Harvard Law Seems to Have Changed
Harvard Law has a history of strained faculty and student relations, but that now seems to be a permanent dynamic. The institution appears less like a law school and more like a grievance committee for inconsolable whiners that squeal about everything other than the law and refuse all debates.
You would never guess from some faculty social media posts that the authors are actually law professors because even when they do comment about law it reads like something a junior college student with a strong interest in protest-activism might write. It’s almost as if some of them despise the career paths they have chosen and are trying to squeeze a different career into the title of ‘law professor.’
I can’t forget when some random college kid ripped apart the Harvard Law Review’s shoddy scholarship. Taking America’s best law school and turning it into a contender for best junior college in Detroit is not what I consider to be progress.
Some of Harvard’s newer clinical and practical programs — by their names alone — seem like worthwhile causes to help unfortunate people until one listens to substantive lectures by the people managing them and realizes that they are infected with repetitive psycho-babble from poorly written course materials. In other words, crappy classroom habits seem to have crept into clinical programs, making them almost indistinguishable. One has to wonder how the poor and unfortunate benefit from this. I listened to several hours of these lectures and finally had to turn them off — judging from how low the viewership rates were, the general public also was not interested.
Not to ‘bag-on’ professor Laurence Tribe, but to use him as an example for a broader point—He briefly flirted with this path too a long time ago. Tribe was a good teacher at the school, but couldn’t help from jumping on the useless-drivel-express at one point in his career. Tribe was not the first to join this trend, but apparently couldn’t resist briefly chasing this fad with a self-indulgent article titled, “What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics.” Well, the answer to that proposition is simple: Not a god-damned thing! Law and physics are not remotely related fields of study. It would be like trying to learn about peanut butter by comparing it to motorcycles.
That type of scholarship does little to further the cause of promoting a comprehensible theory of constitutional rights.
Truth be told, I did the same thing once, thirty years ago, but only because I absolutely hated the subject matter I was being forced to write about and decided to write about something that actually interested me by combining two incompatible subjects. Much to my disappointment that somehow got published without my consent years later when in fact it was a throw-away piece of rubbish that I had no real interest in writing: Afterwards I thought, “My God! The professor that made me write that didn’t even realize the final product was a complete heap of useless trash.” He couldn’t tell the difference between someone tuning a piano and playing a song.
But that didn’t seem to be the premise of Tribe’s law-&-physics article; it seems Tribe was trying to boast that he had a serious math background (which he does) before switching to law to try and style himself as the brain behind the second-coming of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. He saw the ‘cool kids’ wearing lab coats, and he tried one on for a while: ‘Look at me Ma! I’m a scientist!’ It was an image-building device for him that was little more than a silly attempt to appear scientific and feed his ego. Truth be told, a lot of this type of garbage-scholarship seems to come from Yale University and it may have crept into Harvard through that back-door.
Imagine being some poor schlub looking to find out what your constitutional rights and remedies are by reading an article by an otherwise accomplished and celebrated law professor, but having to dig through a sophomoric Star Trek script that leads to nowhere. What a fucking waste of time.
Tribe didn’t spend his time well in that particular instance, but otherwise had a very productive teaching career. This was an atypical adventure for him. Some of his colleagues, however, have only taken this type of approach. And now that style seems to be the defining part of Harvard Law School, making one wonder if Harvard Law School is actually the Harvard Law School. From my point of view, the school is starting to look like a malnourished and dying house plant —perhaps the institution doesn’t even really exist anymore.
‘Social Justice’ & Slavery
There seems to be an intolerant, almost militant, vibe at Harvard Law now. That can’t be good for learning. I remember an ominous statement a gay colleague once made to Laurence Tribe: He said ‘Larry, constitutional law and proletariat revolution are two different things.’ I remember feeling satisfied that he said that — someone had to — because it would make Larry take note of that important distinction. I hear that sentence echo in my head now whenever I try to make sense of what happened at Harvard Law.
In recent years the students changed the school’s historic logo because the family that originally donated the land to Harvard for the law school was linked to the slave trade. I understand the reason for the change. Everyone wants to feel comfortable at the school they attend. I don’t fault them for that at all.
They changed the logo: In principle it’s not a big deal. But the old logo will now separate those who were real Harvard Law graduates (when it actually meant something) from this new generation and here is why:
The people pushing Harvard’s new ‘social justice’ agenda say nothing about the school taking money from Soros, who collaborates with the Ayatollah regime in Iran. The Ayatollah’s contributions to slavery and other human rights abuses are monumental stains on world history. It makes me wonder how intelligent the people are who presently manage and attend Harvard Law School. It makes them look like complete idiots or frauds.
The difference between the family that gave Harvard the land for the law school in the 1700s and the Ayatollah is like the difference between Charles Manson and Adolph Hitler: Though both are bad, one is magnitudes worse.
Let me share with you what my reaction was when I saw this: I considered auctioning my Harvard Law degree on ebay or trying to figure out if I could trade it for a degree at some other school. And I went to Harvard Law during one of the classic eras where it was celebrated as an institution that made invaluable contributions to American history, the legal profession, and the philosophy of law.
What you see above isn’t a minor thing: It is the epitome of stupidity. And, as astute people should understand, my criticism has nothing to do with anyone’s religion or race. Harvard is taking money from a family that collaborates with a genocidal maniac to enslave millions of people. And in case you are wondering, I have more than forty years of hands-on experience in studying the Ayatollah’s regime: You’re not reading some ‘wild conspiracy theory.’
“Harvard is taking money from a family that collaborates with a genocidal maniac to enslave millions”
The day before I wrote this I read numerous security briefings about how members of the modern Democrat Party (post-JFK democrats) have been working to integrate the Ayatollah’s soft-power agents into influential positions in the U.S. So, it wouldn’t surprise if this type of activity is later shown to have been going on for some time. It’s one of the subjects I’m focussing on now.
If at some point Harvard Law realizes it made a wrong turn — it’s already tanking in the rankings — it might be impossible to change direction. It would be like trying to kick out the Symbionese Liberation Army from the Hilton Hotel after they have already taken it over and asserted ownership.
The world changes—sometimes for the worse. Harvard is no exception.
Critical thinking, not being what it used to be, I thought I should drop a note about my views on civil rights. They are more inclusive than Laurence Tribe’s — so this isn’t some ‘Q-anon’ smear piece; It’s an observation that HLS has lost its way, and that will lead to hugely counter-productive results in the foreseeable future. In essence, Harvard traded in William Brennan, Learned Hand, and Richard Posner for Che Guevara, the Ayatollah, and Fidel Castro. What a waste!