That Train Is Arriving On Schedule

One of my recent hobbyhorses has been to raise the alarm at one of the single most self-destructive trends I've witnessed in contemporary Jewish political activism: the pivot away from coalitional work with allies to tackle all forms of hatred and bigotry in favor of a far narrower focus on purely Jewish concerns. 

This move is sometimes justified with the rhetoric of "put your own mask on before helping others", the idea being that the threats Jews face now are simply too acute for us to divide our attention and allocate resources to the needs of our peers. But this new Look Out For Number One strategy is staggeringly short-sighted, for a host of reasons. 

The one I've mostly concentrated on is that it fails to account for the obvious fact that Jews are a small minority, and if we're justified in ignoring the needs of others to concentrate solely on our own self-interest, others are justified in doing the same to us. In a democratic system where one needs 51% of the vote, and Jews are ~2% of the population, that is an obvious losing strategy.

But Paul Horwitz flags another problem (that again, should have been obvious from the get-go): allowing hatred for other minority groups to seep into the political mainstream inevitably ends up bolstering antisemitic hatred as well. As he puts it:

Unsurprisingly, given their opposition to anything like liberal pluralism and religious freedom, when unhinged Christian nationalists start going after one faith, it’s rare that they will stop there. A good deal of the time, they won’t have started there either.

Horwitz's hook is a recent incident involving Carrie Prejean Boller, then serving on President Trump's Religious Liberty Commission, haranguing Jewish witnesses about their views on Israel/Palestine and defending antisemitic conservative activists Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson (Prejean Boller was later removed from the commission but refused to resign herself, saying she would "would rather die than bend the knee to Israel"). There was a fair amount of conservative shock to find gambling in their establishment, but Horwitz notes that the conservative "religious liberty" ecosystem that Prejean Boller is a part of and that reflects the membership of Trump's commission has long promoted Islamophobia of the most rabid sort (see, e.g., the hearings over the "Preserving a Sharia-Free America Act"). The antisemitism that is coming further into focus now is the natural extension of the Islamophobia that has been prominent and largely unchallenged for many years now. Indeed, research has consistently found that the best predicator of antisemitic views is whether the subject holds other racist and bigoted views targeting other minorities.

Again, none of this is surprising. It is the flip side of the advice Fanon got from his philosophy teacher: "When you hear someone insulting the Jews pay attention; he is talking about you." For us Jews, we might say the same thing: "When you hear someone insulting the Muslims pay attention; he is talking about us." The point being that, if you're looking to head off antisemitism, you can't afford not to care about other tides of bigotry and illiberalism that may be cresting. The "people who sincerely adhere to these views," Horwitz observes, "are hardly going to be satisfied with one enemy or one minority to threaten and deny basic constitutional rights." Even where they didn't start by talking about Jews, they'll get there. That train, as a different wise commentator put it, is never late.

The Big 4-0

I turned 40 yesterday.

As in so many things, my emotions are a mix of "the world is a trainwreck" and "my very narrow slice of it is great." I have a great job, a great family, a great house in a great city. I'm raising a great baby. I'm financially secure. If the looming specter of fascism wasn't darkening my doorstep, I'd have no complaints at all!

My wife turns 40 later this year, and she has for quite some time now been insistent that her forties will be her best decade. I've never been quite as convinced that same will be true for me. It is cliche to say "I don't feel forty; I still feel young" -- but I do. Not, you know, in terms of being able to ski or stay out late or not have random body parts start hurting for unknown reasons. And there are plenty of areas where I've always been an old soul crotchety old man. But in terms of exuberant enthusiasm? Or in terms of enjoying feeling taken care of? Or just liking video games and Star Wars and Legos? Or feeling like an up-and-comer who will wow the powers-that-be with his fresh new ideas? I still feel very young. 

And once you're forty, you are not young. There's no getting around it. In your thirties, you can kind of futz about still being a young professional -- forty isn't ambiguous. I feel like I am constitutionally required to lose all knowledge of technology, and never voluntarily listen to a new artist ever again.

But it is what it is. Time stops for no man. I'm lucky that, with a minor false start related to a (turns out wholly unneeded) dentist's appointment, I had a very nice fortieth birthday-day. The more "official" celebrations came around the Super Bowl and this weekend, but yesterday included good food and chocolate cake and quality time with wife and baby and the Olympics. So let's go back to the basics -- I am very lucky. Here's to (at least) forty more lucky years.

The Return of Encystment

I didn't see most of the Super Bowl ads, but one I actually did see was Robert Kraft's latest "blue square" installment addressing contemporary antisemitism. The basic narrative is pretty straightforward: Jewish kid walks down the hall, gets bumped by some bullies, who place a sticky note on his backpack that says "dirty Jew". Jewish kid is mad, but then a (presumably) non-Jewish kid, a student of color, offers his support (and empathy -- "I know how it is"). They walk off together as friends. Scene.

I thought it was okay. It's probably impossible to create a "good" ad on this subject -- it's always going to read at least in part "hello fellow youth" and be intrinsically uncool in that register -- but if we leave that aside it was pretty unremarkable.

And that, of course, means that many people are remarking on it -- particularly on the Jewish right, which over the past few weeks as taken an interesting pivot against fighting antisemitism at all (Bret Stephens' big 92NY speech where he argued for "dismantling" the ADL was the clarion call here). A couple people have asked for my thoughts on this new narrative, and now is as good a time as any.

At one level, the fact that the Jewish right is suddenly uninterested in tackling antisemitism at the precise moment where resurgent right-wing antisemitism has finally become so normalized amongst mainstream conservatives that even the usual hacks can't see-no-evil it is the most obvious convergence imaginable. Fighting antisemitism is a hoot when it's batting the left around, but now that it's Republicans whom one has to stand up to it just isn't fun anymore, is it?

It's almost tempting to leave it there, but I do think there is a little more that should be said. One pattern we're increasingly seeing on the Jewish right is a hostility to Jews being outward-facing, of the entire idea of building relationships and friendships and coalitions with non-Jewish partners and peers. Everything from the ADL's decision to abandon its historically broad-based civil rights mission to the near-reflexive cry that any attempt to situate the fight against antisemitism alongside other forms of bigotry is to "all lives matter" the former is part of this malaise. It stems from a sense that these other groups won't stand up for Jews, and if they won't do their part for us, why should we stand up for them? This wounded grievance doesn't come from nowhere -- I myself once wrote a post titled "Solidarity is for Goyim" -- but for some it has become exaggerated to the point of pathology: the entire prospect of cross-communal support is treated as so outlandish as to be offensive.

In that light, I think what most offended some people about the Kraft ad is that it showed a non-Jew (a non-Jew of color, no less) helping a Jewish peer. That prospect is what the new right-wing narrative dismisses as unrealistic, impossible, a sucker's bet. No wonder it infuriates them so. In a world where there is no hope for Jews to be anything other than hated by non-Jews, the only move is to turn to ourselves.

