Image 01 Image 03

Emory Law Journal Refuses To Publish Scholarly Article Challenging “Systemic Racism”

Emory Law Journal Refuses To Publish Scholarly Article Challenging “Systemic Racism”

“We take issue with your conversation on systemic racism, finding your words hurtful and unnecessarily divisive,” wrote the Editors of Emory Law Journal to U. San Diego Law Professor Lawrence Alexander.

That the United States suffers from “systemic racism” must not be questioned on college and university campuses. It is near religious dogma related to Critical Race Theory.

Yet many people are questioning it, including me:

Do you believe systemic racism is present in America? Why or why not?

I don’t believe that America is systemically racist in the way that term is used by so-called “anti-racist” activists. Our system and laws stand against racism, and that is embedded at almost every level of government and increasingly the rest of society. The goal should be to help this systemic anti-discrimination live up to its promise, not to tear down the system itself or engage in our own retaliatory discrimination.

Maybe differences in outcomes are not necessarily the result of systemic racism, but of other factors. Prof. Wilfred Reilly addressed this issue at our December 2020 event on Critical Race Theory:

Glenn Loury, Professor at Brown University, wrote an amazing column at The Washington Examiner, that is a must read, Unspeakable truths about racial inequality in America. Read the whole thing, here’s an excerpt:

The first unspeakable truth: Downplaying behavioral disparities by race is actually a “bluff”

Socially mediated behavioral issues lie at the root of today’s racial inequality problem. They are real and must be faced squarely if we are to grasp why racial disparities persist. This is a painful necessity. Activists on the Left of American politics claim that “white supremacy,” “implicit bias,” and old-fashioned “anti-black racism” are sufficient to account for black disadvantage. But this is a bluff that relies on “cancel culture” to be sustained. Those making such arguments are, in effect, daring you to disagree with them. They are threatening to “cancel” you if you do not accept their account: You must be a “racist,” you must believe something is intrinsically wrong with black people if you do not attribute pathological behavior among them to systemic injustice. You must think blacks are inferior, for how else could one explain the disparities? “Blaming the victim” is the offense they will convict you of — if you’re lucky.

I claim this is a dare, a debater’s trick. Because, at the end of the day, what are those folks saying when they declare that “mass incarceration” is “racism” — that the high number of blacks in jails is, self-evidently, a sign of racial antipathy? To respond, “No, it’s mainly a sign of anti-social behavior by criminals who happen to be black,” one risks being dismissed as a moral reprobate. This is so, even if the speaker is black. Just ask Justice Clarence Thomas. Nobody wants to be canceled.

But we should all want to stay in touch with reality. Common sense and much evidence suggest that, on the whole, people are not being arrested, convicted, and sentenced because of their race. Those in prison are, in the main, those who have broken the law — who have hurt others or stolen things or otherwise violated the basic behavioral norms which make civil society possible. Seeing prisons as a racist conspiracy to confine black people is an absurd proposition….

Nor does anybody actually believe that 70% of African American babies being born to a woman without a husband is (1) a good thing or (2) due to anti-black racism. People say this, but they don’t believe it. They are bluffing — daring you to observe that the 21st-century failures of African Americans to take full advantage of the opportunities created by the 20th century’s revolution of civil rights are palpable and damning. These failures are being denied at every turn, and these denials are sustained by a threat to “cancel” dissenters for being “racists.” This position is simply not tenable. The end of Jim Crow segregation and the advent of the era of equal rights was transformative for blacks. And now, a half-century down the line, we still have these disparities. This is a shameful blight on our society, I agree. But the plain fact of the matter is that some considerable responsibility for this sorry state of affairs lies with black people ourselves. Dare we Americans acknowledge this?

Prof. Loury focused on being “cancelled” for contesting systemic racism, and that just happened to U. San Diego Law Professor Lawrence Alexander. He wasn’t fired, but he did have a scholarly article rejected by the Emory Law Journal precisely because he questioned systemic racism. Prof. Alexander’s colleague, Prof. Gail Heriot, wrote at Instapundit and Reason Magazine about what happened.

