The controversy over tweets by Ilya Shapiro continues to make news. Please see these prior posts for background:
Nate Hochman at National Review continues to lead the way in original reporting. His latest post details how students are turning against anyone who defends or wants a debate over Shapiro, Inside Georgetown Law’s Campaign to Cancel Ilya Shapiro: ‘This Is Melting Down’:
Messages obtained from the GULC Class of 2023 group chat offered a window into the mood in the Georgetown Law student body. “It would be strange for Shapiro to be against deviations from merit-based approaches when his political identity is the whole reason dipsh**s like him get hired to elite jobs,” one user wrote. “Never thought there could be a worse Shapiro than Ben,” another added.Things deteriorated further when a handful of students spoke up to suggest that Shapiro’s tweets weren’t racist. “I wouldn’t read into Prof Shapiro’s tweet much beyond his opposition to affirmative action and related diversity policies when they modify merits-based approaches,” one user wrote. “Wholly unacceptable comment, check yourself,” the group-chat moderator quickly responded. “Now is not the time for debate, instead we should be supporting our incredibly talented black female law students,” another student added. “Damn Fed[eralist] Soc[iety] is a helluva drug,” a third wrote.A fourth chimed in: “Some of y’all still think you belong in the Confederacy I see.”Two of the dissenting students, Travis Nix and Rafael Nuñez, were eventually removed from the chat altogether. (“I am tired of witnessing my friends and colleagues defend their humanity and no doubt they are also tired of defending themselves,” wrote the moderator who removed the two students.) Members of the group chat were “ripping anybody who was willing to defend Shapiro, or even just give him any amount of human decency and respect,” Nix told NR. “I was like, ‘I am not gonna let these poor kids get ripped to shreds,’ so I made my statement, and then I paid the price.”Nuñez was kicked out of the group chat after defending himself against the accusation that he was “privileged” for defending students who spoke out. “That’s what really got to me,” he said. “Like, my mom was undocumented for 35 years. I grew up on food stamps and welfare and had to dig myself out a hole to get to go to Georgetown Law. My life has been difficult, but I don’t complain. And it just bothered me that these kids that didn’t even know me — you know, a fellow person of color — were telling me that I’m privileged. Like, you don’t know the things that I had to see growing up and what I had to do and struggle to get here.”Nuñez, who merely defended students’ right to defend Shapiro’s tweets but did not defend the tweets himself, was also kicked out of a separate group chat for first-generation Georgetown law students. At least one other student was kicked out of a different student racial-affinity group for a similar offense, Bunting and Nix told NR. “Some people encouraged me to go to the administration, but like, you’ve seen the administration’s response,” said Nuñez, who told NR that he “tends to lean a little more liberal.” “They’re not going to be on my side. Like this is just gonna make more enemies for me, honestly. I’m going to keep my mouth shut. I’m on a scholarship. I don’t want to get kicked out, you know?”
Hochman also reported the political purge factor. This isn’t just about the tweets, there is an attempt to drive conservatives out of Georgetown Law:
Students say the activist campaign against Shapiro has more to do with ideological allegiance than the January 26 tweets. “I’ve talked to many left-leaning friends here in private who admit freely that the BLSA demands go over the top or concede they only want Ilya fired because of his conservative political views,” one student, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of repercussions, told NR. “One person told me they didn’t like his views on masks, another told me they thought he was racist because he advocates for conservative policies which are racist. But people worry about losing journal spots, jobs, or letter grades if they aren’t woke enough and so aren’t willing to say anything about it.”
As Georgetown Law students turned on conservatives and on each other, hundreds of faculty of all political persuasions denounced the actions taken against Shapiro and called for Georgetown Law and Dean Treanor to back off. The Faculty Letter circulated by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, now has 173 signatories (including me).
The non-partisan Academic Freedom Alliance issued a Letter to Dean Treanor, which provides in pertinent part:
Dear Dean Treanor,The Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA) is a coalition of faculty members from across the countryand across the ideological spectrum who are committed to upholding the principles ofacademic freedom and professorial free speech.Principles of free speech include the right of professors to speak in public on matters of publicconcern without the threat of sanctions by their university employer. We call upon GeorgetownUniversity Law Center to live up to its free speech commitments in the case of Ilya Shapiro….I write on behalf of the Academic Freedom Alliance to express our firm view that Ilya Shapiroshould suffer no formal consequences as the result of these public statements. Regardless ofwhat one thinks about Shapiro’s views on the nomination and how he expressed them,Shapiro’s personal opinions as expressed on his personal social media account are protectedunder Georgetown’s own policies and cannot form an adequate basis for firing him.Significantly, Shapiro’s appointment is, in part, as a senior lecturer. The policies that wouldapply to him would equally apply to any other member of the Georgetown University LawCenter faculty. A determination that a senior lecturer can be fired for posting a controversialstatement on social media would represent a dramatic erosion in the free speech protectionsthat Georgetown claims to offer to the members of its faculty….Shapiro expressed a view about the implications of using race and sexas filtering mechanisms for the selection of a judicial nominee. Such matters of public policyand government conduct are central to what members of the faculty might address as privatecitizens. Their opinions on such matters might well be controversial, offensive or misguided, butthe university has committed itself to tolerating such controversial and offensive privatespeech. If the hostility of members of the campus community to such controversial speech isitself taken as a legitimate basis for concluding that such private acts “substantially affect” afaculty member’s professional duties, then the university can hardly claim to provide “thebroadest possible latitude” to such speech….The Academic Freedom Alliance calls on Georgetown University Law Center to reaffirm andadhere to its free speech principles by making clear that Shapiro will not be sanctioned in anyway for his protected private political speech.Sincerely,Keith WhittingtonChair, Academic Committee, Academic Freedom AllianceWilliam Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University
Georgetown Law and the student protesters have been the subject of much mockery, in addition to substantive criticism. While they probably don’t watch Laura Ingraham, the segment last night was brutal.
The Georgetown Black Law Students Association felt it necessary to respond to criticism, posting a series of three tweets:
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY