Israeli Government Coalition's Base Implements Coalition Values

Israeli settlers went on a rampage earlier today in the Palestinian town of Huwara, setting fires to homes and cars and killing at least one civilian. The vicious mayhem followed a shooting attack by Palestinian militants which killed two Israelis, and settler rhetoric quickly took on a terrifying tone calling for ethnic cleansing.

The deputy head of the Samaria Regional Council, Davidi Ben Zion, called for Huwara to be “wiped out” in response to the attack.

“Here in Huwara the blood of our children was spilled on the road… Huwara needs to be wiped out today. Enough talk about building and strengthening the settlements. The deterrence that was lost must return now, there’s no room for mercy,” he said in a post on Twitter.

That "wiped out" tweet, incidentally, was "liked" by far-right Israeli minister Bezalel Smotrich, who recently announced a deal with the Defense Ministry that would render him effective Governor of the West Bank and formalize an apartheid policy in the West Bank territories.

The scale of the violence, which occurred directly under the nose of area IDF forces who were reportedly less-than-interested in intervening or responding, appears to be qualitatively different in scale than previous incidents of settler violence, underscoring the complete breakdown of order ushered in by the new Israeli government as the settler thugs who comprise its base are allowed to run wild.

In many ways, though, this spurt of street violence is the dark parallel of the street protests that have gripped Israel for the past few days -- hundreds of thousands gathering to decry the new government's efforts to undermine an independent judiciary and the country's basic status as a liberal democracy. Those protesters are living out their values on the street. And, in their own perverse way, so are the settlers -- it's just that their "values" are apartheid and violent ethnic suppression of the Palestinian people. Both segments of the population are putting their values into practice in the most visceral way possible.

The difference is that the latter segment is the support base for the current Israeli government, and the latter values are the ones held by the current Israeli government coalition. Settler violence to enforce apartheid is little more than a (very) slightly-too-enthusiastic application of what figures like Smotrich, Ben-Gvir, and yes, Netanyahu too, have long promoted as their explicit West Bank policy. The base is merely carrying out to the wishes of the government.

A Cracking Good Word

 I like crack.

The word, that is. Specifically, I like how wide-spanning it is. I like words that have many multiple meanings that are seemingly unrelated and distant from one another. Some words have many definitions but you can kind of trace how they're all connected. But "crack" covers a wide range and the connection points are, in many cases, at least not superficially obvious.

Let's trace some of the ways "crack" can be used:

First, of course, there is "crack" as in a gap or fissure ("A crack in the foundation").

There's also "crack" as in a loud noise ("A crack of lightning.").

Then there's "crack" as in to solve ("I cracked the case!").

There's "crack" as in elite ("Crack troops guarded the valley").

There's "crack" as in an attempt ("I'll take a crack at it").

There's "crack" as in making a joke ("'No soap, radio!' he cracked).

And of course there's also "crack" as in the drug -- crack cocaine.

That's a very expansive range -- and it doesn't count the related conjugates (i.e., crack as fissure is the noun, but there's also the verb form to crack -- to create such a fissure). Moreover, I don't intuitively see the pathway by which the various meanings came into being. The one exception is "crack" as solve, which I can imagine (though this is speculation) comes specifically from cracking a safe, i.e., solving the "puzzle" of a safe which results in opening it a crack. So those two I can perhaps tie together. But other than that? It's a mystery I cannot crack.

Diaspora Minister To Diaspora: Shut Up

Israel has a "Minister of Diaspora Affairs" -- a cabinet official whose very job is predicated on recognition of and respect for the unique relationship the state of Israel has with the global Jewish community.

And now, as hundreds of thousands of Israelis march in protest over the Israeli government's attempt to neuter an independent judiciary, the Minister of Diaspora Affairs has a message for the Jewish diaspora and international community who are backing these protesters and echo their concerns: shut up.

The Israeli minister responsible for relations with Jews in the Diaspora has a message for the government of the country where most of them live: “Mind your own business.”

Amichai Chikli made the comment Sunday in a radio interview in Israel, where he was asked to address recent comments by U.S. ambassador Tom Nides, who said he was urging Israeli leaders to “pump the brakes” on their controversial effort to change the country’s judiciary.

[...]

Chikli had a retort: “I say to the American ambassador, put on the brakes yourself and mind your own business,” he said. “You aren’t sovereign here, to get involved in the matter of judicial reform. We will be happy to discuss foreign and security matters with you. But respect our democracy.”

I especially appreciate the frankly laughable notion that the Israeli government is more inclined to listen to international and diaspora voices when it comes to foreign policy and security matters. These are in fact the areas where the Israeli government is most obstinate in the notion that outsiders lack skin in the game and ought not dare second guess the policy choices of the people who actually live there ("the people who actually live there", of course, does not include Palestinians, whose opinions it is entirely proper and indeed mandatory to ignore altogether).

But the actual consistent policy is straightforward: Israel does not care what the diaspora thinks. As much as a "Minister of Diaspora Affairs" suggests otherwise, the position of the Israeli government is that there is no special relationship between Israel and the global Jewish community. Our role is to sit back and shut up.

At the end of the day, though, Israel is a sovereign nation, it is indeed up to them to decide how to exercise their sovereign powers. And likewise, it is up to America and other countries throughout the world -- also in their capacity as independent sovereigns -- to decide what their own policies will be towards Israel as a result of the choices Israel makes. Sovereignty meets sovereignty.

Biden Visits Ukraine

President Joe Biden made a top-secret (but now public) visit to Ukraine in a show of solidarity as the country continues to face down Russia's war of aggression.

I don't have a lot to add to this except to say that as symbolic gestures go, this is quite the move. It obviously is reminiscent to trips Presidents Bush and Obama had made to Iraq and Afghanistan, but even more difficult to pull off given that Ukraine doesn't have American troops on the ground providing a security buffer.

As the GOP continues to play footsie with Putin's authoritarian thuggery, and the usual red-brown alliance pushes for Ukrainian capitulation and subjugation, this act of solidarity by the President is more than welcome.

How To Write a "Colorblind" DEI Statement

Keeping on with the theme of DEI statements and alleged compelled ideological orthodoxy, one common argument against the use of DEI statements in academia is that they functionally compel agreement with a particular ideological orthodoxy. Even when the questions are formally open-ended (as they almost always are), it is alleged that the expected answer simply must accede to the prevailing left orthodoxy on DEI matters or it will be rejected out of hand. The job applicant who believes in colorblindness will not be able to write an (honest) DEI statement that will be acceptable to the hiring committee.

Having now served on an appointments committee (and having recently been an academic job candidate), I don't think this is true. I've now read a lot of DEI statements saying a lot of different things, and there are many ways to write a good DEI statement. And I actually do think it is entirely possible to write a "colorblind" DEI statement that would at least be considered acceptable by the average appointments committee. This matters because, if I'm right, it falsifies a key objection against having DEI statements -- that they in practice either require acceptance of a single ideological framework, or at least rejection of certain commonly-held and politically reasonable ideological frameworks.

To begin, though, we need to zero in on exactly what the complaint here is. In my experience, many of those who complain about DEI statements compelling allegiance to a particular orthodoxy actually are complaining about being asked to think about DEI at all.* Their problem isn't actually that they're allegedly being forced to accede to or reject a particular approach to DEI. It's that they have to have an approach -- they need to have considered the various challenges a university might have in fostering an environment that is equitable and inclusive to a diverse student body, and to have some thoughts on how to address those challenges.

For my part, when I read a DEI statement, I'm not looking for particular endorsement of a specific political view. What I want to see is simply that the candidate has thought critically and careful about DEI problems and has some ideas of how address or remediate them. If you haven't ever done that -- if you've never considered in any serious way questions like "how can I create an inclusive environment in my classroom for students of diverse backgrounds and perspectives" -- well, yes, I think that's a strike against you in the same way it'd be a strike if you've never considered in any serious way "how can I maximize my students' learning potential" or "how can I ensure my scholarship is responsive to potential objections." Asking candidates to think about challenges that are present in academic spaces is not a party foul.

A good DEI answer isn't about regurgitating a particular ideology. It's about demonstrating that one has thought about how to handle DEI problems and issues in some amount of specificity, and that specificity can take many forms. The "ideology", if one has it, needs to be tied into resolution of a problem -- "I've seen X problem, which I try to ameliorate by Y practice." This is why one often sees DEI guidelines that give low marks to statements like "I treat everyone the same". It's not because that's Wrongthink. It's because it's not responsive to the question. If someone asks me "how do you ensure student success in your classroom", answering "I treat everyone the same" ... isn't an answer. It doesn't tell me anything. It's not ideologically impermissible, it's just a normal incomplete answer. At the very least, it needs to be filled out -- I should identify a problem area where some students are struggling to succeed, and then I can specifically explain how my practice of "treating everyone the same" helps resolve or ameliorate that problem. Of course, it's possible that in some circumstances "treating everyone the same" won't be an effective way of resolving certain classroom problems, in which case the answer probably isn't a very good one. But again, the candidate there is being penalized not for "ideology" but because they aren't capable of translating an ideological commitment into a workable practice.

