Liz Cheney’s Expected Ouster Shows the GOP Stands for Nothing but One Man’s Whims


Liz-Cheney-4-20-21-Newscom

Although Rep. Liz Cheney (R–Wyo.) easily survived a February attempt to replace her as chair of the House Republican Conference after she voted to impeach Donald Trump, she is expected to lose her post on Wednesday as punishment for her continued criticism of the former president’s fantasy that Joe Biden stole the 2020 election. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.), who supported Cheney in February, now favors replacing her with Rep. Elise Stefanik (R–N.Y.), who is willing to indulge Trump’s fanciful belief that massive, orchestrated fraud deprived him of his rightful victory.

The comparison between Cheney and Stefanik speaks volumes about the extent to which the Republican Party has devolved into a personality cult that elevates Trump’s capricious demands above any principles or policies it once claimed to support. Prior to Trump’s post-election fantasy and the Capitol riot it inspired, Cheney was a more reliable ally than Stefanik, voting with the president 93 percent of the time, compared to Stefanik’s score of 78 percent, according to FiveThirtyEight. Cheney is also notably more conservative, receiving a lifetime score of 80 percent from Heritage Action for America, compared to Stefanik’s 48 percent. But what matters now is that Cheney thinks Trump’s lies about the election need to be called out, while Stefanik is happy to reinforce them.

After the election, Cheney quickly lost patience with Trump’s wild, unsubstantiated claims about rigged voting machines and falsified ballots. And when those claims motivated hundreds of Trump followers to attack the Capitol on January 6, she joined nine other Republicans in voting to impeach the president for triggering the riot by stoking a phony grievance for months, culminating in the inflammatory speech he delivered in Washington, D.C., that day.

“The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack,” Cheney said before the impeachment vote. “Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.”

Although he voted against impeachment, McCarthy agreed that Trump was at least partly responsible for the violence. “The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters,” he said on the House floor a week after it was invaded by enraged Trump fans. “He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding.”

McCarthy, who unsuccessfully urged Trump to intervene as the riot was unfolding, later retreated from his criticism. “I don’t believe he provoked it, if you listen to what he said at the rally,” he told reporters on January 21. “I thought the president had some responsibility when it came to the response,” he told Gray Television’s Greta van Susteren a few days later. “If you listen to what the president said at the rally, he said, ‘demonstrate peacefully.’ And then I got a question later about whether did he incite them. I also think everybody across this country has some responsibility.”

McCarthy nevertheless stood by Cheney during the attempted ouster in February, delivering a passionate speech in her defense around the same time that the Wyoming Republican Party was censuring her for supporting Trump’s impeachment. But since then, McCarthy has been increasingly irked by Cheney’s refusal to drop the subject, which he views as needlessly divisive and inconsistent with her leadership responsibilities.

“The Fraudulent Presidential Election of 2020 will be, from this day forth, known as THE BIG LIE!” Trump declared on May 3. Cheney fired back on Twitter: “The 2020 presidential election was not stolen. Anyone who claims it was is spreading THE BIG LIE, turning their back on the rule of law, and poisoning our democratic system.”

In a Washington Post op-ed piece two days later, Cheney warned that “Trump is seeking to unravel critical elements of our constitutional structure that make democracy work—confidence in the result of elections and the rule of law.” She noted that McCarthy has “changed his story” about responsibility for the Capitol riot. “The Republican Party is at a turning point, and Republicans must decide whether we are going to choose truth and fidelity to the Constitution,” she said. “We Republicans need to stand for genuinely conservative principles, and steer away from the dangerous and anti-democratic Trump cult of personality.”

From a libertarian perspective, Cheney’s “genuinely conservative principles” are a mixed bag that includes not only fiscal restraint and opposition to “ridiculous wokeness” but also immigration restrictions, support for waterboarding (which, according to Cheney, does not qualify as torture), and a highly interventionist foreign policy. (Trump responded to Cheney’s criticism by calling her a “warmonger,” which is irrelevant in this context but nevertheless completely accurate.) And Cheney’s op-ed piece was off-putting to the extent that it implicitly praised her own courage. “We must be brave enough to defend the basic principles that underpin and protect our freedom and our democratic process,” she said. “I am committed to doing that, no matter what the short-term political consequences might be.”

