Ex-Georgetown Professor: How today’s thought police really operate
Freddie Sayers speaks to the law scholar who was hounded out of his job for a Tweet
Ilya Shapiro was due to start his new job as senior lecturer and executive director of Georgetown’s Law Centre for the Constitution this week. But on Monday, he quit. All because of a single Tweet.
In February, Shapiro was offered the job at Georgetown. At the same time, Joe Biden announced his commitment to nominate a black woman as the next Supreme Court Justice. As a specialist in the workings of the Supreme Court, Shapiro was troubled by this decision. He took to Twitter to voice his concerns:
Like what you’re reading? Get the free UnHerd daily email
Already registered? Sign in
The backlash was swift. Shapiro deleted the Tweet and apologised, but what followed was a four month investigation by the university, which he describes as ‘purgatory’. Over that time, he says, the ‘diversicrats’ at Georgetown made him feel that the role was untenable.
Freddie Sayers invited Ilya Shapiro to the studio to understand how censorship under the guise of ‘diversity and inclusion’ at Georgetown played a part in his resignation.
We know how they operate, by now.
How to stop them is the question.
Also, the fact that India Americans are considered so far behind blacks in the diversity stakes, and so openly (which is why Kamala Harris stressed her AWOL black father over Indian mother) says so much about Indians, about blacks, but most of all about the “progressives” and their supposed disdain for racism
What they don’t like about the Chinese, the Indians, the Jews and increasingly Nigerians is that they are successful. Or ‘White-adjacent’ in the current terminology, since by definition nobody can succeed on merit.
I’ll resist commenting on some kind of hierarchy of progressive prefence among ethnic minorities (mostly because I haven’t really observed it, but also because the idea is quite sick and I don’t want to) but what does seem to annoy the Left enormously is when members of those groups have the temerity to vote for a non-Left party, as if there is some kind of ownership claim over them (sift through the moral implications of that idea at your leisure). See the vitriol aimed at people like Priti Patel, the Home Secretary of the UK. She’s pursuing some quite controversial policies which you would expect to garner criticism…but the level of toxicity aimed at her seems to go much further. I think it is to do with her having committed the sin of being brown AND conservative. That seems to rile the Left no end.
It’s the same here in the US: https://newsone.com/4208335/larry-elder-gorilla-mask-hate-crime/
Note the sneering tone of the article and consider how different it would have sounded if it had been ‘one of their own’.
That tendency goes back at least to the feminist disdain of Margaret Thatcher.
They don’t even realise how racist they sound themselves. Their attitude towards ethnic minorities is so patronising.
I am surprised how naive Freddie seems to be about the scale of “DIE” in universities these days, at least in America.
From the Detroit News, about my alma mater:
Of the 76 full-time diversity bureaucrats at UM, 28 diversity officers make more than $100,000 annually — far more than an assistant professor in the humanities at UM. Robert Sellers, chief diversity officer and vice provost for equity and inclusion, alone brings in an annual salary of roughly $407,000.
And of course these people will be with us, secretly running the show, in perpetuity. It would be personally disastrous for any of them if if universities became completely “diverse, inclusive, and equitable.” What would they do for a living? (They are, in the main, not credentialed academically at all except in “wokeness studies,” and good luck firing them if they are “POCs” — persons of color.)
I retired from that institution recently. The flood of “diversity” messages and virtue-signalling from administrators and some faculty is quite stunning. It is made very plain what acceptable opinion is.
I guess I understand why Mr Shapiro felt he had to delete his tweet and apologise but it’s a shame he did nevertheless.
The University doesn’t seem to care that they creat a hostile work environment for those opposed to race based ( ie racist) hiring policies. The message is don’t think just stick to the ideology.
If I understood Mr Shapiro correctly, I disagree with him that Biden should not have said what his selection criteria (a black woman) was. I prefer to see things like this made explicit – then we all know what’s really going on and can discuss the merits of the argument.
My instinct was to think that Biden was wrong, but while I was listening to Mr Shapiro I was thinking … anyone who’s interviewed knows that you are looking for a wide range of things and might have to trade off some aspects for others. There is a case to be argued that they found a candidate whose professional background made her obviously capable of doing the job, but a thing they wanted, as well, was for that person to be a symbol of inclusion because the country could do with a few symbols of inclusion right now. So the selection criteria included ‘able to be seen as a symbol of inclusion & diversity, such as being a black woman’. As Ilya Shapiro said, these appointments are always political i.e. there’s always something going on apart from merit.
I would never want to be a “symbol of inclusion.”
Funny how Americans always feel they should explain sarcasm.
Join the discussion
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.Subscribe