Wednesday, October 02, 2024

Students Celebrating the Terrorism of October 7

Students for Justice in Palestine, and allied groups, have announced what can only be called pro-Hamas rallies and protests for October 7, the anniversary of the worst slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust. It would be completely possible to protest Israel's actions in Gaza on any of the other 364 days of the year, so this date was obviously chosen to cause maximum harm to Jewish and Israeli students, and to interfere with mourning the victims of the Hamas atrocities.

Here is a statement from a faculty group at the University of Illinois Chicago:

UIC CELEBRATION OF TERROR

The UIC chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) has applied for approval to hold a rally (a “quad takeover”) to express its support for and commemorate Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attacks on their one-year anniversary. In these attacks, Hamas carried out a program of murder and mass rape of civilians in Israeli towns and kibbutzim near the Gaza border. Staged on that day, this SJP event is not an abstract endorsement of political “resistance.” It sends a vicious message of hate to Jewish and Israeli students, faculty, and staff, suggesting that they are unwelcome on the UIC campus. Its celebration of the Hamas murder spree effectively calls for discrimination on the basis of national origin for Israelis and creation of a hostile environment for Jewish students, faculty and staff—all those who hold Zionism to be a central part of their personal or religious identity and their identity as a people. In the wake of an October 7th massacre that many consider a contemporary pogrom, it is clear this event will be exceptionally destructive.

Some have called for these events to be prohibited. A federal judge recently ordered the University of Maryland to allow a similar rally to proceed. I agree that viewpoint neutrality requires permitting even the most disgusting speech, but the choice of date certainly exposes the cruelty of SJP and its allies.

Posted by Steve Lubet on October 2, 2024 at 02:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, October 01, 2024

Pete Rose, the Hall, and competing statutory interpretation

Given news that Pete Rose died Monday at age 83, I re-up this post discussing two TV documentaries (one new, one a few years old) about Rose and the Hall of Fame, specifically this point about posthumous Hall induction that has become newly relevant:

Someone (I think long-time Reds announcer Marty Brennaman) says it would be a tragedy for Rose to be inducted posthumously. I wonder. Rose supporters argue that the Hall is a museum that should record the history of the game and its players; Rose deserves a spot because the story of baseball (and certainly not the story of baseball in the 1970s and early '80s) includes Rose. But it also is a shrine, a way to honor, grant a title ("Hall-of-Famer" or "First-Ballot Hall-of-Famer"), and bestow unique privileges to certain players. Perhaps posthumous induction offers the right compromise: Rose becomes part of the baseball story for all time but does not receive the honors and prestige of--and opportunity to monetize**--being a living Hall Member.

But, as I mentioned in the same post, posthumous induction requires some cooperation and compromise between MLB and the Hall. Rose's name remains on MLB's ineligible list, even after death. Under MLB's interpretation of its eligibility rules, ineligibility ends at death (when a person no longer can hold any formal position within MLB or a team); it thus lacks any mechanism for removing a deceased player from the list. But the Hall interprets MLB ineligibility (and thus Hall ineligibility) to continue until MLB affirmatively removes a person from the list. Someone therefore must alter its interpretation--either MLB must create a mechanism for removing deceased players from the list (making them legally, if not practically, eligible) or the Hall must be willing to accept someone as not practically ineligible although his name remains on the list.

I feel as if there is a Chevron analogy at work here.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on October 1, 2024 at 02:58 PM in Howard Wasserman, Sports | Permalink | Comments (0)

Keep on Punching: Why Harris Wants to Debate and Trump Doesn’t

My new essay at The Hill explains why Donald Trump is so fearful of another debate with Kamala Harris. Here is the gist: 

Keep on punching: Why Harris wants to debate and Trump doesn’t

by Steven Lubet, opinion contributor - 09/30/24

Vice President Kamala Harris, eager for another opportunity to confront former President Donald Trump, readily accepted CNN’s invitation to a second debate on Oct. 23. Trump quickly declined, citing a litany of reasons for avoiding another encounter. 

Trump’s main rationale for refusing another debate is that “it’s just too late” because “voting has already started.”

Events in late October always have the potential to influence elections, even after voting has begun. 

Trump enjoyed the Senate’s confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Oct. 26, 2020, only eight days before he lost the election to Joe Biden. Needless to say, neither he nor Harris will stop campaigning two weeks ahead of election day. 

The reality is that Trump fears Harris as a formidable opponent with a trial lawyer’s exceptional skills. She has already beaten him once, and, as of this writing, he is unwilling to risk facing her again. 

“In the World of Boxing or UFC,” he posted on Truth Social, “when a Fighter gets beaten or knocked out, they get up and scream, ‘I DEMAND A REMATCH, I DEMAND A REMATCH!’ Well, it’s no different with a Debate.” 

