"As the only Asian American woman on the academic faculty, I can’t imagine any other faculty member would be treated with this kind of disrespect and utter lack of due process."

Writes Yale Law School professor Amy Chua.

Some of you may have seen the YDN hit job on me, full of false allegations. I did not violate any agreement, nor have I been hosting wild parties during COVID. On the contrary, what I HAVE done is comforted a small handful of students who reached out to me in moments of crisis... pic.twitter.com/9tOoOu9p6G

— Amy Chua (@amychua) April 8, 2021

Megyn Kelly reacts:

Now they’re trying to cancel @amychua for absolutely nothing. Make no mistake: this is retribution for her support of Bret Kavanaugh, & it is disgusting. If @YaleLawSch has any backbone, it will stand up for one of its most beloved teachers & tell the damn whiners to sit down. https://t.co/2vwLGWmI9w

— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) April 8, 2021

At Lawyers, Guns, and Money, lawprof Paul Campos goes on the attack in a blog post that begins "Rules are for the little people, chapter infinity":

Meanwhile Chua and [her husband lawprof Jed] Rubenfeld continue to get paid collectively close to a million bucks a year to basically not do their jobs any more, but apparently being asked to at least avoid getting drunk around the kiddies is just too much to ask of our best and brightest.

I can't possibly know exactly what the facts are. I've read Chua's letter, and I don't think the law school has put out its version of the facts. As a law school professor, I was never someone who invited students to my home, so I tend to admire the lawprofs who do extend this kind of sociability to their students. I would find it very difficult to do, and I assume that, generally, students would love this kind of festivity. 

But I could imagine professors inviting students into their home for the wrong reasons. There could be the Harvey Weinstein of law professors. I visualize a continuum of motives for professorly parties, from unselfishly magnanimous to utterly monstrous. But where's the line on the continuum where the professor should know this isn't right and the law school should intervene and say no more parties for you? Why did Yale intervene? I think it intervened and entered into some sort of no-parties agreement with Chua and Rudenfeld, and now, it seems, the question is whether the agreement has been violated. That's the basic factual question here. I'm not looking at the agreement, but Chua does seem to say that she has continued to have students over to her house. 

In her letter (embedded in the tweet, above), Chua justifies what she did based on anti-Asian violence and racism. She's the Asian-American female law professor, and students in her diversity category need support, so... there's an implied exception to the agreement? Or... interpret the agreement properly, and there's no violation? I'd have to see the agreement and know what, exactly, she did. 

Does the agreement refer to "parties" and define parties? Is the law school dean following the students' interpretation of the agreement? Do the students even have the text of the agreement?

IN THE EMAIL: Tank writes:

Like you, I have no idea what actually happened or whether Chua is in the right. However, her use of the Asian Card immediately puts me off because it likely has no relation to the controversy, but is being used to shut people up.

I'd like to know more about all the "cards" that are getting played. What race(s) are the students who are complaining about her? Do the complaints have a racial element? Has the faculty relied on Chua to tend to the needs of Asian-American students? Does the school hold itself out as a paragon of diversity goodness because it has Chua, among others, on its faculty? There's a whole complicated context here, and Chua is fighting — frantically, or so it seems. 

ALSO IN THE EMAIL: Heartless Aztec writes:

As a retired teacher who pulled numerous semesters at the local community college 40+ years ago let me say what a grand idea it was then to have or go to the occasional parties where students and other faculty members were invited. We were all young and it was a very different time - a very different world. By 2015 when I retired that world had changed and there was no way that any students would ever be in my home for any reason or that I would ever attend a party where they were invited in any capacity other than officially school sanctioned. 20 year old students were for the most part immature children in 2015 and fledgling adults in 1980.

AND: Amadeus 48 emails: 

If we take Amy Chua’s letter at face value, she doesn’t know what she did “ wrong,” because no one has told her. Why would a law school take a bow towards due process by informing of the accusations? Her description of the zoom call is incomplete. Why did she enter into any agreement? Isn’t all this fallout from her friendship with Brett Kavanaugh? Didn’t some students make accusations against her husband, Jed Rubenfeld, based on wrongspeak? Wasn’t she accused of coaching female interview candidates to glam it up a bit for Judge Kavanaugh? Read the article in The Guardian about that one. Not a single source named. I suspect that there are factions at Yale Law School-- students, administrators, and faculty--who are out to get Ms. Chua and her husband. But I am sure there is more to the story.