Update: Georgetown Law Center’s Unethical Punishment Of The Professor Who Criticized Selecting SCOTUS Judges According To Race And Gender

The update is simple: nothing has changed.

Ethics Alarms first noted the Illya Shapiro debacle here, on January 29 of this year. The incoming newly-appointed executive director for the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies posted a (admittedly badly worded) tweet critical of President Biden’s stated criteria for choosing the replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice Breyer, and the Law Center’s wonderfully woke (and unethical) Dean despicably called his tweet racist and suspended him pending the obligatory “investigation.” Here I wrote about a letter of protest to the Dean from various Law Center Alumni (including me). Here Ethics Alarms noted the letter of protest signed by professors from schools all over the country (but none from the Law Center) pointing out that “the substance of the which is that Sri Srinivasan is the most qualified progressive nominee, and that it’s wrong for the President to pass him over because of race and sex, is a position that is most certainly protected by academic freedom principles of “[f]ree inquiry and unconstrained publication of the results of inquiry.”

Here I highlighted a Federal judge’s rebuke of the Dean’s action while speaking to GULC students. Yet yesterday marked the 100th day since Dean Trainor suspended Shapiro for a perfectly defensible opinion that happened to be contrary to progressive cant, following a demand from the school’s black students organization that Shapiro be fired.

Of course, there is nothing to investigate, and never was. The episode spoke for itself; there were no unrevealed facts to uncover. The College Fix emailed Georgetown spokesperson Ruth McBain last week regarding the status of the imaginary investigation and which policy or policies the Law School believes he violated, but no response was forthcoming. Meanwhile, as Trainor undoubtedly calculated, those who resent the Law Center’s partisan and political censorship have moved on to other concerns.

For his part, Shapiro says he is confident that he will be reinstated. I don’t know why he would want to be reinstated at such a place, particularly as head of an alleged Constitutional studies center at a law school that doesn’t believe in the First Amendment.

Georgetown University is now one of the most flagrantly political and ideological of elite American universities. Its self-description begins, nauseatingly, “We’re a leading research university with a heart,” and goes on to state, “We’re a forward-looking, diverse community devoted to social justice, restless inquiry and respect for each person’s individual needs and talents.”

But not, clearly, their point of view and opinions.

As I promised ( I know I mentioned it, but I don’t recall where), I boycotted my law school class reunion this year because I don’t care to be seen as endorsing this fallen institution or the hypocrites currently leading it. I wasn’t the only class stalwart conspicuous in absentia: almost nobody showed up.

Good.

Oh yes…one last note. I was amused to see that Georgetown hasn’t bothered to check its own website’s graphics. That photo above heads the “Core Values” page. All the students pictured are white.

9 thoughts on “Update: Georgetown Law Center’s Unethical Punishment Of The Professor Who Criticized Selecting SCOTUS Judges According To Race And Gender

  1. “That photo above heads the ‘Core Values’ page. All the students pictured are white.”

    The gentlem…I mean…students in the lower left and upper right of the image appear to have higher melanin counts than your Rachel Dolezals/Shaun Kings/Hilaria Baldwins, I’ll take the under on how fast they’ll address that.

  2. I would say a majority of the students I went to law school with were against free speech and focused more on the consequences of an outcome of a decision rather than the text of the law (but that’s my own guess based on what I observed). One professor specifically said that we should begin with the text and history but we can’t stop there and called textual/historical analysis “simplistic.” Policy arguments do look at outcomes, but these students took the policy argument too far and tried to look at every legal issue like a political one.

    If most law professors aren’t in favor of free speech, and these are the people teaching future lawyers, what hope is there really? Before I went to law school, I thought law professors were the top of the top. They are incredibly smart most of the time, but the woke bias has penetrated everything.

    The same professor (who I did like as a person) who called originalism simplistic also wanted to create a professorship that was only open to African Americans. This person would focus on black perspectives and such. I really couldn’t believe I was hearing someone be so open about discrimination and also getting such loud cheers for it.

  3. For his part, Shapiro says he is confident that he will be reinstated. I don’t know why he would want to be reinstated at such a place, particularly as head of an alleged Constitutional studies center at a law school that doesn’t believe in the First Amendment.

    I don’t know if Shapiro thinks this way, but there is a question as to whether or not one should enter and/or stay in a bad environment for the sake of being the one voice that dissents from what is going on. In college environment that is dominated by liberals, should a conservative seek to and enter and stay for the sake of being the non-conformist? Or how about a pro-life individual working in a women’s clinic dominated by pro-choice viewpoints? Or a Catholic teaching at a Protestant school? (Well, to be honest, a Catholic teaching at a Catholic school, for that matter…) Or what about the Engineer who keeps working hard for the sake of his co-workers when management is toxic and inept? There’s a certain heroism in people who are willing to confront those challenges, but there’s also a point where someone will be completely broken by the conflict.

    When is it more ethical to stay, and when is it more ethical to leave? I think the answer is, “It depends on how bad the environment is and how willing someone is to endure it.” But does anyone else think that in any circumstances, you should just leave (or not even enter)?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter 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.