proves that, as all Legal Scholars and Experts have said, THERE IS NO CASE, THERE WAS NEVER A CASE, and this whole Scam fully deserves to be DISMISSED. The real Jury, the American People, have spoken, by Re-Electing me with an overwhelming MANDATE in one of the most consequential Elections in History. As the American People have seen, this “case” had no crime, no damages, no proof, no facts, no Law, only a highly conflicted Judge, a star witness who is a disbarred, disgraced, serial perjurer, and criminal Election Interference. Today’s event was a despicable charade, and now that it is over, we will appeal this Hoax, which has no merit, and restore the trust of Americans in our once great System of Justice. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
Whatever that is ^ you do a major disservice comparing it to King's famous letter.
But Clinton's not President anymore and his female enabler/wife is out of work.
"And yet, rioting Ivy Leaguers are the same people who will hold important government positions, fight constitutional lawsuits, and advise Fortune 500 companies"
I'm not sure that will be true going forward. I'm not sure behavior patterns that include rioting are a good foundation for successful lives.
I may be wrong - consider Bill Ayers for example.
Bill Ayers was the MAGA of his era.
Uh...He.Was.Not.
"I'm not sure behavior patterns that include rioting are a good foundation for successful lives."
If you're rich, well-connected, and have the correct ideas, a few riots in your record are simply instances of idealism going a bit far. Worthy of a slap on the wrist and a stern talking-to. Then the senior associates at the law firm get all misty-eyed as they recall when they themselves were rowdy youths, and then it's off to work remaking the world from the inside, preferably without riots, but if riots are needed, they won't do it themselves, they'll find some dupes to do it for t hem.
Act IV, Scene II of Shakespeare's Henry VI, Part II....
A touch! A touch! A palpable touch!
“Now it produces window-smashing activists.”
I heard about windows being smashed in protests, but were any Columbia Law students guilty of smashing windows there?
60 years ago, guilt by association would be enough.
Crazy Ed!
Try "Accurate Ed."
It happened...
It’s irrelevant, loon (the claim specified “now”).
Enough for what, you moron?
And are you saying you think guilt by association is a good idea?
Oh, and by the way naming one example, even if it is legitimate, proves nothing, yet you stupidly act like it proves everything.
In Lawless, Ilya Shapiro explains how we got here and what we can do about it. The problem is bigger than radical students and biased faculty—it's institutional weakness.
Strength among America's leading private institutions may, if they have the will for it, serve as a bulwark against the program of oppression already bruited by the incoming Trump administration. Already, leaders of several first-rank universities have unwisely, and indeed fearfully, caved to pressure from faux-principled ideologues like Ilya Shapiro. The world is poorer for that, and the institutions thus misled degraded.
During the civil rights era, and the Vietnam War campus crises, America's best universities learned slowly and painfully to do better. It paid off when university tolerance for agitation to divest from investments in apartheid-supporting corporations contributed both morally and materially to resistance which ended apartheid in South Africa.
A notion that a legitimate path of orthodoxy runs concurrently with government oppression is now—as it has always been—an appeal to cowardice, weakness, and corruption. It stands against principle and courage.
Stephen -- see: https://assets.teenvogue.com/photos/5ccc78ed2f88bb3edf44f11e/16:9/w_1600,c_limit/00-story-vietnam.jpg
That's 1971 and anti-war protesters, not MAGA.
Society is changing...
"Already, leaders of several first-rank universities have unwisely, and indeed fearfully, caved to pressure from faux-principled ideologues like Ilya Shapiro."
How, exactly?
Hmm...I'm still interested in knowing.
The sources for the blurb - Rufo, Barr and deVos - do Shapiro no favours. I'd be more impressed if they had say Haidt, Friedersdorf and Volokh or Somin. But that tells us about the publisher, not the content.
Is there such a thing as an "anti-blurb," blurbs that will drive buyers way rather than attracting them? These certainly fit the definition.
Isn't Rufo, for one, busy destroying a college in FL?
I don't know, but he was involved with the Discovery Institute...
" rioting Ivy Leaguers are the same people who will hold important government positions, fight constitutional lawsuits, and advise Fortune 500 companies."
Will they?
Anyone remember the TV show "Mad Men"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Men
That was set in 1960 and the elites of the 1960s simply weren't in the 1970s. It's happened before and it will happen again -- the elite law schools of today won't have their influence and power by 2030. Trump is another Jack Kennedy, riding a wave of cultural change.
Do not forget that circa 1966, those protesting the Vietnam War were routinely beaten to a pulp by cops and construction workers.
Do not forget that nothing Dr. Ed says — particularly when prefaced by "remember that" or "people forget that" or the like — is accurate. The so-called Hard Hat Riot took place in 1970, not 1966, and made news precisely because it did not "routinely" happen.
And it's not clear what this has to do with Dr. Ed's claims, taken from a TV show and not even true.
