Something Georgetown might want to keep in mind when deciding when Tweets from faculty members are punishable as “discrimination” or “harassment”: D.C., like many jurisdictions, bans employment discrimination based on “political affiliation,” though defined narrowly to refer only to “belonging to or endorsing any political party.” It also bans discrimination in educational programs based on political affiliation. Unsurprisingly, Georgetown’s antidiscrimination policy covers political affiliation alongside other characteristics.
If Georgetown were to interpret its policies on discrimination and harassment as forbidding tweets that are seen as offensive or derogatory to particular racial groups, then I think it would be bound to apply the same rules to tweets that are seen as offensive or derogatory to people who belong to or endorse any political party as well. I don’t think the policies should be thus interpreted, and in particular I don’t think the Ilya Shapiro tweet should be seen as violating those policies. But if they are thus interpreted, then that would have to cover political party (and, of course, religion) as well as race or sex.
I don’t normally do this sort of thing, but in light of the continued calls to terminate Ilya Shapiro from Georgetown University Law Center because of his tweets last week, I was part of a group of professors who sent the following letter to Georgetown Dean William Treanor. (Signatories include several other members of this blog, and many professors not on this blog.)
We understand that some have called for Ilya Shapiro to be fired from his position as Executive Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, because of his tweet criticizing President Biden’s pledge to appoint a black woman as a Justice. We think such a firing—or subjecting Shapiro to disciplinary action of any kind based on his tweet—would be contrary to basic academic freedom principles, which Georgetown rightly applies (1) to “all faculty,” including “lecturer[s]” such as Shapiro, and not just tenure-track faculty, and (2) to “professional service” and “all the domains of [faculty] academic activity,” which would include public commentary by public intellectuals, and not just “research” and “teaching.”
We agree that the reference in the tweet to “a lesser black woman” was a poor way of expressing the message (and Shapiro’s apology seems to agree as well). “[Sri Srinivasan] doesn’t fit into the latest intersectionality hierarchy so we’ll get [a less-qualified] black woman” is presumably what Shapiro meant to say. But setting aside that one mistake—which should not be seen as a fireable offense—the substance of the message, which is that Sri Srinivasan is the most qualified progressive nominee, and that it’s wrong for the President to pass him over because of race and sex, is a position that is most certainly protected by academic freedom principles of “[f]ree inquiry and unconstrained publication of the results of inquiry.”
To be sure, the substantive position about the President’s pledge, and about the relative qualifications of the various possible appointees, is not a position that all of us endorse. Indeed, some of us have publicly disagreed with it.
But academic freedom protects Shapiro’s views, regardless of whether we agree with them or not. And debate about the President’s nomination, and about whether race and sex play a proper role in such nominations more generally, would be impoverished—at Georgetown and elsewhere—if this view could not be safely expressed in universities. Indeed, to the extent that people do think it’s proper for a President to promise to fill a position with a member of a particular group, they can only have real confidence in that conclusion if they know that the contrary view can be freely supported and discussed, and has been found unpersuasive on the merits rather than silenced by fear of firing. That is famously the way academic discourse about science operates. And it is true for moral and political judgments as well.
More broadly, firing Shapiro for expressing his views will send a message to others in Georgetown—both faculty (and especially untenured faculty) and students—that debate about matters having to do with race and sex is no longer free; that the promises of academic freedom are empty; and that dissent from the majority views within the law school is not tolerated. That will chill far more than just honest discussions of this particular Presidential nomination.
Sincerely,
Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles
Samuel J. Abrams, Professor of Politics and Social Science, Sarah Lawrence College
Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University
Kenneth Anderson, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law
William Baude, Professor of Law, University of Chicago
David E. Bernstein, University Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
Paul G. Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law
Nicholas A. Christakis, Sterling Professor of Social and Natural Science, Yale University
Richard W. Garnett, Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame
Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University
Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego
Randall Kennedy, Michael R. Klein Professor, Harvard Law School
Amna Khalid, Associate Professor, Department of History, Carleton College
Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Andrew M. Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University
Brian Leiter, Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence, University of Chicago
John McWhorter, Associate Professor of English and Comparative Literature, Columbia University
David G. Post, I. Herman Stern Professor of Law Emeritus, Temple University Beasley School of Law
Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law, The University of Tennessee
Adam Scales, Professor of Law, Rutgers Law School
Stephen Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Jeffrey Aaron Snyder, Associate Professor of Educational Studies, Carleton College
Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, Emerita, New York Law School
Alexander Volokh, Associate Professor of Law, Emory University
Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University
Jonathan Zimmerman, Judy and Howard Berkowitz Professor in Education, University of Pennsylvania
Todd J. Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Note: Further signatures will be continually added as they arrive. If you’re interested in adding your signature to this letter, please email facultyoutreach@thefire.org.
And here is an email subsequently sent out today by Dean Treanor:
Dear Members of the Georgetown Law Community,
Over the past several days, I have heard the pain and outrage of so many at Georgetown Law, and particularly from our Black female students, staff, alumni, and faculty. Ilya Shapiro’s tweets are antithetical to the work that we do here every day to build inclusion, belonging, and respect for diversity. I have heard and listened to a wide range of views, and I am grateful to the many members of the community who have reached out to me and other leaders at the school to share their thoughts.
