Search Results

COLLUSION: Court filing alleges Fordham wants to hide ties to Chinese Communist Party.

YOUNG IMMIGRANT STANDS UP TO RACISM AND FASCISM: Austin Tong is suing Fordham — to protect your rights.

COLLUSION: Feds launch probe of Stanford, Fordham over alleged undisclosed gifts from China.

ANTI-IMMIGRANT RACISM IS EVERYWHERE: Fordham University bans pro-freedom Chinese immigrant from campus without an escort.

DISPATCHES FROM THE EDUCATION APOCALYPSE: Fordham U. sued by Chinese immigrant student it punished for posting pro-freedom message.

The lawsuit states Tong’s decision to attend Fordham was largely due to the “university’s promise of freedom of expression and stated commitment to open exploration of challenging ideas.”

The university did not respond to multiple requests from The College Fix seeking comment.

“I will never apologize nor comply for doing nothing wrong, even if this comes at a massive personal cost,” Tong said. “I am also fighting for everyone who came to me to tell me their story of being silenced. We as a people will not back down to tyrants, and we will use this case as a precedent for those who attempt to silence us.”

The lawsuit stated that Fordham’s actions have had several consequences, arguing Tong has been “marginalized from academic life,” “treated like a criminal,” “branded as a dangerous and hateful individual” and “stigmatized by the imposition of wrongful punishment for the mere exercise of his constitutional rights which he rightfully trusted would be guaranteed by Fordham’s own policies and rules.”

As a legendary community organizer once advised his constituents, get in their faces, and punch back twice as hard.

PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: Chinese Immigrant Sues University for Sanctioning Tiananmen Post. “Fordham threatened student for posing with legal rifle.”

GOOD: Austin Tong is refusing to back down after posting a photograph in which he criticized China’s Tiananmen Square massacre. Fordham’s insistence on a public apology here must mean they get a lot of money from the PRC or something. As I say, it’s easy to tell who’s on the payroll, or at least on the team.

Fordham University President Joseph McShane needs to be called to account for this bullying.

APOLOGIZE FOR WHAT? Fordham Demands Apology For Student’s Tiananmen Protest. “Fordham University administrators are demanding that rising senior Austin Tong submit an apology letter to the school by July 23 after he posted to Instagram a photo that shows him holding a firearm in honor of the Tiananmen Square protests, according to a disciplinary letter from the school. Tong risks suspension or expulsion if he refuses to apologize.”

CLASS PRIVILEGE: A Tale of Two Arsonists.

Among the dozens of anarchists arrested over the past two months, few have gotten a more vociferous defense from the anti-police left than Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman, two “public interest” lawyers accused of firebombing a police car.

Their defenders, who argue that the criminal justice system is stacked against the poor and underprivileged, were the first to invoke Mattis and Rahman’s elite credentials when pressing the courts to cut them slack.

Mattis and Rahman are high achievers: He is a Princeton and NYU Law grad with a corporate legal job, and she graduated from Fordham Law after spending a summer in “occupied Palestine.” These credentials, of course, didn’t protect them from federal charges after they lobbed Molotov cocktails into an NYPD patrol car, but their defenders now cite them in pleas for leniency and special treatment, both in the courtroom and in the press.

Both were bailed out, with Rahman’s release guaranteed by an Obama-administration alumna who called Rahman her “best friend.” The duo have received friendly coverage in the Intercept, CNN, and NPR. All emphasized the young lawyers’ sterling credentials, echoing a letter signed by hundreds of NYU alumni in their defense.

Compare that with the story of Isaiah Willoughby, a Washington resident now facing federal charges for attempting to burn down a Seattle police station. Willoughby is a former foster kid and a small-time entrepreneur who once ran a quixotic campaign for city council. He also has a rap sheet a mile long.

Willoughby’s case, unlike that of his well-heeled counterparts, has received little attention in the liberal media. He remains in federal lockup, according to Bureau of Prisons records.

Our view—and the Justice Department’s—is that the cases deserve equal treatment.

It is telling that the anti-police left has made Mattis and Rahman their leniency cause célèbre, citing their elite credentials while crowing simultaneously about inequity in the criminal justice system.