Still, Cheney, once viewed as a potential presidential contender, clearly is sacrificing her political interests for the sake of principles that are worth defending, including respect for reality, for the democratic process, for the rule of law, and for the peaceful transition of power. At a time when the GOP could and should be playing a useful role by resisting the Biden administration’s reckless spending and extravagant ambitions, she is calling attention to the dangers of joining Trump in an alternate universe where he won re-election.

Meanwhile, Stefanik, Cheney’s likely replacement as the third-ranking Republican in the House, has planted herself firmly in that fantasy world for crass political reasons. She supported the quixotic lawsuit that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed in a vain attempt to overturn the presidential election results. Shortly before the Capitol riot, she claimed “more than 140,000 votes” in Fulton County, Georgia—more than one out of four votes cast there—”came from underage, deceased, and otherwise unauthorized voters,” an allegation for which there is no basis.

Even after the riot, Stefanik voted to reject Pennsylvania’s electoral votes for Biden. And in an interview with former Trump strategist Stephen Bannon last week, she said she “fully” supports the Republican-led “audit” of ballots in Maricopa County, Arizona, where prior reviews reaffirmed the election results, saying “we want to be able to fix and strengthen our election security and election integrity.”

Aside from her willingness to bend reality so that it conforms with Trump’s self-flattering delusions, what does Stefanik have to offer as a Republican leader? “Elise Stefanik is NOT a good spokesperson for the House Republican Conference,” the Club for Growth declared on Twitter last week. “She is a liberal with a 35% CFGF [Club for Growth Foundation] lifetime rating, 4th worst in the House GOP. House Republicans should find a conservative to lead messaging and win back the House Majority.”

By contrast, Cheney’s CFGF lifetime score, which is based on votes that reflect a commitment to fiscal discipline, low taxes, restrained government, and economic freedom, is 65 percent. It is clear that resisting the Democratic agenda counts for less in the GOP’s priorities than kowtowing to one man’s whims.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3eAsmOV
via IFTTT

Upcoming Federalist Society Executive Branch Review Conference

Next week, the Federalist Society will be holding an online Executive Branch Review conference, which will include panels on a wide range of issues related to—you guessed it!—executive power. Registration is free at the above link.

I myself will participate in a panel on “State Sovereignty or Fair-Weather Federalism?” The other participants will be Prof. Edward Rubin (Vanderbilt), Prof. Carolyn Shapiro (Chicago-Kent, former Solicitor General of Illinois), and Judd Stone (Solicitor General of Texas). Judge John Nalbandian (6th Circuit) will moderate. The panel is diverse in terms of both political ideology and views on federalism issues. For example, Prof. Rubin is a leading academic critic of constitutional federalism (which he sees as mostly harmful, at least in the United States), whereas my own view is close to the opposite of his.

Among other panels, I think the ones on non-delegation, and civil rights should be especially interesting, though your interests may, of course, differ from mine.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3o5pAo7
via IFTTT

The Jobs Picture Is More Complex Than It Seems


Option 1_-2

With help wanted and now hiring signs affixed to restaurants seemingly nationwide, small and large businesses alike scrambling to hire, and strong economic signals arriving on consumer confidence and retail sales, expectations for April employment growth revolved around 1 million potential new hires. Those expectations were crushed when the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported just 266,000 jobs created, not even a kissing cousin of 1 million.

Reactions to the weak numbers were most pronounced from Biden administration officials, who, like Adam Smith’s “man of systems,” see the economy as a chessboard where benevolent leaders move pieces only to learn that “every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might [choose] to impress upon it.” Those who think stimulus and regulations reliably generate prosperity best be forewarned. Sometimes we expect 1 million and get 266,000 instead.

The shortfall puts stimulus back in the spotlight. Why didn’t the crucial January stimulus work as promised? Should we open the purse wider? What about President Joe Biden’s newly unveiled American Jobs Plan, American Families Plan, and the seemingly all-encompassing infrastructure plan? Should we believe they’ll work?

Biden, a gifted politician who knows how to make lemonade when handed a lemon, only pushed harder: “Some critics said we didn’t need the American Rescue Plan, that this economy would just heal itself. Today’s report just underscores, in my view, how vital the actions we are taking are. Our efforts are starting to work, but the climb is steep, and we have a long way to go.”

