Sahil Handa is a student at Harvard. At National Review, she tells conservatives they’ve got it wrong.

Much of the debate about campus culture would have you believe that the average college student is hellbent on tearing down the patriarchy. One wakes up in the morning, wallows in grievance, and proceeds to spend the day railing against the evils of privilege.

So, is the description accurate? In my experience, not particularly. I’d say it describes roughly 5 percent of the undergraduate population — a few hundred or so social-justice warriors who consider their mere survival on Harvard’s campus to be a form of triumphalist activism. These woke icons are overwhelmingly middle class, incredibly entitled, and extraordinarily outspoken.

Handa considers herself conservative, and her point is that the campus isn’t awash in SJWs. Whether the percentage is 5, or more, or less, isn’t particularly important. What’s important is that they are a tiny minority. The vast majority, she asserts, are pretty much like college students have always been. Continue reading →

Whether Nike made the right marketing decision by pulling its “Betsy Ross Flag” sneakers off the shelf is a question best answered by branding specialists.

To be honest, unless they were magic sneaks that somehow made me run faster and jump higher, I wouldn’t care if they had my pic on the heels. I still wouldn’t be a buyer. But Nike sells sneaks, and if they decide to bow to pop outrage, that’s their right. Continue reading →

On Tuesday, the government announced that the decennial census forms were being printed without the citizenship question, following the Supreme Court’s challenge to the veracity of the administration’s claimed rationale for its inclusion. It’s not that the Executive can’t make a bad and counterproductive political decision. It can, and often does. But as Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:

The reasoned explanation requirement of administrative law, after all, is meant to ensure that agencies offer genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public. Accepting contrived reasons would defeat the purpose of the enterprise. If judicial review is to be more than an empty ritual, it must demand something better than the explanation offered for the action taken in this case.

Using the gentle and moderate language of the judiciary, Roberts called the reason “contrived.” which is kinder than calling it an outright lie. Which it was, because neither Trump nor anyone serving him are very good at keeping their real motivations secret. Problem solved? Meet Wednesday. Continue reading →

The days of Prof. Kingsfield turning a mind of mush to think like a lawyer are long gone, as prawfs constantly reinvent both the teaching and testing of law students. At Prawfsblawg, Gerard Maggliocca raises the question of whether timed in-class testing makes sense, and concludes it does not.

I’ve long been bothered by the way law school exams are administered. Why should there ever be a closed-book exam? And why should you only get three hours for an exam? Law is complicated and almost always involves research. Neither of these traits are reflected in many law school exams. (And legal questions do not present themselves in a multiple choice format either.) This is why I’ve always used take-home essay exams for 2L and 3L classes and made all of my exams open-book.

In response, other prawfs, notably Orin Kerr, raised the cheating heart problem. Continue reading →

Former chairman of the Republican National Committee Ken Mehlman opened fire with both barrels: an amicus brief in the trio of cases coming before the Supreme Court, Zarda, Stephens and Bostock, and an op-ed in the New York Times.

Polls consistently show a high percentage of Americans think that firing people or denying them jobs or promotions because they are L.G.B.T.Q. is wrong and that it should be prohibited under our nation’s civil rights laws. A full 92 percent said so in an April poll by Quinnipiac University. That’s in part because basic protections against job discrimination are fundamental to core American values of fairness.

This isn’t a new idea, or a partisan one. Abraham Lincoln wished for all workers to have an equal chance to acquire property and to gain wealth. “When one starts poor, as most do in the race of life,” he said, “free society is such that he knows he can better his condition.”

Continue reading →

Why can’t we have it all?

Well, the laws of physics could be a problem, since we can’t be in two places at the same time. When you’re a criminal defense lawyer, and your client is standing in court in front of the judge, and there’s some other place you would rather be, whether at your beloved child’s soccer game or having a little “me time” because aren’t you entitled to take care of your mental health, Lara Bazelon explains why this can be a problem. Continue reading →

Did anybody have “busing” on their Democratic Debate Bingo Card? I sure didn’t, and yet Kamala Harris, latching onto a race issue that didn’t involve her imprisoning black people or defending cops who killed them, nailed the landing as far as her supporters are concerned.

Some have complained that Harris has diverted attention away from things that matter today to rehash the 70s, a time when Biden is exposed if viewed through the lens of today’s social justice. Back then, Biden worked with, was civil with, segregationists to get things accomplished in Congress. Today, the nicest he would be allowed to be is to milkshake them on the Senate floor, and still be subject for criticism for not punching a Nazi or a small gay conservative man. Continue reading →

The New York Times Never-Trump Token Conservative (NYTNTTC) Bret Stephens made a fairly banal observation about the Dem candidates fighting over who was the most left of the most left wasn’t making fans of a lot of Trump-haters.

Here’s what: a party that makes too many Americans feel like strangers in their own country. A party that puts more of its faith, and invests most of its efforts, in them instead of us.

Oh noes. He wrote “them” and “us,” for which he was dutifully ripped to shreds. My pal Elie made a tasteful analogy. Continue reading →

Marshae Jones is an odd choice of hero for the cause, which is going to make the made-for-cable-TV movie a bit more difficult if they don’t take serious liberties with the facts.

Ms. Jones was five months pregnant and working at a company in Pleasant Grove that sells fuel for fires, when she got involved in an altercation in the parking lot of the Dollar General store.

The fight stemmed from a long-simmering feud with a female co-worker, Ebony Jemison, 23, over a man who worked at the same company. Ms. Jones spotted Ms. Jemison in the parking lot and started a fight with her, according to a law enforcement officer with direct knowledge of the investigation who did not want to be identified. By the officer’s account, Ms. Jones was winning the fight and had Ms. Jemison pinned in her car. Continue reading →

The nature of lawyers who work at New York City’s Legal Aid Society has always been extremely liberal, deeply passionate about equality. Even back in the 70s, when LAS lawyers were known as party animals, they sobered up when it came to their politics, and stood fearless against those who would hate their clients. This probably comes as no surprise, but it needed sayin’.

Lawyers at the Legal Aid Society of New York have been telling me their stories of hysterical baby lawyers attacking their more experienced colleagues.* Other than Appellate Squawk, no one wanted to go public. My guess is that they put the mission of LAS ahead of their treatment at the hands of the ideologically-stunted children, and took the hit rather than harm the cause. Of course, they also could have feared the retaliation by the outraged mob.

Finally, one experienced Legal Aid lawyer, Cynthia Taylor, was pushed too far and sued for its hostile work environment and wrongful termination. Continue reading →