And This Is Why DEI Must DIE…

Three impressive, qualified, white male law professors applied to join the faculty of Northwestern School of Law. They were First Amendment expert (and Ethics Alarms favorite) Eugene Volokh, Ernest A. Young of Duke University’s Law School, and Ilan Wurman, a distinguished professor at The University of Minnesota Law School. All were rejected in favor of DEI hires, despite being objectively better qualified than the successful candidates. Now “Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences” (FASORP), a collective of professors and lawyers who seek to expose and stop racial and gender preferences in higher education, is suing on the professors’ behalf.

“As a result of the [DEI] mandate, Northwestern University School of Law refuses to even consider hiring white male faculty candidates with stellar credentials, while it eagerly hires candidates with mediocre and undistinguished records who check the proper diversity boxes,” the complaint alleges. Northwestern violates the law by “hiring women and racial minorities with mediocre and undistinguished records over white men who have better credentials, better scholarship, and better teaching ability,” the suit says.
“But this is prohibited by federal law, which bans universities that accept federal funds from discriminating on account of race or sex. University faculty and administrators think they can flout these anti-discrimination statutes with impunity because they are rarely sued….But now the jig is up.”

The case of Volokh would seem to be particularly difficult to refute. The suit asserts that Volokh’s accomplishments exceed those of nearly every professor currently on the Northwestern Law School faculty, but because he is a white man and “neither homosexual nor transgender,” he was judged unacceptable.

Continue reading

Two Executive Orders, One Extra-Constitutional, the Other Unconstitutional (and Unethical Too)

Let’s talk about the “un”-EO first. Federal District Court judge, John C. Coughenour, temporarily blocked President Trump’s executive order to end automatic citizenship for babies born on American soil, the so called “anchor baby” phenomenon. Three days after Trump issued his executive order, the judge sided with the first four states that sued, saying, “This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.” 22 states, along with activist groups and expectant mothers, have now filed lawsuits to halt order on the grounds that it violates the 14th Amendment. Courts have always interpreted the amendment’s section stating that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States” as applying to (almost) every baby born in the United States.

“Frankly,” Judge Coughenour added, “I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar would state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It just boggles my mind.” Well, lawyers don’t usually state propositions, even Hail Mary theories like this one equivocally. I think Trump’s lawyers told him that the order would almost certainly be found unconstitutional, and maybe they told him that it is unconstitutional. I am pretty certain it is, and that nothing short of a Constitutional amendment can change the law.

Continue reading

Is a Son Ratting Out His Father Unethical If a Father Turning In His Son Isn’t?

Tim Levier, tied for the title of the longest-running reader on my ethics posts, recommended this sordid tale for a post, and I concur.

Jackson Reffitt told authorities about his dad’s involvement in the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol and then testified against him. Guy Reffitt was sentenced to more than seven years in prison in 2022 on charges of civil disorder, obstruction of justice and other offenses, though he never entered the Capitol. His son testified for more than three hours for the prosecution in his father’s trial, revealing text messages his dad had sent after the 2020 election, promising that he and like-minded patriots would “rise up” and “shock the world” on January 6. Jackson tipped off authorities before the riot, then recorded his father’s comments about the riot after he returned home. The surreptitiously recorded tapes were crucial evidence in sending Guy to prison, along with videos recorded by Guy in which he talked about “taking the Capitol” and dragging Nancy Pelosi out of the building.

Now, thanks to President Trump’s pardons, Daddy’s coming home, and Sonny Boy is terrified. He told CNN his father was still involved in the militias and had no regrets about his actions on that fateful day. “I’m honestly flabbergasted that we’ve gotten to this point. I mean, I’m terrified. I don’t know what I’m going to do,” his son told CNN. “I’ve got as many precautions as I could recently …I’ve got a gun, I’ve moved and I’ve gotten myself away from what I thought would be a dangerous situation, and staying where I thought my dad could find me or other people that are going to feel so validated by these actions, by this pardon.”

“My dad once called me a traitor, and he said ’traitors get shot,’” he said.

Huh. I can’t imagine why he would say that.

If there ever was a case where the entry question for ethics analysis is critical, this is it: What’s going on here? It sure sounds like there is a long-running father vs. son conflict that the son chose to resolve by exploiting his father’s January 6 activities. Warning authorities that his father and presumably others were on their way to D.C. with possibly violent intentions is an ethics easy call: doing that was admirable, ethical, and the son’s civic duty. Actively gathering evidence against his father and ensuring his arrest, however, is very close to the line, and I am inclined to say crosses it into settling scores, getting revenge, and eliminating an unwelcome presence in Jackson’ life.

I was a featured ethicist on the Montel Williams Show years ago when the featured topic was whether a parent had an obligation to “rat out” a criminal child. I argued that there was such an obligation, both as a citizen and as a parent. Montel, amusingly, disagreed with me during the show but when the cameras weren’t rolling he told me he’d turn in his own son “in a heartbeat.”

