Ethics Villains: Fairfax Virginia High Schools, And Why Isn’t The News Media Treating This As The Major Scandal It Is? [Corrected]

Let’s start with a memorable quote from that eloquent villain, Auric Goldfinger: “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action.”

This is enemy action against motivated and talented students, responsible and trusting parents, and core American values. It should be reported as such and responded to with the vigor and relentlessness the attack warrants, but the news media is burying the story, because they are enemies as well.

Happenstance: My fault. I reported this story as the last item in the Ethics Alarms Christmas Eve ethics outrage collection, here, pretty much guaranteeing that even fewer people would see it than usual. It should have been a full post. I wrote,

City-Journal reports that at Thomas Jefferson High in Fairfax, Virginia, two administrators have been withholding notifications of National Merit awards from the school’s students awarded them, most of them Asian. This denied those students the chance to use those awards to boost their college-admission prospects and earn scholarships. The author believes that this was intentional, a part of “the school district’s new strategy of “equal outcomes for every student, without exception.” School administrators, for instance, have implemented an “equitable grading” policy that eliminates zeros, gives students a grade of 50 percent just for showing up, and assigns a cryptic code of “NTI” for assignments not turned in. It’s a race to the bottom.”The school’s leadership is acting as if it was just an oversight—for at least three years. Read the article. [Pointer: Mark Metcalf]

Well, hey, that’s just one DEI-obsessed principal, and she’s apologized and maybe will get fired, so all is well, right? Wrong:

Coincidence? The Fairfax Times reports that while Fairfax County Public Schools Superintendent Michelle Reid claimed the principal at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology withheld National Merit awards from students in a “one-time human error,” Langley High School Principal Kim Greer sent an email to parents apologizing for doing the same thing:

Continue reading

Capitol Riot Responsibility Ethics

On  December 12, the Senate unanimously passed a measure to remove authority for calling out the National Guard from politicians like Nancy Pelosi, handing the authority over to the Capitol Police. Naturally, this was virtually ignored by the news media, but the reason for the move was clear.

Despite dire predictions by federal authorities before January 6, 2021, the authorities responsible for  calling out the Guard, Speaker Pelosi  and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, were more concerned with partisan optics than security. Bowser had opposed President Trump regarding National Guard presence during the BLM riots in the past and wasn’t going to create a marshal law-like atmosphere on her watch.  in D.C.  She decided the Guard should be unarmed on the 6th and relegated to traffic control.

Good call there, Mayor.

Pelosi, meanwhile “was heavily involved in planning and decision-making before and during the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and micromanaged the Sergeant at Arms,” according to texts and other communications that were revealed after the rioting. While the report of the partisan and Trump-deranged House January 6 Star Chamber completely ignored Pelosi’s role in allowing the debacle to occur, the Pelosi team’s negligence was exposed in an investigative report by the House Republicans Pelosi removed from the “J6 Committee” so there would be no distraction from the mission, which was vilify Donald Trump ahead of the 2022 mid-term elections. The exiles were Jim Banks (R-IN), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Rodney Davis (R-IL), Kelly Armstrong (R-ND) and Troy Nehls (R-TX). The final intelligence threat assessment issued three days before the riot warned of a violent scenario in which “Congress itself” could be attacked by armed Trump supporters, but the warning was buried at the end of a 15-page document and was not included in the introductory summary.  Then the the warning was omitted in three subsequent daily intelligence reports.

Shades of Pearl Harbor! Continue reading

Sunday Morning Ethics, 1/8/23: Lots Of Next Shoes Drop! [Corrected]

You learn something every day. Despite years of studying Clarence Darrow’s career, cases, life and courtroom oratory (and despite co-authoring “The Essential Words and Writings of Clarence Darrow” which you can purchase for a pittance here), I only learned today that the great defense lawyer is credited with inventing the tactic of arguing for a lesser sentence because of what a guilty criminal had suffered in his childhood. Before Darrow’s defense of Nathan Leopold and Dickie Loeb in 1924, such an argument was unprecedented. It didn’t really work in that case, since the judge based his refusal to condemn the two teenage “thrill killers” on their youth alone, but the strategy caught on.