I am writing to inform you that I have placed Ilya Shapiro on administrative leave, pending an investigation into whether he violated our policies and expectations on professional conduct, non-discrimination, and anti-harassment, the results of which will inform our next steps. Pending the outcome of the investigation, he will remain on leave and not be on campus. This investigation will follow the procedures established by Georgetown University.
Racial stereotypes about individual capabilities and qualifications remain a pernicious force in our society and our profession. I am keenly aware that our law school is not exempt. We will continue our work with students, staff, alumni, and faculty to put in place strategies, policies, and practices to strengthen our community and our commitment to justice and equality for all. And I remain committed to working with each of you to create a community where we can all thrive.
Sincerely,
Bill Treanor
I may have more to say about this, but it remains to be seen what else will happen.
Exxon Combines Chemical And Refining Units, Moves HQ Outside Houston, As Part Of Plan To Cut Costs
The corporate changes over at Exxon are continuing with the energy giant reportedly combining two of its major units and relocating its corporate headquarters to Houston.
The company is going to be combining its chemical and refining units and is making the move as part of a plan to cut costs and find new efficiencies, according to Bloomberg on Monday.
Effective April 1, the company is going to be split into three segments: ExxonMobil Upstream Company, ExxonMobil Product Solutions and ExxonMobil Low Carbon Solutions. They will be supported by ExxonMobil Technology and Engineering, the report says.
Exxon’s biggest U.S. office is in already Spring, just north of Houston, Bloomberg continued. The report also noted an executive shuffle taking place as a result of the corporate changes:
Karen McKee, formerly president of ExxonMobil Chemical Company has been appointed to lead ExxonMobil Product Solutions
Linda DuCharme, formerly president of ExxonMobil Upstream Integrated Solutions and ExxonMobil Upstream Business Development, has been appointed to lead ExxonMobil Technology and Engineering Company
This change will also consolidate the Upstream into a single organization, ExxonMobil Upstream Company, which will be led by Liam Mallon, formerly president of ExxonMobil Upstream Oil and Gas Company
The oil supermajor has spent the better part of the last 18 months trying to appease “environmental activist investors”, and has also been making sweeping changes to its business in an attempt to put the company’s ugliest financial year, 2020, far behind in its rearview mirror.
Recall, we reported days ago that the company said it planned on reaching its target for net zero emissions by 2050. The pledge applies to Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions, we wrote. The company said it had “identified more than 150 potential steps and modifications that can be applied to assets in its upstream, downstream and chemical operations.”
We’re guessing this corporate action is part of the “master plan”. Exxon Chief Executive Officer Darren Woods said earlier this month: “We are developing comprehensive roadmaps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from our operated assets around the world.”
Exxon says it is “working with [its] partners to achieve similar emission-reduction results”.
In December, we noted that Exxon was on track to meet its 2025 emissions goals 4 years in advance. In Exxon’s full plan, which can be found on its website here, the company said it “plans to increase spending to $15 billion on greenhouse gas emission-reduction projects over the next six years while maintaining disciplined capital investments.”
Bloomberg also noted that Exxon confirmed “it was on track to meet its 2025 greenhouse gas emission-reduction plans by year-end 2021, four years ahead of schedule.”
Turning to financials, the oil supermajor said it plans on maintaining capital investments between $20 to $25 billion, per year, through 2027.
The company also said it has repaid $11 billion in debt, to date, in 2021. Exxon says it’ll be “comfortably” in its range of targeted debt-to-capital ratio by year end.
These plans, of course, follow our reporting in October that the company was considering abandoning some of its oil and gas projects to appease environmental advocates.
The company’s board, we noted in October, which includes three directors nominated by activist investors, had “expressed concerns about certain projects, including a $30 billion liquefied natural gas development in Mozambique and another multibillion-dollar gas project in Vietnam.”
The change in strategic direction comes as Exxon’s board is facing growing pressure from investors to restrain its fossil fuel investments and limit its carbon footprint. The board is also considering the carbon footprint of the new projects, and how they would affect the company’s ability to meet environmental promises it has made.
Back in September we reported that as part of appeasement of the ESG lobby, the oil giant planned on implementing disclosures of shale emissions. The company announced it would start measuring its methane emissions from production of natural gas at a facility it owns in New Mexico. Exxon joins other shale gas producers, like EQT, who already provide similar data.
Bart Cahir, a senior vice president at Exxon Mobil, told Reuters: “Certifying our natural gas will help our customers achieve their goals.” The oil major has signed an agreement with “independent measuring firm MiQ to certify 200 million cubic feet of natural gas per day” at its New Mexico facilities.
Chelsea Clinton wants to talk about grifting. That’s just great.
The fruit, apparently, doesn’t fall that far from the global elitist narrative tree.
Perhaps looking to ride the coattails of those ganging up on “controversial anti-vaxx misinformation” (read: any uttered thought not handed down by Dr. Anthony Fauci from the heavens above) or perhaps looking to drum up support by her Twitter sycophants, Chelsea Clinton took to her Twitter account last week to lash out at Substack for providing a platform for free speech and for people to voluntarily subscribe to newsletters they’re interested in and willing to pay for.
Wow, sounds nefarious, Chelsea! Glad you stepped in.