However, the reverse scenario never came up: is it equally ethical for a child to turn in his parent? Certainly it is when the parent is a genuine threat to harm someone, including family members. Yet a parent’s obligations to a child are materially different from a child’s obligations to a parent. The enthusiasm with which Jackson sought to have his father locked up makes me wonder if this wasn’t an unusually ugly real life episode of “Family Ties,” the Eighties TV sitcom starring Michael J. Fox as a Reagan-supporting, Republican, capitalist teenage son of two former Sixties radicals.

oward the government.

Update on the 2024 Election…” What, “Freak-Out”? Ethics Train Wreck”? Aftermath? Whatever It Is…

1. CNN seems determined to charge into oblivion. Yesterday, I had a CNN website anti-Trump news piece ready to fisk, then was so happy to find some non-political topics to write about that I didn’t, and now its outdated. Never mind, though! There are more “Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!” pieces up today. Look: here’s “news analysis”: In a flurry of activity happening almost too swiftly to follow, Trump is giving critics every reason to think their worst fears will be realized. Click on that, and you get “Trump is imposing MAGA rule on the government hour-by-hour.” The whole website is littered with apocalyptic headlines, as if every President doesn’t arrive prepared to make sure the government carries out his policies and beliefs. The language CNN (and others) are using is calculated to create fear and dread, following up on the “Trump is Hitler” smear, which worked so well.

Continue reading

“The Ethicist” on Ogling [Updated]

Now that “The Ethicist” has finished his mission of pandering to the Trump Deranged among Times readers, he is moving on. I wonder if that ex-Washington Post cartoonist will draw a carton showing him “bending a knee” to the new President? At least his latest topic is a legitimate one as opposed to “Should I shun my mother because she supports Trump?”

Continue reading

Again, Hall of Fame Ethics, and Again, Ethically Inert Sportswriters Want To Elect Steroid Cheats

I know I’ve written a ridiculous number of posts about the logical, institutional and ethical absurdity of electing baseballs’s steroid cheats to the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, but I have sworn to slap this down every time it rears its metaphorical ugly head until my dying day.

The 2025 Baseball Writers’ Association of America voted Ichiro Suzuki (one vote shy of being a unanimous selection), CC Sabathia and Billy Wagner into the Hall. Three quick ethics notes on this. First, whoever it was who left Suzuki off his ballot should be kicked out of the association using the equivilent of the Ethics Alarms “Stupidity Rule.” He is not only a qualified Hall of Famer, but belongs among the upper echelon of Hall of Famers with the likes of Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Rogers Hornsby.

Second, I have no problem with CC Sabathia making the Hall, but that he was elected just a couple of months after Red Sox star Luis Tiant was rejected by a veteran’s committee, probably ending his Hall of Fame chances for good, shows just how arbitrarily the standards for Hall admission are applied. Tiant was objectively better than Sabathia, a bigger star, and while CC was a flashy presence on the mound, Tiant was more so. Luis (or “Loooooie!” as he was known in Fenway Park) died last year, and had said that if they weren’t going to let him into the Hall while he was alive, they shouldn’t bother after he was dead. Maybe the voters were just honoring his wishes…

Continue reading

“Superman II” Plot: After Trump-Deranged Sen. Murphy Makes An Ass of Himself, Vogue Says “Hold My Beer”…

The previous post discussed the level of hysteria now being attained by the Trump Deranged, with a U.S. Senator yesterday joining in the bonkers conspiracy theory that the Trump administration is a cabal of actual Nazis . Chris Murphy’s echoing the ridiculous Big Lie that Elon Musk gave a deliberate Nazi salute—you know, like Superman when he’s flying—

….managed to surpass even the late campaign claims by the dumbest sub-species among the Axis of Unethical Conduct that Trump was emulating the American Nazi Party when he held a campaign rally in Madison Square Garden. Yes, the Nazi salute smear on Musk is even worse than that, though redolent of the “OK” secret white supremacy hand signal insanity that the Mad Left used to slime everyone from lawyers to baseball fans during Trump’s first term.

Here is Vogue, writing about the cool necklace Ketanji Brown Jackson (above) wore to the inauguration:

Continue reading

Unethical Quote of the Month (and Ethics Villain): Sen. Chris Murphy (D.-Conn)

“What do you think about Trump’s most visible advisor, Elon Musk, performing a Nazi salute?”

—-Sen. Chris Murphy, Democrat from Connecticut and based on this question, a completely unscrupulous one, questioning Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik in her confirmation hearing to be confirmed as U.N. ambassador

Yecchh, ick, ptui, gag, retch! I’m sure it’s theoretically possible to stoop lower than Murphy, but I don’t want to think about what that would be. Urinating on the nominee perhaps?

