The Dishonorable Judge James C. Ho
Let me be clear: I didn't fly halfway across the country because some law school event went poorly. At the end of the day, I really don't care about what happens at UCLA. That doesn't affect me at all.Here's my concern: If this is what we're teaching the next generation of lawyers and leaders—that this is how you treat people you disagree with—ask yourself: What else are they willing to do to those they disagree with? What other lines are they willing to cross? What kind of country does that look like? And is it the kind of country any of us would like to live in? Because what happens on campus doesn't stay on campus.
No one at UCLA or any other law school is "teaching" students to be rude during campus events. Please remember, Mr. Percival said what he wanted to say, albeit with background noise that was likely annoying. What exactly does Judge Ho want UCLA to do? Punish the students who did not remain totally silent during the event? How should those with the power to punish distinguish between normal background muttering allowed at all events from a true heckler's veto? Those lines are difficult to draw for the best-intentioned administrators. Moreover, as Professor Marcus recounted, the Federalist Society event was billed as one that would include a freestyle Q&A but then only pre-screened questions were allowed. Judge Ho makes no mention of that bait and switch.
What "other lines are they willing to cross?" I don't know but maybe Judge Ho should worry more about the examples being set by his favored Administration using the entire coercive power of the federal government to pressure universities, law firms, and television networks who criticize the President (who appointed Judge Ho) more than the localized free speech implications of a mild dust-up at UCLA.
Judge Ho goes on:
Students are learning all the wrong lessons. They're bringing those lessons to workplaces and communities all across America. And it's tearing our country apart.
But even that's not what most infuriates me about recent events at UCLA. What most infuriates me is that my branch of government has no interest in doing anything about it.... Four years ago, a similar incident occurred at Yale Law School. A group of woke law students disrupted an event that, ironically, was intended to promote free speech—simply because one of the speakers was a prominent Evangelical Christian lawyer. So I announced that I could no longer in good conscience hire law clerks from Yale Law School. I pointed out that many judges would obviously refuse to hire from a racist law school.
So if it's okay to stand up against racism, why not for freedom of speech?
Judge Ho's boycott of Yale students because the school possibly mishandled a student event was an overeaction and, even worse, an obvious publicity stunt. Why did Judge Ho have to go public instead of simply not hiring Yale clerks?
Judge Ho eventually extended his boycott to Columbia University for reasons that had the charm of somehow being both obscure and petty (a neat trick). That move led that notorious leftist who has no regard for free speech Eugene Volokh to write the following:
We shouldn't threaten innocent neutrals as a means of influencing the culpable. Columbia students aren't the ones who set Columbia policy. They may disagree with that policy, or they may not know enough about the subject to have a view... They shouldn't be held responsible for what Columbia does, and they shouldn't be retaliated against as a means of trying to pressure Columbia to change.
Moreover, there is a difference between administrators and faculty trying to draw hard lines at controversial campus events regarding student reactions and the fight against racism. There are no overtly racist law schools as far as I can tell but there are hundreds of universities wrestling with the balance between the free speech rights of audiences and the rights of controversial speakers.
Also, please don't miss the reference to "woke" law students that Judge Ho used to inflame the culture wars. Judge Ho expressed regret that only a few other judges joined his boycott and observed that "those who have written extensively about wokeism and intolerance—folks like Vivek Ramaswamy and Ilya Shapiro and Senator Ted Cruz—have all come out in strong support of the boycott." Yes, those three people should be the role models for spreading tolerance and civility throughout the land. I will spare the reader the many inflammatory, attention seeking, and left-wing baiting comments all three of those men have made throughout their careers, many of which denigrated and/or marginalized women, other minority groups, and anyone they feel deserves the undefined label "woke," whatever that means.
Judge Ho then had the temerity to say this:
Here's my problem. Just last year, when the Heritage Foundation was charged with antisemitism, a number of judges made clear that they would refuse to associate with the Heritage Foundation. And they specifically boycotted an event that would have featured the Heritage Foundation's work. There was even a whole panel of judges to talk about these issues during the most recent Federalist Society convention.
So just to review the bidding: It's okay to boycott Heritage. But you can't boycott woke law schools. Let's just be very honest about what's going on here. Let's be candid about the double standards that plague the judiciary. It's okay to boycott Heritage, because you'll never be punished for attacking conservatives. It's okay to boycott Heritage, because it's okay to virtue signal to cultural elites. It's okay to boycott Heritage, because judges who punch left are excoriated—but judges who punch right are celebrated.
Let me clean up the record. First, Professor Blackman along with many others resigned from Heritage because of its alleged anti-semetic behavior. Second, when the head of an organization calls for a return to "patriarchy," maybe judges should think about not participating in their events. Third, what is a "woke" law school? Judge Ho never tells us nor tries to defend this obvious dog whistle. Fourth, let's all feel sorry for those poor, poor conservative judges with life tenure and cushy jobs who punch left and are then "excoriated." This victim mentality is as absurd as it is pitiful.
Finally, Judge Ho says, and as Dave Barry would write, I am not making this up, the following:
We should heed the words of Justice Thomas: North is still north. Right is still right. Even if you stand by yourself. We need judges to follow in the mold of Justice Thomas—judges who are willing to stand alone when necessary—judges who care more about principle than prestige. It's unfortunate what happened at UCLA Law School. And it's unfortunate that the judiciary won't do anything to help.
Judge Ho says we need more judges like Justice Thomas "who care more about principle than prestige." The most important principle Justice Thomas stands for is that in litigation before the Supreme Court the GOP always wins. And to say that Justice Thomas, who accepted from a billionaire luxury trips, salary supplements for his wife, private school tuition for his son, and money to make improvements to his mother's house, cares more about principle than prestige is as disingenuous as it is partisan. And that is Judge Ho in a nutshell, disingenuous and partisan--not to mention a continuing embarrassment to the federal judiciary.
-- Eric Segall