The first daughter took exception with the “anti-vaxx grift” that is supposedly taking place on here on Substack, citing a Guardian article written last week as her source.
“A group of vaccine-sceptic writers are generating revenues of at least $2.5m (£1.85m) a year from publishing newsletters for tens of thousands of followers on the online publishing platform Substack, according to new research,” the Guardian wrote last week.
“Why is Substack facilitating science denialists’ ability to profit from destructive lies (and comfortable profiting themselves)?” Clinton asked.
The research for the article was performed by an organization called the Center for Countering Digital Hate (of course that’s what its called). Because if anything says “digital hate” nowadays, it’s considering both sides of a story before critically thinking and arriving at your own conclusions.
“How dare you!”
Specifically, the Guardian article called out Dr. Joseph Mercola and Alex Berenson, who each have tens of thousands of paid followers on Substack. The intense sleuthwork to break the “story” that these two are making a couple million dollars a year came from the super exhaustive task of multiplying “tens of thousands of subscribers” with the $6/month they charge, times 12 months in a year.
That information is readily available on Substack.
Huge exclusive, guys. To the victor go the spoils, The Guardian.
Several paragraphs into the Guardian article, Substack rightly fired back, reminding me of exactly why I chose this platform as an outlet for my content. Substack told The Guardian:
“As we face growing pressure to censor content published on Substack that to some seems dubious or objectionable, our answer remains the same: we make decisions based on principles not PR, we will defend free expression, and we will stick to our hands-off approach to content moderation.”
I find it hilarious that Chelsea Clinton would call writers “grifters” for selling their opinions on things.
Putting aside the fact that her parents have raked in tens of millions of dollars writing books, Chelsea herself has a long history of selling her opinions on things for money.
Back in 2015, Clinton Foundation Donor Penguin Random House announced a book deal with then 35 year old Chelsea. The details on the advance she was paid were kept under wraps.
“Penguin Random House has not disclosed how much Chelsea’s book advance is worth, but the Clintons have received some of the largest publishing advances in recent history,” the Washington Free Beacon wrote at the time.
It continued: “Chelsea’s book, It’s Your World: Get Informed, Get Inspired & Get Going, is intended to educate young readers on themes such as climate change, gender equality, and non-communicable diseases.”
Wait a second. Climate change? Gender equality? Non-communicable diseases?
You mean to tell me Chelsea Clinton was literally selling her opinion on diseases half a decade ago and now she’s taken some indignant exception to others doing the same?
Clinton also penned the “She Persisted” book series starting in 2017, which was a successful series highlighting the plight of 13 remarkable women in history.
Clinton also earned a stunning $600,000 annual salary (hereinafter referred to as: a quarter-Berenson) at NBC News as a “special correspondent” starting in November 2011, while she was 31 years old.
There, she worked “on service-related feature assignments for NBC’s ‘Rock Center with Brian Williams’ until the show’s cancellation,” Politico reported. It lasted two seasons and was cancelled due to low ratings.
Williams was then suspended from NBC in February 2015 after claiming a military helicopter he was in during the Iraq War had been “forced down after being hit by an RPG”, which turned out to be a fabrication. He was earning $10 million per year at the time. When he returned to the air, he was demoted.
Clinton has also earned more than $9 million just for sitting on the board of media company IAC/InterActiveCorp since 2011. IAC is led by billionaire Clinton ally Barry Diller, who also chairs the Expedia board, where Chelsea also sits.
Clinton reportedly earned $300,000 for attending just six meetings as a Board Member of IAC in 2018, the Daily Mail reported in 2019.
“Some members of the Expedia board were only obligated to attend two meetings last year,” The Mail reported.
“Chelsea will soon own just over $400,000 of Expedia stock and shares in IAC that add up to an astonishing $6.3 million,” the report continued.
Clinton has also served on the board of Clover Health since February 2017. As of 2020, she held more than 685,000 options valued at about $4.6 million. Clover’s stock is down -85.5% since the company went public.
Her profile on the company’s website says she is a member of the “Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee”.
Today’s blog post has been published without a paywall because I believe the content to be far too important to deny to anyone. However, if you have the means and would like to support my work by subscribing, I’d be happy to offer you 22% off for 2022: Get 22% off forever
The sweet gigs that just happen to keep falling into Chelsea’s lap have funded a lavish lifestyle for her.
As Alex Berenson pointed out late last week, Clinton is likely calling out grifters from a $10 million New York City apartment that the Daily Mail called in 2013 “New York’s longest apartment”.
Described as a “luxury fortress”, Clinton was somehow able to buy this apartment at just 33 years old in 2013. She must have gotten luckier than her mom did trading cattle futures for the first time, when she 100x’d the first $1,000 she invested.
Don’t worry: all futures traders will tell you their first foray into trading went exactly the same way.
Clinton’s NYC apartment is now estimated to be worth $13.7 million.
Chelsea seems confused as to why Substack has gotten so popular. I guess nobody told the Clintons that they are probably part of the reason Substack exists to begin with.
Their grip and influence on the news and the global narrative on a whole host of issues has forced a large portion of the country to feel as though they’re not getting the full story. Arguably, Hillary lost the 2016 election because she wasn’t able to garner the trust of the American public, many of whom painted her as inauthentic and formulaic.