This is pure Trump hate translated into slander. Musk, while gesticulating yesterday, ended up with one arm outstretched briefly with the palm down, and the still frantically desperate Axis, including PBS, began circulating the absurd Big Lie that Musk gave a Nazi salute for some reason. Oh! I get it! It’s because Trump is a Nazi!

I still can’t get my head around the reality that a U.S. Senator would try to join in on this gang smearing of Musk. CNN’s Scott Jennings X’d, “The only good thing about the Elon salute stupidity is that it adds to the list of people in public life who should never, ever, ever be taken seriously ever again by anyone ever.” Good point, and well said. Now, I’m ahead of Jennings, because I never took Murphy seriously anyway, except that he’s a serious jerk. Murphy is one of the worst of the worst in Congress, and missed my pre-election blacklist only because he wasn’t running. Yet even I, who regard him as an ongoing embarrassment to the Senate and the nation, didn’t see him resorting to this.

The question wasn’t even relevant to Stefanik, though she answered it with appropriate contempt, saying, “That is simply not the case. To say so – the American people see through it. They support Elon Musk.” I wish she had added, “And they are not the morons you seem to think they are. They know he didn’t give any Nazi salute.”

I find it hard to believe that the Democrats and the Trump-hating news media are really going to escalate their craziness as they try to destroy Trump for another term. Is it possible? Do they have a death wish? Are they that deluded? Is their learning curve not just flat, but upside-down? Jennings is not exaggerating. Bias makes you stupid, and hysterical bias makes you ridiculous.

(That’s Superman giving his “Nazi salute” above, courtesy of the Babylon Bee.)

Pro Ethics Tip: If Your Boyfriend Asks You To Be The Bride In a “Fake Wedding,” Run Away

An Australian woman had been dating her husband-to-be for a few months in Melbourne after meeting him on a dating app. Then he invited her to a “white party” in Sydney, telling her to bring a white dress to fit the theme of the event. When she arrived at the party venue, the only other people there were the boyfriend, a photographer, the photographer’s friend, and a marriage officiant. The friend explained that he had planned a fake wedding to increase his social media following (he has 17,000 followers on Instragram) and he needed her to play the bride.

She is, I should interject here, an idiot, because she shrugged and said, “Ok!” She did call a freind to ask if there were any risks to being a bride in a “fake wedding,” and the friend said, “Nah! Go ahead!” Here’s another pro tip: if you are an idiot, the chances are high that your friends are idiots too.

Continue reading

Ethics Quiz: The J-6 Pardons

President Trump yesterday issued a sweeping grant of clemency to nearly all of the approximately 1,600 people charged in connection with the rioting in and around the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Shortly after being sworn in as the 47th President of the United States, Trump issued pardons to most of the defendants and commuted the sentences of 14 members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers militia, most of whom were convicted of seditious conspiracy. Trump also directed the Justice Department to dismiss “all pending indictments” against people facing charges for the riots.

While the pardons of many J-6 defendants were expected, the scope of Trump’s clemency was unknown until yesterday. The President even pardoned Enrique Tarrio, the former leader of the Proud Boys who is serving a 22-year prison term after being convicted at trial of seditious conspiracy and using violent force against the government. The pardons were as all-inclusive as anyone could imagine, and, predictably, the Axis is freaking out.

“These pardons suggest that if you commit acts of violence, as long as you do so on behalf of a politically powerful person you may be able to escape consequences,” said Alexis Loeb, who personally supervised many riot cases. “They undermine and are a blow to the sacrifice of all the officers who put themselves in the face of harm to protect democracy on Jan. 6.” The New York Times report stated in part,

Beyond the effect the pardons and commutations will have on the lives of those who received them, they also served Mr. Trump’s mission of rewriting the history of Jan. 6. Throughout his presidential campaign and after he won the election, he has tried repeatedly to play down the violent nature of the Capitol attack and reframe it, falsely, as a “day of love.”

Mr. Trump’s actions were in essence his boldest moves yet in seeking to recast his supporters — and himself — as the victims, not the perpetrators, of Jan. 6. By granting clemency to the members of a mob that used physical violence to stop the democratic process in its tracks, Mr. Trump gave the imprimatur of the presidency to the rioters’ claims that they were not properly prosecuted criminal defendants, but rather unfairly persecuted political prisoners.

As a legal matter, the pardons and commutations effectively unwound the largest single criminal inquiry the Justice Department has undertaken in its 155-year history. They wiped away all of the charges that had already been brought and the sentences already handed down while also stopping any new cases from moving forward.

Within minutes of Trump’s action, my Trump-Deranged sister, a former Justice Department lawyer, called me on the phone to scream about it.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day:

Is the mass pardon ethical in its scope and the message it conveys?”

Continue reading