I don’t understand the latest chapter in Columbia’s anti-Semitism scandal at all. I don’t understand how anyone connected to the university can look at themselves in the mirror after this. I don’t understand how alumni and donors can tolerate it. Most astounding of all, in its shameless embrace of The King’s Pass, Columbia University has managed to make Harvard look like an ethics exemplar by comparison.
No, I don’t understand.
OK, I should get this out of the way up front: I’m unalterably biased against any 77 year old man who wears his hair like that, if indeed that is the professor’s real hair, which I doubt.
Then there is the fact that a vast majority of historians are Trump Deranged or have otherwise migrated into the progressive propaganda camp. Presidential historians are particularly shameful in this regard, and one of the worst is American University Professor Allan Lichtman. He was all over the TV this weekend, chasing another 15 minutes of fame as a commentator on the Democratic Party’s Joe Biden problem from an alleged historical perspective. The Big Whoop about Lichtman is that he has developed a formula that predicted the results of nine of the 10 most recent presidential elections, so that is supposed to make him an expert. It doesn’t. To begin with, his system doesn’t have “the incumbent can’t think or talk clearly any more” feature.
This explains a lot…
Since there is some reason to suspect that Jill Biden has been doing an Edith Wilson impression for at least some of her husband’s ill-starred term as President, a substacker decided to do a deep dive into Dr. Jill Biden’s dissertation to assess exactly how intellectually qualified she is to be shadow-President. What she found was, to understate it, horrifying….and yet, all in all, not surprising.
To summarize, the doctorate of education Jill received from the University of Delaware in January 2007 was based on a “scholarly” dissertation that was objectively crap. It is riddled with typos, mathematical errors, and horrible writing. Holly Mathnerd (not her real name, presumably) writes in part (this is a huge essay),
Hmmmm.
Here are the distinguished individuals Harvard saw fit to award honorary degrees to at graduation this year. (I’m sure some of them, heck, maybe all, are very fine people) :
(Former Harvard president Lawrence Bacow also got an honorary degree, but ex-Harvard presidents always do if they manage not to get fired for plagiarism, so he doesn’t count.)
Interesting. Out of five honorees, not one was a white American, not even a white woman, or a white LGTBQ warrior. A Venezuelan male, a female Filipino, Harjo is Native American, Gates is black, and Hansen is Asian American.
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Week is…
Except for one brief moment of frustration and madness, Ethics Alarms has been consistent in its derision of the concept of reparations for slavery. Illogical, legally unhinged, divisive, anti-democratic and most of all, impossible, this really bad idea, a favorite of get-rich-quick racial grievance hucksters and reality-resistant progressives, still hangs around like old unwashed socks, and no amount of argument or reasoning seems to be able to send them to the rag pile. Recently both California, where terrible leftist ideas go to thrive and ruin things, and New York, which really should be moved to the West Coast, have both at least pretended to endorse reparations for slavery. California’s ridiculous reparations task force has proposed giving $223,200 each to all descendants of slaves in California, on the theory that it will be a just remedy for housing discrimination against blacks between 1933 and 1977. The cost to California taxpayers would be about $559 billion, more than California’s entire annual budget (that the state already can’t afford), and that doesn’t include the massive cost of administrating the hand-outs and dealing with all the law suits it is bound to generate.
Brilliant. But that’s reparations for you! Logic, common sense and reality have nothing to do with it.
Now comes two wokey professors from—you guessed it, Harvard, to issue a scholarly paper published in “The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences,” titled “Normalizing Reparations: U.S. Precedent, Norms, and Models for Compensating Harms and Implications for Reparations to Black Americans.” The thesis of this thing is essentially that reparations for slavery should be paid because “Everybody Does It,” offering variations of the #1 rationalization on the list that don’t properly apply to slavery at all. (What? The descendants of slaves are not like fishermen facing depleted fish stocks?) The paper is being called a “study”: it is not a study, but rather an activist advocacy piece. (I would have bet that both scholars are black; nope, just one is, although I would not be surprised to learn that Linda J. Bilmes signed on just to help Cornell William Brooks avoid the obvious accusation of bias and conflict of interest. And, naturally, at Harvard taking on such a mission, certifiably bats though it is, can only enhance her popularity on campus.)
