Harvard Law School thinks small: Class Day features parade of mendacious moral midgets

Update:  Welcome Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs) readers!  She easily wins sentence of the day: “America’s finest young minds marinate in an unending toxic ooze of leftist poison.”

Update 2:  Welcome Prof. Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) readers!

Update 3:  Welcome Leslie Eastman (College Insurrection) readers!

Update 4: Welcome Louis Beckett (Ricochet) readers!

Update 5:  Welcome Nathan Harden (College Fix) readers!

(For those unfamiliar with our past work, we are Harvard Law School students dedicated to the candid examination of corruption and conflict of interest at the Law School, and of its long-standing practice of censoring and otherwise chilling  politically incorrect speech. For remarks by prominent bloggers about our work, consult Prof. William Jacobson (here and here), Prof. Glenn Reynolds (here and here), Dan Riehl, and Scott JohnsonDisclaimer: as we’ve repeatedly stated, ours is an informal group not recognized in any way either by Harvard Law School or by Harvard University, and our group has absolutely no connection to the apparently now-defunct Unbound — Harvard Journal of the Legal Left, whose editors last year worked with HLS administrators to censor our speech. It purports to be an online journal but today is no longer online).

With Harvard Law School run by an administration which does not prioritize character — one plagued by corruption and conflict of interest, which squelches student criticism, and even thought crimes, with brutal efficiency — perhaps it comes as no surprise that the mass of students follows in step.  Next Tuesday, as usual this time of year, the administration will be boasting about how Harvard Law School “Thinks Big” (click on thumbnail for full-size image of the administration’s poster now up throughout the Law School):

2013ThinksBigLast year at commencement, we at Harvard Law Unbound urged administrators and students to “Think Bigger,” by helping hold Eric Holder (the Class Day speaker) accountable for the “Fast and Furious” scandal.

This year at commencement, we urge both members of the Harvard Law School community, and others interested in the state of legal education at Harvard, to consider how the past four graduating classes have been thinking small, through their selection of  mendacious moral midgets to speak on Class Day.  Rather than selecting speakers of sterling character who represent some of the best humanity has to offer, they have selected speakers of doubtful character who represent something decidedly different.

Like our poster campaign at last year’s commencement, this is a four-poster campaign, with a poster devoted to each of the past four Class Day speakers (including the speaker for Class Day  this year, next Wednesday, May 29).  They are (in reverse chronological order):  Jeffrey Toobin, 2013; Eric Holder, 2012; Alec Baldwin, 2011; and Samantha Power, 2010. Below are images of the posters now up throughout the Law School campus.  At the top of each image is a link to a html version of the poster documenting (through hyperlinks) the key facts.  We hope all who see the posters and who read this blog will learn something of value, and that this poster campaign will encourage the selection of more appropriate Class Day speakers in the future.

To view a poster, just click on the thumbnail for a full-size image, or else follow the hyperlink for a web-optimized version of the poster which includes the factual documentation.

POSTER # 1 — JEFFREY TOOBIN (facts documented here)

2003-Toobin-poster2POSTER # 2 — ERIC HOLDER (facts documented here)

2013-Holder-poster

POSTER # 3 — ALEC BALDWIN (facts documented here)

2013-Baldwin-poster

POSTER # 4 — SAMANTHA POWER (facts documented here)

2013-Power-poster[Note: This post, as  published this morning, incorrectly referenced Class Day as being "today," instead of on May 29, as it was originally drafted for a May 29 poster campaign launch. We inadvertently failed to update it before launching this morning, four days before the original launch date.]

Posted in Uncategorized | 13 Comments

Jeffrey Toobin: Class act, or mendacious moral midget?

Class Act, or Mendacious Moral Midget?

Book+Launch+Jeffrey+Toobin+Oath+UXjK-FfPbnTlJeffrey Toobin, 2013 Class Day Speaker, Harvard Law School

1. In 1986 Toobin took “The Oath,” marrying fellow Harvard student Amy McIntosh (above) and promising to be faithful to her.  They have two teenage children.

2. It did not take long for Toobin — who has been called “The Tiger Woods of Legal Journalism” because he shares Tiger’s “weakness for women and wandering eye” — to break that oath.

3.  By the mid-1990s, Toobin was aggressively hitting on women, using “disgusting, ” “shockingly sexual come-on lines.”According to one of the women (apparently book editor and publisher Judith Regan), Toobin tried to force his way into her hotel room, telling her, “You know you want it,” and he left “several sick messages” on her voicemail. Apparently Toobin enjoys New York sex clubs, and multiple women have reported on his sexual fetishes: Toobin is into “anal sex and fisting,” and has “a bit of what could be deemed an ‘anal fixation.'”

1019m4. Around 2000 Toobin began an adulterous relationship with a woman 13 years his junior, Yale lawyer Casey Greenfield (above), the daughter of Toobin’s former CNN colleague, Jeff Greenfield.  Toobin’s on-and-off affair with Casey lasted nearly a decade.  Eventually Toobin told Casey “he was going to leave his wife for her,” but by then she “had begun to distrust him,” suspecting “he had several other mistresses.”

5. Apparently the seven years Toobin spent at Harvard honing his mind were insufficient to enable him to master contraception techniques, and in 2008 Toobin got Casey pregnant. Toobin, a staunch supporter of a woman’s right to choose in general, was less supportive of a woman’s right to choose in particularHe told Casey he’d pay for her to swap babies (aborting his baby and having another child later via a sperm donor) and that if she didn’t have an abortion she’d “regret it, that she shouldn’t expect any help from him.”

6.  When Casey decided to keep the baby, Toobin stopped talking to her.  When it was born in March, 2009, Casey e-mailed Toobin inviting him to meet his son, Rory, but Toobin didn’t reply.

7. Rather than resolve his financial responsibilities toward Casey and Rory discreetly, thereby avoiding publicity about his adultery and embarrassment for his wife and teenage children, Toobin allowed the matter to become public.  He refused to communicate with Casey, forcing her to file a lawsuit against him which took two years to litigate, leading to massive publicity in the legal field via Above the Law, (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) and in the general press via Gawker (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), the New York Daily News (1, 2), and eventually the New York Times, in articles that explored Toobin’s long-running infidelity and his sexual fetishes, as sketched above.  Even after being ordered by a court to pay child support, Toobin failed to live up to his obligations until Casey’s lawyers threatened to notify his employers and garnish his wages.

8.  In his Class Day speech, despite his extensive background in the area, presumably Toobin will not delve into the sex lives of overachievers, a topic already referenced on Class Day (by Samantha Power three years ago).  More likely, if past is prologue, Toobin will reference his close friendship during law school with former Dean, and current Justice, Elena Kagan (knowing that decorum bars her from revealing she barely remembers this name-dropping, mendacious moral midget).

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Eric Holder: Class act, or mendacious moral midget?

Class Act, or Mendacious Moral Midget?

EricHolderheaddownEric Holder, 2012 Class Day Speaker, Harvard Law School

1. In 1968, members of the Student Afro-American Society (SAAS) of Columbia University, armed with guns, took over a building and took Dean Henry Coleman hostage for 24 hours, as part of an ultimately successful effort to block the building of a gym. Two years later, as a Columbia freshman, Holder joined the SAAS and was part of “a group of armed black students” that took over another building for five days, successfully demanding the creation of the “Malcolm X Lounge” for black students (in which Barack Obama would hang out as a student in the early 1980s). After being confirmed as Attorney General Holder began bragging about his student activism, while misrepresenting it as having been entirely peaceful.

