Toxic Bias in Association of American Law School Meeting on Elections
If you needed another example of the extraordinary bias in law schools today, particularly when it comes to election law, take a look at the panel at the Association of American Law Schools annual meeting where election law will be discussed. It is stacked full of liberal leftists. Even the title betrays toxic bias in the meeting agenda (pun intended):
Hot Topic Workshop on Democracy and the Public Trust: Equality, Integrity, and Suppression in the 2012 Election
Moderators: Steven Bender, Seattle University School of Law Audrey G. McFarlane, University of Baltimore School of Law
Speakers: Gilda Daniels, University of Baltimore School of Law
Richard L. Hasen, University of California, Irvine School of Law
Sylvia Lazos, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law
Janai S. Nelson, St. John’s University School of Law
Spencer Overton, The George Washington University Law School
Terry Smith, DePaul University College of Law
Zephyr Teachout, Fordham University School of Law [Former Howard Dean activist]
The goal is to focus on how the voice of the powerful and the vulnerable were affected by laws regarding election registration and voter ID, election participation and felony disenfranchisement and how the new form of political voice through financial contributions from political action committees have affected the election landscape.
The panel is stacked with liberal leftists, leftists who want to seize control over state elections and give it to the federal government, or leftists like Gilda Daniels who teach the next generation of lawyers crackpot critical race theories. One election law expert who could bring balance to this panel described it to me as an “amazingly unbalanced panel, even by the left’s standards."
The American Association of Law Schools should be ashamed of themselves. The groups funding the event, such as Thomson Reuters Westlaw, Lexis Nexis and Pepperdine Law School should demand balance, after all, their customers and student body are balanced.
It isn’t hard to find conservatives or even moderates who could dilute the toxic bias of this panel. Some law professors actually teach election law from a perspective that doesn’t involve criminalizing free speech, federalizing state control of elections and using a rotten racial world view to craft public policy. Perhaps AALS head Susan Westerberger Prager (email@example.com) will reassess this badly biased panel, or perhaps not.
But balance isn’t what the academy is about anymore. Otherwise the Association of American Law Schools could have invited Brad Smith from Capital Law School, James Woodruff from North Florida or Gail Heriot from San Diego Law, among others. But inviting them would mess up the echo in the chamber.