THE AUSSIES HAVE SPOKEN:  Down Under voters reject special rights for indigenous people. 

EXODUS OF THE WRONGTHINKERS FROM AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES:  The author interviewed me and several of my USD colleagues (including the dean) for this article.

ANOTHER JEWISH HOMELAND:  I found I couldn’t read any more about the events in Israel.  It was just too gut wrenching.  I therefore started thinking about a different (though related) topic:

Before there was a modern Israel (and before modern Zionism), there was  … South Carolina.  Two wealthy Sephardic families living in London—the DaCostas and the Salvadors—purchased 200,000 acres in what was then South Carolina’s frontier sometime in the 1730s or so.  Their intent was for the land to become a refuge for poor Sephardic families then living in England.  (The land was located in what is now the town of Ninety Six in Greenwood County.)

It wasn’t a crazy an idea—not too crazy anyway.  Evidently, a small group of Sephardic Jews had settled in Savannah, Georgia in 1733, but had fled to Charleston when it looked like the Spaniards in Florida had designs on Georgia.  The Spanish Inquisition was still in business then, so this was a prudent move.  For most of the 18^th as well as the early 19^th century, South Carolina was the destination of choice for Jewish immigrants to America.

(more…)

SIGH:  Fox News 23 (Tulsa) believes that ending the special subminimum wage for individuals with severe disabilities will “eliminate a hurdle to fair pay for people with disabilities.”  And so apparently do some Oklahoma legislators.  But it’s nonsense.  Eliminating the subminimum wage will eliminate jobs, not hurdles to fair pay.

When the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights did a report on this topic in 2020, we were inundated with public comments from family members of individuals with Down Syndrome.  I’m told it was more comments than we’d ever received for a single report in our history.  Overwhelmingly, the commenters wanted the subminimum wage program kept.  They knew their loved one would not have a job at all without it.  You’d think that would be obvious to more people.  But I guess the world’s gone mad.

“FLORIDA LAWMAKER FILES BILL CURTAILING ‘STAND YOUR GROUND’ LAW”:  Weirdly, this article tries to relate the “stand your ground” law to the death of Trayvon Martin, who is described as “an unarmed teenager,” even though the “stand your ground” law was not at issue.  The author seems to have forgotten the part about Martin beating Zimmerman’s head against the pavement.  By the time Zimmerman realized what was happening, he couldn’t have retreated if he’d tried.

Here’s more on “stand your ground” laws.  There’s a lot of misconception about these laws.

USCCR:  GianCarlo Canaparo may be onto something here.

HERE’S MY AGENDA FOR CONGRESS:  Last week, the House Education and Workforce Committee held a hearing entitled, “How SCOTUS’s Decision on Race-Based Admissions is Shaping University Policies,” with the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Alison Somin testifying (among others).

My experience with GOP Members of Congress is that they tend to get the deer-in-the-headlights whenever issues of race and sex are brought to their attention.  They much prefer the courts to solve the problems (while the courts prefer Congress to do so).

Is the fact they were willing to hold this hearing a sign that’s changing?  Well … I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

BIT BY BIT, THE ASIAN AMERICAN VOTE IS TRENDING GOP:  Some of the reasons for this are contained in my Statement written in connection with the Commissioner on Civil Rights’ report of Anti-Asian racism.

ANOTHER TRANSGENDER BATHROOM LAWSUIT HAS BEEN FILED:  Again, here is my simple step-by-step legal argument for why it is perfectly okay to require individuals to use the facilities set aside for their biological sex.  The argument can be easily adapted to fit Title VII.  More argument here.

EBOLA IS A RIVER, ZIKA IS A FOREST:  My Civil Right Commission colleagues rightly say that opposition hate crimes shouldn’t be a partisan issue.  But for something nonpartisan, the Commission’s report on Anti-Asian Racism (released Wednesday) spends an awful lot of time suggesting Trump’s use of the term “China virus” and “Wuhan virus” inspired violent crime against Asians.  In my response to the report, I point out just how many diseases are named for their point of origin.

HOT! HOT! HOT!:  Today, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is releasing its report on Anti-Asian Racism.  My Commissioner Statement is here.  I learned an important thing from this report:  Only topics that are consistent with the progressive agenda can be the subject of a Commission report.  In other words, it’s fine to demand accurate counts of hate crimes, but the question of how to prevent those crimes is of little interest. (And heaven forbid that we should discuss race-preferential college admissions policies!)

I’D BEEN WAITING FOR IT:  Thomas Sowell’s new book–Social Justice Fallacies–is out.  I received my copy yesterday evening.   If I am lucky enough to make it to 93 years old, I’ll be happy if I can write a coherent blog post.

He cites me–or rather he cites this article of mine.  Twice.  Purr.

