ON THIS DAY IN 1911: NAVAL HISTORY IS MADE: Eugene Burton Ely loved fast cars.   One of his first jobs was as a chauffeur for a Catholic priest, who is said to have been enough of a kindred spirit to enjoy Ely’s bat-out-of-hell driving.  But as much as Ely loved cars, he loved airplanes even more. When he got his first opportunity to fly one, he leapt at the chance, figuring that flying was a lot like driving. Naturally, he crashed. But to his credit, he took responsibility for the crash, purchased the wrecked plane from its owner, and got it flightworthy again. From there, he began a career as a daredevil aviator.

Ely is credited with the first shipboard take off—on November 14, 1910, from the U.S.S. Birmingham at Hampton Roads, Virginia. It wasn’t quite the success the Navy had been hoping for. Part of aircraft dipped briefly into the water before rising into the air. Ely’s goggles got covered with ocean spray, and he opted to land the damaged plane on the beach, rather than follow the plan to circle the harbor and land triumphantly at Norfolk Navy Yard.

Two months later, on January 18, 1911, he performed the opposite trick—the first successful shipboard landing—by flying from the racetrack at San Bruno onto the U.S.S. Pennsylvania in San Francisco Bay.   (And yes, a tailhook was employed.)

Ely told a reporter, “It was easy enough. I think the trick could be successfully turned nine times out of ten.” That was good enough for the Navy. The first naval aircraft was requisitioned roughly four months later. The rest is naval history.

Meanwhile, Ely was asked by the Des Moines Register whether he would ever retire from his high-risk career. “I guess I will be like the rest of them,” he said, “keep at it until I am killed.” That turned out to be soon. On October 19, 1911—two days shy of his 25^th birthday—he lost his life in a crash at an exhibition in Macon, Georgia.

In 1933, Congress posthumously awarded him the Distinguished Flying Cross.

A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROTECT NINE:  If there is still a threat of court packing …    

ONE MORE REASON TO READ MY BOOK:  Larry Purdy reviews A Dubious Expediency:  How Race Preferences Damage Higher Education.  Thanks, Larry!

HANS BADER:  Federal agency penalizes states that arrest African American juveniles at higher rates than they arrest white juveniles.

ACTUAL SCIENCE THWARTED AGAIN:  “The Campaign to Thwart Paleogenetic Research into North America’s Indigenous Peoples.”

MORE PROBLEMS WITH EMORY LAW SCHOOL:  “Citing the ‘harm’ of open discussion, Emory Law’s student government denies recognition to student free speech group.”  (Here’s last week’s Emory problem.)

THE GUARDIAN’S PUFF PIECE ON THE CALIFORNIA SLAVERY REPARATIONS TASK FORCE:  “‘If Not Us, Then Who?’: Inside the Landmark Push for Reparations for Black Californians.”

FOR RED-STATE UNIVERSITIES, I’M READY FOR LEGISLATION ON THIS TOPIC:  “From Hiring to Admissions, Universities Seek Ideological Conformity in Applicants.”

THIS IS REALLY GETTING OUT OF HAND: Jill Su’s Life Mattered.

THEY SEEM TO HAVE LOTS OF SCHEMES:  The Left’s Latest Political Scheme:  Let Noncitizens Vote.

WOKE LAW REVIEWS:  I’m so old I remember when law reviews would bend over backwards to avoid even the appearance of partisanship.  Authors could have opinions; law reviews had to play it straight down the middle.

But that was then, and this is now.  The Emory Law Journal–which is receiving some well-deserved bad publicity for revoking its acceptance of  Larry Alexander’s decidedly “unwoke” essay–has no compunction about publicly announcing its views.  It has announced that “ELJ is committed to being an anti-racist organization, both in our ranks and in our scholarship.”  It has stated it “is proud to stand with … the student organizations who seek to be actively anti-racist in the wake of police violence levied against Black and brown communities across the country.”

In “The Emory Law Journal Abandons Scholarship for Wokeism,” Louis K. Bonham discusses not just my colleague’s cancelled essay, but also law reviews in general, which “have now discarded their traditional apolitical stances to instead become openly partisan organizations.”

I miss the days when the law review’s only “opinions” were on proper citation form.

EMORY LAW JOURNAL:  Today, there are two more stories about the Emory Law Journal‘s refusal to publish an invited piece by my colleague Larry Alexander:

Jonathan Turley:  “Emory editors objected to Alexander saying that racism is not a problem today.  As noted, I disagree with this view.  However, I am not sure how the editors expect him to add citation to his own viewpoint.  Would they demand a citation from an academic who wrote ‘Racism is a problem today’?”

Robby Soave:  “Readers can take a look at the essay and judge for yourselves.  Speaking only for myself, I have a hard time agreeing that the language is insensitive and objectifying.  Alexander does indeed refer to “black” and “blacks,” but also refers to “white” and “whites.”  He invokes criminality and heredity merely to set the matter aside entirely.  And his views on whether racism is an important issue today are certainly relevant to his rejection of Perry’s philosophy.”

GOOD GRIEF:  “Seattle Police Improperly Faked Radio Chatter about Proud Boys as CHOP Formed in 2020, Investigation Finds.”

IF YOU MISSED THIS ONE LAST WEEK (AS I DID), IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO READ IT:  “Disrobing the Aboriginal Stalinists on a Canadian Campus.”

YOU REALLY SHOULD READ THIS:  The Price of Dissent:  A Reuters Data Scientist Questioned the Black Lives Matter Narrative–So the Company Fired Him.

MORE ON THE EMORY LAW JOURNAL’S REFUSAL TO PUBLISH LARRY ALEXANDER:  This piece is from Legal Insurrection.