It is.

FILE A LAWSUIT: Fordham student punished for holding gun in Instagram photo memorializing Tiananmen Square massacre.

And file a complaint with grant-making agencies under Executive Order 13864.

UPDATE: In the comments, it’s plausibly suggested that Fordham is upset at a picture of a Chinese immigrant student holding a gun and protesting the Tiananmen anniversary because Fordham doesn’t want to upset the Chinese government. Someone should look into whether Fordham is getting money from the PRC, and if they’ve properly reported it if so.

HOW? Conservative Blue-Checks Greet Elizabeth Warren Drop-Out with Taunts, ‘Pocahontas’ Racial Slur.

Impressive Twitter ratio on Mediaite’s clickbait, with most users reminding Mediaite of Warren’s stolen racial identity as Harvard Law School’s “first woman of color.”

Earlier: Elizabeth Warren criticized, again, over bogus claims of Cherokee heritage: 200 Native Americans issue open letter to candidate as Super Tuesday looms. “You have yet to fully address the harm you have caused.”

I’M SO OLD, I CAN REMEMBER WHEN ELIZABETH WARREN WAS A WOMAN OF COLOR HERSELF: Women of color bolt Warren’s Nevada campaign in frustration.

YET ANOTHER DEMOCRAT WONDERS WHY HIS PARTY IS SUCH A CESSPIT OF RACISM: Cory Booker leads nine Democratic presidential hopefuls in asking DNC to change debate rules. Letter comes after only one candidate of color makes December debate.

(Well, technically two, according to Harvard Law, circa 1997.)

THE ONLY DEMOCRATS WHO HAVE QUALIFIED FOR THE DECEMBER DEBATE ARE WHITE.

That’s straight-up fake news right there, when Elizabeth Warren, “Harvard Law’s ‘first woman of color’” will still be on the stage. But hopefully, Harris’ departure from the race will be a wake-up call for the Democratic Party to detoxify itself — it’s a shameful cesspit of sexism and misogyny according to…MSNBC, astonishingly enough, in a rare moment of clarity.

HOW DISRESPECTFUL TO HARVARD’S “FIRST WOMAN OF COLOR:” Black School Choice Protesters Drown Out Warren Speech About Black Women.

SAD BUT TRUE:  Max Eden:  “The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Embraces Alternative Facts.”

(My dissent is here.)

THE NEW YORK TIMES DISCOVERS AFRICAN-AMERICAN GUN CULTURE. “In the tumultuous civil rights era of the 1950s and ’60s, black activists and community organizers openly took up arms. And not just those in the more explicitly militant Black Power movement. Martin Luther King Jr., several N.A.A.C.P. officials and other leaders perceived as much more dovish, still carried or stored weapons to defend their households and communities from potential attacks.”

Welcome to the party, pals. Here’s my interview with Prof. Nicholas Johnson of Fordham University Law School, about his book Negroes and the Gun: The Black History of Arms.

I think we should recognize this phenomenon properly:

SINCE IT’S BLACK HISTORY MONTH, here’s my interview with Prof. Nicholas Johnson of Fordham University Law School, about his book Negroes and the Gun: The Black History of Arms. (Bumped).

TO BE FAIR, HE GETS A PASS FOR EVERYTHING: Media give Obama a pass for anti-black result of his Title IX policies.

When the Trump administration said it plans to roll back its predecessor’s guidance on school discipline and disparate impact, the Obama administration’s education secretaries publicly denounced it for ignoring “our most vulnerable and underserved students.”

Those would be students of color and those with disabilities, who are “disproportionately affected by harsh and often unnecessary exclusionary discipline practices,” wrote Arne Duncan and John B. King.

They have been suspiciously silent about the disparate impact on black men from another Obama policy, one that the Trump administration is also rolling back: sexual misconduct rules.

Erika Sanzi, senior visiting fellow at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, writes in RealClearEducation that “Obama loyalists are trying to have it both ways” by criticizing both rollbacks.

“And truth be told, it’s easy for them to do that that when almost no one in the media, including reporters, forces them to explain the inconsistency and yes, blatant hypocrisy, of their position,” Sanzi writes.