I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP:  I am reviewing the Freedom of Information Act response I recently received from Michigan State University College of Law.  One of the documents briefly describes the ways an assistant dean modified MSU’s marketing materials in order to show the school’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.  In an apparent effort to be “mindful of potential triggers for survivors of sexual assault,” the deanlet removed the MSU helmet from at least some of those materials.  Unless, I am mistaken, that means this was removed:

It’s MSU’s Spartan helmet logo.  Is anyone seriously triggered by MSU’s Spartan helmet?  If they are, maybe MSU is not the school for them. Moreover, regardless of the reason for one’s anxiety, is it a good idea to go to law school if one is so easily triggered?  Lawyers are supposed to be champions for their clients.  That’s what lawyers do.  Is it fair to wish a lawyer who gets triggered by a university logo on a client who is in trouble and needs help?

THEY WANT US TO KEEP VOTING UNTIL WE GET IT RIGHT:  Yesterday afternoon, the California Assembly passed ACA7.  For those of you who haven’t been following my posts, ACA7 is the latest attempt to destroy Prop 209–the 1996 initiative that prohibited the State of California from engaging in preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.

Three years ago, with Prop 16, our esteemed legislature tried to get voters to repeal Prop 209.  They failed in that effort big time.  Now the Assembly wants voters to adopt an “exception” that will swallow the rule.  If the California Senate concurs (32 Dems, 8 Reps), the issue will go on the ballot.

I was struck by the “argument” put forth by Assemblyman Corey Jackson in favor of ACA7:  ” [T]here is no room for respectfully disagreeing on this issue.  There is no room for decorum when it comes to the very existence and atonement of my people.”

QUELLE SURPRISE:  The Los Angeles Times reports that a poll finds 59% of California voters oppose cash reparations for the African American descendants of slaves.  Only 28% support the idea.

Prediction:  The “nonprofit” organizations that have been arguing for reparations will soon ask that reparations be paid through them instead.

THANK YOU, FIRE:  My cute little university won’t let Matt Walsh of “What is a Woman?” fame speak on campus.  According to FIRE’s letter to University of San Diego president James Harris, USD’s College Republicans sought to bring in Walsh as a speaker, but were told by the Director of Student Activities and Involvement that Walsh’s views are “transphobic,” “offensive,” and would make USD students feel “unsafe,” “not comfortable,” and “offended and hurt.”  Later, the Vice President for Student Life confirmed that USD would not allow Walsh to speak on campus, stating that “all guest speakers … [must] engage in perspectives in a manner consistent with USD’s mission and core values” and that Walsh was “very disrespectful” and “grossly offensive.”

FIRE points out that USD claims to be a school that protects free speech. But this is hardly USD’s first offense against free expression.  Over the last three or four years, there have been quite a few.  This isn’t even the first one this summer.  It’s a shame.  This used to be a university.

IF YOU’RE IN MISSISSIPPI NEXT WEEK:  On Thursday, September 14, David Bernstein, Peter Kirsanow, and I will be joining Chris Green at Ole Miss for a Constitution Day discussion of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions on issues of equality.

This is a presentation of the Declaration of Independence Center for the Study of American Freedom.  I hope you’ll join us if you’re in the area.

This will be my first trip to Mississippi.  I’m looking forward to it.

IF YOU’RE A TWITTER* USER AND ARE SO INCLINED, PLEASE “LIKE” AND RETWEET THIS:  I’ll be sending targeted “quote tweets” to California legislators after this underlying tweet starts getting a decent number of “hearts” and retweets.    Yes, I wish we lived in a day that Twitter was not the most effective way of getting a state legislator’s attention.  But … well … times being what they are  …

*X.  I’m quite fond of the illustrious Mr. Musk, but I wish the name were still Twitter.

By the way, the underlying WSJ editorial is great.

Red Alert—The Cal Legislature’s ACA7 purports to create an “exception” to Prop 209, but in fact it guts it.

The voters already rejected this kind of race discrimination in 2020 with Prop 16. Don’t make us do it again.https://t.co/nLMt6HHhET

— Gail Heriot (@GailHeriot) August 31, 2023

PLEASE HELP US OUT:  In 2020, the California legislature attempted to strip the state constitution of these words:  “The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”  Yes, that’s right … our esteemed legislators didn’t like those words.  They wanted to be able to discriminate.

The words had been put there in 1996 by Proposition 209 (a campaign I co-chaired).  At the time it was a big deal.  It made news around the world.

I also co-chaired the opposition to the repeal effort—known as Proposition 16—in 2020.  And miracles of miracles, with the help of Instapundit readers, we won.  The pro-16 forces outspent us something like 17 to 1, but we nevertheless defeated the repeal.  And it wasn’t close.  We beat the pants off ‘em.

