Georgetown Law’s actions against Ilya Shapiro lack credibility:

Ilya Schapiro posted a message condemning racism. The Dean of Georgetown Law School placed Shapiro on administrative leave this week, while further investigations are conducted. This is a disgraceful decision.

Joe Biden received the endorsement from James Clyburn of South Carolina in exchange for his promise to nominate a black woman as Supreme Court justice. In previous Supreme Court nominations, the consideration of the home or regional political advantage, ethnicity, religion or any other biographical factors has been a key factor. The President never announced such an exact rule as to who would be taken into consideration.

Although reasonable people may disagree, an ABC News/Ipsos survey found that 76% Americans believe that Biden should consider “all possible nominees” and not just those who are Black women. Biden’s limit was criticized by 54% and 72% respectively of Democrats.

Ilya Shapiro agrees with the American majority. She was originally scheduled to become a Georgetown Law senior lecturer in February. It’s not surprising. This was his position as the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies. Cato employs only on merit, as Cato’s executive vice president David Boaz made it clear. Thus, all Cato’s employees—whatever their race, sex, religion, ethnicity, sexuality, or other identity—know that they were chosen because they were the best candidates for the job, and not because of favoritism.

Shapiro stated last week that Sri Srinivasan would be the best Democratic nominee based solely on his merits. As a member of the D.C. Srinivasan has been the Chief Judge of Circuit Court of Appeals since 2013. He was previously Principal Deputy Solicitor general and has been involved in 25 Supreme Court cases. Shapiro pointed out that Srinivasan, an Indian immigrant, would be the Supreme Court’s first Asian-American.

Shapiro believes that Srinivasan would be the better justice than any other nominee. While it is possible to argue Srinivasan could be nominated by another candidate, Shapiro believed Chief Judge Srinivasan was the best.

Shapiro’s analysis conflicts with the one of SlateMark Joseph Stern, a legal commentator. Stern uses the epithetical as one of his many sluts. Stern seems to believe people who don’t agree with him are racist.

H.R. 1 is an example of a bill that’s currently being considered by Congress. 1 would ban states from using photo identification to vote, like some other states. According to polls, voter ID laws enjoy strong support from the general public, including a plurality or majority of Democrats and people of color as well as blacks. Look! Monmouth Poll. NPR/PBS/Marist poll. Honest Elections Project Poll. Politifact (NY) polling. CNN Analysis. Stern said that H.R. Stern says that H.R. 1 critiques “aren’t principled.” They are, at the very least, misleading and, at the worst, falsehoods that have been deliberately made, which is why they’re generally inconsistent. . . . It’s the old Jim Crow attitude. . . dressed up in Federalist Society–approved legalese.” These criticisms represent a “bad faith effort to stop large-scale democracies reform.” . . A second nihilist effort to further undermine voter trust is. . . Overtly racialized vote suppression.” H.R. Opposing H.R.

Stern’s imaginationThe Federalist Society would have opposed the 1965 Voting Rights Bill if it had been around in 1965. We’d then get Volokh Conspiracy posts detailing how #resistance hackers were those who disagreed with him. Stern also added three prayer emoticons. tweet“Law professors, please stop playing nice and supporting white supremacy by perpetuating minorities through false neutrality in bunk constitution theory. It is time to confront the brutal truths of this corrupted subversion to democracy.”

Stern was not friendly with Ilya Sharpiro.

Shapiro stated that Chief Judge Srinivasan was the best nominee for a Democrat and any other nominee wouldn’t be as great. Biden chose to only consider black women so the other Srinivasan nominee Biden will choose will be a “lesser black woman.” In Shapiro’s view, every possible Democratic nominee—whether a white male, white female, black male, black female, and everyone else—is “lesser” than Srinivasan. Shapiro wrote:

Objectively best pick for Biden is Sri Srinivasan, who is solid prog & v smart. The identity politics benefits of being the first Asian American, or Indian American, even exist. Unfortunately, we won’t get more black women because she isn’t in the most recent intersectionality hierarchy. You can thank God for little favors.

Biden stated that he would only accept black women to the SCOTUS. Therefore, any nominee for his nomination will have an asterisk. It is fitting that affirmative action will be considered by the Court next term.

Stern informed his followers that Shapiro declared preemptively that Biden’s nominee, regardless of her identity, would not be qualified. It is clearly false. Shapiro claimed that Srinavasan, the most qualified nominee for this position, would make any others less qualified. Shapiro said that Srinavasan is the most qualified nominee. Only qualified potential nominee. There are many people who could be astronauts at any one time. But only one person will ever be “best”.

Stern continued:

Shapiro believes that any nomination for a woman of color to the Senate is suspect. It is difficult for Shapiro to see how such an individual could be qualified. He assumes that she won the job undeservedly on affirmative actions. This belief may be colored by racism, he says.


Shapiro is going to accuse Biden’s Supreme Court nominee of not being qualified. Why? Because he refuses to accept the fact that a woman who is not of his race should sit on SCOTUS. His racism contaminates his evaluation of nominated candidates. This is painfully obvious.

Stern was influenced by Shapiro’s alleged “overt, nauseating racism”. “deeply ashamed of my alma mater.”

Shapiro has deleted the tweet. apologizedHe claimed that his language was “inartful”. In follow-up commentHe apologized again for the “poor choice of words that undermined my message about how no one should be treated differently for their or her skin color.”

Stern said, on his part that Shapiro should not have been hired. But he denied attempting to get Shapiro fired.

William Treanor from Georgetown Law issued a denunciation of Shapiro. Treanor said that Shapiro claimed “the best Supreme Court nomination could not be an African woman.” In the context that Shapiro is specifically discussing the nomination of Sri Srinivasan for Democratic President in 2022, this is not true. Therefore, the “best” nominee cannot be either a black woman or a Native American.

