The mob comes for law professor and blogger/legal analyst William Jacobson

li_logo.png

William Jacobson created Legal Insurrection, a blog/web site of some significance, having covered major stories mostly of a legal nature. Jacobson is also a clinical law professor at Cornell.

While Jacobson’s blog has long been known for its fairly conservative viewpoint, he has managed to survive Cornell. Until now. With the mob feeling its oats, Jacobson was identified as having committed a thought crime. He criticized the Black Lives Matter organization. Explaining, Jacobsen wrote [with no corrections or edits]:

There is an effort underway to get me fired at Cornell Law School, where I’ve worked since November 2007, or if not fired, at least denounced publicly by the school.

Ever since I started Legal Insurrection in October 2008, it’s been an awkward relationship given the overwhelmingly liberal faculty and atmosphere. Living as a conservative on a liberal campus is like being the mouse waiting for the cat to pounce.

For over 12 years, the Cornell cat did not pounce. Though there were frequent and aggressive attempts by outsiders to get me fired, including threats and harassment, it always came from off campus.

I made great efforts to keep this website separate from my work. I did not write about Cornell that frequently, and rarely about the law school itself. Nonetheless, the website and my political views were the elephant in every room, because the website is widely read, particularly by non-liberal students.Over the years, many students approached me privately and behind closed doors to express gratitude that someone was able to speak up, because they remained politically silent out of fear of social ostracization with the related possible career damage from falsely being accused of one of the “-ists” or “-isms.”

Not until now, to the best of my knowledge, has there been an effort from inside the Cornell community to get me fired.

The impetus for the effort was two posts I wrote at Legal Insurrection regarding the history and tactics of the Black Lives Matter Movement:

Reminder: “Hands up, don’t shoot” is a fabricated narrative from the Michael Brown case (June 4, 2020)

The Bloodletting and Wilding Is Part of An Agenda To Tear Down The Country (June 3, 2020)

Those posts accurately detail the history of how the Black Lives Matters Movement started, and the agenda of the founders which is playing out in the cultural purge and rioting taking place now.

From Saturday, June 6, through Monday, June 8, over 15 emails from CLS alumni were received by the Dean of the law school, demanding that action be taken against me ranging from an institutional statement denouncing me to firing. I don’t know whether and to what extent that number has increased since Monday. The Dean properly has defended my writings as protected within my academic freedom, although he strongly disagrees with my views.

The effort appears coordinated, as some of the emails were in a template form. All of the emails as of Monday were from graduates within the past 10 years.

Only one of the emails was shared with me, with names removed, on the condition that I not post it or quote from it. I am permitted to characterize the complaint: My views are not consistent with the law school Dean’s public statement on police violence and my writings were hurtful and divisive, and the person could not understand why I am still on the faculty. [As an aside, my writings are consistent with the Dean’s statement, but that’s another matter.]

My clinical faculty colleagues, apparently in consultation with the Black Law Students Association, drafted and then published in the Cornell Sun on June 9 a letter denouncing “commentators, some of them attached to Ivy League Institutions, who are leading a smear campaign against Black Lives Matter.” While I am not mentioned by name, based on what I’ve seen BLSA and possibly others were told it was about me. The letter is absurd name-calling, distorting and even misquoting my writings, to the extent it purports to be about me. According to a document I’ve seen, the letter was shared with these students before it was published in the Cornell Sun.

None of the 21 signatories, some of whom I’d worked closely with for over a decade and who I considered friends, had the common decency to approach me with any concerns. Instead they ran to the Cornell Sun while virtue signaling to students behind the scenes that this was a denunciation of me. Such is the political environment we live in now at CLS.

BLSA and other groups are working on their own effort against me. Based on documents I’ve seen, there was consideration of demanding my firing, but it appears to have moved away from that not because they don’t want me fired, but “because calling for his firing would only draw more attention to his blog and bolster his platform, and we do not want to give him that satisfaction.” The plan is to call for “the law school to unequivocally denounce his rhetoric, acknowledge the harm caused by subjecting students to his racist pedagogy, and critically examine the views of the people they employ as professors of the law.” They plan to circulate the petition to the law school community and to “inform incoming students” of the situation.

I have little doubt that many students will sign because there is no choice in this environment. BLSA has announced on its Facebook page that “Silence Is Violence.” Who would refuse to sign when failure to sign would be deemed an act of violence?

I thank people who have voluntarily shared information with me, and if there are students, faculty or staff reading this, please feel free to forward information to me at legalinsurrection@protonmail.com. This is not just about me. It’s about the intellectual freedom and vibrancy of Cornell and other higher education institutions, and the society at large.