The same public who reads (and writes on) Substack not only questions the intentions of people like the Clintons, but also feel empowered to think critically and make their own life decisions without the help of central planners.
Many of them agree with me, when I say that paling around with the most powerful people in the world, while collecting millions worth of compensation from sitting on board seats and cashing checks for book advances shouldn’t give you carte blanche to start handing out life lessons on who is and isn’t grifting.
For example, is that Ghislaine Maxwell at your…wedding? That’s weird.
And is this you (bottom) and your dad (above, at a Clinton Foundation event) paling around with Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos – a widely disgraced fraud whose multi-billion dollar valuation collapsed after a series of critical Wall Street Journal articles revealed its “revolutionary” technology to not actually exist?
And while we’re on the topic, did you use Theranos’ Holmes to host a Clinton fundraiser? That’s weird.
Meanwhile, cancel culture is becoming an interesting paradox for the left: a contrast becomes more evident the harsher the attacks on free speech become. The more Chelsea calls for censorship, the more Substack becomes an obvious beacon of free of speech.
But at the end of the day, you have to take Chelsea’s criticisms for what they are: definitely laughable and likely hypocritical.
Even some on the left can’t really figure out whether or not Chelsea has earned the gravitas to be an authority on…well…anything.
Mainly because when asked about what Chelsea actually does for a living, other than collect paychecks and stock options, it’s tough to distinguish.
When I ask my plumber what he does for a living, he gives me a direct answer: “I repair pipes, sinks, snake drains and unclog toilets.”
When you ask Chelsea Clinton the same question, my guess would be the answer involves a word salad of the terms “advocate”, “activist”, “consultant” and “Director”.
Maybe this is why she was torched in 2017 by left-leaning Vanity Fair who wrote an article called “Please, God, Stop Chelsea Clinton From Whatever She Is Doing”. Author T.A. Frank writes:
What comes across with Chelsea, for lack of a gentler word, is self-regard of an unusual intensity. And the effect is stronger on paper. Unkind as it is to say, reading anything by Chelsea Clinton—tweets, interviews, books—is best compared to taking in spoonfuls of plain oatmeal that, periodically, conceal a toenail clipping.
In fact, the whole situation has me wondering: is Chelsea genuinely upset about the totally voluntary “grift” taking place by you, the reader and me, the writer – or is she just upset that there’s a grift out there that she’s not a part of?
Regardless, prepare yourself: this isn’t the first attack we’ve seen on Substack, nor is it likely going to be the last.
As I wrote last year, when I saw the NY Times criticize the platform last summer, I knew I was on the right path to finding my home as a writer. Perhaps you recall when the NY Times published a July 2021 op-ed called “Is the Rise of the Substack Economy Bad for Democracy?”
Staff editor Spencer Bokat-Lindell wrote critically, “The concept of niche, subscription-based news and commentary isn’t exactly novel,” penning his thoughts in a commentary section of a subscription-based publication himself.
Yet, look at us now, Spencer. We’re apparently “novel” enough to truly be ruffling some feathers.
As Substack continues to grow in popularity, the pushback is likely going to become even louder. But at the end of the day, Substack is filling a major gap that the market is showing immense demand for: free speech.
I had to ask Spotify yesterday whether or not they had the backbone to endure the fight and support their key content creator, Joe Rogan.
But Substack, I already know where you stand.With the “grifters”.
I don’t normally do this sort of thing, but in light of the continued calls to terminate Ilya Shapiro from Georgetown University Law Center because of his tweets last week, I was part of a group of professors who sent the following letter to Georgetown Dean William Treanor. (Signatories include several other members of this blog, and many professors not on this blog.)
We understand that some have called for Ilya Shapiro to be fired from his position as Executive Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, because of his tweet criticizing President Biden’s pledge to appoint a black woman as a Justice. We think such a firing—or subjecting Shapiro to disciplinary action of any kind based on his tweet—would be contrary to basic academic freedom principles, which Georgetown rightly applies (1) to “all faculty,” including “lecturer[s]” such as Shapiro, and not just tenure-track faculty, and (2) to “professional service” and “all the domains of [faculty] academic activity,” which would include public commentary by public intellectuals, and not just “research” and “teaching.”
We agree that the reference in the tweet to “a lesser black woman” was a poor way of expressing the message (and Shapiro’s apology seems to agree as well). “[Sri Srinivasan] doesn’t fit into the latest intersectionality hierarchy so we’ll get [a less-qualified] black woman” is presumably what Shapiro meant to say. But setting aside that one mistake—which should not be seen as a fireable offense—the substance of the message, which is that Sri Srinivasan is the most qualified progressive nominee, and that it’s wrong for the President to pass him over because of race and sex, is a position that is most certainly protected by academic freedom principles of “[f]ree inquiry and unconstrained publication of the results of inquiry.”
To be sure, the substantive position about the President’s pledge, and about the relative qualifications of the various possible appointees, is not a position that all of us endorse. Indeed, some of us have publicly disagreed with it.
