April 28, 2016

"On Wednesday afternoon, professors at George Mason University protested the recent renaming of the law school after the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia."

"At a meeting full of angry student activists, the school’s faculty senate voted 21-13 to reopen the naming process."
The vote took issue with Scalia’s “numerous public offensive comments” about black people, women, and LBGT individuals, as well as his role in “the polarized climate in this country.” The professors also opposed the $30 million in donations from the Charles Koch Foundation and an anonymous donor that came along with the renaming, money that is supposed to be used for injecting economic analyses into interpretation of pollution laws.

61 comments:

CJinPA said...

I knew that was coming.

We can't beat these people. They enjoy a hyper-politicized life much more than the rest of us. They don't rest.

rhhardin said...

I wouldn't be surprised if Scalia had studied physics and math.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

"angry student activists" and the liberal justices, among others, bear no responsibility for "the polarized climate in this country" evidently.

giant eyeroll

Big Mike said...

They need to emphasize their seriousness by tendering their resignations.

YoungHegelian said...

The professors also opposed the $30 million in donations from the Charles Koch Foundation and an anonymous donor that came along with the renaming

Since the professors seem so cavalier about costing the school $30 million, why doesn't the school just cut $30 million out of the programs so near & dear to these professors?

I'm sorry, $30 million for a school like GMU is a boatload of cash (it's pocket change for Harvard....), & before you ask the school to turn down $30 million for moral reasons, you better damn well sure that some of your moral skin is in the game.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...


Sounds to me like the school doesn't deserve the honor of being named for Justice Scalia, so, meh.

n.n said...

So, the activists are not concerned about equal rigths, individual dignity, and intrinsic value under class diversity, female chauvinism, and selective exclusion.

They do support green schemes to shift disruption, population displacement, environmentalist obfuscation, and unreliable energy production, and probably carbon-based reduction (e.g. reactive parenthood) and recycling (e.g. planned parenthood), too.

Achilles said...

There is a fight coming. These little fascists are going to keep pushing. It will start when the money for student aid runs out and these bloated administrative train wrecks we call universities have to provide a service people will actually pay for.

It will end badly.

Tom said...

Keep the name and the money, fire the professors for intolerance.

Rick said...

The vote took issue with Scalia’s “numerous public offensive comments” about black people, women, and LBGT individuals,

Mythology matters. They create the myth by lying about the actions and statements of their enemies. Then they cite their lies as justification for their demonization campaign. Political radicals have understood the process for more than a century, which is why modern radicals took over education and media and work so hard to ensure the far left maintains its monopoly over the message.

Phil 3:14 said...

"Tom Steyer, the billionaire environmental activist, gave $40 million to Stanford University to create the TomKat Center for Sustainable Energy in 2009 with the mission of helping educate and train the next generation of leaders in sustainable energy"

Brando said...

Oh, it's on! Don't give up the fight--this is a battle over how he'll be remembered. Let's get into what these "offensive" comments are--have the debate now in the open. Don't let these assumptions go unchallenged.

And if these crybabies win, maybe it'll be time to consider a dual college system. One where learning, open debate and standards are prized, and one for the coddled leftist regurgitators. We'll see which type graduates useful citizens over time.

mockturtle said...

as well as his role in “the polarized climate in this country.
Good grief! Who is doing the polarizing, after all??!!

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I think they should let the internet vote on what to name the law school.

eric said...

Let me guess, there weren't any offesnive comments. They are lying for political expediency.

Either that, or the offensive comments were his political positions, which are anathema to these people.

David Begley said...

Memo to law profs and students: You don't run the school. Not a democracy. The Dean runs it subject to the approval of the President and Board. Idiots.

Balfegor said...

Haha, even GMU falls to the loonies. Nothing for it now. Dissolve the monasteries! And abolish benefit of clergy for crimes committed on campus.

Mike Sylwester said...

The vote took issue with Scalia’s “numerous public offensive comments” about black people ...

I thought they must be called "people of color".

Brando said...

