This (from yesterday) is bizarre. (I know, in cyber-time, I'm late!)
Zywicki says, falsely, that "in the past Warren identified herself as a Native American in order to put herself in a position to benefit from hiring preferences (I am certain that Brian knows this now too)." Since I don't know this, indeed don't even believe it, I have no idea how he can be "certain" about it. I hope he'll retract it quickly or explain how he is "certain" that I "know" something I believe is false. Evidence please?
He says, "[I]f a very prominent conservative law professor (say, for example, John Yoo) had misrepresented himself throughout his professorial career in the manner that Elizabeth Warren has would Brian still consider it to 'the non-issue du jour'? Really?" Yes. Here's the proof: many people thought John Yoo should be put "on trial" by Berkeley for his alleged war crimes during the Bush Administration, and I stated clearly, and to my mind (still) quite correctly, that there were no grounds for Berkeley to proceed against him. Perhaps Zywicki thinks allegations of war crimes are not as serious as allegations of misreporting one's ethnic status.
Zywicki is puzzled why I compared him to the Stalinists of yesteryear. Here's why: (1) everything is political for him; (2) he's motivated by ideology and nothing else; and (3) he wants to destroy his political enemies, no matter what. He's now proved the point even more clearly. What an embarrassment for George Mason. What an embarrassment for the legal academy.
UPDATE: And since the non-story du jour is back on top here, I'll just repost the link to this sober commentary by Carl Bogus (Roger Williams), which is consistent with all the evidence I've reported, and with what her former colleagues at both Texas and Penn have told me--as well as being consistent with the crucial fact, namely, that elite law schools are not out looking for Native Americans. Will the ideological zealots let it rest? I doubt it.
Recent Comments