Comments on: Update IV: ‘Elena Kagan As Scholar’ (‘Racist!’)

By: Brett Gerasim

Brett Gerasim — Thu, 13 May 2010 23:59:17 +0000

In terms of principle, Myron is correct. In terms of practice, largely because the public does not understand that their relationship with the public sector is not and cannot be the same as the one they have with various entities in the private sector, the purse argument carries with the masses.

The GOP always disappoints on these matters. Our combined work here on BAB has raised two superior issues for the opposition to explore sor far (opening the door to speech codes, assault weapons bans), and they persist in taking the loser route of playing the race card.

By: Roger Chaillet

Roger Chaillet — Thu, 13 May 2010 16:38:20 +0000

Silly me, I thought race was a social construct?

So, why is her hiring record under fire?

I’m 99.999 percent certain that she will come down on the side of racial quotas when it comes to Harvard’s undergraduate admissions. So, why the fuss about her hiring practices?

She’s an elitist. She’s entitled to exempt herself from the the same laws that are used as cudgels against us normal folks.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 13 May 2010 11:19:42 +0000

I have a question. How many “blacks and browns” applied for the jobs she offered? I’m tired of this idea if a certain amount of whomevers isn’t represented, then racism has poisoned the air.

By: MonkeyBoy

MonkeyBoy — Thu, 13 May 2010 05:14:39 +0000

Her recent hirings do not reflect her entire record. Either way, I don’t see what the fuss is all about.

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Thu, 13 May 2010 04:03:33 +0000

I doubt that Kagan argued her case on 3rd Amendment grounds – but I strongly reject the “you took Federal money so you must comply with ANY demands” argument. If the Federal government cannot arbitrarily quarter soldiers or require that the entire Harvard faculty be Catholics, they cannot get around those prohibitions via financial coercion. If that “you took the money” were a viable principle of governance – then government could just announce a “zillion dollar tax on all citizens under penalty of death” and a tax exemption to anyone obeying the whims of some dictator. I emphatically supported Harvard’s (arbitrary) decision to keep troops off its property.

As PRIVATE PROPERTY, Harvard should not be bound to be “patriotic”, “consistent”, or “fair” – especially since the Military can trivially purchase property in the City of Cambridge and the students can show up at a recruiting station. The government’s case was pure intimidation of private property rights.

Kagan’s evil nefarious hiring record: “..her record indeed looks atrocious. Of the law school’s 29 new hires, 23 were white men, five were white women, and one was an Asian-American woman. There was not one black or Latino professor in the bunch..”

http://www.sdnn.com/…/hutchinson-kagan’s-affirmative-action-achilles-heel

By: Brett Gerasim

Brett Gerasim — Thu, 13 May 2010 02:48:30 +0000

As stated earlier regarding military recruiters, Harvard could do whatever it wanted were it not for the fact that it takes federal money. The same would be true of High Schools, I would think.

Oddly enough, the very same “power of the purse” that the public used to use as a bludgeon against encroaching government is now one of many tools utilized by government against the citizen. For men aged 18-26, it is awfully difficult to secure a loan of any kind without registering for the draft.

Did she really try and make the case on the Third Amendment? I’d like to see that, although it is of little comfort in light of her desires to limit the scope of the first (free to speak unless the social cost is too great) and second (assault weapons bans) amendments.

By: John McNeill

John McNeill — Wed, 12 May 2010 21:26:18 +0000

Uh oh – I smell a far-right extremist…

Someone call the Southern Poverty Law Center; I’m sure conservatives would gladly work with them to fight this new neo-Nazi scourge!

By: Derek

Derek — Wed, 12 May 2010 20:49:17 +0000

Roy said: With regards to Military recruiting IIRC Harvard is a private college so they should be allowed to have who ever they want or don’t want on campus.

Since Harvard takes Federal money, I don’t see why the Feds cannot force Harvard to either allow ROTC or to not take Federal funds. At least the Feds do that to other institutions with regards to their hiring practices. So why should Harvard, whose grads have helped pushed that philosophy on the rest of us, escape?

By: Barbara Grant

Barbara Grant — Wed, 12 May 2010 18:58:58 +0000

The larger issue is that when a President puts forth a nominee with meager qualifications(as Obama did with Sotomayor) the rest of his nominations are, justifiably, going to be met with harsher scrutiny. I don’t know much about Kagan, but I do know something about the “flip side” of Affirmative Action: highly qualified minority individuals and women suffer the consequences of the fact that the system “corrects” in favor of the incompetent, much of the time. “Judge us on our merits!” we implore. No; if a member of Minority Group A, or a non-minority Female doesn’t get a particular job/contract/position, he or she can at least be assured that it was given to a “person of color” or a woman, no matter how minimally qualified they may be.

By: Roy Bleckert

Roy Bleckert — Wed, 12 May 2010 18:34:24 +0000

With regards to Military recruiting IIRC Harvard is a private college so they should be allowed to have who ever they want or don’t want on campus

For public schools if you are going to allow recruiters for Biz , Colleges etc. on campus, then the Military should be allowed to recruit on campus also, either ban them all or let them all in

Ol Roy just trying to be consistent here