Morons.
Just as the Far Left plays into the worst conservative stereotypes about them with demands like abortion right up to birth and open borders, the Far Right parodies itself with Constitution-defying laws like Louisiana’s requiring the Ten Commendments to be displayed in public school classrooms. Now Oklahoma says, “Hold my beer!”with the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Ryan Walters announcing in a memo today that every Oklahoma school must teach students the Bible the 2024-2025 school year. “The Bible is an indispensable historical and cultural touchstone,” Walters said in a press release unveiling the mandate. “Without basic knowledge of it, Oklahoma students are unable to properly contextualize the foundation of our nation which is why Oklahoma educational standards provide for its instruction. This is not merely an educational directive but a crucial step in ensuring our students grasp the core values and historical context of our country.”
There is no chance, none, zip, nada, that this obviously religiously motivated law will stand up to judicial scrutiny. This is pure grandstanding.
“Not a Lawyer” has been banned. Don’t reply to any of his comments if he tries to sneak one in.
After arguing relentlessly, snottily and obnoxiously about what is a justified impeachment, this guy revealed in his last post—and by that I do mean last— that he doesn’t even know what an impeachment is, writing that “no Presidents have been impeached.”
Hell, I knew about that common misconception by the historically and constitutionally ignorant when I started giving my U.S. Presidents presentation in Miss Barrett’s fifth grade class at the age of 9. Since the House has impeached Presidents three times since 1996, there is no excuse for a responsible, educated citizen not to know that an impeachment is like an indictment, and no President has been found guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” though Johnson survived by one vote in the Senate, and Nixon would have certainly been convicted. There is even less excuse for someone so uniformed to come here and argue with me about what’s an ethical impeachment. Yeah, I’m ticked off.
Believe it or not, my time is valuable. If you’re going to argue, do your homework, which at a bare minimum means knowing the basics of what you’re arguing about.
***
UPDATE: Not a Lawyer has been reinstated, as you can see in the comments below.
I am taking his explanation as sincere, and since he is Not a Lawyer, I have some confidence that he’s not just skillfully writing what he thinks will be be persuasive. I’ve reversed bans before, but not often, because the vast majority of those exiled react like the recently banned commenter who replied, “Fuck you, you Trump supporting fascist!”” Welcome home, Not a Lawyer. Your slate is clean.
Sorett has revealed himself to be the most despicable, incompetent and untrustworthy leader of a prestigious U.S. college, an astounding achievement when you consider the competition.
Silly me, I thought the original story was as bad as it could get. How wrong I was. To recap this post, during a Columbia panel on the campus’s anti-Semitism, Sorett, the Dean of Columbia College, exchanged mocking and derisive texts about the panelists statements about how the pro-Hamas protesters had poisoned the educational environment for Jewish students with the vice dean and chief administrative officer of the college, the dean of undergraduate student life; and the associate dean for student and family support. Unfortunately for all of them, another attendee behind one of the texters took incriminating snap shots of the cell phone screen that revealed the dismissive texts.
After being busted, Sorett tried the Pazuzu Excuse (‘what I said or did wasn’t really me!’) which is bad enough, but “the rest of the story” is worse. This creep fuzzed over the fact that he was part of the texting orgy in his original statement after the texts were revealed, and then put the other three administrators on leave! Nice. The least he could have done was show some solidarity with his fellow anti-Semites and suspend himself. As the highest ranking member of the gossip group, a strong argument can be made that he ratified and enabled the offensive discussion. In fact, I’ll make it: he was more accountable than the three administrators he punished.
There is no excuse for this.
