We have seen in recent years that public attestations of being a racist have become more common among academics. Last year, we discussed the controversy over the acting Northwestern Law Dean declaring publicly to “I am James Speta and I am a racist.” He was followed by Emily Mullin, executive director of major gifts, who announced, “I am a racist and a gatekeeper of white supremacy. I will work to be better.” Recently, Brandeis’ Assistant Deans, Kate Slater, has triggered a similar controversy after declaring “all white people are racists.” Some have gone further. At CUNY, the Law Dean Mary Lou Bilek cancelled herself for once referring to herself as a “slaveholder” in a meeting in arguing for greater protections for minority students. Now, an Oklahoma State PhD student and teacher Jessica Bridges has cancelled herself from teaching Spanish because she is white.
Category: Constitutional Law
Today the Supreme Court issued two more unanimous decisions in Garland v. Dai and United States v. Cooley. This follow two unanimous decisions last week. The weekly display of unanimity is notable given the calls by Democratic leaders to pack the Court. Yesterday, I wrote about how the heavy-handed campaigns might backfire with the justices. As we await important and likely divided decisions on issues like abortion, Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues seem to be sending a message that the Court is not so rigidly ideological as Democratic members and activists suggest. Continue reading “Unpacked and Undivided: Is The Court Sending A Message With A Litany Of 9-0 Decisions?”
I have previously criticized Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., for his almost unrivaled advocacy of censorship and speech controls. Blumenthal previously threatened social media companies not to “backslide” in censoring opposing views. Now, Blumenthal is taking up the cudgel of court packing with not so subtle threats to conservative justices that, if they do not vote with their liberal colleagues, the Court may be fundamentally altered. He is not alone in such reckless and coercive rhetoric.
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the announcement that the University of California will now join the “test-blind” movement and end the use of the SAT and ACT in its admissions decisions. Some have called for the change to increase diversity in the schools, particularly after California voters refused to change the long ban on affirmative action in education under state law.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “Will Eliminating Standard Tests Really Reduce Racial Disparities In Education?”
We recently discussed a meeting of the Loudoun County school board in which a teacher launched into a diatribe against classic works like To Kill A Mockingbird as racist. Now another teacher is the focus of a national debate after he spoke to the school board. However, teacher Byron “Tanner” Cross has been suspended for speaking against gender policies. Continue reading ““It’s Lying to a Child”: Virginia Teacher Suspended After Opposing Pronoun Policy”
We recently discussed the controversy at Rutgers Law School over the reading of the “n-word” from a state supreme court opinion. Now there is a potentially serious conflict brewing over the right of the student government to demand that all student groups hold at least one event featuring critical race theory or diversity issues. The requirement (for any group receiving more than $250) presents some interesting questions in the conflict between free speech and diversity programs at such schools. Continue reading “Rutgers Law Students Require All Student Groups To Hold Critical Race Theory Or Diversity Programs”
The long-awaited, though partial, release of a memorandum from the Justice Department this week left many “frustrated,” as predicted by the Washington Post, in Washington. The reason is what it did not contain. Critics had sought the memo as the “smoking gun” to show how former Attorney General Bill Barr scuttled any obstruction charges against Donald Trump. Instead, the memo showed the opposite. The staff of the OLC actually found that the allegations did not meet the standard of obstruction even without any defenses or privileges related to Trump’s office. Continue reading “Newly Released OLC Memo Shows Staff Lawyers Found No Basis For Obstruction Charges In Mueller Report”
We often discuss how defending free speech often means defending those who we find thoroughly grotesque or offensive. In that sense, Nicholas Brock, 52, is the ultimate personification of the price we pay for free speech. The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire. In my view, the only thing more troubling than Brock’s hateful views is the decision to criminalize the holding of such views. It is an example of the continued erosion of bright-line protections of free speech in the United Kingdom and other European countries. Judge Peter Lodder QC declared “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.” That is a fine distinction that allows for sweeping criminalization of political viewpoints.
Continue reading ““Toxic Ideology”: English Neo-Nazi Given Four Years For His Extremist Views”
There is an interesting case out of Kansas where an alleged rape victim has used a 134-year-old law to seek her own grand jury after prosecutors reached a plea bargain with the alleged attacker. Madison Smith, 22, had to gather hundreds of signatures to impanel a “citizen grand jury” under Kansas law in a case that could face significant evidentiary and constitutional challenges. Continue reading “Former Bethany College Student Impanels Her Own “Citizen Grand Jury” After Prosecutors Decline Rape Case”
We have been discussing the state laws requiring contractors and employees to swear that they do not support the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (“BDS”) movement against Israel. I have long maintained that the law is unconstitutional as a limitation of free speech and associational rights. This week, a court in Georgia became the latest to declare such laws unconstitutional. The case was brought by journalist Abby Martin who was denied a contract as a keynote speaker at Georgia Southern University due to her support of the BDS movement. The opposition to these laws is not driven by the merits of the BDS movement or its opposition. Rather, the issue is the curtailment of political speech, including compelling official speech or viewpoints, as a condition for state employment.
Continue reading “Federal Court Rules In Favor Of Journalist Contesting Georgia’s Anti-BDS Law”
Below is my column in The Hill on the recent decision of a federal judge that the Biden Administration was engaged in racial and gender discrimination in the administration of the pandemic relief under the American Rescue Plan Act. It is a question that is now being raised in a variety of federal programs under the Biden Administration. Continue reading “Preference or Prejudice? Federal Court Finds Biden Administration Is Engaged In Racial and Gender Discrimination”
A new lawsuit by the Chinese American Civil Rights Coalition has garnered national attention in the media where former President Donald Trump is being sued for his use of such terms as the “Chinese Virus,” “China Virus,” “Wuhan Flu,” and “Kung Flu.” What is most interesting about this lawsuit is how it is arguably meritless under both tort and constitutional law. However, there has been little pushback from a host of lawyers who have spent months calling for sanctions against Republican lawyers for filing lawsuits viewed legally or factually meritless. This lawsuit seems designed to amplify a public relations campaign without substantial legal support. The question is whether it states just enough to avoid sanctions and whether the Trump team wants to seek such sanctions under Rule 11. Trump is being sued in his official and personal capacities.
The New York Times is reporting that a Rutgers Law Professor and law student are under fire after the student reluctantly read the n-word in a 1993 legal opinion. It is the latest such controversy in high education.
The Biden Administration has emphasized racial and gender prioritization in a variety of programs from vaccinations to pandemic relief. One such program doled out billions to restaurants based on racial and gender priorities that were challenged in various lawsuits. A Texas judge has now blocked that effort as unconstitutional discrimination and enjoined the Administration from giving such preferential treatment based on racial and gender classifications.
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the Supreme Court accepting a major new challenge over abortion with Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. After years of exaggerated coverage of the threat of past cases, this could well be “the big one” for pro-life advocates seeking to substantially curtail Roe and Casey.
Here is the column: