I'm of two minds on this. In principle I obviously agree with you and I also agree the letter was extremely clumsily written. The number one concern for the government should be the elimination of enforced DEI codes and standards within institutions, not whether it is taught as a theory of justice or philosphy. That's the one mind. My other mind reminds me that schools generally don't teach these leftist theories as something interesting to be discussed, compared and critiqued but as something mandatory to indoctrinate students with. I do not think it appropriate for a law school to teach students that critical theory (which is what DEI is)is liberal just and mandatory. This is what leads to struggle sessions and all those other goodies. So there is a place to ensure that American accredited schools, whether law, or otherwise, not indoctrinate the future leaders of the country with a noxious Marxist theory designed to undermine and ultimately destroy our system and our society. Any theory that departs from common liberalism as that is understood should be taught only in a comparative course with ample criticism of it included. It is a near certainty that these Marxist theories are being taught as truth with little or no dissent allowed. This has to stop.
"This raises obvious concerns about free expression. In my opinion, it also raises concerns about the quality of instruction.
*I assume that a course on “race and the law” taught by anyone likely to teach such a course would amount to teaching or promoting DEI. Regardless of whether one likes the content of such a course — I’m not a fan — it provides a perspective on the law that’s interesting and (to some) enlightening.
Students should be able to hear that perspective, if they so choose. A decent regard for free inquiry, as well as free speech, should keep the federal government from forcing law school’s not to offer it."
Georgetown U is free to teach/say anything they want. Just not on the Federal Dime.
Few law professors at elite law schools don't subscribe to DEI, at least to some degree, and those who don't aren't likely to immerse themselves studying "race and the law" so as to teach a course about it. This is a field populated by adherents to "critical race theory," a profoundly left-wing movement.
Now, some questions for you. First, does your "not on the federal dime" line apply to professors who, in the course of teaching constitutional or employment discrimination law, speak favorably of pro-DEI decisions and criticize anti-DEI ones? Do you really want the feds to oversee speech to that degree? Ed Martin does.
Second, will your "not on the federal dime" argument cause you to be okay if/when a Democrat administration threatens law schools that teach conservative oriented course (all elite law schools I know of have at least one such course) or that have professors who are critical of DEI?
So far, Democrat administrations haven't gone that far, but Martin's letter opens that door. In this case, it's the Trump administration that's leading the race to the bottom.
"Now, some questions for you. First, does your "not on the federal dime" line apply to professors who, in the course of teaching constitutional or employment discrimination law, speak favorably of pro-DEI decisions and criticize anti-DEI ones?"
Yes. Simple, DEI is nothing more than reverse racism. H/T James Lindsay (New Discourses)
"Do you really want the feds to oversee speech to that degree?"
"Second, will your "not on the federal dime" argument cause you to be okay if/when a Democrat administration threatens law schools that teach conservative oriented course (all elite law schools I know of have at least one such course) or that have professors who are critical of DEI?"
Basically I want to get the Federal Government OUT of education...That includes the GI Bill.
On the first one, we just disagree. However one feels about DEI (and I've been railing against it and its predecessors for 20 years), it's at the heart of a good deal of legal issued and is embedded in employment discrimination law. Students should get to hear both sides of the issue in these important areas, not just the side that you and I agree with.
It's not just a matter of intellectual development. If they don't hear both sides, or if these areas aren't taught at all for fear of stepping on toes, students interested in going into these areas when they graduate won't be well equipped to practice law in the real world.
On the second question, it's one thing to end all federal aid to law schools. It's quite another to end aid only to law schools that fail to comply with directives of a left-wing Democrat administration (or a conservative Republican one).
https://x.com/dennisjsaffran/status/1898981230772658515
I'm of two minds on this. In principle I obviously agree with you and I also agree the letter was extremely clumsily written. The number one concern for the government should be the elimination of enforced DEI codes and standards within institutions, not whether it is taught as a theory of justice or philosphy. That's the one mind. My other mind reminds me that schools generally don't teach these leftist theories as something interesting to be discussed, compared and critiqued but as something mandatory to indoctrinate students with. I do not think it appropriate for a law school to teach students that critical theory (which is what DEI is)is liberal just and mandatory. This is what leads to struggle sessions and all those other goodies. So there is a place to ensure that American accredited schools, whether law, or otherwise, not indoctrinate the future leaders of the country with a noxious Marxist theory designed to undermine and ultimately destroy our system and our society. Any theory that departs from common liberalism as that is understood should be taught only in a comparative course with ample criticism of it included. It is a near certainty that these Marxist theories are being taught as truth with little or no dissent allowed. This has to stop.
"This raises obvious concerns about free expression. In my opinion, it also raises concerns about the quality of instruction.
*I assume that a course on “race and the law” taught by anyone likely to teach such a course would amount to teaching or promoting DEI. Regardless of whether one likes the content of such a course — I’m not a fan — it provides a perspective on the law that’s interesting and (to some) enlightening.
Students should be able to hear that perspective, if they so choose. A decent regard for free inquiry, as well as free speech, should keep the federal government from forcing law school’s not to offer it."
Georgetown U is free to teach/say anything they want. Just not on the Federal Dime.
* Would it? Are You Sure?
Thanks for the comment and question.
Few law professors at elite law schools don't subscribe to DEI, at least to some degree, and those who don't aren't likely to immerse themselves studying "race and the law" so as to teach a course about it. This is a field populated by adherents to "critical race theory," a profoundly left-wing movement.
Now, some questions for you. First, does your "not on the federal dime" line apply to professors who, in the course of teaching constitutional or employment discrimination law, speak favorably of pro-DEI decisions and criticize anti-DEI ones? Do you really want the feds to oversee speech to that degree? Ed Martin does.
Second, will your "not on the federal dime" argument cause you to be okay if/when a Democrat administration threatens law schools that teach conservative oriented course (all elite law schools I know of have at least one such course) or that have professors who are critical of DEI?
So far, Democrat administrations haven't gone that far, but Martin's letter opens that door. In this case, it's the Trump administration that's leading the race to the bottom.
"Now, some questions for you. First, does your "not on the federal dime" line apply to professors who, in the course of teaching constitutional or employment discrimination law, speak favorably of pro-DEI decisions and criticize anti-DEI ones?"
Yes. Simple, DEI is nothing more than reverse racism. H/T James Lindsay (New Discourses)
"Do you really want the feds to oversee speech to that degree?"
"Second, will your "not on the federal dime" argument cause you to be okay if/when a Democrat administration threatens law schools that teach conservative oriented course (all elite law schools I know of have at least one such course) or that have professors who are critical of DEI?"
Basically I want to get the Federal Government OUT of education...That includes the GI Bill.
Thanks for your answers.
On the first one, we just disagree. However one feels about DEI (and I've been railing against it and its predecessors for 20 years), it's at the heart of a good deal of legal issued and is embedded in employment discrimination law. Students should get to hear both sides of the issue in these important areas, not just the side that you and I agree with.
It's not just a matter of intellectual development. If they don't hear both sides, or if these areas aren't taught at all for fear of stepping on toes, students interested in going into these areas when they graduate won't be well equipped to practice law in the real world.
On the second question, it's one thing to end all federal aid to law schools. It's quite another to end aid only to law schools that fail to comply with directives of a left-wing Democrat administration (or a conservative Republican one).