"Let me guess, there weren't any offesnive comments. They are lying for political expediency."

The most recent "offensive" comment I think was in affirmative action, when he suggested--horrors!--that many black people who depend on affirmative action to get into certain programs are not qualified for the programs. This happens to be not just true but obvious--if they were qualified, they wouldn't need their race to help them in. But the racialists have decided that obviously all black people are forever qualified for everything because racism.

If GMU gives in, everyone should boycott them. Maybe the conservative and libertarian professors there can break off and form their own school.

Michael said...

Mike Sylwester

The original and correct appellation is "peoples of color." Authentic.

Lance said...

Here ya go, here's the real problem...

Emails obtained by BuzzFeed News show that prior to the announcement, university administrators were largely worried about the grants preventing them from increasing tuition rates for five years, rather than the school’s new acronym.

Funny how they bury it near the end.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Good. Pull the money, change the name. Fuck 'em all.
If they keep the money and change the name the Admin. should call for the resignation of all the faculty who so vehemently objected. Step up, loudmouths--if he was so awful and the school is so awful for adopting his name, leave immediately.

Fabi said...

"angry student activists"

What are things which have no value?

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...


New school name: Lawy McLawFace

MadisonMan said...

“We really have a bad reputation for academic integrity,” said GMU professor Dave Kuebrich, a member of the faculty Senate.

Surprise. An English Professor protesting that the Legal Profs hired must espouse Kochian ideals (whatever they are). Anything other than Leftist agitprop is verboten. I wonder if he recognizes how funny his statement is.

I agree that the donors should revoke the gift.

My name goes here. said...

I would love a counter insurgency that only supports the removing the Scalia name of the law school if and only if they replace it with name The Boaty McBoatface Law School.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

angry student activists

Are there happy student activists?
Do I get any points for being outraged about all the outrage?

mockturtle said...

It's bullying, plain and simple.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

The proper attitude of the school's administration, as illustrated by Xander Crews in the criminally underrated Frisky Dingo:

Xander: I don't care what "Boys from Brazil" thing you got going on in there, but I'm still the boss in here. And we're making Awesome-X dolls, and they're gonna kick so much ass, you'll probably go blind. And if you still have a problem with that, there's the big-ass door.

Mrs Whatsit said...

Of course the money should be refused, because all speech that disagrees with liberal orthodoxy is offensive hate speech that isn't protected by the Constitution.

"My name goes here" and "SomeoneHasToSayIt" are kindred spirits who have almost simultaneously won this thread.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Mrs Whatsit said...

"My name goes here" and "SomeoneHasToSayIt" are kindred spirits who have almost simultaneously won this thread.

As opposed to someone else who should have previously won it at 3:04?!?

buwaya said...

This is all politics in a profession and industry that is all about politics.
Their objections are political objections to the political acts of a political opponent - a politician in all but name (Scalia).
All politics is war by other means so all is fair.
Every professor and student there is likewise fair game.
I recommend "do not hire" lists. They do it, turnabout is fair play.

Chuck said...

Brando said it for me; this is not the sort of thing where the offer can get pulled/refused, a new plan made, and everybody goes on about their own business, agreeing to disagree.

No! This is a DEFAMATION of the late Justice Scalia. The Scalia-opponents have picked a fight, and a fight they should have. As brutal, as public, and conducted in as much of a zero-sum/win-lose way as possible.

Somebody has to pay, for Santino. (Or St. Nino.)

Paul Snively said...

"...his role in “the polarized climate in this country.”

Yeah, because without any conceptual opposition, these petty tyrants would have the groupthink they actually want.

The professors also opposed the $30 million in donations from the Charles Koch Foundation and an anonymous donor that came along with the renaming, money that is supposed to be used for injecting economic analyses into interpretation of pollution laws.

It's always convenient when the idiots who ignore the economic impact of their fantasies admit it.

Jason said...

If they don't take the money, they should immediately lay off every professor who objected citing "budget constraints."

In the same announcement, if possible.

Then watch the donations roll in.

