Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

Matthew Vadum


March 8, 2013 - 6:47 am

After all the howling and vituperative whining from left-wingers it turns out Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was absolutely correct when he said Harvard Law School had significant numbers of what might reasonably be called “communists.”

These “communists” adhere to a bizarre school of legal thought called critical legal theory. The brilliant Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals describes critical legal studies (CLS) as “horse manure.”

Critical legal theory is anti-law. It’s like throwing a shrapnel grenade into a packed courtroom. Teaching it to law students is Marxist indoctrination, not education.

It takes the neo-Marxist perspective that the law is concerned with power, not justice. Because the law is a fraud perpetrated on the people, an oppressive tool of capitalism, imperialism, sexism, racism, and whatever other ism it is currently fashionable to attack, the legal system should be criticized endlessly as a means of tearing it down.

If you’re a communist it’s natural to embrace critical legal theory as a way of wrecking American society.

The issue arose recently when Jane Mayer, a reporter on the New Yorker’s anti-conservative beat, unearthed a three year old speech the freshman senator made in which he described Barack Obama as “the most radical” president “ever to occupy the Oval Office.”

Obama “would have made a perfect president of Harvard Law School” because “there were fewer declared Republicans in the faculty when we were there than communists!” said Cruz. “There was one Republican. But there were 12 who would say they were Marxists who believed in the communists’ overthrowing the United States government.”

Like most Americans, Cruz wasn’t using the plural form of the word communist with the precision of a political theory scholar. He was referring to people who believe that markets are fundamentally unjust and that physical force should be used to create a classless society. They believe in extreme, forced equality and boring sameness at the expense of freedom and individual rights.

A Cruz spokeswoman explained that her employer’s “substantive point was absolutely correct:  in the mid-1990s, the Harvard Law School faculty included numerous self-described proponents of ‘critical legal studies’ – a school of thought explicitly derived from Marxism – and they far outnumbered Republicans.” (For more on law school radicalism see Walter Olson’s wonderful book, Schools for Misrule: Legal Academia and an Overlawyered America.)

Naturally, Cruz, who earned his J.D. magna cum laude at Harvard Law School in 1995, has been vilified by left-wingers and mocked by the antique media for speaking truth to power.

He is portrayed as a liar, a bully, a lunatic, and –gasp!— a McCarthyite.

(Of course, the late Sen. Joe McCarthy had nothing to do with much of what has come to be known as McCarthyism. And he was correct about the presence of real, live, pro-Soviet Communist agents in the U.S. government, as M. Stanton Evans proved in his exhaustively researched book, Blacklisted By History.)

Left-wingers who apparently have no understanding of critical legal studies and its connection to communism trashed Cruz on cue.

For accurately describing his Harvard experience, the senator has been viciously attacked as a McCarthy wannabe by leftists such as Obama stenographer Greg Sargent, MSNBC halfwits Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow, feral character assassin Michael Tomasky, the clueless Steve Kornacki, and a large echo chamber of radical journalists and useful idiots.

Cruz may not have put together a list of Bolsheviks at Harvard, but I’ve compiled one.

Harvard has been the center of the CLS movement for decades, a fact Time acknowledged in 2005. The magazine identified Harvard law professors Roberto Mangabeira Unger (#1), Morton Horwitz (#2), and Duncan M. Kennedy (#3) as “three of the best-known” CLS adherents.  (Kennedy is also a member of the far-left Democratic Socialists of America and the radical, pro-terrorist National Lawyers Guild. Bernardine Dohrn, incidentally, used to be an organizer for the NLG.)

Other “Crits” on the Harvard faculty are Mark Tushnet (#4) and David W. Kennedy (#5). In a 1981 law review article titled “The Dilemmas of Liberal Constitutionalism,” Tushnet wrote that if he were a judge he “would decide what decision in a case was most likely to advance the cause of socialism.”

Crits Northeastern University law professor Clare Dalton (#6) and University of Wisconsin law professor emeritus David Trubek (#7) taught at Harvard Law but failed to earn tenure.

CLS-friendly law professors with ties to Harvard are easy to find. Yale’s Jack Balkin (#8) and Georgetown’s Gary Peller (#9) and Louis Michael Seidman (#10) (author of the infamous column “Let’s Give Up On the Constitution”) all received their law degrees from Harvard. So did academic Peter Gabel (#11) (who is also associate editor at leftist magazine Tikkun).

Stanford professor Robert W. Gordon (#12), who has a Harvard law degree, organized a campaign at Harvard Law in support of Dalton and Trubek when they were trying to get tenure. Gordon whined at the time that Harvard had engaged in “red-baiting” the two academics.