2. Another group that used armed force in the 1970s in an effort to achieve its goals was FALN, a Marxist-Leninist terrorist group committed to winning independence for Puerto Rico.  FALN “conducted a deadly bombing campaign in numerous cities around America during the 1970s and ’80s, setting off nearly 140 bombs that killed six and injured more than 80.”  The terror ended only when nearly all FALN members were captured, convicted, and sentenced to decades in prison in the early 1980s. The day after Holder became Deputy Attorney General in 1997 he began pushing to have the FALN terrorists released from prison, even though none of them had ever asked for clemency or expressed any remorse for their actions, and even though the Department of Justice had just months earlier, after an extensive review, recommended against any clemency. During the next two years Holder met nine times with advocates of clemency, but kept the many victims out of the process and never spoke to any of the law enforcement officials who had won the convictions. Despite massive law enforcement opposition, Holder succeeded in obtaining clemency for sixteen Marxist-Leninist Puerto Rican terrorists in August, 1999, with the support of Hillary Clinton, who had announced her bid for a U.S. Senate seat in New York, which has a sizable Puerto Rican electorate.

3.  Another group that has used armed force in an effort to achieve its goals is the New Black Panthers, “a virulently racist and anti-Semitic organization whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews and law enforcement officers” — a “black racist hate group”  (according to the Southern Poverty Law Center). One leader said: “I hate white people. All of them. . . . You want freedom? You going to have to kill some crackers! You going to have to kill some of their babies!,” and: “Kill every goddamn Zionist in Israel! Goddamn little babies, goddamn old ladies! Blow up Zionist supermarkets!”  Another said: “There are no good crackers, and if you find one, kill him before he changes.”  On election day in November, 2008, armed members of the New Black Panthers physically blocked white voters from voting in Philadelphia while shouting racial slurs at them.  Given the obvious violation of federal law, they were prosecuted for voter intimidation by the Department of Justice, which readily obtained convictions. But Holder became Attorney General before the case became final, and he forced dismissal of the case. He later lied to Congress by denying any involvement. He defended the dismissal by testifying that modern-day intimidation of white voters by blacks is different than what “my people” endured in the 1960s in the South. Unrepentant, and knowing the Attorney General has their back, in 2012 the New Black Panthers called for mob violence against George Zimmerman and threatened to kidnap him; threatened violence at the Republican National Convention; and returned on election day to intimidate white voters at the same Philadelphia polling place they had commandeered in 2008 — again armed, and in full uniform.

4. In his Class Day speech, Holder made no mention of the “Fast and Furious” scandal which had engulfed him, a topic addressed in posters placed throughout the Law School documenting this deadly, “insane” plan to assist Mexican drug cartels in buying thousands of high-powered weapons in Arizona, which were then used to murder U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexican citizens; how Holder was kept fully briefed on the operation as it unfolded; how Holder lied to Congress in claiming he knew nothing about the operation until it was over; and thus how Brian Terry died while Eric Holder lied.  Instead, in an awkward effort to belie the impression that he’s a bit of a dim bulb who wasn’t able to get into Harvard even with the help of affirmative action, in his Class Day speech Holder asserted that he won admission to Harvard Law School, but for reasons unexplained he instead (supposedly) elected to attend the much less prestigious Columbia Law School (knowing that federal law bars Harvard from revealing the truth).

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Alec Baldwin: Class act, or mendacious moral midget?

Class Act, or Mendacious Moral Midget?

alec-baldwin2Alec Baldwin, 2011 Class Day Speaker, Harvard Law School

1.  On October, 1995, while on a public street in Los Angeles, Baldwin punched photographer Alan Zanger, breaking his nose and glasses. Baldwin also covered Zanger’s truck with shaving cream.  He was booked on suspicion of battery, and for a time faced up to six months in jail. Zanger filed suit and the jury rejected Baldwin’s self-defense claim.  Baldwin was ultimately forced to pay damages to Zanger.

2.  In December, 1998, in a late-night television tirade against political conservatives, Baldwin shouted at the audience:  “[I]f we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together . . . go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death! . . . We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families.”

