EXCLUSIVE: Berkeley Law School dean Erwin Chemerinsky explains how he has secretly enacted a policy of racial discrimination in faculty hiring—which is illegal in California.
— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) June 29, 2023
Nice. Violate the law, ignore basic fairness, and honesty, but as long as you don’t tell anyone and can’t be caught, it’s okay.
Chemerinsky is a well-established partisan hack whose legal commentary is almost always polluted by his leftist agenda, but this was low even for him. Do you ever wonder where unethical lawyers come from?
Classes like his.
And professors like him. Yale Law School’s Dean, Georgetown Law Center’s Dean, and others supposedly overseeing the training of tomorrow’s legal professionals have similarly made it clear with their actions and words that ethics are secondary to their political and social agendas. None have done so quite as flagrantly and smugly as Chemerinsky, however.
The advocacy for abortion has always relied heavily on Rationalization #64, “Yoo’s Rationalization” or “It isn’t what it is;” indeed abortion is one of the unethical tactic’s most prominent domains. For abortion isn’t a matter of “choice,” but rather a controversy over when and to what extent society should tolerate the killing of one human being (or millions) for the benefit of another. Calling the issue “a woman’s choice” is deliberate obfuscation.
Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut—and I will wrestle my hands to the floor to avoid typing some obvious and well-deserved characterizations of the woman—recently made the head-exploding argument that abortion was squarely supported by the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.
No, she really did. I’m not making this up! This was stated on social media by an elected official who is obligated to uphold the public trust. Here’s Rose:
Wisconsin State Senator LaTonya Johnson says “fuck the suburbs” on the senate floor during a debate on crime spilling from cities to suburbs. pic.twitter.com/YvlJy57uda
Much about this was predicted and predictable: the split, 6-3, in which the diversity trio (A wise Latina, the historic black woman, and a lesbian) took their required stand, and the decision’s spokesjustice, Roberts, who had signaled this result by famously saying, last time around this controversy, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” However, many thought the opinion would ultimately provide wiggle room for colleges, and it does not. From the opinion, here, by Chief Justice Roberts, who reflected on Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s observation in a previous affirmative action case that “25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today” (which signaled that the Court was allowing an exception to Constitutional requirements continue for a limited period):
Twenty years later, no end is in sight. “Harvard’s view about when [race-based admissions will end] doesn’t have a date on it.” Tr. of Oral Arg. in No. 20–1199, p. 85; Brief for Respondent in No. 20–1199, p. 52. Neither does UNC’s. 567 F. Supp. 3d, at 612. Yet both insist that the use of race in their admissions programs must continue.
But we have permitted race-based admissions only within the confines of narrow restrictions. University programs must comply with strict scrutiny, they may never use race as a stereotype ornegative, and—at some point—they must end. Respondents’ admissions systems—however well intentioned and implemented in good faith—fail each of these criteria. They must therefore be invalidated under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment….
It is true that our cases have recognized a “tradition of giving a degree of deference to a university’s academic decisions.” Grutter, 539 U. S., at 328. But we have been unmistakably clear that any deference must exist “within constitutionally prescribed limits,” ibid., and that “deference does not imply abandonment or abdication of judicial review,” Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537U. S. 322, 340 (2003). Universities may define their missions as they see fit. The Constitution defines ours. Courts may not license separating students on the basis of race without an exceedingly persuasive justification that is measurable and concrete enough to permit judicial review.
I particularly want to applaud Roberts’ clear statement that the use of “diversity” by colleges to justify discrimination is undefined, pie-in-the-sky hooey, if not outright flim-flammery:
Unlike discerning whether a prisoner will be injured or whether an employee should receive backpay, the question whether a particular mix of minority students produces “engaged and productive citizens,” sufficiently “enhance[s] appreciation, respect, and empathy,” or effectively “train[s] future leaders” is standardless. 567 F. Supp. 3d, at 656; 980 F. 3d, at 173–174. The interests that respondents seek, though plainly worthy, are inescapably imponderable.
Later, the Chief chides Harvard et al. for the obvious phoniness and arbitrary nature of their categories:
“The University defends the truth,” says the Harvard logo. ‘The emblem shows respect for science, using only verified facts within the University’s walls and a willingness to defend the truth.’ Yet as it relates to climate change, the University has set aside obvious truths and brought together its five professional schools supporting the new “Save the Planet” religious dogma of the past decade.”
—Harvard M.B.A John W. Jenkins, in a letter to the alumni magazine protesting the University’s complicity in promoting “imprudent policies perpetuated on our populations by Green environmental activists whose view of history is only 20 years deep.”