The same is true of DEI questions. If your view is that DEI problems are best resolved via "colorblind" practices like "treating people as individuals", that's fine -- so long as you can actually tie it specific problems related to diversity, equity, and inclusion in a meaningful fashion. Again, if you can't do that -- because one hasn't actually thought about how your abstract ideological commitments translate into resolving actual problems for actual students -- yeah, you're going to get dinged, but it will be entirely deserved. Abstract commitment to an ideology -- any ideology -- isn't good enough.

But I'm inclined to think that one can construct a "colorblind" DEI statement -- it just has to demonstrate that the candidate has actually thought about how "colorblind" practices can resolve certain identifiable problems related to diversity, equity, and inclusion in academic spaces.

Consider the following as the skeleton of a "colorblind" DEI statement. Obviously this would have to be expanded and elaborated on and personalized. But I think something of this form would not be instinctively rejected by the average appointments committee:

Central to my philosophy of teaching is meeting students where they are. Academic life can be deeply depersonalizing, particularly for students who are often still figuring out who they are and how to get where they want to go in life. And programs like affirmative action, which primarily concentrate on admitting underrepresented minorities onto campus, do not do much to ensure that such students are supported and positioned to thrive once they matriculate. It does little good to expend so much effort to create a "diverse" community and then not support students in their diversity once they arrive on campus. Consequently, I make it point to get to know all of my students as individuals -- for example, at the start of each semester I require all students to write a short introductory essay simply telling me who they are, and require students to attend at least one mandatory office hours session per semester -- so I'm best positioned to help them along the path they've chosen for themselves. 

On receiving these essays, and in innumerable office hour conversations, many of my students have reported that they often feel siloed or pigeon-holed into particular career trajectories -- for example, female students who tell me it is just assumed that they'll want to go into family law rather than corporate law, or Black students for whom it is taken for granted they won't want to become prosecutors -- and find that resources and support are lacking if it turns out they don't want to go down the expected road. Often the persons who promote these presuppositions are acting with good intentions, but nonetheless that sort of formulaic treatment frustrates students who deviate from popular assumptions of what someone "like them" will or should do with their lives -- a cost that often falls especially hard on minority and underrepresented students who may be particularly prone to being stereotyped in this fashion. Students of all backgrounds benefit when they know that all the paths and choices of academic life are available to them, and that they will be supported and mentored no matter which avenue they choose to take. Ultimately, my job as a professor is not turn my students into the person I expect them to be, but to help them become the person they want to be. To that end, there is no substitute for learning about every student as a full person, to support the entire student body in the full range of its diversity.

I'm not saying this is the perfect DEI statement (nor, for the record, is it the one I wrote when I was a candidate or necessarily reflective of my own views about DEI). And again, this would need to be fleshed out and personalized considerably. One can argue about its approach or its underlying presuppositions, and that's all fine. But I do think that, as a bare bones model, this is not the sort of statement that would be rejected out of hand -- even though its core framework is something like "treat students as individuals". The statement tacitly calls out forms of DEI "support" that rely on racial or gender essentialism, and even takes a little shot at affirmative action programs, all while promoting individualized treatment of each student. And yet, to me at least it seems like a DEI framework that would be basically acceptable to most hiring committees, and to that extent it falsifies the popular but I think fanciful notion that refusing to kowtow to left-wing orthodoxy equates to an auto-reject.

Why does a statement like this work, notwithstanding its "colorblind" approach? For me, at least, it works because it advocates for individualized treatment in response to specific and identifiable DEI problems faced by certain students. It doesn't promote "individualized treatment" as some sort of abstract moral principle and leave it there; nor is it some polemical rant against "DEI orthodoxy". It takes seriously certain pitfalls and inequities that might exist in educational spaces, and then offers a set of practices which are designed to be responsive to and redressive of those problems. The applicant is demonstrating that they're paying attention to certain burdens and problems that exist in academic spaces -- burdens that fall perhaps especially heavily on minority groups -- and they are taking affirmative steps at trying to ameliorate them. Given that, it's not going to be disqualifying that the approach chosen is one that is aligned with a "colorblind", "treat everyone as individuals" vision of the world.

Again, the main barrier to writing a statement like this isn't ideological dissension. The main barrier is that one has to actually be paying attention to potential DEI problems and barriers (such as, here, the students who feel especially pigeon-holed into and out of specific career paths on basis of identity) and have thought about how one can redress it. Again, many anti-DEI objectors seem angry about even having to do this much -- they think they're wronged if they're even expected to consider things like "female and minority students are at heightened risk of stereotyping", even if the payoff is "and that's why it's important to treat all students as individuals rather than essentialize on the basis of racial or gender identity". So yes, if the only thought you've had about DEI is "I shouldn't have to think about DEI", one won't produce this sort of essay. 

But again, there is no reason why hiring committees cannot look askance at that sort of apathy, which fundamentally isn't about "ideological" dissension but rather a basic incuriosity regarding an important facet of the job. As I've written before, it cannot be the case that it is "conceptually inappropriate for a hiring committee to value a prospective applicant's ability to teach, mentor, and support students of diverse backgrounds." Of course we can think it's important that incoming faculty have demonstrated ability to handle DEI problems, just as we can think it's important that incoming faculty have demonstrated ability to teach effectively. It's possible to seriously approach on-the-ground DEI matters from a variety of political or ideological perspectives, but screening out people who are just indifferent to the issue is not the same thing as imposing a rigid ideological litmus test.

* Some others have nearly the opposite complaint, which is that they want to go on a thirteen page rant about how DEI is the devil's bureaucracy but that's somehow unacceptable. Which, yes, rants like that tend to go over poorly -- but I will say they go over equally poorly regardless of politics: a dozen pages on the need for a proletariat revolution because only under Communism will students truly be free will also generally be met with scorn. And glibness aside, the reason this doesn't work is typically because such statements, in raging on about all the things one hates, typically offers little in the way of practical proposals of what one can do for the students one does have under currently existing conditions of the world. Again, what we want to see is some attentiveness to extant problems and some practical steps you've taken to ameliorate them. So even you think affirmative action is the new Jim Crow, shrieking about that for 15,000 words doesn't tell me anything about what you do to help about and nurture the students who are in your classroom (and strongly suggests that your policy towards them is to abandon them to fail, which understandably is not really an acceptable response).

FIRE's Proposed Anti-DEI Legislation is an Academic Freedom Trainwreck

FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression -- formerly Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) is a controversial organization that works in a controversial area. By and large, though, I'm a FIRE defender -- I tend to think they get more right than wrong, and strive to be genuinely evenhanded in dealing with threats to academic freedom on campus.

But this makes it all the more striking to read their proposed model legislation targeting "DEI statements" at public universities. It is nothing short of an academic freedom trainwreck -- the sort of vague censorial tool that in most contexts FIRE would be blasting the alarm over. That it does not just endorse but drafted this disaster show is deeply worrisome and disconcerting.

I've written before trying to tease out the connection between DEI statements and (threats to) academic freedom before, which is far more complicated than groups like FIRE are letting on. The core problem is that while I absolutely agree that DEI statements can be used in abusive ways to create an ideological monoculture, it is actually very difficult to distinguish such statements from other arenas in which academic actors are asked to make normative assessments of their peers (for example, regarding teaching or scholarship) -- arenas which also are prone to ideological abuse. Almost inevitably, an "anti-DEI" rule that tries to have any teeth will put at risk basic practices of academic evaluation, and will do so regardless of any disclaimers to the contrary. This risk is only accentuated by the impossibly vague language that purports to distinguish licit versus illicit appraisals. And university bureaucrats who want to avoid potentially crippling financial liability (we'll get to that in a moment) are going to be very defensive regarding what is and is not permitted, inviting exactly the sort of administrative interference in academic affairs that FIRE purports to oppose.

When it comes to attempts to regulate DEI initiatives, my basic framework for evaluation is this. I assume that it cannot be the case that university actors are forbidden from caring about questions like "will the job candidate do a good job creating an equitable and inclusive environment for our diverse academic community" (if we are "forbidden from caring" about that, then the oppressive orthodoxy of the anti-DEI push is beyond dispute). So, assuming we're not "forbidden from caring", the question becomes "how can we, consistent with the anti-DEI regulation, permissibly elicit information to make an evaluation on that question?" And the subsidiary to that question is "what will the university or government bureaucrat in charge of compliance permit us to do to elicit information to make an evaluation on that question?" The former is a textual inquiry; the latter gets to the chilling effect of defensive bureaucracies seeking to avoid potentially millions in financial penalties. And for FIRE's anti-DEI legislation, the answers to these questions seem to be (a) I have no idea and (b) virtually nothing.