Here’s the summary from Prof. Heriot’s Reason article:

Being a conservative can make it a little harder to get one’s articles published in a traditional law review. And if one is writing about race or sex, it can be quite a bit harder. (I don’t even try; I go straight for the specialty law reviews that were founded in part for the purpose of ensuring that articles by conservative scholars get published.)

I was therefore pleased to learn that my colleague Larry Alexander—one of the University of San Diego’s Warren Distinguished Professors of Law—had been invited to write for the Emory Law Journal and that Larry had chosen to write on a race-related theme.

But it was not to be. After offering to publish Larry’s essay (which was for a Festschrift for Professor Michael Perry) and then trying to edit away the meat of his argument, the ELJ has now withdrawn its acceptance. Editor-in-Chief Danielle Kerker sent an ultimatum to Larry: Either “greatly revise” the essay or the ELJ will have to “withdraw[] our publication offer.” Larry understood how destructive to academic values it would be to cower under such pressure. He declined to revise the article.  Good for him.

I have reviewed some of the email communications, and can confirm Prof. Heriot’s account. Here’s the key portion of one of the emails:

Hi Professor Alexander,

Thank you for reading the memorandum and considering our edits. I shared the piece with my Executive Board, and they unanimously stated they do not feel comfortable publishing this piece as written. We think there are fair points of intellectual disagreement that would not necessarily warrant the extreme action of withdrawing our publication offer. However, we believe this piece would need to be greatly revised to be published in our journal.

We take issue with your conversation on systemic racism, finding your words hurtful and unnecessarily divisive. Additionally, there are various instances of insensitive language use throughout the essay (e.g., widespread use of the objectifying term “blacks” and “the blacks” (pages 2, 3, 6, 8, etc.); the discussions on criminality and heredity (pages 11 and 14), the uncited statement that thankfully racism is not an issue today (page 18)).  And, crucially, the discussion on racism is not strongly connected to your commentary on Professor Perry’s work, which is the focus of the Issue and the purpose behind the publication opportunity offered.

Can you please modify the piece, removing Part III and focusing on building Parts I & II to discuss the merits of Professor Perry’s work, by Sunday, December 19? We would welcome a manuscript revised along the lines we have suggested, but, absent those revisions, ELJ will not publish this contribution to the festschrift.

To which Prof. Alexander responded:

I refuse to eliminate Part III or to modify my language. I cannot believe the censorious tone you are taking towards an invited symposium participant. You don’t have to agree with what I’ve written, but what I’ve written I stand behind.

Prof. Heriot also writes at Reason that the ELJ complaint about the terms “blacks” and “the blacks” does not hold up, and:

I suspect the real beef the ELJ Executive Board has with the essay is that Larry explicitly stated that racism isn’t the problem today. Instead, he pointed to “the cultural factors that have produced family disintegration, which in turn portends poor educational achievement, crime and poverty.” ….

Here’s the good news for Larry’s essay: This opera isn’t over. Two law professors (one conservative and one liberal) have withdrawn their essays from the ELJ in protest over its treatment of Larry. Two more professors, both of whom I believe to be left of center, have said that they will publish only if they can include a blurb in front of their essays that protests the decision not to publish Larry. They do not necessarily agree with everything in Larry’s essay. But standing up for him doesn’t require agreement.

I have confirmed that at least two professors withdrew their articles in protest. One of the professors, Steven Smith from U. San Diego Law School, wrote to ELJ:

Dear ELJ editors:

I understand that you have declined to publish the invited festschrift contribution of my friend and colleague Larry Alexander because of disagreements you have with some of its contents and modes of expression. I’ve read Larry’s article, and I certainly understand that there is much in the article that some people will disagree with, as is their right. I myself would have questions or objections to parts of the article. I also believe, however, that especially in these contentious times, a commitment to free speech is especially vital; conversely, the kind of censorship you are practicing is especially objectionable and unfortunate. I don’t want to be part of such a project. I therefore regretfully choose to withdraw my own contribution to the issue as well.

