It’s not that I disagree with Scott Lemieux’s arguments. I do, but that alone means nothing. People can disagree. But his post at Lawyers, Guns and Money ends with three points that are, well, (how would I say this if I was David French?) stupid.

And even stupid is perfectly acceptable, as this is America and people are entitled to be stupid and still express themselves, even if they’ve usurped a great song title to which they have no right. But Lemieux is a lecturer at the University of Washington, and he teaches impressionable students about law-type stuff. And yet, he can’t seem to muster the ability to see that his three points are fucking idiotic unsmart.

There is indeed an enormous amount of sloppy thinking and bad faith involved in these discussions. I’ll hopefully return to this issue at greater length, but we can use the Lewis and Clark controversy to make some critical distinctions:

Continue reading →

At the National Review, David French responds to a criticism by Milo that he doesn’t have the guts for the fight.

Maintaining an even temperament and avoiding overstatement and invective can improve our political discourse. America’s two great ideological tribes are in the midst of a similar conflict. It’s the battle over civility, and all too often reason, compassion, and grace are on the losing side. On the left, aggressive social-justice activists scorn engagement and dialogue as “respectability politics” and instead favor the shout-down, the boycott, and the online shame campaign.

I often find myself disagreeing with French, even though I admire his intellect, and I do so again right out of the box. What’s an “even temperament”? Who decides? The answer is somewhat obvious. We all use the words with which we’re comfortable, that apply our own sensibilities. But different people have different comfort levels. Continue reading →

As far as I know, I’m not blocked by @RealDonaldTrump on twitter. But then, I don’t follow him because his twits aren’t of any real interest to me, and I find his communications painful to read. If there’s anything I should know about, it will be strewn across the media, and I will regret reading them.

Others, apparently, desperately want to see Trump’s twits but they can’t because they’ve been blocked. They could always see them in incognito mode, but that’s not good enough and they don’t believe they should have to right click to see what the president twits. I suspect they always demand the right to “seek redress” by responding with their own special expression of vitriol.

Can a president block people on the twitters? When Jameel Jaffer’s first suit from the newly-founded Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University was filed, it was disappointing. With so many First Amendment problems swirling around, being blocked from the president’s twits was unserious. Continue reading →

At The Atlantic, the ever-thought-provoking Conor Friedersdorf ponders whether the dreaded notion of intersectionality can be a force for good as well as the scoring system for the oppression Olympics.

Here is intersectionality as David French understands it:

While there’s not yet an Apostle’s Creed of intersectionality, it can roughly be defined as the belief that oppression operates in complicated, “interlocking” ways. So the experience of, say, a white trans woman is different in important ways from the experience of a black lesbian. A white trans woman will experience the privilege of her skin but also oppression due to her gender identity. A black lesbian may experience the privilege of “cis” gender identity but also oppression due to race and sexuality.

So far, so good. He continues: Continue reading →

Following the letter issued by the Lewis & Clark law school’s chapter of the National Lawyer’s Guild, et al., proclaiming Christina Hoff Sommers a “known fascist,” Bari Weiss took to the New York Times to say “we’re all fascists now.”

The letter added that her invitation amounted to an “act of aggression and violence” and went on to offer a curious definition of free speech: “Freedom of speech is certainly an important tenet to a free, healthy society, but that freedom stops when it has a negative and violent impact on other individuals.”

Yes, these future lawyers believe that free speech is acceptable only when it doesn’t offend them. Which is to say, they don’t believe in it at all.

In fairness, the NLG was radically incoherent back when I went to law school as well, but Weiss took a huge chance in stating the obvious,* as it was an invitation for others to prove that she, together with Sommers, deserved the epithet.  Continue reading →

He said it was consensual. She said she was too drunk to consent, and it wasn’t. But unlike most accusations at college, Yale in this case, the matter was tried in real court.

Mr. Khan’s lawyers worked relentlessly to discredit the account of the woman, who was not identified by name in the arrest warrant application. They asked repeatedly how much she had to drink, and how she could claim not to remember certain details, such as how she arrived back at her dorm room, but remembered others, such as the alleged assault itself. They parsed her text messages with Mr. Khan, asking if she had not been flirting with him in the days before the incident. They showed off her Halloween costume, a black cat outfit, and asked her why she had not chosen a more modest one, such as “Cinderella in a long flowing gown.”

This quote, from a news article about the trial, curiously reflects the writer’s view. Was the victim discredited or was the truth revealed by confrontation, the way the system is supposed to work? Continue reading →

The first time I heard someone take issue with the absence of any fictional character who “looks like me” was on the twitters, when someone (forgive me, I can’t remember who it was anymore [Edit: Remembered! It was Anil Dash]) complained that there was no one in Harry Potter who “looked like” his child. My reaction was, “so write your own Harry Potter and make your child happy.” It struck me as an infinitely silly complaint.

At the time, I didn’t have any idea where this point of contention came from. I never thought any characters looked like me, and it didn’t trouble me in the least. But the call continued, and appears to have resonated with many who complain about the lack of black or transgenders or Aleuts in films, television and books.

My initial reaction was that this was a rallying cry that people latched on to because it served their purpose, but that they didn’t really care and weren’t really “hurt” by it. Obviously, every story can’t involve every identity group. Is the absence of an Hispanic cast member a cause of pain, of outrage? Does having the same skin color or genitalia make you feel like Denzel Washington or Meryl Streep? It doesn’t make me feel like Robert Redford, though we’ve been confused on occasion. Continue reading →

Despite all evidence to the contrary, getting admitted to Yale remains the goal of students who want to grasp the gold ring. And assuming they’re reasonably intelligent, they would be expected to pick up on the message Yale is sending to students about what it will be looking for. Walter Olson explains.

“For those students who come to Yale, we expect them to be versed in issues of social justice,” Ms. Mendlowitz writes. “I have the pleasure of reading applications from San Francisco, where activism is very much a part of the culture. Essays ring of social justice issues.” Even if applicants from less-fortunate areas of the country cannot be expected to meet the Bay Area standard, the message is clear. The post is titled “In Support of Student Protests.”

This endorsement of activism raises a few questions. Would Yale really turn away a brilliant young flutist, chemist or poet who, while solidly educated in history, religion and government, is not specifically “versed in issues of social justice”? What about students who have pursued courses based on great works of the past? Must they be versed in contemporary views of social justice too? Besides, which causes constitute social justice?

Continue reading →

It’s “secret” in the sense that it’s not public, but it’s hardly a secret in the sense that everybody involved in criminal law didn’t know about it. Section 50-a of the New York Civil Rights Law expressly says so.

All personnel records used to evaluate performance toward continued employment or promotion, under the control of any police agency…shall be considered confidential and not subject to inspection or review without the express written consent of such police officer, firefighter, firefighter/paramedic, correction officer or peace officer within the department of corrections and community supervision or probation department except as may be mandated by lawful court order.

There are ways to get a specific officer’s personnel records, but there is no means by which to get the personnel records of all cops who have been subject to discipline. Unless, of course, someone leaks them to you. Continue reading →

Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Thaddeus Owens used to do a shtick from the bench. He would put on his best Amos ‘n Andy voice and lecture black defendants about their irresponsible conduct. When I was a baby lawyer and had my case called before my client showed, a judge (who shall remain nameless) explained to me that it wasn’t my fault, as my client was on “CP time.”

Both of these judges had one thing in common. They were black.

My good friend, Mark Herrmann, offers a post to suggest that judges bring their life experiences to the bench, and so we should anticipate that movements like #MeToo will be reflected in their approach to cases and their rulings.

Bear with me for a minute: Continue reading →