But they just won’t stop … which ought to show you something.  While Proposition 209 hasn’t ended all state-sponsored race and sex discrimination in California, it ended a whole lot of it.  That’s why progressive legislators want to get rid of it.  It’s in their way.

Their new plan—ACA 7—will put on the ballot what purports to be a mere “exception” to Proposition 209.  But the exception will swallow the rule.  The governor will be able to authorize discrimination if there is “research” showing that such discrimination will “increase[e] the life expectancy of, improv[e] educational outcomes for, or lift[] out of  poverty  specific  groups  based  on  race … sex, [etc.]”

Anyone who understands a thing or two about “research” knows that you can find “research” that finds the moon is made of green cheese.  But the “research” won’t even need to be fraudulent.  If you pass a law that says only people from the “right races” can get state jobs or contracts, that will indeed “lift” them “out of poverty.”  But it will do so by unfairly driving those of other races into poverty.

In essence, if ACA 7 is passed by the legislature and passes at election time, the State of California will be able to violate Proposition 209 whenever the governor d*mn well pleases.  And that will happen a lot.

Fortunately, this thing hasn’t made it out of the legislature—not yet anyway.  And with luck it never will.  Moreover, this seems like a rock stupid way for the progressive movement to use its time and energy.  First, it will further alienate Asian American voters, who used to be a reliable Democratic constituency.  As a result of Proposition 16 and Democratic indifference to crime, they no longer are.  Second, the repeal effort is likely to lose at election time (though it will cost conservatives (and me!) a lot of time and resources to make that happen).  Third, given the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (2023), the whole enterprise is likely to be futile.  Every time the California governor purports to authorize an “exception” to Proposition 209’s prohibition on racial preferences, it is likely to be struck down by the courts.

So here’s the ask:  Please help us direct as much noise as we can toward these legislators.  They need to know that we’re quite prepared to oppose this thing. The Assembly Appropriations Committee is meeting on Friday.  We need to make sure as many members as possible hear from opponents as often as possible.  You can email these members here.  One sentence will do–“I oppose ACA 7” or “I can’t believe you’re trying to destroy Proposition 209 again.”

Tomorrow, I will post some tweets (Xs?) directed at specific legislators that I hope those of you who have twitter accounts will retweet (re-X?).  I don’t care if the only follower you have is a dog named Fred who lives in Bulgaria, it will still help.  And it’s easy.

No, I don’t need any money.   And I won’t ever if we can head this fool thing off now.

GO, ALICE!  I GUESS HE’S NOT EIGHTEEN ANYMORE: “Alice Cooper Call Transgender Healthcare for Kids a ‘Fad’; Condemns the ‘Whole Woke Thing.'”  Who would have ever thought that Alice Cooper would become the voice of reason?

RACE AND SCHOOL DISCIPLINE:  The Federalist Society is sponsoring a panel discussion on race and school discipline— a favorite topic of mine—on Thursday.  I’ll be watching.  Maybe you’ll be interested too.

I’VE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR YEARS:  A Ninth Circuit federal judge (in dissent) has finally gone on record agreeing with me that a portion of the federal hate crimes statute is unconstitutional.  I tried to get the Supreme Court to take the issue three times (and failed all three times).

Congress claims to have the authority to prohibit “hate crimes” pursuant to the Thirteenth Amendment (which prohibits slavery).  That’s quite a stretch.  Slavery?  Really?  Maybe the Supreme Court will take the case now.

“SOUND OF FREEDOM” OR “SOUND OF FABRICATION”?:  Red-Pilled America podcast–hosted by Patrick Courrielche and Adryana Cortez–is pointing out that maybe, just maybe, the movie “Sound of Freedom” is not quite on the up and up.  When they looked at the court records, they found many contradictions–too many–between the real story and movie.

You might want to read my sex trafficking Commissioner Statement from a few years ago.  There are many different problems, all of which tend to get called “human trafficking,” e.g., labor trafficking, prostitution by consenting adults, prostitution by teenagers who are under the age of consent but who nevertheless sought out the opportunity, sex slavery of adults, and sexual slavery of children.  Unfortunately, they tend to get conflated.  The reality is that each of these problems is different.  Each has its own solutions.  The last of these, sexual slavery, whether of adults or children, is extremely serious.  But there is a lot less of it than we are sometimes led to believe.

ONE OF MY FAVORITE QUOTES EVER:  “There is little reason to believe that this socialism will mean the advent of the civilization of which orthodox socialists dream. It is much more likely to present fascist features. That would be a strange answer to Marx’s prayer. But history sometimes indulges in jokes of questionable taste.”  Joseph Alois Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1942).

DISPARATE IMPACT STRIKES AGAIN:  The ACLU thinks the law requires landlords to rent to people with a history of being evicted.  (For background on how we got into the ridiculous situation we’re in, see my article on how disparate impact makes almost everything presumptively illegal.)