Well, you know how it works:

K-12 IMPLOSION UPDATE: High School Graduation Rates Go Up Even as Students and Teachers Fail to Show Up.

Phelps reflects a national trend in which high schools across the country have both high absenteeism and high graduation rates. A recent national study by the U.S. Department of Education showed that about one in seven students missed 15 days or more during the 2013-14 school year – the year before the national high school graduation rate hit an all-time high of 84 percent.

Students aren’t the only ones not showing up – absenteeism is also common among teachers. The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, an education think tank, found that in 2013-2014, at least one-fifth of traditional public-school teachers missed more than 10 days in 32 of the 35 states studied. According to federal data, in 2015, more than 41 percent of Rhode Island’s teachers were absent more than 10 days of the year. That was an increase from under 40 percent in 2013, but Rhode Island’s graduation rate nevertheless has hit an all-time high.

“It’s really easy to graduate more kids,” said David Griffith, a policy associate at the Fordham Institute. “You just graduate them.”

Degree inflation is a thing, even in high school diplomas.

MY USA TODAY COLUMN IS ABOUT THIS, AND TAKES THEIR IDEA A STEP FARTHER OUT: Liberal Law Professors Want To Pack The Supreme Court After Trump Replaces Kennedy.

First, some legal scholars, are calling on Democrats to commit to “pack the Court” by adding new seats to the Court as soon as Democrats recapture the presidency and Congress—and filling those seats with extra Democratic-appointed justices. These calls preceded Kennedys’ retirement (they began shortly after President Trump was inaugurated, as Josh Blackman observed at the time). But they seem to be taking on new urgency now: Fordham’s Jed Shugerman, for example, announced on Twitter that if President Trump succeeds in appointing a replacement for Kennedy, then the next Democratic president and Congress should add six(!) new seats to the Supreme Court in 2021. (And abolish the filibuster for legislation, if it’s necessary to get the six bonus seats.) Ian Samuel, a Harvard Law fellow, staked out a similar position immediately upon Kennedy’s retirement.

It’s hard to think of a better way to galvanize Trump-skeptical Republicans for the 2020 vote than to preemptively announce a Democratic court-packing agenda for 2021. If law professors hadn’t started vowing that the next Democratic president would “pack the court,” then a pro-MAGA Super PAC would have made it up.

All they have to do is not be crazy. And they can’t even do that.

THE NEW YORK TIMES ON SETH BARRETT TILLMAN: Lonely Scholar With Unusual Ideas’ Defends Trump, Igniting Legal Storm.

Several lawsuits have accused Mr. Trump of violating the clause by doing business with entities controlled by foreign governments. If Mr. Tillman is right, those lawsuits should be dismissed.

In June, Mr. Tillman filed a friend-of-the-court brief saying that some framers of the Constitution did not think the emoluments clause applied to the president. One of his key pieces of evidence was a document signed by Alexander Hamilton.

The reaction was swift and brutal. Legal historians and a lawyer for members of Congress suing Mr. Trump said Mr. Tillman had misunderstood, misrepresented or suppressed crucial contrary evidence.

Jed Shugerman, a law professor at Fordham, wrote a blog post urging Mr. Tillman to issue a correction. “One might expect,” Professor Shugerman wrote, “that when a brief before a court contains significant factual errors or misleading interpretations of evidence, the authors of that brief will offer to correct their briefs or retract the sections if they are no longer supported by the evidence.”

In another blog post, Brianne J. Gorod, a lawyer with the Constitutional Accountability Center, which represents lawmakers suing Mr. Trump, said Mr. Tillman’s account was “not accurate, not even remotely so.”

Five legal historians, including Professor Shugerman, filed their own friend-of-the-court brief. They said Mr. Tillman’s had “incorrectly described” the evidence in a footnote in his brief.

Mr. Tillman took none of this lightly. In a sworn statement last week, he repeated his original position. “I stand entirely behind the above footnote: behind every sentence, every phrase, every word and every syllable,” he wrote. “I made no mistake, intentional or inadvertent. I retract nothing, and I do not intend to retract anything.”