For now, the administration keeps hold of the chessmen.

It should be pointed out that the creation of 266,000 new jobs is not actually that bad. The report provides evidence of a command economy transitioning back to a more market-driven one that is scrambling for footing. The monthly average gain for new jobs over the last seven months, including April, is 355,000, with March’s 770,000 the largest. There have not been a million jobs added since August.

With some states relaxing restrictions on gatherings and others still tightening, auto companies shutting down due to unpredictable chip shortages, and even cat food in short supply due to pandemic surges in pet ownership, a COVID-19 command economy that lacks enough market-determined price signals to guide it was always going to be difficult to predict.

While there is little chance the economy will be allowed to completely self-heal, it’s trying. Think about the government-shuttered sectors now beginning to reopen. Employment in the hard-hit leisure and hospitality sector saw a 330,000-job increase. With restaurants and bars opening for in-place service, fewer meal delivery people are needed. Employment in couriers and messengers fell by 77,000. And with permanent hires rising, not as many temps were needed. The number employed in that category fell by 111,000, and at 296,000 is lower than in February 2020.

Where we are on the path to pre-pandemic prosperity relates directly to the workforce. As shown in the below chart built using Federal Reserve data, April’s count of 161 million workers puts us short by more than 3 million. The workforce is expanding, but with a way to go.

With regulatory switches turning off and on, May’s employment number may pop through the roof, but we are still left with a serious question: Are people incentivized to work? Even though Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh argues that the federal unemployment supplement does not contribute to a lower willingness to reenter the workforce, there is abounding anecdotal evidence that the $300 a week addition to state unemployment pay dampens worker enthusiasm.

In response, governors in Arkansas, Montana, and South Carolina have taken steps to cancel their states’ participation in the federal supplement program. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is calling for Congress to close out the federal supplement.

Folks in the real world, like my restaurateur neighbors, offer a common concern: Business is now booming, but their former employees are not interested in returning. The situation is so prevalent nationwide that an April National Federation of Independent Business report indicated that 44 percent of their business-owning members have job openings that cannot be filled—22 percentage points higher than the 48-year average.

When state and federal unemployment benefits are combined, furloughed workers across the states, on average, can earn $15 per hour in unemployment compensation until September without lifting a finger. Indeed, one of my close relatives was furloughed in 2020 and began getting $840 a week in compensation—more than she’d ever earned in her young work life. She was not all that excited when her shop reopened.

As much as unemployment compensation can explain a slowly recovering workforce, there is far more to the incentive issue. Let’s return to past-and-future stimulus payments in whatever form. Now revisit the chart and think about the 3 million people no longer in the workforce. Why exactly should we be surprised? If federal programs provide the means to earn a living—or perhaps in some cases to lay aside savings or provide support to loved ones or charity—substituting leisure time for work makes perfect sense.

It’s possible to make too much of one jobs report, but April’s unexpected weakness provides an opportunity to reconsider the frantic federal efforts to cushion the shock that has hit us, and see if some aspects of the government intervention are working against a return to higher employment and earned income.

Given all of this, the American economy is performing rather well. Yes, $4 trillion in stimulus matters. And yes, more spending, often in the name of creating jobs, will add employment to directly targeted industries and communities. But while one government foot is on the gas, the other is hitting the brakes. Like it or not, we will one day have to pay off the loans that are funding our temporary prosperity. Doing so will require acknowledging that there is still no such thing as unearned prosperity.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3hfOArl
via IFTTT

“Terrible Message” – Bernie Blasts Top Democrats’ Call To Remove Cap On SALT Deduction For The Rich

“Terrible Message” – Bernie Blasts Top Democrats’ Call To Remove Cap On SALT Deduction For The Rich

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has come out in opposition to an effort by top Democrats to remove caps from SALT, a tax deduction that primarily benefits rich people.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) are among the Democrats who want to fully reimplement SALT (state and local taxes), by removing the caps. Republicans’ tax reform bill in 2017, signed by then-President Donald Trump, put limits on the amount of taxes that could be deducted on federal income returns.

“It sends a terrible, terrible message when you have Republicans telling us that this is a tax break for the rich,” Sanders, a nominal independent who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 and 2020, said on “Axios on HBO.”