In fact, Shapiro It has said that the best nominee for the Supreme Court could be a black woman—namely D.C. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown. He mentioned Judge Brown at a University of Chicago Law School event in 2016 as one of the many he might consider nominating if given the opportunity. Judge Brown was a former D.C. Circuit Judge. Circuit, which was established in 2017, may be even more distinguished than Judge Srinivasan. In 2005, she joined the D.C. Circuit in 2005. Prior to that, she was a member of the California Supreme Court and held various other high-level legal posts in California. Biden opposed her nomination and led a filibuster. Circuit. Biden threatened to filibuster Brown, the only black woman Supreme Court Justice when President Bush considered nominating Brown.

Dean Treanor took Shapiro off administrative leave Monday. This was due to the “painful and outrage” expressed by Georgetown’s black professors, alumni, staff, and students. He said, “Ilya’s tweets contradict the work we do every day here to build inclusivity, belonging and respect for all races.”

Although the Dean statement may be true, “inclusion, belonging and respect for diversity” does not mean that it is wrong to criticize racial preferences. People who are averse to racial preference or feel they have benefited from them, may be outraged by criticisms of racial disparity. But law school is supposed to allow for all opinions to be considered logically. Law students should not be influenced by lawyers who are unable to tolerate the criticisms of their ideology.

Dean Treanor said: “Racial stereotypes about individuals’ capabilities and qualifications continue to be a pernicious force within our society.” Ilya has never once indulged into racial stereotypes in the many works he has published over his career. His stance against racial discrimination has been consistent and he supports meritocracy. His immigrant family, which included a Jewish family that fled persecution in Soviet Union, understands how discrimination can lead to terrible results. His entire career has been spent defending victims of bullies in government and affirming everyone’s rights to equal protection under the law.

Dean declared that he would be investigated into “whether he violated our professional expectations, non-discrimination or anti-harassment policies.” Because there’s no “investigate,” the statement has little credibility. The record already contains Shapiro’s statements. Georgetown’s written legally binding rules on academic freedom also apply. Georgetown’s current rules either prohibit criticisms of racial preferences or allow such criticism to be included in academic freedom. The Georgetown administration has access to every document that is relevant in deciding this question.

Georgetown is contractually bound by Georgetown’s Speech and Expression Policy and its formal adoption and incorporation of The 1940 Statement of Principles of Academic Freedom and Tenure of American Association of University Professors. Dean Treanor received a letter detailing the law from Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

Georgetown Expression Policy gives students and faculty the freedom to voice opinions “thought to be offensive or unwise or immoral by any or all members of the University community or otherwise ill-conceived”.

Christine Fair, Georgetown Security Studies Professor, took to Twitter in 2018 that she was against Justice Brett Kavanaugh supporters.

This is a chorus of white entitled men who justifiably justify rapists’ arrogant entitlement. While they all deserve miserable deaths, feminists laugh while their last breaths are taken. We castrate their bodies and give them to the swine. Yes.

She was not fired by the University, as she complied with the Georgetown Expression Policy. The University instead confirmed that her speech was protected.  In addition to defending her speech, the University criticised her abusive language. “Georgetown encourages our community members to have a robust and respectful dialogue. We support speech and expression but we also condemn disrespectful and uncivil discourse which is not in line with our values.

A member of the faculty might have been involved in a more complicated case. Heidi Li Feldman, a professor of law, stated in September 2020 that faculty and deans shouldn’t support student applications to become clerks for Trump-appointed judge judges. Legal employers must refuse to employ people who have worked for these judges.

It seems that this was harassment to Georgetown Law students, who were clerking or wishing to clerk for Trump-appointed judges. It was intended to stop these students being hired. Feldman’s harassment could be considered to have violated Georgetown’s Non-Discrimination in Education policy. This prohibits discrimination and harassment on the grounds of “age, colour, disability, familial responsibilities, familial situation, gender identity, expression or genetic information.” Political affiliationRace, religion, sexual orientation, source income, veteran status, or any other prohibited factor in the educational program and activities of its schools. (emphasis added).

Dean Treanor believed Feldman’s remarks, which were intended to deprive Georgetown Law students and graduates of employment, and at the least, in violation the Non-Discrimination Policy, were protected fully by the Georgetown Expression Policy. Feldman wasn’t subject to University discipline.

Some Georgetown Law students have quietly acknowledged that Shapiro’s campaign of racism against him is actually about conservatism.  Student Rafael Nunez—who didn’t defend Shapiro but did defend the right of students to speak up for Shapiro—was kicked out of a discussion group and told that he was “privileged.” He said, “Like my mother was undocumented since 35 years.” My family was dependent on food stamps and welfare, so I needed to make a financial hole in order to be able to afford Georgetown Law. . . . And it just bothered me that these kids that didn’t even know me—you know, a fellow person of color—were telling me that I’m privileged. It’s like you don’t realize the experiences I saw growing up as well as what it took to make it to where I am today. Travis Nix, then a student from that same group was expelled for his defense of Nunez.

Georgetown may fire Shapiro. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education ranked Georgetown among the top ten universities for free speech. Its main reason is Dean Treanor. Georgetown now can accurately state that it’s on the same level as Yale and Stanford.

If the school’s dean is not known to have libeled anybody, students might feel more confident in choosing a law school. Any law school donor might be interested in the academic freedom of the school.

Georgetown University would be the first university to “prohibit discrimination and harassment on grounds of gender.” . .  If it truly adheres to the Georgetown Expression Policy and race”, then it will be open for Ilya Shapiro who has long spoken out against racism.

Joseph Greenlee co-authored this article. We have coauthored numerous briefs together with Shapiro. As a Cato Institute colleague, I’ve known Shapiro and respected him for years.