Mr. Tillman, who is represented by Josh Blackman, an energetic law professor and litigator, rounded up declarations from experts in founding-era documents and on Hamilton. They agreed that the document said to contradict Mr. Tillman’s account was not signed by Hamilton and was prepared after his death.

I asked Mr. Tillman’s critics for their reactions. Professor Shugerman responded with “a public and personal apology.”

The last time so many legal historians embarrassed themselves was when they defended fraudulent legal historian Michael Bellesiles.

DISPATCHES FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE EDUCATION APOCALYPSE AND DAVID BROOKS’ SANDWICH SHOP. In “The language of privilege,” Robert Pondiscio of the Fordham Institute writes, “We are ruining America, notes dour New York Times columnist David Brooks, suddenly and considerably alarmed by a standard feature of American life, if not human nature—the tendency of the privileged and powerful to guard jealously every advantage they have been handed or earned:”

To be highly proficient in Brooksian English—the language of privilege—requires mastery over not just an alphabet and rules of grammar, but also an enormous range of assumed knowledge, historical references, and cultural allusions that are commonly held by members of a speech community. “My kids know how to be Black,” one parent tells Delpit. “You all teach them how to be successful in the white man’s world.”

American education remains deeply reluctant to do this, since it requires overthrowing any number of traditions and practices—from child-centered pedagogies, assumptions about student engagement, and other progressive education ideals, to local control of curriculum, the privileging of skills over content, and the movement toward mass customization of education. Each of these in ways great or small work against the cause of language proficiency; in doing so, they make the task of educating for upward mobility more difficult.

Make yourself a soppressata, capicollo and prosciutto sandwich on a striata baguette and read the whole thing.

UPDATE ON THAT CALL BETWEEN TRUMP AND TURNBULL:

Senior US officials told the Washington Post that Donald Trump abruptly hung up on Mr Turnbull after just 25 minutes – when the pair were meant to speak for an hour.

But an indignant Mr Turnbull returned serve, telling 2GB’s Ben Fordham: ‘As far as the call is concerned, I’m very disappointed, the report the president hung up is not correct, the call ended courteously.’

Emphasis added.

I’m curious about the identities of those “senior U.S. officials.”

NAVY BRINGS IN A PLAYER FROM THE STANDS: He’s a freshman and he didn’t suit up because he’s way down the depth chart as a quarterback. But in today’s game Navy’s starting quarterback got hurt and the midshipman in the stands was told to suit up. He eventually got into the game. SBNation writer Rodger Sherman remembers Texas Aggie lore of a player coming out of the stands — then he ends up needling Aggies, albeit mildly.

A key moment in college football lore is that about a century ago, Texas A&M had to grab a 12th man out of the stands to complete a game. You’d think in the modern era of college football we’d never have a moment like that, but Navy had to grab a freshman quarterback out of its stands in the season opener against Fordham.

Here’s the A&M 12th Man story.

HE WHO CONTROLS THE PAST… Russia’s Supreme Court rules that the USSR did not invade Poland in 1939.

Russia’s Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of Perm blogger Vladimir Luzgin for reposting a text which states that both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland in 1939. The Supreme Court’s ruling came on September 1, 2016, the 77th anniversary of Hitler’s invasion of Poland, 17 days before the anniversary of the Soviet invasion from the east.

Henry Reznik, the well-known lawyer who was representing Luzgin, commented that the Supreme Court has discredited itself through this ruling and promised to appeal further. He added that an application to the European Court of Human Rights was simply demanded.

Vyacheslav Molotov and Joachim von Rippentrop could not be reached for comment, nor could more than 20,000 men and officers of the Polish Army last seen in or near the Katyn Forest.

KATHY SHAIDLE ON KITTY GENOVESE: THE GLOBAL WARMING OF CRIME:

At a 2005 Fordham University symposium on the case, Rosenthal declared:

I never said, nor did anybody on ‘The New York Times,’ or any reporter with a brain, say there were thirty-eight peering out of a window.

Presumably Rosenthal was hoping nobody in the room remembered or even knew that he’d eagerly penned a quickie book about the Genovese murder a few months after it happened, one that was titled…Thirty-Eight Witnesses.

Oh, please. Could I make something like that up? It’s not like I work for The New York Times.

