Campus censorship is used against the Left at least as much as by the Left. And a ban on criticizing deceased public figures is a recipe for propaganda.
(updated below [Wed.])
On the day the death of Justice Antonin Scalia was announced, Georgetown Law School issued an official statement and press release headlined “Georgetown Law Mourns the Loss of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.” It quoted the school’s dean, William M. Treanor, heaping unqualified praise on the highly controversial justice.
“Scalia was a giant in the history of the law, a brilliant jurist whose opinions and scholarship profoundly transformed the law,” Dean Treanor pronounced. “Like countless academics, I learned a great deal from his opinions and his scholarship. In the history of the Court, few justices have had such influence on the way in which the law is understood.” Moreover, “he cared passionately about the profession, about the law and about the future. … We will all miss him.” It went on and on in that vein.
That’s all well and good: If Dean Treanor revered Justice Scalia and his jurisprudence, there is no reason why he should refrain from expressing those sentiments. It’s a bit odd for the official statement of a major law school to depict Scalia as though he were some sort of universally beloved figure, but there’s nothing wrong with Dean Treanor personally advocating his viewpoint. That, after all, is one of the primary purposes of academic institutions: airing differing views and perspectives and vigorously debating them.
Two Georgetown law professors, Mike Seidman and Gary Peller, disagreed with Dean Treanor’s glowing assessment of Scalia and said so. That night, Seidman posted a brief email to the dean and faculty noting: “Our norms of civility preclude criticizing public figures immediately after their death.” As a result, said Seidman, “all I’ll say is that I disagree with these sentiments and that expressions attributed to the ‘Georgetown Community’ in the press release issued this evening do not reflect the views of the entire community.”
A full two days after Scalia’s death, Professor Peller wrote an email — first to the dean and the faculty, and thereafter to the entire law school — explaining his dissent from the dean’s praise. Like a huge number of Americans generally, and legal professionals particularly, Professor Peller viewed Scalia’s role on the Supreme Court as toxic in the extreme, and he explained why.
Professor Peller wrote that he was “put off” by the official statement praising Scalia, and that he “imagine[s] many other faculty, students, and staff, particularly people of color, women, and sexual minorities, cringed at [the] headline and at the unmitigated praise with which the press release described a jurist that many of us believe was a defender of privilege, oppression, and bigotry, one whose intellectual positions were not brilliant but simplistic and formalistic.” He added that Scalia “was not a legal figure to be lionized or emulated by our students. He bullied lawyers, trafficked in personal humiliation of advocates, and openly sided with the party of intolerance in the ‘culture wars’ he often invoked. In my mind, he was not a ‘giant’ in any good sense.”
So far, so good: right? The Georgetown dean lionized Scalia as a “brilliant jurist” from whom we all learned so very much and whom we will “all miss,” while a law professor objected to that view and argued that Scalia was actually a destructive presence on the Court. That sounds to me like exactly the sort of debate that one should find at a major U.S. law school, the sort of debate thinking adults have on a daily basis. Vehement criticisms of Scalia have long been, and still are, commonplace; The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin this week wrote that Scalia “devoted his professional life to making the United States a less fair, less tolerant, and less admirable democracy.”
But two conservative law professors on the Georgetown faculty are indignant that this debate took place at all. The right-wing duo, Randy Barnett and Nick Rosenkranz (a senior Rubio adviser), sent their own email denouncing Peller’s anti-Scalia statement: not on substantive grounds that he was wrong on the merits about Scalia, but insisting that he had no right to criticize Scalia at all.
They began with an incredibly petty accusation that Professor Peller broke the law school’s rules in posting his statement; it was, they said, “in violation of the stated policies governing such emails.” By contrast, the two professors boasted, they “sought and received permission to post this response in an attempt to remedy the harm caused by the initial breach of our norms.”
After they each recounted fond personal memories they shared with Justice Scalia (“We had lunch together at his favorite pizza place, AV Ristorante. … We once sang a song together, believe it or not: Oh, Danny Boy”), they jointly moved to the crux of their grievance: It was “simply cruel beyond words” to subject these two professors to criticisms of their beloved hero. They literally said that:
To hear from one’s colleagues, within hours of the death of a hero, mentor, and friend, that they resent any implication that they might mourn his death — that, in effect, they are glad he is dead — is simply cruel beyond words.
They added, “But, though the insult and cruelty of our colleagues was grievous, at least only two of us had to bear it.” We had to bear it.
The real tragedy took place when Professor Peller decided that not only Georgetown law professors but students as well should be subjected to the unimaginable cruelty of reading his Scalia critique. You just have to read what these two law professors wrote to believe it:
Although this email was upsetting to us, we could only imagine what it was like for these students. Some of them are 22-year-old 1Ls, less than six months into their legal education. But we did not have to wait long to find out. Leaders of the Federalist Society chapter and of the student Republicans reached out to us to tell us how traumatized, hurt, shaken, and angry, were their fellow students. Of particular concern to them were the students who are in Professor Peller’s class who must now attend class knowing of his contempt for Justice Scalia and his admirers, including them. How are they now to participate freely in class? What reasoning would be deemed acceptable on their exams? …
Sadly, as just two professors on a faculty of 125, we are in no position to offer much reassurance to our students, beyond reporting that we have heard on the faculty email list, and privately, from a few of our Georgetown colleagues who objected to these messages. All we can do, really, is convey our solidarity with our wonderful students. We share your pain. We share your anger. We stand with you. You are not alone. Be strong as Justice Scalia was strong. Remember, he heard far worse about himself than we have, and yet never wavered in both his convictions and his joy for life.
But make no mistake: Civil discourse at Georgetown has suffered a grievous blow. It is a time for mourning indeed.
Beyond this remarkable display of condescension to “22-year-old 1Ls” who apparently cannot hear criticisms of public officials they like, and beyond the flamboyant and bottomless self-pity, the two right-wing professors called for official “remedies” to be imposed by the dean. Citing the widely debated controversy at Yale last year, they wrote that having to endure criticisms of Scalia is “clearly the most grievous imaginable macro-aggression against all conservative students and faculty.” As a result, they argued, “this incident calls for remedies at least as substantial” as the ones imposed at Yale, “and an equally powerful statement” from the dean denouncing the “micro-aggression.”
These two conservative professors are not ironically invoking a caricature of left-wing PC “safe space” rhetoric in order to ridicule it. They clearly really mean what they have written; they believe that they and conservatives students have been brutalized and victimized by hearing criticisms of Antonin Scalia; and they are seriously demanding “remedies” be imposed to punish the offending professor.
The significance of this goes far beyond what New York’s Jesse Singal correctly describes as two conservative professors “adopting campus lefty-speak in the service of a conservative argument.” Singal is right that their argument is grounded in “a particularly high-strung idea about dissenting views [that] has taken hold: namely, that dissenting views on hot-button issues don’t just lead to bad policy but actually do psychological harm to students who are exposed to them, or even exposed to the knowledge that they are being expressed somewhere on campus.” As David Perry notes, Georgetown Law’s Black Law Students Association did quickly note the glaring irony.
For some reason, national pundits who love to denounce “PC” campus censorship and parade around as free speech crusaders obsessively focus on left-wing censorship while ignoring other kinds of campus viewpoint-suppression that are far more common. As I’ve documented repeatedly, the most common form of campus censorship — punishment and other official limitations imposed on activists working against Israeli occupation of Palestine — is almost always completely ignored in this pundit debate.
Indeed, it’s common for those seeking to suppress left-wing views on college campuses to invoke exactly the same “safe space” rhetoric. As we noted last week in reporting on the growing criminalization of the BDS movement, the University of Illinois student who led the campaign to have Steven Salaita fired for his pro-Gaza tweets, himself a former AIPAC intern, told the New York Times when justifying this campaign: “Hate speech is never acceptable for those applying for a tenured position; incitement to violence is never acceptable. … There must be a relationship between free speech and civility.” Another “pro-Israel” student demanding Salaita’s firing said, “It’s about feeling safe on campus.” This is seen over and over: “PC” censorship is almost always depicted as a left-wing phenomenon even though it is directed at least as commonly at the Left as it is wielded by them.
But what this Georgetown Law controversy even more strongly illustrates is how and why the “etiquette” rule against speaking ill of a recently deceased individual is so wildly inapplicable, and so dangerous, when it comes to influential public figures. As I’ve written before in the context of the deaths of Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Christopher Hitchens, this “rule” — that one is allowed only to express praise and admiration for a public figure who dies but not criticism or dissent — is a recipe for unchallenged propaganda. Manipulative commentators exploit this post-death period to create unearned, baseless hagiography of these influential actors, and that hagiography is then consecrated and endures as Truth because nobody is allowed to dissent from it — because doing so is deemed gauche, uncivil, indecent, and “cruel beyond words.”
It is extremely consequential how the legacy of Scalia’s jurisprudence is understood. That understanding will affect all sorts of vital decisions in the future, from new court appointees to the methods used to understand and apply the law. This rule that dictates that only praise but not criticism of Scalia can be expressed — under the guise of “etiquette” and “decency” — is a deceitful tactic for winning an important public debate without having to actually engage the arguments.
We’re not talking about Scalia, the Friend, or Scalia, the Grandfather. Virtually none of us knew him in those roles. We’re talking about Scalia, the highly polarizing, highly controversial Supreme Court justice whose actions and beliefs affected the lives of millions of people. We’re not guests at his family’s house for a wake. We’re citizens shaping how he and his public actions will be understood and remembered and perceived. Trying to suppress any criticisms of him, so that only adulation can flourish, is worse than irrational; it’s propagandistic.
That doesn’t mean one should express glee that Scalia is dead, nor does it mean that if one is a family friend of his relatives that one should spout criticisms in their grieving faces. But it most certainly does mean that from the moment public adulation of someone like this is permitted, so, too, must criticisms of him be permitted. That is especially true at an academic institution devoted to the study, practice, and debate of law. To insist that only one side is permitted to be heard — the side that hails Scalia as a benevolent genius — is as oppressive and anti-intellectual as it gets.
So, yes, by all means, we should be mocking these right-wing professors for invoking the most extreme and dubious version of the “safe space” rationale that dictates that adult students must never be exposed to arguments they find upsetting. But, more importantly, we should realize the actual game that is being played here: to distort public discourse on highly consequential matters by banning dissent on the grounds that it is “cruel,” “traumatizing,” and “uncivil.”
UPDATE: Professor Barnett, in a discussion with me on Twitter, insists that when demanding “remedies” similar to what were granted at Yale, the two professors merely wanted Georgetown Law’s Dean to take steps to increase diversity on the faculty, not formally prevent criticisms of Scalia being expressed. At the very least, this seems unclear, given that they accused Professor Peller of violating the rules of the law school with his email and noted that if anyone had similarly criticized Thurgood Marshall upon his death “the Georgetown reaction would justly be swift, dramatic, and severe.”
I also asked him about the suggestions made by some (which I did not believe) that they were insincere in their statements, and were just ironically invoking left-wing “trauma” rhetoric in order to mock it. Professor Barnett insists that they were indeed sincere in their statements, and I believe him:
@ggreenwald We were not trolling. We were attempting to support our students, who were heading back to classes. They profusely thanked us.
— Randy Barnett (@RandyEBarnett) February 24, 2016
I may have shown a modicum of gentility when Scalia died, since after all he was occasionally on the right side of some decisions. But today, well, TODAY I’m just trying to sing along:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHQLQ1Rc_Js
Ya know, this damn thing is a lot harder to sing than I thought. Poor Nancy… she deserves to have somebody get the song right…
I had to laugh at the idea of Randy Barnett traumatized by the thought of suffering students, of the right-wing persuasion. Back when I was in his class, he was a self-proclaimed anarchist and a real hard-ass. Now he’s weeping salty tears for Scalia and is worried about how this will affect the tender hearts of first-year law students at Georgetown. He must be getting senile. (Hello, Randy!)
Couldn’t agree more, the state of discourse on campuses across America is at an all time low. We’ve all seen the videos at Dartmouth, Yale, Mizzou, now Gergetown law! Absurd. Also absurd is for one side of a debate to demand a ‘safe space’ while simultaneously attacking another’s.. But that’s not what happened here.. Oh wait..
“Black Law Students association fired back that they were “shaken and angry,” when someone even had the audacity to pose a hypothetical on whether such criticism raised against Thurgood Marshall would have been appropriate.”
Seems to Glen it matters more who? / whom? vs. representing the facts.
Wow. Just think if Georgetown loses money over this.
From someone. On either side.
Wow.
Those poor students.
How could anyone expect them to live normal lives after such trauma as this.
We are lucky that they haven’t all committed suicide to avoid living in a world where people’s opinions are just tossed around like…free people saying things.
O, the humanity.
“That doesn’t mean one should express glee that Scalia is dead, nor does it mean that if one is a family friend of his relatives that one should spout criticisms in their grieving faces. But it most certainly does mean that from the moment public adulation of someone like this is permitted, so, too, must criticisms of him be permitted. That is especially true at an academic institution devoted to the study, practice, and debate of law. To insist that only one side is permitted to be heard — the side that hails Scalia as a benevolent genius — is as oppressive and anti-intellectual as it gets.”
This quote says it all and is a sad indication of how ignorant and dumbed-down the participants in the public square have become in our so-called democracy where free-speech is micro-managed by right-winged authoritarians who want to control what is being said in the public discourse. The irony can’t be overlooked that this is happening in “institutions of higher education” which as the handlers of our youth have completely taken advantage of the professor-student relationship which is suppose to be one of mentor, teacher and educator. It’s demoralizing that Mr. Greenwald has to point out the obvious to those who (law professors and deans) claim to be the gatekeepers of wisdom and understanding of our first amendment. Shame be bestowed upon them!!!!!
I take it that Georgetown Law is a school for white males.
If I recall, the PC sensitivity to conservative viewpoints (and icons) began on the liberal side of the aisle. The concept of safe spaces and trigger warnings originated from the left and continues to this day. Despite their denials, I think protesters were indeed mocking their liberal peers to clearly illustrate the law of physics which states: For every action their is an equal and opposite reaction.
How about an example.
It doesn’t help that Scalia’s primary form of preferred jurisprudence has been long misinterpreted (or ignorantly simplified) by many mainstream media outlets, especially as if to place him in juxtaposition to his apparent polar opposites on the bench, like Breyers. For example, he’s described as an “originalist”, as if only the conservative justices ever are, and that originalism is therefore somehow associated with conservative jurisprudence only. And thus, conversely, the structured reasoning Bader-Ginsberg employs must be a liberal method.
