Posting on behalf of a reader (readers often email me because they don't want to post here in the comments under their connected accounts):
"Students at non-T14 schools hear over and over again, Judge X only hires from Harvard and Yale, or Judge Y only hires from T14. I have actually been told that a certain judge does not hire from my school. These judges have always hired that way and no one found anything wrong with it. Things are changing very very slightly, but I think that is still the prevailing attitude amongst judges.
I fail to see how that is any different than what these judges are doing with their boycott. The reason that judges have said that they only hire from the top law schools was that these schools have the best students and provide the best education which must result in the brightest, and most prepared clerks. Of course that is certainly not always true, there are certainly many excellent students that go to lower-ranked law schools for financial or personal reasons and the law is equal opportunity in the sense that anyone can learn it. There are no special 'Harvard laws' that you only know if you go to Harvard. Anyone can read a case or a statute. But still, judges have used the top law schools as filters to weed out candidates because of their perceived notions about students at certain schools over others. I think the boycotting judges are just saying that these schools are no longer good filters for us and we no longer believe they are providing an excellent education to the best students. I think that is the same (and just as wrong) as rejecting applicants because they went to a lower-ranked school.
It is quite refreshing to see the elite of the legal profession get so worked up when a judge says they won't hire from a T-14 school, when the rest of us are very used to hearing it. You quote John Wilson as saying '[j]ob candidates should always be judged as individuals.' I couldn't agree more. But it shouldn't only be said when it comes to students of Columbia, Stanford, and Yale."
1) Its openly acknowledging that the deciscion isn't based on the canidate's individual level of qualification. Sure, there will be great canidates who do go to lower ranked schools but, by the same token, there are always going to be great canidates who fail any particular test/qualification (eg were sick during the interview/LSAT/etc). Whether the judge is correct or not the limitation to these high prestige schools is because they believe that it's a correlate of high quality and it's no different than tossing all applicants who had a C average or lower in their first year of law school (I'm sure someone in that group was actually really good but it's about probability).
Here they are openly saying they would otherwise hire from that pool if they only considered merit or even the individual's own behavior and are doing otherwise to impose collective punishment.
2) We generally feel that coordinated action is more dangerous and subject it to higher scrutiny than mere individual preference.
Consider a woman who happens to be more attracted to tall men or black/white men or whatever. Their friends might realize that a white guy might not have a shot with her but it doesn't seem untoward, she's just making her own judgement about who she tends to feel chemistry with (and it's fine if she doesn't even go on a date to check she isn't wrong). But contrast this with all the women at a school or in an area agreeing together that they will all refuse to date black guys or white guys or whatever because some members of that group did something bad. Of course it's their right to make those choices but we would rightly be more inclined to critisize the organized boycott.
3) It seems inappropriate for federal judges. If this was about congressional staffers ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ but this feels like the kind of political participation that is quite inappropriate for the judiciary.
David it is staggering that in a profession which is supposed to be an example of fairness, the very top representatives, namely judges, see no problem in only hiring from some schools. Simply unbelievable. But who ever said what we homo sapiens do was reasonable and sensible.
Very valid points. Even so, there's a huge constitutional difference. Here, judges openly declared they will discriminate against some people because of the speech of other people based on the content and viewpoint of their speech. At the end, a gang of federal judges even had the audacity to use the word "viewpoint" and expressly target "ideological homogeneity." This letter goes so extremely far beyond merely excluding one or more schools. It expressly targets schools of thought.
If a law school literally lost its ABA accreditation because it turned out to be a diploma mill, no one would bat an eye at judges deciding to simply not consider applicants from that school based on an assumption that despite whatever individual merit a candidate may have, the institution is so lacking in credibility that it becomes impossible to actually adjudicate.
By analogy, the point of these judges is simply that by demonstrating how warped its priorities have become as between activism versus academic rigor, Columbia (like other schools before it) has institutionally discredited itself. One can agree or disagree with that conclusion (and here, given the relationship between the law school and undergraduate campus, I tend to think the conclusion goes well beyond available evidence), but as others have pointed out, that’s a conclusion judges reach about other non-prestige schools all the time.
Forget about "schools." This isn't about schools. It is about our Constitution. It is about our most precious rights and freedoms. It is about our freedom to think and speak for ourselves and about whether any public servant was delegated the power to punish our political thoughts and speech. Think about it in a context about which you care. Don't just think it doesn't matter because you don't care about this context. I just posted another comment quoting from Judge Ho's own judicial opinions that illustrate my point.
"Despite the superficial effort to limit this boycott to future enrollees, the announcement obviously and directly denigrates the education and worth of all the current students. Columbia (and Columbia Fed Soc, too) surely has one of the highest Jewish student populations of any top school in the country; many students choose to study there precisely to remain within a community that has historically been very much a home for them. Those students, and others who are not involved and just want to learn, have been confronted with grotesque challenges all year long. Many have been supporting Israeli and Jewish students, family members, and friends. The law school's reading period was interrupted day and night, their exams were postponed last week with little or no warning, and on Holocaust Remembrance Day(!) they learned their commencement was canceled and a group of judges had targeted the school with a boycott. Why deliver a collectivist kick to these individuals while they're down?! Obviously Columbia has real problems, one of which is the need to recruit more heterodox students, not fewer."
Federal judges' "effort to limit this boycott to future enrollees" seems to me to be carefully crafted to avoid the crimes in 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242. That seems to me to be too clever by half. Such clever crafting does not necessarily evade 18 U.S.C. 371. But don't take my word for that. Check out the U.S. government's own merits brief in Trump v. United States, SCOTUS No. 23-939 (Apr. 8, 2024). Most, if not all, of what DOJ attorneys (and D.C. Circuit judges before them) said about the criminal law governing POTUS conduct applies equally to JOTUS conduct.
In terms of the protests themselves, I agree with this comment by Sioux Fleming (and I see a number of other readers basically share this view as well):
"I favor peaceful protests that don’t keep others from living their lives, studying, attending commencement, etc. I don’t favor occupying buildings, vandalism, or impeding others as they try to go about their lives. As Professor Robert Reich has said in several of his Substack posts, you can be opposed to what Israel is doing in Gaza without being an antisemite or a supporter of Hamas. It’s called nuance."
I suppose the argument on the other side would be that the more outrageous or extreme protests do a better job of bringing public attention to the crisis in Gaza. But I wonder whether now it's possible for the pro-Palestinian protesters to conclude that they've achieved that goal—I don't know anyone who's unaware of what's going on in Gaza—and move on to forms of protest that are more focused on persuasion.