But academic freedom protects Shapiro’s views, regardless of whether we agree with them or not. And debate about the President’s nomination, and about whether race and sex play a proper role in such nominations more generally, would be impoverished—at Georgetown and elsewhere—if this view could not be safely expressed in universities. Indeed, to the extent that people do think it’s proper for a President to promise to fill a position with a member of a particular group, they can only have real confidence in that conclusion if they know that the contrary view can be freely supported and discussed, and has been found unpersuasive on the merits rather than silenced by fear of firing. That is famously the way academic discourse about science operates. And it is true for moral and political judgments as well.
More broadly, firing Shapiro for expressing his views will send a message to others in Georgetown—both faculty (and especially untenured faculty) and students—that debate about matters having to do with race and sex is no longer free; that the promises of academic freedom are empty; and that dissent from the majority views within the law school is not tolerated. That will chill far more than just honest discussions of this particular Presidential nomination.
Sincerely,
Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles
Samuel J. Abrams, Professor of Politics and Social Science, Sarah Lawrence College
Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University
Kenneth Anderson, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law
William Baude, Professor of Law, University of Chicago
David E. Bernstein, University Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
Paul G. Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law
Nicholas A. Christakis, Sterling Professor of Social and Natural Science, Yale University
Richard W. Garnett, Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame
Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University
Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego
Randall Kennedy, Michael R. Klein Professor, Harvard Law School
Amna Khalid, Associate Professor, Department of History, Carleton College
Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Andrew M. Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University
Brian Leiter, Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence, University of Chicago
John McWhorter, Associate Professor of English and Comparative Literature, Columbia University
David G. Post, I. Herman Stern Professor of Law Emeritus, Temple University Beasley School of Law
Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law, The University of Tennessee
Adam Scales, Professor of Law, Rutgers Law School
Stephen Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Jeffrey Aaron Snyder, Associate Professor of Educational Studies, Carleton College
Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, Emerita, New York Law School
Alexander Volokh, Associate Professor of Law, Emory University
Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University
Jonathan Zimmerman, Judy and Howard Berkowitz Professor in Education, University of Pennsylvania
Todd J. Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Note: Further signatures will be continually added as they arrive. If you’re interested in adding your signature to this letter, please email facultyoutreach@thefire.org.
And here is an email subsequently sent out today by Dean Treanor:
Dear Members of the Georgetown Law Community,
Over the past several days, I have heard the pain and outrage of so many at Georgetown Law, and particularly from our Black female students, staff, alumni, and faculty. Ilya Shapiro’s tweets are antithetical to the work that we do here every day to build inclusion, belonging, and respect for diversity. I have heard and listened to a wide range of views, and I am grateful to the many members of the community who have reached out to me and other leaders at the school to share their thoughts.
I am writing to inform you that I have placed Ilya Shapiro on administrative leave, pending an investigation into whether he violated our policies and expectations on professional conduct, non-discrimination, and anti-harassment, the results of which will inform our next steps. Pending the outcome of the investigation, he will remain on leave and not be on campus. This investigation will follow the procedures established by Georgetown University.
Racial stereotypes about individual capabilities and qualifications remain a pernicious force in our society and our profession. I am keenly aware that our law school is not exempt. We will continue our work with students, staff, alumni, and faculty to put in place strategies, policies, and practices to strengthen our community and our commitment to justice and equality for all. And I remain committed to working with each of you to create a community where we can all thrive.
Sincerely,
Bill Treanor
I may have more to say about this, but it remains to be seen what else will happen.
Millions of Americans used telehealth for the first time during COVID, but state regulations could soon strip that away. Emergency regulatory suspensions made it possible to expand telehealth services, but without permanent reform, patients will lose access to care as the clock on those temporary suspensions runs out.
A new report, Rating the States on Telehealth Best Practices: A Toolkit for a Pro-Patient and Provider Relationship, published by the Reason Foundation, the Cicero Institute, and the Pioneer Institute rates the telehealth policies of every state against the practices that would make those pandemic-era flexibilities permanent.
The greatest benefit of telehealth is its ability to connect patients to providers regardless of their physical location. Patients can access the best specialists around the country without the burden and expense of traveling. But an antiquated system of state-level licensing schemes prohibits health care providers from practicing telehealth across state lines.
It takes very little imagination to see the benefits of a flexible regulatory environment. For an example that began before COVID, look to Florida, which adopted a valuable permanent reform in 2018.
That year, Florida created a registration process that allows out-of-state providers to practice telehealth in the state without obtaining a full Florida-issued license. The process isn’t perfect, but it helps propel the Sunshine State to the top of the telehealth rankings. The system applies to all health professions, and it does not require action from other states. There are nearly 11,200 actively registered out-of-state telehealth providers in Florida—only Arizona has a comparable program.
In 2020, Florida passed another valuable bill. This one allows advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) to open independent practices. Many APRNs acted quickly to gain authorization. In 23 states, APRNs are required to work under a physician’s supervision. These supervision requirements reduce access to care and arbitrarily limit the number of primary care professionals available, especially in rural areas. Over 5,300 APRNs have branched to independent practices since the Florida Board of Nursing began processing applications in October 2020.
Taylor Ann Drew is an APRN who runs a direct primary care (DPC) practice—that is, a subscription-based service for health care—in Tallahassee, Florida. Rather than relying on third-party payers and traditional reimbursement models, patients can get unlimited access to a DPC provider for a flat monthly rate. There are currently more than 1,600 DPC practices across the United States. Drew believes the success of her practice depends on its ability to work independently from a physician.
