Rights

End of Summer Ethics Countdown, 8/30/25: Of Trailblazers, Dogs, Firings and Things.

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

This date, I am told by the History Channel, constitutes two race barrier landmarks. On August 30, 1967, Thurgood Marshall became the first African American to be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice. U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Guion S. Bluford became the first African American to be shot into space on this date in 1983. I get it: there were clearly social and legal barriers to black Americans for a very long time, and both of those achievements represent progress for the race and the nation. Still, I find myself wondering if the marking of such “trailblazers” hasn’t become a sop to race-obsessed victim-activists who want American society to forever pay reparations to blacks, and for that matter all minorities and women, at the expense of the merit based society the U.S. aspires to be.

Thanks to computers, it is now possible to find all sorts of records and distinctions that nobody dreamed of commemorating before. The Boston Red Sox just went 7-1 in a short road trip, and we learned that it was the first time in the team’s history that it won seven games in a road trip of eight games or less, and so what? Wait, let’s check: Yes! There has never been a gay, Portuguese-African-American intellectual property specialist under 5’8″ hired as an associate at a major D.C. law firm! Obviously that should elevate an applicant in the hiring competition, no?

No.

Enough musing…

1. Pam Bondi fired a Justice Department intern paralegal for middle-fingering a member of the National Guard in Washington, D.C., on her way to work earlier this month, adding “Fuck the National Guard!” to her outburst. Bondi explained, “This DOJ remains committed to defending President Trump’s agenda and fighting to make America safe again.If you oppose our mission and disrespect law enforcement — you will NO LONGER work at DOJ.” I see nothing inappropriate in this, particularly in the atmosphere fostered by the Left in which working within the government to undermined policies the Axis deplores is being lionized and encouraged. The Justice Department can’t and shouldn’t trust such an individual. It is too bad we have come to that: once, lawyers and other good citizens could be trusted to do their jobs without allowing political biases and dissenting opinions to lead them to abuse their positions. No longer.

In related news, Sean Charles Dunn, the DOJ paralegal who was fired for throwing a sub sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent, has been charged with a misdemeanor after a D.C. grand jury refused to issue felony charges. A D.C. grand jury would probably refuse to indict President Trump’s assassin. I can see the argument that a felony for assaulting an officer with a non-lethal missile isn’t felony-worthy, but I hope this jerk gets jail time.

I’m sure he won’t.

2. The Ethicist answers an infuriating question: “Should I Report My Neighbor’s Animal Abuse?” Of course you should, you trepidatious idiot! This is a pure “Fix the problem!” situation. The inquirer ladles on all the reasons why he has allowed the poor animal to be abused for months, and the conduct described absolutely shows abuse. He had seen the dog kicked. The dog is kept outside on a short chain in freezing and hot weather. The writer sputters, “I can’t take him in; my own dog is elderly and won’t accept another. And while I believe [the dog] is neglected, nothing I’ve seen clearly violates the law. I feel trapped: afraid of overstepping with unpredictable neighbors, afraid of doing nothing and regretting it if [the dog] suffers or dies...What, ethically and practically, should I do to safeguard this dog’s well-being?“

Oh, fix the problem, you revolting weenie! How much has the dog suffered while you do things like whine to advice columnists? Tell the neighbors that you will buy the dog, and then give it to a humane dog rescue group. My dog Spuds was rescued from abuse by one rescue volunteer going up to the door, knocking, and saying, “Either turn that dog over to me or I’m calling the police.” The Ethicist gives his usual prolix response to fill up the column and comes around to the right answer eventually, but what would this pathetic inquirer do if he saw the neighbors abusing a child?

3. Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias! This is classic. Most of the news media reported the President curtailing Kamala Harris’s Secret Service detail so that the usual semi-illiterate, gullible readers would see it as more of Trump’s “revenge tour.” CBS: “President Trump has revoked former Vice President Kamala Harris’ U.S. Secret Service protection.” Ditto ABC, NBC, BBC. Only the Associated Press included the rather relevant information that former VP’s, unlike former Presidents, typically only get six months of Secret Service protection, and Harris’s would be up under normal circumstances. But President Biden, or his autopen, extended Harris’s detail to 18 months for no discernible reason. Writes Ed Morrissey: “So the actual story is that the Biden administration gave Harris a stealth extension of taxpayer-funded benefits to which she was not entitled. If Congress wants to extend those benefits for former VPs, then let Congress propose and pass those into statute as amendments to the pension system for former presidents and VPs. Otherwise, Harris is no longer a public servant, and she can use her own resources for personal protection rather than sponge off the taxpayers. Trump simply canceled the illegitimate extension and restored the normal post-office benefit limitations to which all VPs are subject.”

But most of the public won’t see it that way, and this is intentional. Enemy of the people.

