Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Anti-intellectualism at Cornell Law School: Student groups organize boycott of my course

Anti-intellectualism at Cornell Law School: Student groups organize boycott of my course

“we further urge the administration to critically examine the views of the individuals they intend to employ”

https://youtu.be/CUO8qN4Ldy8

I have been chronicling the saga of efforts to get me fired and denounced at Cornell Law School because of blog posts I wrote critical of the Black Lives Matter Movement as it originated, developed, and plays out now:

But I have not yet covered an effort to boycott my class.

Earlier this week, the Black Law Students Association circulated an email statement to the Cornell Law School community repeating many of the false and misleading accusations against me that I have covered in earlier posts.

But it went beyond that. They refused my offer to debate their representative and a faculty member of their choice, issued a call to boycott my course, and demand the law school screen faculty hires for ideological purity (emphasis added):

Although the law school recently released a statement regarding Professor Jacobson and his blog, we further urge the administration to critically examine the views of the individuals they intend to employ. Faculty members who challenge students to debate them on the motives of those fighting to preserve Black life are clearly more interested in amplifying their own agendas than engaging in thoughtful and reflective discourse. Professor Jacobson has claimed no expertise nor any specialized training on matters of race and racial justice, rendering any future discussions on the matter entirely unproductive. We are not interested in subjecting ourselves and our community members to dialogue that reinforces the false dichotomy of “right” versus “left” when it comes to our humanity.

By mentioning BLSA by name on his blog and suggesting that we are somehow the cause of some unwarranted vitriol he is receiving, Professor Jacobson invites a hostility that we cannot ignore. Accordingly, the BLSA Executive Board will refrain from participating in the Securities Law Clinic that Professor Jacobson supervises. As the course selection period approaches, we encourage our membership and our allies to reconsider studying under an individual whose views perpetuate hatred towards their fellow students. Thinly veiled racism under the guise of “intellectual diversity” has no place in our law school.

Open debate, having your views challenged in an environment that allows a give-and-take, and taking courses from professors with whom you might disagree politically, apparently is the latest thought crime.

Now that effort to boycott me is being amplified by the Cornell Law School chapter of the National Lawyers Guild (a left-wing national legal group), according to a tip and document I was given,  Here is an email reportedly being circulated trying to organize the boycott (emphasis added):

Dear Student Leaders,

I am reaching out on behalf of the National Lawyers Guild regarding a letter we would like to send to the student body concerning Professor William Jacobson.

We hope that everyone has had a chance to read the powerful statement the BLSA executive board sent on Monday regarding Prof. Jacobson. We support their statement, and hope to amplify it in one, unified campaign.

As many of you know, Prof. Jacobson has written a number of racist and inflammatory blog posts regarding the movement in defense of Black life over the last week or so. We have conferred with leadership at BLSA, and would like to circulate the letter linked below to the student body, encouraging them to refrain from taking his classes. While Jacobson has the right to write as he likes, the student body has the right to choose whether they are comfortable being instructed on the law by a person with these views.

You can review the letter here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iVkozW_uXFfh_aVbocI2Y35r3L_a8YZg94-In78T5Iw/edit?usp=sharing

In the interests of protecting individual students, we are only seeking group signatories, not individual signatories. We would like to circulate this letter to the student body tomorrow, June 18. Please let us know if your group would like to be a signatory by end of day.

If you have any questions or concerns please let us know!

In Solidarity,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
National Lawyers Guild

This is not about my writing on the issues, which they misrepresent and distort in the statement they plan on circulating. I’ve offered to debate people on the history and trajectory of the Black Lives Matters Movement, and how much of what takes place under that banner has other goals. That offer of debate has been rejected. What are they afraid of from an open exchange of ideas?

With the slogan “Silence is Violence” being used at the law school, there will be enormous pressure for student groups to go along. Not to do so would be deemed an act of “violence.”

This is an attempt not just to scare students away from my course, but to scare students away from speaking their minds, and to create a faculty and student purity test.

I have received numerous emails from students telling me I have a lot of “quiet” support at the law school, but that students are afraid to speak out for fear of career-ending false accusations of racism. I deeply appreciate the expressions of support, and I understand why you cannot speak out. You don’t want to be subjected to the type of smear campaign to which I have been subjected.

This toxic atmosphere didn’t need to take place. At a time when the law school desperately needs an adult in the room, so to speak, we have faculty and a Dean who denounce me.

This isn’t activism, it’s anti-intellectualism.

I don’t think it will work, and there will be a backlash. The students I’ve encountered over the past 12 years have been, for the most part, curious, intelligent, and willing to consider other viewpoints. Some of them, having long-since graduated, I consider friends. The students are why I keep doing this, and why I will keep doing this.

[Featured image: YouTube screenshot]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

There’s got to be a backlash or we will have surrendered. Only question is how nasty will it get and does it come before Trump is reelected, or after…

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to stl. | June 17, 2020 at 7:04 pm

    It is happening now.

    If the good professor has online classes,
    then people from around the world can enroll.

    Could some organizations give one class scholarships for Professor Jacobson courses?

    Democrat Party college administrations (97% donated to the Democrats) are doing this around the country to conservative and Trump supporting professors.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to stl. | June 17, 2020 at 9:38 pm

    Nasty now, much nastier after Trump is reelected.

    GKD32 in reply to stl. | June 17, 2020 at 10:35 pm

    It is a shame that law schools have fallen beneath the dignity of the profession. Most of these children managed to hold a high GPA with a great score on the LSAT. The problem is that most of these little Marxists are developmentally on par with a 16-year-old when it comes to emotions.
    I hate to burst their little bubbles but the people in flyover country could care less about how they feel.

      h2optrl in reply to GKD32. | June 18, 2020 at 11:59 am

      I talked with my 20 year old daughter last night about a new video game she has been anxiously awaiting the release. The premise of The Last of Us 2 by Naughty Dog is the Washington Liberation Front (law and order) arise from the quarantine zone (pandemic) and fight an opposing force with light religious leanings (extreme liberalism) for territory in Seattle. Now, either Naughty Dog has a crystal ball or CHAZ now CHOP May he just a bunch of board children who are playing out their own game. Maybe when the game is released tonight at midnight, we will see them drift away back to their PS4s.

    SeniorD in reply to stl. | June 18, 2020 at 7:20 am

    We have to remember there are more of us than there are of them. We’re also better armed and trained and I’m not talking about violence. Anyone who has read Professor Jacobson’s & Co. blog knows every essay is reasoned and respectful. In contrast, the BLM/Antifa organizations, and the puppetmasters controlling them, are the direct opposite.

