When the protest was directed at law professor, house dean and member of the Harvey Weinstein defense team, Ron Sullivan, the response from the Harvard administration was a climate survey.
But when the voice silenced was Harvard University President Lawrence S. Bacow, that went too far.
Perhaps the conclusion by progressive political science prof Jeffrey Sachs that the free speech crisis is over was premature? Continue reading
In her Newsday column, Cathy Young offers a provocative take on the vexing question of what’s wrong with the progressive contention that identity politics is the proper lens through which to view what’s wrong with our world.
For progressive activists and commentators, criticism of identity politics is a coded way to tell racial, ethnic and religious minorities, women, gays and other people who are not white males to stop demanding equal treatment. They argue that the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, the gay rights movement and other forms of activism that have made America a fairer and better country were focused on identity. And there’s a long history of other, more traditional identity-based alliances: Jewish Americans and Italian-Americans and other groups in this country have organized to combat prejudice against them.
Is there a Polish-American Hall in your town? What about a Sons of Italy club? Are these not “identities,” even if the word doesn’t appear in the title? Why was it right and normal when it was about your affinity group, but wrong when the identity at issue is black or gay or Muslim? Continue reading
Dr. SJ was watching the news on CBS, then came in to tell me what just happened on the tube. A former prosecutor just said that it was Lori Loughlin’s fault. The first plea offer is always the best offer, so if you don’t take it, they’re going to add more charges. That’s the price you pay for turning down the deal. She gave me a smirk, as if to say, “See? Even Gayle knows that the truth is you better take the deal or you’re going down.”
And, indeed, that was the message. But it was an acceptable message this time, because everybody knows Aunt Becky was guilty. Loughlin was a pretty good choice of villain, as she was a privileged white celebrity whose crime was to seize opportunity from the deserving by using her wealth and privilege.
But the message? Capitulate to the government when charged with a crime, don’t fight and take the plea they offer, or else. For those who are inclined to believe that anyone charged with a crime is guilty, this message will be uncontroversial. Continue reading
Was she pandering to a black audience? She wasn’t born and raised in the ghetto. She went to college. She’s demonstrated the capacity to be articulate, even if what comes out of her mouth may fall shy of knowledgeable. But when she got up to speak at Rev. Al’s National Action Network, suddenly Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez was talking like AOC from the hood.
Some took her to task for pandering to a black audience, using words, inflections that might be expected from some black people, but were called the equivalent of “blackface.” Continue reading
The Center for the Administration of Criminal Law at New York University Law School held its 11th Annual conference, with a directed focus on a hot and controversial issue:
Plea Bargaining: Reforming An (Un)Necessary Evil?
They were kind enough to invite me to be on their first panel, at the time knowing that only Third Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas would be the moderator. As it later developed, it became apparent to me that participation would not be a good use of my time and attention, and so I subsequently begged off. Continue reading
As Walter Olson argues, the scientific evidence that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup weed killer, does not cause cancer is strong, if not irrefutable. Not being qualified to render an opinion, I demur, but that hasn’t stopped judges from letting the cases proceed, or juries from finding for plaintiffs. The law has always had a troubling relationship with science.
But Monsanto, maker of the chemical, found a curious mechanism to fight back, inside the courtroom yet outside. Much as anyone who uses the internet is painfully aware the advertisements pushed at them are miserably misdirected (no, Google, I already bought the widget, so it’s less than enticing to include a widget ad on every pop-up ad). But an alternative is available, as Monsanto figured out. And it was not shy about using it.
Plaintiff attorney Steven Brady with the San Francisco-based Brady Law Group, said Monsanto has been sending in-app pop-up ads to people inside the Alameda County Administration Building, where the trial is being held. Continue reading
In an apologist post of such stunning obviousness that it ended up at the Bulwark, Chris Truax explains that Joe Biden isn’t Harvey Weinstein. No, he doesn’t mean “presumed innocent,” as in not yet convicted of any crime by any court anywhere. He means convicted by the Court of #MeToo.
None of these women are claiming that Biden engaged in any form of sexual misconduct. Instead, his once famous and now infamous tactile style made them “uncomfortable.”
What these people are saying isn’t that Joe Biden is unfit to be president because he’s a sexual predator. What they are saying is that Joe Biden is unfit to be president because they don’t like his personality. It’s not what Joe Biden has done, it’s what he is and how he relates to other people.
For all his twits about Fake News and “Enemy of the People,” Trump hasn’t done more than make noise. Offensive as it may be to denigrate the Fourth Estate as evil, even a president gets to complain about things he dislikes, even if he does so in a way they dislike.
And in fairness, the media hasn’t always helped itself, replacing factual reporting with “advocacy journalism,” the mechanism of telling the news in such a way as to include only those parts that lead the public to the conclusion members of the media believe are “right.” Sometimes this means omitting inconvenient facts. Sometimes it means outright lying. In their defense, advocacy journalists argue that they don’t lie as much as Trump, and their cause is “just,” so no harm, no foul. But it’s not news. It’s not journalism. And Trump does it too.
Democratic candidate for president, Andrew Yang, whose big issue is Universal Basic Income of $1000 per month, payable in dollars rather than Cheetos, has come up with a new proposal: the creation of a position of News and Information Ombudsman. Apparently, the days of calling someone the Czar are over, and Ombudsman seems softer, kinder, as they wield the Ax of Truth. Continue reading
My old pal, Ken Lammers, writes about an idea that remains a darling of the legal academy, and a wistful dream of defense lawyers, but has never gotten any serious traction in criminal law. Restorative Justice.
One of the academic articles that caught my eye the other day was one about restorative justice in cases involving violence against women written by Lorenn Walker and Cheri Tarutani. Admittedly much of it seemed rather shallow – a kind of broad philosophical assertion that restorative justice would be a better system filled with direct and indirect platitudes but not much else. It was also somewhat confused in that it was primarily dealing with inter-generational violence against women and the hopes that something other then a prison sentence can save those damaged by the people who are supposed to be looking after them and protecting them as they grow up, but it also threw in stuff about violence between domestic partners. The latter is what caught my attention.
A few decades ago, domestic violence, meaning the violence that happens between people who lived together, were married or dating, had personal relationships, was treated differently than “stranger violence.” Cops took a mugging on the street seriously, but when they showed up at a house where a married couple were engaged in conduct that threatened harm, they would slough it off. The cops didn’t want to get involved, and more particularly, didn’t view a husband teaching his wife a lesson with the back of his hand as a crime. It was a family matter, as far as the cops were concerned. Continue reading
As Wild Bill might say, there you go again, and indeed, here I go again. There are two overarching groups of people who read SJ, the first being lawyers and the second not being lawyers. They come here for different reasons, read the posts through different eyes.
One of the recurring reactions I receive from lawyers is the appreciation of my riding comments hard. Many sites have shut down comments altogether, because moderating them takes an enormous amount of time, far more than reading some, even all, of the comments posted. I have to read them all, no matter how crazy or wildly off topic. Some are, ahem, long. Some are incomprehensible. Some flow into and out of languages that appear to include English at time and others that exist only in the writer’s fertile imagination. Continue reading