4. Look, the evil EPA fired employees who made it clear they couldn’t be trusted to carry out the policies of the agency! Yes, the EPA has started firing some of the144 employees it placed on leave for endorsing a public letter that said the changes President Donald Trump and his appointees had made at the agency “undermine the EPA mission of protecting human health and the environment.” More than 270 employees initially signed the letter, with over 170 choosing to be named. The open letter “contains information that misleads the public about agency business,” an EPA official said. “Thankfully, this represents a small fraction of the thousands of hard-working, dedicated EPA employees who are not trying to mislead and scare the American public.” “This is to provide notification that the Agency is removing you from your position and federal service consistent with the above references,” said one termination notice. “I have determined that your continued employment is not in the public interest.”

Continue reading →

Finally! “The Ethicist” Handles a Genuinely Difficult Ethics Query

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Kwame Anthony Appiah, who has been the The New York Times Magazine’s Ethicist columnist since 2015 and teaches philosophy at NYU, has been in a rut for months, choosing queries to answer from the Woke and Wonderful like “My mother likes Trump; should we be mean to her?” This time “The Ethicist responds to an ethical dilemma I have had to face myself: “Is it right to accept a job when I know the company discriminated against another candidate?”

The question:

I have been out of work for four months. I recently had an interview for a management-level position in my field, during which the interviewer asked a number of questions regarding my marital status, parental status and spouse’s occupation. I’ve spent most of my career in management, and the questions are clearly inappropriate and at odds with civil rights protections. I answered the questions, because I knew the responses would be in my favor: I’m a middle-aged guy whose spouse works remotely and son is in college. I’m aware of an internal candidate for the job, a younger mother of two school-age children, and the interviewer made comments about divided responsibilities and time commitments.

I kind of need the job, which raises two scenarios. In the first, I withdraw from the process. Should I notify the internal candidate of the legal violation, because I suspect (although have not confirmed) that the same questions were asked of her? In the second, I accept the position. How should I deal with the other candidate, who would be my subordinate, knowing that a likely E.E.O.C. violation tainted my hire? And additionally, should I notify the E.E.O.C. myself, regardless of whether I continue with this company?

Continue reading →

Ethics Villain CNN Pushes the First Amendment Envelope

/ Jack Marshall / 24 Comments

What this despicable “enemy of the people” is doing by deliberately publicizing an anti-ICE app may be legal, but it is undeniably unethical. The Trump administration should prosecute anyway.

Joshua Aaron (above: he looks exactly like I assumed he looks!) is a musician and software developer who, because he’s an anti-American, pro-lawbreaking asshole, created an app called ICEBlock. It’s a descriptive name: it allows advocates of open borders and opponents of law enforcement to post sightings of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers across the country. Then the law-breakers they are seeking can more effectively avoid capture, and those who want to attack, harm, kill, or impede ICE agents have a metaphorical “leg up.” That’s nice.

Continue reading →

A Perfect Example of a “Trump Lie”

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

On both MSNBC and CNN today, a big deal was made over the fact that President Trump said that “no other country” confers automatic citizenship on those born within its borders. They were both sneering so hard that I bet they needed a lip massage afterwards, “Of course, 33 nations have birthright citizenship,” said one, with the other making a similar statement.

No question about it, they are right and Trump was wrong. What he meant, however, was “No nations anywhere but the Americas have birthright citizenship, and we are the only major power in the world that does.” Or, “Almost no nations that know what the fuck they are doing have birthright citizenship.” Presidents shouldn’t be that careless, but Trump is, he refuses to change, he’s not going to, and nobody should pretend that they are shocked when he does.

Here’s the list, as represented in the chart above: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Lesotho, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Continue reading →

The ABA Is Defending Its Racially Discriminatory Scholarships…Of Course It Is.

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Res ipsa loquitur, no?

In April, the American Alliance for Equal Rights led by Edward Blum, the scourge of affirmative action and “good discrimination” policies, filed a complaint in an Illinois federal court alleging that the American Bar Association’s 25-year-old Legal Opportunity Scholarship discriminates against white applicants. Since their skin color renders them unable to apply, this contention seems beyond debate. The question is whether, as a trade association, the ABA has a right to discriminate.

The Alliance said it is representing an unnamed white male law school applicant who says that he would apply for the $15,000 Legal Opportunity Scholarship were he not prevented from doing so because he is the “wrong” race. The ABA awards between 20 and 25 such scholarships annually to incoming law students, according to its website, which is excerpted above.

I should have covered this in April: sorry. [Believe me, if I could find a way to work on the blog full-time without ending up living on cat food and in a shack by the docks, I would.] Anyway, this kind of thing is why I do not pay dues to the ABA, and why I am suspicious of any lawyer who does. It is an interesting case. I assumed that Blum would lose if the case proceeded, and that his main objective was to shame the ABA into opening up the race-based scholarships to all. But the ABA has no shame. And I knew that.

The American Bar Association responded to Blum’s suit this week, arguing that a scholarship program designed to boost diversity among law students is protected free speech. The 25-year-old Legal Opportunity Scholarship, the largest lawyer association in the nation asserts, is protected under the First Amendment. In its motion to dismiss the ABA also claimed that plaintiff American Alliance for Equal Rights lacks standing to sue.