But they ALL use these methods. They’re very basic methods. What distinguishes Scalia was that he tapped -original thinking-. Not quite the same as originalism. Original thinking examined the ideas of “The People” at the time of ratification: that is, the people who voted. Which, of course, was a very, very limited group. But he tapped them preeminently. His own special little brand of populism.
I’d take Breyers’ juridical internationalism over Scalia’s original thinking jurisprudence -anyday-. Who gives a flying eff what rich old white slave-owning men thought about politics in the 1780s? Oh yeah. Rich old white men in 2016, that’s who.
Obviously these two profs don’t know much about human psychology. As Epictetus said 2K years ago, “Man is not disturb by the events of his life but by the beliefs he hold about them”. It’s really these kids pre-existing beliefs that caused them to be “traumatized”, including the demand that everyone believe the same things they do about Scalia. Not to mention, the whole term “traumatized” is about as scientifically bogus as it gets. Were these kids beaten physically, or verbally abused? Someone just had an opinion they did like and that didn’t fit with their worldview, one which they probably got from their parents anyway. These two professors should be disciplined for malpractice. Last I heard, anyone who lives in the US has a right to have an opinion, and we don’t all have to agree on how to look at things, or people.
Gee. Guess you clowns didn’t read the liberal version of traumatized college students need space to heal. So pathetic. So biased. Such LIARS.
I agree wholeheartedly with the two professors who took exception to the Dean’s praise of Justice Scalia. The damage his influence on the court has done to our nation is akin to the damage the George W. Bush/Dick Cheney administration has inflicted–needlessly- on our nation. And further, if law students aren’t confronted with at least two sides of an argument, how well-prepared will they be, how rigorous is their jurisprudence? And I applaud Pres. Obama’s decision to attend only the lying in state ceremony, an official one and not attend the funeral of a man whose partisanship and personal religious views were hostile to this marvelous president. May he rest agitatedly—or in terms of his Roman Church, may he never leave limbo.
Aw, did they get their feelings hurt? What a shame.
Maybe those students need to start over in kindergarten and learn how to deal with the world.
“traumatized, hurt, shaken, and angry” Oh, the poor dears! How dare anyone rub their love of racism and misogyny in their faces.
In defense of Seidman and Peller, I imagine that as children, they must have been quite shocked when those Munchkins starting singing “Ding Dong the Witch Is Dead.” Sometimes, it’s just impossible to get over our earliest traumas.
“[T]hat one is allowed only to express praise and admiration for a public figure who dies but not criticism or dissent — is a recipe for unchallenged propaganda.”
A recipe toxic to democratic principles.
Excellent article, as always, Glenn. Thought you may be interested to know a religious perspective on speaking ill of the dead.
Islam prohibits speaking ill of the dead. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said to his companions, “Do not speak ill of the dead; they have seen the result of the deeds that they forwarded before them.”
The only exception to this rule, within the Islamic tradition, is when someone praises an individual who had openly engaged in evil deeds. Here, we are permitted to mention their evil deeds so as to ensure that others do not take them as an example to follow.
Interestingly, we have an authentic tradition whereby a person had praised a recently deceased individual in front of Umar, one of the Prophet Muhammad’s closest companions and second in command. Umar asked the man: “Did you travel with him?” He replied: “I did not travel with him.” He then asked the man: “Did you have any business dealings with him ?” The man again answered: “No, I had no dealings with him.” Umar then said: “Go away! You do not know that person.” This particular example is often cited in Islamic law and demonstrates the importance of interacting with an individual in different settings in order to accurately judge them. It also warns against the baseless praise that many individuals receive in public.
The final report I would like to mention is an incident where a funeral procession passed by the Prophet Muhammad and his companions, peace be upon them. His companions had praised the deceased. The Prophet, peace be upon him, exclaimed, ‘It is decided.’ Then another funeral procession passed by and his companions had highlights some negative aspects about the deceased. The Prophet, peace be upon him, remarked, ‘It is decided.’ ‘Umar asked: ‘What is decided?’ The Prophet, peace be upon him, answered, ‘The one whom you praised is entitled to Paradise, and the one whom you described as bad is entitled to the Fire. You are God’s witnesses on earth’.” Of course, the people are praising here are of a different callibre and therefore their judgements were held in greater esteem by the Prophet, then any ol’ person. But I thought I would mention it nonetheless.
This is an interesting slant on the matter I have not heard before. Thank you for the input.
Dangerous times are about to get deadly with the ascendance of President Trump and his ilk (such as highly educated professors out to stifle free speech). They will be able to put teeth into their repressive efforts. Mock me now, but mark my words: People are gonna die when they get to power.
Trump’s “ilk”
are already in power.
The same crap which he spouts so freely is
what the republican and democrat establishment has been
promoting for decades. I say “has” because it is the same
establishment which runs both fake parties.
They have been careful to avoid his
kind of blatant perversity, but it is the same underLYING
arrogance of “american exceptionalism” which keeps
spreading the horror show wider and wider.
Trump is tapping into the same fascist lust for money and
violent global domination which the democrats and republicans
have been pretending they are above while they have kept
extending it farther and farther into everyone’s lives.
The fact that so many people (including Obama)
have referred to Scalia as
“a Giant”
is like referring to Captain Ahab as
prudent.
It is a deliberately perverse misinterpretation.
File this one under “things that make you go ewww.” Apparently Scalia belonged to a male-only, secret society called “The International Order of St. Hubertus.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-scalia-spent-his-last-hours-with-members-of-this-secretive-society-of-elite-hunters/2016/02/24/1d77af38-db20-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines
Scalia was gleeful and at times condescending about using his ideology to form opinions that degraded my liberties as American citizen. His public statements illustrated contempt he had for an opinions that differed from his.
So as a public official who was happy to make my life less free, secure and democratic, I say good riddance. I ‘m happy to know he is no longer in a position to impose his personal beliefs on the US.
Scalia helped over throw democracy in the 2000 presidential election and to all those who would criticize him for the unprecedented judicial over reach his reaction was “Get over it”. That will be remembered like some of most notorious bad decisions in the history of the supreme court Plessy vs. Ferguson, Dredd Scott vs Standford, Minor vs Happersett. So I say burn in hell asshole.
I’m traumatized just by reading this article. And additionally traumatized by that photo of Glenn Greenwald looking at me through that porthole.
In that case, you must find a “safe space”.
Scalia’s currently giving new meaning to the term “devil’s advocate.”
“as a right-leaning professors in legal academia, we have developed quite thick skin. We had to. We would have thought that we were inured to this sort of thing. Yet we admit that we found these emails deeply upsetting. They caught us in a moment of particular weakness and vulnerability.”
Regardless of political leanings, this kind of flamboyant and bottomless self-pity should be disparaged. It is vaguely embarrassing to even read it. It is disgusting in campus lefties; it is disgusting in their ‘opposites’.
Is it any wonder that Donald Trump is running away with the Republican nomination when this, THIS, is deemed acceptable among the conservative intellectual elite? This foppery? People who think it’s at all reasonable deserve to be called ‘pussies’ by a strutting, painted bully with a hank of cornsilk on his head.
Free Speech!!!! – I am for it. I am for it within any forum, organization or construct one might create.
If you don’t like what you read or hear in an ongoing discourse then simply don’t subject yourself to it, or better yet, simply dispute it in a format and logic congruent to your own perceived self worth.
Being offended is not a burden which should be placed upon the supposed offender, but rather with the ones who find the very nature of free speech offensive.
In short, please quit whining about your feelings as if there is a remedy to be had at the expense of less free speech.
Your third paragraph is a poor argument. Most of the time, people say offensive stuff in order to be offensive. So how is the burden on the listener?
That’s like blaming someone for taking offense at being told “Get the F*** out of my way” instead of “Excuse me.”
Nothing wrong with being considerate. Now, if sometimes, offended people seem too sensitive, I think that’s understandable given the history of this country and its treatment towards minorities.
You sound like a whiner and a generalizer in your comments.
“Most of the time people say offensive stuff in order to be offensive”
….Seriously? quite a generalization on your part based upon…..well, nothing. It would seem people might say something that would be offensive to someone else for a variety of reasons.
You’re right!!! there is nothing wrong with being considerate, and of course I have no doubt anyone wants to hear “Get the F out of my way”, but that wasn’t the context of my comment, nor the context of the article and you knew that – well I assume you knew that. Terrible example with no context.
“Too Sensitive” is merely a subjective term. Do you set those standards? In the context of this article, let me be subjective and say people in this current society are so full of silly things like micro-aggressions. This is being absurdly and annoyingly “too sensitive”.
Being offended over an email about Scalia, regardless of your position on his contributions is also just crazy. State your opinion in such matters and move along.
Your mentioning micro-aggressions proves that I was right in assumption: you were speaking about the recent trend on college campuses regarding safe spaces. So what I said applies: There is nothing wrong with providing warning that a sensitive matter is to be discussed, just as there’s nothing wrong with preferring “excuse me.”
You are truly stupid to say that someone is “crazy” for taking offense at anything. You can choose to ignore the offended or reach a compromise with them, but you can’t force people to not feel something.
“State your opinion in such matters and move along.”
Good advice… unless you happen to be a student of those professors. There’s a significant difference between “Random person says something I disagree with” and “A person with significantpower/authority over me, whom I will be interacting with on a regular basis, just publically insulted the person, career, and jurisprudence of a man I might consider a role model in my career and whose precedents I might cite in classwork subject to that professor’s subjective grading.” We have a wall between Church and State, what we need is a anti-establishment clause between politics and teaching. Faculty on both sides needed to keep their personal opinions to themselves and leave any debate of Scalia’s record to the students themselves. The power disparity between professor and students makes professorial advocacy of any kind unprofessional at best.
Justice Scalia was indeed a giant on the Court and a towering intellectual figure. That said, I disagreed with his opinions on many occasions. And I am a big fan of Randy Barnett’s writings, too. But this sense of outrage, on both sides, has to stop.
There was nothing wrong with the Dean’s email or with the two professors’ response to it. It is entirely appropriate to have a debate about the merits of Scalia’s opinions after his death just as it was while he was living. Barnett and Rosenkrantz were simply wrong to criticize it as they did. They would not have been wrong to criticize the substance of the criticisms, but that’s not what they were objecting to. And if one strongly believes that someone is perpetrating evil it is not wrong to say so, whether before or after death. Personally, I celebrated the death of Ted Kennedy; in my view it occurred 25 years too late. I will not criticize anyone else for having similar feelings.
College students, and especially law students, need to be exposed to differing opinions. There is entirely too much coddling of these “special snowflakes”; they need to develop an epidermis. Intellectual conflict is the heart of practicing law, and if that puts too much of an emotional strain on them they need to go into some other line of work. The only concern I would have about Peller’s reading his critique of Scalia in class is if the students were given the impression that their grades would suffer if they disagreed with him. He should make certain that is not the case, and that the only standard by which they will be graded in his class is the rigor of their legal reasoning.
I am disappointed in Barnett.
Can you imagine any case in which his students would NOT recieve the impression that his opinion of Scalia would affect the grading of any work following Scalia’s philosophies of jurisprudence (or more generally affect the grading and atmosphere for conservative students in general)? Scalia was well-known as the most conservative judge on the Supreme Court and an advocate of conservative principals. Dissing him to the conservative students was the equivalent of a Comparative Religion instructor refering to someone’s God in a lecture as “that possibly imaginary vengeful jerk”. There’s polite disagreement and reasoned analysis… (i.e. a student assignment examining Scalia’s most influencial cases and re-arguing them in class) and then there is abuse of position to create a hostile environment (value judgements imposed by teachers upon students). This was the latter. End result: A polarized campus where liberal students may feel descriminated against by the two conservative profs and conservative students feel discriminated against by all the liberal profs. FAIL.
“College students, and especially law students, need to be exposed to differing opinions. There is entirely too much coddling of these “special snowflakes”; they need to develop an epidermis. Intellectual conflict is the heart of practicing law, and if that puts too much of an emotional strain on them they need to go into some other line of work.” On this we wholeheartedly agree. This school badly needs to add political diversity to the rest of its diversity quotas so students get a more balanced exposure to major schools of thought, both in general and in terms of jurisprudence specifically.
Responding to your update, Glenn, I have to say it doesn’t reflect your usual level of sharp analysis: 1) Randy Barnett says (one of) his goals was to push on Georgetown (with 2 of 125 non-liberal law professors) a diversity standard such as is being attempted by Yale. You seem to doubt this motivation because a) they accuse Prof. Peller of violating law school rules of decorum and propriety relating to email blasts. But a) Is this not, in fact, an accurate claim? Would you like to publicly defend that Peller did NOT violate those rules? and b) is not his ability to violate those rules with relative impunity until called on by a minority of professors itself evidence supporting Barnett’s claim of lack of diversity? Isn’t, in fact, this last point perfectly shown by Barnett’s hypothetical: that if conservative/libertarian law professors had committed the exact same violation of email protocols while attacking not Scalia but Thurgood Marshall, they would have been socially destroyed, not defended. This seems to me fairly weighty evidence that Barnett is right about the lack of intellectual diversity on campus.
As to not trolling, I’m not going to outright disagree with Randy, an old friend, but suggest a nuance. If you find that intellectual discourse has, over the years, developed new techniques, techniques that would have been ridiculed as silly a generation earlier, like microaggressions and the need for safe spaces, and the implication for professor dominance over students, but which are now taken perfectly seriously, it is perhaps not viewed as trolling, by Barnett, if he himself chooses to take advantage of such methodology and apply it against the people who typically use it as intellectual trump cards. This seems perfectly reasonable, in a good for the goose, good for the gander sense. We needn’t get into a huge argument about whether or not to call it trolling to appreciate the cleverness of the move on Barnett’s part. It IS, after all, a set of theories to protect the minority position, the non-dominant force on campus, and Barnett’s views certainly qualify.
So in conclusion I think you missed the boat on this one and were too eager to defend the reigning liberal power in Georgetown law school against a small minority group of libertarian/conservative theoreticians who, ironically, are the ones much more likely to defend your views on the Surveillance State abuses, the need to end the Drug War (Randy has been publishing on this long before your reports on Portugal), and a number of other civil liberties issues.