1. Thanks, “Federalist”! Saved me a post! I have considered writing ethics comments about the inconvenience caused by people who insist on backing their cars into parking spaces several times, most recently last week,and rejected the impulse as too trivial even for Ethics Alarms. Then “The Federalist” publishes this: “For The Love Of All That Is Holy, Stop Backing Into Parking Spaces.” It concludes,

“….the people backing into spaces are so selfish they haven’t even tried to imagine the levels upon levels of “just because you could doesn’t mean you should” that we decent citizens are dealing with every day on the mean streets of our local strip mall. If you’re still backing into spaces, just cut it out and pull straight into the space the way basic geometry demands.”

I heartily concur.

2. More on the six-year-old school shooter...Today’s Times article at least mentions the mystery of the child’s parents’ involvement, and reminds us that “Virginia law prohibits leaving a loaded gun where it is accessible to children under the age of 14.” The article also examines school shootings generally and the usual gun availability concerns, none of which are very relevant to what is a freak incident. The fact that a first-grader somehow got control of a loaded gun and brought it to school reveals little about the strengths or weaknesses of gun policies or school security. It is irresponsible to base policy proposals on incidents that virtually never occur. “When will the shock of gunshots in school be enough to inspire the action necessary to prevent guns in schools and the shattering of lives it causes?” said reliable demagogue Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers.

Laws won’t make dumb, irresponsible and reckless parents smart, responsible and careful. All you can do is hold them responsible for the damage they do, and then try to protect the children. Continue reading

On Speaker McCarthy’s Travails And A Smoking Gun NYT Op-Ed

Rep. Kevin McCarthy didn’t take the Ethics Alarms ethics advice to withdraw from the race to become the next Speaker of the House. Instead, he hung on to barely squeak by on a 15th ballot, the most required to anoint a new Speaker since before the Civil War. To accomplish this, he made so many concessions to his GOP opposition that he evoked memories of the 1968 Presidential race, when it was said of Hubert Humphrey that he so wanted to be President that he showed himself unworthy of the office by the manner of his pursuit of it. McCarthy, it must be said, is no Humphrey: he is now a small, undistinguished and petty politician in a big job, the very epitome of the Peter Principle in action.

Observation 1: It tells you all you need to know about the state of the slim GOP House majority that Matt Gaetz, one of the truly creepy members of Congress, was a power broker in this mess. Just look at this guy. And in order to get the job he so covets, McCarthy gave him more power than he already had, and he already had too much because his brain dead district sent him to D.C. One of the concessions McCarthy made to flip the party members voting against him was to alter House rules so a single member could trigger a challenge to his leadership. This not only gives tremendous leverage to Gaetz, but other incompetent and untrustworthy Republican members, like Margorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, and even the unimaginably dishonest George Santos. Yes, McCarthy has to ask “How high?” when Lying George tells him to jump too, or risk another 15 ballot siege.

Observation 2: Democrats and the news media (but I repeat myself) enjoyed blathering about how the McCarthy floor fight showed the lack of leadership in the Republican Party. I submit that this is an accusation Democrats have a lot of gall making against anyone, with a half-conscious Democratic President, an embarrassingly inept Vice-President, and the just-exiting antediluvian Speaker Nancy Pelosi as their party’s most prominent leaders. This is more than the pot calling the kettle black: this is the kettle calling the kettle black. The leadership of both parties and the nation as a whole is weak and corrupt, arguably as weak and corrupt as it has ever been. In hindsight, Lyndon Johnson looks like a giant, and Ronald Reagan a colossus. Who can Democrats point to today as respectable, credible party leaders? Elizabeth Warren? Pete Buttigieg? Old School hack Chuck Schumer?

Continue reading

Late Night Ethics Insurrection, 1/6/23: Disgraceful

Some years from now, when “This Day in History” expounds on January 6, will the foolish rioting of 2021 be number one on the list of notable anniversaries, or will it have fallen to where it belongs, which is somewhere between FDR’s “Four Freedoms” speech ( 1941) and the the admission of New Mexico as the 47th state (1912)? Unfortunately, the ugly incident is probably destined to always be regarded with inflated importance if for no other reason than it became the focus of one of the most protracted and cynical partisan political propaganda efforts by any party since the United States was founded.

Like the Kardashians who are famous for being famous, the January 6 Capitol rioting will be important because so many people have said it was important for so long. It was destructive and it was embarrassing, but the rioting was not an insurrection, nor was it part of a plot by Donald Trump to somehow hold on to the White House. The hacks and demagogues in the media and elected offices who have claimed otherwise are only better than the rioters in that they have been less violent. Both disgraced themselves and their country.