“In fairness to Schumer and Pelosi, it is hard when you have tiny margins, but you have got to make it clear which side you are on—and you can’t be on the side of the wealthy and powerful if you’re going to really fight for working families,” he added.

Research indicates that most of the benefits from repealing the cap on SALT deductions would go to households making $500,000 or more per year.

Many Democrats have pushed to repeal the cap. Some Republicans have, too.

“This is something we can do here in Washington to provide relief to the middle-class families that we represent, however, we urge the local and state municipalities to hold the line on taxes,” Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.) told a briefing outside the U.S. Capitol last month.

Pelosi told reporters in early April that the cap was “devastating” to her state.

“It was a political action on the part of the Republicans in a tax bill that gave 83 percent of the benefits to the top one percent, the injustice of it all,” she said.

While the Trump tax cuts cut taxes for many Americans, rich Americans have paid more under the altered tax code, an analysis found.

Under the GOP tax reform legislation, the SALT deduction was capped at $10,000. That spurred outcry from a number of federal and state officials, who claimed the cap was unconstitutional. A group of Democrat governors from blue states said recently that taxpayers in New York and California are each being forced to pay more than $12 billion in additional taxes to the federal government because of the cap.

A repeal of the limits would need to be included in legislation. Some lawmakers have floated including such a repeal in the massive infrastructure package currently being negotiated on Capitol Hill, but President Joe Biden did not include the provision in his infrastructure proposal.

Prospects of a repeal are strong in the House, particularly with bipartisan support. But in a 50-50 Senate, it’s not clear if it would pass, particularly if Democrats or those who caucus with the party will not vote with it.

Sanders told Axios that he wants Democrats to move forward with crafting the infrastructure package, regardless of whether there is Republican support. The GOP has largely opposed Biden’s version because it includes funding for non-infrastructure areas, like elder care.

“Congress takes breaks and it’s easy to obstruct,” Sanders said. “The Senate is a very slow-moving process. … I would begin, you know, starting this work immediately. If Republicans want to come on board, seriously, great. If not, we’re going to do it alone.”

Tyler Durden
Mon, 05/10/2021 – 14:01

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3f8z2Tt Tyler Durden

Upcoming Federalist Society Executive Branch Review Conference

Next week, the Federalist Society will be holding an online Executive Branch Review conference, which will include panels on a wide range of issues related to—you guessed it!—executive power. Registration is free at the above link.

I myself will participate in a panel on “State Sovereignty or Fair-Weather Federalism?” The other participants will be Prof. Edward Rubin (Vanderbilt), Prof. Carolyn Shapiro (Chicago-Kent, former Solicitor General of Illinois), and Judd Stone (Solicitor General of Texas). Judge John Nalbandian (6th Circuit) will moderate. The panel is diverse in terms of both political ideology and views on federalism issues. For example, Prof. Rubin is a leading academic critic of constitutional federalism (which he sees as mostly harmful, at least in the United States), whereas my own view is close to the opposite of his.

Among other panels, I think the ones on non-delegation, and civil rights should be especially interesting, though your interests may, of course, differ from mine.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3o5pAo7
via IFTTT

Brink Of New Intifada: Jerusalem Unrest Escalates To Rocket Fire As Israel Activates Troop Battalions

Brink Of New Intifada: Jerusalem Unrest Escalates To Rocket Fire As Israel Activates Troop Battalions

The weekend of unrest in Jerusalem and the West bank is breaking out into broader conflict and rocket fire between Israel and Gaza, with reports of at least 30 rockets fired toward Jerusalem on Monday.

Incoming rocket sirens have been activated in multiple areas across Israel including Jerusalem and the Beit Shemesh area, which lies west of the city. Early reports suggest multiple of the rockets were intercepted by the Israel Defense Force’s (IDF) Iron Dome system, however at least one inhabited building has been reported hit outside of Jerusalem. Israel has initiated airstrikes on northern Gaza.

Hamas has claimed responsibility for the fresh rocket attacks after Israeli security forces refused an ultimatum to withdraw from Temple Mount and the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood. Palestinian Islamic Jihad has also claimed to have fired at least 30 rockets from the Gaza Strip.

The weekend had witnessed Israeli police forcibly push out Muslim worshippers from the al-Aqsa and Temple Mount areas, which intensified clashes. 

