Today’s new word is “himpathy.”
an excessive sympathy for privileged male perpetrators with ostensibly bright futures.
What distinguishes these “privileged male perpetrators” is that they have neither been accused nor convicted, and so they just get away with it.
It’s very easy to condemn the likes of Harvey Weinstein now. A few months ago, it wasn’t—and, with regard to many serial sexual predators and other perpetrators, it still isn’t and never will be. Continue reading
The Second Circuit could have dodged Zarda altogether. Donald Zarda died in a BASE jumping accident. His former employer, defendant Altitude Express, wasn’t fighting his claim that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was not covered by Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of . . . sex,” but contending that his firing had nothing to do with his being gay. And the Second Circuit panel that heard the appeal of his partial summary judgment dismissal of his Title VII claim affirmed the district court.
Yet, the circuit took the case en banc anyway. One hundred and sixty-three pages later, only one thing is clear.
We now hold that sexual orientation discrimination constitutes a form of discrimination “because of . . . sex,” in violation of Title VII, and overturn Simonton and Dawson v. Bumble &
Bumble, 398 F.3d 211, 217–23 (2d Cir. 2005), to the extent they held otherwise.
Some people are great drivers on a road with painted lines, but put them in an open parking lot, an open field, and they’re lost. Without lines, they have no clue where to go. They need structure. And it’s not enough that they get structure for themselves, but they demand that the structure they need be imposed on everyone else.
How is it possible that they could need structure and others don’t? How is it possible that others will do things that fail to comport with the structure that makes sense of the world to them? These are the rule-demanders, and they love them rules. They love rules for themselves. They love rules for you. They love rules.
Now, the current crop of pioneers at Antioch are moving the conversation beyond sex to discussions of consent in platonic touch.
When Alyssa Navarrette, a third-year student who is studying anthropology and art, came home for her first visit after starting college, she was taken by surprise when her mother hugged her.
“If you don’t want to be touched and your mom wants to hug you, you should be allowed to say no,” Ms. Navarrette said. “It’s about having autonomy over your own body.”
The saying is that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, but the impulse to throw stones is not just strong, but strengthened by the cheers of all the other people in the same glass house as you throwing stones of their own. When everyone around you is throwing stones, why shouldn’t you?
Mona Charen had stones to throw, but she also had principles. Her first was to build a house that wasn’t glass.
I’ve been a conservative my entire life.
You may not be a conservative. Not for your entire life. Not for a minute of your life. That’s fine. No one says you should be. You be you. And Mona Charen gets to be her.
So you’d think that the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, would be a natural fit. It once was. But on Saturday, after speaking to this year’s gathering, I had to be escorted from the premises by several guards who seemed genuinely concerned for my safety.
In an excellent post at, of all places, The Nation, JoAnn Wypijewski includes a very insightful paragraph that is worthy of stand-alone consideration. She began with the telling of her #MeToo story.
We both were young, 20s, but I was older. We worked for the same outfit, but I was paid. We kissed while walking home from a party, and then at the back of a bus, and then in his stairwell. He had made the first move, but only I could say, in the midst of our distraction, “Of course this means I can’t hire you.” He was an intern, I a department chief.
The declaration astonished him—whether because he sensed I underestimated him, I cannot say. Ultimately, he so surpassed the qualifying test’s requirements that not hiring him would have been absurd. Years later, a catty friend would say ambition alone drove the boy’s kisses: “After all, he was gorgeous, and you…” I was his boss and lover, he my assistant and lover, each of us on the seesaw of power and weakness that those dual roles implied until, over time, the temperature changed.
As you can see, it’s not quite the #MeToo story a Jedi would tell you. But Wypijewski goes on to make an exceptionally important observation: Continue reading
There are two questions that aren’t asked often enough of physicians.
Perhaps this comes of respect for a doc’s expertise. Perhaps this is because we want to believe that the person in whose hands we place our health would put our welfare first. But people just don’t question a physician who tells you that you need something. Like a urine test.
In 2015, a college student in Texas named Elizabeth Moreno had back surgery to correct a painful spinal abnormality. The procedure was a success, and her surgeon followed it with just a short-term prescription for the opioid painkiller hydrocodone to ease a speedy recovery. Then came a “routine” urine drug test, ostensibly to ensure she didn’t abuse the powerful drug. Continue reading
It’s been a while since I’ve had the pleasure to welcome someone new to the blawgosphere. Meet Just Plead the Fifth, a Millennial lawyer’s mix of images, quotes, platitudes and commentary. It’s not about marketing. In fact, you’ll be hard pressed to figure out who’s behind the blawg. That leaves content.
It’s opening salvo is an old question, how the young lawyer deals with the unfortunate reality that they are, if nothing else, inexperienced.
You shake his hand. You introduce yourself. You explain confidentiality. You explain attorney-client privilege. You then ask him if he has any questions.
“Are you good?”
At Techdirt, Cathy Gellis provides an exceptionally thorough parsing of the decision awarding $6.7 million to graffiti artists who painted on another person’s building, and whose “art” was ultimately destroyed when the building owner decided it was time to put his property to a higher use.
The facts in this case are basically this: the owner of a run-down, formerly industrial building in a run-down neighborhood aspired to do something to redevelop his property, but it would be a few years before the time would be right. So in the meantime he let some graffiti artists use the building for their aerosol paintings.
The building became known as 5Pointz, and the artwork on it soon began to attract attention. The neighborhood also began to change, and with the improvement the prospects for redeveloping the property into residences became more promising. From the outset everyone knew that redevelopment would happen eventually, and that it would put an end to the arrangement since the redevelopment would likely necessitate tearing down the building, and with it the art on the walls. Continue reading
President Trump called former Broward County Sheriff’s Deputy Scot Peterson, who served as the School Resource Officer at Marjory Stoneman Douglas school, a “coward.” Much as, this time, it may be hard to feel badly about Trump’s noise, it raises a question. Had Peterson done what his job demanded, it would have violated the First Rule of Policing.
As Nikolas Cruz was shooting, Peterson was cowering. Gun drawn, outside the school, hiding behind a car. And he was not alone.
Scot Peterson, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas school resource officer who declined to confront alleged mass killer Nikolas Cruz in the midst of his attack, wasn’t alone in remaining safely away from the massacre: three Broward County sheriff’s deputies waited outside the school as well. Continue reading
When people learn that it’s not merely lawful, but encouraged, for special agents to lie to people in order to “catch” them or get them to admit to a crime, they are offended. When you add to the mix that it’s a crime for a person to lie to them, they get outraged. How is it possible that this is allowed?
Welcome to criminal law.
Professor Stephen Carter and Ken White (of the Popehat website) have written two columns raising a point that has bothered me for a long time.
That can happen, you know. They write. Someone gets bothered. Continue reading