Marshall and Scalia are socially indistinguishable so it’s correct to refer to the outcome of the hypothetical comparison of speech concerning either of them in death as “weighty evidence”.
He certainly is using every card in the deck when building his house. I’ll wager he’s clever enough to have several more decks laying around …
I would have paid real money to see leaders of the Federalist Society traumatized, hurt and shaken.
I’m kind of losing track of just how many stupid opinions Scalia had, this is perhaps one that I would highlight, kind of ironic in the light of law professors thinking criticism of Scalia is cruel:
Here’s Scalia drawing “original intent” from the TV show “24”:
Scalia gave the same answer as far back as 2008, but I’m guessing as far back as when he was appointed, they knew what they were getting in a Nixon lawyer:
Too bad he wasn’t able to help Nixon more….”Burglary? What burglary? Pentagon papers? There’s no mention of the Vietnam war in the constitution! Audio tapes? We can’t release those, it would only inflame anti-American sentiment!”
Punishment vs torture… Scalia’s views on this are sickening, as well as intellectually dishonest…. but it’s a brilliant word game, and one I’m struggling to provide a response to.
Wait, I got it: The torturer is punishing the victim for not giving him information!
I imagine many a lawyer experienced esprit d’escalier after a day with Scalia.
Viewing a television show script as substantive and worthy is like using the Bible to further establish the birth of Jesus.
I think you underestimate the value of seperating the legal definitions of torture and punishment, particularly as this applies to PREVENTING torture. Among other applications, this would enable laws clearly banning certain activity prior to a conviction being reached, EVEN if that activity would be normally permissible as a sentence given. I.E. Putting a suspect in a holding cell crowded with violent offenders is not “unusual” nor “cruel” in any sense legally recognized. However, for an individual with a severe social anxiety disorder, it would be torture. Obviously we cannot afford prisons designed with every possible medical and/or religious requirment, but we can and should make every effort to minimize the mental and emotional suffering inflicted on those still legally presumed innocent. That probably isn’t what Scalia intended, but his argument is correct none the less. Exposing a gap in our judicial protections deserves meaningful address of the distinction, not the half-effort of folding it in under a related point. To sum: Scalia is right, torture is not legally punishment. So let’s use that to set a MORE accurate standard for what is considered torture, because “cruel” is subjective and “unusual” actually limits the potential to introduce new and less cruel punishments as options in sentencing.
This is funny because it’s true:
I for one am grateful for the professors. For they have heroically rushed to my aid in my hour of deep traumatization brought about by the vilification of hero Scalia. A vilification for which I was totally and completely unprepared for at my fragile age of mere 22 years old.
The notion that these students shouldn’t be exposed to arguments they find upsetting is especially absurd since they’re in law school preparing to embark on a career where they will be required to debate and argue contentious cases.
But, more importantly, we should realize the actual game that is being played here: to distort public discourse on highly consequential matters by banning dissent on the grounds that it is “cruel,” “traumatizing,” and “uncivil.”
This is probably the only conclusion that we need be concerned about here. When people operate from a position of intellectual dishonesty, or at best are unable to face the prospect of defending “values” that are out of date and were never truly justifiable, the only thing left for them is obsfucation.
You start by pointing out that public discourse is being distorted by banning dissent as x, y, z, whom you then label as intellectually dishonest. For sake of the current discourse, I will not argue that point here. The problem then is that you doing so in this context exemplifies what you just decried; you attempted to shut down discussion by distorting it with obfuscation. By what authority do you judge whether the values on either side are “out of date” or “truly justifiable”? You’ve begged the question. If you’re in favor of open, intellectually rigorous, public discourse, then any allegation that an opposing viewpoint is obsolete or indefensible must be presented as a disputable argument with superior supporting facts, not as an unsupported premise immune to countering fact.
I believe that these professors and conservative students are traumatized, but not for the reason they described. Justice Scalia was part of a conservative majority that had been designed and vigorously pursued by right wing political architects going back to the aftermath of the Goldwater defeat in 1968. Based on the now infamous Powell memo of 1971 the Empire did indeed strike back.
Scalia was not only part of a this movement, he was one of its generals. What was lost with his death wasn’t a friend or personal figure in the lives of most of his supporters, but a key vote to control the court.
With the white house in the balance and the GOP primary crowd in disarray it’s entirely possible for the court to now swing back toward the center. For those on the right fighting this ideological battle, this is indeed upsetting, especially since in the next four years there will likely be more seats to fill on the court.
There is a fundamental flaw in your logic. While Scalia did anchor the far right of the Court, he served as a balancing counterweight to the far left. This is easily seen in the number of controversial cases ruled during his tenure with him in the minority opinion (especially in the last decade). Replacing him with a centrist judge wouldn’t move the court toward the center, it would leave it at the dubious mercy of the hard left. To build a more reliably centrist Court we’d need a leftist icon to likewise step down/perish so both could be replaced by less polarized candidates at once, thus preserving the ideological mean while moving both the max and min positions closer to the average.
Claiming to be traumatized by mere discourse is, was and always will remain a phony show made for strictly tactical gains in a political culture that rewards it, and I mean that about anybody of any ideological cast.
This is not the same as saying one is traumatized by scenes of violence, for example. That is understandable and human. Being traumatized because someone expresses an opinion? It’s bullshit no matter who does it.
There’s a good reason why these Georgetown people used the Yale incident as their gotcha! comparison (rather than an incident that arose from, say, police violence) — because that Yale incident was ridiculous and indefensible.
You know what actually traumatized people do NOT do? You know what people who literally feel “unsafe” rather than just claiming it do not do? They do not form a mob, shout and scream and march around demanding people be fired. That is not the behavior of the traumatized. They seem quite healthy and capable of inflicting pain on others.
Thirty-two years ago I was a student of Randy Barnett, while he was a professor with Chicago-Kent College of Law. He had not yet become the big name right-wing Libertarian star he is today. Randy was tough, rigorous and took no prisoners in his insistence we be prepared and work hard. I was part of the night program (we worked full time jobs and took four classes each semester) and he informed us the schools standards for those in the night program were exactly the same as for the day students. Randy loved the experience and diversity of opinion we brought, as our average age was 28/29 (ages ranging from 23 to 50). Given that perspective, I am stunned at the position Randy has taken. Law school and the practice of law is not for the meek of heart and mind. It is stress filled, often with 60 hour work weeks, whether in-house or in private practice. If the right-wing Libertarian and Republican students at Georgetown Law can’t take hearing a critique of Justice Scalia, who reveled in being a divisive and polarizing figure, which critique points out that Justice Scalia took positions antithetical to much of what not only the Founders stood for but which openly vilified those today who are posited as “the other” those students may want to seek another calling. And Randy may want to rethink what he is doing as a professor as I think that he is short-changing his students.
Yes, Barnett’s whining is preposterous. As you say, law school is not for the meek and mild or tenderhearted. 1L especially is intellectual boot camp — taking both a mental and physical toll — and debates often rage in various courses.
Then there is the actual practice. Fragile snowflakes simply won’t make it. (I don’t even approve of this, by the way. The hyper-adversarial nature of the practice is good for no one.)
Good that Glenn put to rest this notion that Barnett wasn’t serious. Most pathetically, he was entirely so.
If these 22 yr.-olds can’t stand the heat in the very protective environment of Georgetown Law School, how the hell are they going to make it in the real world? Someone previously mentioned how Georgetown defended Sandra Fluke. She obviously didn’t need their or anyone else’s protection. She did just fine on her own without the whiny bitch act.
Kudos for another brilliant analysis and commentary. Greenwald you are the sharp point of the spear!
Smart Glenn… wait three days to make sure the bombastic prick doesn’t rise from the dead and smite thee with ‘originalist’ jurisprudence.
He were’nt, exactly, no wilting flower and the sooner Georgetown Law 1ls learn that, the better …
Bah, I read that whole interview a few days ago, and the whole section on the devil is bizarre. It’s deeply worrying to have someone who believes all this making crucial decisions for all citizens:
I don’t find this conversation bizarre at all. It is a quite logical discussion for someone who believes in the devil to have. Scalia seems, here, to be having a playfully serious discussion with the interviewer. That seems clear quite apart from whether I, as a reader, believe in the things he posits.
I literally laughed out loud when I read the title of this (great) piece. “Traumatized” by criticism of a bigoted, racist, xenophobic, homophobic piece of garbage. Lol you have to be fucking kidding me.
Thank you for writing my thoughts exactly!
Alana,
Don’t you get it? This approach is wrong no matter WHO uses it!!
It amuses me greatly that both sides of the debate can interprete your comment as supporting them.
“bigoted, racist, xenophobic, homophobic piece of garbage” = Scalia, as target of the criticism
“bigoted, racist, xenophobic, homophobic piece of garbage” = persons originating criticism of Scalia
or both! :) English is funny sometimes.
That said, I agree with Tim, throwing negative labels around is inappropropriate in public discourse. Your intolerance is showing. Frankly, speaking ill of the dead is likewise improper so soon after the death itself. Whether you agreed with him or not, Scalia was by all reports a man of deep principle and formidable competency at his chosen profession. Even if you don’t respect him as a person, it behooves you to show some respect for the feelings of those who do. Don’t be “Dick, from the internet”.
“Whether you agreed with him or not, Hitler was by all reports a man of deep principle and formidable competency at his chosen profession.” “Whether you agreed with him or not, Stalin was by all reports a man of deep principle and formidable competency at his chosen profession.” Shall I continue?
“Whether you agreed with him or not, Martin Luther King Jr. was by all reports a man of deep principle and formidable competency at his chosen profession.”
“Whether you agreed with him or not, George Washington was by all reports a man of deep principle and formidable competency at his chosen profession.”
“Whether you agreed with her or not, Margeret Thatcher was by all reports a woman of deep principle and formidable competency at her chosen profession.”
“Whether you agreed with her or not, Oprah Winphrey is by all reports a woman of deep principle and formidable competency at her chosen profession.”
By all means, do continue. I’ve provided some other examples above. Historical significance is always worthy of respect for the accomplishment it represents. A person may be both great and terrible, indeed, great things are rarely achieved without terrible costs and means. Neither quality enhances or detracts from the other. Likewise, we admire the exceptionally competent, even when they are our foes, for competence in itself demands respect. Lastly, adherence to principle in the face of adversity demonstrates great integrity, a quality worthy of respect even when and if the principles themselves are flawed.
So we have a man who consistently displayed intelligence, persistence, personal courage, competence, integrity, and a deep respect for the Constitution and the separation of powers. Those qualities are admirable no matter what you think of his goals or outcomes. His impact on judicial practices and legal precedent are confirmed as significant, even by his greatest detractors. You may deny that Justice Scalia was a good man. Perhaps he was and perhaps he was not. I did not know the man, nor did I do business with him. Did you? Perhaps only God can answer that. Regardless, he was a great man; a giant in his profession and one of the few who have truly left their mark in the history books. If you would speak ill of the dead, at least respect a decent period of mourning and give him his due for what he has done, both great and terrible.
Well he did write: “Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges”; as you turn each page it simply states: Bribe him.
That book and “Who Wrote the Bible” were not worth the money I spent; in the latter ea page stated: God did.
He followed the letter of the law. He was a great man. I hope I didn’t make your precious hearts flutter. Grow up read the constitution, it means EXACTLY what it says. No hidden right to make people do against their will, like serving a gay wedding cake. Personally I’m not gay but I have family members who are. Those things should be handled at the local level and NO ONE should be able to sue because they could not get a wedding cake. He read the law AS WRITTEN. IT IS NOT A LIVING CONSTITUTION.
“No hidden right to make people do against their will, like serving a gay wedding cake.”
Right. Or serving “Negroes” at lunch counters.
“IT IS NOT A LIVING CONSTITUTION.”
Well, we can at least hope to breathe a bit of life into it now that Nino is dead. ;^)
Right…so why did the founders include a mechanism to CHANGE a document that wasn’t intended to evolve and grow?
I realize that the concept of evolution is over head, of course…
Reading the Constitution “as written” is certainly a valid approach. But the assertion that it is not a living document doesn’t stand up under scrutiny when we take into account the framers’ intentions for a flexible legal system that would stand the test of time. In fact, the very fact that there is a process to amend the Constitution would seem to be sufficient evidence that it IS a living document and was intended to be so.
Your argument contradicts itself. The very fact that there is a process to amend the Constitution is evidence that that is the intended means for it to be changed as needed, not reinterpretation of the existing text in light of later conditions. Put simply, the framers of the Constitution established means by which any change to it must rightfully come through the legislative branch, not the judicial. This decisively undercuts both “Judicial Activism” and “Living Document” interpretations.
Justice Scalia was right. It is not the job of a panel of unelected lawyers to decide what is or is not “right” for the people, but merely to determine which matters require only intepretation of existing law and which are substantive decisions to be referred back to the people for voting and legislation to decide. That’s how democracy works after all. Ask yourself, who did the founders intend to change the laws (Constitution): The multitude of legislators at each level duly elected and relected, or a small panel of unelected lawyers appointed without any direct input of the people and serving unlimited terms?
Ohhhh brudder…where do I begin with this one?
The Constitution was designed so that it could be amended, and it has been amended twenty-seven times since its writing and ratification. Living or not, the one thing it is NOT is static. It has been changed and it will continue to be changed as time goes by and Americans come to adapt their understanding to changing social, political, and economic conditions.
Anti-discrimination laws exist for a reason: to protect against discrimination. The 14th Amendment applies equally to everyone, and if you read the supremacy clause in the Constitution, it lays out quite clearly that federal law and the federal Constitution trump state laws and constitutions. So yes, cake makers who decide that LGBT customers aren’t worthy of being served just like any other customer fall into the same category as those who deny service to Blacks and Hispanics based on their ethnicity. And the law is well within rights to say, “Hey, you’re not allowed to discriminate against people because that’s a violation of their rights.” No one’s rights are violated in selling to certain customers.
And even from a non-legal standpoint, being a bigoted a-hole is a sure fire way to lose business once word of mouth starts spreading. Who wants to shop somewhere the proprietors treat their customers like they’re less than human?
This is an excellent article. I don’t want to repeat others’ comments but one thing about Barnett and Rosencrantz’s that really gets to me – well one thing apart from its abusiveness, its whining self-pity and their reliance on paralogism as the basis of its ‘argument’ – and that it is written by two characters who are employed as professors but who don’t seem to have other than the shakiest grasp of how to construct English sentences containing one or more parenthetical clauses . I know I’m coming across as a grammar snob – a species that I hate – but the email is so bloody shoddy that it irritates me to the point where I’ve got to vent some spleen or go out to pick fights with strangers.