The core practice FIRE targets in its legislation are requirements that academic community members or job candidates "pledg[e] allegiance to or mak[e] a statement of personal support for or opposition to any political ideology or movement, including a pledge or statement regarding diversity, equity, inclusion, patriotism, or related topics." In addition, the law would forbid any institution from "request[ing] or requir[ing] any such pledge or statement from an applicant or faculty member" (notice that this would seemingly apply to interviews as well -- I could not ask a question that "requests" the candidate give a "statement" regarding their DEI-related practices).

Right from the outset, this is impossibly vague. Academia is, of course, beset with normative controversies. Some are very specific questions of disciplinary dispute ("Is originalism the best way to interpret the Constitution?"). But many are broad questions of academic mission. "Should university education be primarily vocational or academic in focus?" "What is the best way that professors can create a supportive learning environment for their students?" "What do you hope students will get out of your classes?"

These questions are contested, and often politically contested. For example, on university education as academic versus vocational, many conservatives contend that universities focus too heavily on hoity-toity theory and should instead concentrate on disciplines which prepare students for specific workplace jobs; liberals, by contrast, are more comfortable with the classic model of a liberal arts education where the project of learning and development is valuable even if it doesn't directly translate into a specific career arc. Are all of these questions qualifying "political ideologies or movements" that fall under the ambit of the law? If not, what conceptually distinguishes those questions from the seemingly-similar question "How do we render our institution equitable and inclusive to the diverse populations that we serve?" If the questions are identical in form, then the only basis for specifically banning DEI related questions is ideological hostility -- an imposition of state orthodoxy under the guise of pluralism.

One possible response is that the question is fine so long as it actually is a question, and does not dictate a particular answer. So if you ask "What is the best way that professors can create a supportive learning environment for their students," there are multiple ways to answer that question; the question does not require a "statement of personal support for or opposition to" any particular ideology, since the respondent is free to take any stance they like on the subject. By contrast, it would be problematic to ask job candidates to explain why the Socratic Method simply is the best way to create a supportive learning environment, since now they are being compelled to express support for a particular (pedagogical) ideological view, and we should be open to a diversity of positions on that subject.

Problem #1 with this response is that it's not clear that the model legislation permits even this, insofar as asking them to take any position on "supportive learning environments" arguably requires them to issue a "statement of personal support for" the practices they endorse, and opposition to the ones they reject. The law is vague as to whether it prohibits requiring candidates to endorse one favored view on an "ideology", or if it prohibits requiring candidates to simply present a view on the subject.  At least for DEI, the text points towards the latter -- the language prohibits requirements of statements "regarding" DEI or "related topics." So even an open-ended question which expressly invites multiple potential answers is forbidden if the subject matter of the question "relates" to DEI.

Problem #2 is that, assuming the model legislation does permit questions like "What is the best way that professors can create a supportive learning environment for their students" because they're open-ended and don't demand avowal of a particular ideological view, then it's unclear what distinguishes that sort of question from standard DEI statement questions. Contrary to popular belief, most DEI prompts do not take the form "explain why Derrick Bell is the greatest political theorist since Rousseau" (and if that sort of request is all that's being covered here, the law scarcely does anything at all). They are far more likely to be framed as something like "How do you propose making your institution equitable and inclusive to the diverse populations that we serve?" That question, too, can be answered in a multitude of ways, and so is not different in kind from all the other normative appraisal questions that are endemic to academic life (and which also can elicit strong views and significant political controversies).

In order to carve out a distinction for why DEI is different, one might make one of two arguments. The first is that although the DEI question is nominally open-ended, everyone knows that there is but one "right answer", and that answer is kowtowing to the politically-correct standards of the moment. To begin, I'm dubious that this is true at least in the strong form (there might be some answers generally thought of as wrong, but there is not only one answer accepted as right). I'm also skeptical that a complaint that is fundamentally about abusive-applications can justify prohibiting such questions as a class. I'll concede that it's probably true that a job candidate whose views on a given issue of concern are sharply at odds with their employers will be at a disadvantage in the process; I'll even concede that a flat unwillingness to even consider a contrary view is deeply malformed practice.  But that a candidate who answers a DEI question in a fashion at odds with prevailing sentiments may be at a comparative disadvantage to others cannot alone suffice to establish that the statements are being "abused" or that the statement's usage is tantamount to a desire to create a monoculture. The core risk -- dissidents are disadvantaged -- is always present for any normatively-laden assessment, it is not distinct to DEI. It exists for the academic job candidate whose views on pedagogy or research sharply diverge from the departmental line, it exists for that matter for the corporate job candidate whose views on business expansion break from the general consensus held by the executive leadership. Across the board, for any normatively-laden question, dissident candidates are probably at a disadvantage. If that fact is enough to justify banning an interview question, then we have a lot of questions to ban.

The second potential argument for why DEI questions are materially different is that the DEI question, while admitting multiple answers, still encodes certain values inside the question's very structure as presuppositions which an answer must tacitly endorse -- i.e., that values like "equity" and "inclusiveness" are in fact values the university should pursue. Someone who rejects the very premise will struggle to answer the question. But this "distinction" actually isn't one; similar presuppositions are likely embedded into most normative questions. "What is the best way that professors can create a supportive learning environment for their students," embeds a presupposition that professors should try to create a supportive learning environment; a candidate who rejects that premise (thinking, perhaps, that students learn best in a trial-by-fire academic Sparta) would likely be at disadvantage. Again, the objection here would cover far, far too much.

And at this point we do start to see FIRE unsuccessfully try to cabin its law's reach, with a provision contending that "Nothing in this Act prohibits an institution from considering, in good faith, a candidate's scholarship, teaching, or subject-matter expertise in their given academic field." Great verbiage; no idea how it works in practice. Suppose I, in good faith, believe that demonstrating capacity to work with and respond to issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion, is part of assessing a candidate's teaching (or, for that matter, scholarship or subject-matter expertise). Can I ask about that? I have no idea, but I suspect the answer is "no", notwithstanding this supposed carve-out. FIRE is I suspect embedding a normative presupposition of its own: that issues "related" to DEI never are in good faith connected to valid considerations of academic merit. But this position is very much a contested one -- I'd contest it -- and certainly should not be encoded into state law as legally-compulsory orthodoxy. Again, 90 times out of 100 FIRE would be screaming bloody murder about this sort of thing -- they are a victim of their own blindspots that they don't see how they're promoting exactly the sort of legislation they normally abhor.

And speaking of legislation -- we shouldn't conclude without talking about penalties for a moment. They have several different penalty formulations, but they all coalesce around proposing six-figure monetary fines "for each violation of the act." That's gigantic on its own, and certainly will counsel extreme defensiveness by university bureaucrats and lawyers regarding what faculty are and are not permitted to say in job interviews or other like forums on matters of DEI. The potential for censorial chilling is massive. But worse, the law does not tell us what counts as a single violation. A college posts hiring announcements across a dozen different departments, requesting application materials which are later determined to include Forbidden Questions. Is that one violation, or twelve? Probably twelve, meaning that a $300,000 fine just got converted into a $3.6 million fine. Or worse -- each of those job postings (based on what I know of the academic market) will likely get 250 applications. And since the structure of the act suggests that each individual applicant is separately injured by unlawful consideration of the Forbidden Questions -- well, 250 x 12 x $300,000 = Nine Hundred Million Dollars in potential liability. Given that exposure, you better believe that the university bureaucracy is going to be policing faculty hiring and promotion practices with a very fine-toothed comb to root out anything that could even possibly represent eliciting a statement "relating" to DEI as interpreted by whatever lickspittle Ron DeSantis has put in charge of oversight. And I guarantee you that the ensuing bureaucratic regime will be far more onerous, oppressive, and censorial than anything currently happening at the behest of DEI offices.

FIRE knows better than this. It knows that the strong arm of state regulation and compulsion is almost inevitably toxic to the free and open exchange of ideas on campus, and it knows that academic freedom means that it must be the academics themselves -- not bureaucratic meddlers, not state legislatures, not politically-appointed boards -- who get to decide how to appraise their peers and the requirements of their discipline. Some academics do not think that matters of DEI are germane to that assessment. Many others think they are quite germane, not because we demand all candidates adhere to the One True Path, but because I absolutely want to know that any potential member of my academic institution has at least thought critically and comprehensively on the subject of how to best create an equitable and inclusive environment for a diverse educational community. That interest of mine is no different than my wanting to know that they have thought on how to create supportive learning environments, or wanting to know that they have thought on how the important normative questions that are part of many research agendas. In terms of what conclusions they draw from that critical consideration, I'm willing to hear a wide range -- I don't have a single answer in mind that is the only acceptable conclusion. But it doesn't matter, because under FIRE's view if I try to elicit information on the wrong subjects I risk bankrupting the university. That can only have a censorial and chilling effect.

