There’s been quite a bit of back and forth over at Arc Digital and lesser publications about the merits of the Harper’s Letter. One of the signatories, Cathy Young, addressed it at some length in as straightforward and substantive a way possible. It’s not exactly a quick read, but it’s a worthwhile read. Unlike the sophist apologias, where people explain why they’re all for free speech, but the other side is worse, or they’re hypocrites so we can do it too, Cathy makes no excuses and refuses to bog down in ever-shifting parameters of “cancel culture.”

But there were many signatories to the letter, one of whom caught my eye in particular because, well, she’s regularly found egging on the townswoke with their pitchforks and torches. And when she signed onto the Letter, how could she know that instead of coming off as one of the elites, alongside such luminaries at Noam Chomsky, she would find herself in the midst of a shitstorm of anger and excuses by her very own tribe, defending destroying people because they deserve to be destroyed. Continue reading →

It’s been more than 50 nights of protests and riots in an American city. Like it or not, Portland is still an American city, even if it seems more like Somalia or, as President Bush called it, Little Beirut. You can call it “peaceful protests,” and there certainly is peaceful protest, but that doesn’t make the riots disappear. Or the damage caused by the riots. Of the many shocking things that happened, the attacks on the Portland federal courthouse loomed large.

Even if you support the general cause of the protesters, you can’t rationally deny that when they decided to go after the courthouse, shoot commercial grade fireworks into it, break into it, the rioters were begging for trouble. And they got it. Continue reading →

Traffic stops have problems. They’re used as a pretext to stop drivers for other reasons to circumvent the Fourth Amendment. They’re used for racial profiling. And then there’s always the potential in any police interaction that someone is going to end up dead, like Philando Castille. There is no question that problems exist and they’re real.

But did Berkeley come up with a viable solution?

After hours of emotional public testimony and a middle-of-the-night vote by Berkeley leaders, the progressive California city is moving forward with a novel proposal to replace police with unarmed civilians during traffic stops in a bid to curtail racial profiling.

Continue reading →

While his day job is teaching at the University of Illinois, Nick Grossman’s side hustle is being a senior editor at Arc Digital, where I’ve posted a few things. I rarely do so anymore as I write like a lawyer and that’s really not what Arc is about. I try to pick words with some precision, whereas the more philosophically-minded try to pick words they can easily weasel out of. I don’t want to play “Rhetorical Calvinball.”* Others hope to be Olympic champions at the game.

So when Nick wrote a post exposing the “real questions” about cancel culture following the Harper’s Letter, it received a very warm reception as being the most “fair” perspective. But after reading it, I had some issues. Continue reading →

It’s not as if lawyers haven’t managed to find their way onto social media over the past decade or two, but most of us haven’t exactly been early adapters unless we had the misfortune to be born digital natives. And almost every early adapter touted by the New Normal of Legal Tech folks from a decade ago have since failed at law and are now engaged in trying to make self-help podcasts on how to beat drug addiction, mental illness, and still fail at law.

But with the n00bs who have entered the ether, especially over the past few warehoused months when it’s become the only means of outside communication, adaption is no longer optional. So naturally, state bars are doing what they can to help explain the “minefield” of online ethics. Indiana, a perennial leader in technological lurching, pushed to the head of the virtual line in response to a pressing issue. Continue reading →

In contrast to the screams that the Harper’s Letter was signed by famous wealthy celebrities trying to protect their terf from the voices of the oppressed and marginalize, there is the barely audible whimpering of Gary Garrels.

Who? Gary Garrels. You know, that fabulously wealthy celebrity who . . . oh wait. He’s nobody you would know unless you happen to be in the bowels of the art world.

Until last week, Gary Garrels was senior curator of painting and sculpture at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA). He resigned his position after museum employees circulated a petition that accused him of racism and demanded his immediate ouster.

He resigned, which may be a product of his taking the pressure off his employer to fire him, because his colleagues who petitioned for his removal were rather harsh about it.

“Gary’s removal from SFMOMA is non-negotiable,” read the petition. “Considering his lengthy tenure at this institution, we ask just how long have his toxic white supremacist beliefs regarding race and equity directed his position curating the content of the museum?”

Wow. What sort of heinous racism was this guy, a senior curator of painting and sculpture at SFMOMA, long a hotbed of white supremacy, doing?

After hearing of events that occurred at an All-Staff Meeting on Tuesday, July 7, 2020 we call for Gary Garrels to resign or be removed from his position as Senior Curator of Painting and Sculpture at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. As Senior Curator, he represents the museum in tone and content. Through actions and words, Gary has been obtuse (at best) to the point of offense or deliberately racist (at worst) in his retorts to criticism. When pressed on the museum’s collecting policies he has repeatedly said some variation of “don’t worry, we will continue to collect white male artists.” Amongst SFMOMA staff as well as in public view, Gary has used and continued to use white supremacist and racist language such as “reverse racism.” This has been documented.