That was the right analogy but the wrong conclusion. Like any good fighter, Harris can tell when she has her opponent on the ropes. She just wants to keep on punching.

You can read the full piece at The Hill.

Posted by Steve Lubet on October 1, 2024 at 06:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, September 29, 2024

Presidential Election Trivia

If Donald Trump wins the election in November, he will become only the second president in U.S. history to serve nonconsecutive terms. In addition to that terrifying prospect, here are a few other trivial points from presidential history.

If Kamala Harris wins in November, Trump will become the fifth major-party two-time (or more) loser. The other four are: Henry Clay, William Jennings Bryan, Thomas Dewey, and Adlai Stevenson. (Martin Van Buren could be added, if we count his Free Soil Party candidacy in 1848.)

Trump is the eighth person to run for the presidency three or more times as a major party candidate. The other seven are Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, Grover Cleveland, William Jennings Bryan, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Richard Nixon. (Again, Martin Van Buren could be added, if we count his Free Soil Party candidacy in 1848.)

Comments are open to point out errors, omissions, or elaborations.

 

Posted by Steve Lubet on September 29, 2024 at 09:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, September 28, 2024

Saturday Music Post - Stay a Little Longer.

"Stay a Little Longer" was Bob Wills hit in 1945. It's been covered many times, most famously by Willie Nelson, as you can see this morning at The Faculty Lounge.

 

 

Posted by Steve Lubet on September 28, 2024 at 07:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, September 26, 2024

A Nice Bit of Law and Political Economy-Oriented Reporting on Disability Accommodations

The Chronicle of Higher Education is at its best when it offers the occasional bit of long-form journalism, filling the gap left wide open by the long-dead, long-mourned magazine Lingua Franca. Here's an interesting piece (paywalled, alas) in that vein. It's written by a professor but clearly must be taken to be a piece of journalism rather than expert commentary--which is good, because I'm not an expert reader on the subject, but it does a good job of interviewing a variety of individuals and discussing recent studies. The headline asks, "Do Colleges Provide Too Many Disability Accommodations?" The answer is, "Most likely, yes."

My sense is that, if one takes the definitions that seem increasingly to prevail in the mine run of legal academic literature, the article, and the issue it discusses, can be thought of as a law and political economy story. (Admittedly, some scholars use more specific definitions of the term; others use definitions derived from the 200 years of law and political economy scholarship that preceded the present, somewhat amnesiac version; and still others have retooled their articles for the submission game by adding "law and political economy" to what are apparently already-existing articles, while using a highly protean definition of the term.) At its broadest level, the article can be understood as arguing that the force behind universities granting an excessive number and degree of disability accommodations is neoliberalism. (For a definition of that term, see my prior parenthetical note.) More specifically, it can be taken to argue that the reason for the phenomenon is a combination of institutional factors: 1) laziness, greed, budget cuts, fear of litigation and/or increased insurance premiums, indifference to professors' views and role in governance, and a capitalist imperative to enroll more students and adopt a more consumer-oriented attitude on the part of universities; 2) greed and market imperatives among disability testing services; 3) careerist cowardice among disability scholars; and other forces. The result, the author argues, is an exacerbation of existing inequality:

The equity problem should be clear: If accommodations help everyone, and we relax the diagnostic criteria necessary for securing them, wealthier students will experience even more of an advantage, which is precisely what we are seeing. Accommodations are disproportionately secured by the highest performing students, further increasing the achievement gap. In one study of students receiving accommodations at a selective private college, most “showed above-average cognitive abilities, average academic skills, and no evidence of impairment.” Limited resources should be going to the students who need them most, not the students who are most skilled at securing them. A more restrictive approach to diagnosing disability and granting accommodations would allow for increased focus on lower-socioeconomic status students who are dramatically underperforming compared to their peers but do not have a diagnosis (or a disability). It would also lower the disability-provider-to-student ratio, facilitating better care for students with more serious disabilities.

Given the forces the author discusses, and universities' own place in the ecosystem of late capitalism, I am dubious of the author's closing suggestion that "higher education is ideally positioned to take the lead" on addressing these issues. This seems like the kind of BS we usually see at the end of a perfectly interesting descriptive and analytical article because of individual academic market actors' inability to resist the pressure to include a set of recommendations for reform. Nevertheless, and without endorsing all its analysis, I found the article interesting, and no doubt most teachers will. Read the whole thing, if you have the economic power to do so. 

