The View From 1776

§ American Traditions

§ People and Ideas

§ Decline of Western Civilization: a Snapshot

§ Books to Read


Liberal_Jihad_Cover.jpg Forward USA

Saturday, May 14, 2005

A Graduate Reveals All

Harvard Law School is even more depraved than you imagined.

Rachel Alexander, the co-editor of the Intellectual Conservative website, reviews “The People v Harvard Law: How America’s Oldest Law School Turned its Back on Free Speech,” by Andrew Peyton Thomas, the district attorney for Maricopa County, Arizona, and a graduate of Harvard Law School.

Some selected highlights from the review:

“The battle over free speech is between the ?left? and the ?far left.? (p. 170) Conservatives are rarely mentioned in the book; the major players consist of traditional leftists like Alan Dershowitz versus the new leftists, known as ?Crits.?

?Crits? is the abbreviation for proponents of Critical Legal Studies, the legal offshoot of postmodernism. The underlying goal of Crit theory is that current societal structure and laws should be torn down because they were created by sexist white males. While every other aspect of society is “critically” assumed to bear this stigmata, the assumption itself is a matter of sacred belief and cannot be questioned. Crit legal classes generally consist of initiations into feminism, homosexual studies, race, and class conflict. Critical discussions of these beliefs are not welcome.

“The Crits? philosophy lacks any serious epistemology, consisting mainly of emotional rhetoric. The lack of intellectual rigor in postmodernism theory was embarrassingly revealed in 1996 and again in 2005, when academics submitted nonsensical papers written in postmodern style with pretentious rhetorical slogans as a prank to academic conferences, which were accepted without question. 

“When one of the old style leftists, Professor David Rosenberg, criticized Crit theory by stating that feminism, Marxism, and black race theory have contributed nothing to tort law, the Crits convinced the administration to punish him. The administration announced that attending his class was optional, a move which seriously harmed his career.

“The Crits sought to silence or remove anyone who spoke up with a viewpoint contrary to theirs, and loudly complained that there were not enough Crits on the faculty…..Thomas discusses several of these candidates and how Crits the administration was pressured into hiring, like Derrick Bell, ended up as an embarrassment to Harvard Law. Bell freely acknowledged that he lacked the qualifications of the other professors. (p. 34) He stated that the articles he wrote were just story telling and did not contain the academic rigor of law review articles. (p. 35) He had his students grade each other?s papers. (p. 34) He declared that liberal black professors who didn?t share his far left views ?look black but think white.? (p. 37) At one point, Harvard Law assigned another professor to teach Bell?s classes for him since he was frequently absent.

“What aided the Crits in their squelching of free speech at Harvard Law was the lack of constitutional protection for free speech at Harvard.”

Visit MoveOff Network Members

Posted by Thomas E. Brewton on 05/14 at 08:17 PM
Education • (0) Comments
Print this ArticleEmail A FriendPermalink