BTW – I appreciated re-reading Glenn’s take on the attempts to the UK right’s attempts to police reactions to Thatcher’s death. Also thought I’d add what I still think to be the most considered and measured reaction to this, which was from a former miner and miners’ strike veteran in Barnsley. The man was asked by someone from the local paper about how he felt about Thatcher croaking and answered, “How dost ah feel? Ah feel like celebrating”.
250 foot Thatcher statue at British college!Indy?
If the delicate flowers in Georgetown’s Federalist Society can’t handle a little dissent without decompensating, perhaps they should be in Rogerian therapy instead of law school.
It’s not “Political Correctness” when it’s the Republicans’ politics. It’s goodness and niceness and The American Way.
Because it’s not a “micro-agression” when a liberal does it or “descrimination/abuse of position” if the target is a conservative? Holding liberals to their own standards does not necessarily imply conservatives are accepting those standards as objectively correct or preferred. It’s the tolerance paradox. One cannot simultaneously practice the acceptance of other’s beliefs as equally valid to their own and advocate that tolerance itself is a belief superior to that held by others. Your belief can’t be “all equal” and “the best” at the same time.
Conservatives generally express the sentiment that people should each be free to act according to their own beliefs (so long as that doesn’t involve killing people over them). This is consistent with both opposing “political correctness” and calling out liberal hypocrisy.”Your rules are wrong AND you aren’t even playing by them!” offers no contradiction to “I’m playing by my rules, you go play by yours.”
Liberals say that everyone should tolerate and value each other… except for those white folks (they think they’re better than everyone else, they must be made to pay for the sins of their ancestors!)… those Christians (always trying to save other people’s souls from eternal torment by suggesting to them a faith demonstrated to be correlated with a longer, happier, healthier life, HOW DARE THEY!)… those men (thinking they should have an input on whether their offspring lives or dies in the first nine months? Really!? They need to go back to working themselves to death so their female partners can spend 70%+ of their income and then inherit the rest when they die early)… those cops (they feel threatened because black suspects are statistically more likely to kill a cop, how dare those cops understand statistics and apply them in trying to stay alive!?)… those conservatives (constantly arguing that they get a voice in decisions affecting them)… need I go on? Liberal intolerance isn’t particularly well hidden these days.
So, there’s definitely one side of this disagreement who can’t handle a little dissent without needing therapy… wait, it’s liberals who usually insist that they’ve been the victim of micro-agression and they are so resultingly frail that they need “safe spaces”, trigger warnings”, and therapy after hearing someone somewhere thinks they are wrong. Kind of hard to argue that it’s the conservatives who need therapy when it’s the libs who keep asking for it.
“Leave me alone, you’re pissing me off.” is very much the American way, if usually expressed with more expletitives.
How is it that anyone is sill bothering to pay attention to Glenn Greenwald? His 15 minutes have passed and he has no insights to bring forward.
Referencing Steven Salaita? That ship sailed some time ago…
Pathetic.
What’s good for the goose…
Sorry ‘liberals’…students who need ‘safe spaces’ and feel ‘triggered’ created this whole ridiculous idea of being sensitive babes.
yes, its funny to watch the whole thing come full circle . . . seems like a perfect subject for a Barrett Brown article.
Come on, the real title: “Man with no psychiatric makes arbitrary statements about people’s psychiatric state.”
Not news. Why even bother inflating this story?
These pathetic whiners remind me of those losers in Oregon who don’t understand that in the hearing-of-grievances-against-oppressed peoples-department, there are a number of groups ahead of already-wealth western ranchers, redneck retards and thin-skinned conservative descendants of the one percent who’ve been schooled in not handling the truth well.
The Oregon protesters were not of the 1%.Neither are redneck retards,or even thin skinned conservatives,for the most part.
But the MSM which was definitely pro govt,certainly is.
Still driving that Audi?
Scalia,in voting for Bush over democracy,and Citizens United,was most definitely no Constitutionalist,living or dead.
“These pathetic whiners…don’t understand…there are a number of groups ahead of…(them).”
So you actually advocate for an oppression olympics where the victims must form an orderly line to have their grievances addressed in order? I’m curious, which gets first place with you, the victims of racial descrimination, gender descrimination, or class descrimination? Do they divide futher by subcategory with poor black women affected by redlining getting their hearing before the poor black men facing prejudicial sentencing practices? Once you’ve handled black reparations, do you move from there to criminal justice reform for blacks or to reparation for the hispanic female victims of redlining?
I guess you think already-wealthy black people don’t deserve affirmative action, inner city students don’t need better public education (after all, they’re so much better than those “retard” students from rural areas), and gays/atheists just need to quit being so thin-skinned over their lack of representation in positions of power. Yup, are you sure that you aren’t a Republican? The media keeps attributing those kind of views to them. Is posting here distracting you from stumping for Trump?
Seriously, I thought it was conservatives who usually get called out for trying to divert attention from dealing with a real problem by pointing to a bigger one (as if some absolute principle prevents us from addressing more than one thing at a time). Congrats, you’ve discriminated against minorities in a public forum and displayed your privilege by dismissing the concerns of those unlike you as unimportant. I wonder how many liberals here have the integrity to call you out for it.
I hope a good number of Georgetown students get a chance to read this. It probably amounts to half their education, just about.
As has been thoroughly documented, students who are conservative are often subjected to demeaning and degrading comments from their liberal colleagues, for no other reason than because they’re conservatives. I am pleased that Messieurs Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have finally said, ‘Enough’.
Conservative students have laboriously constructed a safe space, where their half baked ideas are free from scrutiny and derision. In this space, they have created an illusion of Justice Scalia as a great jurist, rendering incisive decisions that are universally admired for their logic and clarity. This allows their critical thinking skills to atrophy so that one day they can become full fledged members of the conservative community.
Exposing them to outside ideas at this tender stage of their development, could cause them to question their very identity. They are at risk of spending their entire life, racked by doubt, robbed of the freedom from uncertainty and the comfort of blind faith which is their birthright as conservatives.
The only way to undo the trauma is to close Georgetown University and declare it as a lasting memorial to Justice Scalia. Then a dialogue of appropriate reparations for the injustices suffered by the conservative students can begin.
Thanks for the chuckles, Il Duce. Molto divertente.
Genius!
Most excellent!
Molto bene, come sempre
There’s what, 2 conservative professors out of a faculty of 125. Given this, it’s the conservatives that you think are existing in a space free from dissenting thought, degrading comments, and challenge to their identities? Methinks you have your facts inverted from your conclusion. “This allows their critical thinking skills to atrophy so that one day they can become full fledged members of the LIBERAL community”. Seriously, if any mention of a personal faith on the part of a professor is considered to create a hostile environment for members of other faiths/athiests, it’s pretty hypocritical to brush off public personal attacks on a conservative exemplar by one’s professors as any less hostile. Do you honestly think, under the circumstances given, that any student in those classes can, in perception or fact, expect a fair grade on any paper or argument reliant on Scalia’s line of thought or legal precedents?
Let’s lose the double standard.”Safe spaces” are self-defeating in a profession based on confrontation and disagreement and “micro-aggressions” are just another way to promote reasoning patters completely contrary to good mental health and resiliance (read up on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy to recognize magnification as a thing to be avoided, not encouraged). All that siad, students do have a right to not experience a hostile enviromnent based on instructor bias. These professors crossed a line of professional conduct. If they actually wanted a constructive discussion on Scalia’s record and influence, they could have brought the cases up as examples in class and let the students debate it out fairly, but using their authority to denegrate a political opponent to their students was far out of bounds. Like him or not, Scalia was very influencial on the theory and practice of jurisprudence (“A giant in the field”). Judgements of whether that was a good or bad thing belong at the student level, not handed down from above.
Just you wait for old Hank Kissinger’s death
Stephen Colbert is such a panderer to power. I will forever be pissed at him for not taking the opportunity to throttle Kissinger when he got behind and close in his dance all around video on The Colber Repor.
The undead don’t die.
Yes,good one!
A forced march of thousands around the rotunda.
Aw, the potential spooks, spooks’ mentors, future torturers, War Crimes Perpetuators, diviners of Democracy worldwide and Explainers-Away mighta been upset and receivers of “cruelty beyond words” ? … C’mon… Talk about perpetrators confusing themselves with victims… Interestingly, the actual institution, when viewed from across the river, looks pretty f’in dark and like it’d be a good place to train waterboarders… right?
Like those who would label free speech by the BDS movement as hate speech, the two aggrieved law professors should read up on the First Amendment.
Indeed, just like GWU, anchored on the other side of Georgetown from GU, where it is not permissible to display a Palestinian flag even in one’s dorm room, but where the flag of Israel proudly flies. This sensitivity and traumatization crap has to stop!
What fucking pea brains. “Cruel beyond words.” Yeah, *that’s* cruel. So much more cruel than, say, droning children.
Scalia argued that torture isn’t “cruel … ” because it isn’t punishment.
Indeed:
In other words, unless a State agent says, “I’m doing X to you because the judge says you deserve it,” the agent remains within proper constitutional boundaries.
This isn’t “originalism.”
This is pure sophistry.
Yes, I’ll hazard a brief comment: When M Thatcher died over here, a song from The Wizard of Ozz became a kind of what… say a mantra for those of them there sorts who need this sort of thing. I.e. “Ding dong, the witch is dead, the witch is dead.” And so it went.
Now I don’t go such base and rather unpalatable stuff. Yet you’re correct here to write of dissent and say critical comment in the present ought to be free to exist. However that “the right-wing duo, Randy Barnett and Nick Rosenkranz ” emailed as they did. Incredible! !
Do this pair themselves “believe” what they say? And that in denouncing the “Two Georgetown law professors, Mike Seidman and Gary Peller,” the students they taught were being supported really against further psychological damage. That’s a tuffy to agree with.
Jesse Signal seems at my first encounter with the idea, that the right co-opts the left’s space etc to dissent and then as written that it’s used in PC speak to promote to students they should “feel safe on campus.”
Well, I think it’s more the case that perhaps modalities of expressive behavior is the idea. Acceptable interpersonal communication etc. on campus and the formation perhaps of a mannerism in dialogue that the PC etiquette of the right foist onto a closed group such as law students. I’ll have to consider now; because if I’m correct, you guys in the states have a real problem brewing.
I could be way off beam, yet meaning and it’s representation to others through an expressive medium as verbal dialogue, the text on the page or the article in a news sheet. Well, when that representation is to all extents the “Black Spot” in a cryptic fashion, passed to the victim as if to seal their fate. We’re back in the 18′ Th and 19′ Th Century of pirates and the cant of indecipherable banter by the players in a hidden and dangerous game. Brought bang up to and smack…you’ve been taken out. All for an opinion. Dissenting against a right leaning agenda .
It’s a heck of a time I believe now…if this is correct?!
These 22 year old students were raised on a diet of grief counseling when complete strangers die, trigger alerts for anything remotely uncomfortable, and basking in the glow of “love” and approval from all adults surrounding them.
They may indeed feel traumatized because they are indoctrinated to believe that they SHOULD feel traumatized.
I hope the Georgetown counseling center brings in backup. Somebody ought to be making some money off this.
Thank you again, Glenn Greenwald for the sanity!!
Reading The Intercept is like getting a nice refreshing linguistic shower!
To argue for the censure of fellow instructors for voicing opposing viewpoints to their own is insane, delusional and completely wrongheaded buffoonery. But, as we saw from Scalia so often, uninformed, mean-spirited, vicious condescension often rules the right.
“uninformed, mean-spirited, vicious condescension often rules”… who?
Have you read the rest of the comments? Which political idology represented here is linguistically spitting on the corpse of a dead man and displaying vicious condescension to those who disagree with them? Give you a hint: it might be to the right of you, but isn’t right of center.
Frankly you’re wrong on the general observation. Surveys have shown repeatedly that Conservatives generally perceive liberals as well-intentioned but uninformed, whereas liberals generally perceive conservatives as uncaring and self-centered to the point of being morally despicable. Chicken and egg situation here, but demonizing your opponent’s character is a historically liberal tactic whereas conservatives more often relied on studies and arguments. The liberal approach proved more effective, the right noticed, so here we are. The left started an arms race to the bottom and the right are finally catching up. Now EVERY politician (or person of politcal power in general) is perceived as morally despicable. Yay for us and the equality of the cut grass.
I couldn’t agree more with Glenn and I’ve always felt this way. I was very upset when politicians on the American left (admittedly, not very left) praised Nixon after his death, when progressives and radicals considered him a war criminal, among other things.
I will also say that my friends who are political and I were celebrating Scalia’s death, and I don’t apologize for that one bit. This guy was as evil as it gets, and there’s no reason not to celebrate when someone like that dies, especially where, like here, he is removed from a position of power.
Yes, too many Libs did the same thing when Sandra Day O’Conner, you know, one of the corrupt, partisan justices who helped overthrow Democracy with the Bush v Gore decision, retired. And they all came out to call her such a moderate, including Jon Stewart on The Daily Show. Well, at least she is partially redeeming herself in coming out to say that Obama should be allowed to fulfill his duty and name Scalia’s replacement.
Once again, Glenn’s commentary is spot on. He’s plainly exposed the motivations of academics who are trying to thwart an important public discussion about Scalia. Dissent about his legacy should be openly welcomed from professors and students.
Why not?
When the witch melted in the Wizard of Oz, all the Munchkins sang with joy.
It seemed quite appropriate.
But, okay … no glee.
How about smug satisfaction?
If that exchange traumatizes these law students just wait until they are lawyers and have to work in the dysfunctional courts and (in)justice system… My friends posted Ding Dong The Witch is Dead within hours….:)
The counter-obituary is a fine tradition and 22 year old law students are certainly adult enough to hear grown-ups disagree. Though I’m not so sure that these professors are completely without irony when they’re citing the Yale controversy and “safe spaces”
Sucks when your tactics are used against you eh? cant cry safe spaces, triggering etc and not expect it to be used against you.
One wonders, when this “safe space” rhetoric erupts, which students are entitled to live undisturbed in a “safe space” and which are not, and who chooses.