Comanche Voter said...

How do so many numbnut types get on to the faculty at even a lower tier law school?

buwaya said...

" money that is supposed to be used for injecting economic analyses into interpretation of pollution laws."

This is fundamentally flawed. Laws are not, ever, arrived at by some sort of investment analysis, as a venture capitalist would do, nor are interpretations made for the sake of some definition of the general good. They come about because some party is, in some decisive way, stronger than their opponents, both sides having something of value at risk. Every regulatory decision or interpretation is the result of a power struggle. "Analyses" of any kind are mere decorations.

Steve M. Galbraith said...

Have to tip your hat off to the left: they never give up and they always show up.

Woodie Allen's line applies in politics as in life: 80% of success is just showing up.

Steve M. Galbraith said...

And this is George Mason University - a generally libertarianish-right of center institution.

Not exactly Berkeley.

hombre said...

Simple solution: Decline the money. Raise tuition and lower prof's salaries accordingly.

If the non-activists complain that they too are being affected by those actions, steer them to the new classes: "The Virtues of Disparate Opinions" and "Defensive Counter-Demonstrating 101."

Chuck said...

Steve, yours is an interesting comment.

They do some big conservative judicial conferences at George Mason. And a couple if years ago, I would have written exactly what you wrote. But there have been a few occurrences like this in recent months. It is a mixed crowd, for sure.

sean said...

Prof. Althouse is always telling us what heroes law professors are, so full of integrity and character: shouldn't some of these professors resign rather than be associated with the hateful name of Antonin Scalia? Hahahahaha.

Rick said...

Steve M. Galbraith said...
And this is George Mason University - a generally libertarianish-right of center institution.


The GW Econ department may be centrist or center-right [it's more likely they are right of other university econ departments] but the remainder of the university is not. Since the Faculty Senate is drawn from the university generally it isn't surprising they voted as they did.

Richard Dolan said...

Perhaps the faculty senate (to say nothing of the student protestors) didn't notice that the university is named after George Mason, a dead, white male slave-owner. In comparison, even they might concede that Justice Scalia was a lesser offender against all that is right and just.

paminwi said...

Personally I hope they only take 24 hours to tell these idiots to pound sand. But realistically I believe they will give in, and raise both tuition and the idiot professors' salaries. I mean this worked out well for Mizzou, didn't it?

Birkel said...

How many applications will GMU receive from conservative scholars if all these Liberal scholars act on their honor and resign their respective sinecures?

The Godfather said...

The only example in the Buzzfeed article of Scalia's "offensive comments" was "in a 2015 case, Scalia famously suggested that minority students might be better off attending 'less-advanced' schools than others". That, of course, is a distortion of what Scalia said. What he did say is that some minority students who were admitted by reason of racial preferences to schools to which they would not have been admitted without preferences might have done better at less demanding schools. If you have to lie to come up with an "offensive" comment by Scalia, the chances are pretty good that your accusation is baseless.

By the way, I practiced law in the District of Columbia for 46 years, after graduating from an Ivy League college and law school (in both cases with honors), and although I'm retired, if ASLS faculty resigns in protest or if ASLS fires their faculty, I'd be happy to step in for a semester or two to fill the gap. I'd be honored to teach at a law school named after one of the greatest jurists of the age.

Jonathan Graehl said...

overreach. i want them to look so foolish the next batch will think twice.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Polarizing?

Takes two to polarize. Fact that oft goes unkent.

Crimso said...

Anybody asked RBG has she feels about it? Presumably, she knew him much better than any of these people sitting in judgement of him. And is it asking too much for them to, you know, actually cite some of these things he allegedly said?

Michael K said...

Wasn't there a conversation here recently about whether all law professors were left wingers ?

I think this is a perfect opportunity for GMU to test the resolve of a bunch of (mostly undistinguished) law professor s and tell them to make way for a new libertarian faculty.

They should , like Curtius, cast themselves into the pit of unemployment to save the law school.

Resign in protest !

virgil xenophon said...

"Resign in Proest!"