Heh. Read the whole thing.

CHARLES C.W. COOKE: Even Obama Understands the Second Amendment Better Than Liberal Activists:

Consider: In order to argue with a straight face that the right to keep and bear arms is inextricably linked with “service in an organized and sanctioned militia,” you would have to believe the following unbelievable things: 1) that the Founders’ intent in codifying the Second Amendment was to protect the right of individuals to join an organization over which the federal government has constitutionally granted plenary power; 2) that unlike every other provision in the Bill of Rights — and every other constitutional measure that is wrapped in the “right of the people” formulation — the Second Amendment denotes something other than an individual right that can be asserted against the state; and 3) that every major judicial figure of the era was mistaken as to its meaning — among them, Joseph Story, William Rawle, St. George Tucker, Timothy Farrar, and Tench Coxe, all of whom explained the Second Amendment perfectly clearly — whereas a few judges and politicians in the 20th century have been bang on in their comprehension.

Furthermore, one has to grapple with the theory’s obvious consequences. If it is indeed the case that “a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state” — and if this supposition is binding rather than explanatory — then one has no choice but to conclude that America is both insecure and unfree, and and no choice but to wonder aloud whether the government has abdicated its enumerated constitutional responsibilities to the point at which its legitimate authority must not only be called into question but supplanted by volunteers.

As Fordham’s Nicholas Johnson has noted trenchantly, presumptions such as these are flatly unsustainable in the face of sedulous investigation, and their key progenitor — the now-retired Justice John Paul Stevens — has done little but embarrass himself with their promulgation.

Most of them, however, are beyond embarrassment.

GREAT MOMENTS IN FEMINIST EMPOWERMENT! “ISIS thinks female jihadis should stay in the kitchen. Tashfeen Malik disagreed,” A headline above an article by Yahoo’s Liz Goodwin notes:

Malik, a 29-year-old Pakistani citizen with an infant, pledged loyalty to ISIS on Facebook before the deadly attack. But her actions do not necessarily reflect the ideals and rules ISIS has laid out for women and their role in the caliphate.

ISIS has so far said publicly that Malik and her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, were “supporters of the caliphate” — refraining from calling them “soldiers,” as they have described followers in the past.

The group’s propaganda targeting Western women often features burka-clad girls toting AK-47s. ISIS’s message stresses the “empowerment” of women, according to Mia Bloom, a terror expert and professor at Georgia State University. It has been more successful in recruiting U.S. women than any other terror group, notes Karen Greenberg, the director of the Center on National Security at Fordham University’s School of Law. The group claims that feminism has failed women and that in the caliphate, they will be able to be their true, nurturing selves.

Smash the bonds of patrimony with pipe bombs! Plus this:

The strict rules for women inside the caliphate are also different from what ISIS encourages women to do in their home countries, Katz said. ISIS videos that call for lone wolf attacks in the West are addressed to Muslims in general instead of “brothers,” a semantic distinction that clearly includes women.

Well, if there’s one thing we’ve learned from college campuses throughout America this year, the wrong kind of language can really be “triggering” to the impressionable — and taking the uber-PC tone of the above article to its natural conclusion, who knows what sorts of violations to a “safe space” can occur next?

HE’S A UNITER, NOT A DIVIDER: Chris Cuomo’s Constitutional Ignorance Brings Together Left, Right In Contempt.

UPDATE: CNN Anchor Says Constitution Doesn’t Protect Hate Speech, Try Reading It. Okay, Let’s Do That. “Spoiler: Hate speech actually is protected.” Plus: “Chris Cuomo is co-host of CNN’s morning show. He’s also a former law and justice correspondent for ABC News. He has a law degree from Fordham University and is a licensed attorney. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is his brother.” Neither of them seems much of a friend to the Bill of Rights.

Question: Will any journos ask Andrew Cuomo if he shares Chris’s view of free speech?

K-12 IMPLOSION UPDATE: Urban school closures help students academically. “Shutting down poorly-performing urban charter and traditional schools in Ohio helped students, according to a new study published by the Fordham Institute. School closures are often denounced as hurting public education. The results from Ohio give reason to question this conventional wisdom. The disproportionately black, economically disadvantaged, or low-achieving students affected may actually be fortunate their low-performing schools closed.”

