Introducing The “Technologically Inept Adjunct Professor With Politically Incorrect Opinions Principle”


This Georgetown Law Center adjunct professor is going to be fired, shunned, cancelled and otherwise ruined professionally and personally, and she has no excuses whatsoever.

The Ethics Alarms “Naked Teacher Principle” holds that ” a secondary school teacher or administrator (or other role model for children) who allows pictures of himself or herself to be widely publicized, as on the web, showing the teacher naked or engaging in sexually provocative poses, cannot complain when he or she is dismissed by the school as a result.” This does not mean that such a teacher necessarily should be dismissed, but that the teacher has no basis for claiming to be a victim. The conduct was foolish and irresponsible, and the repercussions predictable.

The newly minted “Technologically Inept Adjunct Professor With Politically Incorrect Opinions Principle” is based on similar calculations. As certain anti-woke statements and positions are getting people fired or canceled daily, with any diversion from the current racial spoils and “diversity” narrative being tarred as “racist,” for a professor at a law school, especially one as tainted by Leftist bias as Georgetown, to express such views over any form of electronic communications is almost grounds for involuntary commitment. Careless and reckless people shouldn’t teach law students. It doesn’t matter whether the statement involved expressed a valid and defensible observation: if it involves a tenet of woke cant and isn’t supportive, then the statement is an invitation to be cancelled. First Amendment? Doesn’t matter. Academic freedom? Irrelevant. Fairness? The Golden Rule? “There but for the grace of God…”? Risible.The third rail is known and recognizable, and you deliberately jumped on it assuming it wasn’t live?

Don’t come whining to me.

In the case at hand, GULC adjunct professor Sandra Sellers was chatting via Zoom with another faculty member, Prof David Batson, about a class they taught together. Sellers was complaining about the under-performing black students, saying,

“I end up having this angst every semester that a lot of my lower ones are blacks. Happens almost every semester. And it’s like, oh come on. It’s some really good ones, but there are usually some that are just plain at the bottom. It drives me crazy.”

I can attest that this has been a privately expressed complaint by many, many Georgetown Law Center professors and administrators (of all races) ever since the school committed to an admissions system that permitted minority students to enter the institution with lesser credentials and qualifications than white students. When I worked in the GULC administration, the topic came up all the time. Elite institutions sent us affirmative action graduates who, as in one case from Yale, couldn’t read. The school set up a remedial skills class just for minority First Year students, and one of them sued us for “stigmatizing” him by making him attend.

Nevertheless, a law professor cannot do his or her job after an expression of skepticism over the wisdom of such a policy escapes a sound-proof room where the conversants are speaking Navaho. To talk about the issue over social media, or worse, Zoom, where lawyers are turning into cats and getting caught failing to be Masters of Their Domains because of the carelessness of users, is mind-meltingly stupid. It is virtually the execution of a professional death wish.

The Black Law Students Association is calling for Sellers’ resignation, and there is a petition demanding her firing signed by students, alumni and several Georgetown faculty members. Refusing to sign such a petition would itself be grounds for a racism label, I assume.

“We demand nothing short of the immediate termination of Sandra Sellers as adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center,” BALSA said in a statement. “Not suspension. Not an investigation. The university must take swift and definitive action in the face of blatant and shameless racism.”

We can expect Sellers to grovel an apology, and I assume she will resign. It would be admirable if, having opened this messy can of worms however unintentionally, she stood her ground and took the opportunity to explore what is wrong about using race to justify admitting future lawyers who lack the skills to be good ones. She’s going to have a scarlet R tattooed on her forehead anyway: she might as well tell the truth, like Sir Thomas More finally revealing what he thought of Henry the VIII’s depotism after he knew he was to be beheaded.

I’m curious if the mob will come for Batson too. After all, he nodded on the recorded Zoom feed.

He also might have been the one who made it public.


Pointer: Other Bill

22 thoughts on “Introducing The “Technologically Inept Adjunct Professor With Politically Incorrect Opinions Principle”

  1. Are her Black students (not “the good ones” — which itself is terribly offensive) at the bottom of the class because they deserve to be there, or are they at the bottom because she obviously has racist views?