It is not possible to declare the topic of DEI a Legally Forbidden Question without doing catastrophic damage to academic freedom, and the manner in which this law proposes to enforce its prohibitions will inevitably generate a nightmarish cavalcade of bureaucratic censorship. To be blunt: Academic departments are absolutely entitled, as part of their discretion to determine how to assess disciplinary, pedagogical, or service-based standards, to decide how and to what extent questions relating to DEI are germane to their evaluative appraisals. I do not doubt there are departments that will exercise their discretion in a fashion that I would not approve of; I do not doubt that are departments that will exercise it ways I find impossibly narrow-minded and abusive. It does not matter: any state legislation which limits that fundamental prerogative of academic independence and faculty self-governance is a limit on academic freedom -- full stop. Problems of abuse, to the extent they exist, are not validly delegated to state legislatures, and FIRE absolutely knows better than to argue otherwise.

This legislation is a stain on FIRE's reputation. They should withdraw it, and they should reflect on just what it is about this issue that caused them to so flagrantly abandon their normal principles regarding academic freedom. That an organization that has done so much to fight for academic freedom is poised to usher in this sort of censorial dystopia is fiendish irony. One hopes they backtrack before it becomes reality.

You People, Get a Grip

So quick disclaimer: I have not seen "You People". It did not especially interest me to begin with, and the commentary I've read about it has not (to say the least) altered my initial instincts.

But reading the discourse about "You People", I've noticed a particular type of denunciation which seems to hold several presuppositions as gospel. They are:

1. "You People" is antisemitic;
2. Despite (or because of?) its antisemitism, "You People" is a critical darling; and
3. No other group but the Jews would encounter a situation where a media property that is so hateful is a media darling.

That this last claim is made unironically at the exact same time Dave Chappelle won a Grammy for "The Closer" is absolutely precious. But there's a bigger problem with the syllogism here, which is that "You People" is not at all a "critical darling". It has a flat lousy 42% rating on Rotten Tomato! It is widely seen as a mediocre disappointment!

The "nobody but the Jews is expected to suffer so" is an ever-flowering weed of antisemitism discourse, paradoxically living in largely harmonious coexistence with its opposite ("nobody would ever dare say that about the Jews"). Both positions are obviously wrong, which stops exactly nobody from asserting them with unimpeachable confidence. More interesting is the assumption that "You People" inevitably would be a critical hit; so much so that I saw people simply asserting that it was being lauded as an anti-racism classic in defiance of the actual critical consensus. What is going on here?

My suspicion is that there is a line of thinking amongst some that basically assumes that any film or media property which styles itself as "anti-racist" or "asking the hard questions about discrimination" will, in our supposedly hyper-woke era, automatically be viewed as a work of great significance and power -- and if punches at Jews, so much the better. They have bought in hard to the narrative that "woke" means a complete suspension of critical faculties in favor of blind support for anything that holds itself out as anti-racist; since "You People" fits the mold, of course it will be blindly and fervently supported via this inevitable collapse into groupthink. The complaint that critics will reflexively laud anything calling itself "anti-racist" -- ironically itself a reflex that has (as here) proven itself impervious to empirical refutation (perhaps because its very purpose is to enable the automatic and reflexive suspicion of any media property calling itself "anti-racist" -- it can't ever have earned its praise, if it is being lauded it's simply to fulfill the diktats of political correctness)  -- is paradoxically paired with the complaint that Jews and antisemitism are not included inside this paradigm of blind and uncritical support.

But again -- the whole thing is based on a misnomer. The critical reception of "You People" was not blindly supportive; it was not supportive at all. Whether because of its alleged antisemitism, or its clunkiness, or its heavy-handedness, "You People" was not a highly regarded movie notwithstanding its grand social ambitions. This should (but won't) falsify the notion that critics or commentators simply reflexively praise anything that styles itself as anti-racist -- which in turn should (but won't) make us more willing to consider seriously other "anti-racist" media properties which have gotten plaudits but also are hit with the reflexive dismissiveness that they are naught but contemporary PC pandering.

A First Amendment Right To Take In Information

Last week, the 8th Circuit decided Molina v. City of St. Louis, granting qualified immunity to police officers who shot tear gas at a group of lawyers (wearing bright green hats saying "legal observer") congregating on their own property while observing protests. The lawyers contended that the police gassed them in retaliation for exercising their First Amendment right to observe the protests. In a 2-1 ruling authored by Judge Stras, the court held that it was not "clearly established" in 2015 that there was any First Amendment right to observe protests.

(Because this is the Eighth Circuit, this is not even the most outrageous qualified immunity decision authored by Judge Stras of its week. That honor has to go to Leonard v. St. Charles County Police Department, where a jailhouse nurse simply refused to give a mentally ill inmate his prescribed medication, instead placing him under suicide observation -- the end result being jail staff "observing" the man claw out his own eyeball. Is just refusing to provide prescribed medical care "deliberate indifference" to the inmate's constitutional rights? Of course not! After all, the nurse did not do nothing -- she placed the man on suicide watch! That's what's great about modern medicine: everyone knows it can be freely swapped out with "do nothing but observe the patient" with no material change in outcome. This is why nursing is such an easy and non-stressful occupational path).

The interesting thing about Molina is that the Eighth Circuit had already in prior cases appeared to recognize that there was a constitutional right to observe the police. And under the "prior panel" rule, those decisions are supposed to be precedentially binding. But the Molina panel argued that those cases only concluded that it was a Fourth Amendment violation to seize someone for observing police (since there's no probable cause to believe any crime was committed). This does not establish, in the court's view (and notwithstanding the broad language in the case stating that there is a "clearly established right to watch police-citizen interactions at a distance and without interfering."), that there is a First Amendment right that's been established.

Judge Benton's dissent makes mincemeat of this finely-parsed distinction. But I wanted to flag a particular passage from Judge Stras' opinion that appears to embody a sort of vulgar textualism that's way too clever for its own good. In a footnote, Judge Stras argues:

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that a First Amendment right to observe police exists, but our Fourth Amendment cases like Walker and Chestnut do not clearly establish it. And it makes good sense why. It is one thing to conclude that officers cannot arrest someone passively standing by and watching as they do their job. After all, in the absence of interference, there is no crime in it. But it is another matter to say that watching is itself expressive. Expressive of what? Not even Molina and Vogel can provide a clear answer.

This, to me, seems to prove way too much, seduced by the allure of a hyper-literal reading of "expression". This argument, after all, would suggest that there is no First Amendment interest in reading a newspaper or watching a television program. Certainly, the speaker is expressing something, but what is the reader or watcher expressing? For them too, we could ask "expressive of what?" One can shoehorn in an answer ("they're expressing interest in or approval of the material"), but the more obvious answer is that the First Amendment encompasses interests on both the side of the speaker and the listener, and it is a fluke of grammar that "expressive" only directly captures the former. It seems obvious to me that the First Amendment encompasses some sort of right to take in information, not just to transmit it, and any reading that denies the former under the guise of interpreting the word "expression" is completely misunderstanding how to do legal analysis.

Incidentally, many years ago there was a similar thing with Justice Thomas in his Lopez concurrence, where he tried to bring constitutional Commerce Clause jurisprudence all the way back to E.C. Knight and claim that manufacturing is not "commerce". Among his arguments was the point that, grammatically speaking, you can't really substitute "manufacturing" for "commerce" in the clause -- while one can engage in "commerce" with a foreign nation, one can't really engage in "manufacturing" with a foreign nation. This was an argument that, again, proved too much. If there was a constitutional clause authorizing Congress to "wage war with a foreign power", would the power to "wage war" permit Congress to authorize the construction of warships? As a matter of grammatical substitution, it doesn't work ("construct warships with a foreign power"?). But all that means is the broader phenomenon of "waging war" can include activities which are not grammatically interchangeable with the phrase "wage war". And so too with "commerce", which also can refer to a range of activities which, taken as a whole, operate upon or in relation with foreign nations, Indian tribes, or the several states.

It is not a good thing, but also perhaps not an accidental thing, that the turn towards hyper-textualism corresponds to judges becoming increasingly bad readers of texts. The First Amendment obviously encompasses activities that are about receiving information alongside transmitting them. Pilpul about "expression" doesn't change that.

How Do Conservatives Explain Negative American Exceptionalism?

Over at the Washington Monthly, Keith Humphreys put up a chart comparing various countries along the axes of homicide rates and incarcerations rates.