It's a natural evolution for many social-justice movements. Do something radical to get everyone to pay attention to your issue—and once you've done that, focus on winning over hearts and minds.
I’d put that in context in my perfect world. That is, those protesters who were willing to break the law or rules in service of “bringing public attention to the crisis in Gaza” only gain my respect (not necessarily in their message but their methods) by accepting the legal consequences of their disobedience (in the MLK fashion). NOT by bargaining for immunity or by demanding access to their meal plan while in occupied buildings.
Except the whole "bring attention to the issue" idea is that you get people to pay attention and agree with you. That doesn't work when you pick methods that are extremely alienating to the wider public.
I could certainly imagine equally disruptive protests that, even while inconveniencing others, impressed the broader public with the moral clarity and commitment to the issue shown by protestors and thus encouraged them to reevaluate their position. That's what was done very effectively by many civil rights protests.
And while it's silly to suggest civil disobedience requires accepting the legal consequences (so anti-monarchy protests in Thailand should reveal their true identities and accept long prison or death sentences??) it's often a very useful tactic in a democracy to show your degree of commitment in a persuasive way.
These protestors don't actually seen interested in being effective in those ways (like most student protests).
In my UVA v. Berkeley post, I referenced in a footnote the debate over whether acceptance of punishment is an essential part of civil disobedience. The majority view is that it is (even if this might be changing).
Here’s a good quote from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.:
“One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly . . . and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for the law.“
I very much doubt that King really meant that in full generality. Do you really think he would have said that the people who participated in the underground railroad should have turned themselves in for punishment (to use Ilya Somin's example)?
I suspect that King was intensely aware of the politics of the time and how threatening black lawlessness could be to the white majority and so he's not trying to write a philosophy paper but send a message about his movement in the current time and context.
Here's a post by Professor Eugene Volokh that I added to my main story as an update (but I'm posting it here in the comments as well so it can become part of the conversation):
<<My view is that we shouldn't threaten innocent neutrals as a means of influencing the culpable.
Columbia students aren't the ones who set Columbia policy. They may disagree with that policy, or they may not know enough about the subject to have a view. Even if they go to Columbia knowing about Columbia policy (and about the boycott), they shouldn't be held responsible for what Columbia does, and they shouldn't be retaliated against as a means of trying to pressure Columbia to change. Such "secondary boycotts," as labor law refers to them in a somewhat different context, are both unfair to the "neutral[s]" that are being boycotted, and likely to "widen[] … strife." (I'm not claiming here that there's anything illegal about the proposed boycott of Columbia graduates, but only that some of the reasons labor law disapproves of secondary boycotts also carry over to this situation.)>>
This is essentially the same weak argument I called out above. Volokh assumes the students are neutrals, but the boycotting judges would disagree. As they might put it, if they wished to draw a somewhat incendiary analogy: If you join the KKK, you don't get to call yourself "neutral" just because you haven't yet started enacting its ideals. The judges have decided that Columbia, as an institution, is enacting harm, and they are therefore imposing consequences on people who, knowing the situation, voluntarily decide to join that community. That is not holding the students "responsible for what Columbia does"; it is imposing consequences on the students' own choices.
“And when—years in the future, but hopefully not too many years—Americans look at Israel the way we look back on apartheid-era South Africa, we’ll be proud to say we were on the right side of history.”
Maybe the protestors’ views on Israel’s policies will be on the right side of history, but they will never be on the right side of history by threatening and harassing Jewish students and making them feel unsafe. They’ll never be on the right side of history by contributing to the violation of Jewish students’ constitutional right to an education free from religious discrimination.
"... they will never be on the right side of history by threatening and harassing Jewish students and making them feel unsafe."
It is unfortunate that you chose to paint with a broad brush and label all the protesters as antisemitic. I doubt that you label all the administrators, politicians, and police who are attacking the protesters (physically and verbally) as virulently anti-Muslim -- though the same criteria apply.
Talk about painting with a broad brush—I didn’t say all protestors. Those who engage in threatening and harassing Jewish students, who are by no means the majority, will never be on the right side of history. In my experience, those who misconstrue the words of others do so because they’re afraid to engage with them.
You didn't say "all protesters", but you certainly implied this. You said:
"Maybe the protestors’ views on Israel’s policies will be on the right side of history, but they will never be on the right side of history by threatening and harassing Jewish students and making them feel unsafe."
You could easily have said: "Maybe the protestors’ views on Israel’s policies will be on the right side of history, but those threatening and harassing Jewish students, making them feel unsafe, will never be on the right side of history."
This would be a moot point if Republican politicians and their supporters were not explicitly accusing all of the protesters of being antisemitic and proposing legislation defining all criticism of Israeli government actions as being antisemitic.
Yes, if you're marching with Neo-Nazis/Neo-Confederates carrying tiki torches and chanting "blood and soil" or labeling them "very fine people", you are a Neo-Nazi/Neo-Confederate. If you are standing in a crowd and someone yells out "from the river to the sea", you may or may not be antisemitic -- but as we've seen, Republicans and their supporters will definitely label you as such.
The stated Zionist goal is for Israel to evict all non-Israelis so Israel occupies all the land from the river to the sea. Evidently, to you, this means that all Zionists are antisemitic -- a rather odd interpretation.
More bullshit. You pick and choose what you want to defame Israel. It must feel good to do that for you. We know what by any means necessary is. We saw it October 7. Cry me a river for the poor Muslims and their fellow travelers chanting this crap in the streets along with ‘globalize the intifada.’ No excuses. No minimization. We know what you want and we know what you would do to get it.
For reasons stated by many of those quoted in your post, the boycott is both terribly unfair to students, particularly those who have no connection to the activities these judges complain of, and also likely counterproductive. In my opinion, judges should not publicly weigh in on these issues at all as a matter of general judicial temperament and because issues at least somewhat relevant to the underlying activities could come before them.
We shouldn't discriminate against judges exercising the freedom of speech that the Constitution secures to us all, even government attorneys and actual or potential judges. See, e.g., Republican Party v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002); Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006); Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983). We all SHOULD let judges speak (in part, so that we know the errors of their thinking before we are made its victims). But they MUST let us speak. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964); U.S. Constitution Amendments I, V, X.
Nobody is discriminating against the judges. People (including me) are questioning the propriety of their “boycott “. This is not a difficult distinction to understand.