Steve Smith

I emailed the ELJ Editor-in-Chief and Executive Articles Editor, both of whom were on the email exchanges, for comment. As of this writing, no response has been received.

The “banned” article is not incendiary. It takes the arguments of Prof. Michael Perry of Emory Law School and addresses them over 10 pages of text. It was hard to find the “controversial” portions to excerpt, so keep in mind the excerpts below are not the entirety.

Michael is surely correct about the disadvantages blacks have suffered at the hands of government. Slavery, Jim Crow, and discrimination are facts about the past. And they undoubtedly have left indelible traces in the black community today–-although, as I shall discuss below, their effects on the individuals who make up today’s black community is a more complicated matter.

Is Michael’s DRI test a form of affirmative action, a mild form of reparations for past unjust treatment? He denies that it is. He points out his DRI test does not call for allocating scarce resources to blacks. And poor whites will benefit from the absence of laws disadvantaging poor blacks. They will not benefit from preferential treatment of blacks under affirmative action.

* * *

I believe, however, that Michael’s DRI theory has a more basic problem: It treats blacks as a monolith. It does not distinguish between blacks who descended from American slaves, and blacks who emigrated from the West Indies or from Africa. It does not distinguish between blacks who face economic and educational handicaps and blacks who do not. And among blacks who do face such handicaps, it does not distinguish among blacks whose difficulties stem from past mistreatment and blacks whose difficulties stem from their own choices and behaviors. With respect to the latter, it seems to assume that such choices and behaviors have been caused by past injustices. And finally, it depends on a definition of race, and of blacks in particular, that it does not give us. Because humans are one interbreeding species, any definition of races will be arbitrary, and mating across such arbitrary lines will create the need for new arbitrary lines.

Perhaps the weakest part of Michael’s case for DRI theory is his account of the etiology of the handicaps he attributes to the blacks….

* * *

Third, Michael’s causal claims are shaky. For example, after centuries of slavery followed by years of racially discriminatory laws, the black family in the early 1960s was relatively intact. Black marriage rates were about the same as those of whites. The dissolution of the black family really begins in the mid-1960s with enactment of the so-called War on Poverty. It is less a product of past injustice and more the unintended consequence of societal good intentions. Moreover, parallel trends have occurred among whites and Hispanics. It is well documented that family dissolution correlates with poor educational outcomes. And poor educational outcomes are also correlated with a lack of emphasis on education by parents and by a disdain for educational achievement among peers. Putting aside the politically incorrect possibility that heredity might also play a role, poor educational achievement’s connection to the past evils of slavery and Jim Crow is questionable at best and most likely untrue.

So, given that non-job-related tests for public employment are a bad thing, they only fail constitutionally under Michael’s DRI theory if blacks fail them disproportionally, even if they would have passed them disproportionately in the absence of their putative handicaps. Moreover, those handicaps, if they exist, are most likely not the result of slavery and Jim Crow. Nor are those handicaps unique to blacks.

There are similar weaknesses in the application of DRI theory to school assignments and to low-income housing sitings. In school districts, however rare, where blacks are relatively affluent and whites are poor, and most blacks go to one school and most whites go to another school, DRI theory would demand that those student assignments be invalidated and, if possible, blacks and whites be assigned to schools in numbers proportionate to their percentage in the district. It is hard to see, however, why the “racial isolation” of the relatively affluent blacks is bad for them, or that the blacks would benefit from having a proportionate number of whites in their schools.

Moreover, even if we drop the stipulation that the blacks are more affluent than the whites, is it true that “racial isolation” is uniquely harmful to blacks? We don’t consider the racial isolation of whites or of Asians to be harmful to them educationally. And there are plenty of examples of racially isolated black schools whose students performed at a high level…..