Open inquiry and debate are core features of a vibrant intellectual community. This has been the way Cornell Law School operated for the 12 years I’ve been here, until now. In this toxic political environment in which intellectual diversity and differences of opinion are not tolerated, trying to shut down debate through false accusations of racism seems to be the preferred tactic.

I challenge a representative of those student groups and a faculty member of their choosing to a public debate at the law school regarding the Black Lives Matter Movement, so that I can present my argument and confront the false allegations in real time rather than having to respond to baseless community email blasts. I ask the law school to arrange an in-person live-streamed debate during fall term, or if for some reason the law school does not have in-person instruction, to arrange a ‘virtual’ format.

Throughout my legal and academic career spanning over three decades, there has never been a single instance in which I have been accused of discrimination toward any student, client or colleague. I have always treated my students as individuals, without regard to race, ethnicity or other such factors. I condemn in the strongest terms any insinuation that I am racist, and I greatly resent any attempt to leverage meritless accusations in hopes of causing me reputational harm. While such efforts might succeed in scaring others in a similiar position, I will not be intimidated.

We are living in extraordinarily dangerous times, reminiscent of the Chinese Communist Cultural Revolution, in which professors guilty of wrongthink were publicy denounced and fired at the behest of students who insisted on absolute ideological orthodoxy. It’s a way of instilling terror in other students, faculty, staff, and society, so that others shut up and don’t voice dissenting views. We are seeing monuments destroyed in Taliban-fashion because they represent an uncomfortable history, movies and TV shows cancelled, and individuals disappeared from employment due to even the slightest deviation from the prevailing political culture.

This is not going to end well unless people of good conscience, who support black lives but not the Black Lives Movement as it was founded and currently operates, to speak up and refuse to cower in fear.

The Dean of the Law School responded with a statement reading, in part:

 In light of this deep and rich tradition of walking the walk of racial justice, in no uncertain terms, recent blog posts of Professor William Jacobson, casting broad and categorical aspersions on the goals of those protesting for justice for Black Americans, do not reflect the values of Cornell Law School as I have articulated them. I found his recent posts to be both offensive and poorly reasoned…. But to take disciplinary action against him for the views he has expressed would fatally pit our values against one another in ways that would corrode our ability to operate as an academic institution.

But Jacobson did not criticize “those protesting for justice for Black Americans.” He criticized the Black Lives Matters Movement and the rioting and looting and cultural purge. Jacobson went on to observe that you generally don’t see these sort of statements issued for far-left professors. “[I]t’s a one way street and it’s just as much a part of the cancel culture as firing someone.”

I just want to be very clear so nobody is confused. I think most of the administrators in higher education are garbage humans that make too much and do little other than institutionalize single viewpoints in colleges and universities (and the Dean of Cornell looks to be one of them). I don’t happen to like the idea that Jacobson, a smart and insightful author in the legal field, could be “cancelled” because his opinion is not currently approved by the mob. The worst part is that law students and law school alums ought to be better able to hear opinions they don’t like without resorting to demands that he be fired or demoted or otherwise sanctioned for unapproved thoughts. Garbage humans.

Professor Jacobson, I apologize for quoting your post almost completely, but people who don’t get to Legal Insurrection ought to have a chance to read your statement.

I’m thinking about posting my response to the letter I received from USC Law. Still debating that, but it’s just one more example of preening to look good for the mob.

Nuts and bolts...

For the few interested in these sorts of things, the site template theme that I had been using for quite a while was deprecated, no longer receiving support or updates. While I put off moving to a new theme for a while, it had to happen. Unfortunately, there was no way to fully configure a new theme to match all the customizing I had done in the old theme (things like custom css controls specific to the them because they address unique labels). The only option was to take a lot of notes about style settings and then jump in with both feet. I managed to get things fairly close, even making some changes I’ve wanted to make for some time but could not because they weren’t supported in the old theme. I still have some work to do to add a few missing things, but the content is basically all there. Anyhow, just wanted to explain what motivated some of the changes (as opposed to sheer boredom with the appearance).

Moon & Yang has launched the initial portions of its new website

ML Logo1.png

Moon & Yang, APC has a “soft” launch of it’s new website well underway. There are some bugs to sort out, but it’s slowly getting there (slower, at times, than I would like, as the frustrated e-mails to the development team will attest). I will be co-managing the firm’s blog on the website.