I disagree in part and agree in part. The statement to which I responded was: "judges should not publicly weigh in on these issues at all." Judges should be, and are, free to weigh in, just like the rest of us. I agree with you that judges are not (according to the Constitution and federal law), and they should not feel, free to abuse their positions or powers to retaliate against people (or people very remotely associated with people) exercising our freedom of speech.
The issue is not whether the judges have a constitutional right to speak out on these issues, but whether it is appropriate and prudent for them to do so.
Please help me understand the difference. Too many people think judges should keep their mouths shut about substantive issues until they are deciding a case. That's not fair (to any public servant or even to the public). Nor is it consistent with our Constitution. We all enjoy the freedom of speech, and none of us should be dictating to others of us what is "appropriate and prudent."
I think most judges understand that they should refrain from taking public positions that could call into question their impartiality and thereby undermine the credibility of their decisions.
I have no idea what percentage of students have participated in the protests but until and unless it is ALL of them this is right up there with any other bigotry that blames all members of a group for the actions of some of them. Based on that reasoning I would assume all federal judges are narrow-minded assholes and not just those signatory to the letter to Columbia.
I should mention that I favor peaceful protests that don’t keep others from living their lives, studying, attending commencement etc, I don’t favor occupying buildings, vandalism or impeding others as they try to go about their lives. As professor Robert Reich has said in several of his substack posts, you can be opposed to what Israel is doing in Gaza without being an antisemite or a supporter of Hamas. It’s called nuance.
You assume that the intent or effect of the boycott is to blame or punish students for their behavior. That is not the articulated or apparent intent and it is debatable that it is even an effect. As the judges explicitly said, the point of the boycott is to punish the University for being, as they put it, an "incubator of bigotry"--a PLACE WHERE students think it's ok to cheer on terrorists, to accept training from terrorist organizations, to harass and intimidate fellow students because of those students' identity, etc.,; a PLACE WHERE faculty line up to support those students in doing so. What they are doing is the opposite of blaming the students. They are blaming the institution for creating what they view as a toxic environment.
And as for impact, the boycott only affects those who enroll at Columbia (or, perhaps, otherwise become part of its community?) in the future, so it's hard to say it's blaming or punishing students for others' behavior--it's "punishing" them (if you wish to call it that) for affirmatively choosing to be part of the Columbia community notwithstanding the events of this spring. You can view that as fair or unfair; you can call it narrow-minded; but it's a stretch to equate it with bigotry. (Incidentally, I see a pretty strong argument that the judges should have waited for next year's incoming class, given that most incoming students for this fall made decisions on or before May 1, and in many cases much earlier, that are difficult or impossible to reverse.)
I'm not saying this to support the boycott, but in the spirit of, as you put it, "nuance." I think it's best to focus on what the judges are actually saying, and doing, rather than setting up strawpersons.
As this letter proves, our biggest problem is not that some (or even many) judges are narrow-minded. Our biggest problem is that too many judges think they are entitled to wield the power of their offices for their personal benefit. Such judges don't see themselves as public servants. They see themselves as tyrants and dictators, and some are pretty proud of it.
I agree with Judge Rudofsky entirely. Despite my strong feelings on the subject of the protests, I think that his requirement for applicants (to confirm as individuals that they have done nothing which could be reasonably construed to celebrate or condone the events of October 7) is a more tailored approach to the problem than a broad boycott of the entire school.
Censoring speech simply--and extremely importantly and fundamentally--is not the prerogative of any public servant employed in any government office. It is shameful in the extreme that any federal judge would think or pretend to think otherwise. As SCOTUS emphasized (quoting James Madison): In “Republican Government,” naturally, “the censorial power” generally must be “in the people over [public servants], and not in [public servants] over the people.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 275 (1964).
If it were me, I'd require individuals to confirm that they haven't done anything to celebrate or condone the actions of any terrorist group. I don't care whether it's Hamas or the KKK; terrorists and their ilk should not be part of forming our legal system IMO.
But, as we see, these judges only have a problem with this one issue -- the absence of a statement on Jan 6 is glaring or Charlottesville or any other like event is a glaring omission.
You said "terrorist," so I'd really like to agree with you. But then, who defines "terrorist" and "terrorism." Some would say what one or more national governments are doing or have done is merely or mostly terrorism in some instances.
Does anyone else see the significance of the fact that all the judges joining the boycott are Trump appointees? I'm trying to get my head around this fact and remember the line from the Constitution about an independent judiciary. The idea had been rattling around my brain for some time, but is now making itself heard: maybe these particular judges have more in common than I previously assumed and maybe they have more than a passing allegiance to their benefactor?
Well, yes, it's significant. These are the same judges (some of them) who are issuing highly questionable decisions that track Trump's authoritarian and anti-regulatory views. It's among the reasons why Trump must never be allowed near the oval office again.
Well, anti-regulatory for everything but women's bodies; apparently to achieve the world they're looking for, they must be the regulators and "caretakers" of women's bodies.
I don't think our judiciary should be inserting themselves publicly into a political debate like this. If they have these rules, they should be left unsaid (I'm sure many judges have unwritten rules around who they would hire!). Making this a public spectacle harms the public trust in the judiciary's impartiality (however much of a fiction such a concept is regardless).
I do think schools should do more to strive for unbiased and equal enforcement of their rules, which has been severely lacking. And I understand the bottom-up demand (of student applicants) is not going to provide much incentive for the universities, and so it's left from the top-down demand (of employers, for students to hire) to demand change. But that scenario should be limited to private employers -- not the judiciary. Law firms have already asserted and embraced being political actors in other ways (e.g. Kirkland refusing to take gun cases). It makes perfect sense for the law firms to say "the environment you have created, maintained, and continue to allow is one that does not prepare your student bodies for the expectstions and demands of the jobs we are looking to hire for". But let that be those law firms as private actors -- keep the judiciary out of it.
The biggest (but not the only) problem with the new boycott is the remarkably attenuated relationship between (a) the claimed bad conduct - i.e., the message and conduct of the protests, and the Columbia University administration’s purportedly unacceptable response thereto - and (b) the individuals most directly harmed by the boycott - i.e., the (presumably more right-leaning) students from Columbia Law School (or even future Columbia undergrads who later attend ANY law school!!) whom might otherwise have been hired as clerks by these right-leaning federal judges. Oh, and the pathetic attempt at the end of the letter to differentiate, and disparage, William Brennan’s claimed prior refusal to hire HLS students as law clerks.