1. Now THIS is a frivolous lawsuit…The estate of Brian Sicknick is suing Donald Trump and two rioters, Julian Elie Khater and George Pierre Tanios, for $10 million in damages from each of the defendants based on the theory that the Capitol Police officer’s death was “a direct and foreseeable consequence” of Trump’s words and action on January 6, while the two rioters are accused of assaulting Sicknick with bear spray during the conflict. Sicknick died of a stroke the next day, and it is literally impossible to trace the stroke to the riot. Sicknick’s death was attributed to “natural causes.” If Rudy Giuliani is facing discipline by the D.C. Bar for not having sufficient evidence to justify his lawsuit claiming voter fraud in Pennsylvania, sanctioning the lawyer who brought this “Hail Mary” lawsuit should be automatic. If the lawyer isn’t sanctioned, we will have even more evidence that the posse chasing Rudy is motivated by politics, not a sincere desire to police the legal profession’s ethics.

Continue reading

First Open Forum Of 2023!

Here is as good a place as any to note, since Ethics Alarms is also concerned with leadership as a sub-category to ethics, that Kevin McCarthy’s only ethical course at this point is to withdraw from the Speaker of the House race. It is clear that he cannot lead Republicans in the House, and the compromises and concessions he will need to make to get the support of the 20-plus member faction that opposes him would cripple his leadership as well as his party. Now it’s just selfishness, obstinacy and ego that has him holding on. None of those are ethical reasons to inflict yet another weak GOP Speaker on the nation.

McCarthy’s allies should also recognize this and 1) shut up or 2) move on. One, of course, is Donald Trump who can’t shut up, but who should be completely irrelevant to the Speaker battle. Another is Sean Hannity. It’s depressing that such a dim-wattage Fox News pundit as Hannity has the influence he does, and he proved his Peter Principle creds again in an argument on the air with conservative House member and anti-McCarthy leader Lauren Boebert. Sean apparently thought he had a “gotcha!” by calling Boebert on her statement that McCarthy should just give it up because he didn’t have the votes to win the Speakership. “But he has over 200 votes, and your group has just 20!” Hannity replied. “Shouldn’t you be the ones who give up?”

Uh, it’s like a filibuster, Sean, you dummy. Or a veto. The 20 don’t represent an alternative to McCarthy; they don’t have to elect a candidate to win. Their purpose is to block his ascension to the job, and they have enough votes to do it.

And this guy was advising President Trump…..

Anyway, you talk about what you want. I just needed to get that out. As Jimmy Durante would say, “It showed up on my last X-ray as a safety pin!”

Oh, NOW Football Is Too Violent?

Kurt Streeter, the New York Times’ uber-woke, progressive sports columnist, had the nerve to post a column this week headlined, “We’re All Complicit in the N.F.L.’s Violent Spectacle.” Uh-uh, no sir, not me, baby. I have always found pro football repulsive and barbaric, and for many years have worked here and elsewhere to ensure that the NFL is accountable for crippling and killing its players for profit, which is what it does. A single player for unknown reasons goes into cardiac arrest mid-game this week, and suddenly people are discovering what a sick,  unethical sport professional football is? “My prayer, aside from seeing Hamlin leave that Cincinnati hospital able to live a fruitful, productive life, is that we never watch a single snap of an N.F.L. game the same way again,” Streeter intones. Oh Kurt, you’re so sensitive. You won’t watch it the “same way,” but you’ll keep earning money covering it, won’t you? Continue reading

Mid-Day Ethics Missives, 1/5/23: Fakes, Ghouls, Creeps, Hacks And Liars

Finally! I had fallen hopelessly behind in my efforts to compile the various Twitter Files releases in readable form, because, as they used to say, “the hits just keep on coming.” Now Matt Taibbi helpfully has compiled them all on his substack site, here: Capsule Summaries of all Twitter Files Threads to Date, With Links and a Glossary.”

I suppose I shouldn’t feel too bad about falling down on the job since it isn’t my job, though it is the news media’s. Those disgraceful full-time propagandists have made the disturbing revelations about how Twitter was manipulated into censoring conservatives, Republicans and actual news by Democrats and the FBI the Jumbo of all Jumbos: “Censorship? What censorship?”