    CMartel732 in reply to stl. | June 25, 2020 at 2:06 pm

    How is mob rule stopped at universities when the administration favors or is cowardly before the mob?

legacyrepublican | June 17, 2020 at 3:43 pm

Is there a tort here by claiming false facts in order to justify boycotting you?

    Considering how damaging being branded a racist generally is these days, I would think so. Especially since they are making things up to justify the claim.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Voyager. | June 17, 2020 at 9:45 pm

      Tactics taken from Oberlin College’s playbook. Maybe Oberlin will be dumb enough to give Professor Jacobson a cause for action. That would be ironic, and poetic.

      I’m waiting for the nuclear lawsuit by P.WJ.

      It’ll sure be national in scope and very well funded.

    Milhouse in reply to legacyrepublican. | June 18, 2020 at 8:14 pm

    No, because they haven’t claimed false facts. They’ve just expressed a wrong opinion, mischaracterizing Prof J’s blog posts as racist. That’s not a statement of fact, so it’s not actionable.

President Trump’s very first act upon reelection should be to immediately stop all government support, of any kind, for non-STEM higher education.

There is no reason why our tax dollars should be funding factories turning out anti-intellectual, non-critcal thinking, mind numbed, brainwashed leftist so-called “social justice warriors.”

Get the government out, and let the market–that is, the students themselves–decide exactly what kind of education they want to pay for.

    Milhouse in reply to Wisewerds. | June 17, 2020 at 4:04 pm

    He doesn’t have the discretion to do that. Congress would have to do it, and that would depend not only on the Rs retaking the House, and holding the line with their own squishy senators, but also on their being willing to undertake an almighty fight to overcome a filibuster. (There is no chance whatsoever of reducing the senate Dems enough to matter; the best the Rs can hope for, even in a landslide, is a net gain of about 2 seats, and that will be hard enough.)

      daniel_ream in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2020 at 4:52 pm

      There’s no Constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in any kind of education, as far as I can see; as chief executive, could he not simply shutter the Department of Education and refuse to disburse the funds? Not just for non-STEM, but universities, period?

        Dusty Pitts in reply to daniel_ream. | June 17, 2020 at 5:12 pm

        No. As we’ve seen throughout his presidency, any action he takes gets challenged in court, and even the ones he definitely has the authority to undertake get blocked by some podunk district judge who thinks he can issue a nationwide injunction.

        Milhouse in reply to daniel_ream. | June 17, 2020 at 8:18 pm

        Well, at least according to the judicial branch he can’t. It’s by now well-established law that he can’t refuse to spend money Congress has appropriated. And the judicial branch has rejected the view that the other two branches are each entitled to their own interpretation of the constitution on matters that affect only them.

        So it wouldn’t take a “Hawaii judge” to overrule him on this; pretty much any judge, except perhaps Clarence Thomas, would order him to spend the money.

        Which means the only way he could do it would be to finally defy the judicial branch when he believes it to be ultra vires, something he has not done in numerous instances where he would have a much stronger case than he does here.

        Also, if he did decide to do this then for consistency’s sake he’d have to cut all unconstitutional spending, which would be more than half the budget, probably, and guarantee another impeachment, on much stronger grounds this time, and likely successful.

        I think the fight against ultra vires judges is one that some president some time is going to have to have, but Trump’s had occasions that seemed perfect for it and he’s refused them, so I don’t expect him to do it here.

      He has a pen. He has a phone.

      He can do whatever the f—k he likes.

      Wielding A Pen And A Phone, Obama Goes It Alone:
      https://www.npr.org/2014/01/20/263766043/wielding-a-pen-and-a-phone-obama-goes-it-alone

        No, he can’t. Not legally. And unlike 0bama, he’s not impeachment proof.

          SeniorD in reply to Milhouse. | June 18, 2020 at 7:23 am

          He would be if the Republicans grew a spine and intestinal fortitude to retake Nancy’s House of Ill-Repute.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | June 18, 2020 at 9:08 am

          1. That’s up to the voters.
          2. Even if the Rs retook the house, if Trump were to defy valid court orders, and were to illegally refuse to spend money Congress has appropriated, many Rs would vote to impeach.

          The rule of law is out the window.
          Riots, killings, burnings and terror are no lawful: but they’re being used against us.

          At best, it was that treasonous scumbag Lois Lerner at the IRS. She’s making us yearn for the old days.

          Lincoln declared martial law during the Civil War. He saved the nation.

          The rule of law could have saved us, but sessions was a rat, and barr is proving to be Mr. Slow-Walker (which in English, means ‘rat’).

    tom_swift in reply to Wisewerds. | June 17, 2020 at 4:36 pm

    immediately stop all government support, of any kind, for non-STEM higher education.

    Even with this proviso, Cornell University would still be eligible for funding, as its STEM programs are far from negligible.

    alohahola in reply to Wisewerds. | June 17, 2020 at 4:57 pm

    This is seeping into STEM, too. Cut all government support.

      Voyager in reply to alohahola. | June 17, 2020 at 8:11 pm

      Eat the king’s food and drink the king’s wine and you’ll pipe the king’s tune.

      Governments should not be involved in any funding of education in the US. And that goes beyond the US government as well. It invites corruption of discourse.

    Old Patzer in reply to Wisewerds. | June 17, 2020 at 5:39 pm

    Oh yeah, let’s abolish the DOE (both of them!). Fortunately, the GOP has been all over it since 1980, so it should happen any day now.

I recently saw an Instagram post on a daily facts kind of page of a split image of a juvenile bald eagle next to an adult bald eagle. The caption said it was the same bird several years apart. As my mom was a bird watcher, I was already aware that a bald eagles coloration changes significantly over the course of its life. Even though anyone viewing an Instagram post obviously has access to google and could easily verify this fact, you can’t believe the number of people denigrating the poster for posting incorrect information. It makes me realize that when you have so many people that cannot believe a fact as simple as that and show no willingness to do any research or give it another thought how can you get them to engage on more complex issues.

I fear for your job and your personal safety, but more then that I fear how much the police will be funded once the left controls them.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to 5under3. | June 17, 2020 at 9:56 pm

    Remember, half of the population is on the wrong side of the Bell Curve. And, the groups are lumped together, the majority of some individual groups end up on the wrong side. The spread between the dullest and the smartest is significant.

Massinsanity | June 17, 2020 at 3:52 pm

Sounds like a great class, I wish I could take it!

This is not the least bit surprising. I expected the boycott of your class and that you will be receiving lots of negative reviews as well.

It will be interesting to see how many CLS students have the backbone to stand up to the mob to take what sounds like an important class for anyone wishing to work in securities law.