3. In 2007, Baldwin forever branded his 11-year-old daughter Ireland as “a rude, thoughtless little pig,” in a threatening voicemail message he left her (in which he said he would arrive soon to “straighten your ass out”), which ended up being aired worldwide, including on YouTube. He complained that by not answering the phone when he had called, she’d wasted his time, asking: “[Y]ou think . . . I’ve got nothing better to do? I could be shouting shit at random people on the street, but I’m calling you. I don’t care that you’re twelve or eleven or whatever . . . . I’m a good father, and you’re a pig. I don’t give a shit. . . . Get mad you daughter-of-a-bitch. . . . Oh, also, tell your mother I said, ‘Go fuck yourself.'”

4.  In December, 2011, Baldwin turned belligerent when an American Airlines flight attendant instructed him to turn off his phone to prepare for takeoff. As a crew member described Baldwin’s actions, “he was violent, abusive and aggressive. He got into the bathroom and started beating on the wall and he pounded his fists on the galley counter.”  The passengers and crew were put through a substantial delay while Baldwin was removed from the plane.  After Baldwin misrepresented what had occurred, American Airlines fired back with the actual facts. Baldwin wrote an article on the incident, much of which was devoted to attacking the airline system and the flight attendant who told him to shut off his phone. Hardly remorseful for his outrageous behavior, a few days later he used the incident as material for a Saturday Night Live sketch.

5.  In June, 2012, Baldwin shoved and punched New York Daily News photographer Marcus Santos on a public sidewalk outside a public building (photo above), and then ranted about the incident on Twitter. He joked about it the next day on the Letterman Show, where he dropped his pants. That day he also rolled his mountain bike over the foot of a television reporter and shoved her using his bike.

6.  In February, 2013, in a racist rant during a confrontation on a public sidewalk Baldwin called retired decorated New York police detective G. N. Miller – an African American – a “coon,” a “crackhead,” and a “drug dealer.”  He also make disparaging remarks about Miller’s mother, and told Miller to “suck my dick.”  Baldwin then went on another Twitter rant, in which he again called Miller a “crackhead.”

7. In his Class Day speech, Baldwin fatuously asserted he wished he had attended Harvard Law School and become a lawyer, instead of settling for being a wealthy actor who’s romanced some of the most beautiful women in the world (knowing that his deal with the Devil bars the Devil from revealing the truth).

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Samantha Power: Class act, or mendacious moral midget?

Class Act, or Mendacious Moral Midget?

16Sunstein-span-articleLargeSamantha Power, 2010 Class Day Speaker, Harvard Law School

1. In March, 2008, while working as a foreign policy advisor on Barack Obama’s primary campaign, Power slipped up in an interview and accidentally told the truth. In an on-the-record interview given during a book tour, Power opined about Hillary Clinton:  “She is a monster . . . she is stooping to anything.  . . .  The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive.”

2.  Hoping to keep her position with Obama, who had pledged to avoid a negative campaign, once her comment was published Power pleaded mental incapacity regarding why she said those words:  “I can’t even believe they came out of my mouth.” Her “monster” comment stemmed from “believing I was just talking to myself . . . .” After all, she’d earlier confessed, she was only an average law student and never passed the bar exam. Power flogged herself for “inexcusable remarks that are at marked variance from my oft-stated admiration for Sen. Clinton . . . .” She even described Clinton as “incredibly warm, funny,” and claimed she’d always “sung her praises as the leader she’s been, the intellect.” Far from being a “monster,” Power said, Clinton is a “role model” for women.

3. Power’s awkward efforts at damage control failed after Clinton noted her comments were part of a pattern of Obama advisors saying “one thing in public and another in private,” and Power was forced to resign her position with the campaign.

4. After further abject apologies to Clinton, in 2009 Power landed a White House job which involved working closely with the “monster.”

5. As part of her modest ambition “to transform the way the United States conducted its foreign policy around the world,” Power used her White House position to advance her controversial humanitarian rights theory that the U.S. has a “responsibility to protect” (R2P) civilians from being killed by their own government, by going to war with that government if necessary. This is the theory that earned Power her nickname:  “Genocide Chick.”