If this letter is real, then I have to say that the biggest problem (by far) is that federal judges are so comfortable abusing their powers and violating our Constitution that they even put their violations on paper in this fashion! I almost cannot believe my eyes. I trust David Lat, but, I mean, is this really real? We're well past April 1, but is this some kind of bizarre joke? Do federal judges really think that doing what was stated in the letter was not blatantly and outrageously unconstitutional?
The letter is real. It was previously reported on by Reuters and the Washington Free Beacon. And I’ve confirmed it’s authenticity with the Ho chambers (which also confirmed that the YLS and SLS boycotts are ongoing).
I've read some of Judge Ho's (recent) opinions about the freedom of speech and of the press, so his name on this letter is the most difficult for me to believe. But I believe you.
Buy University of Florida futures. President Ben Sasse has zero tolerance for disruption while adhering to First Amendment protections. If those moral invertebrates who constitute his peer group were to read and subscribe to his op-ed in the WSJ, higher education would be in a better place.
We must remember that Florida is where teaching about anything other than white supremacy is prohibited, where only straight white students are welcome. I'm sure that protests by students of color will be rigorously suppressed, while celebrations by KKK/neo-Nazis/neo-Confederates are treated the same way Republicans view the Jan 6 "tourists".
The Code of Conduct for US Judges, states in part, at Canon 3: "A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently. The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities. The judge should perform those duties with respect for others, and should not engage in behavior that is harassing, abusive, prejudiced, or biased. ..." Appreciate attempts to address what has become a truly disturbing and threatening rise of hate and antisemitism in our country including within law schools. At the same time, this effort should be engaged appropriately, in accordance with our communities' guiding rules and regulations, anti-discrimination laws, free speech, Title VI, code of conduct, etc., mindful not to harm the innocent victims who have already suffered greatly by the very conduct they seek to address. We are always stronger together. Furthering division never helps, often best to focus on our communalities and find a positive path forward.
A principled objection to the boycott of schools that have done little, if anything to control the virulently anti-Semitic actions of faculty and students is completely understandable.
However, in the past decade, whenever principle collides with fanaticism, it seems that principle never prevails. Maybe it’s time to meet fire with fire. The pro-Hamas crowd wants divestment and boycotts. Seems only fair that they experience boycotts as well.
1- I’m not boycotting anyone. Federal judges decided to do so.
2. It appears that the judges are boycotting specific universities who looked the other way as anti-Semitic incidents grew without any control by the universities’ administration. The reason for their boycott is to encourage those institutions to affect change in faculty, rules, procedures, and enforcement.
3. It’s unfortunate that innocent students may suffer consequences as a result of any boycott that does occur. But it’s far more unfortunate that Jewish students have been vilified, intimidated, and even attacked at some of those institutions.
4. As I mentioned in my original post, the pro-Hamas activists and leftist students who participated in this travesty are fanatics. It’s a long past time that they suffer some consequences for their actions.
There’s an old saying: “don’t let the perfect get in the way of the good.” It’s well past time that we “don’t let our adherence to laudable principles allow fanatics or the unprincipled college administrators who enable them to win. “
Another old saying is that no federal official whatsoever has any power to abridge "the freedom of speech." That saying is so vital that "We the People" included it in the First Amendment to our Constitution (which we wrote and ratified to "establish Justice" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty" when we constituted our federal government). Let's not let sentiments get in the way of common sense.
Are you serious? "It’s unfortunate that [many] innocent students may suffer consequences [of blatant and vicious violations of our Constitution by federal judges, some of whom definitely know better and each of whom swore to support and defend our Constitution]. But it’s far more unfortunate that [some] students have been vilified, intimidated, and even attacked at some of those institutions." It doesn't matter what your personal convictions or preferences are. None of us should encourage public servants to abuse their powers to attack the public in a manner that violates our Constitution. We've all seen where that leads.
Yes, I’m very serious. To repeat: in this decade, strong principled conviction loses to fanaticism every time. Fanatics recognize that they can use a liberal interpretation of our Constitution as a protective shield by labeling all of the chaos I’ve already described as protected by “free speech” or your definition of appropriate judicial conduct, As a consequence the fanatics win, spreading their bile and their criminal behavior without limit.
In essence, you are using your own brand of virtue signalling when you allow your commendable allegiance to the constitution to condemn the pragmatic necessity of stopping chaos from spreading.
Please understand the crucial differences between the harms you're discussing. Laws protect the students about whom you're concerned. But the Constitution protects the students you're against. The former are being harmed by mere students (which I'll readily agree is sufficiently bad that it should not be permitted). But the latter are students being harmed by federal judges--who definitely do (or certainly should) know better than to abuse government positions and powers to injure or intimidate members of the public as they are.
"A principled objection to the boycott of schools that have done little, if anything to control the virulently anti-Semitic actions of faculty and students is completely understandable."
Please provide examples of these "virulently anti-Semitic actions of faculty" ... this should be easy as I'm sure there are scores if not hundreds for you to choose from (including citations goes without saying).
I wasn’t aware this was a classroom or that you were handing out assignments. The number of instances of anti-Semitic actions by faculty can certainly be researched. Since you have such compelling interest, I would advise that you do so. And when you do, please provide full sourcing.
Everyone has a right to peacefully assemble and express their opinion. No one has a right to disrupt the peaceful activities of other students or to threaten or harass others. There is no right to set up an encampment and to refuse to disperse when told by authorities to disperse. Those who invaded the capital are serving and receiving very serious prison sentences most for very minor offenses such as parading or trespassing. Some have been held without bail. It will be interesting to see if any of those arrested will receive more than a fine as punishment. Although I agree with the notion that people should be viewed as individuals when seeking a job, I think in this case it is important that those in a position to effect organizational change take a position.
Posting on behalf of a reader (readers often email me because they don't want to post here in the comments under their connected accounts):
"Students at non-T14 schools hear over and over again, Judge X only hires from Harvard and Yale, or Judge Y only hires from T14. I have actually been told that a certain judge does not hire from my school. These judges have always hired that way and no one found anything wrong with it. Things are changing very very slightly, but I think that is still the prevailing attitude amongst judges.
I fail to see how that is any different than what these judges are doing with their boycott. The reason that judges have said that they only hire from the top law schools was that these schools have the best students and provide the best education which must result in the brightest, and most prepared clerks. Of course that is certainly not always true, there are certainly many excellent students that go to lower-ranked law schools for financial or personal reasons and the law is equal opportunity in the sense that anyone can learn it. There are no special 'Harvard laws' that you only know if you go to Harvard. Anyone can read a case or a statute. But still, judges have used the top law schools as filters to weed out candidates because of their perceived notions about students at certain schools over others. I think the boycotting judges are just saying that these schools are no longer good filters for us and we no longer believe they are providing an excellent education to the best students. I think that is the same (and just as wrong) as rejecting applicants because they went to a lower-ranked school.