With that, turn back to Stephens. The narrative Stephens is pushing is that, in lieu of "fighting antisemitism", we should be investing more in the development of a positive Jewish identity -- in things like Jewish education and camps, Jewish media and Jewish religious education. On its own, I have no quarrel with any of these, though I don't think any of these priorities are in conflict with tackling antisemitism. In context, though, Stephens' call should be seen as a call for Jews to turn inward -- to stop focusing on our relationships with others (the negative things they say about us, yes, but also the positive opportunities we have to grow and cocreate together). They, the non-Jews, will never be reliable partners and it is a waste of time and money to pretend otherwise. Instead, let's self-generate our own authentic Jewish identity, without waste or taint from the outside world.

The great Jewish philosopher Albert Memmi had a name for this sort of move: "encystment". Encystment is a sort of self-ghettoization that occurs when the ghetto itself is perceived as providing a shell and shield (albeit a brittle one) against the dangers and anxieties of the outside world. Non-Jews are intrinsically untrustworthy; we have nothing to say to them except to bristle hard enough that they hesitate to attack us. We pull back from relating to others because we assume they will only hurt and endanger us; and instead rely solely on ourselves -- for who else is there to trust? (There's an obvious parallel to the more reactionary strands of Zionism here, on all fronts: the overwhelming sense that the entire world is against us, the fascinating interplay of weakness and strength, the obsession with self-reliance, the intrinsic value assigned to thumbing one's nose at outsiders, all of which generates a self-fulfilling prophecy of auto-isolation).

In the JTA article on the Kraft ad controversy, they quote Liel Leibovitz illustrating this pattern in typically crass fashion: "If I had ten million dollars to spend on a Super Bowl ad, I'd just show a bunch of exploding beepers, dead Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, hot Israeli girls with guns, and the caption 'F–k Around, Find Out.'"* Of course he would. The likes of Liel have no way of relating to the non-Jewish world except via extended middle finger. And so when we juxtapose Liel with Stephens or Shabbos Kestenbaum dinging the ad by saying we should invest in Jewish day schools instead, there is a connection -- don't reach out, don't try to work with others, the world sucks, curl up into your cocoon where it's warm inside.

There is, to be clear, no conflict at all between believing Jews should invest more in Jewish institutions who can help cultivate a positive Jewish identity, and in looking favorably upon the outward-facing coalitions and relationships envisioned by the Kraft ad. Indeed, for many Jews that is the foundation of our positive Jewish identity -- much of what it means to be Jewish, for us, is in how we positively relate to and affect the broader world around us. What we're seeing from Stephens and from the backlash to this ad is a longstanding frustration by the Jewish right with how American Jews have constructed their Jewish identity; a self-construction where a series of liberal values have become imbricated in the meaning of Jewishness itself.

For the likes of Stephens. this is an anathema -- it is not Judaism, it is a substitution of liberalism for Judaism. The concept of tikkun olam, both its centrality to contemporary Jewish identity and the mockery that centrality elicits amongst right-wing Jews, illustrates the point well. When Stephens calls for building positive Jewish identity, he is very much not trying to encourage those Jews who view tikkun olam as central to being Jewish to be more intentional and linking living Jewishly to, say, opposing ICE or preserving reproductive autonomy. What Stephens means is for Jews to abandon such liberal frivolities in favor of being taught how to "really" be Jewish. For Stephens, this is a matter of righting ship. But the Jews who are Jewish in the way Stephens indicts obviously disagree that our Jewishness is a false one, and we understand -- correctly -- that Stephens actually just has contempt for the Jewishness of most American Jews. He is trying to war against the predominant way American Jews have actualized our Jewishness over the past century. 

Without overstating its importance or its quality, this ad is emblematic of a vision of Judaism that has been central to the American Jewish experience for decades -- an acknowledgment of antisemitism, yes, but also an acknowledgment that we are part of a broader community that includes allies who care about us and about who we care in turn, and that this mutuality of care is part of what makes our Jewishness live. The Jewish right hates that vision and they hate the Jews and Jewish institutions who espouse it. So they are using the chaos of the present moment to try and destroy it.

* Liebovitz also wrote "it's almost impossible to imagine a more retarded ad", and I commend the JTA for not letting that slur drop unnoticed. Even better, they flag how Liebovitz's deployment of that term fits into a pattern of right-wing discourse eager to vice-signal how little they care about the equal dignity and standing of other vulnerable groups. (Specifically, JTA wrote "The epithet, which had fallen out of favor, has recently resurged on the right, dismaying people with disabilities and their advocates.").

Terry the Turtle

 

Nathaniel had a milestone this week: his first toy that he's absolutely petrified of.

The toy in question, a birthday gift from his uncle, is a plastic turtle. When you turn it on, it rolls forward and plays a little song. Then, when the music stops, the shapes on it shell pop out (the idea being the baby can put the shapes back in their slots).

The turtle has a few things cutting against it. The motor is a bit loud (particularly when the turtle gets caught on something like a rug), which clashes with the music. But Nathaniel's least favorite part is definitely the pop-out. When that happens, he instantly bursts into tears and makes a beeline for the nearest parental figure for a hug.

We're not alarmed by this -- we know "child is irrationally afraid of innocuous thing" is very normal, even for a baby as level-headed and mellow as Nathaniel. If anything, it's alarmingly cute just how scared he is of this random turtle, since it's actually quite rare anything penetrates Nathaniel's unflappable mien (in true sociopath fashion, I've decided to name the turtle "Terry", short for "terrifying").

Jill and I were wondering, though, how baby toy manufacturers deal with this sort of reaction in testing. Again, it is absolutely normal for babies to react with irrational fear towards something totally innocuous. I'm sure that for every baby that hates Terry, there are dozens who think he's their best friend. But that suggests that, like a pharmaceutical company measuring side effects, toy manufacturers probably have some maximum threshold of terrified baby that's acceptable before a product goes to market, and the idea of that metric is hilarious to me.

Meanwhile, we've stowed Terry away in a drawer. But Nathaniel has found Terry's hiding place and has gingerly started taking him out to play with. We don't turn the power on, and so the scary pop-out doesn't happen (we experimented with it once more, but Nathaniel still hated it), but it's definitely a case of Nathaniel deciding that he is going to confront his fears, and I'm very proud of him for it.

The Nexus in the Shadow of the ADL

Last month, I read an article in the JTA which described the Nexus Project as having been "launched ... as a progressive alternative to the Anti-Defamation League." I found that description interesting, because as someone who had been involved in Nexus since almost its inception, that is very much not how I would have characterized our origin story. In part that's because Nexus' original contribution was more on the debate over defining antisemitism (with IHRA as the foil -- though even there we did not cast ourselves as anti-IHRA). But also, Nexus' original group contained many people who had past or present affiliations with the ADL -- we had no quarrel with them.

