It is sometimes exhilarating to see someone go into a lion’s den while holding aloft the red meat of truth.
That’s what James Ho, a judge on the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, did today in a speech at Georgetown Law. Scheduled to speak on an aspect of the mode of constitutional interpretation known as “originalism,” Ho instead blasted Georgetown Law for suspending Ilya Shapiro, its newly hired director of its Center for the Constitution, based on complaints from the willfully and easily offended.
Shapiro had been criticized widely for a poorly worded tweet taking issue with President Joe Biden’s pledge to consider only black women for the soon-to-open seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. His entirely innocent and defensible meaning was clear to anyone with a fair mind. Even so, Shapiro quickly apologized for how he put it and removed the controversial tweets in question. That did not stop Georgetown from placing him on “administrative leave” on the very day he was supposed to begin work, while announcing an “investigation” into his “professional conduct.”
‘I STAND WITH ILYA’: SPEAKER SKIPS ORIGINAL REMARKS, DEFENDS EMBATTLED LAW PROFESSOR
That was two weeks ago. Georgetown has not yet reinstated Shapiro. That’s where Judge Ho came in. Speaking at Georgetown Law, Ho decried the university administration for practicing “cancel culture” against Shapiro.
“Cancel culture is not just antithetical to our constitutional culture and our American culture,” he said, according to National Review Online. It’s “completely antithetical to the very legal system that each of you seeks to join.” And: “You must understand your opponent’s views in order to fully understand, and thus powerfully defend, your own views.”
Then, Ho went further. He didn’t just defend Shapiro’s right to make provocative remarks, but he also defended the point Shapiro was making.
“Let me be clear,” he said: “I stand with Ilya on the paramount importance of color-blindness. And that same principle should apply whether we’re talking about getting into college, getting your first job, or receiving an appointment to the highest court in the land.” And, even more boldly: “Make no mistake: If there is any racial discrimination in statements like these, it’s not coming from the speaker — it’s coming from the policy that the speaker is criticizing.”
The judge is right. Biden’s policy of limiting his choices to something like 5% of the pool of qualified candidates is just a bad idea. It is an explicitly racialist policy, at least bordering on flat-out racism. And even if the black woman Biden ultimately nominates is a superb choice for the high court, she would be better off if he had kept this racial and gender quota to himself. His preemptive narrowing of the field based on qualities irrelevant to qualifications risks leaving the impression that gender and race played more of a role in her selection than merit.
You still don’t have to agree with this point to see Georgetown is wrong to penalize Shapiro for making it. In an interview with NRO, Luke Bunting, the co-president of the law school’s Conservative and Libertarian Student Association, said, “The school’s handling of this situation has been so catastrophic for open discourse at Georgetown Law.”
For speaking truth to power — a onetime rallying cry of the Left, but one with an eminently moral basis — Judge Ho advances both the cause of free speech and the debate about an important subject. It remains to be seen if Georgetown administrators have the spine or the basic decency to join that honest debate, rather than trying to shut it down.