Here in MA in the past few days we had a Catholic Chaplain at MIT forced to resign because he called into question the role of racism in the death of Mr Floyd and stated that Mr Floyd did not lead a virtuos life. The call came from both MIT and the Archdiocese of Boston which is sad.

We also had a bartender on the North Shore eavesdrop on a group of customers and post the content of their conversation on FB. They were questioning the role of BLM in the riots. One of the customers is a local politician. The woke mob is calling for a boycott of the restaurant and the resignation of the official. The bartender was fired.

    tom_swift in reply to Massinsanity. | June 17, 2020 at 4:32 pm

    The call came from both MIT . . .

    There’s a tiny silver lining here. I’m always on the lookout for a reason to blow them off when they annoy me for alumni contributions.

    Maybe it’s not so tiny, if all politics is indeed local.

    artichoke in reply to Massinsanity. | June 17, 2020 at 7:20 pm

    The left’s forces are all in position for this big push. Have a look at the Trustees of the MIT Corporation. I was going to complain about something Presidenbt Rafael Reif did, but when I saw who his bosses are, I understood that he’s doing just as they want.

      GatorGuy in reply to artichoke. | June 18, 2020 at 9:42 am

      Exactly, art.

      Where’s CU’s Board of Trustees on this? First, though, who comprises its membership, and what are their individual backgrounds, achievements, past promotions and, thus, leanings?

      What very material relationship, if any, exists between individual Board members, its chairman alone, or its inclinations generally and the CLS dean?

      A free, competent, and professional press, motivated from proper, as opposed to interested, improper, and unprofessional first principles — let alone the naturally allowable competitive, ego-satisfying, rewarding and enriching need to scoop the story first and best — would look into these most relevant considerations.

      In a world still ruled by reason and fairness, would the absence of such needed inquiry, ie, the press’s nonfeasance and neglect in this event, its “silence,” equal its complicity to undermine and allow the disappearance of academic freedom and unabridged free speech on campus, let alone “violence”?

      Don’t count on any unbiased, objective analysis of this obvious hypocrisy by the press. Reductions to absurdity today are invoked, well-concluded, and applied by the unfree press only when the offending argument attacks the Right; the Left self-immunes against any such allegation by the simple act — and sin, insofar as a functioning, effective democracy is at stake — of omission.

      Corruption and degeneration of essential democratic institutions used to be understood as facially wrong and denaturing, regardless of the political bent and aim of a a given party. Today, however, it’s promoted and insured as a bulwark against non-, “thus, anti-” Maoists and -Marxists. Could this likely be the case?

      Evidenced by current national and international events during this, the election year of 2020, the party-cake — with its proprietary-like, special ingredients only the Left would brand as its own and put in the national over to bake slowly, as it were, during their glorious summer of 1968 — has apparently this summer reached its near-edible state.

      What’ll be needed soon are only the cake’s even more delectable cultural toppings — such as the continuity and advancement of CHOP; the Minneapolis City Council’s official steps to defund and greatly deactivate its police; and the Atlanta, Georgia, DA’s wrongheaded, overly simplified, possibly ultra-vires and malicious, politically motivated prosecution against a couple of apparently very patient and professional police officers, especially one, who found themselves in an awfully complex and potentially dangerous investigation ending in a lawful arrest, to cite just three — to finish off the essential preparation of its inaugural party, scheduled immediately after the election in November.

      What a terrible, increasingly palpable, nightmarish anticipation at hand.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Massinsanity. | June 17, 2020 at 10:00 pm

    Maybe we can help out with the review issues.

    SeniorD in reply to Massinsanity. | June 18, 2020 at 7:35 am

    The Catholic Church hierarchy has been on the wrong side of political/racial issues since the supposedly “Free State” of Maryland (founded as a Catholic sanctuary) became a State. I agree with treating individuals with the same love and respect Our Lord showed, but I refuse to accept the rioting, looting, and politically-inspired actions of the BLM movement. There is NOTHING in Professor Jacobson’s writings or teachings that run contrary to the Supreme Law of the Land (aka the Constitution). The sort of bullying behind the actions of Cornell Law School should embarass its Alumni to the point of cutting off any donations.

Subotai Bahadur | June 17, 2020 at 3:52 pm

“we further urge the administration to critically examine the views of the individuals they intend to employ”

How about instead that we urge the administration critically examine the ideological views of the individuals under consideration for admission.

Subotai Bahadur

Thank you for standing up and fighting.

Their argument is so weak it can only be won by to silencing and destroying any who disagree.

Thinly veiled racism is sort of like a nightgown.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to rhhardin. | June 17, 2020 at 10:04 pm

    It is ironic which group is the most racist. They even discriminate against each over over skin tone.

“We are not interested in subjecting ourselves and our community members to dialogue that reinforces the false dichotomy of ‘right’ versus ‘left’ when it comes to our humanity.”

There is no idea, none, that is above criticism. BLM is as open for debate as every other idea under the Sun, from the existence of an “Almighty” to socialism to the Muslims’ claim that their Qur’an is the perfect book and that their Mohammad was the perfect man. And every idea in between.

Refusing debate/discussion challenges is a sign certain that one is unsure of his/her/their ideas and of an inability to defend those issues. It’s actually cowardly. In the same vein that shutting down the voices of others is both cowardly and thuggish.

This bears repeating,

Yet again we see it. In The Coming of the Third Reich (2003), historian Richard J. Evans explains how, in the early days of National Socialist Germany, Stormtroopers (Brownshirts) “organized campaigns against unwanted professors in the local newspapers [and] staged mass disruptions of their lectures.” To express dissent from Nazi positions became a matter of taking one’s life into one’s hands. The idea of people of opposing viewpoints airing their disagreements in a civil and mutually respectful manner was gone. One was a Nazi, or one was silent (and fearful).

Today’s fascists call themselves “anti-fascists.” Just like the Nazis, they are totalitarian: they are determined not to allow their opponents to murmur the slightest whisper of dissent. Forcibly suppressing the speech of someone with whom one disagrees is a quintessentially fascist act.

    GatorGuy in reply to fscarn. | June 18, 2020 at 11:30 am

    Culturally, historically, socio-politically, and common-sensibly correct, fscarn. (Knowing intuitively that your argument stands so well by itself, you don’t need my cheerful affirmation, I’m sure; but, please, take it as such anyway.) Moreover, I add:

    To any reliable, still-pro-Western civ CLS/CU donors out there: “Are you there?” Do our valued, irreplaceable and long-held democratic institutions still matter to you? “Does anybody care?”