It does seem true, though that Nexus is more and more being seen as a mainstream-liberal alternative to the ADL. This wasn't a niche we really sought out directly. Rather, it was a niche that just sort of developed a vacuum adjacent to us when the ADL decided to self-immolate over the past few years (see, most recently, its self-parodically mealy-mouthed statement on ICE abuses in Minnesota, where it calls for "de-escalation on all sides"). The ADL fell apart, and Nexus just was sort of ... there, and so now all of the sudden Nexus is standing in and occupying the role that the ADL used to stand for in the eyes of the mainstream liberal Jewish community.

This arc for Nexus just became even clearer with the story breaking today that a top ADL antisemitism researcher, Aryeh Tuchman, is decamping to join Nexus' new Center for Antisemitism Research. This is a substantial coup and a major mainstream credibility boost for Nexus. It also, I think, inevitably raises questions about ongoing reports about internal disarray at the ADL, with longstanding staff members departing or looking for the exit based on frustration that senior leadership (particularly Jonathan Greenblatt) have turned the organization away from its core mission in pursuit of right-wing accommodationism.

In fairness, both Nexus and Tuchman take pains not to directly fire upon the ADL.

“If we really wanted to repudiate the ADL, it would be hard to argue that the best way to do that was to hire one of their senior researchers,” said Alan Solow, the chair of the Nexus Project’s board of directors. “Our intent wasn’t to make a statement about the ADL. Our intent was to find the best person in the field to build something new.”

[....] 

“I have great respect for the work that comes out of the ADL and the Center on Extremism,” Tuchman said. “This isn’t about repudiating anything I did there. It’s about an opportunity to ask different kinds of questions and to focus exclusively on research in a way that I hope can move the needle.”

Nonetheless, it's hard not to see this as representing a belief that the work the ADL used to do is work it no longer is doing, and that people who hold affinity for the "old" ADL no longer find the ADL the best place to see those values. For example, Solow does take aim at the ADL's recent pivot away from fighting racism and bigotry generally as part of the campaign against antisemitism -- a major shift in the organization's historical mission that has been extremely controversial:

Solow said Nexus views coalition-building with other groups targeted by discrimination — including organizations fighting racism, Islamophobia and threats to LGBTQ and immigrant rights — as central to combating antisemitism, a strategy he noted the ADL has moved away from in recent years.

“That’s a point of departure between us and ADL,” he said.  

Obviously, there are plenty of people who never liked the ADL to begin with. But amongst the Jewish community, there are a lot more who retain affinity for what the ADL used to be and the role it used to play, who are more and more frustrated that the ADL has -- for whatever reason -- elected to dramatically change direction. Those Jews are looking for something to fill the void. And it looks like Nexus is -- however intentionally (or not) -- setting itself to do it.

I even had the thought that ADL : Nexus :: Twitter/X : BlueSky. If you miss "the old place", come over here! For an organization that I (again, speaking as an insider) often gently made fun of as "the other one" between IHRA and JDA, I have to say I am enjoying this "little engine that could" trajectory we're on. Even as the JDA feels played out, outflanked by even more extreme anti-Zionist critics, here comes Nexus establishing itself as the alternative for very much establishment-aligned Jews who nonetheless feel unrepresented by hidebound legacy organizations who don't realize "Bibi or bust" doesn't even play w/their historic base (let alone the next generation).

Germany Boycotting the World Cup?

There's chatter that Germany might boycott the World Cup, as a response to American aggression towards Greenland (among other sins).

I actually don't think this will go anywhere. Certainly, even the talk of it is an embarrassment for FIFA (and so soon after delivering Trump his knock-off Nobel too!). But then, FIFA may be the single most corrupt sports organization on the planet (the only competition I can think of is the International Boxing Association -- amateur boxing's oversight body -- whose leader is a mobbed-up Russian stooge. But they're obviously smaller potatoes than FIFA). They may not be capable of embarrassment.

As a rule, I'm opposed to sporting boycotts, at least as applied to teams. I don't find the argument that participation in international sporting events is some sort of PR coup for the flag-bearer to be especially compelling (the idea that the U.S. women's soccer team is acting to glorify Trump seems ... specious). And I think there is something nice about the countries of the world "coming together in one place for the primary and fundamental purpose of doing something fun and joyous." The norm is that we don't use international sport to pass commentary on a nation's politics or policy, however destructive it may be, and so I oppose sports boycotts for any nation -- the U.S., Iran, China, Israel, Russia, North Korea, you name it.

As for hosting an event, my opinion is the same -- with one substantial caveat. I don't think we should boycott hosts because of the host nation's politics, and I don't buy the notion that hosting represents some sort of glorification of the host. The exception-caveat is where there is credible reason to suspect that the host nation will be exclusionary towards, if not outright dangerous to, its visitors and guests -- the other teams, their coaches and staff, and their fans and spectators. The Trump administration's various visa bans -- now effecting potential qualifiers Iran, Haiti, Senegal and the Ivory Coast -- represent exactly that sort of threat. They are, for me, what make the boycott calls at least worthy of consideration -- not against Team USA as a team, but against the United States as a host.

Indeed, while I assume many will associate the boycott call to various efforts to exclude Israel from international sporting competitions, the closer analogy is actually to host nations which have sought to exclude Israelis from participating in international competitions within their borders. The basic duty of hosting an international sporting event is to be a host. A nation unwilling to do that -- for whatever reason -- is breaching its most essential compact as a host, and so justifies having the privilege of hosting taken away. It is embarrassing that America may now fall into that category. But there is a lot to be embarrassed about in this day and age.

Why Should We View the JDL as a "False Equivalency"?

A few weeks ago, there was a protest in front of a New York City synagogue which was hosting a real estate event featuring, in part, properties in Jerusalem. Pro-Palestine protesters, notably, chanted their support for Hamas ("Say it loud, say it clear, we support Hamas here."), the internationally-recognized terrorist organization responsible for (among other crimes) the massacres on October 7. A smaller group of pro-Israel protesters affiliated with the far-right Jewish Defense League chanted their own racist slogans, including "death to Palestine."

The next day, NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani released a statement condemning the pro-Hamas chants: "Chants in support of a terrorist organization have no place in our city." There was some consternation about the supposed delay (of one day), but it appears that time lag occurred because Mamdani was consulting with high-level members of the Jewish community to ensure he got the statement right.

I noticed at the time, though, that the ultimate statement rightfully condemned the pro-Hamas chanting but not the equally appalling that came from the JDL. "We support Hamas here" is a despicable thing to say anywhere, but especially in front of a synagogue. No person of conscience should defend it (it is not surprising that there are several notable left-wing figures who lack any such conscience). But "death to Palestine" is equally rancid and should be equally indefensible. So why was it not included in Mamdani's condemnation?