Early social media videos show there have been multiple direct impacts in residential areas of Jerusalem:

In response the IDF has sent reinforcements to muster near Gaza, fearing a escalation, according to The Jerusalem Post, after it was earlier reported on Sunday that Israel’s military deployed an additional three battalions to the West Bank also as the East Jerusalem Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood is a flashpoint after police began evicting dozens of Palestinians from their homes and Jewish settler groups began moving in.

The extra IDF deployments constitute thousands more soldiers than are typically present in the West Bank, setting the stage for potential broader Palestinian uprising.

There had already been days of tit-for-tat attacks focused in Jerusalem, reportedly resulting in hundreds of Palestinians wounded and arrested, particularly related to the ongoing controversial ‘Jerusalem Day’ which involves Israeli-flagged Jewish parades marching through Muslim and Christian neighborhoods.

Meanwhile, Hamas is vowing more rockets…

He [Abu Obeida, spokesman for Hamas’ military wing] threatened more attacks if Israel again invades the sacred Al-Aqsa compound or carries out evictions of Palestinian families in a neighborhood of east Jerusalem.

Earlier, Israeli police firing tear gas, stun grenades and rubber bullets clashed with stone-throwing Palestinians at the iconic compound.

More than a dozen tear gas canisters and stun grenades landed in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, one of Islam’s holiest sites, as police and protesters faced off inside the walled compound that surrounds it, said an Associated Press photographer at the scene. Smoke rose in front of the mosque and the iconic golden-domed shrine on the site, and rocks littered the nearby plaza. Inside one area of the compound, shoes and debris lay scattered over ornate carpets.

And now fires at the sacred Temple Mount area?…

Chaos is breaking lose with many commentators noting tensions are on knife’s edge, to the point we are likely about to witness a new Palestinian Intifada. 

Tyler Durden
Mon, 05/10/2021 – 13:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3y1szlR Tyler Durden

The Jobs Picture Is More Complex Than It Seems


Option 1_-2

With help wanted and now hiring signs affixed to restaurants seemingly nationwide, small and large businesses alike scrambling to hire, and strong economic signals arriving on consumer confidence and retail sales, expectations for April employment growth revolved around 1 million potential new hires. Those expectations were crushed when the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported just 266,000 jobs created, not even a kissing cousin of 1 million.

Reactions to the weak numbers were most pronounced from Biden administration officials, who, like Adam Smith’s “man of systems,” see the economy as a chessboard where benevolent leaders move pieces only to learn that “every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might [choose] to impress upon it.” Those who think stimulus and regulations reliably generate prosperity best be forewarned. Sometimes we expect 1 million and get 266,000 instead.

The shortfall puts stimulus back in the spotlight. Why didn’t the crucial January stimulus work as promised? Should we open the purse wider? What about President Joe Biden’s newly unveiled American Jobs Plan, American Families Plan, and the seemingly all-encompassing infrastructure plan? Should we believe they’ll work?

Biden, a gifted politician who knows how to make lemonade when handed a lemon, only pushed harder: “Some critics said we didn’t need the American Rescue Plan, that this economy would just heal itself. Today’s report just underscores, in my view, how vital the actions we are taking are. Our efforts are starting to work, but the climb is steep, and we have a long way to go.”

For now, the administration keeps hold of the chessmen.

It should be pointed out that the creation of 266,000 new jobs is not actually that bad. The report provides evidence of a command economy transitioning back to a more market-driven one that is scrambling for footing. The monthly average gain for new jobs over the last seven months, including April, is 355,000, with March’s 770,000 the largest. There have not been a million jobs added since August.

With some states relaxing restrictions on gatherings and others still tightening, auto companies shutting down due to unpredictable chip shortages, and even cat food in short supply due to pandemic surges in pet ownership, a COVID-19 command economy that lacks enough market-determined price signals to guide it was always going to be difficult to predict.

While there is little chance the economy will be allowed to completely self-heal, it’s trying. Think about the government-shuttered sectors now beginning to reopen. Employment in the hard-hit leisure and hospitality sector saw a 330,000-job increase. With restaurants and bars opening for in-place service, fewer meal delivery people are needed. Employment in couriers and messengers fell by 77,000. And with permanent hires rising, not as many temps were needed. The number employed in that category fell by 111,000, and at 296,000 is lower than in February 2020.