Ideally, you'd want to be a country that has low homicide rates and low incarceration rates (Norway, Germany). Countries that have low murder rates, but get there by locking everyone up, are despotic (Iran). Countries that have low incarceration rates but high homicide rates are lawless (Mexico). And the finally, countries which throw everyone into prison but still have high crime rates are "disastrous", and of course, the U.S. of A. falls decisively into this category.

(Kevin Drum thinks violent crime rates are more useful than homicide rates for this sort of illustrations, which reshuffles some of the countries, but not in a way relevant to our purposes since the United States remains a clear disaster.)

I've long been curious how conservatives explain this sort of American exceptionalism -- metrics where America just clearly and unambiguously is far worse than nearly any other peer nation. Why, under the conservative telling, are we so bad at this compared to other countries?

Liberals don't have too much trouble with this problem -- partially because we're less wedded to chest-thumping about "greatest nation on Earth", more saliently because we have an easy explanation (guns + racism) ready to roll. But of course conservatives aren't going to be fans of that explanation. So what do they go with? It can't be "soft on crime" -- again, we're clearly "tougher on crime" than most peer nations (perhaps some "reforms" in that direction could push us into the "despotic" quadrant alongside Iran -- what a cheery thought -- but it doesn't seem to work as an argument). And I can't say I'm drawing much when I try to think about how they purport to explain this phenomenon. Do they just sit in denial of it?

Out/In List: 2022-23 Edition

 It's not as old as the New Year's resolutions, but I do enjoy creating the "Out/In" lists. So here it goes, slightly belated, for 2022-23!

Out                 LASIK Pack the US Supreme Court Scaramucci units Kari Lake is the media's worst nightmare Donald Trump Separation of Powers Attacking trans kids Marvel Universe Wordle Faux-allyship with Jews Joss Whedon Fascism disguised in a sweater vest Chess streamers Minnesota is maybe-competitive? Criminalizing abortion Rising inflation AI driving cars Space Force

In Corneal cross-linking Pack the Israeli Supreme Court Truss units Kari Lake was just a nightmare George Santos 5th Circuit as all three branches in one! Attacking trans kids and adults Extraordinary Vertex Real allyship with faux-Jews Infinite Buffy rewatches Fascism undisguised Chess boxing streamers Minnesota is a Dem trifecta Criminalizing miscarriages (and abortion) Purring economy AI writing law school exams Weather balloons

Bruen's Goose Continues To Not Apply to the Gander

The thing about the Fifth Circuit's recent ruling that the Second Amendment gives men under domestic abuse restraining orders an inalienable right to bear arms is that it is (a) insane and (b) absolutely defensible under the Supreme Court's Bruen decision. This is because the Bruen decision will regularly and predictably lead to insane results.

That said, I did want to flag something in the opinion that I've picked up on before -- namely, the inconsistent commitment to Bruen's supposed prohibition on weighing or considering "social policy" considerations. Judge Wilson, writing for the panel, expressly cites to this portion of Bruen, saying that while the prohibition on gun possession by domestic abusers "embodies salutary policy goals meant to protect vulnerable people in our society ... Bruen forecloses any such analysis in favor of a historical analogical inquiry into the scope of the allowable burden on the Second Amendment right." This principle is, perhaps above all else, the crux of Bruen's standard -- no matter how ridiculous, or absurd, or unfair, or chaotic the policy outcomes are, courts are not permitted to "weigh" them against the historical limitations that bounded the Second Amendment. The latter begins and ends the conversation.

Again, that principle is absurd. But it's Bruen's principle, and the Fifth Circuit gleefully cites it to explain why the prospect of terrified and murdered women can play no role in its legal analysis. But what happens if the historical arguments seem to counsel permitting more sweeping gun regulations than conservative jurists might like? All of the sudden, those social policy considerations come roaring back into view.

Addressing the historical precedents which did clearly envision government's authority to disarm "dangerous" persons, Judge Wilson explains that such exceptions must be narrowly construed so as not to apply to the case of domestic abusers. Why? Because, he asserts,

the Government’s proffered interpretation lacks any true limiting principle. Under the Government’s reading, Congress could remove “unordinary” or “irresponsible” or “nonlaw abiding” people—however expediently defined—from the scope of the Second Amendment. Could speeders be stripped of their right to keep and bear arms? Political nonconformists? People who do not recycle or drive an electric vehicle?

I take no position on whether the government's interpretation is so expansive. But note that this line of argument is expressly an analysis of the proper policy sweep of government regulation. We should tailor our interpretation of the Second Amendment's scope so as to avoid a policy outcome whereby too few people are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms; to avoid an outcome where the government is permitted to disarm people who these judges think it would be manifestly unfair to have their gun rights taken away.

This is exactly the sort of policy analysis Bruen purports to forbid, only here the "policy" concerns are ones counseling in favor of greater freedom to bear arms rather than reduced freedom to bear arms. Perhaps it seems absurd to permit the government to take away arms from people just for getting a speeding ticket. But so what?  Bruen was emphatic that this sort of social policy assessment has no role in Second Amendment adjudication. If the historical analogues give the state that sort of latitude, then that is supposed to end the conversation. Again, it is baked in the Bruen cake that it will lead to results that may appear to modern eyes ridiculous, because Bruen expressly instructs courts that they aren't allowed to care about those consequences no matter how absurd they might seem to be.

But as the Fifth Circuit's ruling makes clear, the Bruen prohibition on weighing policy consequences is, unsurprisingly, a one-way ratchet. Conservative courts will portentously declare that Bruen forbids them from considering the disastrous consequences of countless terrified or murdered women if it means taking away domestic abusers' guns -- but if history and tradition start to point towards enabling gun restrictions that the right finds too onerous, then all of the sudden we get a screeching parade of contemporary policy horribles that are treated as legally dispositive. This is what generates such well-deserved cynicism about the state of the judiciary today -- it's not just that the legal rules the governing class of jurists announce are absurd, it's that these jurists do not even pretend to be bound by them the second they prove inconvenient to their underlying politics.

The other thing to note about this case is that, if the Supreme Court reverses it -- and they might -- their reasoning will almost certainly purport to be based on some alternate assessment and reading of the historical sources. But this will be a naked smokescreen, and everyone will know it. If the Court reverses the Fifth Circuit here, it will be entirely and solely because the Court finds it too unreasonable and intolerable to permit domestic abusers free reign to carry arms -- a contemporary policy judgment anyway you look at it, no matter how much effort is or isn't expended to cloak it in some faux-historical garb. None of these judges abide by the rules they purport to lay out.

Let That Be a Lesson For You, Part II

Way back in 2009, I wrote about a case in the Netherlands where an Arab NGO was prosecuted for hate speech after publishing an article insinuating the Holocaust was exaggerated. The thing was, the NGO did not actually think the Holocaust was exaggerated -- rather, it was trying to draw attention a claimed double-standard after Dutch authorities had dropped hate speech charges against right-wing Dutch filmmaker Geert Wilders for a film critics claimed insulted Muhammad. 

Drawing on entry #45 of advice for evil overlords ("I will make sure I have a clear understanding of who is responsible for what in my organization. For example, if my general screws up I will not draw my weapon, point it at him, say 'And here is the price for failure,' then suddenly turn and kill some random underling."), I observed that when a non-Jewish far-right extremist engages in hateful speech towards Muslims, the proper response -- even if one believes in tit-for-tat -- is not to turn and attack some random other minority group (here, Jews).

In the files of "all that's old is new again", a similar situation appears to be brewing in Sweden, where a Egyptian writer has postponed (but not cancelled) a planned "protest" of burning a Torah scroll in front of the Israeli embassy. Why is he burning a Torah scroll in front of the Israeli embassy? Because a far-right Danish journalist and politician (who is not Jewish) recently burned a Koran in front of the Turkish embassy. A hateful and despicable act, to be sure -- but why is the response to awful behavior by a right-wing, non-Jewish Dane to attack the Jewish community in front of the Israeli embassy? Burning a Christian Bible in front of the Danish embassy would not be justified, but at least it would have symmetry. But for some reason Jews are always the random bystander executed in situations like this.

I also want to emphasize that local Jewish community leaders credit the prevention of the Torah burning to Muslim leaders in Sweden speaking out against it. This "protester" is a hateful schmuck whose hate happens to illustrate a particular form of pathology I wanted to highlight. Fortunately, he's a hateful schmuck in the course of being repudiated, and that's a good thing.

Endless Stunt Investigations is All the House GOP Will Do, Because It's All They Can Agree Upon

Having finally secured his chair as House Speaker, Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has given his caucus marching orders -- and those orders are "do nothing but launch petty performative investigations of the Biden administration".

Kevin McCarthy has told House Republicans to treat every committee like the Oversight panel — that is, use every last bit of authority to dig into the Biden administration. That work begins in earnest this week.