I suspected at the time that it was left out because some factions of the Jewish community would have denounced its inclusion. Many of these figures would claim that they do not, of course, defend the JDL or chants like "Death to Palestine". But they would present including it in Mamdani's statement as "both-sidesing" or "all lives mattering" or in some other way diluting of the message condemning the pro-Hamas chants. And it seems the reporting bears my intuition out. An earlier draft of the condemnation was going to condemn the Jewish Defense League, but it was removed following protests by Jewish leaders who viewed it as a "false equivalence."

This is rotten. It's not just that complaints about "both sidesing" lack legs when both sides really did chant despicable things. It's also the choice -- and it is a choice -- by certain Jewish leaders to decide that condemnations of pro-Palestine extremists are in some way "diluted" or are less sincere when they come tied to calling out pro-Israel extremists present at the same event. Why should we feel that way? I don't feel that way. In fact, I feel rather ill at the notion that someone might think my equal standing as a Jew is threatened by condemning phrases like "death to Palestine." What does that say about ourselves? What does that say about what we are saying about ourselves, that we make such demands?

This is, I think, the end result of the tremendously destructive road too many Jewish leaders have committed to trotting down, where we have become obsessed with "all lives mattering" or "us too-ism" to the point that anything that even purports to tie Jewish safety to any sort of political universalism or solidarity is presented as an affront. It is not unrelated to the bone-jarringly stupid choice by the ADL (among others) to self-consciously cut itself off from historic allies because antisemitism must be fought alone or not at all. I don't mean to suggest that there are not serious challenges in the relationships Jews have with other communities, historic allies included. But in all of these cases, we are choosing to isolate ourselves. These are not instances where we are being forced out of coalitions or compelled to go alone. We are choosing to believe that the entire concept of allyship is a form of disrespect.

We don't have to think like this. Nobody is forcing us to hear "chants of 'death to Palestine' have no place in our city" and decide it means "Jews are lesser." There's no reason to make that inference, and there are many reasons not to make that inference. And so while at one level I am glad that Mamdani was consulting with and attentive to Jewish community concerns in the wake of the synagogue protest, it is a very bad thing that we've decided our "concerns" compel him not to condemn obviously despicable and indefensible rhetoric from the likes of the JDL. That Jewish leaders -- especially Jewish leaders who do recognize how wretched the JDL is -- think in those terms speaks to rot in our own psyche that we need to address, and quick.

What Are You Going To Do?

You know, as soon as I started reading this Paul Campos post about "respectable" conservatives who, in the event that Trump does (as he has started suggesting) try to cancel the 2026 elections, will inevitably find some way to explain why it isn't so outrageous or unlawful or norm-busting or what have you, I immediately thought "Josh Blackman".

Now, that was before I got to the halfway mark and saw that Blackman's name was, indeed, dropped. And perhaps laying a marker down on Blackman here is akin to bragging about picking a one seed to make it to the Sweet Sixteen of March Madness.

But lay down my marker I shall. I can even hear the formulation he'll use: "I can't bring myself to be mad about ....", followed by a citation to some non-analogous alleged liberal sin that supposedly demonstrates that this is all just part of the game everyone plays, and Democrats are just play-acting at crying foul.

Again, I don't pretend I deserve any credit for a bold prediction here. But Blackman really is just the archetype for this particular brand of hackishness. 

And if it feels unfair to say someone like him would really support nullifying the 2026 elections, that's part of the pattern too -- the whole point is the repeated practice of conservatives rationalizing behavior that, a few months earlier when it seemed inconceivable, they would have treated as outrageous slander to assert conservatives would ever rationalize:

Suppose the Republicans move to cancel or annul the 2026 elections.  What will be the justification from the center-right (the same people who never would’ve dreamed of annexing Greenland but now say it’s kind of a reasonable idea, the same people who never would’ve dreamed of endorsing insurrection but now say . . . the same people who never would’ve dreamed of shooting survivors on a boat but now say . . .)?

 In fact, I'd say this is the ur-story of Trumpism, dating back to his first arrival onto the political scene. As I wrote back in 2016, shortly after his first election: "Much of the conservative movement has spent the last two years slowly transitioning from 'it's an outrageous slander to say that a racist cartoon character like Donald Trump represents the conservative movement' to 'it's an outrageous slander to say that the American conservative movement is "racist" or "cartoonish" just because it adopted Donald Trump as its representative.'" It was not, in the scheme of things, too long ago that "supporting Donald Trump" fell into the category of "something so outrageous of course I, the reasonable conservative, would never do it and only a crazed partisan would contemplate otherwise." Blackman, after all, was on the "Originalists Against Trump" letter, urging that we "deny the executive power of the United States to a man as unfit to wield it as Donald Trump." But once Trump's presidency went from impossibility to reality, well, some people will make their peace with Hitler himself if it keeps them inside the inner circle.

Hand Foot Mouth Cock Sacky

It's been an eventful two weeks. And I'm not even talking about *gestures vaguely* the world.

Last week, Nathaniel started daycare. A few days later, on Thursday, I had my first day of class, and Nathaniel was diagnosed with hand foot and mouth disease -- aka coxsackie. My mom says the latter name "sounds better" than "hand foot and mouth disease". I'm unconvinced. While "hand foot and mouth disease" sounds like a reason to put a cow down, I'm not sure "cock sacky" is much of an improvement.

Anyway, Nathaniel was, as is his wont, completely unbothered by any of this. But it did send him home from daycare.

On Monday I had jury service. I arrived at the courthouse, checked in, found a seat in the holding pen, and then suddenly lost all color and started sweating profusely (I mean, profusely). I stumbled over to the main desk to ask for some water, which they provided ... along with calling the paramedics because "you don't look right." Thus ended David's jury service, and began several hours at the Kaiser Westside ER. Who doesn't love beginning a jury tenure seeing one of their fellows carted out on a gurney? (I actually asked the paramedics if this happened every week -- I kind of assumed that there was always someone who was "sick" and tried to get out of jury service -- but he told me that no, I was his first jury-pool patient).

I started to feel better Tuesday, except that I started to see some weird and painful blisters on my hands. And my feet. And maybe the back of my throat. And now today, on Nathaniel's first birthday, I think "I probably have hand foot and mouth disease." It's his birthday, but he's giving me presents. What a mensch. The bonus irony is that HFMD rarely is symptomatic in adults, but I guess I'm the reason why they hedge that a bit!

So now I'm tip-toeing around the house (not to keep quiet, but to avoid the painful spots on my heels), and thinking deep thoughts like "how does the blister decide to be on that centimeter of my finger, rather than the centimeter directly to its left?" It's not like the blisters are clustered around veins or arteries, or near parts of my body that are either especially high or low use. It all seems very arbitrary. I'm very curious about tracing the physical pathway of the virus load from when it enters my body to when it manifests in blisters in these very particular spots.

Unfortunately, the medical treatment for HFMD seems to boil down to "take a tylenol and buck up", so now it's just a matter of trying to rest and waiting to see if that ambulance ride from the courthouse to the hospital results in a $94,000 surprise medical bill. What fun.