It is quite refreshing to see the elite of the legal profession get so worked up when a judge says they won't hire from a T-14 school, when the rest of us are very used to hearing it. You quote John Wilson as saying '[j]ob candidates should always be judged as individuals.' I couldn't agree more. But it shouldn't only be said when it comes to students of Columbia, Stanford, and Yale."
This seems very disanalagous in a number of ways.
1) Its openly acknowledging that the deciscion isn't based on the canidate's individual level of qualification. Sure, there will be great canidates who do go to lower ranked schools but, by the same token, there are always going to be great canidates who fail any particular test/qualification (eg were sick during the interview/LSAT/etc). Whether the judge is correct or not the limitation to these high prestige schools is because they believe that it's a correlate of high quality and it's no different than tossing all applicants who had a C average or lower in their first year of law school (I'm sure someone in that group was actually really good but it's about probability).
Here they are openly saying they would otherwise hire from that pool if they only considered merit or even the individual's own behavior and are doing otherwise to impose collective punishment.
2) We generally feel that coordinated action is more dangerous and subject it to higher scrutiny than mere individual preference.
Consider a woman who happens to be more attracted to tall men or black/white men or whatever. Their friends might realize that a white guy might not have a shot with her but it doesn't seem untoward, she's just making her own judgement about who she tends to feel chemistry with (and it's fine if she doesn't even go on a date to check she isn't wrong). But contrast this with all the women at a school or in an area agreeing together that they will all refuse to date black guys or white guys or whatever because some members of that group did something bad. Of course it's their right to make those choices but we would rightly be more inclined to critisize the organized boycott.
3) It seems inappropriate for federal judges. If this was about congressional staffers ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ but this feels like the kind of political participation that is quite inappropriate for the judiciary.
David it is staggering that in a profession which is supposed to be an example of fairness, the very top representatives, namely judges, see no problem in only hiring from some schools. Simply unbelievable. But who ever said what we homo sapiens do was reasonable and sensible.
Very valid points. Even so, there's a huge constitutional difference. Here, judges openly declared they will discriminate against some people because of the speech of other people based on the content and viewpoint of their speech. At the end, a gang of federal judges even had the audacity to use the word "viewpoint" and expressly target "ideological homogeneity." This letter goes so extremely far beyond merely excluding one or more schools. It expressly targets schools of thought.
If a law school literally lost its ABA accreditation because it turned out to be a diploma mill, no one would bat an eye at judges deciding to simply not consider applicants from that school based on an assumption that despite whatever individual merit a candidate may have, the institution is so lacking in credibility that it becomes impossible to actually adjudicate.
By analogy, the point of these judges is simply that by demonstrating how warped its priorities have become as between activism versus academic rigor, Columbia (like other schools before it) has institutionally discredited itself. One can agree or disagree with that conclusion (and here, given the relationship between the law school and undergraduate campus, I tend to think the conclusion goes well beyond available evidence), but as others have pointed out, that’s a conclusion judges reach about other non-prestige schools all the time.
Forget about "schools." This isn't about schools. It is about our Constitution. It is about our most precious rights and freedoms. It is about our freedom to think and speak for ourselves and about whether any public servant was delegated the power to punish our political thoughts and speech. Think about it in a context about which you care. Don't just think it doesn't matter because you don't care about this context. I just posted another comment quoting from Judge Ho's own judicial opinions that illustrate my point.
excellent comment
Posting on behalf of a reader:
"Despite the superficial effort to limit this boycott to future enrollees, the announcement obviously and directly denigrates the education and worth of all the current students. Columbia (and Columbia Fed Soc, too) surely has one of the highest Jewish student populations of any top school in the country; many students choose to study there precisely to remain within a community that has historically been very much a home for them. Those students, and others who are not involved and just want to learn, have been confronted with grotesque challenges all year long. Many have been supporting Israeli and Jewish students, family members, and friends. The law school's reading period was interrupted day and night, their exams were postponed last week with little or no warning, and on Holocaust Remembrance Day(!) they learned their commencement was canceled and a group of judges had targeted the school with a boycott. Why deliver a collectivist kick to these individuals while they're down?! Obviously Columbia has real problems, one of which is the need to recruit more heterodox students, not fewer."
Federal judges' "effort to limit this boycott to future enrollees" seems to me to be carefully crafted to avoid the crimes in 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242. That seems to me to be too clever by half. Such clever crafting does not necessarily evade 18 U.S.C. 371. But don't take my word for that. Check out the U.S. government's own merits brief in Trump v. United States, SCOTUS No. 23-939 (Apr. 8, 2024). Most, if not all, of what DOJ attorneys (and D.C. Circuit judges before them) said about the criminal law governing POTUS conduct applies equally to JOTUS conduct.
In terms of the protests themselves, I agree with this comment by Sioux Fleming (and I see a number of other readers basically share this view as well):
"I favor peaceful protests that don’t keep others from living their lives, studying, attending commencement, etc. I don’t favor occupying buildings, vandalism, or impeding others as they try to go about their lives. As Professor Robert Reich has said in several of his Substack posts, you can be opposed to what Israel is doing in Gaza without being an antisemite or a supporter of Hamas. It’s called nuance."
I suppose the argument on the other side would be that the more outrageous or extreme protests do a better job of bringing public attention to the crisis in Gaza. But I wonder whether now it's possible for the pro-Palestinian protesters to conclude that they've achieved that goal—I don't know anyone who's unaware of what's going on in Gaza—and move on to forms of protest that are more focused on persuasion.
It's a natural evolution for many social-justice movements. Do something radical to get everyone to pay attention to your issue—and once you've done that, focus on winning over hearts and minds.
I’d put that in context in my perfect world. That is, those protesters who were willing to break the law or rules in service of “bringing public attention to the crisis in Gaza” only gain my respect (not necessarily in their message but their methods) by accepting the legal consequences of their disobedience (in the MLK fashion). NOT by bargaining for immunity or by demanding access to their meal plan while in occupied buildings.
Except the whole "bring attention to the issue" idea is that you get people to pay attention and agree with you. That doesn't work when you pick methods that are extremely alienating to the wider public.