“Direct primary care is the perfect model for telehealth because you don’t have to bill for it. Patients pay a monthly fee and ask me as many questions as they want—it’s up to them and how they want to guide their health,” says Drew. Her patients text her when they have questions, giving them virtually seamless access to expert advice. Under this system, patients are less likely to put off calling the doctor. And in many states Drew wouldn’t be able to run or own this business.
Drew’s practice is just one example of the innovations that regulatory flexibility makes possible. As emergency regulatory suspensions face expiration dates, millions of Americans could lose access to the telehealth they have appreciated throughout COVID. Lawmakers should make those changes permanent—and look to states like Florida for ideas for further reforms.
JPMorgan Says “We Go Higher” But Morgan Stanley Counters “Sell Rallies”, This Is A “Classic Bear Market”
One day after even traditionally bullish Goldman flow trader Scott Rubner said that “sell the rally trading mode is still in place” (although a capitulation, especially if coupled with CNBC’s “market in turmoil” would spark a fierce rally), we get a reminder that nobody knows anything when the Fed throws market for a loop and pulls the Fed Put.
Case in point, two market notes this morning, one from JPMorgan’s trading desk, another from Morgan Stanley’s chief equity strategist, Michael Wilson, which look at the exactly same data and reach two diametrically opposing conclusions.
First, as we noted earlier, in his morning intelligence note, JPMorgan’s desk trader Andrew Tyler recapped last week’s action, repeating what we said, namely that “Friday’s moves were primarily related to month-end rebalancing which tends to occur about 3 days before month-end” and asked rhetorically, “where do we go from here?“
His answer: “near-term, higher” explaining that “we’ll continue to see earnings support from MegaCap Tech and the chatter surrounding Citrix being bought may also help form a near-term bottom.” In terms of his Trading View, he urges clients to “stay long the “barbell trade” being long MegaCap Tech, Energy, Metals/Miners, Consumer Recovery stocks, and Transports… hedged using a market-neutral approach, with a combination of SPX, IG Credit (LQD), and Staples.”
That said, over the longer-term, the JPM trader thinks “investors will need to see Liftoff, at a minimum, before feeling comfort in being maximally deployed. Keep an eye on VIX, as it will likely need to fall to/below 20 in order to have a sustainable move higher.”
So if the March FOMC meeting is the bigger catalyst, when do investors position for the March meeting? According to JPM, “it could be as soon as mid-Feb. A situation to monitor is the so-called “Stealth Omicron” variant which could slow the decline in case counts.”
But while JPMorgan is bullish tactically, if still cautious until we get some more Fed clarity, for their colleagues at Morgan Stanley, there is no confusion, and the only question is how fast to sell. As Morgan Stanley’s chief equity strategist strategist Michael Wilson writes this morning, “the safety net of forward guidance from the Fed is gone just as earnings revisions and PMIs appear set to decelerate—an unattractive risk/reward set up. We remain sellers of rallies and of the view that S&P 500 fair value remains closer to 4,000 tactically. Stick with Defensives under the hood.”
This is how Wilson explains his descent into the most bearish circle of advisory hell (where being a bull is usually a career-truncating, if not ending, move): “while last week’s FOMC meeting met consensus’s expectations on multiple fronts—that the FOMC will likely begin raising rates in March while tapering is scheduled to conclude in mid-March—it also reinforced the notion that we are heading into a period of greater uncertainty from a forward guidance standpoint. Every meeting is a “live” one from a rate hike standpoint, and while our economists don’t see a 50 bp hike coming in March, it is a possibility at later meetings. Chair Powell’s commitment to fighting inflation is evident, and it’s unlikely that anything labor market related changes that view in the coming months. Furthermore, despite recent risk asset volatility, financial conditions remain accommodative and we’d likely need to see a much larger selloff to force the Fed to pivot in the near term.”
While expected, Wilson notes that “Powell’s hawkish tilt likely contributed to elevated equity volatility last week. That uncertainty was assuaged to some extent by several strong earnings reports that helped convince investors that demand pull forward fears may now be over-priced, particularly in Software. Nevertheless, the S&P 500 continued to struggle with its 200-day moving average while other major averages closed well below this key technical resistance even after Friday’s strong rally.”
At the same time, defensives hung in maintaining their outperformance over Secular Growth, Cyclicals and Value since the sell-off started almost a month ago.
Wilson’s bottom line: “we remain uninspired by last week’s price action at the index level despite strong earnings prints and resilient retail participation. We remain sellers of rallies and of the belief that the volatility and intra-day swings we are seeing are classic bear market action. Fair value remains closer to 4,000 at the S&P 500 level—we detail our view here in today’s note, leveraging our equity risk premium framework.“
* * *
The rest of Wilson’s note is more or less a recap of what he has said previously, starting with his take on the upcoming Fed tightening path which he views as an aggressive one.
Specifically, he shows that “tighter Fed policy brings lower returns and greater uncertainty for equities. On this front, Exhibit 4 shows that during tightening cycles, average equity returns are less than a quarter of what they are in easing cycles.”
Additionally, he also observes that the monthly positive return hit rate during tightening cycles is close to 50%: “that means greater uncertainty for stocks and higher volatility” which in turn prompts Wilson to predict that “returns are likely to be even lower during this tightening cycle (i.e., negative) because the Fed is going to be tightening into a macro and earnings growth slowdown that’s about more than just omicron.”