Local Quisling Accused of Drunken Affair with Subordinate

One of the few tiny specks of light in the 2024 election was that voters in my congressional district ousted our one-term Republican incumbent, Rep. Lori Chavez-Deremer, in favor of Democratic challenger Janelle Bynum. Turns out Portland was America's last bastion of normalcy.

Chavez-Deremer parlayed that loss to fall upward into the position of Trump's Secretary of Labor. On face, it was a payoff to the Teamsters for functionally backing Trump not endorsing Harris, since Chavez-Deremer had a somewhat stronger pro-labor background than most Republicans. In reality, Chavez-Deremer has cheerily enacted Trump's agenda of gutting labor protections, thus proving the already-obvious point that even "sympathetic" Republicans are useless when push comes to shove because they'll always ultimately accommodate whatever is the alpha ideology in their party, and right now the alpha GOP ideology towards unions is "bust them up and send the workers back into peonage where they belong."

Aside from that, Chavez-Deremer's most prominent entry into the news came when she publicly backed President Trump's announced military invasion of Portland, making her quite the little quisling. But I woke up today to read reports that Chavez-Deremer is under investigation after allegedly having a drunken affair with one of her Department of Labor subordinates.

"Chavez-DeRemer, 57, has welcomed her alleged paramour at least three times to her DC apartment and twice into her hotel room while traveling, alleges a complaint filed with the Department of Labor’s (DOL) Office of Inspector General last week, which has since begun a probe," said the report. DeRemer "is also accused of drinking in her office during the workday and committing 'travel fraud' by having her chief of staff and deputy chief of staff 'make up' official trips to destinations where Chavez-DeRemer can spend time with family or friends on the taxpayers’ dime."

Additionally, the complaint alleged, Chavez-DeRemer has abused her authority to force department aides to run personal errands for her — an issue that has gotten a number of previous Trump administration officials, like former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, in trouble as well.

Now, nobody should get their hopes up. Alcohol abuse and sexual misconduct are less "scandals" in the Trump administration and more "job requirements." One even wonders if -- her job head-faking towards a "pro-worker" Trump administration policy complete -- she might get tossed overboard to make room for a true believer to really go to town on labor.

But still, every news story that breaks about the brazen corruption, graft, and abuse that characterizes this administration, the better. So I raise my glass to you, Secretary (feel free to raise one or several of your own -- we know you've got them). I hope you've enjoyed your time in DC, because you sure as hell aren't welcome back here.

The Parent's Geiger Counter

One of the strangest aspects of parenthood that they don't really tell you about is the fear. Once you have a baby, you're always just a little bit afraid.

Usually it really is just a little bit. Barely noticeable. But it's present -- like a little Geiger counter that crackles in the background (and periodically spikes with serious danger).

We had our first trip with Nathaniel to urgent care today. That sounds more serious than it is -- his daycare sent him home because he had a rash, and we needed a doctor to check him out before he was cleared to return. Turns out, he has Hand Foot and Mouth Disease (which is what we thought it was) -- perhaps the least serious childhood ailment out there, other than it being extremely contagious. To be honest, Nathaniel barely seemed bothered by it (when is he ever?).

And yet, as we were waiting in the doctor's office and I watched Nathaniel happily crawl and climb about, I looked at the splotchy red marks on his face and thighs and a tiny part of me thought -- could it be measles? Not that I know anything about measles, other than we had eradicated it and thanks to the anti-vaxx conspiracism of the GOP it's back. But that's that little bit of fear lurking in the background.

Meanwhile, also as we were waiting, I was reading about immigration agents shooting two people in Portland, shortly after ICE agents in Minneapolis orphaned a six-year-old boy. On the Portland shooting, someone remarked that the address was right by their own child's daycare, and then glumly remarked that soon all of us will have the story of the ICE shooting or kidnapping or violence that occurred "right by where we do [X]." We always like to talk about those "little bits of human connection" like they're a good thing, but sometimes what they do is emphasize "it could've been us."

I'm not unreasonable; I know the Geiger counter of fear would have always been there; it isn't an artifact of this administration. But it certainly is the case that the counter is crackled louder than it otherwise would, because our own government is intent on terrorizing the citizenry.

Care Day

Nathaniel had his first day of daycare today!

As is typical of these things, it was harder on mom and dad (mostly dad) than baby. Nathaniel was happy when we left him, and happy when we picked him up, and the daycare center sent some adorable photos of him playing and napping (sidebar: I cannot imagine how big a change the job of early childhood daycare provider has gone through since the dawn of the app era). Dad held it together during drop off but was sobbing in the car ride home, and then started tearing up again upon pick up once I saw that he had done well (I cry from relief).

Tears aside, though, this is good for everyone. It's good for Nathaniel to socialize with other kids, and it's good for us to have a bit more freedom during the day (it's terrible for our bank account, but there's not much to be done on that). Indeed, my main thought was to wonder, once again, how universal childcare isn't the #1 top voting priority of every American who has ever been a parent.

Today was just a half day -- tomorrow he stays through the afternoon. But for the time being, it's looking like an A+ adjustment from an A+ baby. I couldn't be prouder of the little guy.

Things People Blame the Jews For, Volume LXXVII: The Maduro Abduction

It's 2026, and I can't think of a better way to ring in the new year than a fresh edition of "Things People Blame the Jews For."

Today's entrant comes from Venezuela, still reeling after America unlawfully abducted President Nicolas Maduro. At one level, it's understandable that people are trying to figure out exactly what happened. On another level, it's really obvious what happened: America unlawfully abducted President Nicolas Maduro.  Nobody is hiding the ball. There aren't a ton of layers to unpack here.

But if you're the new acting Vice President of Venezuela, Delcy Rodriguez, is it enough to state the obvious: America unlawfully abducted Nicolas Maduro? No -- there's got to be another angle:

“The governments of the world are simply shocked that it is the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela which is the victim and subject of an attack of this nature, which has, without a doubt, a Zionist tint,” said Rodriguez in a televised speech, according to the Mexican public broadcaster.

[...]

There was no evidence to suggest Israel had any role or even knowledge of the American plan to capture Maduro.

Unsurprisingly, it is Venezuela's beleaguered Jewish community that is going to bear the brunt of this, and they're already bracing for the worst:

Jewish community leaders ... reported that all Jewish institutions, including synagogues, had been ordered closed, and Jewish people were instructed to remain at home. Additionally, security around Jewish institutions had been heightened.

(The copy here is ambiguous as to whether the "order" came from the government or from Jewish community leaders as a safety precaution. Either way is bad; the former obviously would be much, much worse).