Jews who love (right-wing) Israel have, it is often claimed, a right to reside in a “safe space” (where they are not subjected to “hearing evil” spoken of Israel, even evil truths — whereas Jews and others who love democracy, freedom, equal human rights (for Palestinians) have not, it is assumed sub silencio, the same right.
Ditto, here, right-wing friends of Scalia (have a right to “safe space”) but not critics of Scalia.
It’s all about power, and the “safe space” doctrine has been invented and grabbed by right-wingers, to further their ownb power, and acceded to by other members of Establishment/Oligarchy/right-wing. I bet Hillary Clinton supports the “safe space” doctrine rather than the “freedom of speech” doctrine.
The real threat to our national security is our EQ deficit-scary!
Free intellectual exchange is an argument toward the truth – no matter how meandering it may be.
Trouble is that “thought dictators” have respect only for the manipulation and suppression of truth – thus, no room for free exchange of ideas.
Dean Teanor seems to have no interest in the truth. Unfortunately, these days a lot of Deans in academia are like Dean Teanor.
My thoughts and prayers go out to those who loved Scalia, and who mourn his passing, but as an American, and a small “d,” small “r,” democratic republican, I do not mourn with them.
A question for all the lawyerly types present: What do you make of this?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/us-judge-weighs-deeper-probe-into-clintons-private-email-system/2016/02/23/9c27412a-d997-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html?wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-politics%252Bnation
Is there any there, there?
Is this the subject of the column? No. So pound sand.
Seems like the effect of these PC “safe space” campus rules is to provide an incubator for weak minded ideas. Reminds me of a line from “Dinner with Andre” :
“Andre: They’ve built their own prison, so they exist a state of schizophrenia. They’re both guards and prisoners and as a result they no longer have, having been lobotomized, the capacity to leave the prison they’ve made, or to even see it as a prison.”
The Closet/Religious-Industrial Complex is going through an excruciating, annoying (and somewhat enjoyable to witness) death-rattle; this is the latest chapter.
Here’s a novel idea, the next justice should have the ability to “separate facts from politics”
Imagine going to court for whatever reason, and discovering that the person deciding your case doesn’t, say, believe in DNA. What would go through your mind? What other well established facts is he unsure of? Does he believe in a flat earth?
We’ve just had another confirmation of Albert Einstein’s 100 year old theory of relativity (gravity waves), DNA was discovered way back in the nineteenth century, and is now a ten billion dollar industry… but a person making the final decisions on America’s supreme court isn’t quite sure he believes in it.
Sometimes search warrants are issued based on familial DNA of a relative, being a close match to DNA found on a crime scene. Hypothetically, how would Judge Scalia have performed his duties if presented with the request for such a search warrant?…seeing as he was unsure if “ Genes form the basis for hereditary traits in living organisms”?
The displacement from the gravity wave was on the order of 10 to -19 meters. I’d wager Scalia could not have told you what that means.
(It is a meter stick, divided by 10, nineteen times. Some ten thousand times smaller than the diameter of a proton in an atom’s nucleus.)
And the signal came in at middle C in frequency. That is the ‘sound’ made by 2 black holes banging together. That is freakin’ spooky. I’ve always wondered why middle C is what it is (frequency wise).
Middle C must be the resonate frequency of the universe (maximum power transfer occurs at resonance). And we humans noticed! We picked it for the standard for the musical scale.
But then Scalia never did like to count until everything has been counted …
trends were good enough. Fuck him.
What does that have to do with the constitution?
The founders of our country didn’t believe in molecular biology at all, much less have opinions on “the fine points”. Why would that particular bit of scientific triva be relevant to a judge? The court doesn’t rely on the scientific expertise of the justices in any matter. If for some reason a point of science is relevant, they hear the evidence and expert testimony brought before them from both sides and rule based on that. Isn’t that much to be preferred than having them rule based on whatever was taught when they went through school decades ago? You can’t possibly expect them to keep up with the latest scientific research and be qualified to evaluate it on their own authority.
If you assert that there is no “scientific evidence” against evolution than you are guilty of both the “No True Scotsman” and “Begging the Question” fallacies. Students are supposed to learn to reason. If you really think the case for creation is so weak, why are you so afraid of it being heard?
“Alarm of global warming may or may not be justified”. Well yes. We still can’t so much as predict the weather accurately a day in advance, fully model the existing climate, or test any of the proposed models. Even the strongest climate change alarmists don’t have matching models or proof of culprit (seriously, correlation is not proof of causation, basic statistics principle). Skepticism that it “may” be overblown is appropriate. The whole thing parallels the old panic over “nuclear winter” rather well. Might it be true? Possibly, which is really all that should be necessary to initiate research and scalable countermeasures. Might it NOT be true? Also possibly, so let’s not unduly burden the people to support a fight against a foe that might not exist. If an “alien invasion” panic swept the country, would you expect the Court to rule on if the federal government has a duty to combat extraterrestrials? One of Scalia’s best points was his dedication to letting the people decide rather than the Court.
Similarly, we don’t discuss the possibility of a flat 6000 year-old earth because there are no new positions to take on magic.
As he did in Florida 2000. Check.
Well, someone is underinformed. Pythagoras (6th century B.C.) is generally credited with having first suggested a round Earth. http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/05/people-in-columbus-time-did-not-think-the-world-was-flat/ So if you’re trying to connect that particular cannard to Christianity you’re off by several centuries (not that having timelines that disagree with the evidence by a magnitude or more ever seems to bother evolutionists).
I could hop on a plane tomorrow and circle the Earth myself to verify what shape it is. That isn’t an argument reliant on Appeal to Authority, False or otherwise. I’m deeply curious exactly what equivalent you propose to personally or objectively verify the veracity of God, evolution, or the exact nature of the start of the universe (if it had one, since the science is once again out on that). Do us each the credit of remembering that while both may receive the title of “Theory”, Evolution and say, Gravity or Electromagnetism, are different in kind.
The latter are demonstrable, repeatable, and perfectly predictive in laboratory testing. The math is determinative in all cases. The former (Evolution) is a “best guess” impossible to demonstrate, impossible to repeat, and impossible to test. It is, at best, a rough model reliant on a dubious tuatology for its definition (survival of the fittest = those that survive are fit, those that are fit survive), a willingness to beg the question AND rely on another bit of circular reasoning before even examining the evidence (fossils are roughly dated by which layer they appear in, while layers are roughly data by which fossils they contain), then ending with a final bit of further Begging the Question and improvable circular reasoning (similar animals derived from a common ancestor, animals are known to have had a common ancestor because they are similar).
That’s so much circular reasoning I’m surprised you don’t all fall down from being dizzy. Did no one ever teach you that tuatologically true and factually true are two different things? Specifying the conclusion in your premise is a logical fallacy, not a scientific proof.
Your “accepted fact” has had decades of time, millions of scientists, and billions of dollars trying desperately to “prove” it… and still hasn’t overcome the challenges of irreducible complexity, the hopeful monster, or the missing links. The best you have to show for it is the statement “Well, it clearly happened, so there must be an answer if we just keep looking”. You’re still just Begging the Question. It’s almost funny. Evolutionists like to say that to be a Creationist you have to fail at science, but the truth is that to be an Evolutionist you have to fail at logic.
You perhaps also realize that if your position on scientific consensus was applied when Darwin first put forward his theory, Evolution would be a forgotten footnote of a failed scientist right now? If “the consensus is always right”, then Darwin was wrong for disagreeing with them. If consensus is meaningless in regards to objective reality (as it is), than whether something is right or not must be determined from the evidence. I’m confident in mine, whereas you clearly lack confidence in yours (as you should, I’ve read it). You don’t consider school an appropriate place for students to question assumptions and apply reason to available evidence in order to make up their own minds? You either don’t trust students to be capable of reason or you don’t trust your evidence to be convincing. If the evidence was a clear cut as you assert, “Evolution vs Creation: Which fits the evidence better?” would be a half-day class over and done with by lunch.
As Scalia did in Florida? He acted as necessary to preserve the legitimacy of the Presidency. For good or bad, we really couldn’t have our highest executive answering the phone on day 1 to foreign leaders saying “Oops, I thought I’d get the other guy. Are you sure you’re the President? No, really?” He didn’t like doing it, he didn’t want to do it, but he had to do it. Sometimes the buck stops on your desk because letting it go any further would just make things worse.
Facts from politics? How about facts from nonsense?
I think it is about time to have an Atheist or Agnostic on the Court. I’m tired of the right majority being strong, faithful believers in a religion that promotes primitive views about reality, and has allowed child raping.
As opposed to a belief system that promotes primitive views about reality and has allowed genocide? The non-religious have practiced and condoned child rape and far worse as well. People suck sometimes, particularly in any situation of power disparity. If there’s a real faith whose members didn’t commit atrocities on the large and small scale at some point I’ve yet to hear of it. That’s a useless metric for selection because it is impossible to satisfy (well, a Jedi or Pastafarian might qualify, but give them time and a critical mass of adherents…).
You do realize that the majority of both the populace and scientists believe in some form of the para/supernatural, whether it’s Gods, ghosts, ESP, or something even more fringe? I have no particular objection to an Atheist/agnostic getting the seat if determined best qualified, but I can’t consider that a qualification in itself. The Supreme Court is not a representative body, nor is it intended to be such. I expect a justice to rule in accordance with legal precedent and original intent, not whatever personal beliefs might be held regarding morality. Moral consensus needs to derive from the people via direct referendum or elected representatives subject to recall, not unelected arbiters serving for life.
We just recently managed to finish proving Einstien’s theories, but still have numerous competing theories regarding string theory and quantum physics, not to mention the old unresolved issues like the particle/wave dichotomy… is everything particles? Is everything fields? Is everything really just probability until it is observed and becomes information?
Science is full of answers to many questions, but on the larger points we still haven’t finished answering WHAT the universe is, much less the WHY or HOW (it came to be).
Incidentally, your tiredness is duly noted. I sympathize with your frustration (the halls of power in all contexts need some neurodiversity for me to feel represented), but we’re both rightfully stuck waiting on blind probability to supply a candidate whose judicially-irrelevant quality matches our own.
He was a legal idiot. He was not as bright as some in the law community proclaimed him to be. Put him in the same room with Neil Degrasse Tyson and you would see an imbecile in action. Of course Scalia didn’t surround himself with people he knew were much smarter than him so that probably wouldn’t have happened anyway.
What’s worse than a sore loser? A sore winner. We shouldn’t let ourselves get drawn into the trap of bashing Scalia at the moment he leaves the court. In reflection we should try to see the man as we would hope God sees him, which is to say, to look for the good and be glad the bad is no longer our problem. This is easier for pessimists, I suppose, since we tend to expect that whatever our problems with Scalia, we can count on even a liberal president to be looking for someone to rubber-stamp gun control and ban any chemistry text Senator Feinstein disapproves of.
However, of course, while bashing Scalia is vulgar, it is a law professor’s prerogative nonetheless. We can only hope the conservatives are putting on a show as a way of dramatizing their justifiable disapproval of other crusades against free speech on campus. When a university receives assistance from the federal government, it receives assistance to school students of all stripes, from Communist to Klansman, without imposing any penalty on comments that are within those students’ free speech rights. If that can be violated, then whoever is on the Supreme Court … is not who should be.
I do not think “we” see it that way at all. Perhaps you could find such a “we” somewhere else.
Interesting how, at least within the US political establishment, Hillary Clinton was not condemned for the shameless glee she showed upon learning of the death of Gaddafi (“we came, we saw, he died [<+ laughter]"); whereas those who indicate or betray a 'good riddance' attitude towards Scalia's death risk promptly getting accused of a virtual crime against humanity.
One is ‘Murican the other isn’t. Case closed.
that was amazing
i just happened on this site, just happened to read this article, know nothing about justice scalia, but, this was really insightful, the emperor has no clothes!! no debate in a law school, even i know that’s a weird phenomenon
“Too soon” is an acceptable conclusion in this case. If you ever want a hope of some dimming of hostilities with your enemies, respect them enough to let them honor their dead reasonably.
Is that an order?
For a huge number of Americans, he didn’t respect us enough to honor our lives, livelihoods and rights. We’re just returning the favor, unfortunately without the staggering impact his disrespect engendered.
A dimming of hostilities? There’s far too much deference and not enough hostility given to the likes of Scalia. They need to be countered and excoriated with greater ferocity.
This sounds like a good plan:
…but was it the original intent of the founders for zombies to sit on the supreme court???
Dear Glenn Greenwald,
You lost a lot of credibility with this specific statement… This is a dishonest statement and you know the Left overwhelmingly uses PC censorship more than the right about political-social topics… You falsely asserted “This is seen over and over: “PC” censorship is almost always depicted as a left-wing phenomenon even though it is directed at least as commonly at the Left as it is wielded by them.”
Sincerely, Vinnie
Nope. He didn’t. It’s absolutely true that the right — especially the pro-Israel factions — pose the greatest assault on free speech on campus, and elsewhere, at this moment in history.
the right? really?
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2016/2/18/the-oxford-university-labour-club-are-the-only-labour-left-in-britain
Yes, really.
1. Your link is about the UK not U.S. campuses, 2. While BDS has split the liberal/left, the fiercest opposition is rightwing, and 3. Progressives who are not hawks — a rightwing position — are mostly pro-BDS.
I guess you’re right. The US is special, and the whole problem reduces to right-wing politics.
The U.S. has its own campus dynamics. And right now, on the issue of free speech, right-wing attacks on pro-Palestinians activist are the most significant issue of free speech in the American academy.
Altho I’d add, that throughout the West — beyond universities — attacks on BDS are the most serious assault on free speech. Multiple of Greenwald’s recent columns have shown this.
Maybe, but your argument is tautological (against bds => right-wing => against bds . . . ).
Absolutely, Mona.
It’s been a while since I’ve been on campus, but in my years there neither Israel or Palestine ever came up at all. For it to be the “greatest assault” at this moment in history, doesn’t it need to be something most people actually care about and discuss? Sorry, but “bowing to Zion” or whatever whatever people are accused of now simply doesn’t affect many people in the US. Try picking a controversial topic that applies to pretty much everyone, like the severe lack of ideological diversity in university faculty or the ongoing gender discrimination in education (men are discriminated against as students, women are discriminated against as faculty, it’s such a rich topic for all sides). Heck, if you really want to see free speech stifled instantly try being a conservative creationist advocating publically for Intelligent Design, see how far you get with that. Climate change skepticism is another good topic to see how fast faculty shut down any debate on the topic. Sorry, but “that can’t be discussed here/at all” is a predominantly Leftist tactic by far. Seriously, try listing how many topics the right tries to prevent debate on then do the same for the left. You can call censorship a good thing (i.e. “protecting students”), but it is still censorship.