As Wilson showed just last week, as PMIs decelerate more sharply (as earnings revisions breadth falls toward zero, or Wilson’s “ice thesis”), the drivers are not so much Omicron as a payback in demand from overconsumption in 2021, coupled with cost pressures (especially on the labor side) that remain persistent through 1H ’22.
The MS strategist thinks that “the market has yet to fully process these dynamics, which should prove to be the drivers of the next leg to 4,000 at the index level.” Why? Because a Fed that’s focused on inflation and certainly not as much on the path of earnings revisions or higher frequency macro data/surveys “increases the likelihood that we see aggressive tightening directly into this growth slowdown—a further negative for equity prices even if the economy remains on solid footing overall.”
Here the bank’s clients push back, and ask Wilson what evidence he has that PMIs will slow, to which he responds as follows:
“Exhibit 5 shows that the spread between ISM manufacturing orders vs. inventories is pointing to a significant slowdown in the headline PMI. Further, Exhibit 6 illustrates that the Industrials sector’s relative forward P/E multiple is pointing to a similar dynamic. An average of manufacturing surveys that have advanced January readings also confirms this trend (Exhibit 7). Finally, our economists’ MS Business Conditions Index also weakened in January (Exhibit 8).”
But why should anyone care about PMIs? Here Wilson also has a ready answer, replying that they represent are a meaningful input into his top down forecasting approach: “In our 2022 outlook, we refined our approach to forecasting forward price/earnings multiples. After an extensive analysis looking at the correlation of various macro and fundamental indicators versus equity risk premium (ERP), we found the ISM PMI to be the most consistent explainer of ERP over time.” There are three specific reasons why Wilson likes PMIs:
it has extensive history;
it’s a mean reverting indicator so we can make more confident assumptions of its path when it’s at extremes (like today); and
as noted above, there are leading indicators that point to direction of travel for PMIs going forward.
These long term relationships can be leveraged to project out ERP estimates based on different PMI levels. Coupling those ERP estimates Treasury yield forecasts allows Wilson to make more “informed assumptions” around the path of the market multiple.
That leads Wilson to a couple of questions: Where is fair value today? Where would fair value be if PMIs fell? How about if rates rose further?
To answer these questions, the chief equity strategist has put together a sensitivity analysis of how multiple and price level would look under various PMI and bond yield assumptions. As the yellow shaded cells in Exhibit 9 show, assuming current levels on the ISM composite PMI and the 10-year yield, the Morgan Stanley model projects a fair value multiple of ~19.5x and a price level of ~4,400, almost exactly where we are trading today.
So on this score, as things stand today, the market is fairly priced. That said, Wilson sees downside to the mid 50s in the PMI in the next 1-2 months. If rates stay static, that implies a forward multiple of 17.5-18x, and a price level of ~4,000.
Assuming Wilson is wrong on the level of the PMI, and it remains close to 60 (the 89th percentile of historical levels), but rates move higher toward the MS strategists’ 1Q target of 2%, one is still looking at 18x and ~4,000. Naturally, the bank’s high conviction PMI call could be wrong as could the rates strategists’ high conviction 10-year yield call, but even if one is correct, the bearish model still implies downside at the index level. If both are wrong, there’s likely modest upside in price, but as things stand now, Wilson concludes that “it’s an unattractive risk/ reward set up, in our view.”
One final point made by Wilson in his Monday note is that the other key indicator he is watching for signs that his “ice” thesis, is playing out is earnings revisions breadth, which appears to have resumed its downward trajectory as shown in the charts below.
As Exhibit 11 shows, cyclical industries are showing relative weakness from an earnings revisions standpoint and appear to be driving this recent downtrend. Defensives generally are showing signs of relative strength and notably Software has seen its relative earnings revisions breadth stabilize this week amid strong earnings.
Overall, Wilson thinks that these dynamics are supportive of his relative preference for Defensives (and financials) over Cyclicals (and unprofitable grwoth). And while the bearish strategist is encouraged by the recent relative strength shown by Software revisions, unlike other banks he doesn’t recommend adding to the group broadly given the banks’ view that this rate move higher in yields is not finished.
In summary, while JPM is urging clients to buy now and sell once markets have bounced modestly before selling again ahead of an even bigger drop, Morgan Stanley is bearish throughout and is sticking with its relative preference for Defensives and Financials over broad Cyclicals and Unprofitable Growth, and waiting for a more attractive entry point at the index level that will likely come as we get closer to 4,000.
Buying Bungie will give Sony one of the most popular first-person shooter games to compete with the massive Call of Duty series, which Sony’s main rival now owns through Activision.
As Bloomberg reports, Sony is a regular acquirer of video game studios, though Bungie is by far its largest of the past decade.
Bellevue, Washington-based Bungie, founded in 1991, helped put the Xbox on the map with the Halo franchise and was purchased by Microsoft in 2000. In 2007, the studio negotiated its independence and spun out from Microsoft to work on its next big thing, Destiny, with Activision. That relationship ended in 2019 and Bungie began self-publishing and operating Destiny independently.