Several sprawling probes — largely directed at President Joe Biden, his family and his administration — set the stage for a series of legal and political skirmishes between the two sides of Pennsylvania Avenue. It’s all with an eye on the true battle, the 2024 election, as Biden flirts with a reelection run and House Republicans hope to expand their control to the White House.

After two impeachments of former President Donald Trump and a select committee that publicly detailed his every last move to unsuccessfully overturn the 2020 election results, GOP lawmakers are eager to turn the spotlight. And their conservative base is hoping for fireworks, calling on Republican leaders to grill several Biden world figures, including Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, retired chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci and presidential son Hunter Biden.

This isn't at all surprising, of course. In fact, it was probably inevitable after the Speaker vote fiasco exposed just how bitterly divided the GOP is (and how in thrall it is to its nihilist caucus). They're never going to forward an affirmative policy agenda, since they can't agree on any particulars beyond sloganeering (and also, policies tend to require money, which the GOP adamantly refuses to raise or spend unless it is on gut-busting upper-bracket tax cuts). But investigations? That doesn't require any policy agenda at all -- that's just mugging for the camera and talking about how much they hate Democrats. Right in their wheelhouse! 

That the GOP is still nursing ludicrous levels of grievance over the terrible unfairness of a House panel exposing why coups are bad only exacerbates their belief that this is naught but turnabout being fair play. And as the New York Times reported the other day, the GOP's view of "investigations" is to take it as a divine axiom that they and theirs are being abused, then pursue that axiom to hell and back no matter how little evidence ends up supporting the proposition.

So this is entirely within expectations for the new GOP House. Expect nothing but loud yelling investigations for two years as they throw everything they can at a wall and wait for something to stick. They don't agree on or even believe in anything else, but they can agree on doing that.

The Free Speech Chilling of Free Speech Protests

As some of you know, there's been a bunch of controversy recently about the "free speech culture" at Yale Law School, and particularly whether the school is hospitable to conservative speech. Several conservatives have argued that particularly raucous protests that have targeted conservative speakers have crossed over into effective censorship, negating Yale's claim to be a place where diverse views can be discussed.

On that note, David Lat reports on a recent talk at Yale given by an attorney for the right-wing, anti-LGBTQ group Alliance Defending Freedom (on a panel with former ACLU head Nadine Strossen and Yale Law Professor Robert Post). By all accounts, the talk, which had approximately 100 attendees, went off without a hitch. Far from the abuses of the past, this time there was not, in Strossen's words, "even a peaceful protest."

Now, I want to be very careful in articulating what I say next. I'm not a "protest" guy. I don't enjoy going to them, I don't find them especially inspiring even when I agree with them, and I'm probably predisposed to think of them as unreasonable. And I'm fully willing to believe that in the past some forms of "protests" at Yale (e.g., I don't think that protesters can be permitted to "shout down" views they disagree with).

All that said, it is also an element of free speech culture to permit some forms of peaceful, minimally disruptive* protests. Students quietly holding signs, or passing out flyers, or even booing the speaker when she's introduced -- those, too, are exercises of free speech, the protection of which is important just as protecting the ability of dissident speakers to come to campus and have a genuine, practical ability to present their views is important.

So when I read that there wasn't "even a peaceful protest", well, obviously one explanation for that is that no Yale students felt moved to protest this speaker, or that they were busy with other things. But given that this speaker is exactly the sort of figure who had been raucously protested in the past, and that presumably there are still a fair chunk of students who probably continue to deem her protest-worthy, what does it signify that no protest occurred? It seems highly likely that the steps Yale has taken to discourage illegitimate, censorial protest (and again, I'm inclined to think that there are such protests and Yale is right to tamp down on them) have had the additional chilling effect of deterring legitimate, non-censorial protest.

The conservative journalist who quoted Strossen as saying there were no "peaceful protests" also reported that "there were no ear-shattering chants, no profanity-laden signs, and no ad hominem questions." The first of these might be validly limited as a "shout down." The latter two, however, don't seem procedurally inappropriate (though of course one can agree or disagree with their on-the-merits substance). Free speech protects the right of attendees to have signs with profanity on them. Free speech protects the right of audience members to ask harsh or hostile questions. If those, too, were eliminated, then it seems Yale didn't just ban illegitimately disruptive protest; it also functionally squelched perfectly legitimate, normal forms of protest. As one sort of speech avenue opened, another closed.

The laudatory tone of the articles I've read praising Yale for successfully hosting this speaker suggest, however, that this ebb of free speech culture is not viewed as significantly worrisome. And perhaps the problems are not in equipoise -- one might think that obstructing invited speakers from presenting via "shout downs" is a more serious violation than deterring peaceful protests of speakers via perhaps overbroad or heavy-handed administrative initiatives. But it still worth recognizing that there appears to have been a free speech cost here as well as a benefit. A healthy free speech culture at Yale absolutely must allow speakers of diverse views the realistic, non-nominal opportunity to present their arguments. But such speakers are not entitled to be free from the normal pushback and protest that is also part of a culture of free speech. If the pendulum at Yale has swung so far back as to eliminate the latter, that cannot be deemed an unmitigated victory.

* Why "minimally disruptive"? Some take the view that any sort of "disruption" of a speaker's talk, even if de minimis, represents a form of censorship. This seems untenable: normally audience reactions like booing a poorly received point would fall into this category -- a speaker probably has to temporarily pause and regroup until the booing dies down, and so is "disrupted" -- but that can't be the standard for governing whether the speaker has functionally been obstructed from speaking.  On the other hand, some argue that protests are by their nature meant to be disruptive -- considerably more so than "minimally" -- which is what makes them a protest. I don't necessarily disagree with that point, but what I would say is that a protester who takes that approach is consciously refusing to submit to or cooperate with the prevailing legal or governance structures (that, again, is implicit in the disruption) and so cannot truly complain when those structures refuse to cooperate back (e.g., by imposing various forms of sanctions). "Minimally disruptive" I think walks the line appropriately.

New Depths of "Both Sides-ism": Gun Violence Edition

Commenting on the only-in-America news that the first 24 days of 2023 have already seen 73 Americans killed in mass shootings, Paul Campos points to a CNN article on the matter which he summarizes as

point[ing] out that fault lies on both sides of the political aisle for this epidemic, given that the Republicans don’t want to do anything about it, and the Democrats are unable to force the Republicans to do anything about it.

Ha ha -- good one, but obviously that's an exaggeration. Here's what the article says:

A partisan political system that is little help

Resignation that nothing will change is fueled by a political system that is so entrenched on guns that it can’t usually frame a meaningful response to shootings, let alone solutions. Offers of “thoughts and prayers” by pro-gun rights Republicans are routinely mocked by Americans looking for reform. Conservatives often divert blame to a national mental health crisis that they do little to alleviate.

Second Amendment absolutists often argue that if more “good guys” carried guns, everyone would be safer. In their own ritualistic response, Democrats often re-up demands for an assault weapons ban they know they can’t pass.

Sigh. 

Nobody Is More Gullible Than Alt-Center "Free Speech" Advocates

When Florida announced it was banning the AP African-American history course, 90% of Ron DeSantis' supporters know exactly what he's doing -- legally banning wrongthink on race to the greatest extent possible -- and support it on that basis. They know that's what he's doing because he's been crystal clear about his agenda from day one and entirely consistent in applying it.

But you still can easily find alt-center "free speech!" advocates who tie themselves in knots to plead that it's actually about "opposing indoctrination" or "ensuring that multiple perspectives are taught" or something that just has to be different from "rank censorship". Meanwhile, the Florida government just states outright that if the college board wants its class taught in the Sunshine State, "we expect the removal of content on Critical Race Theory, Black Queer Studies, Intersectionality and other topics that violate our laws." They're not even bothering to hide it, but the alt-center sorts are perfectly happy to pull the wool over their own eyes in order to maintain harmony on their Scales of Broder.

It is incredible, looking back, to remember that approximately 9 month period where conservatives went on a high horse about protecting "free speech" and "uncomfortable learning" in the educational space as against various real and imagined left-wing bugaboos. The rapidity to which they shifted without even breaking a sweat into "enact legal bans on left-wing ideas whenever and wherever we can", and the degree to which their "free speech" hangers-on just followed along without seeming to notice or care that they suddenly were becoming foot soldiers of legally-mandated censorship, is a development I still can't fully wrap my head around. At most, you get some "both sides" grousing about how while they aren't exactly fans of throwing librarians in jail if they stock books that deviate from state-imposed orthodoxy, they can't focus on that too extensively because it might distract them from finishing their 67-tweet thread on an overzealous student protest at Swarthmore, followed by a portentous statement expressing outrage that anyone would even think of withdrawing any honors or accolades from state-censor-in-chief Ron DeSantis.