It's a little difficult to write about this, since it feels like such a side issue against the far greater problem that America invaded a sovereign nation to unlawfully abduct its head of state. Of course, there's little question that Maduro is a schmuck, and Venezuela would be better off without him at the helm. But speaking as the resident of a county currently led by a schmuck and which would be far better off without him at the helm, this doesn't license random foreign nations going in and unlawfully abducting the head of state. And one reason why doing that is bad is that the knock-on effects -- even for populations which may have very good reason to detest said head of state -- are very hard to predict and do not tend to redound well either to occupier or occupied. The United States, of all countries, should know that by now.

New Year's Resolutions 2026

Okay gang, it's time for New Year's Resolutions!

As is tradition, we start by reviewing the previous year:

Met: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15

Missed: 7

Pick 'em: 9 ("most" probably is fair, but I have good chunk of unframed prints in my basement), 11 (I was pretty good by the end, but no master)

Hey, that's pretty good! I need to be more ambitious!

(1) Get tenure.

(2) Write a new law review article.

(3) Have a new course approved by the curriculum committee.

(4) Host a great Super Bowl/40th birthday/1st birthday party.

(5) Visit a museum in France.

(6) Acquire a significant (for me) piece of art.

(7) Adjust to Nathaniel being in daycare.

(8) Travel somewhere between France (in June) and the Loyola conference (in November).

(9) Do an event with the Portland Art Museum's Graphic Arts Council.

(10) Finish the year with a Chess ELO of over 1300 (blitz).

(11) Write more blog posts in 2026 than I did in 2025 (138).

(12) Do a formal "activity" with Nathaniel (e.g., swimming lessons or music classes).

(13) Purchase a flight or hotel with credit card points.

(14) Submit "Power, Vulnerability, and Impunity" to a journal.

(15) Read at least five books on art.

Out/In: 2025-26

At the risk of sacrilege, I actually think I enjoy doing the annual out/in list more than the New Year's Resolutions (don't worry, they're coming!).

Out                                                                 In

Daddy daycare                                          Daycare

Nobel Peace Prize                                      FIFA Peace Prize

ADL                                                           Nexus

GOP pretends to fight antisemitism          Open GOP antisemitism

SCOTUS balls and strikes                 Not engaged in a legal enterprise

Law and order                                           Pay-to-play pardons

"My daddy was in the Klan"                    "I'm a 'heritage American'"

Border security                                         ICE human trafficking

Price of eggs                                             Price of dolls

Summer in London                                   Summer in Paris

National Guard invasion                          Frog revolution

60 Minutes                                                White House stenography

Wall Street                                                Mamdani

Original public meaning                          Roman law

Elder Scrolls VI                                        Tamriel Rebuilt

Pre-tenure                                                 Tenure(?)

Wishing you a very "in" 2026!

Collaborating With the Trump Administration's Xenophobia Was Worse Than a Crime ....

One of my favorite quotes of all time comes from the statesman Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, who reportedly remarked after Napoleon's execution of the Duke of Enghien "It was worse than a crime, it was a blunder!" It is useful any time someone takes an action whose obvious moral bankruptcy is somehow eclipsed by its naked strategic idiocy.

For example, few can forget the ADL's fulsome praise when the Trump administration unlawfully seized pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Kahlil and tried to place him in a lawless pit. In terms of values, it was transparently appalling. And yet, as pure, cold-hearted tactical thinking, it was somehow even worse. At a time where antisemitism is at a historic ascendence, the ADL's bold strategic pivot is to cut itself off from its historic allies, abandon its longstanding principles, and proudly declare it's every man for themselves. Can anyone guess why that might not be a winning play for a minority community representing less than 3% of the American population?

The underlying assumption, incredibly, seems to be that the Trump administration will be a reliable and steadfast force against antisemitism (remember: Jonathan Greenblatt fundamentally trusts Donald Trump). Anyone with a pulse could have told you this was a sucker's bet, but somehow the American Jewish community's premier advocacy org went all in on it.

And lo and behold: as explicit right-wing antisemitism continues its rise to dominate mainstream conservative institutions, the brief period where the Trump administration even pretends to care about "fighting antisemitism" is snapping shut in favor of stepping up the xenophobic racism even further. The latest development here is the decision to place travel sanctions on several European-based media monitors combatting hate and misinformation, many of whom cut their teeth fighting antisemitism in cyberspace. Indeed, one of the targets, Imran Ahmed (who actually is an American permanent resident), was most well known for trying to flag instances of left-wing antisemitism. Ironically enough, his lawyers are comparing his case to that of Kahlil -- both unified by the Trump administration targeting immigrants for arbitrary arrest, detention, and deportation on the basis of their speech.

In their complaint, Mr. Ahmed’s lawyers likened his case to those of other foreign nationals who have been targeted, such as Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and legal permanent resident whom the Trump administration has sought to deport over his pro-Palestinian comments and activism that the administration equated with “antisemitic hate.”

For his part, Mr. Ahmed has said his organization was founded to look into the growth of antisemitism on the political left. He was among the activists who spoke about how to combat online antisemitism at a 2020 State Department conference during the first Trump administration. 

Who could have predicted that an administration dedicated to empowering racists and bigots of all stripes would use its claimed powers of arbitrary arrest and detention to help racists and bigots? (Everyone. Everyone could). 

And while there is some irony in Ahmed tying his case to Kahlil, the comparison between the two is an apt one. If nothing else it demonstrates that the bedrock motivator for the Trump administration is clearly and obviously not "fighting antisemitism" (or even a highly stipulated and partial "antisemitism" found only among the political left). The unifying thread is a desire to terrorize immigrants and create an open space for racism and White nationalism to spread. There was a brief window where the administration found "antisemitism" a useful fig leaf for its fascism, but that period is most certainly closed, and anyone who was gullible enough to believe it genuine in the first place should have the dignity to hide in shame forever.

Sick Baby

Nathaniel is feeling under the weather.

He has a cough, which he caught from me, and before I go any further, he's fine. In fact, he's mostly been handling it like a champ. This really is the first time he's been truly sick-sick (he's had runny noses and such before, but he's frankly scarcely noticed them), and by and large he's being a real trooper.

But last night he got caught in a bit of a spiral where he coughed himself awake, and found that a bit scary and starting crying, which made it a bit harder to catch his breath, which exacerbated the cough ... and all of the sudden, it's a full meltdown. About an hour of screaming and sobbing and coughing, all while he's clearly exhausted. No fun.

Again, to reiterate, he is (and was) fine. We kept a close eye on him to make sure he wasn't actually struggling to breathe or anything like that, and there were no issues there. He was just (understandably) upset, and miserable, and honestly a bit scared, and obviously as a parent you hate seeing your kiddo like that.

As sicknesses go, this really is about as basic as you can get. But even still, as a parent, it's miserable. Nathaniel is a baby. He doesn't understand what's going on. He just knows he's in this bad situation and he's looking to you to help him, and there's really not all that much you can do other than give him cuddles and comfort. (The saddest part for me was that whenever one of us would hold him, he'd reach for the other parent, as if to say "surely, one of you can help me!").