And PBS fabricates hour-long programs about LBJ...
Can't resist.
Trump is no Jack Kennedy.
Kennedy was far worse with women.
Isn't the problem larger than Shapiro indicates? The president and US legislators seem to intend war on the ICC.
Such a war is tantamount to murdering international law.
I can't find a legal scholar that will opine whether the president has a presidential power to perpetrate genocide.
There haven't always been legal scholars and it is a mistake to believe that there always will be legal scholars.
There haven't always been legal scholars
Well, Hammurabi goes back about 4000 years, the Talmud was written roughly 2500 years ago, and that's about when Solon lived, and I think Roman law also developed around then.
So you're probably right that there haven't always been legal scholars, but they've been around a while.
"Hammurabi is best known for having issued the Code of Hammurabi, which he claimed to have received from Shamash, the Babylonian god of justice."
Yep, that's what I call scholarship...
Huh? It's the ICC that's running around threatening to kidnap our allies. They should stop this war mongering.
There is a problem with this article. That problem is the people if they would read it and apply what is being said the nation would benefit. But the elite who would benefit will never read this article.
Is this a new thing? As some commenters have alluded to, the 1960s campus protesters rioted, broke windows, set off bombs, shut down colleges, and then, having done their bit to facilitate a Communist takeover of Vietnam, went on to high-paying jobs in law and finance, like their predecessors. If today's protesters facilitate the Palestinian destruction of Israel--time will tell--it won't be any worse for the Israelis than it was for the South Vietnamese. Then again, today's protesters may be more like the idealistic young people in this video, in which case their careers will be less remunerative. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDuHXTG3uyY
Yeah, it will. North Vietnam's goal wasn't to wipe out the South Vietnamese people; it was to take over. Obviously there was a bunch of political persecution, and living in a communist regime sucks. But it's not like the average resident of South Vietnam was a target for murder.
Meh, dhimmitude vs. class enemy status under Communism. Probably about the same.
Dhimmitude is not the same as being murdered.
The destruction of a country that is an important source of scientific and technological innovation is not the same as subjugating farmers - not that anyone should be doing that either.
In case you haven't noticed, minorities tend not to do well in a society that generally hates them. I think the historical evidence for that is pretty strong.
The killing fields of Cambodia???
Well, after reviewing these responses, I would have to modify my analysis to say that I don't know whether life for an average Israeli after a Palestinian takeover will be better or worse than life for the average South Vietnamese or Cambodian after the Communist takeover. Given the uncertainty, I suggest that the expected per capita loss for the Israelis is probably of the same magnitude as the loss suffered by the Southeast Asians. That doesn't refute my basic point that today's campus protesters will probably have no problem obtaining high-paying jobs, including tenured professorships, law firm partnerships, etc.
It should be beyond a doubt that adolescents and young adults are almost always the actors when tumultuous civil disturbances begin. There's the old adage that says (more or less) , "If you are not a socialist before 25, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist after 25, you have no head."
Which means that young people do what we expect them to do--learn from their elders--but then do the polar opposite of what those elders recommend. Of course, we often call such activists lawless, because of the excessive fervor of their beliefs and actions. Fair enough. But they have every reason to see their elders as lawless themselves, fighting over position and wealth, turning away from the higher law of human rights, seeing groups of people as more (us) or less (everyone else) deserving of the full benefits of citizenship, and wasting blood and treasure trying to control the uncontrollable.
"Of course, we often call such activists lawless, because of the excessive fervor of their beliefs and actions. Fair enough. But they have every reason to see their elders as lawless themselves, fighting over position and wealth, turning away from the higher law of human rights"
It's the Sixties on line one, they want their rhetoric back.
I’d like to welcome Good Ilya here. Maybe it will rub off on Bad Ilya.
In fact I see not so bad Ilyais blogging about removing or at least reducing zoning restrictions in LA to help rebuilding LA faster and to provide additional housing.
But I suppose his next post will be that we should remove all border checks so we can get an army of illegal aliens to rebuild Pacific Palisades.
It was our only PhD President who started the "scorn the Founders' "scorn the Constituion" movement. If Biden could think and write he might have penned Woodrow Wilson's "Case Against the Constitution"- a foolish, foolish piece of trash.
"Wilson’s conception of government run by administrative “experts,” unconstrained by popular consent, runs up against the traditional understanding of the Founder’s Constitution, with its tripartite system based on a separation of powers among the legislative, executive and judicial branches."
"adjudicate alleged violations of the rules.
Wilson well understood that his notion of Progressive governance by “fourth branch” administrative experts was constitutionally problematic. In 1891, he wrote that “the functions of government are in a very real sense independent of legislation, and even constitutions.”"
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/30/woodrow-wilsons-case-against-the-constitution/
Still he wasn't as stupid as Biden ,who said:
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/biden-joins-the-all-stars-of-constitutional-contempt/
Biden Joins the All-stars of Constitutional Contempt