But seriously -- has any movement more quickly demonstrated itself to be populated entirely by useful idiots than this one?

Hamline Faculty Vote No Confidence in President

Eugene Volokh has the faculty statement, passed by a vote of 71-12, asking the President to step down after her mishandling of accusations of Islamophobia against an adjunct professor who showed a painting depicting Muhammad in an art class.

Under the circumstances, this is the right decision, and it is heartening (though not surprising) that this appears to be the broad consensus of Hamline faculty.

If SCOTUS Had Its Way, Countless Michigan Jews Would Be Dead By Now

A Dearborn, Michigan man was indicted on gun charges stemming from an alleged plot to attack a Michigan synagogue. The suspect, Hassan Chokr, was blocked from purchasing a shotgun, rifle, and semiautomatic pistol following the conclusion of a background check, and federal prosecutors said that in his attempt to purchase a gun Chokr made "three false statements, any one of which would prohibit him from possessing a firearm." Those statements were denials that Chokr

1. Had ever been convicted of a felony;
2. Had currently pending charges of a felony; and
3. Had ever been committed to a mental institution.

Presumably, the background check revealed the existence of one or more of these flags in Chokr's record, thus preventing the purchase and likely averting a tragedy.

Given that, it's worth noting that all three of these bases for denying someone a gun purchase are currently on thin ice following the Supreme Court's Bruen decision, which radically circumscribed the government's ability to place limits on American's right to gun ownership.

On the first, the Third Circuit is in the process of reconsidering its earlier ruling that non-violent felons can be excluded from gun ownership (Chokr's conviction related to theft relating to a financial device such as a credit card, and so likely would be viewed as a non-violent felony).

On the second, a federal judge has already concluded that it is unconstitutional to bar those under felony indictment from possessing guns.

And on the third, prominent gun advocates like Eugene Volokh have aggressively challenged whether a per se bar on gun possession by persons who have been committed to a mental institution is constitutional.

In short, it is entirely plausible that the federal judiciary, following the Supreme Court's lead in Bruen, will conclude that all the failsafes that successfully prevented Hassan Chokr from purchasing guns he would have likely used to massacre Michigan Jews are unconstitutional and must be stripped from the books. It's not guaranteed -- while Bruen's language is expansive to the extreme, nobody knows how far the Supreme Court's nerve will go when push comes to shove -- but none of these objections can dismissed out of hand given Bruen's radical reinvention of Second Amendment doctrine.

Certainly, the Court has been crystal clear that the essential liberties of the Second Amendment are far more important than the countless lives its jurisprudence puts at risk. You know what they say: the tree of liberty must periodically be watered with the blood of tyrants innocent Jews.

New York Voters Who Elected George Santos Should Be Ashamed of Themselves

The degree to which George Santos appears to lie about everything really is jaw-dropping even in a post-Trump America. Is it worse to be the subject of a general list of one's "top 11 most absurd lies", or to be the subject of more specific headlines like "George Santos took $3,000 from dying dog’s GoFundMe, veterans say"? I can't even process.

I am curious, though, to see more interviews with voters in New York's 3rd congressional district, who just sent him to Congress. The NY-03 is a swingy enough district that I don't think Santos will be the beneficiary of too much "own the libs!" or "red right or wrong!" apologetics. Nonetheless, I want to know -- are Santos' constituents embarrassed? Not just of him, but of themselves? They picked this guy, after all. We get angry at politicians all the time, but in a democracy the choices of We the People are the responsibility of We the People. George Santos is first and foremost a failure of George Santos, but he is also in non-negligible fashion a failure of the voters who elected him.

It is I think too much to hope for that voters reckon with how they can taken in by such a naked fraudster and internalize some lessons that will inculcate them from future mistakes. But a boy can dream.

DEI's "Psychology" Double-Bind

The NYT has an op-ed today regarding DEI programs -- and in particular, the scant research suggesting that they actually, you know, work.

I'm familiar with some of the research in this area and while I could quibble on the margins, the core point is more or less accurate. There is fairly robust research evidence that establishes implicit bias is prevalent in our society, but there is not much in the way of verifiably effective interventions that combat it. Many DEI programs which purport to address implicit bias and other forms of prejudice are at the very least not proven to actually have an impact on the problem they purport to address. Finding an intervention that reliably and durably alters discriminatory attitudes (particularly implicit ones) is somewhat of a white whale for the social psychology profession. But in the meantime, the lack of evidence that many DEI programs tailored towards altering attitudes are effective suggests that a ton of time and money is being wasted.

Given that, the article makes the following suggestions:

So what does work? Robert Livingston, a lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School who works as both a bias researcher and a diversity consultant, has a simple proposal: “Focus on actions and behaviors rather than hearts and minds.”

Dr. Livingston suggests that it’s more important to accurately diagnose an organization’s specific problems with D.E.I. and to come up with concrete strategies for solving them than it is to attempt to change the attitudes of individual employees. And D.E.I. challenges vary widely from organization to organization: Sometimes the problem has to do with the relationship between white and nonwhite employees, sometimes it has to do with the recruitment or retention of new employees and sometimes it has to do with disparate treatment of customers (think of Black patients prescribed less pain medication than white ones).

The legwork it takes to actually understand and solve these problems isn’t necessarily glamorous. If you want more Black and Latino people in management roles at your large company, that might require gathering data on what percentage of applicants come from these groups, interviewing current Black and Latino managers on whether there are climate issues that could be contributing to the problem and possibly beefing up recruitment efforts at, say, business schools with high percentages of Black and Latino graduates. Even solving this one problem — and it’s a fairly common one — could take hundreds of hours of labor.

I have no intrinsic quarrel with this. Instead of looking for "bad brains" and trying to fix them, focus on tangible actions and outcomes. If your company has too few Black and Latino people in management roles, instead of trying to root out the deep-seated biases in your executives and HR staffers, just get to work directly on the problem.

But this anti-psychology turn is interesting for one particular reason: it flies in the face of the prevailing conservative formulation of what discrimination is: namely, discrimination occurs if and only if one can prove the presence of malign intent by a discrete decisionmaker. Unless someone holds racially discriminatory attitudes, there cannot be said to be racial discrimination at all. From that framework, which holds out psychology as the exclusive prerequisite of discrimination, it makes sense that an anti-discrimination initiative would have to be psychologically-inclined as well. And indeed, focusing on actions and behaviors in absence of establishing bad psychological intent is an anathema to the conservative (and, often, alt-liberal) framework -- that way lies "racial balancing" or "equality of result" or any number of terrible ghouls which are supposedly the patrimony of the progressive DEI edifice.

And so we have a double-bind: first, prominent political and social institutions (to say nothing of legal precedents) say that the only cognizable way to speak of discrimination is through psychology -- bad motivations. Then, when DEI professionals accordingly work within that framework and try to address the problem through psychology, they're pilloried because such interventions, it turns out, are only dubiously reliable and don't directly correlate with fixing the "actual problem" of underrepresentation of social outgroups. Which is fine as far as it goes, except that when DEI tries to pivot back to the "actual problem" without the baggage of wading through conscious and subconscious attitudes, they're lambasted as crying "discrimination!" without proof, since only psychology is said to generate valid evidence of discrimination in the first place. It's an impossible situation. 

Make Portland Normal

Portlanders are very much fans of the slogan "keep Portland weird!" For the most part, I agree -- I'm generally a fan of Portland's various quirks and idiosyncrasies. I definitely count myself as a Portland booster!

Nonetheless, there are a few areas where it'd be nice for Portland to act like a normal American city. I'll give two examples:

1) Fluoridate our damn water, like a normal city!

Finding out Portland is the largest U.S. city to not fluoridate its water is I gather a rite of passage for new Portlanders. I always thought of anti-fluoridation activists as falling in the same category as anti-vaxxers and chemtrailers, and on reflection, I still do. There is absolutely no reason why Portland needs to have unfluoridated water.

73% of Americans have fluoridated water. It's clearly fine. Don't be weird about it.

2) Maintain your streets, like a normal city!

Before I talk about this, I need to briefly rant about Portland's street grid, which (particularly in the west part of the city where I live) is by far the most confusing of any city I've ever driven in. I hate driving in Portland, which is full of absurd seven way intersections and freeway entrances that look like alley ways and poorly signed lanes which inexorably force you to cross a bridge.

Still, all that, I can forgive -- in part because I respect that Portland's hilly geography probably makes a straight grid functionally impossible, in part because it's too late to fix now without digging the entire city up.

But what I can't fathom is why, throughout the city, random, seemingly normal streets are unmaintained by the city.

To be clear: I don't mean "the city has fallen behind in providing maintenance." What I mean is that there are many regular streets that get normal, local through traffic, that the city intentionally disclaims responsibility for maintaining.