    I don’t look at minority groups and divide them into “good ones” and “bad ones.” My brain can’t even come up with that language! Presumably, she also has white men toward the bottom of her class, does she refer to white men as “good ones” and “bad ones” too? Doubtful — she doesn’t even notice them. But obviously she notices where her Black students are in the rankings.

    Also, apparently this was the only Black student in her class, which itself may be problematic depending on the class size.

    I happily signed the petition to have her fired. Professors like her have no place at any school, and especially not my school. Also, the male professor should be called out for not challenging her statement as soon as she said it. I do this — sometimes at professional and personal cost — when in these situations.

    • Perhaps she’s taking the students skin color into account because of years of racist indoctrination by critical race theory hucksters. Also, working at a school where part of the admission policy takes skin color into account will tend to bring attention to skin color in all aspects of that school’s community.

      She doesn’t deserve to be fired. She expressed wanting to help underperforming students. Nothing wrong with that. Everyone calling for her to be fired should be called out for supporting racist policies that contributed to this situation.

      • 1. You are assuming that the Black student was enrolled due to skin color and/or that the student is not at or above other students in terms of grades, educational background, and test scores. (Hint — in case you are wondering, that’s racist.)
        2. Where in the video did she express wanting to help underperforming students? I listened to her discuss the “good” Black students and the “bad” Black students, and not discussing other students who might be underperforming regardless of their race or gender.

        • Never said that the students she was talking about were there because of their skin color. As Mr. Marshall states, skin color has been a consideration for admissions to Georgetown Law. Being immersed in a culture that demands that black students succeed will cause a teacher to notice when a black person is not succeeding. The teacher isn’t racist against black people. The school is racist against anyone who isn’t black.

        • Was she concerned because it would look bad if a disproportionate number of Black students underperformed or failed?

          That would be, and is, a compounding problem with the bad idea that is affirmative action. Once you fix the racial imbalance by admitting unqualified people, you also have to graduate, promote, and advance them at equal levels too or else you’re still racist. Eventually you get Kamala Harrises all the way down, and the people who suffer the most from all the bad lawyers, bad teachers, bad bosses, and bad civil servants are probably Black people.

    • Am I incorrect in assuming the grades are given on the basis of a single anonymous exam? Is that no longer the case?

      “I end up having this angst every semester that a lot of my lower ones are blacks.” She’s concerned a lot of the students who do not get good grades are of color. Should she be sanguine about that? Did she say, “Praise Allah all those black kids end up getting crappy grades like they’re supposed to?” “Happens almost every semester.” Did she say she was happy about this? Should she be content it happens all the time? “And it’s like, oh come on.” Again. Frustration. Should she be happy a block of students are consistently under performing? Should she not find this frustrating that she’s not able to get through to a number of students so they can master the material? “It’s some really good ones,” GOOD STUDENTS! Not good vs. bad human beings. Students who are part of that bizarre demographic who perform well in a law school class. You were a good student at Michigan, Sparty. Were all your classmates as good as you? Did you renounce being deemed a good student so that others could be so denominated? Did you tell your employers you graduated last from Valpo rather than admit you did well at Michigan? Check your privilege, “[B]ut there are usually some that are just plain at the bottom.” I.e, some of these kids consistently are unable to perform. And black students are consistently among them. Is she making this up out of whole cloth? “It drives me crazy.” Admirable. She’s concerned about it and is trying to figure out a way to get these students to perform better in her class, i.e, simply get better grades. Do you hire your associates based on whether they are competent and have displayed somehow they will be able to do the tasks you assign them well and timely so you can make some money off them or do you just hire associates of color? Or just good associates of color? I assume you discriminate among your “good” and “bad” associates? Shame on you.

      • Sparty, please describe what an acceptable replacement for this woman would be. What qualities would the replacement have that would render him or her acceptable?

      • Other Bill, this was racist talk on the part of the professor. It’s not even debatable.