I could certainly imagine equally disruptive protests that, even while inconveniencing others, impressed the broader public with the moral clarity and commitment to the issue shown by protestors and thus encouraged them to reevaluate their position. That's what was done very effectively by many civil rights protests.
And while it's silly to suggest civil disobedience requires accepting the legal consequences (so anti-monarchy protests in Thailand should reveal their true identities and accept long prison or death sentences??) it's often a very useful tactic in a democracy to show your degree of commitment in a persuasive way.
These protestors don't actually seen interested in being effective in those ways (like most student protests).
In my UVA v. Berkeley post, I referenced in a footnote the debate over whether acceptance of punishment is an essential part of civil disobedience. The majority view is that it is (even if this might be changing).
Here’s a good quote from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.:
“One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly . . . and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for the law.“
I very much doubt that King really meant that in full generality. Do you really think he would have said that the people who participated in the underground railroad should have turned themselves in for punishment (to use Ilya Somin's example)?
I suspect that King was intensely aware of the politics of the time and how threatening black lawlessness could be to the white majority and so he's not trying to write a philosophy paper but send a message about his movement in the current time and context.
Here's a post by Professor Eugene Volokh that I added to my main story as an update (but I'm posting it here in the comments as well so it can become part of the conversation):
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/05/07/columbia-the-boycotting-judges-neutrals-and-secondary-boycotts/
Here's the core of his argument:
<<My view is that we shouldn't threaten innocent neutrals as a means of influencing the culpable.
Columbia students aren't the ones who set Columbia policy. They may disagree with that policy, or they may not know enough about the subject to have a view. Even if they go to Columbia knowing about Columbia policy (and about the boycott), they shouldn't be held responsible for what Columbia does, and they shouldn't be retaliated against as a means of trying to pressure Columbia to change. Such "secondary boycotts," as labor law refers to them in a somewhat different context, are both unfair to the "neutral[s]" that are being boycotted, and likely to "widen[] … strife." (I'm not claiming here that there's anything illegal about the proposed boycott of Columbia graduates, but only that some of the reasons labor law disapproves of secondary boycotts also carry over to this situation.)>>
This is essentially the same weak argument I called out above. Volokh assumes the students are neutrals, but the boycotting judges would disagree. As they might put it, if they wished to draw a somewhat incendiary analogy: If you join the KKK, you don't get to call yourself "neutral" just because you haven't yet started enacting its ideals. The judges have decided that Columbia, as an institution, is enacting harm, and they are therefore imposing consequences on people who, knowing the situation, voluntarily decide to join that community. That is not holding the students "responsible for what Columbia does"; it is imposing consequences on the students' own choices.
“And when—years in the future, but hopefully not too many years—Americans look at Israel the way we look back on apartheid-era South Africa, we’ll be proud to say we were on the right side of history.”
Maybe the protestors’ views on Israel’s policies will be on the right side of history, but they will never be on the right side of history by threatening and harassing Jewish students and making them feel unsafe. They’ll never be on the right side of history by contributing to the violation of Jewish students’ constitutional right to an education free from religious discrimination.
"... they will never be on the right side of history by threatening and harassing Jewish students and making them feel unsafe."
It is unfortunate that you chose to paint with a broad brush and label all the protesters as antisemitic. I doubt that you label all the administrators, politicians, and police who are attacking the protesters (physically and verbally) as virulently anti-Muslim -- though the same criteria apply.
Talk about painting with a broad brush—I didn’t say all protestors. Those who engage in threatening and harassing Jewish students, who are by no means the majority, will never be on the right side of history. In my experience, those who misconstrue the words of others do so because they’re afraid to engage with them.
You didn't say "all protesters", but you certainly implied this. You said:
"Maybe the protestors’ views on Israel’s policies will be on the right side of history, but they will never be on the right side of history by threatening and harassing Jewish students and making them feel unsafe."
You could easily have said: "Maybe the protestors’ views on Israel’s policies will be on the right side of history, but those threatening and harassing Jewish students, making them feel unsafe, will never be on the right side of history."
This would be a moot point if Republican politicians and their supporters were not explicitly accusing all of the protesters of being antisemitic and proposing legislation defining all criticism of Israeli government actions as being antisemitic.
If you are marching with the Klan should we label you a white supremacist and racist?
If you answer yes to that then if you are marching with a group chanting from the river to the sea you are an antisemite
Yes, if you're marching with Neo-Nazis/Neo-Confederates carrying tiki torches and chanting "blood and soil" or labeling them "very fine people", you are a Neo-Nazi/Neo-Confederate. If you are standing in a crowd and someone yells out "from the river to the sea", you may or may not be antisemitic -- but as we've seen, Republicans and their supporters will definitely label you as such.
So when Israelis call for Israel "from the river to the sea", are they antisemitic?
Not exactly an answer to my question. But yes it's possible for members of a group to still behave in a racist way, even to their own people.
I knew a guy who was part Mexican and also definitely a racist against Mexicans.
The stated Zionist goal is for Israel to evict all non-Israelis so Israel occupies all the land from the river to the sea. Evidently, to you, this means that all Zionists are antisemitic -- a rather odd interpretation.
More bullshit. You pick and choose what you want to defame Israel. It must feel good to do that for you. We know what by any means necessary is. We saw it October 7. Cry me a river for the poor Muslims and their fellow travelers chanting this crap in the streets along with ‘globalize the intifada.’ No excuses. No minimization. We know what you want and we know what you would do to get it.
That’s hilarious. You can’t possibly mean that.
?? Not sure what you're referring to?
For reasons stated by many of those quoted in your post, the boycott is both terribly unfair to students, particularly those who have no connection to the activities these judges complain of, and also likely counterproductive. In my opinion, judges should not publicly weigh in on these issues at all as a matter of general judicial temperament and because issues at least somewhat relevant to the underlying activities could come before them.
We shouldn't discriminate against judges exercising the freedom of speech that the Constitution secures to us all, even government attorneys and actual or potential judges. See, e.g., Republican Party v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002); Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006); Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983). We all SHOULD let judges speak (in part, so that we know the errors of their thinking before we are made its victims). But they MUST let us speak. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964); U.S. Constitution Amendments I, V, X.
Nobody is discriminating against the judges. People (including me) are questioning the propriety of their “boycott “. This is not a difficult distinction to understand.
I disagree in part and agree in part. The statement to which I responded was: "judges should not publicly weigh in on these issues at all." Judges should be, and are, free to weigh in, just like the rest of us. I agree with you that judges are not (according to the Constitution and federal law), and they should not feel, free to abuse their positions or powers to retaliate against people (or people very remotely associated with people) exercising our freedom of speech.