Dear Twitter, pull your head out

I customarily cross-post to Twitter when I write a new post here.  That may change soon.  The evidence I have examined is strongly suggestive that Twitter engages in viewpoint-based censorship by asserting its "standards" in a very non-uniform manner.  Twitter is a private company.  They can do this.  But I can vote with my feet if Twitter doesn't want to remain neutral in viewpoint suppression.  As a blogger, and irrespective of personal views of the speaker, I am sensitive to the long-term, dire consequences that will result if large businesses and/or governments succeed in limiting expression of entire swaths of opinions.  I was particularly disturbed when I read that Twitter had blocked the account of Glenn Reynolds, a pioneering law/politics/current events blogger known as Instapundit.  He made an ill-considered point in a rather rough way, but, at the same time, individuals advocating the murder of police officers go unpunished.  This is unjustifiable if one assumes that Twitter is viewpoint neutral in its censoring.

I don't approve of or condone all of the messages that have resulted in some high-profile account banning of late on Twitter, but the simple fact is that Twitter has permitted far worse commentary to remain on Twitter without consequence.  Maybe this behavior explains, in part, why Twitter is likely up for sale.

Squarespace tip of the day (at least for this day): Code injection

Don't do what I did.  Don't accidentally copy curly quotes when pasting some html code into a code injection area (a little under-the-hood work for authorship signals).  Even basic html hyperlinks don't behave so well when you use curly quotes.   Just sayin'.

Harvard Law Unbound blog successfully blacklisted by Harvard

As a blogger myself, I find myself growing increasingly uncomfortable about reports of speech suppression of other bloggers through threats, intimidation, maliciously false process and the like.  In this installment, some dissenting Harvard Law students were the victims of a likely bogus DMCA takedown demand issued by Harvard to WordPress.com.  Bogus is as bogus does.  If you are a Harvard alum, tell them you'll be a little short in the donation area this year.  But this story has a better ending than some; the students didn't stand for it and immediately started a new blog.  Keep fighting the good fight.

The Complex Litigator is now on Alltop

The Complex Litigator is now listed on Alltop, in the legal news section.  Alltop is the magazine newsrack for the Internet.  Here's how Alltop describes its purpose:

The purpose of Alltop is to help you answer the question, “What’s happening?” in “all the topics” that interest you. You may wonder how Alltop is different from a search engine. A search engine is good to answer a question like, “How many people live in China?” However, it has a much harder time answering the question, “What’s happening in China?” That’s the kind of question that we answer.

Alltop is a unique way to view current events or issues of current interest in any particular field.  I recommend skimming the legal news section from time to time, to spot trends if nothing else.

So...cool.

Finally a legal blog that isn't a snooze-fest: Law and the Multiverse

It has been some time since I last mentioned a new legal blog.  I think that's mostly because I tend to black out while reading about legal topics, awakening later with a keyboard imprint on my forehead and no recollection of what happened.  Luckily, I found one that is unusual enough that I made it through several posts still coherent enough to write about it.

Law and the Multiverse tackles the topics nobody else would, like how to insure against destruction by supervillians, whether RICO can be used against the Legion of Doom, and what happens when a murder victim comes back to life.

Thanks to Mike Braun for the tip to the New York Times story.

Comments now require approval before they appear

Due to an unrelenting attempt by spammers to advise you of the latest athletic shoe deals, or mortgage restructuring deals, or other exciting services, I have changed a setting on this blog so that comments require approval before they appear.  I am doing this solely to keep spammers from being rewarded by whatever "google juice" a link from this blog supplies.  Topical comments will be approved as soon as I can get to them.

Martinez v. Combs receives thorough treatment from The California Wage and Hour Law Blog

The California Supreme Court, in Martinez v. Combs (May 20, 2010) (reposted to correct formatting error), addressed a topic that should prove to be of long-lasting significance.  The opinion addresses the weighty question of who is and is not an "employee" under California wage law.

The California Wage Wage and Hour Law Blog, authored by Steven G. Pearl, includes a thorough post discussing this holding, including this important observation:

[T]he Wage Orders set forth a multi-pronged, disjunctive definition of employment: an employer is one who, directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, engages, suffers, or permits any person to work, or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of any person. Slip op. at 25-26. The “engage, suffer, or permit” component of the definition does not require a common law “master and servant” relationship, but is broad enough to cover “irregular working arrangements the proprietor of a business might otherwise disavow with impunity.” Slip op. at 25. Further, “phrased as it is in the alternative (i.e., wages, hours, or working conditions”), the language of the IWC's 'employer' definition has the obvious utility of reaching situations in which multiple entities control different aspects of the employment relationship, as when one entity, which hires and pays workers, places them with other entities that supervise the work.” Slip op. at 26-27. Finally, the IWC’s “employer” definition is intended to distinguish state law from the federal FLSA.

This is a monumental clarification of the breadth of the definition of employment when wage laws are at issue.  The opinion also provides a mighty boost to the authority of the IWC.

For more, visit the blog or see today's Daily Journal for a revised version of the same article.