WOKE MEDICAL SCHOOLS:  They’re everywhere.

WELL WORTH THE THE $5000 PRICE TAG:  Dinner Party From Hell.

YES, OF COURSE YOU KNOW HOW HE DID IT:  72nd ranked boys’ track runner in Washington State, suddenly becomes the top ranked runner.  The country s getting tired of this nonsense.

ON THIS DAY IN 1993, A JURY OF HIS PEERS ACQUITTED DALE AKIKI, A VOLUNTEER NURSERY SCHOOL ASSISTANT AT HIS CHURCH, OF CHARGES OF CHILD ABUSE AND KIDNAPPING: I guess that means justice was done. Except that it wasn’t. Dale Akiki should never have been tried in the first place. He spent 2 ½ years in jail awaiting trial.

But let me back up for a minute. When daycare moral panic of the 1980s hit, I didn’t have any trouble keeping my head. Many of the allegations of sexual and Satanic ritual abuse were obviously false. Sometimes they were utterly fantastic—like the allegations of the McMartin Preschool children that they rode in hot-air balloons, saw witches flying and were taken through underground tunnels beneath the preschool. I remember people saying, “Children don’t lie about these things” (presumably they meant the sexual abuse, not the witches and tunnels). But that’s a joke. Children lie about everything, especially when they think they are telling adults what they want to hear.

Then came the Dale Akiki case. Despite my earlier skepticism, when I first saw the local television coverage of the Dale Akiki trial here in San Diego, my initial kneejerk reaction was (to my great shame), “Good grief, they finally got one.” Why? Because Dale Akiki was unusual looking. He was born with Noonan syndrome, a congenital disorder that sometimes results in a large head and drooping eyelids and a number of other developmental problems. Also the television crew held the camera at a sharp angle (the “Dutch angle”), so as to emphasize his unusual appearance. I was an idiot.

But not for long. When the local news reported on the prosecution’s evidence the following day, it was not very impressive. I thought to myself, “Well … maybe they’ll get to the real evidence tomorrow.” But they didn’t. And the next day was no better. Eventually, the prosecution rested. They didn’t have anything on this poor guy—just a bunch of implausible accusations by nursery school children who had been prodded into making accusations by therapists convinced that Akiki was a monster. The children accused him of bringing an elephant and a giraffe to class, killing them as a warning to the children not to tattle. They also accused him of dunking them in toilets, drinking blood, and killing a human baby. Sheesh. Fortunately, there was evidence of therapists’ coaching in the form of videos of the interrogations.

I was terrified that the jury would convict. But, unlike the juries in some of the other daycare cases, the 12 San Diegans on that jury did their job right. Bless them.

Why did the District Attorney allow the case to go forward, despite recommendations to the contrary from prosecutors experienced in child abuse cases? He was being pressured by Jack Goodall, then-CEO of Jack-in-the-Box. Convinced of Akiki’s guilt, Goodall—a contributor to the D.A.’s campaign—urged him to assign the case to a different prosecutor. (Yes, that sort of thing happens in America.) The job went to Mary Avery, who was the founder of the San Diego Child Abuse Foundation. Goodall and his wife were the largest financial contributors to that organization.

By the way, San Diego voters did their job right too. The D.A. lost re-election in 1994, largely due to the Akiki case.

But here’s the part of the story I like best: During his incarceration, the deputies at the jail got to know Dale Akiki. They thought he was a sweetheart of a guy, and they knew intuitively that he was being railroaded. Twenty of them pooled their resources and had a limo ready to take him from the courthouse on the day of his acquittal. Purr.

(This is a re-post from four years ago.  I was thinking about Dale Akiki a few days ago and couldn’t resist posting it again.  I still regret my initial knee-jerk reaction.)

LIVE STREAM:  STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS v. HARVARD:  I’ll be on a panel discussing the Harvard case at the Federalist Society’s Lawyers Conference today at “approximately” 12:30 Eastern.   The time approximate because it’s a lunch panel.  They’ll start once everybody has eaten.  I hope to say a few words about my “Agenda for Congress.”

“GENDER AFFIRMING” CARE FOR CHILDREN and THE DESTRUCTION OF GIRL’S SPORTS:  This election cycle, there have been quite a few ads highlighting Democratic support for bizarre transgender policies.  That’s an improvement over 2020 when it seemed Republicans were too intimidated to bring the subject up.  Maybe there is hope for this country after all.  We’ll know a lot more by tonight.