Where we are on the path to pre-pandemic prosperity relates directly to the workforce. As shown in the below chart built using Federal Reserve data, April’s count of 161 million workers puts us short by more than 3 million. The workforce is expanding, but with a way to go.

With regulatory switches turning off and on, May’s employment number may pop through the roof, but we are still left with a serious question: Are people incentivized to work? Even though Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh argues that the federal unemployment supplement does not contribute to a lower willingness to reenter the workforce, there is abounding anecdotal evidence that the $300 a week addition to state unemployment pay dampens worker enthusiasm.

In response, governors in Arkansas, Montana, and South Carolina have taken steps to cancel their states’ participation in the federal supplement program. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is calling for Congress to close out the federal supplement.

Folks in the real world, like my restaurateur neighbors, offer a common concern: Business is now booming, but their former employees are not interested in returning. The situation is so prevalent nationwide that an April National Federation of Independent Business report indicated that 44 percent of their business-owning members have job openings that cannot be filled—22 percentage points higher than the 48-year average.

When state and federal unemployment benefits are combined, furloughed workers across the states, on average, can earn $15 per hour in unemployment compensation until September without lifting a finger. Indeed, one of my close relatives was furloughed in 2020 and began getting $840 a week in compensation—more than she’d ever earned in her young work life. She was not all that excited when her shop reopened.

As much as unemployment compensation can explain a slowly recovering workforce, there is far more to the incentive issue. Let’s return to past-and-future stimulus payments in whatever form. Now revisit the chart and think about the 3 million people no longer in the workforce. Why exactly should we be surprised? If federal programs provide the means to earn a living—or perhaps in some cases to lay aside savings or provide support to loved ones or charity—substituting leisure time for work makes perfect sense.

It’s possible to make too much of one jobs report, but April’s unexpected weakness provides an opportunity to reconsider the frantic federal efforts to cushion the shock that has hit us, and see if some aspects of the government intervention are working against a return to higher employment and earned income.

Given all of this, the American economy is performing rather well. Yes, $4 trillion in stimulus matters. And yes, more spending, often in the name of creating jobs, will add employment to directly targeted industries and communities. But while one government foot is on the gas, the other is hitting the brakes. Like it or not, we will one day have to pay off the loans that are funding our temporary prosperity. Doing so will require acknowledging that there is still no such thing as unearned prosperity.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3hfOArl
via IFTTT

Cancelling Citations

Last October, I wrote about a controversial Bluebook proposal: Any case that involves slavery would require a parenthetical disclaimer. For example “(enslaved party)” or “(enslaved person at issue).” So far, this change has not come to pass. But with the hard-left turn of law reviews, I doubt there is enough resistance to block this change. The upshot of this policy will be to simply cancel certain citations. Authors will not want to be seen as promoting slavery-based jurisprudence. So those cases will simply fall into desuetude.

This weaponization of footnotes will not be limited to slavery. Journals will continue to impose more control over scholarship to pursue inclusion. Professor Brian Leiter writes about a referee report from a philosophy journal. The “very first comment” criticized the author for not citing diverse authors.

1.      One of the first things I noticed is that not a single female author is being referenced or cited in this piece. Given that this is generally seen as problematic, I urge the author to make an effort to engage with some women scholars, such as [female professor X], who I believe wrote on [the topic of the essay] fairly recently.

Leiter offers a powerful rejoinder to this comment:

[R]acial or demographic equity in citations is not a value in scholarship; truth and knowledge are the only values. If past racism has resulted in neglect of scholars who can contribute to truth and knowledge in a particular domain, then the demand should be to name those scholars so that they can be studied. But equity-qua–demographic-diversity per se is not a scholarly value. It has a stronger claim to be a value in pedagogy….

Well said. Diversity is an important value. But it is not the most important value. It should not predominate over all aspects of scholarly inquiry. The obsession with inclusion will serve only to exclude thoughts out of the woke zeitgeist. This current trend threatens to stifle academy inquiry in dangerous ways.

So far, I have not had a law review editor tell me to add citations to certain authors to promote some type of gender or racial diversity. If I received such advice, I would decide if the citation was relevant. If yes, I would consider adding it. But if the sole purpose for adding the citation would be to check diversity boxes, I would resist the change.