    I intermittently echo above a few lines from our nation’s principal Founder, Gen George Washington, when he led the brave and resourceful fight to carry our infant nation’s flag to triumph, against the British foe of rightful independence and liberty and when our country’s viability was in serious doubt.

    CLS/CU donors, large ands small: Now perhaps having gotten your attention, will you come to the aid of your countryman and CLS/CU professor, William A Jacobson — who’s under baseless, abusive, and unjust attack by the Leftist Vision-supporting Faculty 21 et al, a clearly uncivil, anti-democratic, tyrannical and totalitarian movement at, among many, many other renowned academic institutions, CLS/CU? Will you act, under your still-active, constitutionally supported and guaranteed right to speak freely, with your special message — sooner rather later?

    The civilizationally and culturally relevant ivy, draping what’s become your distinctly ivory towers, is wilting nearly everywhere on campus, in case you haven’t noticed. The plants, CLS/CU, and the United States arguably deserve better, we, supporters and friends of Prof Jacobson, are legitimately and most seriously contending.

    It’s wondered, as well, do you contend similarly?

This is discrimination, conservative law students are not afforded equal opportunity to boycott professors with whom they disagree! We would never be able to find a class, and could not get enough credits to get through the first year of any school in the country.

we further urge the administration to critically examine the views of the individuals they intend to employ.

Serious question, Prof J: Do you believe that educational institutions should hire instructors who will be influencing students, without any regard whatsoever for their political or ideological opinions? If you were in a hiring position at a university, would you be comfortable hiring a candidate who is a neo-nazi or a communist? Would you hire Howard Zinn to teach history? What about someone who has a picture of Dr Mengele or Che Guevara on his desk, or his facebook page? Or one of Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin? The Pittsburgh shooter?

In other words, were the “McCarthyists” of the ’50s wrong? I don’t think they were. I wouldn’t want to hire any of these BLM people, so I understand them not wanting to hire people like us. I think they’re wrong, not because hiring should be value-neutral but because their values are wrong. I think it’s OK for a university to take official notice of that and act on it. Or if not a university then at least a high school.

What do you and others think? Serious answers only, please.

    n.n in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2020 at 4:42 pm

    Dr Mengele

    Planned People (PP), cannibalized-child. for medical progress? Probably not.

    daniel_ream in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2020 at 4:58 pm

    Myself, I don’t believe universities should be publicly funded at all (this includes publicly funded student loan guarantees). As private institutions, then, they would be free to hire or not hire whatever professors touting whatever ideologies the university chose.

    There would no doubt remain those universities that would cater to the children of rich Communists, but basic market forces would both drive down the cost of tuition and force universities to provide an education of some value for that tuition.

    broomhandle in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2020 at 5:07 pm

    I think the problem here is the shoddy language of the statement. I am sure any good school examines way more than someone’s views on the law itself, the practice of law, academics, teaching etc. What the author meant was finding out (not examining) candidates political opinions and making sure they align exactly with theirs.

    Dusty Pitts in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2020 at 5:16 pm

    If they weren’t receiving public funding, I’d say they should have absolute discretion about hiring and firing, and let the market decide.

    However the federal government is in higher education up to the latter’s duodenum, and therefore is and ought to be accountable to the government to the fullest extent of relevant law.

    stevewhitemd in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2020 at 5:55 pm

    Your question is mostly asked and answered in the modern university: it depends.

    As some animals are more equal than others, some opinions are more important than others, and there is little hope of closing that particular Pandora’s box.

    In an ideal world, a university would permit a great deal of diversity and refuse to hire only those people who’s teaching or ideas were objectively, thoroughly perverse or dangerous to the social order. That is to say, both neo-Nazis and neo-Bolsheviks would be unemployed.

    But as we all know, it doesn’t work that way. It’s part and parcel of how power is used. In the days when kings had near-absolute power, you could teach as you wish unless what you taught was in some way offensive to the king. In a Soviet university you could teach … well, not at all as you wished but exactly what Stalin wanted you to say (and sometimes even that didn’t save you).

    The human condition is that power is there to be used and abused. That is as true in any university as in any other human endeavor.

    artichoke in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2020 at 7:26 pm

    The fact is, you couldn’t get away with refusing to hire someone because they’re associated with BLM these days. Therefore it should not be possible to decline to hire because someone scrutinizes BLM.

Either the student groups rise above the bigotry of diversity (e.g. #BlackLivesMatter), or other student groups will not kneel to social (i.e. relativistic) justice, or you may have to find another market with a discerning democracy that does indulge color judgments.

Clearly, you do not want to withdraw and I commend you for that. I hope your and other students stand up openly and silently by taking your class and answering to no one about their decision to do so.

I love this part of the second letter: “In the interests of protecting individual students, we are only seeking group signatories, not individual signatories.”

I am certain they are not interested in protecting the” individual students” who end up taking your class.

    ray in reply to alohahola. | June 17, 2020 at 7:47 pm

    I noted that distinction, too. They are seeking to erase individuals in thought as well as action, so they can deal only with groups and collectives. Leftist, indeed.

      GatorGuy in reply to ray. | June 18, 2020 at 12:14 pm

      I noticed that, too, ray — the hallmark of a cowardly and responsibility-burying bunch of hit-and-run bullies.

      (Permit, please, the near-complete alliteration; I think it works okay here.

      (But you know, on the self-conscious side, however, maybe it’s a Freudian or other over-emphasized denial of the simply written, semantically-neutral “B,” as in Black, lest I be tagged with the “r” word. So much is uncertain, conscious to a fault these days.

      (Worse still, though, is this late thought, the real possibility that, in my not mentioning “BLM” or “BLSA” expressly somehow in a positive, supportive, properly balancing sense, my “silence” there about that is tantamount to “violence”.

      (Wow. The Psych-out for the New Century doesn’t end, does it! Verbalized or not, if you’re not affirming the verbal and phrasal constructions, the theories on their page, you’re a violent, complicit actor.

      (Give me a very big break, and get a logical vocabulary first, followed next by a realistic, internally coherent framework of ideas!)

I hope you can and will take appropriate legal actions soon.

Lawfare can go both ways…

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Ray - SoCa. | June 17, 2020 at 10:46 pm

    I have stood firmly with public exposure on issues, faced many credible threats of litigation and one actual SLAPP.

    I suggest that Professor Jacobson line up contingency litigators ASAP.

    He is exposed, most of the rest of us are not. Having been high profile in the past, and now being anonymous, I really appreciate the difference.

Hang tough, fight back and video everything. Have someone with you at all times recording what they say and do.