The issue is not whether the judges have a constitutional right to speak out on these issues, but whether it is appropriate and prudent for them to do so.
Please help me understand the difference. Too many people think judges should keep their mouths shut about substantive issues until they are deciding a case. That's not fair (to any public servant or even to the public). Nor is it consistent with our Constitution. We all enjoy the freedom of speech, and none of us should be dictating to others of us what is "appropriate and prudent."
I think most judges understand that they should refrain from taking public positions that could call into question their impartiality and thereby undermine the credibility of their decisions.
I have no idea what percentage of students have participated in the protests but until and unless it is ALL of them this is right up there with any other bigotry that blames all members of a group for the actions of some of them. Based on that reasoning I would assume all federal judges are narrow-minded assholes and not just those signatory to the letter to Columbia.
I should mention that I favor peaceful protests that don’t keep others from living their lives, studying, attending commencement etc, I don’t favor occupying buildings, vandalism or impeding others as they try to go about their lives. As professor Robert Reich has said in several of his substack posts, you can be opposed to what Israel is doing in Gaza without being an antisemite or a supporter of Hamas. It’s called nuance.
You assume that the intent or effect of the boycott is to blame or punish students for their behavior. That is not the articulated or apparent intent and it is debatable that it is even an effect. As the judges explicitly said, the point of the boycott is to punish the University for being, as they put it, an "incubator of bigotry"--a PLACE WHERE students think it's ok to cheer on terrorists, to accept training from terrorist organizations, to harass and intimidate fellow students because of those students' identity, etc.,; a PLACE WHERE faculty line up to support those students in doing so. What they are doing is the opposite of blaming the students. They are blaming the institution for creating what they view as a toxic environment.
And as for impact, the boycott only affects those who enroll at Columbia (or, perhaps, otherwise become part of its community?) in the future, so it's hard to say it's blaming or punishing students for others' behavior--it's "punishing" them (if you wish to call it that) for affirmatively choosing to be part of the Columbia community notwithstanding the events of this spring. You can view that as fair or unfair; you can call it narrow-minded; but it's a stretch to equate it with bigotry. (Incidentally, I see a pretty strong argument that the judges should have waited for next year's incoming class, given that most incoming students for this fall made decisions on or before May 1, and in many cases much earlier, that are difficult or impossible to reverse.)
I'm not saying this to support the boycott, but in the spirit of, as you put it, "nuance." I think it's best to focus on what the judges are actually saying, and doing, rather than setting up strawpersons.
As this letter proves, our biggest problem is not that some (or even many) judges are narrow-minded. Our biggest problem is that too many judges think they are entitled to wield the power of their offices for their personal benefit. Such judges don't see themselves as public servants. They see themselves as tyrants and dictators, and some are pretty proud of it.
Well, these particular judges were all appointed by Trump, so some would say something about apples and trees and prescience.
I agree with Judge Rudofsky entirely. Despite my strong feelings on the subject of the protests, I think that his requirement for applicants (to confirm as individuals that they have done nothing which could be reasonably construed to celebrate or condone the events of October 7) is a more tailored approach to the problem than a broad boycott of the entire school.
Censoring speech simply--and extremely importantly and fundamentally--is not the prerogative of any public servant employed in any government office. It is shameful in the extreme that any federal judge would think or pretend to think otherwise. As SCOTUS emphasized (quoting James Madison): In “Republican Government,” naturally, “the censorial power” generally must be “in the people over [public servants], and not in [public servants] over the people.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 275 (1964).
So, is October 7 the one and only event that you feel should be disqualifying? If there is another, please provide it.
If it were me, I'd require individuals to confirm that they haven't done anything to celebrate or condone the actions of any terrorist group. I don't care whether it's Hamas or the KKK; terrorists and their ilk should not be part of forming our legal system IMO.
But, as we see, these judges only have a problem with this one issue -- the absence of a statement on Jan 6 is glaring or Charlottesville or any other like event is a glaring omission.
You said "terrorist," so I'd really like to agree with you. But then, who defines "terrorist" and "terrorism." Some would say what one or more national governments are doing or have done is merely or mostly terrorism in some instances.
I'd be willing to start with those groups that the US government deems to be terrorist groups. After all, it's the US legal system at issue.
Does anyone else see the significance of the fact that all the judges joining the boycott are Trump appointees? I'm trying to get my head around this fact and remember the line from the Constitution about an independent judiciary. The idea had been rattling around my brain for some time, but is now making itself heard: maybe these particular judges have more in common than I previously assumed and maybe they have more than a passing allegiance to their benefactor?
Well, yes, it's significant. These are the same judges (some of them) who are issuing highly questionable decisions that track Trump's authoritarian and anti-regulatory views. It's among the reasons why Trump must never be allowed near the oval office again.
Well, anti-regulatory for everything but women's bodies; apparently to achieve the world they're looking for, they must be the regulators and "caretakers" of women's bodies.
Yes, thank you for that important caveat.
Too bad other schools won't boycott the boycotters. Collective punishment, anyone?
I don't think our judiciary should be inserting themselves publicly into a political debate like this. If they have these rules, they should be left unsaid (I'm sure many judges have unwritten rules around who they would hire!). Making this a public spectacle harms the public trust in the judiciary's impartiality (however much of a fiction such a concept is regardless).
I do think schools should do more to strive for unbiased and equal enforcement of their rules, which has been severely lacking. And I understand the bottom-up demand (of student applicants) is not going to provide much incentive for the universities, and so it's left from the top-down demand (of employers, for students to hire) to demand change. But that scenario should be limited to private employers -- not the judiciary. Law firms have already asserted and embraced being political actors in other ways (e.g. Kirkland refusing to take gun cases). It makes perfect sense for the law firms to say "the environment you have created, maintained, and continue to allow is one that does not prepare your student bodies for the expectstions and demands of the jobs we are looking to hire for". But let that be those law firms as private actors -- keep the judiciary out of it.
So much for conservative “judicial humility”.
The biggest (but not the only) problem with the new boycott is the remarkably attenuated relationship between (a) the claimed bad conduct - i.e., the message and conduct of the protests, and the Columbia University administration’s purportedly unacceptable response thereto - and (b) the individuals most directly harmed by the boycott - i.e., the (presumably more right-leaning) students from Columbia Law School (or even future Columbia undergrads who later attend ANY law school!!) whom might otherwise have been hired as clerks by these right-leaning federal judges. Oh, and the pathetic attempt at the end of the letter to differentiate, and disparage, William Brennan’s claimed prior refusal to hire HLS students as law clerks.