This is the best explainer I've seen for the phenomenon, and it doesn't explain much. And it means that you could be driving to a friend's house only to discover that the route suddenly becomes a pot-hole ridden cart track. Check out this interactive map -- the random red portions? Those aren't maintained by the city. They're listed as "private" roads, even though for every relevant purpose they are just as public as any other road. They're not some isolated track that only connects a few houses over private property. They're part of the normal street grid! And this is encoded into statute somehow!

Here's an example from my own neighborhood. The subdivision I live in is 14 city blocks long, west to east. On the west side, most streets outlet onto the "main" road, but on the east side only one street does (Coronado). The only way out of my neighborhood going east is via Coronado. And wouldn't you know it if Coronado is unmaintained for its last four eastbound blocks, leading to giant gaping potholes on my unavoidable route to work each day. Coronado isn't all unmaintained -- from west to east it's (a) unmaintained for two blocks, (b) maintained by the city for six blocks, (d) non-existent for two blocks (it doesn't go through all the way), and (e) unmaintained again for the last four blocks.

Don't be weird Portland -- just take responsibility for your own street grid.

Who's Defending Hamline?

By now, you've probably heard of the flare-up at Hamline University in Minnesota, where an adjunct professor of art history was dismissed following student complaints after she showed a historic painting that depicted the prophet Muhammad. Every account I've seen suggests that the professor presented the painting (which was created in Persia by a Muslim artist in the 14th century) in a respectful and sensitive fashion, including notifying students that it would be depicted in her syllabus and again before the start of the relevant class (and told students they were free to opt out of attending that session). Nonetheless, the college not only declined to renew her contract, they expressly accused her of "Islamophobia" and indicated that "academic freedom" should not have protected her ability to "harm" her student.

The decision to terminate the professor has been met with a firestorm of criticism (e.g.: FIRE, PEN America, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Academic Freedom Alliance). I personally found this post by Jill Filipovic to be especially thoughtful. So far, though, the college has been emphatic in defending its decision.

On that note, however, one thing I've yet to see is any prominent figure defending Hamline. The closest I've seen is a local CAIR official who (at a university-sponsored forum) said that the lesson had "absolutely no benefit" and compared alternative Muslim perspectives on portraying Muhammad as akin to the existence of people who think "Hitler was good." I've also heard hearsay that some academic professional organizations have privately declined to speak out because many officers and/or members feel uncomfortable. But as far as public discourse goes, I've seen essentially nothing but wall-to-wall condemnation.

Indeed, the universality of the "Hamline got it wrong" position in some ways renders it impressive the degree to which the Hamline administration is sticking to its guns here. It is one thing to abandon principles of academic freedom under intense external pressure demanding censorship; it's another thing to abandon principles of academic freedom in the face of intense external pressure to abide by them. It does make me wonder if there are any unknown cross-currents of pressure that the college is responding to. It's not out of character for a university to make terrible, craven decisions, of course -- but it's a little out of character for a university to make terrible, brave decisions, which makes me think that there must be some point of leverage on the administration that they are succumbing to. Again, the prospect that these cross-currents exist doesn't at all excuse the college's actions here. If, for example, the decision to terminate the professor was widely popular amongst Hamline students (or groups that Hamline hopes to recruit students from), it would still be the case that the college had an obligation to stand up for the right principles. But at least that would be a normal, explicable failing.

But maybe I'm overthinking it. Maybe the Hamline administrators are that ideologically committed to being thoughtlessly censorial. Or maybe there's a line of Hamline defenders I haven't seen. But as far as I can tell, virtually everyone (left right and center) is onboard with the view that Hamline fouled up. The last people to agree, it turns out, are the Hamline administrators.

Things People Blame the Jews For, Volume LXII: Women Attending College

You might have heard the (latest) terrible news from Afghanistan, where the Taliban has enacted a ban on women attending college.

Now, I say "terrible news". But if you're Tyler Russell -- a White supremacist sporting an "America First" cap (ironic, given that he's Canadian!) -- you call it a "step in the right direction." Why? Since women only attend college because they're being "tricked by Jews".

Female education: a Jewish plot! Once again, our enemies sometimes seem to say far nicer things about us than our friends do!

(Dear readers: not only did my wife go to college, that's where I met her! Does that make me an apex trickster?)

Performative Brinksmanship is Obviously Stupid from the Outside

The farce that is the GOP House leadership fight continues, as Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has just lost the eleventh ballot for speaker in the face of a small but entrenched far-right rebellion. The knot of far-right extremists who refuse to back McCarthy has led to chaos in the GOP, with no signs of a compromise being reached. Ringleader Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) has even indicated that he'd be fine if the fallout of his putsch results in Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) ascending to the speaker position (though if a compromise is reached with Democrats to thwart the right-wing rebellion, I suspect it will not involve Jeffries as speaker).

For the most part, pretty much everyone on the left-side of the political spectrum has been content to sit back, munch on popcorn, and watch the GOP eat itself alive. Democrats are enjoying making a show of unity against GOP irresponsibility; meanwhile, Republicans are literally arguing that their decision to cripple the House doesn't matter because if a real crisis occurs President Biden will be there to set things right (the infantilization of the American right continues apace). The whole thing is one ongoing trainwreck for the GOP, and I absolutely agree with what I take to be the Democratic Party conventional wisdom that we need not lift a finger to bail out the GOP unless we get some superb concessions for our trouble.

So here's my question for the peanut gallery. I'm sure the arson caucus of the GOP has its boosters among other far-right extremists. But is there anybody on the left side of the spectrum observing what's happening here and thinking "I may not agree with their policies, but this is a savvy play by Gaetz and co."? Does anybody think this sort of performative brinksmanship is smart politics?

It doesn't seem so to me -- progressives right now are laughing our heads off at a GOP in complete disarray, and rightfully so. We're not jealous of the far-right for having the gumption to take a stand; we see just how catastrophic this whole farce is for the conservative agenda (and thank god for that!).

So perhaps there's a lesson to be learned here. Thankfully, there are few if any Democratic equivalents to the bomb throwers currently making chaos in the House. Even our far-left members so far have known when to rein it in -- a quality which sometimes yields loud cries of "betrayal!" and "spineless!" from certain corners of the commentariat. I might suggest that next time such an instinct comes over you, you remember this moment. Remember how you didn't look across the aisle and marvel at the steely-eyed rebels who stood their ground and played hardball. Remember how what you actually saw was a bunch of children embarrassing themselves and self-sabotaging for their own self-aggrandizement. And then remember that it's probably a bad idea for Democratic progressives to emulate the GOP's dumbest members' most nihilist strategies.

UPDATE: And the winner for the first prominent left outlet to praise the GOP's political savvy and declare it a model to emulate is ... Jacobin Mag! Who's shocked?

On Being an Intellectual Submissive

I had an interesting experience the other day.

My wife likes to remark that, for someone as terminally online as I am, I don't know much about the standard pop-online memes and stories. I'm not very up on pop culture (I barely know who the Kardashians are, let alone what they're famous for). And while I'm aware of all internet traditions from a very specific corner of the internet, by and large I'm isolated from what the Kids (or even Adults) These Days are talking about.

As a fun game, my wife found a list of the top 50 "internet moments" of 2023 and went through them one by one to see how many I (and she) had heard of. She knew most of them. I knew maybe a quarter. And  when I didn't know, she'd gleefully try to explain some insane story about Jorts the Cat while I stared in incredulous ignorance.

Here's the thing: I loved this. Indeed, it was an experience that kind of made me "get" the phenomenon of high-powered corporate executives who are submissives.

The way that phenomenon is always described is that such persons are constantly asked to be authoritative, be in charge, make the decision, be the boss -- and so it's just freeing to let someone else take charge and be completely and utterly at the mercy of another.

The life of a high-powered corporate executive is not at all how I'd characterize my life. But what is true is that in my job (and my day-to-day persona), I'm expected to know things. I'm smart, I'm informed, I'm aware -- that's a huge part of who I (normally) am. And I've internalized this. For example, one of my emotional triggers is when I feel like I've made a specifically dumb mistake, or I can't figure out how to do something seemingly obvious. It fills me with shame way out of proportion to the actual "offense." I have an expectation (both internally and externally-imposed) that I am chock full of relevant knowledge at all times.

Given all that, I think I really enjoyed the experience of being in a situation where I did not and was not expected to know anything. Where I could sit back in doe-eyed ignorance and just be taught by someone else, with no expectation that I'd necessarily absorb, synthesize, or regurgitate the information. When it comes to popular internet memes, it's absolutely okay that I know nothing and that I sit in the recipient-learner position! That felt so freeing -- I loved it.

Anybody relate to this? I wonder if it's just a me thing or if any other academic sorts have had similar experiences.