 

Posted by Paul Horwitz on September 26, 2024 at 08:53 AM in Paul Horwitz | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, September 25, 2024

Eric Loomis Visits an American Grave and Sees Napoleon [UPDATED]

As of today, Eric Loomis has posted 1713 installments of his "American Grave" series on the Lawyers, Guns & Money blog. Each post features a photograph of a grave, taken by Loomis, and a biography of the deceased, who include both well-known historical figures, often from the 19th century, and obscure but interesting individuals. Loomis is a progressive labor and environmental historian at the University of Rhode Island, so his "American Grave" posts often, but not always, include political commentary, sometimes favorable and sometimes scathing, depending on the individual.

Today's subject is the despicable Theodore Bilbo, who served as governor and senator from Mississippi in the first half of the twentieth century. Bilbo, for those who do not recognize his name, was one of the very worst southern segregationists, in an era when he had lots of competition for the title. As Loomis puts it, Bilbo was an "open white supremacist" who "just race-baited his way" through his political career.

At first, he was a fairly reliable vote for the New Deal but after 1936, he became an open opponent of it and happily worked with other far-right southern Democrats and Republicans to shut down major legislation. He voted against most of the New Deal labor legislation and tried to kill the Fair Employment Practice Committee.

There are many other bad things to say about Bilbo, and virtually nothing positive. But then Loomis says this:

And let’s not beat around the bush, Bilbo was a piece of shit in other ways. He was a tiny man, only 5’2″ and he had serious Napoleon syndrome. He dressed super flashy for the time and, most terribly, constantly referred to himself in the third person.

While there is no doubt that Bilbo was a piece of shit, what does being short have to do with it?

More to the point, why is it almost reflexive to slap "Napoleon syndrome" on short men who exercise power? What evidence is there that Bilbo's height had anything to do with his drive and ambition (evil as it was)? Do aggressive tall men have serious Peter the Great complexes?

In fact, Napoleon was about 5'6", which was average for Frenchmen at the time. Peter the Great, however, was indeed 6'8".

The myth of Napoleon's shortness as a negative character trait began as a put-down by the British cartoonist James Gillray during the Napoleonic Wars:

From then on, the future emperor was referred to only as “Little Boney” and was shown substantially smaller than all other figures, usually with oversized boots and a too-big bicorne hat. The image of Napoleon as short was firmly entrenched at that moment.

Certainly, in the English-speaking world, Gillray creates the image that runs through to this day. . . . It’s very common in England today to call someone a ‘Little Napoleon.’ The idea is you have to be little to have such great self-importance – as in a Napoleon complex.

We have mostly gotten to the point when body size and shape are no longer used derogatorily. Why is it still acceptable to use short stature as an insult tied to an imputed psychological condition?

Before anyone asks, I am 5'6" and very intense, just like many of my much taller colleagues.

[UPDATE: I did a humorous commentary about the "Napoleon Complex" for NPR's Morning Edition in 1996. I cannot find the audio on line, but the text of the piece is after the jump.]

Continue reading "Eric Loomis Visits an American Grave and Sees Napoleon [UPDATED]"

Posted by Steve Lubet on September 25, 2024 at 06:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Call for Nominations: Best Untenured Article

The AALS Section on Federal Courts is pleased to announce the annual award for the best article on the law of federal jurisdiction by a full-time, untenured faculty member at an AALS member or affiliate school—and to solicit nominations (including self-nominations) for the prize to be awarded at the 2025 AALS Annual Meeting. 

 

The purpose of the award program is to recognize outstanding scholarship in the field of Federal Courts by untenured faculty members. To that end, eligible articles are those specifically in the field of Federal Courts that were published by a recognized journal during the twelve-month period ending on September 1, 2024 (date of actual publication deter-mines eligibility). Eligible authors are those who, at the close of nominations (i.e., as of October 1, 2024), are untenured, full-time faculty members at AALS member or affiliate schools, and have not previously won the award. Nominations (and questions about the award) should be directed to Professor Marin Levy at Duke University School of Law ([email protected]). 

 

Without exception, all nominations must be received by 11:59 p.m. (EDT) on October 1, 2024. Nominations will be reviewed by a prize committee comprised of Professors Payvand Ahdout (University of Virginia School of Law), Kellen Funk (Columbia Law School), Tom Lee (Fordham School of Law), Marin K. Levy (Duke University School of Law), and Richard Re (University of Virginia School of Law), with the result announced at the Federal Courts Section program at the 2025 AALS Annual Meeting.

 

Posted by Administrators on September 25, 2024 at 11:27 AM in Civil Procedure, Teaching Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, September 24, 2024

Prof Leiter on "The new timetable of the law school hiring market"

Interesting insights from Prof. Leiter on the new timetable of the law school hiring market.

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on September 24, 2024 at 08:51 AM in Getting a Job on the Law Teaching Market | Permalink | Comments (0)