Louisiana became the first state to mandate that the Ten Commandments be displayed in every public school classroom. Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, showing poor judgments and no spine, signed this foolishness into law. Louisiana is the first sate to do this because no others state is this stupid, apparently. The law is obviously, flagrantly unconstitutional, a bright-line First Amendment violation. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other organizations are going to sue, they will win, and a lot of time and money will be wasted so Louisiana Republicans can grandstand.
Brilliant! The Democrats are basing their 2024 election hopes on painting Republicans as anti-democratic fanatics who would just love to live in a theocracy, so the GOP does this.
An exchange between Republican Louisiana state Rep. Lauren Ventrella and CNN host Boris Sanchez illustrated just how dim-witted the Louisiana GOP’s reasoning is—and Sanchez isn’t exactly Clarence Darrow; a sharper interviewer could have made metaphorical mincemeat out of Ventrella’s lame arguments.
Ventrella began by stating that faith, as represented by the Ten Commandments, are a significant historical component to the founding of the U.S. OK, but that’s not the issue. If schools are going to teach that, the lesson has to be faith-neutral, and using the central religious code of Christianity and Judaism as a centerpiece isn’t neutral.
“Sure, but do you also recognize that the Constitution of this country, its founding document, doesn’t include the word God or Jesus or Christianity and that’s for a reason and that’s because the founding fathers founded this country as a secular one,” Sanchez said. “You don’t see that?”
Ugh. Stay on point, Boris! All that matters is that the Supreme Court has held emphatically that the Constitution forbids the state from dictating religious beliefs. Where the line should be drawn is still a live question, but that the Ten Commandments are over that line is not.
“Boris, I bet you CNN pays you a lot of money. I bet you got a lot of dollar bills in that wallet,” Ventrella replied. Ugh again. She’s after the old “In God We Trust” motto. This is like the open border activists who cite the poem on the Statue of Liberty as evidence of a national policy. Both the motto and the poem are irrelevant.
“What does this have to do with the network that I work for or what I’m getting paid?” Sanchez asked. “Don’t make this about that, answer that question. Why did the founding fathers not include God in the Constitution if they wanted this country to be the way that you see it?”
Boris apparently didn’t see the silly motto argument coming. Well, you know: CNN.
“In God We Trust. We’ll make it about me. I’ve got a dollar bill in my wallet. In God We Trust is written on that dollar. It is not forcing anybody to believe one viewpoint, it’s merely posting a historical reference on the wall for students to read and interpret it if they choose,” Ventrella explained, making no sense. What is stamped on money isn’t the equivalent of highlighting a particular religion in schools. Sanchez then stated the obvious, that the Ten Commandments are more than merely “historical” and obviously advance specific religious beliefs. Of course, and Ventrella and her ilk know this, which is why the party wants the Ten Commandment in the classes rather than the Magna Carta. Her argument is completely disingenuous. And stupid.
“This is a very valuable document. Look, this nation has gotten out of hand with crime, with the bad, negative things that are going on. Why is it so preposterous that we would want our students to have the option to have some good principles instilled in them? If they don’t hear it at home, let them read it in the classroom,” she said. “Which is different than the Mayflower Compact which is mentioned in the document as well. I don’t understand why this is so preposterous in that litigation is being threatened. It doesn’t scare us in the state of Louisiana, we say bring it on.”
Wow. What a moronic rant. Has she read the Ten Commandments? The first one tells readers not to have any other god, and the next three are purely religious edicts. That’s 40%! A poster stating the messages of the next six commandments would be harmless and constitutional, but this law’s intent is promoting juddeo-Christian religious beliefs, despite Ventralla’s posturing
“Because if someone has a home in which they choose to believe something different, which is welcome in this country. It’s literally why people fled to come here to found this country to begin with. Then they should be allowed to. And it’s not really an option if you’re requiring it to be put up in the wall of the classroom,” Sanchez said. To this, Ventrella shrugged that students, parents and teachers who don’t share the “religious views” of the Ten Commandments should just avoid looking at it.