Maybe it’s just my university, which is a major university, but I don’t see ANY of the kind of suppression of free speech that people talk about. Now, granted, I’m a commuter student, so I don’t live on campus. If there are extracurricular activities where speech is being suppressed, I don’t see it. That’s also not nearly as relevant to pedagogy, which is what university is really about.
In the classroom, I have never seen suppression. All of my professors have been liberal, some more than others, but none I would describe as conservative. Per academic freedom, some of them — especially the older ones closer to retirement (the ones who don’t give flying effs anymore about faculty fall-out) — are inclined to make political comments now and again. When they do, I observe the following among my classmates: liberal ones chuckle or smile; conservative ones exchange dirty looks with each other and don’t say a word.
Why? No one’s stopping them. Frankly, I think it’s SELF-censorship. Not because they’re afraid of being suppressed, but because they’re afraid to engage with a professor, especially an older one who’s amassed enough knowledge to run circles around their little 20-year old world-views.
They suppress themselves because they know they’re wrong and avoid debate so that their views aren’t challenged. Which means they’re avoiding what higher education is all about. Which indicates they’re just there for the scrap of paper with a degree stamped on it. Which makes them careerist pigs.
But that’s higher ed altogether these days, liberal and conservative alike. It’s not educational, it’s vocational — and the contradiction therein is destroying it all.
“It’s not educational, it’s vocational — and the contradiction therein is destroying it all.”
On this, we agree. The stakes involved with a student’s school, graduation, and relative class standing are insane. Ideological or personal differences with a single professor can quite literally cost a student millions in lifetime earning potential and social status. That state of affairs is directly contrary to both the free expression of views and any public discourse of same. That said, please allow some fiscal reality into your judgement here. “Careerist pigs” is a harsh label to apply when you know little or nothing of their personal circumstances.
For all you know, one of those students has an elderly parent or child with cancer or some other loved one with a very expensive medical condition and he/she damn well NEEDS to get a high paying job ASAP after graduation. One might be looking at the demographics of the profession and objectively determining that getting shut out of the field now means they won’t be there in later years to advocate against that professor as a fellow faculty member or to serve as a mentor to incoming conservative students. One might be simply dealing with abuse in life outside classes and not have the emotional energy left for a fight that will change nothing (Except maybe lowering her grade). One might be there on a scholarship and seriously worried that a biased low grade will cost him/her the opportunity to be there at all. Sometimes the long fight simply matters too much to throw it away in a futile symbolic gesture.
Also “Amassed enough knowledge to run circles around their little 20-year old world-views” Knowledge on what, exactly? You didn’t mention your major, but if the comments are political in nature than exactly what relevant expertise do the professors have? Are they former governors or representatives? Liberal vs Conservative is primarily a divide of values and goals, not facts, so knowledge of anything besides debate technique and formal logic are pretty much irrelevant in verbal argument.
“No one’s stopping them.” Really? Have you ever seen what happens when one does speak up? That’s a bit like saying that “no one is stopping” blacks from visiting Klan rallies. That a thing is possible does not prevent it from having negative consequences if done. This is the principle of deterrence in a nutshell “Don’t, or else!” If you really think engaging against the professor is what they should do, I suggest that you try it. Show them how it’s done. You sound like an intelligent, well-spoken individual, surely you can handle playing devil’s advocate at least once, just to show them how its done, right? Test your hypothesis. Or are you too a “careerist pig” unwilling to take a chance to stand up for what you think correct?
OH, PLEASE! In the good ol’ days, segregation and compulsory prayer in school was so politically correct that it was the law in some parts of the Fifty Fiefdoms.
You are clueless. The right owns and runs the country, including the media. They are the only ones with power and ability to censor anything on a grand scale, and they do it daily. I generally agree that the PC crap is annoying, but it’s far from being censorship.
Many politically shallow folk think that being “liberal” on issues like gays and abortion renders one “leftwing.” This is archaic thinking.
Agreed. There’s a big difference between being liberal or progressive, which applies to social issues, and being on the left, which applies to economic issues. But most people don’t get that distinction.
You’re right about gay issues, only the worst of the worst is anti-gay nowadays. But I there are very few right wingers who are pro-choice, even though they’re different issues.
Glenn, I couldn’t agree more. Taking your argument one step further I have always found the practice of expressing unqualified admiration for anyone whether on the left or right to be emotionally immature. I can remember a time when U.S. Cyclist Lance Armstrong was the darling of the media not only for his Tour de France victories but also for his work with the Live Strong foundation. However when news of the doping scandal broke this darling of the media became public enemy number one. Americans seem particularly guilty of this. We are always anointing someone as America’s Sweetheart or America’s Hero. Personally I like Lance Armstrong about as much now as I did before his doping scandal. Now I am not saying that humans are fundamentally flawed and no one is capable of admirable deeds (or maybe I am saying that) but I am saying that people are multifaceted and the same person who has a great record of public service may be compensating for inner demons. The fact is we can never truly know and it is better not to give people adulation if we don’t want to end up with egg our face.
“We are always anointing someone as America’s Sweetheart or America’s Hero. ”
Especially our politicians, which is nuts. Of all the groups and individuals we should be cautious about, politicians should come first. I admire Liz Warren and Sanders (voted for both of them over the years) for their more honest stands on issues, but at the same time, I find their support of Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians repulsive. And I have written to them about it (no replies yet). But at least I don’t put either of them on a pedestal. Best to be skeptical to start. Especially after Obama.
Glenn writes:
Indeed, and once this narrative hardens it will, like the gallant-lost-cause-of-the-South narrative, be difficult to get around, especially once these delicate 1Ls are writing pleadings and court decisions in later years. And the simile is apt: read Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas to get a sense of the kind of America he wanted:
He justified the regulation of private sexual conduct, and a segregation of a segment of the population, on the basis of a particular morality, not some arcane legal formula. He makes it clear in this dissent and elsewhere his hostility to a right to privacy or reproductive choice.
It’s worth bearing in mind when considering Scalia’s legacy and, more important, what use future courts might make of his court opinions. JJ. Holmes’ and Brandeis’ dissents lent themselves to future progress on privacy and civil liberty, but it’s worth remembering that even someone with Holmes’ reputation could still leave us with his eugenics ruling on Buck v. Bell.
We need to sift what he left behind in the U.S. Reports on particular merits — not a fond and hazy memory. That’s something we do need to teach these 1Ls.
Lawrence v. Texas is at https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZO.html
Just take a look at this guy’s (Prof. Bainbridge “law and economics”/corporate governance Prof. at UCLA law; Heritage Foundation fellow; Federalist Society . . . you get the picture) defense or thoughts on the controversy:
Fallacy of overgeneralization; and appeal to fear (oh the scary Marxist fellow travelers who have infiltrated all of legal academia and only care about their ideological victory over us freedom and capitalist loving Americans)
Again, maybe the vast majority of legal academia’s scholarship is “left leaning” (whatever that means) is because generally speaking the “scholarship” of conservatives/libertarians is often inferior if not total crap; again appeals to the scary scary “socialists”.
Um actually no because if people made those arguments about Thurgood Marshall, they’d be laughed at as unserious and without factual merit; plus subtle h/t to imaginary “reverse discrimination”.
It will be no different than the critiques of Scalia’s life’s work and character–it will have zero to do with his race.
This Bainbridge guy is embarrassing himself just as bad as Barnett and Rosenkrantz.
“Leaders of the Federalist Society chapter and of the student Republicans reached out to us to tell us how traumatized, hurt, shaken, and angry, were their fellow students”
In any law school the members of the Federalist Society are the most ambitious sociopathic little weasels in the class. The only “trauma” is the faint stirring of conscience that might inhibit their lifelong aspiration to inflict as much trauma as possible.
Yoo shouldn’t talk that way.
Yeah man it’s like totally uncivil even if true–which was my experience with them. Holy smokes I think I’m having PTSD flashbacks of macro- or micro-aggressions from 1L year when they saw how well I did and tried to recruit me into their little chapter of the Federalist Society. I laughed and said, “not really my cup of tea or worldview there fellas, but you knock yourselves out with your little club.” Or something to that effect. I know I chuckled when they asked and pointed out “do you guys even get a sense of who I am or what I value when we are arguing things in class? . . . I wouldn’t be a good fit for your club trust me”.
The reference to John Yoo aside, I did think that 1Ls with preconceived notions of the law might not fare too well, esp. when it affects their reasoning. Where’s Prof. Kingsfield when you need him?
A few libertarians in law school got me to join The FS. We didn’t stay. It was dominated by wingnuts who held lunch meetings to listen to Rush Limbaugh.
@ Mona
I was already pretty aware of who they were and what their values were before I entered law school given I started law school at 38 years old.
There is a place in the world for principled “conservative” legal and social arguments, but I’ve never found the Federalist Society to be principled about much of anything but their own incoherence. Just like Justice Scalia.
I have a lot more respect, even though I often disagree with them, for judges like Posner and Easterbrook.
Any lawyer who listens to Rush Limbaugh other than as research on the conservative id or to mock same, isn’t somebody I’m ever going to have much respect for as a person or for their opinions–legal or otherwise. Limbaugh is a carnival barker whose hearing and brain are mush due to opiate abuse. I don’t take people like that seriously on any topic except their own hatred and bigotry.
Any US Supreme Court justice who doesn’t believe in evolution or science, and equates being gay with bestiality or pedophilia has no business whatsoever sitting on the highest court in the land in a pluralistic nominally democratic society that respects individual rights so long as the exercise of those rights isn’t infringing on anyone else’s exercise of theirs.
Re: rrheard – Mona – coram nobis – Glenn Greenwald
I proudly associate myself with what you all have said herein; taking special note of this extraordinary paragraph from Glenn.
“The public good before private advantage.” TP
As Usual,
EA
Opiates?If his mind is mush,its not from opiates.Ziocaine most likely,or greed.
It is a possibility the Zionists supply him with opiates,hence his slavery.
I find this typical, sad, and somewhat amusing all at once.
“Any US Supreme Court justice who doesn’t believe in evolution or science, and equates being gay with bestiality or pedophilia has no business whatsoever sitting on the highest court in the land in a pluralistic nominally democratic society that respects individual rights so long as the exercise of those rights isn’t infringing on anyone else’s exercise of theirs.”
More than 70% of Americans belong to a religion that believes in a divine creation, not evolution, and you would bar them from being eligible from serving on the court? That there is no shortage of PHD scientists, well respected experts in their fields, including both the social and natural sciences, who believe in a literal six day creation? You are perhaps aware that it is illegal to have a (anti)religious test for public office? I dislike applying labels to strangers on the internet, but if you wrote that paragraph without any awareness of the blatant hypocrisy you expressed, you are undeniably a bigot.
Homesexuality, beastiality, and pedophila are all objectively sexual preferences. Quite literally, they each refer to a quality the person finds sexually arousing. You can easily argue the legal differences on other grounds (meaningful consent being the obvious one), but if you’re going to “protect” the category of “sexual preference” without such caveats you included by definition every single kink and quirk from “consenting adult of the opposite gender” to “body pillow stuffed with the ashes of my dead spouse, children, and pets” that ever made anyone want to rub one out. That’s not even a slippery slope argument, it’s existing fact now.
Assuming that some “invisible handrail” divides one thing as “a healthy normal desire” from another as “a dark perversion to be thereputically treated or judicially punished” is a fallacy (Appeal to False Authority, namely you). You clearly reject religion as a valid source of absolute moral standards, so all that is left is democratic majority… which was strongly against such things as normalizing homosexuality. So your defense of one preference and condemnation of others offers the reader no basis but your own biases. I was under the impression that we were trying to AVOID a society where any individual is free to impose personal biases on society as a whole (even if we wanted a tyrant, why you?).
So, in your pluralistic democratic society, you feel entitled to ignore entire majorities of the population, increasingly infringe on their individual rights, then deny them any right to be represented on the body ultimately responsible for judging when your overreach exceeds your authority. So… a bit less “free and democratic” than the average middle eastern autocracy or south american socialist republic. Great company you’re keeping, politically speaking.
I suggest that you revist the definitions of “pluralism” and “democracy”, because your position is fundamentally incompatible with both concepts. You can’t be pluralistic while denying religious and political groups access to the bench, nor can you be pro-democracy while approving of an unelected court advancing a social agenda in direct opposition to laws passed by elected representatives or direct referrendum. Respecting individual rights? Includes free practice of religion. Separation of church and state? Includes the state (gov’t) NOT telling the church what it or its members must “accept” or to whom they must provide non-essential services (at worst, that’s an anti-monopoly case if the business lacks a comparable alternative, not an equal rights case). Those are rights and principles. That’s pluralism in action. What you want? Is religious discrimination. Is an oligarchy of the few illegitimately ruling the many. Feel free to vote your biases, run for office even if you think enough other bigots agree with you, pluralistic democracy allows that, but your views are incompatible with the Constitution, so I respectfully suggest that you not aim to be a judge.
Amen, except for the aspersions on weasels, which are charming useful creatures. A better representative from the animal kingdom might be the tick, surreptitious, blood sucking, and filled with disease
speaking of hurt feelings in high places, bwa-ha-haa. Somebody should do a spoken-word recording of this with sad music:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/dear-bernie-sanders-sorry-m-172647639.html
Wrong! On the “norms of civility preclude…” that standard is ONLY valid in familial, intimate, and personal relationaships and not bussiness or professional. Period. End. It is the respect of eulogy of familial–w/ respect to the godly relationships we are encumbered from on high– but never paid professional relationships: the facts stand as they are, good, bad, qnd ugly for whatever reasons. Yep, apples and oranges here. Law, yea?
Wrong! I don’t know what your profession is, but mine requires that disagreement be conducted politely and that politics be left out of the workplace to the greatest extent practicable. Pretty sure the same applies at any institution receiving federal funding, so that includes most universities as well. Anything less is hostile environment and possibly discrimination.