* * *

I expect a rebuttal from those claiming systemic racism to go as follows: Had there not been slavery and Jim Crow, blacks would have been proportionately represented in all fields, and not well represented only in a few, such as athletics. Slavery and Jim Crow bred the pathologies that afflict blacks and lower their performances in all areas other than athletics and a few others. In that sense, the absence of across-the-board proportional racial representation is “racist” in that it reflects the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

There is no question that the dissolution of the black family, which has resulted in poor educational performance, poverty, and an increase in criminality, has made it impossible for blacks to achieve parity with groups in the upper echelons of the economy. As I pointed out earlier, however, there is reason to doubt that slavery and Jim Crow caused the current pathology of family dissolution. Nor is it clear what the remedy should be. Government cannot magically put dissolved black families back together, or instill love of education and an aversion to criminality in black children. Nor should we just overlook deficiencies in qualifications for positions. No patient wants an underqualified doctor; no client wants an underqualified lawyer; no bridge builder wants an underqualified engineer; and so on.

Recognizing this problem, many have called instead for paying reparations to current blacks based on the premise that slavery and Jim Crow have injured them and that no other remedy for the harms caused today by these past injustices is feasible. But the prospect of paying current blacks as reparations for these past injustices has not only doubtful political prospects. As a conceptual matter, it is thoroughly flawed.

* * *

Michael Perry has had a long and very distinguished career, one more than worthy of this celebratory symposium. I suspect his major intellectual legacy will be his writings on international human rights and their role in U.S. constitutional law and Supreme Court decision making. Although I have some disagreements with what Michael has written on these topics, my focus in this article has been elsewhere, on things Michael wrote many years ago about race and equal protection. What he wrote then resonates with demands one hears today for racially proportionate policy outcomes. Although Michael’s arguments were much more measured and limited than those today to which I am referring, if his arguments should be rejected, then today’s more extreme demands surely must be. We will continue to live in exceedingly fraught times unless we return to focusing on how individuals are faring rather than the groups to which they are arbitrarily said to belong.

Reading Prof. Alexander’s writing, it’s clear there isn’t a lot of daylight in the approach he takes to “systemic racism” and that taken by Profs. Reilly and Loury. An increasing number of people are questioning the dogma of systemic racism. But questioning dogma carries the risk of cancellation.

So enjoy the full article. But don’t tell anyone you read it, or you too could be cancelled.

UPDATE (1/6/2022 9:30 p.m.)

I just received the following statement by email from Susan Clark, Associate Dean for Marketing & Communication at Emory Law School:

I am writing in reference to your earlier inquiry to the Emory Law Journal to provide you with the following statement from Emory Law.

The student-run and edited Emory Law Journal has been working with a wide range of contributors on a Festschrift issue to honor the pathbreaking scholarly contributions of retiring Robert W. Woodruff Professor Michael Perry.

As is common practice for a Festschrift issue, authors were invited to contribute pieces for the issue and their submissions did not go through the Emory Law Journal’s standard article selection process. In a communication with one of the authors, the student executive board requested certain edits related to the piece’s topic, relevance, and scholarly merit. The board stated that the piece’s discussion related to systemic racism was “hurtful and unnecessarily divisive” and suggested specific changes to strengthen the work. The board expressed concern about the author’s repeated references to “blacks” or “the blacks” and noted the absence of citations that any law journal would require to support some of the author’s assertions. Moreover, the board emphasized a crucial concern that a portion of the piece was not strongly connected to commentary on Professor Perry’s work, the intended focus of the Festschrift issue.

The editorial board’s requested changes were not intended to censor the author, but rather to ask that the author address concerns regarding the degree to which the submission met the quality and sourcing standards of the Journal and properly focused on the impact of Professor Perry’s scholarship. The author declined to consider the edits and pulled the article from publication. The students carried out their responsibilities to ensure the high quality of the work published in the Journal in a professional manner.