What sort of Nazi would openly say, at a museum no less, that Picasso was still welcome? What’s next, Warhol? It’s almost like demanding that museum employees call him “Master,” and so they petitioned the lord in prayer.

Gary’s removal from SFMOMA is non-negotiable. Considering his lengthy tenure at this institution, we ask just how long have his toxic white supremacist beliefs regarding race and equity directed his position curating the content of the museum? Furthermore, is any more evidence required to prove that these viewpoints are cavalierly wielded by staff members in the most extreme positions of leadership and power and setback long-term progress towards a more inclusive institution?

That escalated quickly, from “obtuse” to “toxic white supremacist” in three paragraphs. All because his notion of “inclusivity” didn’t mean excluding white artists. I’m literally shaking.

You might think that one of the most prominent art curators in the country—with 20 years of experience at SFMOMA—would be able to weather such a pathetically weak accusation of racism. But in the current cultural moment, it appears not. Garrels promptly resigned.

In a statement announcing his decision to step down, Garrels apologized for the harm his words caused, only slightly disputing the absurd charge against him. ” I do not believe I have ever said that it is important to collect the art of white men,” he said, according to artnet.com. “I have said that it is important that we do not exclude consideration of the art of white men.”

No wonder Garrels’ termination was non-negotiable. He just doesn’t get it. And to further the cause of inclusivity, I will take all the Modigliani’s off their hands, maybe even a Jackson Pollack or a (ugh) Haring, so their diverse eyes never bleed again from the toxicity of modern art.

As for Garrels, he chose to walk away. Maybe staying was untenable in light of the petition, and its “non-negotiable” demand, but at least he wasn’t canceled by culture.

It’s unlikely that there was any sort of backroom coordination happening, so when Andrew Sullivan twitted that this would be his last week at New York Magazine, it had  more of an impact than it would otherwise. Then again, his editor’s attempt to explain his departure said more, and less, than a mouthful.

I believe there is a way to write from a conservative perspective about some of the most politically charged subjects of American life while still upholding our values.

What values would that be? Honesty? Integrity? Factual accuracy? Or the overarching value of the moment, equity, such that a conservative could write about politically charged subjects as long as he pandered to progressive sensibilities? Was he trying to gently say that no idea, no argument, no fact, no word, could be tolerated that failed to comport with those values? Continue reading →

It’s often easier to find something offensive, even outrageous, and be shocked to see it happen, than it is to consider why it happens and whether it should be allowed. Or, if you want to look at it a different way, how sacred are women’s breasts?

White Officer of Austin Police Department gropes the breasts of a woman as she continously demands a female officer!

THIS IS SEXUAL ASSAULT PLAIN AND SIMPLE!

DEMAND JUSTICE FOR THIS WOMAN!!!

This is OUTRAGEOUS!!!!pic.twitter.com/3iY0s0RQC9

— StanceGrounded (@_SJPeace_) July 7, 2020

The odd notation of the cop’s race aside, he was clearly arresting a woman and, in the process, touched her breasts. While cops have done far worse, and inserted their digits in places where they should never go for reasons far less justifiable, seeing it happen makes it different and very hard to stomach. Continue reading →

The buried lede of the New York Times’ otherwise hyperbolic and simultaneously vapid editorial that the NYPD can no longer “reject” reform is that the Times doesn’t call to Abolish Police or Defund Police, but reform police.

Faced with enormous suffering during a pandemic, a possible economic collapse and maybe the largest civil rights movement in history, a healthy police department could have acted as a balm. Many members of the New York Police Department work hard every day to do just that, putting their lives on the line alongside the city’s nurses, Emergency Medical Services workers, mass transit employees and other essential workers.

How the police are supposed to act “as a balm” is unclear, just as is the suggestion that it would have been different, but for the pandemic, economic collapse and civil rights “movement,” of little significance compared to the 1960s) (where the word “maybe” can’t possibly do the heavy lifting demanded of it). But vague covers a lot of intellectual failings and is rarely recognized as an empty rhetorical device to woo the passionate. Continue reading →

While brighter minds than mine hash out what the word means, or whether it means anything at all, the word “anti-racist” is making a dent in unexpected places. The concept comes from critical theory, an aspect of which is that it’s not good enough to not be racist; if you aren’t a warrior against racism, then you’re a racist. Ibram Kendi says so, and I’m not allowed to disagree according to Kendi, so I won’t.

But then, Antifa combined the words anti-fascist, making it absolutely clear that claiming nifty words doesn’t make you one. But in the scheme of race, there are racists, non-racists and anti-racists, except both racists and non-racists are racists, because they’re not anti-racists, which is the only thing you can be to not be racist. I hope I got this right, because it can be confusing.

What if race isn’t the center of universe? What if you have go to work today to feed the little shits darlin’s, so you can’t don your cute black outfit and attend the riots outside the Portland federal courthouse? What if you have dedicated your every breath to battling transphobia, and instead of having to go to work, search Jesse Singals twits in search of dog whistles? Continue reading →