113Cover6. After hundreds of Libyan civilians were massacred by the Gaddafi regime and it had threatened to massacre many more, in 2011 Power, tired of “doing rinky-dink do-gooder stuff,” worked with Clinton to bring down the regime and stop the slaughter, in part by supplying Stinger missles to al-Qaeda forces temporarily allied with the U.S. (a tactic the CIA warned posed serious long-term risks, which proved tragically correct).

7. But the “Genocide Chick” stood by silently in 2012-13 as the world’s next genocide occurred in Syria, with the Bashar al-Assad regime dominated by Alawites engaging in the widespread slaughter of Sunni and other civilians, and with the U.S. doing little to try to bring an end to the massacre.  Even though she had pioneered the R2P principle, Power kept a “low profile” on Syria. She opted to protect her personal relationship with the President, and her future job prospects (as the expected next U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations), rather than resign in protest and speak out in favor of more vigorous action by the world community to quickly bring an end to the continuing slaughter of Syrian civilians. Indeed, in hopes of securing the U.N. ambassadorship she advocated promoting Susan Rice, the current incumbent, to Secretary of State even though she’d criticized Rice in 2001 for her willingness to sacrifice lives being lost in the Rwanda genocide based on political considerations.  When Power eventually did leave her White House position in early 2013 — after the expected U.N. position failed to materialize — she did so in silence, without protesting the Administration’s failure to apply the “responsibility to protect” doctrine in Syria.

8.  In her Class Day speech, perhaps lending credence to her 2008 plea of mental incapacity, Power rambled on about the sex lives of overachievers, her fantasy about winning an Olympic medal in curling, the color of her and her daughter’s hair, and the odd term she uses to describe her head:  it’s a “bat cave” (Power said she’s in her head “so often that sometimes it is hard to concentrate with all the bats swarming around”). Power spoke candidly on these subjects knowing the physician-patient privilege bars her psychiatrist from disclosing the specifics of her mental condition.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Anti-Hero of Harvard Law School: A Post-Modern “Paper Chase”

Update (Sept. 28, 10 p.m.):  Welcome Legal Insurrection readers!  We appreciate Professor Jacobson linking to us, and all of his past assistance against the Harvard Law School administration’s efforts to censor our blog (our blog was taken down twice based on bogus DMCA claims — see here, here, and here).

Poll update (for details, see the bottom of this post):  83% of those voting say that yes, Laurence Tribe is the “Anti-Kingsfield” of Harvard Law School — “the worst example of a law school professor today.”  19% say he’s not the “Anti-Kingsfield,” because at least one other Harvard Law professor is even worse.  0% answer that “no current Harvard Law professor is a bad example of a law school professor today. “

Update # 2 (Sept. 29, 12:45 p.m.):  It’s now 17 hours since our mini-“Instalaunch” via Legal Insurrection, and so far 42 people have participated in our poll.  The overwhelming majority — 81% — have voted Tribe “the worst example of a law school professor today.”  17% pick another Harvard Law professor as the worst example.  We’ve archived a screenshot here. Our most recent poll screenshot will always appear at the very bottom of the updates to this post.  Please vote!

Update # 3 (Oct. 2, 10:15 p.m.):  Welcome Power Line readers!  Hundreds of you have read this post since Scott Johnson mentioned it on September 30 in his “Annals of Political Correctness” post.  We appreciate his mentioning our poll and his humorous update:  “Results aren’t final, but — spoiler warning — Laurence Tribe has a big lead.”  Indeed, Tribe has been steadily building his lead.  Tonight, four days into the voting, a staggering 90% of those responding identify Tribe, not some other Harvard Law professor, as “the worst example of a law school professor today.”  Archived screenshot here.

* * *

At Harvard Law Unbound we’re rather fond of posters, so we keep an eye out for  interesting ones.  Early last week we noticed this one stuck up all over the Law School, featuring actor John Houseman in the role of Professor Charles W. Kingsfield Jr., the hero — the exemplar of excellence and integrity — of the fictional Harvard Law School depicted in “The Paper Chase.”It is altogether fitting and proper that the real Harvard Law School should commemorate the 40th anniversary of “The Paper Chase” with a discussion between the dean and its author, Harvard Law graduate John Jay Osborne Jr.