This attack on Professor Jacobson is an attack on all of us. No one is a bystander.

How many Krystalnachts will it require before you realize that they want you dead and you need to leave now before they come for you?

I write this from the safety of a small Wyoming town.

Wait until the BLM/Palestine axis really gets going – you’ve covered police training in Israel – but what’s wrong with training Officer Chauvin to choke those other people (that is the spin, you can find it if you look for it).

You are brilliant, but so were the Jews in Germany. How did their attempts at reasoning with the Nazis work out?

    GatorGuy in reply to tz. | June 18, 2020 at 12:39 pm

    Time for the American version, soon, of Doron Kavillio and buddies, a Shin-Bet (Special Ops, FBI-like, bad-boy, if need be) force to begin training, to soon be ready to deploy and be OM.

    Can we count on you now, Director Ray, to honestly, honorably earn you salary and to ensure the FBI will do its job protecting Americans and the Constitution at the same time? Can you do this, all at once?

Of course they are afraid that people will be persuaded if they hear the other side.

As much as these new social justice warriors criticize the boomer generation, at least boomers respected civil rights and free expression, while the new generation, in their first acts affecting the nation, project a totalitarian future.

LukeHandCool | June 17, 2020 at 6:08 pm

“Professor Jacobson has claimed no expertise nor any specialized training on matters of race and racial justice …”

LOL.

I can’t put forth an opinion on being human because I don’t have any specialized training on matters of being human.

You could tell them your people have been persecuted throughout history and that you studied about and in the Soviet Union. I’m sure they’ll care. LOL.

Give it a shot you despicable generalist. That will be the new slur for people who don’t have “specialized” “training” on matters of race.

Skankywoman | June 17, 2020 at 6:22 pm

Many things stand out to me, but I will mention 2.

1. “As many of you know, Prof. Jacobson has written a number of racist and inflammatory blog posts regarding the movement in defense of Black life over the last week or so.”

Sue them for defamation. Enough already! Someone needs to put these race agitator MONSTERS in their place and they need to pay for it.

2. “In the interests of protecting individual students, we are only seeking group signatories, not individual signatories.”

This sentence projects that some harm to students would occur, further defaming Prof Jacobson. Truly a left Alinsky tactic.

    Milhouse in reply to Skankywoman. | June 17, 2020 at 8:32 pm

    He can’t sue them for defamation. “Racist and inflammatory” are opinions, not statements of fact. In some people’s opinion, indeed in many people’s opinion, Prof J’s writings on this subject have been racist and inflammatory. So have been pretty much every comment written here, especially mine. In our opinion this is not so, but there’s no objective standard by which to judge them. So there can’t be defamation.

    The same applies in spades to your item 2. There’s not even any indication there of what the risk to individual signatories might be, or from whom it might come, so there’s nothing that even could be defamatory. But even if they’d been more specific it would be an opinion not a factual allegation.

    In addition, Prof J is a public figure, so even if they told an actual lie about him he’d have to prove they knew it was a lie.

      Once again, you are Wong:

      “The sine qua non of recovery for defamation … is the existence of falsehood. Because the statement must contain a provable falsehood, courts distinguish between statements of fact and statements of opinion for purposes of defamation liability. Although statements of fact may be actionable as libel, statements of opinion are constitutionally protected. That does not mean that statements of opinion enjoy blanket protection. On the contrary, where an expression of opinion implies a false assertion of fact, the opinion can constitute actionable defamation. (Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990) 497 U.S. 1, 18–19.) The critical question is not whether a statement is fact or opinion, but whether a reasonable fact finder could conclude the published statement declares or implies a provably false assertion of fact.” Wong v. Jing (2010) 189 Cal. App. 4th 1354.

      http://californiaslapplaw.com/2020/02/is-it-defamatory-to-call-someone-racist/

        As usual you don’t know what you’re talking about. Or more likely you do know and are deliberately lying.

        As the text you quoted says, opinions cannot be defamatory. If an opinion implies an unstated fact, then that can be defamatory. The opinion that Prof J’s writings are “racist and inflamatory” does not imply any facts, therefore it cannot be defamatory. This is very obvious to every honest person. That would exclude you.

      healthguyfsu in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2020 at 10:33 pm

      Don’t such accusations require proof in the affirmative?

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2020 at 10:56 pm

      How about organized conspiracy to cause economic harm, reputational harm, and violation of civil rights. And, there is a pattern of such with many cases by the same connected groups.

      I don’t dislike these people because of their race, I dislike them because they are bald faced racists and con artists. I dislike them because of their actions.

      Edward in reply to Milhouse. | June 18, 2020 at 11:18 am

      Once more you are wrong while being correct. It is their opinion, but you have no basis for your opinion that many people believe the Prof’s writings are both racist and inflammatory. Unless, of course, your standard for “many” is more than “a few”.

        Milhouse in reply to Edward. | June 18, 2020 at 4:07 pm

        Look at all the thousands marching in George Floyd’s name. That’s many people. And they all think the sort of opinions we write here, and those Prof J writes, are racist. They’re shocked that anyone dares to think and talk like that.

    Skankywoman in reply to Skankywoman. | June 17, 2020 at 8:53 pm

    One more thing if I may … why don’t ALL BLACK LIVES MATTER?

Administrators who capitulate to the mob to curry favor commit a fatal error. By showing weakness, the administrators invite the mob to come for them next.

I virtually never comment anywhere nowadays, but the treatment of Jacobson is outrageous. Unlike me, he is mild mannered. Opposition to him is thus based solely on his intellectual product.

I wish our president did more than tweet about the Stalinism that now dominates the academy.

A good debate is what is needed but even this is going to be impossible because it will be boycotted.

Can I sign up for those courses? With distance learning, we don’t need to be in the Peoples Republic of New York to take them.

So students who have no educated ability to judge legal opinion, somehow believe their personal, uneducated opinion, can cancel that of the instructor.

JackinSilverSpring | June 17, 2020 at 6:59 pm

The Maoist Cultural Revolution in America marches on.

7:07 google docs link appears to be dead. “Can’t reach this page” — Second attempt links back to this page.

Something has to stop this insanity.

Stay strong Professor. We appreciate you fighting the good fight more than you know. If readers can help, let us know.

“As many of you know, Prof. Jacobson has written a number of racist and inflammatory blog posts regarding the movement in defense of Black life over the last week or so.”

Ya’d think, bein’ lawyerly thinkin’ future ambulance chaser types, they’d figger one o’their own would take ’em to the woodshed so bad, it’d be like taken their mommy n daddy’s wallets and turnin’ ’em upside down and shaken ’em.