WITH RON DeSANTIS AS GOVERNOR, I’M GETTING TO LIKE FLORIDA:  DeSantis’s Board of Education is doing what it can to resist ridiculous federal policies.  If and when the U.S. Department of Education gets around to officially issuing a transgender bathroom regulation (or reissuing the transgender bathroom guidance), Florida should consider seeking an injunction in court.  Somebody’s got to do it.

QUIN HILLYER: KEEP CALM, FOLKS:  “Arizona’s Ballot Vigilantes Deserve the Rebuke the New Black Panthers Never Received.”

(Remember the New Black Panthers’ scandal?  I sure do.)

STRUCTURAL RACISM:  Did you know that the federal government earmarks piles of money for “Hispanic Serving Institutions”?  To qualify for this gravy train at least 25% of a university’s students must identify as Hispanic.  Naturally, this causes universities located in areas with large numbers of Hispanics to fall all over themselves to get to 25%.  Alas, my own university is an example.  Even if the Supreme Court comes down hard on race-preferential admissions, the system will continue so long as structural supports like the HSI program are in place.

(In this article, I recommended that Congress–or more realistically, some future equality-friendly Congress–terminate the program on the ground that it is unconstitutional.  Note that Historically Black Colleges and Universities are on a different constitutional footing and that they are not required to have any particular racial make up to be qualified.)

WHAT THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES DIDN’T MENTION:  One topic that no one brought up at the Monday’s Supreme Court oral argument on affirmative action was mismatch.  Of the six conservative justices, not one was willing to bring up the research that suggests that students who receive an affirmative action leg up are actually made worse off by that supposed benefit.  I think I know why:  When Justice Scalia brought it up (very inartfully) at the 2015 oral argument in Fisher v. University of Texas, he got clobbered for it in the media.  The last thing they wanted was a media frenzy like the one Scalia had to endure.

LATEST EQUITY ARGUMENT:  Now that white males are a minority on the Supreme Court, the latest complaint is that the lawyers who argue before the Court are still mostly white males.  I fear that the next step will be to demand that the Court actually decide cases along demographic lines.  Eg.:  If 50% of Supreme Court cases are argued by women, then women advocates must win 50% of the time.  We can laugh at that now.  But just a few years ago we were laughing at the notion that a 6″ 4″ person with  … uh … male equipment … is just another girl on the girls’ field hockey team.  I’m done with classifying arguments as too crazy to worry about.

MISSED THE SUPREME COURT ORAL ARGUMENTS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CASES ON MONDAY?:  Here’s a video of  the Manhattan Institute’s post-argument analysis.

DOWN EAST PORNO:  Should elementary schools in Maine carry pornographic comic books like Gender Queer that depict oral sex between boys?  Is that really a hard question?

TODAY!  TODAY!:  The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Harvard/UNC affirmative action cases TODAY.  Then at 3:00 p.m. Eastern time, the Manhattan Institute will be presenting a virtual post-argument analysis with Wai Wah Chin, James Copland, Ilya Shapiro and yours truly.  It should be interesting!  You can register here.

(Here’s the amicus curiae brief that Pete Kirsanow and I did for the case.  And here’s my article on legislation that a future Congress should pass in order to remove the structural supports for race preferential admissions (no matter how the Supreme Court rules).)

(Bumped and amended from yesterday.)

UPDATE (FROM GLENN): As I’ve noted before, affirmative action is beloved by elites, but not by much of anyone else.

COMING SOON!:  The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Harvard/UNC affirmative action cases tomorrow.  Then at 3:00 p.m. Eastern time, the Manhattan Institute will be presenting a virtual post-argument analysis with Wai Wah Chin, James Copland, Ilya Shapiro and yours truly.  It should be interesting!  You can register here.

(And here’s the amicus curiae brief that Pete Kirsanow and I did for the case.)

MY CUTE LITTLE LAW SCHOOL IS GOING DOWN THE TUBES:  No, I didn’t plant this sad story about the University of San Diego.  I didn’t know about it till it was published.  But if the author had consulted me I could have given him details that would have shown the situation is much worse than his article depicts.

RICHARD SANDER:  “Even Liberals Should Be Skeptical of Racial Preferences in Higher Education.”