Jenkins, whom I have thus far not succeeded in contacting, has authored one of the clearest and most persuasive debunking of current climatic change cant, and perfectly chastised our mutual alma mater, Harvard, for its cowardly and irresponsible alliance with an unethical and destructive movement. The author appears to be in his late eighties, and more skilled in communication than graduates half, indeed a quarter his age.
Harvard Magazine published his letter, but I am trying hard to believe it was a coincidence that its second half was difficult to locate due to a pagination error. I hope Mr. Jenkins does not mind Ethics Alarms re-publishing his entire statement. It deserves to be seen by as many people as possible. The whole thing is an Ethics Quote of the Month. Here it is:
Maybe this case helped convince Donald Trump that he should sue E. Jean Carroll, the victorious plaintiff in the sexual assault case against him, for defamation.
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 7-0 that a former Yale student is not immune from being sued for defamation by the male student she accused of raping her. Saifullah Khan was found not guilty in a criminal trial of raping “Jane Doe” in her dorm room in October 2015 in what Khan insisted, and a jury agreed, was an incident of consensual sex. Yale had expelled Khan using the “preponderance of the evidence” standard forced on educational institutions by the Obama Department of Education.
The court determined that because Khan had fewer rights to defend himself in university proceedings, which, again prompted by the Obama administration, provided limited due process protections, his accuser should not benefit from the civil immunity granted to witnesses in criminal proceedings. “Statements made in sexual misconduct disciplinary proceedings that are offered and accepted without adequate procedural safeguards carry too great a risk of unfair or unreliable outcomes,” the unanimous opinion held.
Justice Samuel Alito did not disclose a 2008 trip on the private jet of Paul Singer, a billionaire GOP donor, and did not recuse himself from a later case involving Singer’s hedge fund. Since the Supreme Court is now under a sustained attack by Democrats and progressives, partially because of the Dobbs ruling (How dare unelected judges rule that unelected judges shouldn’t decide matters the Constitution leaves to legislators?) and partially because they see the current conservative-leaning Court as its greatest roadblock to a socialist, quasi-totalitarian Nirvana, his best, most responsible and most ethical course was to admit he made a mistake, show that he understood the public’s concern, and vow to be more mindful of his conduct going forward.
Instead, Alito penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed defending his indefensible conduct, declaring himself as innocent as a newborn lamb, and, of course, making things worse. His piece was full of legalistic hair-splitting to explain why he was well-within the requirements of the Ethics in Government Act, but the universal ethics requirement that judges must avoid the appearance of impropriety does not rest upon legal niceties. It rests upon how the public perceives things, and most of the public can’t read a statute and don’t read court opinions.
What in the world would make Lance Armstrong, who edges out Barry Bonds for the title of most infamous high-profile cheater in recent U.S. sports history (Barry had an advantage because he cheated in a far more popular (in this country) and lucrative sport, baseball, than cycling), think anyone wants to hear him expound on “fairness in sports”? It is the biological males and post-puberty transitioners clobbering female athletes that have Lance expounding. Observe his tweeted concerns:
Have we really come to a time and place where spirited debate is not only frowned upon, but feared? Where people’s greatest concern is being fired, shamed or cancelled? As someone all too familiar with this phenomenon, I feel I’m uniquely positioned to have these conversations. Of all the controversial and polarizing subjects out there today, I’m not sure there are any as heated as the topic of Trans athletes in sport.
Is there not a world in which one can be supportive of the transgender community and curious about the fairness of Trans athletes in sport yet not be labeled a transphobe or a bigot as we ask questions? Do we yet know the answers? And do we even want to know the answers?
I do. Hence these conversations… a special series of The Forward, beginning Monday, where I dive into this issue with an open mind in an attempt learn as much as possible from all sides of the debate. I truly hope you enjoy this series. And I hope that for those who have been reluctant to have this conversation, this somehow feels safe. Be fearless.’
Kurt Streeter is allegedly the New York Times; primary sports pundit, but if he has written more than a handful of columns that didn’t drag race into his commentary, I’d be surprised. Most sports fans would be happy never to have to think about the obsessions of partisans and social justice warriors while following their favorite teams and athletes, but it is the mission of activists posing as sports analysts to have that hope a pipe dream.
In his latest column, Streeter marvels at Luis Arraez, a Miami Marlins infielder and last year’s American League batting champion, who is making the first plausible run at a season-long .400 average since George Brett came close (.390) in 1980. Arraez, who makes the softest contact in the Major Leagues and might best be compared to “Wee” Willie Keeler, a 19th Century star known for poking baseballs “where they ain’t,” is a fun story this season, but Streeter being Streeter, he must examine Arraez through a racial lens. “No player,” Streeter informs us portentously, “has ever finished a season batting at or above .400 since Major League Baseball became an integrated game.”