Still, sparked by our concern that important issues of corruption and conflict of  interest at Harvard Law School continue to be ignored by its administrators and faculty, we mark this occasion by asking:  Shouldn’t we also be having a discussion about the anti-hero of the real Harvard Law School – its “Anti-Kingsfield”?  That would be Professor Laurence H. Tribe.

In 2010, PJ Media featured a perhaps-not-entirely-hypothetical discussion among three high-profile law professors about who is  the “bad example of a law school professor today,” the “Anti-Kingsfield,” so to speak.  One remarked that a law professor who “has research assistants writing all his articles,” well, he “would be the villain” in “a post-modern version of ‘The Paper Chase’ . . . from the standpoint of the research assistant who’s writing the treatise and, you know, slips in plagiarized bits to try to get his boss in trouble.”

Here’s the video (h/t AuthorSkeptics):

There’s abundant evidence that this description –of  a law professor who farms out his scholarly writing to students, some of whom do commit plagiarism and get him in trouble — perfectly fits Professor Tribe, who we hereby nominate as the Anti-Kingsfield of Harvard Law School, the anti-hero in a post-modern “Paper Chase.”

Our main source on this is the “Harvard Plagiarism Archive,” a blog started in 2004 by a group of Harvard Law students (including at least one student of Tribe’s, interestingly) when Tribe first came under fire for his scholarly practices.  They call themselves the “AuthorSkeptics,” as their blog is focused not just on Tribe, but on other Harvard authors who have fallen under scrutiny.  Having reviewed some of the highlights on that blog (we cannot personally vouch for the accuracy of everything, but it seems carefully researched, and many prominent law professors and journalists have vouched for it, as documented in various posts on the blog), we believe that Professor Tribe is, indeed, the “Anti-Kingsfield” of the real Harvard Law School – its exemplar of how one might try to create a fraudulent illusion of scholarly productivity by farming out one’s research and writing work to student ghostwriters, at least until the students get caught plagiarizing from real scholars.

For those with limited time who want the most succinct overview, on the “AuthorSkeptics” blog there’s a helpful written summary summary here of a series of YouTube videos laying out the chronology of the Harvard plagiarism scandals, which begins with this video:

To spark interest in an examination of the scholarly practices of our very own Anti-Kingsfield, and of others affiliated with Harvard as examined in detail on the “AuthorSkeptics” blog, today we launch our fifth poster campaign, a two-poster set that contrasts the virtues of the fictional Kingsfield with the vices (at least some of them) of the unfortunately all-too-real Anti-Kingsfield.

At the bottom we include a poll, which we hope you’ll participate in, to answer this question:  Is Professor Tribe most appropriately regarded as the Anti-Kingsfield of Harvard Law School?  Yes or no — and if no, why?

Professor Tribe has never been punished for his rampant use of student ghostwriters since the 1970s despite the massive evidence that has accumulated since 2004 of his practices.  If the administration and faculty of Harvard Law School truly wish to honor the quest for intellectual excellence reflected in “The Paper Chase,” they will launch a proper investigation of Professor Tribe, and all other faculty members accused of scholarly misconduct (as exhaustively examined by AuthorSkeptics, Dean Lawrence Velvel, Joseph Bottum, Robert VerBruggen, and others covering these matters), and will issue a detailed public report on their findings concerning the very specific charges of scholarly misconduct that have been brought.

Here is our first poster, summarizing some of the virtues of Professor Kingsfield, the hero of “The Paper Chase”:

Here is our second poster, summarizing some of the vices of Professor Laurence Tribe:

And here finally is our poll.  Please vote and help us resolve, as Harvard Law School marks the 40th anniversary of “The Paper Chase,” whether Professor Laurence H. Tribe is indeed the Anti-Kingsfield of Harvard Law School — the anti-hero of a post-modern “Paper Chase.”