There is also the converse problem. What if I cite a controversial author, but the journal asks me to remove it. There are many reasons why an author may fall on a “cancel” list. Perhaps the author took the wrong view on some social issue. Or maybe the author associated with the wrong people. Or maybe the author deigned to challenge some orthodoxy. Whatever. I would also resist any effort to remove a citation based entirely on the identity of the author.

Of course, I don’t care to play these law review games. Other authors may not have that luxury. Imagine a journal makes an offer contingent on diversifying the footnotes. In other words, “We will publish this article if you include more inclusive footnotes.” Would you decline that offer?

In the years ahead, I think it will become very difficult for conservative authors to publish in law reviews. Peer-reviewed journals are not much better. Look no further than the example Professor Leiter cited. The road ahead will be rocky.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3uvtEAh
via IFTTT

Professor Suspended After Denying Canada Is A Racist Country And Criticizing BLM

Professor Suspended After Denying Canada Is A Racist Country And Criticizing BLM

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Mount Allison University Professor Rima Azar feels a strong identification to Canada. Born in Lebanon during a civil war, Azar developed a lasting appreciation for the freedoms of Canada, particularly free speech. An accomplished academic in the field of health psychology, she often discusses her views of political and social issues on her  personal blog Bambi’s Afkar from her unique perspective. However, she recently ran afoul of an individual who spotted comments denying that Canada is a racist country and criticizing Black Lives Matter as an organization.  The individual compiled an array of what was viewed to be objectionable positions and triggered a movement to have Azar fired. In a direct attack on free speech and academic freedom, the University then suspended Azar without pay.

According to  the CBC, after months of investigation, Azar will not have to go through “equity, diversity and inclusion training” for her expressing such thoughts on a personal blog. The grounds? Azar was cited by students as “denying systemic racism,” “talking about BIPOC students in unkind ways” and “labelling Black Lives Matter a radical group,” among other transgressions. These improper thoughts include stating “[New Brunswick] is NOT racist. Canada is NOT racist. We do not have ‘systemic’ racism or ‘systemic’ discrimination. We just have systemic naivety because we are a young country and because we want to save the world.”

That is a statement that should generate considerable debate and passion on a college campus. That is what higher education once valued in fostering a diversity of viewpoints and perspectives. The response of the students of Mount Allison was to seek to silence and punish Azar rather than respond to her views.  To the shock of some academics, like Mark Mercer, head of the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship, the University caved to the demands and suspended Azar. The Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship has also supported Azar against her university.

The targeting of Azar began when she disagreed with local activist Husoni Raymond who denounced New Brunswick as “systemically racist.” Raymond stated in response that it is “[d]isappointing to see a professor who’s still ignorant to what racism is and will be using her power within the institution to uphold racists ideologies. Racism IS in Canada. Racism IS in NB.”

[Notably, Azar was not arguing that there was no racism in Canada but that the country is not “systematically racist,” a point of distinction that has produced other controversies in academia].

Azar then responded to Raymond by saying:

“NB is NOT racist. Canada is NOT racist. We do not have ‘systemic’ racism or ‘systemic’ discrimination. We just have systemic naivety because we are a young country and because we want to save the world.

Oh, one quick question to Mr. Husoni Raymond: Upon your graduation from St. Thomas University, you have been named the 2020 recipient of the Tom McCann Memorial Trophy for your ‘strong leadership and character’ … If NB is as racist as you are claiming, would one of its prestigious universities be honouring you like that?”

Azar also disagreed with statements that Canada remains a “patriarchy” afflicted by rape culture. She suggested that people like her from the Middle East have seen “real rape culture” and perhaps readers might want to consider “ISIS practices in Syria.” She also said that BLM is a radical organization, which is a view shared by many and contested by many others.

We recently discussed the case of a police officer who was fired for calling BLM members “terrorists” on a personal postings. Twitter recently censored criticism of a BLM founder and we have been discussing the targeting of professors who voice dissenting opinions about the Black Lives Matter movement, police shootings, or aspects of the protests around the country from the University of Chicago to Cornell to Harvard to other schools. Students have also been sanctioned for criticism BLM and anti-police views at various colleges. Even a high school principal was fired for stating that “all lives matter.”  Each of these controversies raise concerns over the countervailing statements against police or Republicans or other groups.