ZING: Zephyr Teachout: My qualifications? I’m not under federal investigation.

Cuomo and his surrogates have attacked Teachout, a Fordham law school professor, and her runningmate, Columbia law school professor Tim Wu, for lacking the necessary qualifications to run the state. Cuomo on Sunday took direct aim at Wu by saying that experience matters for lieutenant governors.

“You need to know what you’re talking about to do the job, and experience matters,” Cuomo said. “People say, ‘I don’t have any experience but I could be lieutenant governor.’ I don’t have any experience but I think I could be a heart surgeon. Anyone here want to be my first patient?” I don’t want anyone experimenting with the lieutenant governorship of the State of New York.”

But Teachout, appearing on Albany radio Monday morning, said ethics also county.

“When people ask me why vote for you, what are your qualifications? One of them is that I’m not under federal investigation,” she said.

US Attorney Preet Bharara is probing whether Cuomo and his top aides improperly interfered with the governor’s anti-corruption commission and the details of its abrubt disbandment.

Ouch.

I said early on that a poor showing against Teachout would hurt Cuomo’s viability as a national candidate, and regardless of how Tuesday’s primary goes, I think he’s already made a poor showing as a campaigner. He’s looked thuggish but inept, and that’s got to hurt people’s assessment of his chances of future national office. And, of course, if he loses — or even if he wins in anything less than a blowout — that’s going to hurt, too.

THE TEACHOUT CHALLENGE MAY OR MAY NOT SUCCEED, BUT IT’S CERTAINLY PUTTING A DENT IN CUOMO’S VIABILITY AS A NATIONAL CANDIDATE: New York Times snubs Andrew Cuomo with non-endorsement.

In 2010, the New York Times offered a ringing endorsement of Democrat Andrew Cuomo for governor, citing in particular his campaign promise to clean up corruption in the state’s capital and reform campaign finance rules.

“Mr. Cuomo acknowledges that his foremost task is restoring trust and transparency to Albany, and the sections on ethics reform are the most impressive in his briefing books,” the editorial board wrote.

But times have changed. In a major snub, the Times editorial board said Tuesday that it will not endorse Cuomo, now governor, for re-election in the state’s Democratic primary in two weeks, largely because he failed to act on the promises that enchanted the paper nearly four years ago. . . .

Looming over the Times’ non-endorsement is the controversy earlier this year over the Moreland Commission, an independent panel set up to investigate corruption that Cuomo’s administration blocked when it looked too closely into Cuomo’s allies. The New York Times published the seminal story on Cuomo’s interference with the commission.

Still, the Times declined to endorse Zephyr Teachout, the Fordham Law School professor challenging Cuomo in the primary, in spite of praise for many of Teachout’s proposals.

They’re afraid she might win.

UPDATE: From the comments: “Check out the comments by Times readers to the non-endorsement. I’ve yet to read a single one defending Cuomo. And they’re Cuomo’s natural constituency and the kind of people who vote in Democratic primaries. The Professor here might be on to something.” I occasionally am.

IT’S ONLY EVIDENCE OF BIAS IF THEY DONATE TO REPUBLICANS: Byron York: Four of five FCC study authors gave to Obama.

A significant problem with the now-suspended Federal Communications Commission plan to have government contractors question journalists about editorial decisions and practices was that it was a partisan exercise. The plan originated among Democrats on the FCC; the commission’s two Republican members didn’t even learn about it until it was well under way.

There was also a one-sidedness in the research behind the project. The FCC enlisted scholars from two big journalism schools, the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Communication and Democracy, to determine the “critical information needs” about which journalists would be questioned. The study, delivered in July 2012, listed five authors: Ernest J. Wilson III, Carola Weil, and Katya Ognyanova from USC, Lewis Friedland from Wisconsin, and Philip Napoli from Fordham University. (Weil is now with American University.) Four of the five, it turns out, contributed to President Obama’s campaigns.

It’s partisan Potemkin villages all the way down.

AS WELL THEY MIGHT: Republicans Dispute Federal Power To Regulate Abortion.