Is Professor Laurence Tribe the Anti-Kingsfield of Harvard Law School?
Yes, Tribe is the worst example of a law school professor today.
No, at least one other Harvard Law professor is a worse example of a law professor today.
No, no current Harvard Law professor is a bad example of a law school professor today.
pollcode.com free polls 

To vote, just click here.

Update (Sept. 28, 10 p.m.):  Shortly after we made this post about 4 p.m. today, it occurred to us there was a link between this post and our last one, addressing Professor Elizabeth Warren, which in a shameless bid for relevance we briefly pointed out to Professor William Jacobson — who, of course, for months has made major contributions delving into  Professor Warren’s biography.  As noted at the top of this post, Professor Jacobson thought the connection worthy of mention.  For interested readers, here is the body of the more elaborate e-mail we sent this evening to a wide array of bloggers, discussing in more detail Professor Tribe’s history of coming to the defense of ethically challenged members of the Harvard community:

For those closely following Elizabeth Warren (another subject of our blog), in an odd development which connects this poster campaign to our September 5 “Most Dishonest Injun” poster campaign, our selection for the “Anti-Kingsfield” (Professor Tribe) is currently serving as a key character witness for our selection for the “# 1 Most Dishonest Injun” (Professor Warren) against the charges that Warren has been unlawfully practicing law without a license:
http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/an-update-on-the-elizabeth-warren-law-license-controversy

One ethically challenged member of the Harvard community defending another is hardly novel. Professor  Tribe also served as a character witness for Doris Kearns Goodwin (here and here) and Charles Ogletree (here) in their defense against ghostwriting/plagiarism charges — that is, until Tribe himself fell under multiple waves of ghostwriting/plagiarism charges (summarized here), after which he quieted down considerably about such things.

Why is it that only Harvard law professors seem to keep getting mired in ethical scandals — rarely if ever Yale or Stanford law professors, or even professors at the more lowly law schools?  Well, at least our professors hang together while under fire!  As Ramesh Ponnuru has observed: “They’re quite a band of brothers there in Cambridge.”

HLU

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Elizabeth Warren Wins Our Vote!

[Update (Sept. 5, 7:55 p.m. Eastern):  Welcome Instapundit readers, and many thanks to Prof. Glenn Reynolds for the Insta-relaunch.  His link has produced 1,852 unique visits in less than an hour, and at this point there are about 45 additional visits each minute!]

[Update (Sept. 5, 9:58 p.m. Eastern):  5,418 unique visits in the exactly three hours since Instapundit linked to this post.]

[Update (Sept. 6, 6:45 p.m. Eastern):  We just broke 10,000 unique visits to this post in less than 24 hours.  Thanks to readers for their interest, and for the many comments.  We've resized the posters, below, to improve the readability of the post -- some readers remarked that they were too large, filling the screen.  For the full-size version, just click on the poster. Also, we hereby authorize anyone who wishes to reproduce any or all of the posters, both online and in the "real world," as long they are reproduced without alteration.]

*   *   *

Welcome to another academic year of blogging and postering from Harvard Law Unbound (HLU). For those unfamiliar with our work, we are members of the Harvard Law School community dedicated to the candid examination of corruption and conflict of interest at the Law School, and of its long-standing practice of censoring and otherwise chilling  politically incorrect speech. For remarks by prominent bloggers about our work, consult Prof. William Jacobson (here and here), Prof. Glenn Reynolds (here and here), Dan Riehl, and Scott Johnson.

(Disclaimer: as we’ve repeatedly stated, ours is an informal group not recognized in any way either by Harvard Law School or by Harvard University, and our group has absolutely no connection to Unbound:  Harvard Journal of the Legal Left.)

This blog post announces the results of the vote taken yesterday by the members of HLU. Inspired by Nick Gillespie’s blog post on famous “fake Indians” — and even more by John J. Miller’s 2006 National Review essay, “Honest Injun?” — we set out to determine, looking at all those who have been caught during the last century pretending to be of Native American ancestry, just who is the most egregious perpetrator of this particular type of fraud — in the vernacular, the most “dishonest injun.”