CLS enthusiast Mark G. Kelman (#13), a highly cited law professor and vice dean of Stanford Law School, also earned his law degree from Harvard.

And don’t forget that while Barack Obama was a law student at Harvard, he studied under CLS guru Unger. Moreover, the late Derrick Bell (#14), Obama’s racist, Marxist mentor at Harvard Law, was a proponent of critical race theory, the multiculturalist Left’s race-obsessed spinoff of critical legal theory.

Harvard is not the only university infected by CLS-loving communists.

In the groves of academe today such communists are mainstream or close to it.

Matthew Vadum is an award-winning investigative reporter and the author of "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers" (WND Books, 2011) and "Government Unions: How They Rob the Taxpayer, Terrorize Workers, and Threaten our Democracy" (David Horowitz Freedom Center, 2012). His next major work will have a shorter title.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (3)
All Comments   (3)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
The author vilifies an intellectual subject which is way beyond his depth. Instead, he takes the familiar low road of attacking thinkers for having different perspectives on familiar subjects. And he does this from the safety of a website where he's not likely to be noticed, let alone be taken on by anyone with expertise on legal theory who might be able to provide a more nuanced view of these intellectual debates.

Sorry, but name-calling and red-baiting don't play well in most forums where ideas are debated.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The scary part is that I'd wager that a significant percentage of the Republican state Attorneys General graduated from Hahvud, Yale, or Stanford Law. Frankly, unless I'd known the family for a few generations and was absolutely confident as to his/her ideological leanings, I wouldn't hire an Ivy League lawyer into a policy-making role. In fact, one of the great failings of government is putting lawyers in policy-making positions. One of the biggest struggles I had with government lawyers was their always trying to dictate policy rather than give legal advice. Lots of sessions with lawyers got to the "I called you over here to tell me whether or not it was legal, not whether or not I should do it" point pretty quickly. And usually I knew as well or better than they did whether it was legal or not, but you need the imprimatur of the AG's Office on it to proceed. There are way too many lawyers in this Country and far too many of them work in government in policy making positions because it beats having to hustle billable hours. And, yeah, lots of them are communists and some even know they are. I worked with one in the Alaska AG's Office that could quote Mao like a Baptist minister could quote the New Testament. She was smart but you had to know the slant she'd put on things and carefully weigh her advice. She was actually very useful in helping me come up with counter strategies to deal with Alinsky tactics, though I don't think that's what she thought she was being used for.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Critical Pedagogy, Critical Race Theory, Critical Legal Theory - Chico, Harpo and Groucho. Huge coincidence the also Marxist-based Black Liberation Theology of anti-white racist James Cone inspired the United Trinity Racial Cult Obama and his magnificent wife spent 20 years in.

The dismantling of success marches on. The culmination of 5,000 years of pain taken down by history's failures. Unfortunately these fools can't connect the dots that say "What if you're wrong?"

What if you're wrong whites since the colonial days were obsessed with white power and male power and all the other BS liberals come up with? I guess it's too obvious to suppose the reason we have white literature about white people, for example, is because it was a white country. What were they going to write about, black people? Like black people and gays and women today write about white straight men?

Or maybe males dominated because as recently as WW II our survival depended on aggression and the ability to jump out of airplanes with 100 lbs of gear, carry a giant machine gun at speed to a new location while people were charging your position or use bayonets during the Battle of the Bulge. That's not including inventing social and tech structures that took us from the Wild West to the bomb in only 50 years - something Latin America is still working on after almost 5 centuries. Africa has the blueprint we didn't have and are mostly pooping out babies while foreigners set up cell phones and ESPN Africa.

Chinese make movies with Chinese. They must be Chinese supremacists. The idea they're merely drinking water from a river right there rather than importing different colored water from afar for no damn reason is too obvious.

If liberals are wrong, and success is simply where you find it rather than where you want it to be, then an America that has been transformed into the Third World won't be able to stop the next Co-Prosperity Sphere or Empire grab in Europe or the Middle East or Africa. Liberals think Mayan Indians will be the next Bull Halsey, though there's no explanation why this hasn't been produced in Mayan exceptional land.

100 years from now, without America, empires and slavery will once again walk the Earth. I guarantee it. And, ironically, who's going to sit in the slave pens and feel the boot of empire? That's right, histories B team will occupy their usual position after a brief few decades living among the successful remnants of the structure built by people they hate and which they destroyed. There'll be no easy path like Obama had in that paradigm.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All