George Mason U. Law School: Brett Kavanaugh Will Not be Fired, Despite Leftist Activist Demands
“law school leaders have no plans whatsoever to fire U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh”
Despite student demands and a campaign led by a former Hillary aide, the school is standing by Kavanaugh. Good for them.
The College Fix reports:
George Mason law school senior associate dean: Justice Kavanaugh will not be fired despite demands
Alison Price, senior associate dean of the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, said Tuesday that law school leaders have no plans whatsoever to fire U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was recently hired as a visiting law professor.
Price made the comments in an interview with The College Fix after she and other campus leaders sat through a roughly three-hour townhall at which students vented their frustration over Kavanaugh’s hiring, saying he makes them feel unsafe and is a threat to their mental well being.
Price, who was the only law school administrator present at the meeting, told The Fix the law school “will not fire Justice Kavanaugh” in an interview after the townhall ended.
When asked about the “Mason 4 Survivors” petition, which has garnered almost 10,000 signatures and not only calls for Kavanaugh to be fired but also a “formal apology from administration to survivors,” she said she has responded individually to students’ concerns, but that the law school has no plans to formally address the demands.
But campus leaders have agreed to some of the Mason 4 Survivors’ petition demands. On Tuesday, they pledged to increase Title IX resources and personnel.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
So in the end, by getting some concessions over what amounted to nothing in the first place, the students won. Well, until BK votes to abandon title IX as unconstitutional. Some people seem to never learn the basic rule of not defecating where they dine.
I wish I were as sure about Title IX being taken to the SCOTUS and ruled unconstitutional. But perhaps the idiocy of males “identifying” as females and proving there are some things (e.g. involving superior strength or body conformation) which make the events in which they compete as “female” a pretty sure win for the males. As the reverse does not benefit females identifying as males (if there are any trying to compete), it is rather one-sided discrimination in these sports.