Which, for mediocre left-wing academic minds safe in their tenured sinecures, is to think the unthinkable..

virgil xenophon said...

PS: But you already knew that K-Man... :)

coupe said...

"offensive comments" are any comments not in support of the lifestyle.

Would Homosexual comments against vaginal sex with a penis be "offensive" to Heterosexuals, and cause for protest against a naming which entails millions of dollars in donations?

Would they support higher fees and tuition to replace the millions?

If I was Scalia's wife, I'd tell them all to go to hell. They are not worthy of a flick of the hand against the chin, nor a middle finger thrust under their faces.

Sebastian said...

"And is it asking too much for them to, you know, actually cite some of these things he allegedly said?" Yes, it is.

As Althouse didn't say, I can't imagine any of the GM Prog clowns ever using the classroom to push their political preferences.

buwaya puti said...

Coupe, you are right.
The proper thing would be for the Scalia family to forbid the whole thing.

Fernandinande said...

"If George Mason just wanted to appeal to conservative students, they could have called themselves the Chick-Fil-A School Of Lawsauce, and still pocketed the money."

David said...

As I read this somewhat confusing article, the vote was by the faculty senate of the entire university not just the law school. They had only 34 people voting? There is something missing from this story. And not just clarity.

Another article makes it clear that this was a vote of the senate of the faculty of the entire university. There was a petition signed by "over 100" professors protesting the renaming.

Kissinger on academic politics comes to mind.

damikesc said...

Will the professors stop taking any federal money now? I, as a conservative, find it offensive that my money is taken from me at force and given to people who utterly despise me.

"angry student activists" and the liberal justices, among others, bear no responsibility for "the polarized climate in this country" evidently.

Of course not. Those SJW are "fighting the good fight". Meanies like Scalia just hate people. Not like SJW, who only really hate people who don't agree with them 100%.

I'm sorry, $30 million for a school like GMU is a boatload of cash (it's pocket change for Harvard....), & before you ask the school to turn down $30 million for moral reasons, you better damn well sure that some of your moral skin is in the game.

Indeed. It's like the people bitching about the Rhodes stuff. If you REALLY oppose it, refuse Rhodes scholarships. Put your money where your mouth is. Instead, they want the perks but still want to be able to bitch and moan.

There is a fight coming. These little fascists are going to keep pushing. It will start when the money for student aid runs out and these bloated administrative train wrecks we call universities have to provide a service people will actually pay for.

It will end badly.


Missouri is already dying from their nonsense last year. When half of your alumni realize you hate them, they will stop giving. I refuse to give to my alma mater. And then we can pressure Congress to stop funding higher ed.

mikee said...

Well, Clarence Thomas is still alive and so naming the place after him would be a bit awkward. Nino Law still has a great sound to it.

aritai said...

What's the "public choice" alternative, given GMU is the home of the nobelist James Buchanan? If you cause your cooperative association that you joined by your own free will to take a pile of that association's money from its bank account or a grant / gift and hold a bonfire, do yoy become liable for the loss? And the law will support garnishing their current and future earnings for that amount, right? Protest that destroys real assets should always come with some cost. Consider those that disrupt your pTb's rally in private spaces that he paid for both the use of the facility, porta potties, and security. What's the minimum fine that those who disrupt the proceedings be held liable for? perhaps 2x the real cost? What would it be if they destroyed someone's home? Or made it unlivable for some number of visitors. Perhaps a year of value per 365 protestors? After enough in fines, these folks will regret the lack of civics education that neglected the fact that free speech does not include occupation of private spaces or getting in someone's personal space where their spittle lands on someone's face exposing them to who knows what germs. They can pay for their own private spaces or register for a use of public spaces if they so desire.

hmm. spittle. Perhaps there's a technology, genetically modified solution. A pro-rally person can be inoculated with a rhino virus which causes a month's worth of loose bowels to those not well behaved and has no effect on those that don't get angry while pushing their vocal cords past reasonable limits. So, get my face and my personal space and you'll regret it.