NEWS YOU CAN USE:  This year’s Mother Goose Parade has been cancelled due to staffing and supply chain issues.

THEY HAVE THE MONEY ON THEIR SIDE; ALL WE HAVE IS ON OUR SIDE IS FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS:  “Harvard Students Get $2,700 for Pro-Affirmative Action Rally at SCOTUS.”  It is one of the weirdest myths in the world that the left is impecunious, while the right is rolling in dough.  Especially with the race and sex issues I tend to deal with, the opposite is true.

CALIFORNIA THWARTED:  California’s attempt to prevent the federal government from contracting with private companies to build and staff immigration detention centers failed in court.

(A few years ago, when the Commission on Civil Rights was inspecting an immigration detention facility run by a private company, my progressive colleagues were very surprised to find out that the place was actually pretty nice.  It was hilarious … maybe the most fun I ever had on the Commission.  For some reason progressives think that, because these private companies are “for profit,” they are scary.  They don’t seem to realize that prison guards and their unions are “for profit,” too.  At some point, we all are.  I don’t know very many people who would continue to do their job if they weren’t being paid.)

HOT!!  AND IMHO VERY IMPORTANT!!:  Here is my “AGENDA FOR CONGRESS” essay in a form that is not behind a paywall.  It’s all about what Congress should do if either (1) the Supreme Court finally holds race-preferential admissions to be illegal; or (2) it doesn’t.

It won’t matter what the Supreme Court does if the structural supports for race-preferential admissions are allowed to remain in place.  Please take a look at the article (if you didn’t already read it in the New Criterion).  Send it to your Congress critter … or your cousin from Peoria. It will likely take years to get this done either through legislation or litigation, but a useful first step is to get GOP Members of Congress and other conservatives familiar with the recommendations.

(If you subscribe to the New Criterion, try this version.)

MOLEHILLS:  The San Diego Union Tribune reports story about a UC-San Diego lecturer who is thought to have said the wrong thing concerning a group of Spanish-speaking men talking loudly outside his classroom.  The quote at the end of the story got me:  “‘Everyone agrees that what the professor did was racist,’ said Sky Yang, president of Associated Students at UCSD.  ‘There is a split among students over whether he should be fired or whether he should stay and be re-educated.  It seems that some want to give him a second chance because he apologized quickly.'”

WHY ARE STUDENT TEST SCORES PLUNGING?:  Maybe it’s not just covid.

IF YOU’LL BE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IN NOVEMBER:  On November 15^th, Wilfred “Bill” McClay is coming to the University of San Diego to deliver the annual Joan E. Bowes Lecture.  Bill is the author of a splendid history of the United States—Land of Hope: An Invitation to the Great American Story.  If your children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, or teens hanging out on the street corner near you are being taught in school that our country is the Great Satan, this might be a good book for them. It’s make the effort to be fair; it’s not a fairy tale.  But the truth is epic.

Bill will be speaking at USD on “Freedom of Speech versus Freedom of Expression.”  The lecture is free, but registration is required.  There will be a reception, so you’ll get a chance to speak with Bill.

This is our annual lecture by a conservative speaker … an official moment of sanity at an otherwise woke university.

WAPO on CORPORAL PUNISHMENT:  Progressives hate any kind of school discipline.  They complain bitterly that school suspensions (even brief in-school suspensions) make things worse by keeping students out of the classroom and hence causing them to fall behind in their education.  But when they are reminded that’s precisely why our grandparents thought a quick swat on the buttocks was the better way to deal with misbehaving younger children, they freak out.

I am not here to advocate for corporal punishment.  I teach law students (most of whom could best me in a fair fights), so I have no special insight into how to maintain an orderly classroom of young children.  But here is the thing I cannot abide:  WAPO tells us that “disabled” students are subjected to more corporal punishment than non-disabled students. Quelle surprise!  We define “disabled” to include students with behavioral disorders.  How do you identify students with behavioral disorders?  They are the ones who have misbehaved a lot in the past, of course!  So what has WAPO told us?  Student who misbehave a lot get punished a lot!  Brilliant.

One way or another, teachers have to maintain order in the classroom.  Otherwise, learning won’t take place.  Maybe it shouldn’t be corporal punishment.  Maybe it shouldn’t be suspensions.  But what’s it going to be?