If this letter is real, then I have to say that the biggest problem (by far) is that federal judges are so comfortable abusing their powers and violating our Constitution that they even put their violations on paper in this fashion! I almost cannot believe my eyes. I trust David Lat, but, I mean, is this really real? We're well past April 1, but is this some kind of bizarre joke? Do federal judges really think that doing what was stated in the letter was not blatantly and outrageously unconstitutional?
The letter is real. It was previously reported on by Reuters and the Washington Free Beacon. And I’ve confirmed it’s authenticity with the Ho chambers (which also confirmed that the YLS and SLS boycotts are ongoing).
I've read some of Judge Ho's (recent) opinions about the freedom of speech and of the press, so his name on this letter is the most difficult for me to believe. But I believe you.
Buy University of Florida futures. President Ben Sasse has zero tolerance for disruption while adhering to First Amendment protections. If those moral invertebrates who constitute his peer group were to read and subscribe to his op-ed in the WSJ, higher education would be in a better place.
I respect Ben Sasse a lot, but I’ll pass on the University of Florida for now.
We must remember that Florida is where teaching about anything other than white supremacy is prohibited, where only straight white students are welcome. I'm sure that protests by students of color will be rigorously suppressed, while celebrations by KKK/neo-Nazis/neo-Confederates are treated the same way Republicans view the Jan 6 "tourists".
The Code of Conduct for US Judges, states in part, at Canon 3: "A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently. The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities. The judge should perform those duties with respect for others, and should not engage in behavior that is harassing, abusive, prejudiced, or biased. ..." Appreciate attempts to address what has become a truly disturbing and threatening rise of hate and antisemitism in our country including within law schools. At the same time, this effort should be engaged appropriately, in accordance with our communities' guiding rules and regulations, anti-discrimination laws, free speech, Title VI, code of conduct, etc., mindful not to harm the innocent victims who have already suffered greatly by the very conduct they seek to address. We are always stronger together. Furthering division never helps, often best to focus on our communalities and find a positive path forward.
A principled objection to the boycott of schools that have done little, if anything to control the virulently anti-Semitic actions of faculty and students is completely understandable.
However, in the past decade, whenever principle collides with fanaticism, it seems that principle never prevails. Maybe it’s time to meet fire with fire. The pro-Hamas crowd wants divestment and boycotts. Seems only fair that they experience boycotts as well.
"Seems only fair that they experience boycotts as well."
Not clear who you plan to boycott here? The students?
Let me be precise:
1- I’m not boycotting anyone. Federal judges decided to do so.
2. It appears that the judges are boycotting specific universities who looked the other way as anti-Semitic incidents grew without any control by the universities’ administration. The reason for their boycott is to encourage those institutions to affect change in faculty, rules, procedures, and enforcement.
3. It’s unfortunate that innocent students may suffer consequences as a result of any boycott that does occur. But it’s far more unfortunate that Jewish students have been vilified, intimidated, and even attacked at some of those institutions.
4. As I mentioned in my original post, the pro-Hamas activists and leftist students who participated in this travesty are fanatics. It’s a long past time that they suffer some consequences for their actions.
There’s an old saying: “don’t let the perfect get in the way of the good.” It’s well past time that we “don’t let our adherence to laudable principles allow fanatics or the unprincipled college administrators who enable them to win. “
But the point still stands. You suggested that “‘THEY’ experience boycotts as well.” Who are “they” and how do you propose to boycott them?
Don't expect a response other than another deflection (note that I quoted the line in my response and he ignored it),
As I predicted ... crickets. Pathetic. Note that he has posted since your post, but has no answer.
Another old saying is that no federal official whatsoever has any power to abridge "the freedom of speech." That saying is so vital that "We the People" included it in the First Amendment to our Constitution (which we wrote and ratified to "establish Justice" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty" when we constituted our federal government). Let's not let sentiments get in the way of common sense.
Are you serious? "It’s unfortunate that [many] innocent students may suffer consequences [of blatant and vicious violations of our Constitution by federal judges, some of whom definitely know better and each of whom swore to support and defend our Constitution]. But it’s far more unfortunate that [some] students have been vilified, intimidated, and even attacked at some of those institutions." It doesn't matter what your personal convictions or preferences are. None of us should encourage public servants to abuse their powers to attack the public in a manner that violates our Constitution. We've all seen where that leads.
Yes, I’m very serious. To repeat: in this decade, strong principled conviction loses to fanaticism every time. Fanatics recognize that they can use a liberal interpretation of our Constitution as a protective shield by labeling all of the chaos I’ve already described as protected by “free speech” or your definition of appropriate judicial conduct, As a consequence the fanatics win, spreading their bile and their criminal behavior without limit.
In essence, you are using your own brand of virtue signalling when you allow your commendable allegiance to the constitution to condemn the pragmatic necessity of stopping chaos from spreading.
We’ll just have to disagree on this point.
Please understand the crucial differences between the harms you're discussing. Laws protect the students about whom you're concerned. But the Constitution protects the students you're against. The former are being harmed by mere students (which I'll readily agree is sufficiently bad that it should not be permitted). But the latter are students being harmed by federal judges--who definitely do (or certainly should) know better than to abuse government positions and powers to injure or intimidate members of the public as they are.
"A principled objection to the boycott of schools that have done little, if anything to control the virulently anti-Semitic actions of faculty and students is completely understandable."
Please provide examples of these "virulently anti-Semitic actions of faculty" ... this should be easy as I'm sure there are scores if not hundreds for you to choose from (including citations goes without saying).
I wasn’t aware this was a classroom or that you were handing out assignments. The number of instances of anti-Semitic actions by faculty can certainly be researched. Since you have such compelling interest, I would advise that you do so. And when you do, please provide full sourcing.
Everyone has a right to peacefully assemble and express their opinion. No one has a right to disrupt the peaceful activities of other students or to threaten or harass others. There is no right to set up an encampment and to refuse to disperse when told by authorities to disperse. Those who invaded the capital are serving and receiving very serious prison sentences most for very minor offenses such as parading or trespassing. Some have been held without bail. It will be interesting to see if any of those arrested will receive more than a fine as punishment. Although I agree with the notion that people should be viewed as individuals when seeking a job, I think in this case it is important that those in a position to effect organizational change take a position.