I am admittedly a free speech dinosaur.  I believe in largely unfettered free speech, particularly for statements made off campus or outside of a classroom. I have defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer,  strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. We previously wrote about academic freedom issues at University of Rhode Island due to its Director of Graduate Studies of History Erik Loomis, who has defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence.

My greatest concern is the conflicted positions on free speech that emerge from these cases. Universities generally do not take similar actions when faculty or students denounce other organizations like the Republican Party or the NRA as terrorists or murderers. They do not take action against those who write racist attacks on white people or sexist attacks on males, as discussed above. The result is not just the sanctioning of faculty for exercising free speech but the biased application of such measures based on the content of such speech.

In a memo sent to faculty, staff and students on Tuesday, Mount Allison’s communications director Robert Hiscock said that “[o]ver the past two months, an independent investigator has reviewed complaints from students alleging discriminatory conduct, stemming from blog posts and student interactions.” However, he said that the findings remain confidential and cannot be discussed. Azar should consider sending a letter asking for the full report to be made public and waiving the right to confidentiality. Otherwise, her reputation will continue to be attacked without any ability to address the allegations in public fully and transparently. For example, there is an allegation that Azar improperly referred to particular students by name in her criticism. However, we do not know if those students previously made their names public in exchanges with or criticism of Azar. There is a major difference between spontaneously criticizing a student who has not spoken publicly and responding to a student who has elected to participate in a public debate by name.

Azar now has a GoFundMe campaign to assist her in the coming legal challenge.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 05/10/2021 – 13:21

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2SGY1pq Tyler Durden

Cancelling Citations

Last October, I wrote about a controversial Bluebook proposal: Any case that involves slavery would require a parenthetical disclaimer. For example “(enslaved party)” or “(enslaved person at issue).” So far, this change has not come to pass. But with the hard-left turn of law reviews, I doubt there is enough resistance to block this change. The upshot of this policy will be to simply cancel certain citations. Authors will not want to be seen as promoting slavery-based jurisprudence. So those cases will simply fall into desuetude.

This weaponization of footnotes will not be limited to slavery. Journals will continue to impose more control over scholarship to pursue inclusion. Professor Brian Leiter writes about a referee report from a philosophy journal. The “very first comment” criticized the author for not citing diverse authors.

1.      One of the first things I noticed is that not a single female author is being referenced or cited in this piece. Given that this is generally seen as problematic, I urge the author to make an effort to engage with some women scholars, such as [female professor X], who I believe wrote on [the topic of the essay] fairly recently.

Leiter offers a powerful rejoinder to this comment:

[R]acial or demographic equity in citations is not a value in scholarship; truth and knowledge are the only values. If past racism has resulted in neglect of scholars who can contribute to truth and knowledge in a particular domain, then the demand should be to name those scholars so that they can be studied. But equity-qua–demographic-diversity per se is not a scholarly value. It has a stronger claim to be a value in pedagogy….

Well said. Diversity is an important value. But it is not the most important value. It should not predominate over all aspects of scholarly inquiry. The obsession with inclusion will serve only to exclude thoughts out of the woke zeitgeist. This current trend threatens to stifle academy inquiry in dangerous ways.

So far, I have not had a law review editor tell me to add citations to certain authors to promote some type of gender or racial diversity. If I received such advice, I would decide if the citation was relevant. If yes, I would consider adding it. But if the sole purpose for adding the citation would be to check diversity boxes, I would resist the change.

There is also the converse problem. What if I cite a controversial author, but the journal asks me to remove it. There are many reasons why an author may fall on a “cancel” list. Perhaps the author took the wrong view on some social issue. Or maybe the author associated with the wrong people. Or maybe the author deigned to challenge some orthodoxy. Whatever. I would also resist any effort to remove a citation based entirely on the identity of the author.

Of course, I don’t care to play these law review games. Other authors may not have that luxury. Imagine a journal makes an offer contingent on diversifying the footnotes. In other words, “We will publish this article if you include more inclusive footnotes.” Would you decline that offer?

In the years ahead, I think it will become very difficult for conservative authors to publish in law reviews. Peer-reviewed journals are not much better. Look no further than the example Professor Leiter cited. The road ahead will be rocky.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3uvtEAh
via IFTTT