Among the revelations this week was that Rep. Adam Schiff hectored Twitter to suspend journalist Paul Sperry. I’d call a House member conspiring with social media to silence a journalist a First Amendment violation, but that’s just me. (As the original reporter of the hunter Biden laptop story, the New York Post is an exception to the “mainstream media” slur. The New York Times—you know, the iconic newspaper in the city—hasn’t mentioned this story at all.)

1. Oops! Sorry we wrecked the economy, our children’s education and social development, the travel industry, the entertainment industry, the restaurant industry, and so on, and so on, but we had to DO somethingA new research paper indicates that the pre-vaccination case fatality rate was extremely low in the non-elderly population, meaning that the reaction to the pandemic was hysterical, irresponsible and unsupported by reality. At a global level, the pre-vaccination infection fatality rate may have been as low as 0.03% and 0.07% respectively for 0–59 and 0–69 year old people, respectively, with rates in the U.S. lower still.

The frustrating aspect of this is that there was no practical and politically feasible way for policy makers to resist the panic and hysteria deliberately created by health care professionals and the news media.

2. These are the kind of people our young regards as role models and “influencers.” Here’s actress and ethics dunce Gabriel Union explaining on the “Armchair Expert” podcast why she was “entitled” to cheat on Chris Howard during their “dysfunctional” marriage:

“I was paying all the bills, I was working my ass off and I felt like that’s what comes [with it]…Like my dad before me, whoever has the most gets to do whatever the hell they want, is what I thought.”

Nice explication of “The King’s Pass,” there, Gabriel! Continue reading

These Are Poisonous Fruit Of Squandered Trust

A just-released Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey concluded that 49% of American adults believe it is likely that Wuhan virus vaccines have caused a significant number of unexplained deaths. Twenty-eight percent think it’s “Very Likely” that the side effects of the vaccine have been deadly to many  in contrast with 37% who don’t believe that a significant number of deaths have been caused by vaccine side effects. Fourteen percent are not sure, the usual group that isn’t sure of anything.

You can question the accuracy of this poll or all polls, you can believe that the vaccine skeptics are hysterics, you can believe that these numbers are in large part the result of “misinformation.” However, there is no question that even if they are inaccurate, the numbers show a shocking level of distrust in the pandemic vaccines, and, by extension, vaccines in general as well the health professionals and elected officials who have promoted them. When asked if there are legitimate safety concerns surrounding the shots, or whether doubts have been seeded by conspiracy theorists, 48% said there that concerns are valid. Only 37% indicated that false conspiracy theories were behind the public’s fears.

Glenn Reynolds, the Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee College of Law and one of the most widely read conservative blogger, has it exactly right, writing, Continue reading

Apparently Congress Is Stuck With George Santos [Corrected]

I’m afraid I implied in an earlier post regarding New York’s pants-on-fire Congressman-elect George Santos that the House could refuse to seat him or force him to resign. That was wrong. His conduct, while unethical, did not breach House ethics rules because he wasn’t a member of Congress when he lied his head off gulling voters into electing him based on his complete misrepresentation of his background and qualifications. It’s a matter of jurisdiction. Why, punishing him would be like impeaching a former President who was no longer in office!

Prof. Turley, a Constitutional scholar, clarified the situation in a column for The Hill. He wrote in part,

The problem is that, for the most part, he is accused of something that is no crime in Congress: lying…More practically, Santos has constitutional defenses to any effort to bar him from taking his seat to represent New York’s 3rd Congressional District…. [Promised]investigations appear to be premised on the notion that a member of Congress can be denied a seat due to running on false claims….Nassau County District Attorney Anne Donnelly, a Republican, announced an investigation into “the numerous fabrications and inconsistencies associated with Congressman-elect Santos.” She added that “the residents of Nassau County and other parts of the third district must have an honest and accountable representative in Congress. No one is above the law and if a crime was committed in this county, we will prosecute it.”

The fact, however, is that no congressional district anywhere in the country is guaranteed “an honest and accountable representative.”…[Santos] must be seated if he is guilty only of lying about his credentials and background…Many Santos critics cite the fact that the Constitution expressly mandates in Section 5, Article I, that “Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own Members.” Those decisions on the outcome of elections have been treated as largely final and non-justiciable. However, this case is not a question over the counting or certification of votes but, rather, over the claims used to gain votes.

Continue reading