Dearest Professor Jacobson:
As much as I have enjoyed your site, and parsing the issues with you, I never thought you would BE an issue one day.

Be that as it may, from my vantage point afar from the fray…
Your goose is cooked over at the College.

There are several strategies you can run here.
Cut and run, hell with it all.

Or, by various points, entrap them into a position of liability and sue the daylights out of them.

Of course, you need to be rather well footed to finance a legal battle of this magnitude.

I’m lucky to be able to fight a traffic ticket.

But let me offer this:

If you decide to pull out all the stops, and sue the living daylights out of Cornell Law School..

You have my $50.00 behind you.
And if that doesn’t scare them..I don’t know what will.

Best of luck my friend.

“…we further urge the administration to critically examine the views of the individuals they intend to employ”

I would urge the administration to critically examine the quality of the individuals they accept as students.

Schools today have literally become a case of the inmates running the asylum, and you can’t find a better example than this one.

If I recall correctly, in 1969, most or all of the conservative faculty in the Cornell History and Government departments resigned in protest when the Faculty Senate capitulated to the demands of the leftist radicals.

I am burdened by having attended law school starting in 1967 (Georgetown)and graduating night school in 1974 (loss of deferment, construction work, Title I teacher in D.C. riot area).

I don’t recognize what passes for ‘law’ these days – especially the ignorance of Separation of Powers most recently highlighted by the absurd Gorsuch decision.

As a former General Counsel of a Legislative Branch agency, I retired because I realized attempting to fairly apply various laws in a highly politicized environment would not end up well for me.

From recent events, it’s clear that pursuing a law enforcement career in a Democrat run urban area (especially if one is White) will not end up well.

All of that is unfortunate, but now it appears that training privileged/protected students in the real law is verboten. I doubt that the law school will end up supporting your exercise of your Constitutional rights and I hope you find a school that respects integrity ( I also hope that President Trump continues to nominate judges who weren’t educated in Ivy League education camps.)

Good Luck! My wife was on the Cornell Faculty, we’ve visited Cornell and Ithaca – What a waste of a beautiful region.

I will gladly sign up for a course taught by the professor, if for no reason than to jam it back at the weak-kneed Dean and the cowards who signed the original letter.

And I really worry about anyone offended by the professor’s columns being able to fully and adequately represent clients–will they just give up if their clients have views they don’t like? Try to penalize them? Refuse to represent someone who isn’t sufficiently woke?

“Examine the views?” Call the Stasi. Give the applicants an PCSAT questionaire.

Hang in there, my friend. There are people in that class that need you. Some of them will be heartened by your stances, and some of them unsettled.

healthguyfsu | June 17, 2020 at 10:37 pm

How exactly do you boycott a class? I’m assuming it’s an elective, so they don’t have to take it. If not, do you register and not show up? Congrats, you earned an F.

    Milhouse in reply to healthguyfsu. | June 17, 2020 at 11:00 pm

    You boycott it by not selecting it. I guess their hope is that it will have few students and might be canceled for lack of interest, and/or that the administration will see that there’s a lot of interest in the same class if given by someone else, so they’ll set one up.

    Suppose you were a student and found out that one of the classes you wanted to take was taught by an actual, real life terrorist. Someone with blood on his hands, wanted in his home country, but teaching here in the good old USA and celebrated by his academic colleagues as a hero and martyr. Would you feel comfortable taking his class?

SpaceInvader | June 18, 2020 at 12:15 am

The left can’t win the argument so they have to silence the opposition.

Holy crap! ‘How dare you ask to debate us! You’re supposed to submit to us, not approach us as equals!’

Yeah.. these are people who are not even remotely ashamed to display their totalitarian nature.

Cornell, Oberlin, what’s the difference at this point?

If one reads Dershowitz 1991 Chutzpah, occurred at Harvard Law (him criticizing some woke trend (Israel / Jew bashing periodic public shindigs w the PLO), harvard black law student association trying to get him fired, classes boycotted, panned on student evals etc)https://books.google.com/books?id=3jjNW-_TnusC&lpg=PA301&vq=black&pg=PA83#v=onepage&q&f=false

First honest/truthful Journalism went into the toilet now it’s the law profession. The little turds at Black Law Students Association demand that only their opinion counts and should be heard. After they graduate and get out into the real world their delusional bubble will burst !!

    A_Cornell_Alumnus in reply to tcurran. | June 18, 2020 at 4:37 pm

    Like when they bring left-wing ideology to a courtroom and the other side brings evidence.

I find it somewhat ironic that when I was a freshman in the fall of ’77 the Cornell Deskbook was all about “diversity” All of our differences, race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, and thoughts were supposed to be the strength of the campus culture. We were all told that the beauty of the “college experience” was opportunity to debate differing views. Having an open mind was encouraged. Next year will be the my 40th reunion and I am absolutely disgusted with what my Alma Mater has become! Professor Jacobson if there is an alumni petition supporting you please direct me to it!!

The perpetually aggrieved affirmative action students have declined to debate the Professor. That speaks volumes…

Cowardly dimwits, they’d get their asses kicked.

WashingtonLawyer | June 18, 2020 at 11:17 am

Our state Supreme Court Is parroting the same language. Orwell was prescient; wrongthink is punished.

National Lawyer’s Guild is “Left Wing”? Since when? Well maybe if Stalinists have now become only “Left Wing”. In my youth it was well understood that the National Lawyer’s Guild was created by the CPUSA and funded by the Comintern. Probably no longer funded by the USSR’s successor – Putin’s Russian Federation, but there’s more than sufficient useful idiots to come up with funding domestically.

The slime never learned even about split infinitives. It would be illuminating how many blacks at Cornell Law–or any other school–would have been admitted if they were not black. The suit against Harvard showed that without special privilege blacks would be only one per cent not 12 percent of admissions. In short, our colleges and universities are consciously choosing
intellectual suicide.Again, I urge that science research and training be removed as far as possible to Federally-financed merit-based institutes funded by a progressive excise tax on the endowments of existing colleges and universities.

    Milhouse in reply to JAB. | June 18, 2020 at 4:18 pm

    The split-infinitive “rule” was never valid. It was invented out of whole cloth by some idiot, and taught by gullible high school teachers who believed it.

CPUSA is becoming more active

I finally admitted to my son, a 20yo business student, that he’s correct and shouldn’t continue to pay a woke university for a piece of paper when he can gather both the practical and theoretical knowledge in a hundred other non-woke places. I can’t defend any of it anymore: the institution, the profs, the curricula, the excessive costs (per return on investment). And, frankly, it’s harder and harder for a business school to teach business when the school and larger society are sliding into full-on marxism. Corporations are kneeling to snot-nosed wokesters: what do business students learn from this?