The law school and the Emory Law Journal board continue to maintain a deep commitment to academic freedom and to fostering robust debate about important and sometimes controversial topics. We look forward to the publication of this special volume celebrating Professor Perry’s distinguished career, which will include articles by nearly a dozen globally renowned scholars, later this year.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Less elaborately, systemic racism is phlogiston, the cause of fires. Fires exist, therefore phlogiston must exist. It’s called a reification error.

Systemic racism is the cause of blacks not doing as well as whites. Blacks don’t do as well as whites, therefore systemic racism exists.

    Milhouse in reply to rhhardin. | January 5, 2022 at 1:23 am

    Yes, exactly.

    Likewise, illness exists, therefore there must be demons who cause it. The climate is changing, therefore we must be doing something to make it change. Volcanoes erupt, therefore there is a dragon under the earth. Etc.

    Yes, I agree, but the systemic racism shtick appeals primarily to emotion, rather than intellect. The factual underpinning does not withstand close scrutiny, so anything resembling scrutiny will be censured whenever possible.

    JohnSmith100 in reply to rhhardin. | January 5, 2022 at 11:20 am

    Bottom line is that blacks have opportunity, but are either unwilling to work to take advantage of that opportunity or lack the mental capacity to do so. There are plenty of people of other races in the same situation. Blacks have to find a suitable niche in line with their capabilities. We must insist that they face reality.

      DesertBunny in reply to JohnSmith100. | January 7, 2022 at 10:57 am

      There were and there are probably many blacks that face reality every day and don’t see themselves as victim and wallow in self pity. Most of us can attest from our own experience blaming others for one’s shortcomings or wallowing in self pity are human traits that transcend race and other groupings.

No patient wants an underqualified doctor; no client wants an underqualified lawyer; no bridge builder wants an underqualified engineer; and so on.

Maybe, but not necessarily. A year ago I read an article interviewing a Minnesota man who had been carjacked. He was reluctant to file a police report because the perp was black, and he was convinced the police desired only to murder him rather that bring him to justice. On a larger scale, voters in deep blue cities and states routinely vote overwhelmingly for politicians and policies they hate and loudly complain about.

Never underestimate the destructive urge to virtue-signal.

Charles Murray published Facing Reality: Two Truths about Race in America Reality (2021).

Here are those two truths,

The charges of white privilege and systemic racism that are tearing the country apart fIoat free of reality. Two known facts, long since documented beyond reasonable doubt, need to be brought into the open and incorporated into the way we think about public policy: American whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians have different violent crime rates and different means and distributions of cognitive ability. The allegations of racism in policing, college admissions, segregation in housing, and hiring and promotions in the workplace ignore the ways in which the problems that prompt the allegations of systemic racism are driven by these two realities.

What good can come of bringing them into the open? America’s most precious ideal is what used to be known as the American Creed: People are not to be judged by where they came from, what social class they come from, or by race, color, or creed. They must be judged as individuals. The prevailing Progressive ideology repudiates that ideal, demanding instead that the state should judge people by their race, social origins, religion, sex, and sexual orientation.

We on the center left and center right who are the American Creed’s natural defenders have painted ourselves into a corner. We have been unwilling to say openly that different groups have significant group differences. Since we have not been willing to say that, we have been left defenseless against the claims that racism is to blame. What else could it be? We have been afraid to answer. We must. Facing Reality is a step in that direction.

This demonstrates the need to drop Laissez Faire and send it straight back to rhetoric only and extremely limited at that where it belongs (If you think the bizarre obsession with Laissez Faire a.k.a. unconditional surrender in the culture war is some long standing tradition see Richard Nixon or Dwight D Eisenhower or well any Republican president prior to Bush).

Emory does not fear that there will be pushback from Republican politicians because or Laissez Faire attitude is an act of surrender. We can’t push back unless we drop it.