Sony shares are halted for now (News Pending)…
Notably, videogame-maker EA is sliding now that it appears to be the bridesmaid, not the bride (erasing all the post-Activision gains)…
Millions of Americans used telehealth for the first time during COVID, but state regulations could soon strip that away. Emergency regulatory suspensions made it possible to expand telehealth services, but without permanent reform, patients will lose access to care as the clock on those temporary suspensions runs out.
A new report, Rating the States on Telehealth Best Practices: A Toolkit for a Pro-Patient and Provider Relationship, published by the Reason Foundation, the Cicero Institute, and the Pioneer Institute rates the telehealth policies of every state against the practices that would make those pandemic-era flexibilities permanent.
The greatest benefit of telehealth is its ability to connect patients to providers regardless of their physical location. Patients can access the best specialists around the country without the burden and expense of traveling. But an antiquated system of state-level licensing schemes prohibits health care providers from practicing telehealth across state lines.
It takes very little imagination to see the benefits of a flexible regulatory environment. For an example that began before COVID, look to Florida, which adopted a valuable permanent reform in 2018.
That year, Florida created a registration process that allows out-of-state providers to practice telehealth in the state without obtaining a full Florida-issued license. The process isn’t perfect, but it helps propel the Sunshine State to the top of the telehealth rankings. The system applies to all health professions, and it does not require action from other states. There are nearly 11,200 actively registered out-of-state telehealth providers in Florida—only Arizona has a comparable program.
In 2020, Florida passed another valuable bill. This one allows advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) to open independent practices. Many APRNs acted quickly to gain authorization. In 23 states, APRNs are required to work under a physician’s supervision. These supervision requirements reduce access to care and arbitrarily limit the number of primary care professionals available, especially in rural areas. Over 5,300 APRNs have branched to independent practices since the Florida Board of Nursing began processing applications in October 2020.
Taylor Ann Drew is an APRN who runs a direct primary care (DPC) practice—that is, a subscription-based service for health care—in Tallahassee, Florida. Rather than relying on third-party payers and traditional reimbursement models, patients can get unlimited access to a DPC provider for a flat monthly rate. There are currently more than 1,600 DPC practices across the United States. Drew believes the success of her practice depends on its ability to work independently from a physician.
“Direct primary care is the perfect model for telehealth because you don’t have to bill for it. Patients pay a monthly fee and ask me as many questions as they want—it’s up to them and how they want to guide their health,” says Drew. Her patients text her when they have questions, giving them virtually seamless access to expert advice. Under this system, patients are less likely to put off calling the doctor. And in many states Drew wouldn’t be able to run or own this business.
Drew’s practice is just one example of the innovations that regulatory flexibility makes possible. As emergency regulatory suspensions face expiration dates, millions of Americans could lose access to the telehealth they have appreciated throughout COVID. Lawmakers should make those changes permanent—and look to states like Florida for ideas for further reforms.
Many U.S. residents will be able to find free masks at local retailers, pharmacies, and community health centers over the next few weeks following the federal government’s deployment of 400 million N95 masks to the general public from the Strategic National Stockpile.
Two days after the Biden administration launched the program on Jan. 19, large retailers such as Hy-Vee, Walmart, and Meijer made the N95 masks available online, according to Jeffrey Zients, White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator, at a Jan. 26 teleconference.
“Americans will be able to pick up free masks, as I said earlier, at tens of thousands of convenient sites, including, as you mentioned, community health centers around the country and local pharmacies,” Zients said, adding that the program will hit full strength “across the next couple of weeks.”
The announcement came after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated masking recommendations by encouraging Americans to wear medical-grade N95 or KN95 masks previously prioritized for health care workers due to supply shortages.
“Loosely woven cloth products provide the least protection, layered finely woven products offer more protection, well-fitting disposable surgical masks and KN95s offer even more protection, and well-fitting NIOSH-approved respirators (including N95s) offer the highest level of protection,” the CDC stated on its website.
Following President Joe Biden’s mask announcement, small U.S. mask-makers reported a 70 to 80 percent decline in N95 sales, the American Mask Manufacturer’s Association (AMMA) told The Hill on Jan. 26.
“We absolutely support that the Biden administration is helping get high-quality masks on people’s faces quickly, but there is an unintended consequence to that action and we’re hoping that it’s followed up with purchases based on President Biden’s Buy American order,” said AMMA Chairman Brent Dillie.
To replenish the nation’s emergency stockpile of 750 million N95 masks, the Biden administration plans on signing contracts with domestic manufacturers that can produce 141 million N95 respirators per month, according to Dawn O’Connell, assistant secretary for preparedness and response at the Department of Health and Human Services.
This means that small mask producers are likely to miss out on the deal, with only the largest domestic manufacturers, like 3M Co. and Honeywell Inc., being able to make the cut.
Walgreens, which is one of several chains rolling out the masks, has begun giving away N95 masks at selected pharmacies, according to NBC, with a limit of three per person.
All Walgreens pharmacies are anticipated to receive N95 masks by mid-February according to a statement.
Meanwhile, all 275 Hy-Vee pharmacy branches will receive their mask allocation by the middle of the week starting Jan. 31, a company spokeswoman told NBC.
Meijer, which told NBC that it has been allocated 3 million masks, began giving them out on Jan. 24.