Continue reading →

The Proud Illegal Immigrant Problem

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

I almost made this an Ethics Quiz, but I ultimately decided that I know the correct answer. The right course of action is clear. Derek Guy, above, and all long-time illegal immigrants who come forward to say, “I’m illegal and I’m proud” are ficks. And their candor should place them at the top of the deportation list.

I pay no attention to fashion, fashion mavens, and fashion world news, and I don’t have a lot of respect for those who do. So I was blissfully unaware of Derek Guy’s existence [“Derek Guy, also known as Menswear Guy, who is well-known on on X for his men’s fashion tips and analysis…”] and that he has been thrilling the Trump Deranged for his mockery of J.D. Vance’s and the President’s attire. Nevertheless, the completely trivial celebrity posted this screed on Twitter/X that has “gone viral,” as they say…Don’t worry, it ends eventually:

Well.

The thing is full of every rationalization, straw man, appeal to emotion and unethical spin that you and I have ever seen regarding open borders and illegal immigration. In no particular order…

Continue reading →

Who Says The Supreme Court Is Partisan On Every Issue?

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments


The Supreme Court yesterday sided 8-0 with a straight (okay, “cis”) woman in Ohio who filed a “reverse discrimination” lawsuit against her employer after her boss declined to promote her, preferring to promote “rainbow” staffers. In a unanimous ruling written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Justices agreed that a federal appeals court in Cincinnati erred by imposing a tougher standard for the case brought by Marlean Ames to move forward than if Ames had been a member of a minority group. 

The appellant, a straight, white woman, had filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that she had been the victim of employment discrimination based on her not being gay. The department had hired a lesbian for the position that she had sought, she contended, as well as a gay man to replace her after she was demoted.  The United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit threw out Ames’s sexual orientation claim, arguing that her claim could not go forward unless she could show “background circumstances” to support her allegations of reverse discrimination, such as a “pattern” of reverse discrimination. 

SCOTUS reversed, sending the case back to the lower court. Federal employment discrimination law, Jackson explained, prohibits intentional discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Period. Minorities have no more intrinsic grounds to claim discrimination than majority groups.

Thank you!

Continue reading →

Stop Making Me Defend the Supreme Court!

/ Jack Marshall / 38 Comments

Almost a year ago, Ethics Alarms discussed the case of Liam Morrison (above), a seventh grader who was told that his “There are only two genders” T-shirt was inappropriate as school attire. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld a District Court decision from 2023 that the Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, Massachusetts didn’t violate Liam’s First Amendment rights by telling him to change his shirt.

Chief Justice David Barron, writing for the Court, concluded that “the question here is not whether the t-shirts should have been barred. The question is who should decide whether to bar them – educators or federal judges.” He continued, “We cannot say that in this instance the Constitution assigns the sensitive (and potentially consequential) judgment about what would make ‘an environment conducive to learning’ at NMS to use rather than to the educators closest to the scene.”

I wrote, in a post agreeing with the decision both ethically and legally,

Continue reading →

“The Ethicist” Faces The Ultimate Ethics Test…and Flunks

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

The topic is abortion.

This is discouraging, if not unexpected. After all, “The Ethicist,” aka. NYU philosophy professor Kwame Appiah, works for the New York Times, Where Ethics Go To Die. Nonetheless, the clueless certitude of his latest column is as offensive as it is indefensible for someone in the ethics field.

An inquirer asked The Ethicist “Does My Spouse Get a Say in Whether to Carry an Unplanned Pregnancy?” That framing alone was foreshadowing for what was to come; notice that the issue is a “pregnancy” and whether it is wanted. and not the snuffing out of a nascent human life, which is where this ethical conflict becomes difficult to resolve.

This time, I’m going to do running commentary on both “Name Withheld’s” query and Prof. Appiah’s answer. First, the question:

“I’m 46, unexpectedly pregnant despite having entered perimenopause, with three children already (the youngest is 4).” COMMENT: And your age and the number of children you have affects the right of an innocent life to continue how?

“My husband calls this a “disaster,” and believes abortion is the clear choice because we didn’t want another child or plan on this pregnancy.” COMMENT: Ending a human life is only a “clear choice” for psychopaths.

Continue reading →

And Now For Something Completely Stupid and Unethical Too: Carmel-By-The-Sea

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

I’m not sure why I never learned that the little California municipality of Carmel-by-the-Sea in Monterey has an illegal and unethical law against high-heeled shoes, since my brain is stuffed with even more useless trivia. I know now, however, and my conviction that California is hopelessly estranged from U.S. values and principles has been reinforced (again).

In 1963 the city passed a law, recommended by a City Attorney who was evidently an idiot, requiring visitors to get an official permit in order to legally walk around the place in heels higher than two inches. You can read the local ordinance here. If one wants to walk around wearing heels over two inches in height and less than one square inch of bearing surface, a permit from the city hall is required. The permits are issued free of charge, with the name of the individual making the request and the signature of a city clerk.

Continue reading →