This sort of thing happens to every baby and every parent. That doesn't make it easier; in fact, I suspect most parents would categorize times like this as among the toughest parts of being a parent.

But as I was cuddling him last night, watching him sob uncontrollably and feeling absolutely helpless in the face of his misery, my mind kept drifting to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Because as terrible as this experience was for a normal, non-dangerous childhood cough, I cannot fathom how I would feel grappling with this feeling of helpless impotence in the face of my baby's confused misery if it were a serious illness. Measles. Pertussis. Mumps. Things that could put him in the hospital. Things that could endanger his life.

Take this awful feeling I had last night, and magnify it to an incalculable degree. That is what Kennedy -- and all those who enabled him, a cadre that includes Donald Trump, most Republican Senators, and every one of their voters -- is unleashing on America. That my mind associates last night with that experience is testament to just how little I can comprehend -- am willing to comprehend -- what going through that hell would actually be like.

Having a sick baby should be the flip side of my vaccine post: you want to know what's way worse than the feeling of impotent helplessness watching your baby suffer from a cough? The feeling of impotent helplessness watching your baby hospitalized with the measles. The former is inevitable. The latter is eminently avoidable, and it is infuriating that this conspiratorial maniac is endangering my baby -- all of our babies -- by trying to put safe vaccines out of reach and facilitate the spread of dangerous diseases.

There are so many reasons why we as Americans should be ashamed of the choices we've made as a polity over the past few years. But amidst stiff competition, Robert Kennedy has to be very, very high on the list.

Rats Flee Floating Ship

You might have heard the story break that the Heritage Foundation, America's leading right wing "think tank", has just been hit with a rush of high-level resignations across several key programs. The resignations were precipitated by Heritage's president, Kevin Roberts, legitimizing the rise in antisemitism explicit antisemitism even more explicit antisemitism on the mainstream right by ostentatiously defending Tucker Carlson friendly interview with neo-Nazi extremist Nick Fuentes.

(Among those resigning is Josh Blackman, and I have to say, caring about other Jews makes a nice change of pace for him).

The scope of the resignations has understandably led folks to frame the events as "turmoil" at Heritage, and there's no doubt they're losing a lot of big names who have decided that Heritage's increasingly open embrace of open nativism and ethnic supremacy is too much for them. And the natural thing to conclude in the wake of such turmoil and disarray is that Roberts has made a major strategic error; failing to recognize that even now there are some things that are still "too far" for even the most hardened conservative loyalist.

But l disagree with that take. To the contrary, I think Roberts is right. This was no blunder, this was strategy, and Roberts is absolutely going to be vindicated in the end.

Now, obviously, when I say Roberts is right -- he's not morally right. He's morally abominable; his positions, reprehensible. But that goes without saying; if he was morally upstanding, he wouldn't be leading the Heritage Foundation.

No, what I mean is, Roberts is right in his assessment of where the conservative movement is going and what it wants. No matter how august their titles and pedigrees, the people departing are not going to cripple Heritage; they will not dim its star in the least. Heritage will be able to replenish it ranks just fine (it helps that mediocrity is not a barrier to success there), and its influence in the halls of conservative power will not wane.

Roberts has calculated that open embrace of White nationalism and nativism is the ticket to success in the contemporary conservative movement. I think he is right in that wager. It is the same calculation made by J.D. Vance -- a man whose completely venal lack of principles makes him, if nothing else, a useful barometer of how the right-wing winds are blowing -- when he jumps all in on White supremacist bullhorns. Roberts knows full well what young Republicans truly think, and what they truly think is that they hate Jews, think Hitler is underrated, revel in being called racist, believe women should get back in the kitchen, and think anyone who isn't a "heritage American" has no rights the white man is bound to respect. These people -- the new GOP base -- will not follow their elders in fleeing Heritage. To the contrary, they will be even more excited to join forces with it.

This is the Republican Party's present and future, and Roberts is making a calculated decision to get out in front of it. It's not surprise that one of the staffers rising to fill the power vacuum after all this is E.J. Antoni, he of the creepy love affair for an iconic Nazi battleship. Antoni's Nazi fascination is exactly what Roberts is looking for, because it's exactly what contemporary conservatism is looking for. The people who don't like it? They're yesterday's conservatives. Their departures mean nothing.

So I suspect that the Heritage refugees will find that, their years of slavish service to the conservative cause notwithstanding, they are now functional irrelevancies. They're not going to pull a Bill Kristol and have a late-stage redemption arc. They're not going to have meaningful influence or clout in contemporary conservative circles either, as they no doubt fantasize. They'll be nobodies. Some will rage impotently against the dying of the light, some will quietly choose to fade away. Some number will, if past history is any guide, come sheepishly crawling back into the fold -- the fate of many a "NeverTrumper" whose "principled" opposition was actually pure opportunism that sadly misread the prevailing political winds. None of them will do much of anything to alter or even ameliorate the tsunami of racist, nativist, antisemitic, and misogynist antagonism that is the sole driving force of the modern conservative movement.

So yeah -- don't see this as the Heritage Foundation being torn asunder. This is the Heritage Foundation perceiving the new conservative normal -- a normal of unapologetic authoritarianism, atavistic ethnic hatred, gutter racism, smirking antisemitism, and vicious nativism -- and deciding it wants to be at the vanguard.

Solidarity Shouldn't Look Like This

Like many of you, I woke up this morning to the horrible news of a mass shooting at a Channukah celebration in Sydney, Australia.

Like many of you, I also quickly saw footage of a man who threw himself at one of the gunmen and successfully disarmed him, saving countless lives.

I've seen countless posts lauding this man, Ahmed al Ahmed, as a hero and a model for what solidarity should look like between Jews and Muslims or Arabs.

Ahmed is absolutely a hero. But he is most certainly not my model for what solidarity should look like.

Solidarity should not look like men throwing themselves at active shooters.

Solidarity should not look like people putting their bodies in front of government thugs trying to impose a racist ban on a minority religion or ethnicity.

Solidarity should not look like synagogues and mosques swapping strategies regarding how to "harden the target".

Solidarity should not look like a taxi driver evacuating terrified survivors from the scene of an ongoing massacre.

Solidarity should not look like desperately working the phones to try and rescue a family buried under the rubble of their own house after it was hit by a tank shell.

Solidarity shouldn't look like that, because none of those things should happen.

You want to know what my model of solidarity is?

It's a new arrival in town asking where they can find Halal food, and being pointed to the excellent Kosher market down the street.

It's two neighbors snickering over the well-meaning lady next door who somehow gives a different wrong pronunciation of both of their names, every time.

It's the synagogue and the mosque sharing a parking lot.

It's bonding over the common elements of shared cuisine, and bonding over trying unfamiliar elements of different cuisine.