Ooooh, good one, Lauren.
The CNN host compared the Ten Commandments poster to hanging up the Five Pillars of Islam in public school classrooms. That is an excellent analogy, and, of course, all the state rep could do was babble. “This is not about the Five Pillars of Islam. This bill specifically states the Ten Commandments. It is a historical document …” Boris cut her off, since she was ducking the issue or, just as likely, too dumb to comprehend it.
“Sure, but I’m presenting you with a hypothetical that would help you put yourself in the shoes of someone you may not understand and their point of view,” he said. “How would you feel if you walked into a classroom and something you didn’t believe in was required to be on the wall? You can answer that question.” Ventella had no answer, because, again, she knows the objective of the law is religious indoctrination.
“I appreciate you, Boris. I cannot sit here and gather and fathom … you could give me a thousand hypotheticals. But again, this specific bill applies to this specific text. The Quran, or Islam, that is a very broad statement. We’re specifically talking about a limited text, on mind you, a piece of paper that’s not much bigger than a legal sheet of paper. Some kids might even need a magnifying glass to read all of this. This is not so preposterous that we’re somehow sanctioning and forcing religion down people’s throats. I’ve heard the comments and it’s just ridiculous,” Ventrella answered. Translation: “Huminahuminahumina…” She’s got nothing.
She also kept calling the Ten Commandments “historical.” Inigo Montoya has an observation:
There is no justification for calling the Ten Commandments a “historical” document. There is no historical evidence that Moses and the Ten Commandments as stone tablets ever existed, or that the Exodus occurred. These are religious stories, and Moses has the same “historical” status as Adam and Eve, Noah, and other Old Testament figures. A school even calling them “historical” is a religious assertion.
Neither the Constitution, nor precedent, not common sense backs her “it isn’t what it is” blather. Sadly, the conservative media immediately fell into line defending the law, wounding their own credibility in the process. Newsbusters:
This story is ultimately less about the actual Ten Commandments than about what they represent in this particular instance: a challenge to the left’s monopoly on what can be taught in schools. Said differently, Louisiana challenges the (secular) religious orthodoxies of the public education system as run by left-wing administrators in unison with the teachers’ unions…. The media have no problem with kindergarteners being taught on gender, or on third and fourth-graders having access to graphic sexual materials in school libraries. But the Ten Commandments are a bridge too far.
One final Ugh. The story is about the Ten Commandments, and Louisiana’s transparent effort to force a religious code on students in violation of the Establishment Clause. There’s nothing in the Constitution prohibiting public school indoctrination regarding sex. There is very clear prohibition against public schools promoting specific religions.
How ironic! A post spawned by a banned trolling commenter who called your host a “Trump-supporting fascist” generated excellent commentary and two outstanding Comments of the Day. Thus a disruptive and unethical visitor here actually helped to enrich the discussion and enlighten participants. I know I learned some things from Sarah B.’s excellent Comment of the Day on the post, the first of the two earning the honor.
Here it is, on “Ethics Quote of the Month: Banned EA Commenter ‘David’”…
***
While I cannot answer for lawyers, there are plenty of Trump deranged engineers, and we sure get trained in logic, critical-thinking, and evaluation of consequences of our thought processes. This training does not inoculate us from our own biases. Indeed, biases manage to short circuit the training.
Jack is fond of saying biases make us stupid, and certainly today’s society proves it. I cannot tell you how frustrated I get when a trained engineer tells me that electric cars will solve all our problems. No one with the training I went through should say that electric cars are a universal solution. They should be able to calculate life cycle pollution, understand vehicle weight issues with roadways, realize the limitations of battery technology, mineral scarcity, and electrical grid load. However, by the time we get our intensive training in logic, critical thinking, and more, we have also been inundated in “global climate change” mass hysteria. The biases I saw my fellows come out with was amazing, even as I was standing there with the damn numbers.
Ethics Alarms 