So in academic and public sector business, the “norms of civility” DO APPLY, with legal backing. As a common social convention, one is also obliged to modify language used upon request from those offended thereby. You may present relevant negative facts and state your opposition reasonably and politely, but the sort of linguistic spitting on the dead involved here borders on slander/libel. At minimum, a short period of silence in respect for the mourning remains appropriate, with the later counter-obituary to be calmly factual, rather than gleefully vulgar. Hell, I actively despise Hillary Clinton, but if she keeled over today I’d still give it a week or three before posting on the matter and refrain altogether from providing “like/share” to the inevitable “Ding, Dong, the witch is dead” memes.
Glenn, on another topic: When will you be releasing that investigative NSA-leaks piece that you promised would light up the sky with “fireworks” a year or so ago?
You want to see some of the pernicious and “uncivil” views Scalia advanced with regard to LGBT or voting rights, take a gander:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/scalia-worst-things-said-written-about-homosexuality-court
Let Barnett, Rosenkrantz and their delicate little fellow travelers in the student body who are members of the Federalist Society at Georgetown defend Scalia’s “incivility” if not “inhumanity” and “bigotry”.
Seriously, those little pampered clowns on the Georgetown Law faculty and in the student body should be fricking embarrassed as all get out to be all hurt, shaken and shocked that people would dare to denigrate the “work” and “character” of a man who took some of the “uncivil” positions The Great Nino Scalia tried to advance during his years on the bench. Backwards, revanchist, and employing formalism to hide and perpetuate bigotry and inequality before the law–that’s Scalia’s legacy. Only one who should be ashamed of Scalia’s life’s work is Scalia and his fellow travelers like Bennet, Rosenkrantz and their little Federalist Society revanchist pukes. How’s that for uncivil.
Thanks RR!!!!
You are an amazing writer Glenn.
Scalia was protecting the country from turning into a cesspit of immorality that has been becoming more and more frequent under liberal “tolerance” when in reality a liberal is the most intolerant sack of dung that there has ever been in history. If you don’t agree with their gay, interracial destruction of cultures, destruction of religion and family values, etc. then they will attack you and harass you. We don’t have to deal with a bunch of people with mental disorders like liberals have and tow the Rothschild world domination plan or the EU Kilergi plan. No thank you liberal zombie army.
Zombie reporting for duty, ready to defend you against the upcoming attacks and harassment. It will start any minute I am sure.
These delicate flowers are training for careers as lawyers, right? Do they realize that a lawyer’s job consists mainly of getting involved in heated, contentious arguments?
I almost read Glenn’s phrase as “twenty-two month old 1Ls”. (BTW, the professors’ hyphenation was wrong).
@ Glenn
Gawd Glenn I hope you sent this piece to both Barnett and Rosenkrantz’ Twitter feeds or directly to their faculty e-mails.
Here’s what really burns me about people like the AIPAC stooge quoted above and their attempts to suppress free speech:
Actually no there must not be. No one can argue that there is such a thing as “a right to free speech” if that “right” does not include the “right” to speak “uncivilly” because quite frankly there are many horrible things that one group of humans does to another that are unspeakably uncivil as a function of their nature, but when others try to point this out with an equal lack of rhetorical civility they are told “you must play nice.” Fuck that bullshit is what I say. You treat me uncivilly at the very least you should expect to be treated rhetorically in an equally uncivil way unless I choose to take the higher road rhetorically. Not that I’m logically or morally obligated to.
Amazingly, just today Rosenkranz re-tweeted some article protesting PC censorship on campus! So I replied with this:
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/702166394079723521
@ Glenn
Good for you. I’m just about speechless in the face of such blatant hypocrisy, lack of self-awareness and cognitive dissonance exhibited by people like Barnett and Rosenkrantz. They simply don’t get it and never will.
Similarly, the mantle of “victimization” that “conservatives” display in American society when they basically wield all the significant levels of power in America (if not all over the world) is truly stunning to me. They are threatened by anything and everything or even the most marginal of cultural changes or expansion of legal rights to those not like them. It’s almost like a mental disorder.
I’ve said it before a long time ago, I believe there is an evolutionary adaptation occurring (as evolution is always happening whether we see it or not) in human beings and it is somewhat self-evident in the hard wiring and psychological makeup of “conservatives” vs. “liberal” brains.
And if the wheels ever truly come off our “societies” I have no doubt both groups are going to be hunting each other for their shiny pelts as trophies.
Just like Neanderthal genes got sublimated either through interbreeding with Homo Sapiens or outright conflict, I think that sort of evolutionary divergence or assimilation is happening as we speak between the “conservative” and “liberal” groups within the human population [of course I’m not entirely serious and don’t know that there is any scientific basis whatsoever for claiming that is happening, but it’s fun pop-culture pseudo-science speak and a way to vent over the level of stupidity and illogic being displayed by these delicate little flowers at Georgetown Law].
Victimization, actual or feigned, can be a form of tyranny.
No surprise there. Right-wingers in the U.S. typically do not recognize that other people have the same rights and privileges under the Constitution as they do.
I don’t know what the moral of the story is, really. Maybe it’s that even in the twenty first century, with all the state of the art legal education you want, if you are dealing with bad judges you will get bad decisions. Interestingly, even from Scalia’s first mention in the news, his work to cover up Nixon’s corruption, you can see what made him someone a corrupt government would want on the supreme court. Could you draw a line from Nixon lawyers trying to hide audio tapes of illegality…to Obama lawyers trying to hide torture photos, and predict some of the next US judicial appointments?
Some members of the faculty of Georgetown are seriously embarrassing themselves with this “we’re such delicate flowers and followers of the Great Justice Scalia’s life that we can’t possibly bear others thinking or saying that he was a giant floating turd in the jurisprudential bowl of American life.”
Fucking pathetic coming from law school professors. Anybody wasting their tuition dollars to learn the law at someplace like Georgetown might as well transfer to Berkley so they can learn it from somebody that should be thought of as a real live war criminal like Prof. Yoo. At least you know what you’re getting there.
There’s also a matter of grammar. I assume Glenn copied, accurately, “twenty-two year-old 1Ls”.
Lousy hyphenation, perhaps? Twenty-two year-old 1Ls? Twenty-two 1Ls that are one year old?
Twenty-two-year-old might be a little clearer, although it’s a common practice to use numerals for any count over ten, or twelve, e.g., “Prof. Kingsfield’s Contracts class has only 22-year-old 1Ls.”
As they used to teach us in grammar school, “Hyphens matter. Would you rather I gave you twenty-five dollar bills or twenty five-dollar bills?”
@ coram
Hahahahahahaha . . . I didn’t even pick up on that. Now I’m basically nonplussed by the whole thing (and those guys would probably hyphenate non-plussed). Hahahahahaha . . . I really don’t know what to think about a law school with Professors like these two dudes on their faculty. I wonder if their colleagues secretly mock them behind their backs at the Marxist Law Professor Luncheons held under the sickle and hammer in the day room of Prof. Peller’s house on every other Thursday.
The whole faux “controversy” is just making them look stupid.
Yes, and with jurists and law professors, words are what they do. Sillier and sillier it gets. Law school should teach them to write, and reason, and not lay themselves open to a sudden counter-thrust. Poor little delicate 1Ls.
You sir missed your calling.
Not that I’m not happy to have you as a colleague because I’m sure you are a very fine lawyer as well.
Note that the same standard for discussing newly deceased leftist public figures is almost never applied—the far right almost always reacts with unbridled glee and celebrates the passing of a left-winger, demanding its free speech rights, while demanding that there be no criticism or celebration of the passing of a right-winger.
The double standard here is obvious and profoundly disturbing. Were today’s double standard of postmortem etiquette to have been applied in previous decades, then there should have been worldwide public mourning upon the death of Adolf Hitler in establishment media circles, and universal condemnation of any and all who dared suggest that such adulation was inappropriate at best and obscene at worst in light of his atrocities. Common sense dictates that nothing but the truth must be spoken of public figures even after death, even if some may find that truth distasteful and offensive.
Here’s three quotes:
On quote one: Perhaps it isn’t true about US legal acedemia per se, but as an observer of the US-political-legal nexus in general, the contention that the legal community is lacking diversity is hilarious. You’ve got everything from well intentioned volunteer lawyers trying to free people who have been wrongfully convicted….to government lawyers that gave legal cover for torture who are now sitting judges.
On quote two: Is the criticism of Scalia a sign that the some have lost the ability to not mistake him for Hitler?….I hope this argument isn’t representative of the quality of scholarship of this Georgetown prof.
And quote three: What would be the reaction if you suggested Thurgood Marshal was a bigot? I’m going out on a limb here but probably people would ask you if you were on drugs.
At least I can’t find any Thurgood Marshal articles like this one:
A racist, homophobic, hypocritical a**hole in life is a racist, homophobic, hypocritical a**hole in death.
How dare you.
Yep :-)
Well it appears that Georgetown is no longer a safe space. Hopefully Peller and his ilk will have to attend some sort of mandatory sensitivity training. Perhaps next time such a hateful and traumatizing e-mail is sent out, it will have a trigger warning in the subject line.
As a conservative admirer of brotha Scalia, I must admit reading this article was traumatizing and triggered major, severe depression. The exposure of this article has shattered my sense of safety.
You need a Xanax or Valium? Maybe a cold compress? Fainting couch perhaps or some pearls to clutch? A scale cardboard cutout of Justice Scalia you can pose with for selfies?
Presuming you’re kidding, but just in case I’m happy to point you in the right direction.
To regain sense of safety:
1) Make hole in sand.
2) Insert head.
Even if the professors are sincere, note this bit: “Leaders of the Federalist Society chapter and of the student Republicans reached out to us to tell us how traumatized, hurt, shaken, and angry, were their fellow students.” This provides them cover, worrying about the poor “22 year olds”.
The “22 year olds” of course are quite capable of cynicism themselves. So are quite a few 22 year olds in the social justice movement who have made little activist careers out of pretending to regularly be outraged and traumatized.
So were the young Republicans and many left-leaning student activists I knew thirty years ago when I went to school: cynical manipulators. They put on the hurt tone when it is time.
Anyway, the social justice movement has been so intellectually dishonest that I’m sure they’ll be providing strategies for exploitation for a long time to come. The Left is like cheap labor for the Right in that regard.
The Intercept, launched in 2014 by Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Jeremy Scahill, is dedicated to producing fearless, adversarial journalism. We believe journalism should bring transparency and accountability to powerful governmental and corporate institutions, and our journalists have the editorial freedom and legal support to pursue this mission.
A witness to this statement. Well done GG and all of TI. Thank you
in·teg·ri·ty
in?te?r?d?/
noun
1.
the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.
“he is known to be a man of integrity”
synonyms: honesty, probity, rectitude, honor, good character, principle(s), ethics, morals, righteousness, morality, virtue, decency, fairness, scrupulousness, sincerity, truthfulness, trustworthiness
“I never doubted his integrity”
2.
the state of being whole and undivided.
“upholding territorial integrity and national sovereignty”
ob-se-qui’-ous.
It is a battle between reason and modern conservatism, the conservative academics know reason would triumph. Therefore censorship is their tool to ensure the minds of the new conservatives are not tainted with.
To quote Scalia himself, Barnett and Rosenkranz should “Get over it”
When will Scalia’s support/defense of torture of Americans be discussed-like child sex torture carried out by US govt/Pentagon/CIA some victims targeted with NSA help.
NSA & FBI targeted and tortured Americans and Federalist conservative judges let FBI get away with torturing Americans.
Federalist Society supports torture of Americans and DOJ said they can sexually torture any American Kindergartener by crushing his testicles right before parent eyes.
Scalia defended sexual assault against 13 year old girl by government/school employees.
Scalia supports torturing Americans and support the sexual torture of children like the other member of Federalist Society.
When will support of sexual torture of children as policy by Scalia/conservatives be addressed?
Well put. GG is a very good writer and journalist. Certainly this column is prescient. As was the recent one calling out Krugman on his duplicity.
Still, these are old old stories – how many times do we need to read about the NYT or Krugman’s hypocritical behavior? Especially Krugman who has been discredited over and over. How many times need it be written that the right wing is disingenuous and anti-democratic? What purpose does it serve to beat and beat this dead horse?
There are any number of grave circumstances and situations present in the world today, not the least of which is the seriously deteriorating EU/EZ and its possible collapse. Yet, at The Intercept is doesn’t even get a mention.
What a strange criticism EdHead is offering here. Despite the first sentence, on examination it appears to be a very generalized complaint posted without having read the article. Complaining about reporting on the hypocrisy of the NYT or Krugman, when nothing of the kind is being done here. Suggesting that criticism of the right wing should be put to rest because it has been done before, as if it were some sort of mission accomplished. And in the second paragraph, complaining in an article about one thing that it is not an article about another, unrelated thing. Also, look up “prescient”. This article doesn’t substantially make predictions and if it did, it’s only a day old. A bit soon to say whether it’s “prescient” or not.
Yes, you’re right, my post is a bit garbled.
I guess my comment/complaint is that there is lots of criticism of the right wing already and lots of commentary on hypocritical politicians and NYT columnists. Krugman has been discredited over and over why again?
The other question I have is why, with all its talent and resources, do we not get stories in the Intercept on really big things going on such as the European migration/refugee problem, or the encirclement of China by the US military and its threats toward China, each country with nuclear weapons.
These stories seem so secondary to me, maybe I have the wrong idea or something about what the Intercept is trying to do.
Criticism of the right is not exactly rocket science anyway.
So a (I assume) more liberal professor offers a pretty scathing dissent on Scalia’s legacy, and the best these two (I assume) more conservative professors can offer in response is a bratty whine?
I wonder whose attitude Scalia would be more impressed with.
“student Republicans reached out to us to tell us how traumatized, hurt, shaken, and angry, were their fellow students.”
THE WORLD MADE SENSE YESTERDAY!!!
The same people who openly celebrate and laugh when unarmed blacks are murdered by police with complete indifference to the families of Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, John Crawford, Walter Scott, etc., are “TRAUMATIZED” & “SHAKEN” by simple dissent in the praising of a deeply divisive ideologue whose extremism affected millions of Americans.
The lack of self-awareness of these delicate little rightwing flowers is truly astonishing.
Who “openly celebrate[d] and laugh[ed] when unarmed blacks are murdered by police with complete indifference to the families of Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, John Crawford, Walter Scott, etc.”?
Nice to see the right working to match the left on whining about hurt feelings.
Yes we can! But only if everyone is nice to us and doesn’t disagree with us because that would make us sad.
I’m pretty sure Scalia would tell them to shut up and deal with it.