I understand why, in the wake of unfathomable tragedy, a story like Ahmed's provides a flicker of hope in a dark time. And make no mistake - he is a hero. But I don't want more Ahmed al Ahmeds because I don't want more situations where that sort of heroism is required. It is a tragedy that our vision of solidarity -- of ideal solidarity -- is tempered through atrocities that never should happen in the first place. That should be a depressing thought. The subtext -- elevating Ahmed's story and the narrative of solidarity as a hedge against those who wish to inspire an Islamophobic and racist backlash -- is also depressing. I'm not saying it isn't necessary or it's wrong -- I'm saying it's depressing, and our model of solidarity should envision something that is greater precisely because it is more mundane.

The solidarity we should aspire to is not the extraordinary work of extraordinary individuals in times of crisis. It is rather the ordinary, everyday work of making friends, creating love, building connections, being neighborly. No crisis, just communities enmeshed in bonds of caring.

That's what solidarity should look like.

Anti-DEI's "What About the Men!" Problem

There's a WaPo article going around titled "Trump’s attack on DEI may hurt college men, particularly White men" The basic thrust of it is that women are considerably more likely to apply to (elite) colleges than men, and moreover women have for some time now outperformed men on the "traditional" metrics of collegiate qualification (grades and standardized test scores). Anybody in the know knows that colleges seeking to maintain some measure of gender parity in their admitted classes have put their thumbs on the scale in pursuit of qualified men. But the Trump anti-DEI initiatives nominally prohibit such behavior, meaning that if "meritocratic" admissions policies yield overwhelmingly female classes, well, that's the way it'll have to be.

This headline, unsurprisingly, has yielded no small amount of schadenfreude among liberal observers -- once again, Trump's leopards eat the faces of his loyal supporters. But to that there's been another response from more conservative voices challenging the framing: if Trump's anti-DEI measures "hurt men", then it must mean that the prior pro-DEI measures "hurt women". As a colleague at another school put it after making this point: "Everyone fine with that?"

That was a rhetorical question, of course. But I think answering it earnestly might yield some insight.

Assume we buy the basic premise here: DEI helps men and hurts women; anti-DEI hurts men and helps women. The punch of the Post's article stems, I think, from two following observations:

1. Many conservative initiatives aimed at propping up men who are underperforming on traditional metrics do not, on face, comport with "anti-DEI" principles (and their conservative proponents don't seem to realize this); and
2. Many feminists and women who support DEI initiatives do so notwithstanding the fact that men may be among their primary beneficiaries.

Both of these observations deserve a deeper dive.

Start with the first. Again, it is an open secret that colleges have been putting their thumbs on the scale to help bring in more male applicants and matriculants. Sometimes their rationales are pure sexism -- Chris Rufo, for instance, admitted that many of his "reforms" at the New College were expressly designed to reduce the number of women who enrolled (comments which, I'll repeat, really should be smoking gun evidence of sex discrimination in the event of a lawsuit). More broadly, there is a cottage industry of conservative pundits pushing the line that society discriminates against men, is structured to disadvantage men, does not adequately value the contributions of men, and these injustices are what explains men's seeming underperformance. The "thumb on the scale" is actually a mechanism to compensate for these deeper inequalities. 

Now, sometimes these accounts are, as in the Rufo case, simple misogyny. But I don't want to say it's always wrong to look at gendered barriers men might face and think of ways to counteract or ameliorate them. The problem, though, is that these narratives of male disenfranchisement and the earnest efforts to reverse them are no different in form from the "DEI" logic conservatives claim to abhor -- problematizing disparities in outcomes that, on a superficial level, appear explainable by "merit" and instead treating the disparity itself as a problem needing remediation. A few weeks ago, I saw a Facebook post where the University of Chicago announced that all the EiCs of its law journals were women. An alum replied angrily that this outcome must be the product of DEI and "wokeness", because statistically what are the odds that women would occupy all the top journal roles? I snickered at this, because her jeremiad was actually a cry for proportional representation; the hitherto conservative boogeyman roundly mocked when it is used to demonstrate bias against women or minorities. But of course when it's men who fall on the wrong side of the line, then statistical underrepresentation is smoking gun proof of a Capital-P Problem. The inconsistency is glaring.

So the first observation really does just boil down to sexism -- though sometimes with a few extra steps. What of the second? The logic that, if you're giving a leg up to men for scarce admissions slots there are some marginal women who would be admitted but now will not be, certainly has purchase. And so one could understand if women, or feminist advocates, reacted strongly against such programs as tantamount to sex discrimination against women. Yet observationally, this doesn't seem to be the case. Some women, no doubt, oppose these initiatives, but it does not seem like women or feminists by and large are opposed to collegiate initiatives aimed at propping up the number of male students in attendance. What do we derive from that?

It seems that, contra the bald assertion that DEI programs must inherently be understood as injuring the class that is not the direct beneficiary, in at least some cases the overrepresented group does not perceive such programs as harmful or injurious to their interests. Perhaps they, too, take on a broader view of how colleges ought to assess "merit" than just grades and test scores. Perhaps they think the various programs targeted at men genuinely are ameliorating gendered blind spots in who and what we value as a society. Or perhaps they simply don't prefer to attend colleges that are overwhelmingly homogenous, even (or especially) when they're the in-group (one can certainly understand why at least some women -- at least those enrolling in coeducational institutions -- might not prefer a university student body that's 66%+ female). Whatever the reason, it seems that many women do not see the issue the way conservatives believe they should (or must).

Here, I'm reminded of a post I wrote in 2018 about Gail Heriot, who was arguing that feminists should oppose the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. Heriot's contention was that feminists support many sex-conscious programs, but the ERA -- if interpreted in parallel with the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause to demand a "sex-blind" constitution -- would strike most of these programs down. From this, she saw only two possibilities: either feminists don't actually support the ERA, or they don't actually care if these sex-conscious programs survive. I pointed out that Heriot seemed to entirely miss Door #3: feminists don't understand the meaning of "equality" in the ERA's text to preclude all sex-conscious programs. If the same people who support the ERA also support sex-conscious initiatives, that's strong evidence that the apparent public meaning of the ERA's "equality" language is not sex-blindness. Yet Heriot seemingly just could not process that the people might understand "equality" different from the prevailing conservative ideological predilections -- a pretty searing indictment of originalism in practice, when you think about it.

So to answer my colleague's question earnestly: while no, not everyone is "fine" with colleges making conscious efforts to try and bring in more men, many people are, including many women and many feminist advocates. They are fine with it for many reasons, ranging from their own desire to attend schools that are relatively sex-balanced, to an earnest belief that there might be certain gendered barriers to men (or certain men) pursuing higher education that a college can justly try to mitigate. I'm not saying this view is necessarily correct, but we have to take seriously that it seems to be one many people hold, even if it doesn't comport with a particular, conservative vision of how we all "should" understand equality, meritocracy, and the virtues or vices of "DEI" programs.