Started my day listening to the affirmative action oral argument at SCOTUS.

Then taught a couple of cases where Clarence Thomas voted in favor of searches of students.

Ended the day teaching on January 6 and democratic erosion, and showing footage released by January 6th Committee.

Yes, but: The problem isn't so much the people who believe this crap; it's the GOP network that pushes this stuff, and those within and outside the network that enable it with 'just asking questions' nonsense.

The Pelosi story is a pretty clean distillation of the challenges reporters face.

On one side is the truth: A deranged man, fueled by GOP talking points, broke into her home and sought to break her kneecaps.

On the other side is batshit crazy conspiracies immune to truth.

Ketanji Brown Jackson, an ethical justice, recuses herself from the Harvard case because she once served on its board. Clarence Thomas, an unethical justice, doesn’t recuse himself in cases where his wife is directly involved.

Anyone who thinks there is any similarity between the conditions of exclusion at issue in Brown and the conditions of inclusion at Harvard and UNC is just dumb. In 1950, UNC had no Blacks.

I opened my Intro to American Politics class in August telling my students that it would be a class on democratic erosion.

Today, having spent a week talking about American elections (incl. GOP-led voter suppression), I am teaching on the big lie and the January 6 coup effort.

Kavanaugh asking about precedent is reminding me that I am still capable of laughing out loud

KBJ NOT LETTING THIS LAWYER LAWYER.... SHE'S GOING TO ARGUE THIS CASE HERSELF.

HERE FOR IT.

ISN'T IT A CONST VIOLATION IF SOME PEOPLE GET TO TALK ABOUT THEIR BACKGROUNDS AND HAVE IT VALUED WHILE OTHER PEOPLE (MINORITIES) ARE PROHIBITED FROM DOING SO?

Justice Jackson is awesome. Being forbidden from taking race into account may actually violate the 14th Amendment. This will privilege white applicants because of legacies.

Maybe Clarence Thomas should go back to being silent.

I went to UC Berkeley years after CA passed Prop. 209, eliminating consideration of race in admissions.

The percent of African American students in incoming classes? Just 3%.

That's obscene. Exposure to diverse perspectives including race is essential to quality education.

The UNC case cannot be separated from the historical fact that in 1950 there was not a single Black person at any Southern flagship university. Not one.

Justice Kagan to SSFA atty (paraphrasing here): your argument is that it doesn’t matter if American institutions reflect who we are. My question is: doesn’t it?
#DefendDiversity

I don't know who needs to hear this (the lawyer needs to hear this), but affirmative action doesn't involve admitting students based on race alone.

That's nonsense & a helluva way to highlight that one hasn't actually read Grutter: holistic review, race as one of many factors.

It's really infuriating that this is the last academic year that I will be teaching affirmative action while it's in place.

I've added so many in memoriam slides to my course materials (Establishment Clause, gun control, abortion, affirmative action... and they're not done...)

Today in Constitutional Law: Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, I'm teaching an 8-1 Supreme Court case that invariaby leads my students to exclaim, 'Who in the hell would dissent in this case?'

Thomas. The answer is always Clarence Thomas.

The New York Times Opinion won’t accept my comment, so I’ll make it here. I’ve been a university professor for more than 30 years, all in state universities. The problem with college tuition costs isn’t sports complexes, administrator creep, or salary growth. 1/4 tinyurl.com/2p95u49e

Only idiots will pay $20 a month to be verified. The end result is that it will become a lot harder to sort through the credibility of sources on this website. Maybe that’s the point.