AMY WAX REVIEWS MY BOOK:  “Affirmative Action:  Past, Present, and Future.”

THE EMORY LAW JOURNAL FINDS MY DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUE’S WORDS “HURTFUL AND UNNECESSARILY DIVISIVE”: Being a conservative can make it a little harder to get one’s articles published in a traditional law review. And if one is writing about race or sex, it can be quite a bit harder. (I don’t even try; I go straight for one of the four specialty law reviews that were founded in part for the purpose of ensuring that articles by conservative scholars get published.)

I was therefore pleased to learn that my colleague Larry Alexander—one of the University of San Diego’s Warren Distinguished Professors of Law—had been invited to write for the Emory Law Journal and that Larry had chosen to write on a race-related theme.

But it was not to be. After offering to publish Larry’s essay (which was for a Festschrift for Professor Michael Perry) and then trying to edit away the meat of his argument, the ELJ has now withdrawn its acceptance. Editor-in-Chief Danielle Kerker sent an ultimatum to Larry: Either “greatly revise” the essay or the ELJ will have to “withdraw[] our publication offer.” Larry understood how destructive to academic values it would be to cower under such pressure. He declined to revise the article.  Good for him.

Kerker wrote that the ELJ Executive Board had “unanimously stated they do not feel comfortable publishing this piece as written.”   “We take issue with your conversation on systemic racism, finding your words hurtful and unnecessarily divisive.” “Additionally,” she wrote, “there are various instances of insensitive language use throughout the essay (e.g. widespread use of the objectifying term ‘blacks’ and ‘the blacks’ . . .) . . . .”

(If the term “black” in reference to African Americans is “objectifying,” a lot more than just Larry’s essay will need to be canceled. As for “the blacks,” I have been told that some consider this to be a rude way to refer collectively to the members of a race. But, even assuming that it would be rude, Larry wasn’t using the term that way. He was using it to refer to the particular blacks in one of his hypotheticals. The “the” was intended to make that clear.

(more…)

HOPES FOR HIGHER ED REFORM IN 2022:  The James G. Martin Center staff give us their best hopes for the New Year.

CHRISTOPHER FERGUSON:  My resignation from the American Psychological Association.

AMERICA’S FIRST ROMAN CATHOLIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: On this day in 1873, Al Smith was born in a tenement on New York’s Lower East Side. His father was Italian American and his mother Irish American. The name “Smith” was an English translation of his immigrant grandfather’s surname “Ferraro.”

Smith’s father—a truck driver—died when Smith was about six years old. His widowed and impoverished mother did what widowed and impoverished mothers often did in those days: She opened a candy store. Out of that, she managed to eke out a living for herself and her children.

Smith was a proud graduate of Groton and of Harvard. No, wait … I just wanted to make sure you were paying attention.  Smith attended local parochial schools until he was about 13. After that, it was the School of Hard Knocks. The story is told that while Smith was serving in the New York Legislature, a member rose to announce that his alma mater, Cornell, has just won some sporting event. That started other members to rise to announce and praise their alma mater. When it got to Smith, he declared:

“I am a graduate of F.F.M.”

“What college is that?”

“Fulton Fish Market.”

And it was true. At the age that wealthy young men were attending college, Smith had been working 12-hour shifts at the fish market, starting at 4:00 a.m. each morning.

Smith’s strong work ethic, attention to detail, sense of humor and (perhaps most important) his reputation for candor, all helped propel him into the New York Governor’s mansion.

But those qualities weren’t enough to defeat Herbert Hoover for the Presidency in 1928.   As the Democratic Party’s Presidential nominee, Smith carried only Alabama,

(more…)

ETHICS TRAINING:  Tomorrow I have to take my annual ethics training at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.  At the Commission, “ethics” means you mustn’t buy or sell stock without reporting it.  It’s a very limited view of the subject.  Where I come from it would be considered unethical to issue a report that frightens African American mothers into believing that doctors and nurses are a bunch of racists, thereby discouraging them from seeking proper medical care early in their pregnancy.  But what do I know?

By the way, the Commission has a new report on bail reform that it has been sitting on for more than a month now.  I’m told it will finally come out in January.

JOHN FUND:  When will the media decide to pierce the White House wall protecting Joe Biden?

RICH VEDDER:  “A Farewell Assessment:  Higher Education After Six Decades.”

I haven’t been at this game as long as Rich.  But it seems to me everything he says is clearly true–especially the fall of the faculty.  (And if you think faculty members are bad, just wait until you meet the administrators who are running thing now.)

GENERALÍSIMO FRANCO’S LONG REIGN IN SPAIN: One of the funniest lines in the musical Evita is the bouncily sung “Franco’s reign in Spain should see out the ‘40s.” It’s part of “Rainbow Tour,” which recounts the story of Eva Peron’s much-publicized 1947 trip to Europe, during which she met with Franco. Of course, Franco’s dictatorship lasted much longer than the 1940s, and by the early 1970s it seemed like it might be never ending.   He was still more or less controlling Spain when he died in November of 1975. The grim reaper denied him a full 40 years in office only by a number of months.

The music in Evita was first recorded in early 1976. I’ve long wondered if the line in the song was written before or after Franco’s demise. If it was before, it makes the line even better.

All this is a long way around to saying that on this day in 1978, Spain’s Constitution went into effect, completing the country’s transition into a democratic parliamentary system with King Juan Carlos I as head of state.

As an American, I’m not big on princes. But in this case it beats the alternative. And I’m told Juan Carlos hasn’t been half bad in his constitutionally limited role.