I PRAY that Jacobson is correct and that the silent majority will backlash. I’m not so confident. Civil societies have fallen to insanity before this. What’s to stop the woke destruction of a nation when clever law students use their education to kafkatrap their best teachers?

A_Cornell_Alumnus | June 18, 2020 at 4:29 pm

“Faculty members who challenge students to debate them on the motives of those fighting to preserve Black life are clearly more interested in amplifying their own agendas than engaging in thoughtful and reflective discourse” quite frankly reflects, in my opinion, on the fitness of these members of the BLSA to practice law if they really mean this. I am not an attorney but I know that a good attorney should be able to look at a case from either side to understand the evidence. Ideology is not a substitute for evidence and BLSA’s reliance on ideology would get them (and their client) ripped to shreds in a courtroom by any attorney who knew what he or she was doing. In fact, given their comment shown above, I could probably rip them apart pro se. An attorney cannot say “I am unwilling to debate because of whatever” and ignore adverse evidence as BLSA seems inclined to do. Such as this evidence, from trustworthy news sources.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/11/black-lives-matters-movement-palestine-platform-israel-critics BLM stated formerly (they may have removed it) “The US justifies and advances the global war on terror via its alliance with Israel and is complicit in the genocide taking place against the Palestinian people,” the platform says. “Israel is an apartheid state with over 50 laws on the books that sanction discrimination against the Palestinian people.”

Their current web site https://blacklivesmatter.com/make-this-christmas-a-black-xmas/ has the racist suggestion to boycott white-owned businesses.

https://blacklivesmatter.com/defundthepolice/ goes far beyond condemning rogue police officers and demands “investments” in Black communities and also defunding of police.

https://blacklivesmatter.com/responsestate-of-the-union/ equates President Trump to a Nazi, and also equates the Israel defense forces to police brutality. “We sense it every time we see urban police use the same tactics in our neighborhood that the IDF uses in Gaza.”

https://blacklivesmatter.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Toolkit-WhitePpl-Trayvon.pdf demands reparations.

There is a lot of other stuff that goes far beyond opposition to police misconduct, and equal rights for all, that is repugnant to civilized people including contempt for all cops rather than just the small minority of bad ones. As BLSA seems inclined to give BLM a pass on this, I must assume BLSA supports this repugnant agenda.

“Accordingly, the BLSA Executive Board will refrain from participating in the Securities Law Clinic that Professor Jacobson supervises…” I hope they don’t let the door hit them on their way out.

With regard to a backlash, I am personally trying to not patronize any business that supports Black Lives Matter because I don’t want to help fund hatred of Israel (and maybe Jews in general), racism, hatred of police, and hatred for US history. And, given Dean Penlever’s web site posting about Prof. Jacobson, I will have to give Cornell Law School a bad recommendation to anybody who asks–and I mean because of the dean’s actions as opposed to Jacobson’s. In addition, if the “values” expressed by BLSA are somehow Cornell Law School’s values, the school is clearly falling short somewhere as I see it.

To a battle of wits, these fools come unarmed. Cornell alumni should starve these SOBs. Cut off all donations. I cut off my alma mater (Boston College) years ago.

A_Cornell_Alumnus | June 18, 2020 at 6:03 pm

I think BLSA should be called out on this.

“Faculty members who challenge students to debate them on the motives of those fighting to preserve Black life are clearly more interested in amplifying their own agendas than engaging in thoughtful and reflective discourse. Professor Jacobson has claimed no expertise nor any specialized training on matters of race and racial justice, rendering any future discussions on the matter entirely unproductive. We are not interested in subjecting ourselves and our community members to dialogue that reinforces the false dichotomy of “right” versus “left” when it comes to our humanity.”

All right, BLSA member who has just gotten a Cornell law degree, passed your bar exam, and is now in the real world rather than academia. You are defending a Black law enforcement professional who has been accused of shooting an unarmed Caucasian suspect. The prosecutor trots out a video taken by a bystander that shows the suspect, who is between the witness and the cop, and is facing the cop and not the witness (this is important), with his hands behind his back, and he is clearly unarmed. The audio also proves, however, that the white suspect, who was 10 feet from the Black cop, said “I’m going to kill you, you (expletive) (racial slur) pig!”

The prosecutor says the cop was not in reasonable fear for his life because, even though the suspect made a violent threat, the video proves he didn’t have a weapon to carry it out.

BLSA graduate who subscribes to the material cited above: “We are not interested in subjecting ourselves and our client to dialogue that reinforces the false dichotomy of “right” versus “left” when it comes to our humanity.”

Jury: “Guilty of murder.”

Now try it my way: “The video the prosecutor introduced proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect’s hands were not visible to the cop* and this, in conjunction with the suspect’s violent threat, put the cop in reasonable fear for his life.” Maybe also trot in an expert witness to testify that an assailant with a knife can reach you in less than 1.5 seconds from 21 feet away, and recall that the suspect was within 10 feet. I think any intelligent jury would acquit and even ask why the prosecutor filed charges in the first place.

Maybe BLSA should try this again. BLSA’s “client,” Black Lives Matter, has been accused by Prof. Jacobson of various things, including “Hands up, don’t shoot” is a complete fraud. Have a debate. Prof. Jacobson will bring his evidence, and BLSA will bring its contradictory evidence–if it has any evidence, as opposed to left-wing ideology.

* Remember, I said that the witness was behind the suspect, and thus in a position to photograph the suspect’s hands which were behind his back. The cop was in front of the suspect, who was facing him. The video proves that the cop could not have possibly seen the suspect’s hands from his position. And yes, I saw a video of this nature on the Internet, with people accusing the cop of shooting an “obviously” unarmed suspect.

PostLiberal | June 18, 2020 at 6:06 pm

I wonder what the BLM fans will think of this criticism of BLM. BLM co-founder Opal Tometi is a fan of Maduro, the dictator of Venezuela. BLM is against cops killing black civilians. Guess what? Venezuela has an atrocious record of police killing civilians- who in Venezuela are disproportionately black. BLM Founder Proud Supporter Of Socialist Dictator

One of the most high-profile founders of the Black Lives Matter organization – now one of the most influential and powerful political movements on the planet – has a long history of supporting Venezuelan socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro…
In light of the prominence of Black Lives Matter – a global non-profit currently receiving millions in donations – photos have begun to circulate of Opal Tometi, a founder of the organization, hugging Maduro at the 2015 People of African Descent Leadership Summit in Harlem, New York, where several high-rank officials of the Venezuelan regime also participated….
….In addition to meeting with and applauding Maduro at the New York summit, Tometi also served as an election observer in socialist Venezuela during the 2015 legislative elections. She praised the socialist dictatorship as “a place where there is intelligent political discourse” on Twitter during one of the bloodiest years of police brutality in the country.