Scalia installed a US President in a hurried manner that trampled on the election laws, some intellect!
I can’t seem to remember even a moment of silence before the condemnation of Hugo Chavez began when he passed away. Likely that Scalia would have approved of a selective enforcement of the “Honoring the Dead” rule.
Two notes:
1. You too casually dismiss the probability that Barnett and Rosenkranz are trolling by adopting the extreme interpretation of microaggressions. I do believe that they were genuinely offended by Peller’s email but I would bet that they were snickering at the chance to use a leftist hobby horse against him.
2. Scalia was a Georgetown (undergraduate) alumnus so the Dean’s praise also springs from the wellspring of “he was one of us” kind of mentality. The Law school is a very separate beast but I bet the Dean would do something similar if Bill Clinton (another undergrad) died today.
There is never any way to know someone’s secret motives for certain. All we can ever do is speculate. But I highly, highly doubt that they would publicly cast such harsh, serious public accusations at a fellow professor – and demand that he be formally punished – just to play some rhetorical game.
This has created a major controversy at Georgetown and nobody – not the professors or anyone else – suggested they were just joking. And I think it’s clear from the length, passion, anger, gravity of tone and offense that they were not.
Yes, because convention demands that public officials in the US, and elites generally – unless they’ve been convicted of some sort of serious crimes – be accorded great respect, especially on death. That doesn’t really relate to any of the points I’m making, particularly since the Dean’s statement went well beyond the standard nice things someone says about a person when they die into unstinting praise for his jurisprudence.
? Reply
The length, passion, anger, and gravity of tone show that they really really despise Peller and want to cause him pain and embarrassment. Seasoned lawyers adopt argument strategies that have the best chance of working, not because they actually believe the BS that comes out of their own mouths.
And you underestimate the capacity of the school (and most schools really) to protect their own controversial “family” members. When law student Sandra Fluke went before Congress several years ago she did so to denounce the school’s policies (controversy!) but when Rush Limbaugh called her a slut the administration sent many emails to defend her character against the attacks of outsiders.
So then do you expect or suggest that someone who disagrees with the “BS that comes out of their own mouths” would be making a strong argument against their words by ignoring what they’d said or had written, and just go off on some ether land argument against what they’ve said or written?
Yes if Peller wants to make the rebuttal “you two are full of shit and you don’t actually believe in microaggressions and safe spaces” I would think that would be legitimate.
Here’s the Twitter feed of one of the professors, Nick Rosenkranz, where he tweets extensively about this controversy:
https://twitter.com/profnqr/with_replies
I defy you to look at what he tweeted and then come back and claim with a straight face that he was just joking.
trolling =/= joking. I never claimed that they weren’t serious about wanting to punish Peller but I doubt that they actually believe in their argument. Its like a lawyer in a courtroom seriously advancing an argument that they don’t personally believe (ex. “my client is innocent and its all a set-up by the cops!”). It would be fatal to the argument to publicly break character.
In which case, they are functionally serious. This isn’t a courtroom; it’s a public discussion and they have no client for whom they must argue whatever they think will work.
In this discussion they own what they say.
Its not that they “must” cynically pretend to care about microaggressions, its that they want to because they want to hurt or embarrass Peller.
And they now own their rhetoric.
And they only hurt their reputation and their alleged intellect,very embarrassing.
Or, “eye witnesses saw the defendant murder the victim, and there is no need for DNA testing”. (?)
“Seasoned lawyers adopt argument strategies that have the best chance of working, not because they actually believe the BS that comes out of their own mouths. ” This is not even a valid description of an advocacy position for a client but, granting it does for the sake of argument, it has zero relevance for an attorney or anyone else who is speaking on his or her own behalf. If you have not intended to limit this to some who may be overzealous in their professional duties, then you intentionally are smearing all attorneys as unprincipled which tactic is an excellent example of what you claim they do.
I have indeed slandered the noble profession. Retreat to your safe space at once lest I cause you lasting psychological harm!
Now you’re straw-manning. Joy’s argument stands or falls on its own merits. You have no idea, at all, what she thinks about the “safe space” phenomenon.
I don’t care what she thinks about safe spaces, I was trolling her earnest defense of the legal profession.
Everybody hear is too eager to tackle this public airing of petty vendettas and office politics like it means some new nefarious taboo is being set up – it only is if we take assholes like Barnett and Rosenkranz seriously and fail to call them on their bullshit. We shouldn’t dignify this stunt by trying to argue on the merits.
That’s not what’s happening. Glenn is calling attention to the form of their argument, and noting they are adopting the rhetoric used by the left-wing advocates of “safe spaces.”
The hypocrisy is telling as well as noteworthy.
@ Joy
Yes I think this misunderstands an attorney’s ethical obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct, and the Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the FRCPs.
For example in Oregon:
RPC 3.1 “In representing a client or a lawyer’s own interests, a lawyer shall not knowingly bring or defend a proceeding, or assert a position therein, . . . unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for extension, modification or reversal of existing law . . . .
ORCP Rule 17 C:
FRCP Rule 11 is basically a mirror of ORCP Rule 17.
The point being lawyers, at least ones adhering to their professional ethical obligations and their certification obligations to the court cannot just pull “any old argument out of their asses” they think will be persuasive to a jury or judge. Specifically all arguments should have a “basis in fact and existing law” and/or be calculated, in good faith (i.e. well reasoned not some bald appeal to emotion), to expand, extend, modify or reverse a presently understood legal rule or doctrine.
We don’t just get to go around willy nilly passing off in pleadings, motions or briefs any old argument as “reasonable” or based in “fact and law” unless we can actually cite to the facts and law and make compelling well reasoned arguments from them about what those facts mean or how the law should be interpreted or applied based on existing legal precedent.
I think that is a very common misunderstanding of what lawyers do or are obligated to do. Which is not to say all lawyers or judges understand that obligation and since there is enough grey area in the law it has often been my experience that opposing counsel makes some of the most specious and factually and legally unfounded arguments (if not engaging in most of the logical fallacies known to man) in an attempt to advance their client’s position. It’s wrong and should be called out when it happens. I always do, of course in the most civil manner I can muster in court while on the record–because doing it any other way in court, even if infuriatingly specious or transparently bogus, isn’t going to win you any brownie points with the jury or judge.
While we may not be able to know someone’s motives with *absolute certainty*, it’s not true that “All we can ever do is speculate.” there are cases where an examination of each text in controversy, the context in which it was written, and the authors’ track records can help us draw a reasoned and informed conclusion about whether the text is meant to be serious or sarcastic.
Based on such an analysis, I’m pretty sure Barnett’s and Rosenkranz’s email was absolutely NOT meant to be taken at face value. This is partly because, having met Randy Barnett in person and conversed with him at some length, as well as having read his writings over the years (I’ll admit up front that I’ve never heard of Rosenkranz before), I’m very highly confident that he is nowhere near stupid enough or hypocritical enough to write this kind of email without irony.
But it’s more specifically because of the email’s penultimate paragraph in particular:
“Sadly, as just two professors on a faculty of 125, we are in no position to offer much reassurance to our students, beyond reporting that we have heard on the faculty email list, and privately, from a few of our Georgetown colleagues who objected to these messages. All we can do, really, is convey our solidarity with our wonderful students. We share your pain. We share your anger. We stand with you. You are not alone. Be strong as Justice Scalia was strong. Remember, he heard far worse about himself than we have, and yet never wavered in both his convictions and his joy for life.”
“We share your pain”? “We share your anger”? “We stand with you”? “You are not alone”? Come on, folks—these statements are clearly cribbed straight from the kind of rhetoric that left-wing academics routinely employ when they’re praising the activism of their counterparts in the student body (frequently derided by their critics as “social justice warriors”—you know the type). I get the same impression from some other language in the email: “Leaders of the Federalist Society chapter and of the student Republicans reached out to us to tell us how traumatized, hurt, shaken, and angry, were their fellow students.” It clearly mirrors the rhetoric of campus leftist activists in incidents like the race-related protests of last fall. The authors’ explicit reference to November’s Yale controversy further suggests that that is, indeed, what they were getting at.
I’m sure that much of Rosenkranz’s and Barnett’s substantive critique of the original email condemning Scalia does reflect their sincerely held beliefs. But to jump to the conclusion that they’re serious about being the victims of a “macro-aggression,” given the larger context and at least Barnett’s libertarian views, strikes me as highly dubious at best. I’m highly confident that while the authors do disagree with Professor Peller’s original email as vehemently as this email suggests they do, their message *was* meant to convey that disagreement in a manner deliberately exaggerated in order to make a larger, “trolling” point about censorious attitudes in discourse in academia nowadays. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Two points:
1. As Glenn pointed out, it’s one thing for the Dean and the law school to put out a laudatory memorial to a distinguished alumnus, and something else again to claim that any disagreement is a heresy that hurts their feelings and potentially worth stifling.
2. In the law, legacy matters more than in most lines of work, and Scalia left behind a body of majority and dissenting opinions that are part of case law, or that future decisions can cite. He leaves behind an enduring collection of words, and his overall reputation will make it easier, or more problematic, to quote him in the future, and make his opinions more or less persuasive, if not binding. We might not quote justices like Taney or McReynolds as much as a Brandeis, Holmes or Robert Jackson, in part, because we might not remember them as fondly.
Justice Scalia deserves a eulogy by Hunter S. Thompson worthy of this . . .
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/unbound/graffiti/crook.htm
@TMS60
Thank you for attempting to reacquaint this august forum with the wonderful satire and gonzo-prose of Hunter S. Thompson; a speaker of truths and user of words that dealt handily with the dark underbelly of what was, and steadfastly remains, the strange creature our political establishment embodies. I find myself hoping that Matt Taibbi may venture such a Hunteresque tribute to the likes of the legal toady Scalia.
Imagine what these dogmatic self-absorbed neoconlib dissemblers would be howling in response to these words from the late Mr. Thompson.
“Work is love made visible.” KG
As Usual,
EA
People need to get over their feelings. There is too much deference (adoration, even) of political figures on both sides of the political spectrum.
That said, I think Scalia was a net positive in the Supreme Court. Was he a bigot? I don’t know, maybe. That was not his major impact as a Justice. His major contribution was to give intellectual support to the notion that laws mean what the plain text as understood by the legislators meant at the time it was enacted, and not what the judges want it to mean. This is no trivial point. This is the difference between the Rule of Law and arbitrary rule by judicial fiat. Some people who can’t see past their navel think that what Scalia said about gays or minorities is more important than his defense of a system of government that works pretty well, when compared to autocratic regimes without Rule of Law, to protect the rights of minorities. Yes, Georgetown law professors need to get over their feelings, but we should all get over ourselves when it comes to evaluating the role of judges in a free society.
I’m not well versed in Supreme Court history to know if Scalia was a net positive or not, but what I do know is that he was on the right side of many decisions (Kelo v. New London being one of the biggest cases, even if it was a dissenting opinion). That alone is enough to me, to say maybe we shouldn’t immediately jump to criticism in the hours after his death – it’s tacky. I’m not triggered or traumatized by this kind of partisan shrieking of course, although the irony of this being used by conservatives against leftists in academia is not lost on me.
That is literally false nonsense. Antonin Scalia was every bit as result-oriented in his supposed rejection of “arbitrary judicial fiat” as the non-bigots he used that notion to trash.
See, for example, what Richard Posner had to say about Scalia’s jurisprudence: The Incoherence of Antonin Scalia.
Yes there are at least two issues with “laws mean what the plain text as understood by the legislators meant at the time it was enacted”
One is heard more frequently…for example in the gun control debate, how useful is it to try to discern what “the founders” (blessed be the founders!) thought about ordinary citizens being able to walk around with AK47 machine guns. The devices didn’t exist, along with so much else that could not and was not foreseen. The US constitution would have to be infinitely long, and written by seers into the future, enumerating every possible branching possibility, for a supreme court judge’s job to be simply, that of reading “simple text”. The choice is not whether you read the text or not. It is rather, do you use common sense, or do you claim to know what long dead people would decide, and attempt to speak for those dead people. (kind of creepy when you think of it)
And two, more fundamentally, who cares what long dead white male slave owners thought. If you could go back in time, which you can’t, do you really think the founders of America, If they cared at all about the welfare of their descendants, would say to modern day judges: “Don’t use your own judgement!, don’t use commonsensical reasoning applying our foundational principles to the time you live in! No! Here’s what you do Scalia, spend your time on the bench, imagining what you would have liked someone dead for centuries to to have ruled had they had the case that is before you!”. Did Scalia really believe he could hear the decisions of dead people? I doubt it. He simply wanted their deceased stamp of authority, to bolster his irrational decisions.
In my imperfect understanding of Scalia, he wanted the constitution to be as dead, and impotent as possible, allowing all sorts of discrimination, wrongs to continue unchecked. ….except when he wanted, on the other hand, to find somewhere in the “plain text” something like that which told him the founders wanted international mega corporations to have the right to free speech through unlimited campaign contributions. (Was it Jefferson? Or Madison who *plainly* wrote that in the Bill of rights?…help me out here lawyers!!!)
You honestly find impossible the idea that the legal writers of the past wrote laws intending them to be comprehensible to the people to which they applied AND that our knowledge of history, culture, and linguistics is somehow insufficient to interpreting common usage? Relying on author’s “intent” is attempting mind-reading of a dead person, interpreting “what someone actually wrote” is a basic task every literate person does on a daily basis. Given that most members of the legislature are not lawyers, you’ve got a hard case to make that the laws they write can only be comprehended by lawyers. You’re essentially saying that neither the people who wrote the laws nor the people subject to them actually understand those laws and how they apply in practice. By all means, try to invalidate something everyone everywhere does every single day.
The founders included a system for the legislative branch to pass amendments, institute new laws, and revoke old ones. What in all of history makes you think that they intended the JUDICIAL branch to be the ones CHANGING the application of the laws? The justices are charged to interpret the general law to the specific instance brought before them, not the general principle to the law itself. There is a hierachy of laws, they tell which one wins when it comes up, not which one is “right” or “better”, just which one is higher… or at least came first if otherwise equal. That’s all.
Legal decisions are made far more on political grounds than on legal ones. For example, a friend who clerked for a federal appellate justice was told in all cases where the justice had a political opinion what his decision was based on politics, and to then get the law to support that opinion. Your analysis of what Scalia stood for shows that you clearly don’t understand that. Scalia was a right wing jerk, nothing more.