Ah! I get it: Streeter is saying that all those other.400 seasons by white players aren’t really legit, because they didn’t have to face all the great black pitchers who were being kept out of the game by racism. In this he includes Ted Williams, the last .400 hitter (.406 in 1941), just a bit short of Babe Ruth as the greatest hitter in MLB history, implying that if “Teddy Ballgame” was playing in a fair league, he might not have hit .400 at all.
The contention can’t be proved or disproved, of course, but this is the second time in a week I’ve heard the argument and it is illogical and offensive. Consider:
There are unmistakable signs that the mainstream news media, that is, the propaganda arm of the progressive Borg and the Democratic Party, may be ready to report on the Biden family influence-peddling scandal that they have been burying for years. The reason seems to be that they have decided that Biden is a Dead President Walking, and the sooner he can be LBJed and forced to withdraw from the 2024 Presidential race, the more likely it is that the “resistance”/ Democrats/MSM’s “Get Trump!” efforts will finally succeed. Yesterday, the White House Counsel issued this fascinating bit of subterfuge:
“As we have said many times before, the President was not in business with his son. As we have also said many times before, the Justice Department makes decisions in its criminal investigations independently, and in this case, the White House has not been involved. As the President has said, he loves his son and is proud of him accepting responsibility for his actions and is proud of what he is doing to rebuild his life.”
Wow, hanging a straw man and moving the goalposts at the same time! When was the issue ever Joe “being in business with his son?” The question is and remains the degree to which the President was aware of Hunter’s influence peddling schemes in which Joe was a necessary participant, when he learned about them, if he facilitated them (out of love, naturally) and whether he has been lying about all of it.
It pays to be the king, doesn’t it? Queen Elizabeth, may she rest in peace, used to say the best approach is “never complain, never explain.” She could do it too, because she didn’t answer to anyone. Democrats in office have a tendency to believe that they answer to no one, and given that Biden supposedly got the most votes of any president to date, more popular even than his old boss, why should they think otherwise? The thing is, it’s one thing for Buckingham Palace issue a statement saying that his majesty is done discussing a wayward, publicity seeking second son, it’s quite another to simply refuse to address obvious corrupt dealings and tell the press to pipe down.
1. It’s not a matter of incompetence for the White House not to have an answer prepared for this question. It’s a matter of the White House refusing to answer this question until the media gets the point, and moves on.
2. …And until the public gets the message that this issue is over and moves on to re-electing our most incompetent president yet, making sure we keep dangerous demagogues out of the White House.
3. It worked for Bill, didn’t it? Deny until you can no longer deny, then trickle information out so slowly that the media and the public forget about it, then say it’s a closed issue and you have important work to do, so let’s move on, already.
4. Turley is absolutely right, but his being right has no more value than classmates who see the class bully beating up the least popular member of the class. No one is going to do anything about it. .
6. If you wonder what they would have said you can always go over to Democratic underground or the Daily Kos. Same effect without having to put up with garbage from blue Kool-Aid drinkers and Bidenbots who display all the intelligence of a slug.
7. It looks like the nation dodged a bullet. McConnell did the wrong thing by refusing to grant a hearing to a nominee, and he did it for the wrong reasons by trying to shaft the sitting president, but in the end, he got the right result, which was keeping a partisan hack off the Supreme Court. Frankly, Obama has no one but himself to blame. He was the one who refused to build the relationships with members of Congress from the other party that he needed in order to work effectively with them and get important things done. He was the one who looked down his nose at the other party and characterized them as the enemy. He was also the one who was not able to persuade the notorious RBG not to step down while the stepping was good, so she died just in the nick of time so that she could be replaced by (horrors!) a conservative woman. In effect, it’s as much his fault as anyone else’s that Roe v Wade is history. Chuck the Schmuck helped set the precedent, though, when he said that the Senate should basically declare judicial nominations closed when there were 18 months still to go in George W. Bush’s second term.
It really all boils down to one political party having to eat the bitter herbs of their previous errors.
That said, all of this has a chance, maybe even a very good chance, of blowing up in the Democratic Party’s face. Maybe it gets to the point where the media can’t ignore it, or maybe someone in the mainstream media grows a backbone. Maybe someone at Fox gets in touch with a contact like Woodward and Bernstein. It’s a race between this fuse finally reaching the keg of TNT and the next election, and no one really knows how long this fuse is. I hope it goes kablooey before this nation can be deceived into giving this senile old puppet and his masters a second chance, but we’ll see.
Ethics Alarms 