    Milhouse in reply to Danny. | January 5, 2022 at 1:25 am

    Richard Nixon was a damn Progressive, and a disgrace to the Republican Party. He made his reputation on being anti-communist, and he was, but that was the only good thing about him.

      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | January 5, 2022 at 1:51 am

      I mean, wage and price controls. Really.
      I don’t think even Hubert Humphrey would have resorted to that.

      The Gentle Grizzly in reply to Milhouse. | January 5, 2022 at 4:19 am

      My late mother was a reflexive Nixon hater. I once asked her why, given Nixon’s record of wage and price controls, EPA, “affirmative action “, and other Democrat dream programs.

      She had no answer.

      fredx3 in reply to Milhouse. | January 5, 2022 at 9:48 am

      Thank God you have chosen to take the conversation back to something completely irrelevant, like Nixon. Now gives us your recipe for fudge brownies. That would make this whole thing complete.

        rochf in reply to fredx3. | January 5, 2022 at 4:56 pm

        I’d like a good recipe for fudge brownies 🙂

        M Poppins in reply to fredx3. | January 6, 2022 at 7:17 pm

        the answer was that everyone on the left hated Nixon because he was the prosecutor in the trial of the communist spy Alger Hiss. After that, nothing Nixon did – or or didn’t do – could ever “cleanse” him of that “crime”.

      MattMusson in reply to Milhouse. | January 5, 2022 at 10:35 am

      But, Nixon’s approval numbers – as he left the White House, got on the helicopter and disappeared were actually higher than Joe Biden’s approval numbers are today.

      I am not making this up. It’s true.

      Paul in reply to Milhouse. | January 5, 2022 at 1:52 pm

      And it’s a great irony that Nixon the ‘anti-communist’ is the one who let the dragon’s nose under the tent.

      Danny in reply to Milhouse. | January 5, 2022 at 5:17 pm

      From the mouth of Dwight D Eisenhower

      “Should any party attempt to abolish social security and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group of course, that believes you can do these things […] Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

      This one is from Donald Trump

      Now lets go over the state of things

      Non government Institutions Democrats control

      All of them including corporate America

      Institutions we control

      A variety of state governments

      Institutions that we could contest and take Democrats control now

      U.S. Federal Government

      It is a surrender on every other issue to state support for Laissez Faire. Regulations are here to stay, and frankly have existed in this country longer than you think. Standing by fat cats who are all leftists is stupid not principled.

      Pasadena Peabody in reply to Milhouse. | January 5, 2022 at 5:56 pm

      “…that was the only good thing about him.”

      Well that plus his middle name was Milhouse.

    Dathurtz in reply to Danny. | January 5, 2022 at 8:12 am

    Why the downvotes, here? I think Danny actually hit a point. We have basically surrendered the culture was because we are always on defense and never push for what we want, only push against what we reject.

    We are always willing to just “let it go” because we engage in magical thinking that truthfulness and correctness will somehow just prevail against a determined onslaught of falsehood and indoctrination. Not all of us, but an awful lot of us. We aren’t as willing to be ruthless as the left and we keep “playing by the rules” when nobody else does. It is a recipe for failure.

      CommoChief in reply to Dathurtz. | January 5, 2022 at 10:14 am

      IMO our goal should remain a free market competition of ideas. That’s not incompatible with a commitment to utter ruthlessness in winning the competition. In fact, when our opponents choose to behave outside the lines of fair conduct it is foolish to continue to act under constraints our opponents reject. It’s well past time to fight just as dirty as our opponents.

        Danny in reply to CommoChief. | January 5, 2022 at 5:21 pm

        A commitment to Laissez Faire means all speech in the public domain is controlled by a tiny group of leftist oligarchs, corporate America pushes the culture ever further to the left, indoctrination from schools continues unchallenged, and as the culture goes farther to the left Republican Party turns ever more into the Tory Party.