        Try and imagine two Black professors talking about a white student in this fashion.

        • You call it racist talk and say it’s not debatable. How so? Why? Everything’s debatable, Sparty.

          Two black professors saying they’re concerned about the white kids in their classes that are failing? Good for them. Shouldn’t faculty members at a national law school be concerned about any kids that have been admitted to such a hard to get into school bur are unable to do the course work to even a minimal standard? Nothing to see here? Move along?

          • No. Everything is not debatable. The sky is blue. I will one day die. Some people are racists — including this professor.

            • What about the sky at night? Or during a beautiful sunset?

              What about cultures that don’t consider what I would describe as death, as death at all? Are those cultures wrong for believing that people don’t die, but rather move to a different form of existence?

              Everything is debatable, especially this.

            • I said at the beginning that she had to be fired, but I’d love to know on what basis you conclude she is a racist. Be analytical rather than playing knee-jerk woke because that’s what the gang demands. “I end up having this angst every semester that a lot of my lower ones are Blacks, happens almost every semester,” is what she said. How is that racist? GULC does anonymous, blind grading (so did AU, when I taught there.) Many A-A students who are not prepared to go to a first tier law school end up at GULC. They also end up at the low end of the curve much of the time. The adjunct said she she dreads seeing blacks at the low end when she grades her class. The observation is legitimate. Her wording could have been better. But I honestly want to know: how can you say, based on what you know, that she’s a racist beyond debate?

          • If you reversed the races I think the exact same people would complain that White students were getting special attention and care.

    • Lots of ambiguity in the professor’s statement. I interpreted “ones” to mean “students,” not “Blacks.”

    • So referring to “good students” and “bad students” is now “terribly offensive”? Because that’s all “ones” meant, if you give fair meaning to her comments.

      And do YOU want to challenge the contention that black students admitted using lesser standards subsequently tend to get grades in the lower percentiles? Because, you know, it’s true, and the problem, as I said, was once acknowledged at the upper floor of “your school” (and mine) before The Great Stupid struck with a vengeance.

  2. Am I living in the United States or Cuba or East Germany? This woman’s words are defensible but she should keep them to herself, or certainly not let them be recorded? Because the neighbors will inform on her to the STASI? Democracy dies in darkness? The duty to confront? Slippery slopes? Let’s all stay in a huddled, quiet lump and hope this blows over? Nothing to see here. Move along. Expediency is the lesson of the day. Have to keep our jobs working for our woke masters at all costs. Creepy. How is it any different saying this on Zoom than having someone report the conversation to BLSA? If that’s the only difference, calling what she did a screw up is out of whack.

    • This has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with a Professor who thinks of her Black students in categories of “good ones” and “bad ones.”

      The technology only is relevant to the extent it provides evidence.

      • What teacher doesn’t sort students into good students and bad students? What the hell else is education, particularly higher education and professional schools, all about? Does this professor only think of her white students as good ones?

        I was just a few months ago chatting with one of my favorite college English professors (he taught John Donne and the Metaphysical Poets–great course). He said, nonchalantly and almost in passing, “Bill, you were smart but you weren’t THAT smart!” Was I supposed to be offended? I wasn’t Phi Beta Kappa. I didn’t go on to get a Ph.D in English at Harvard, like he did. So what? Should I be outraged? Is that racist talk? It’s only okay because we’re both white?

          • I’ve been thinking of writing a piece of fiction based on my experience going to a northeast fairly elite college among bunches of northeastern preppies and really smart Jewish kids from greater New York, and then onto law school at a not so elite law school and then into the practice of law, starting at a big firm (by 1980 standards– fifty lawyers– hah). The working title would be “The Big Sort.” That’s what the entire elongated process is: the people society wants to run things rise to the top and the lesser ones fall through the grate to function and contribute at their level. And it continues through adulthood and one’s professional career. In the military, it’s called “Up or Out.” Is it right? Is it fair? As they say (hilariously) in the “Perry Mason” courtroom, “That question is irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial!”

            Anyone who doesn’t want to play the game can always just bail out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.