As Dave Kopel and I wrote over a decade ago, Congress lacks power to regulate abortion under the Commerce Clause, a conclusion that is certainly strengthened by the Commerce Clause portion of the Sebelius opinion. Of course under Sebelius, I suppose you could tax late-term abortions. . . .

There’s a more recent take on this topic here. And note that the folks at ThinkProgress are apparently fine with regulating abortion under the Commerce Clause.

PROF. JACOBSON: Shame On Fordham.

THE FORDHAM CENSORSHIP SCANDAL just gets weirder.

MORE ON THE CENSORSHIP SCANDAL AT FORDHAM: “Father McShane isn’t available for an interview, I’m afraid.”

Plus, Fordham’s speech hypocrisy.

INTERVIEWED IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Greg Lukianoff weighs in on the Fordham censorship scandal. “This was the longest, strongest condemnation of a speaker that I’ve ever seen in which a university president also tried to claim that he was defending freedom of speech.”

I recommend his new book, Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship And The End Of American Debate.

PROF. JACOBSON: The emerging Fordham scandal over its cancellation of Ann Coulter.

This story now is a major priority at Legal Insurrection and College Insurrection. This isn’t about Ann Coulter. It’s about the tyranny on college campuses.

There is more information which we expect to be able to bring forward, and we intend on holding Fordham accountable.

Update: I have requested an interview with the President of Fordham. I will keep you informed if I receive a response.

Well, stay tuned.

GUN RIGHTS AND CIVIL RIGHTS: A profile of Fordham law professor Nicholas Johnson.

MORE ON TOMORROW’S Second Amendment symposium at Fordham Law.

AN INTERESTING-LOOKING Second Amendment symposium at Fordham on March 9.

FORDHAM BAKE SALE PROMOTES TRANSPARENCY: “Frankly, the Fordham Bake Sale sounds awesome. It reflects that underrepresented minorities receive advantages — but it also points out all the ways the college admissions process isn’t exactly an academics-based meritocratic one. Instead, it reflects all the ways college has become about so much more — and so much less — than education.”

ALEX LONG: The Freewheelin’ Judiciary: A Bob Dylan Anthology. “This paper, presented as part of a symposium on Bob Dylan and the Law at the Fordham University School of Law, explores the ways in which judges have used the lyrics of Bob Dylan in their opinions.”

Plus, in the L.A. Times: In some courts, Dylan rules.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE BURSTING? 2007 Fordham Law Grad Goes From $160k BigLaw Job to Cleaning Toilets.

WHEN BENCH AND BAR GET TOO COZY:

Dennis G. Jacobs, the chief judge of the federal appeals court in New York, is a candid man, and in a speech last year he admitted that he and his colleagues had “a serious and secret bias.” Perhaps unthinkingly but quite consistently, he said, judges can be counted on to rule in favor of anything that protects and empowers lawyers.

Once you start thinking about it, the examples are everywhere. The lawyer-client privilege is more closely guarded than any other. It is easier to sue for medical malpractice than for legal malpractice. People who try to make a living helping people fill out straightforward forms are punished for the unauthorized practice of law.

But Judge Jacobs’s main point is a deeper one. Judges favor complexity and legalism over efficient solutions, and they have no appreciation for what economists call transaction costs. They are aided in this by lawyers who bill by the hour and like nothing more than tasks that take a lot of time and cost their clients a lot of money.

And there is, of course, the pleasure of power, particularly in cases involving the great issues of the day.

“Judges love these kinds of cases,” said Judge Jacobs, whose speech was published in The Fordham Law Review in May. “Public interest cases afford a judge more sway over public policy, enhance the judicial role, make judges more conspicuous and keep the law clerks happy.”

There are costs here, too, he said, including “the displacement of legislative and executive power” and “the subordination of other disciplines and professions.”

Yet, at the conclusion of a big public-policy case, the bar and bench rejoice. “We smugly congratulate ourselves,” Judge Jacobs said, “on expanding what we are pleased to call the rule of law.”

It’s Times Select, alas, so you can’t read the rest unless you subscribe. But the piece mentions this article on the subject by my colleague Ben Barton, and you can download the whole thing for free if you’re interested.