        Laissez Faire is an alternative on everything else.

      henrybowman in reply to Dathurtz. | January 5, 2022 at 2:26 pm

      Because calling nondefense of our culture “laissez-faire” is as dishonest as calling abortions “women’s health.” It’s a typical Democrat abuse of language that ends up dirtying the perfectly respectable terms “women’s health” and “laissez faire.”

        Laissez Faire.

        True False you are against regulating big tech in any way?

        True False you are against regulating schools?

        True False you are against denying government contracts to CRT using corporations?

        I could go on but the Laissez Faire answer is to surrender on every issue so YES it is a surrender.

Steven Brizel | January 5, 2022 at 8:46 am

Loury’s article is must reading.

Steven Brizel | January 5, 2022 at 9:01 am

Loury’s article is must reading. For those of who rejoiced over the wins in Virginia, this

is the next spin on the way from the woke world

    henrybowman in reply to Steven Brizel. | January 5, 2022 at 2:28 pm

    Illustrating the guide with a picture of a trans competing in a women’s sport is the ideal way to piss off even more voters.


I recently spoke with some who used the term SR. I asked him to define it — that I did not know what it meant. On further critical questing he said it existed despite that no one in the government hierarchy is necessarily racist. I said “Well where is it then.” The reply was “It’s in the system. I said “uh, that’s what you’re trying to prove; besides the system is a mere catch-all — and a mere concept. Again, “Where is SR located.” He said I don’t know, but it has to do with the system being set up so that there are consistent income disparities with certain minorities. I said “That’s it?” No reply.

Hmmm, if it hadn’t been for slavery, few blacks would even exist in America. In fact, they wouldn’t even exist at all. Think about it.

The Negro Family, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, 1965
Discredited by national policy-makers at the time.
You might call it prescient.

Insufficiently Sensitive | January 5, 2022 at 12:26 pm

“We take issue with your conversation on systemic racism, finding your words hurtful and unnecessarily divisive,” wrote the Editors of Emory Law Journal to U. San Diego Law Professor Lawrence Alexander.

How such sensitive creatures as those Editors can fail to sense how hurtful and unnecessarily divisive THEIR words are, in explanation of their muzzling of Professor Alexander, to the civilized Americans who remain in this country, is good evidence of their own failure to act as educators.

They obviously prefer the roles of censors, cops, dictators or gospodars. If there were equal justice on campus, they’d be facing pushback by yowling mobs of purple-faced ‘students’ hurling bricks.

    But the editors of university law reviews ARE students — not educators — is this not true?
    That is precisely why we are seeing this snowflakery at this point in time.

By refusing to publish the article they’re unwittingly guaranteeing that it’ll get a helluva lot more visibility than if it had been published.

So they won’t publish an anti-CRT article because it’s ‘hurtful’ and ‘divisive.’

But what about the feelings of all the white people who don’t believe they are racist or responsible for things that happened 150 years ago?

Do their feelings not count?

    henrybowman in reply to Paul. | January 5, 2022 at 2:36 pm

    Yes. It is officially impossible for minorities to hurt the feelings of designated oppressors.
    Like fish on a hook, white people feel no pain.

I can’t help but notice their emotionally-exploitative criticism of “hurtful and unnecessarily divisive” is NOTABLY LACKING in all of the following objective criticisms that should form the crux of a legal argument: “irrational” “illogical” “unsound”

In other words, by saying it’s “hurtful” they are admitting that it’s true…but feelings.

It bothers me that law schools continue to turn out the most whiny, sensitive, quick-to-condemn students that I’ve ever seen. Since most of the law is about fighting for your client and advocating a position, sometimes even if you don’t agree personally with the client or position, how do these law schools expect any of these wokesters to successfully carry on the profession?

I think Conservative need to start telling anyone who disagrees with us on the Left that they are being “Hurtful and Unnecessarily Divisive”! and then laugh at them, if they don’t get it!