From a large number of initial candidates, we agreed on three qualifications necessary to make the final ballot. To be a finalist, someone must: (1) have no Native American ancestors; (2) have sought professional advancement via affirmative representations of Native American status; and (3) have asserted that status in at least one published book.

Below is our Letterman-style list of the five most “dishonest injuns,” arranged from lowest to highest total votes. By a wide margin, the two top vote-getters were the only  professors among the finalists.  We readily reached a consensus that their actions are especially dishonest because professors, given their high level of education, are especially aware of their legal and ethical obligation not to commit ethnic fraud for professional advancement.

We’re sad to report that one of our professors here at Harvard Law School, Elizabeth Warren, was the top vote-getter, narrowly beating out Ward Churchill, formerly of the University of Colorado at Boulder (after his status as a fake Indian was exposed, Churchill was fired in 2007 for academic misconduct).

As in the past, we have created a poster campaign in an effort to present the relevant information in concise and easily accessible form.  This is our first five-poster campaign. Images of all five posters appear below. Hyperlinks are provided so interested readers can readily check the sources on which we have relied.

On behalf of all members of the Harvard Law School community who would speak the truth but for the Law School’s climate of fear designed to chill politically incorrect speech, we register our shame that Elizabeth Warren continues to be a professor in good standing at the Law School, that she has not been sanctioned in any way for her long-running participation in academic fraud, and that the Law School has not even conducted an impartial investigation into the ample evidence of her wrongdoing. Hers is another stark example of the corruption (failure to hold insiders accountable) and conflict of interest (unwillingness to take prompt action that might hurt the Democrats’ hold on the U.S. Senate) which all too frequently manifest themselves at the heart of the current administration of Harvard Law School.

Biographical background on “Grey Owl” here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Biographical background on “Iron Eyes Cody” here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Biographical background on “Little Tree” here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Background biographical information on Ward Churchill here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Here, via hyperlinks, are the sources we relied on for each statement in our Elizabeth Warren poster:

# 1 Most Dishonest Injun
Elizabeth Warren, aka “Fauxcahontos”

1. Born (1949) and raised in Oklahoma City, named Elizabeth Herring. 100% white; all her ancestors are of Northern European extraction. None of her ancestors was a member of any tribe, and none even lived near  Native Americans. A great-great-great grandfather was a soldier who helped expel Cherokees from Tennessee in 1837.

2. As a recent law school graduate interested in teaching, by the early 1980s she reinvented herself as part Cherokee, taking advantage of law school affirmative action hiring programs. On this basis she was hired by the U. of Houston, U. Texas, U. Penn., and Harvard.

3. To help sell the fraud she listed herself as a Native American in various professional directories, as early as 1986. She authorized U. Penn. and Harvard to falsely report her as a Native American in filings with the federal government, violating federal law.  She identified herself as “Cherokee” in a 1984 Native American cookbook put out by her cousin. (Her recipes weren’t Cherokee; she copied them out of the New York Times.)

4. Fraud began to unravel in April, 2012, while she was running for a U.S. Senate seat. Though incontrovertibly an ethnic fraud, she still claims Cherokee descent based on a fabricated elopement story and a reference by her mother’s sister to “high cheekbones” running in the family, even though:  (a) she reported her mother’s sister as “White” (not “American Indian”) on the 1999 death certificate she signed; and (b) after exhaustive research, her own nephew was unable to “document any Native American ancestry.”

5. Has repeatedly refused to meet with Cherokee geneologists (or even send staff to meet) to address her ancestry claims. Unlike “# 3 Most Dishonest Injun” Asa (Ace) Earl Carter, to date no Harvard professor has come forward to defend Warren’s work as a “cultural impersonator.” Not even family members defend her. Nonetheless she remains a professor in good standing at Harvard Law School, which has not even conducted an impartial investigation into the ample evidence of her academic fraud.

Posted in Uncategorized | 44 Comments