DuckDuckGo Search: Venezuela police kill thousands.From Caracas Chronicles,”How Brutal Are Venezuelan Police Forces?” Sept 5,2019

How bad is the situation for Venezuela?
According to the report (with figures from 2017) it’s dire.

These numbers predate the action plans carried out by FAES (the Special Action Forces of the National Bolivarian Police) although they come after the exponential increase —caused by the Operaciones de Liberación del Pueblo (People’s Liberation Operations)—of killings by law enforcement agents: In 2010, this rate was of 2.3 per 100,000 individuals, while in 2016 the number rose to 19 per 100,000 individuals, according to the Justice Ministry. That’s a 726% increase.

The 2017 numbers say that there have been more civilian deaths at the hands of law enforcement agents in Venezuela than there are in Brazil, which has a population seven times greater. This means that over a quarter of homicides committed in Venezuela are carried out by the state.

Venezuelan police kill civilians at a rate that is 3-4 times greater than the US murder rate for everyone. But not a peep out of Opal Tometi.

Professor Jacobson should be happy to see such “students” go. Each. one that does not
registerer his class raises the average IQ substantially. Of course, even to mention IQ is racist.
I can remember when leading geneticists frankly told the truth, Even then, hiovevver, they were subject to abuse. Now to keep the field from being booted out of the curriculum they seek to disguise matters via abstruse jargon and arcane statistics. I f fortunately in. the latter part of my career to teach in a state were blacks were a tiny minority. So I did not have many black students. But when I did, it was the occasion for special carefulness. It was simply not wis e career way to fail them. Happily, most disappeared before the final exam after, I suspect, they had spent out their financial aid package. I remember the panic when the law school had for the first time a significant number of blacks because the practice had had been no names on exams, only social security numbers. But the crusade for social justice found a way–put all the blacks in the same classs with passing for all.

Humphrey's Executor | June 18, 2020 at 7:04 pm

The best experience I had in law school was a clinical law program. I trust the students won’t be idiots and forego a great opportunity for silly reasons.

PostLiberal | June 18, 2020 at 9:11 pm

BLM cofounder Opal Tometi is a fan of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro. She has visited Venezuela and hosted Maduro at a reception in Harlem. BLM’s reason for existence is to stop police killing of black civilians- and, I would hope, killing of civilians of any color.

It turns out that Venezuelan law enforcement kills civilians at a horrific rate.Caracas Chronicles: How Brutal Are Venezuelan Police Forces?” In 2017, Venezuelan law enforcement killed 4,998 civilians (a high proportion of whom were black). Venezuelan law enforcement officials killed more than Brazilian cops did- and Brazil has 7 times the population of Brazil. If Venezuela had the same population as the US, that would be the equivalent of about 50,000 civilians killed by law enforcement officials. How many civilians do law enforcement officials kill in the US? A lot less.

When Opal Tometi was in Venezuela she tweeted this:

Currently in Venezuela. Such a relief to be in a place where there is intelligent political discourse.

Someone should ask Opal Tometi if she believes that US law enforcement should used Venezuelan law enforcement as a model.

(only one link to avoid spam filter.)

PostLiberal | June 18, 2020 at 9:12 pm

My previous comment suddenly got posted.

Take a look at this article:

https://www.redstate.com/diary/martin_a_knight/2020/06/19/the-cities-are-on-fire-because-conservatives-and-classical-liberals-surrendered-the-academy/.

It explains a great deal of the CLS/Dean/Board/Academia-in-General issues in relation to Professor Jacobson’s challenges at hand. It might leave you saying, “Of course!” or asking, “Well, what else could it be?” I’d understand.

Still, it ties all the related and relevant things in academia and politics together pretty tightly and soundly. It might be worth your while to read it and just let the truth sink in. I, for one, still want to reverse the status quo it describes, but it looks very, very hard to accomplish at this juncture.

The right opposition is either too little, too late, or it’s not. The right, opposing action, or, on the other hand, their absence, might determine that.

I can’t help but remind myself of the true wisdom of Edmund Burke, whom I quote here a few times:

1) “All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good [people] to do nothing.”

2) “The hottest fires in hell are reserved for those who remain neutral in times of moral crisis.”

3) “Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.”

May the Source be with you.

Here’s a link to Stanley Kurtz’s The Lost History of Western Civilization:

https://www.nas.org/storage/app/media/Reports/Lost%20History%20of%20Western%20Civ/The%20Lost%20History%20of%20Western%20Civilization.pdf

It’s a pdf, available at no charge and published by The National Association of Scholars (NAS). I’m reading the Introduction; the paper looks awesome. Its publication date was 1/24/2020, before the palpable need, say, to Escape from New York and Other Great American Cities, COVID-19, and the Floyd murder and horrific aftermath all began in earnest. As fate would appear to have it, Kurtz’s work is thus prescient, and timely.

The Lost History appears to be a white paper-type of work of immense breadth and depth addressing the ongoing academic nightmare that now so acutely seizes our nation. Other things being equal, this very bad situation would have served, of course, to feed the terrible soil, tone and tenor, and ambient atmosphere we are all so concerned about w/r/t Professor Jacobson’s plight at CLS.

Kurtz’s paper might turn out for most of us — friends of Western Culture and maybe diehard proponents and supporters of one of its greatest institutions, the rule of law — to be a fine primer on the basics. For one, I hope it makes me much more informed about the right course action to take, sooner rather than later, and, as a result, a much stronger and wiser citizen going forward. I think we’ll be engaged in a long, arduous battle before we recover our culture.

Stay frosty, and thus close to the Source.

To finish my 3-part contribution to the conversation, here’s a great analysis of today’s fractured, but perhaps not hopeless, socio-political-existential Zeitgeist by the incomparable Bill Whittle:

https://billwhittle.com/americas-failed-social-experiment-are-you-on-team-red-or-team-blue/ America’s Failed Social Experiment: Are You On Team Red or Team Blue?

(Modeling the Red Team is Elon Musk & the achievements of SpaceX. Modeling the Blue Team are the mind and method of Professor Cornel West. With which side do you align? I can guess, and I’m probably right!)

Iain Sanders | June 22, 2020 at 5:55 pm

There’s only one law in America now, Black Mob Law.

One hopes truth will win out, but its not truth they are looking for sadly

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend