I have a two-hour session on professionalism and legal ethics to teach this morning, so I’m going to ask readers to submit and discuss their own ethics stories, issues and observations a day early. Surprise!
Pop Quiz: Without cheating, can you identify the handsome Confederate general above, and why he’s an appropriate symbol of today’s Open Forum?
Well this was certainly refreshing and unexpected!
Donald Trump-knockoff billionaire Mark Cuban stated in gratuitous tweet that he has “never hired anyone based exclusively on race, gender, religion,” but that “race and gender can be part of the equation” because he believes “diversity is a competitive advantage.”
What virtue-signaling claptrap! What does that last part even mean? Does Harvard consider that its acceptance of diversity as a substitute for genuine credentials and ability has given the university a “competitive advantage” as it competes for the best students, faculty and donors? Yesterday, in addition to having it revealed that its top DEI officer is a DEI hire herself who rose to predominance with the assistance of bogus scholarship, a wealthy donor who last year gave the university $300,000,000 dollars announced that he was through. “Will America’s elite university get back to their roots of educating American children – young adults – to be the future leaders of our country or are they going to maintain being lost in the wilderness of microaggressions [and]a DEI agenda that seems to have no real endgame…?” Ken Griffin asked in response to being asked if he could be lured back as a donor. Continue reading
A poll conducted by Redfield & Wilton Strategies for Newsweek found that 18% of voters are “more likely” or “significantly more likely” to vote for a candidate endorsed by pop singer Taylor Swift.
Taylor Swift has been essentially dedicated to music since she was 14, though she did graduate from high school in three years. There is nothing she has to offer in trenchant political commentary besides celebrity, and to a large number of Americans, as we already know, that’s enough.
So naturally, as the buzz was in Washington, D.C. today, the Biden campaign is working hard to get Swift to endorse Joe, if possible at the Super Bowl.
It is estimated that 8 million new voters will enter the ranks of the US electorate this year, making a total of 41 million Gen Z voters. This is also a group that surveys show has a low opinion of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, free enterprise and the United States generally, so maybe they don’t even need Swift’s OK to vote Democratic. My guess, and maybe I’m whistling past the metaphorical graveyard, is that most of that 18% may be more likely to vote if Taylor tells them who to vote for, but the majority of them won’t be engaged enough to vote anyway.
If the election is going to turn on somethings as trivial and meaningless as celebrity endorsements, its not even worth worrying about. Those idiots will deserve what they get, and so will their elders, for letting society and the culture get that stupid.
I didn’t want to start the day with an Unethical Quote of the Month right after last night’s post, but attention should be paid to what California governor Gavin Newsom told a stunned Jonathan Karl on ABC News’ “This Week” yesterday. The full quote was: “We have the best three-year record of any modern American Presidency, period, full stop. And you look at the issue, issue by issue, they poll overwhelmingly, the American people support what Biden has done.”
What’s going on here? The most recent polling shows Biden with the worst three-year approval rating going back to Gerald Ford half a century ago (my, how time flies). How could the American people “overwhelmingly” support (“approve of” is a synonym for “support”) what Biden has done while roughly two-thirds tell pollsters that they think he’s a lousy President?
I write this in a state of advanced disgust over the predictable but still nauseating reaction by the legal ethics community (as represented on the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers, of which I am a member) to the still roiling Fani Willis scandal. This is a, I estimate, a 80%-20% woke profession, and I may be being generous. Not only did group’s hyperactive listserv conspicuously ignore the story despite it being by far the most high-profile legal ethics controversy in many months, but when the topic was finally broached yesterday, it was to brush aside the obvious conflict of interest as irrelevant to the case’s defendants, including Donald Trump. (This is a passionately Trump-Deranged group to the point that vocal dissenters are risk professional blackballing.) This CNN opinion piece by a member has been virtually unanimously praised, despite employing blatant “whataboutism”: “Willis may have engaged in nepotism (as when President John F. Kennedy appointed his brother Robert Kennedy to be US attorney general or when Trump appointed his daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner to positions in his presidential administration).” For some strange reason, the legal ethicist association seems to be willing to accept the dubious proposition that even though Willis’s alleged legal lover is profiting greatly from his involvement in the case (and that she may be receiving benefits from that profit in the form of travel and other baubles of affection), this could not reasonably be seen as a factor undermining her required independent judgment in managing the case as his supervisor.
Well, the group is still a valuable resource the 95% of the time that progressive politics aren’t involved…
1. Oh…about that headline! It’s my “Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!” note of the day. It’s a real headline from a real story, but dates from March 2023. Legal Insurrection wrote about its author here. But I missed it, and as the saying goes, if it’s new to you, it’s still news….
It couldn’t be that it’s trying to drum up more abortion business, could it? Nah, that would be…unethical. Unless, of course, one likes abortions.
Watch, if you have the stomach for it, that video above, which Planned Parenthood promoted this way:
New York City proudly proclaimed this week that it is the first city in the U.S. to issue an advisory officially designating social media as a health hazard, and illustrated its achievement with head-exploding nanny state (nanny city?) overreach in a “health advisory.”
What the document mostly demonstrates is the culture’s flat learning curve regarding unstoppable cultural developments. In earlier generations, it was dime novels, dancing, jazz, rock-n-roll, TV and rap lyrics that communities sought to ban to protect the young. Now it’s social media. These are desperation screams in the dark. It is amusing, I must say, to see a far-left East Coast city government like New York’s take this course: traditionally it has been conservatives and their church-going contingent in Middle America who have advocated radical steps to”save the children.” “A pool table, don’t you understand?”
January is always slow around these parts thanks to holiday hangovers, but January 2024 was especially quiet. I have no idea why; it was certainly full of ethics news, and I know (by looking at my backed-up inventory) that I didn’t cover everything I should have.
This is the last chance to salvage the month’s honor and send us into February with some momentum.
So belly up to the bar….
At least I hope so.
What’s going on here?From my perch, I see two Arizona politicians I wouldn’t trust to take out the trash setting each other’s career on fire. And, with any luck, both will burn to the ground.
The chairman of Arizona’s Republican Party, Jeff DeWit, resigned this week a day after The Daily Mail released a 10-minute recording of his conversation with Kari Lake, the recent losing GOP candidate for Arizona governor, seemingly offering her a bribe to drop her plans to run for the U.S. Senate in 2024.
The recording reveals Jeff DeWit, the state party chair, telling Lake that there are “very powerful people that want to keep you out” of the race. He says they told him to ask her if “there any companies out there or something that could just put her on the payroll and give her — to keep her out?” DeWit repeatedly urges Lake not to repeat what he is saying to anyone, and asks, “Is there a number at which — ” before Ms. Lake interrupts, saying “I can be bought?” “Not be bought,” he answers, just, you know, wait a few years before running. She sounds offended by the offer. “That’s immoral — I couldn’t look at myself in the mirror,” she says on the recording. DeWit persists: “I actually just wish you’d give me a counteroffer that’s big. Lake answers: “I can’t be bought.”
Holy cow, as Phil Rizzuto used to say.
I got a lot of eye-rolling, real and metaphorical, after I announced my petition aimed at persuading the Harvard Corporation to address the university’s credibility problem in the wake of the Claudine Gay scandal by offering the Harvard presidency to Barack Obama. As far as I can tell, I was among first to make the suggestion in print.
Today the New York Post reports, “Last week the Harvard presidency job was offered to Obama. He deferred the suggestion. Didn’t outright reject. Deferred.”
My Change.org petition pretty much died on the vine last week. Maybe a surge of support could tilt O toward Cambridge and give him something to do besides operating a shadow third term in the White House.
See? I’m smart! Not like everybody says, dumb! ….
Ethics Alarms 