The Bias of Professors

One example is from the faculty of George Mason University.

George Mason University’s faculty governing body on Wednesday called on its administration to suspend the naming of the law school after Justice Antonin Scalia.

By a vote of 25-12, the university’s faculty approved a resolution asking for an indefinite delay of the renaming.

Why the delay?  First comes the obfuscation:

The faculty resolution questions how the money was being used and expressed concern that the donation could generate negative publicity and that the donors could wield too much influence over the law school’s mission.

They argue in all seriousness that this has something to do with the new name of George Mason’s Antonin Scalia School of Law.  Apparently the freshman logic classes some of the professors pretend to teach aren’t safe spaces for those same professors.

The heart of the matter had been addressed earlier.

Last week the faculty senate passed another resolution that called the name change “problematic” and characterized Justice Scalia as intolerant to gays and minorities.

This is a cynical distortion of Scalia’s views.  Scalia was a textualist who insisted—and whose oath of office, the same oath that “living Constitutionalists” like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took, bound him to that—that the Constitution and the laws enacted by Congress and the President actually meant what their texts said.  This required Scalia, and it should have required the Ginsburgs on the Court, to rule on what the laws said, not on what the Justices might have wanted the laws to say.

But that’s anathema to current professors, who insist that the law should say what the judge wants it to say, consistent with that judge’s (especially a Liberal judge’s) personal social agenda and sense of justice.

Never mind that it’s the citizens of the United States whose social agenda is the only legitimate agenda, never mind that justice is what the citizens of the United States say it is, through our elected representatives.  For these Liberals, we citizens don’t know what we’re doing, and we need to be overruled by our Know Betters.  Like professors.

An Arms Race

And we should welcome it.

Russia is creating three new divisions to counter the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s planned expansion along its eastern flank, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Wednesday, in a move that comes amid rising tensions in the region.

Moscow has threatened it will respond to NATO plans to boost its troops’ presence along its border with Russia.  Western officials said last week the alliance will send four battalions—about 4,000 troops—to Poland and the ex-Soviet Baltic countries.

These three divisions are being created, in part, by adding men and equipment, and they’re being created, in part, by reassigning men and equipment from existing units.  It’s the latter that’s instructive.

With the Russian economy in shambles—among other shortfalls, it needs oil priced above $100, remember, the ruble still is in the tank, and inflation remains high and growing—it can ill-afford the expansion on which it’s embarking.  In addition to these “new” divisions, Russia is spending its money on modernizing its military, developing and deploying nuclear weapons near the Baltics and Poland (since before it began creating these three divisions), supporting its occupation forces in Georgia and Ukraine, and on and on.  Although Russia certainly can sustain its buildup for a time, it can’t go on indefinitely.

We should welcome this arms race.  We should accelerate our technological developments and production.  We should answer those three divisions with further deployments into eastern Europe, with an expansion of our Baltic fleet (which we should move deeper into the eastern reaches of the Baltic Sea), and with arms transfers and sales to Ukraine and Georgia.  Every buildup by Russia should be answered with a bigger, more technologically capable one by us.

The Soviet Union couldn’t sustain its arms race; neither can Russia.  It will take an administration different from the current one or its potential Progressive-Democratic successor to engage, though.

The PRC and the RoC

The Republic of China has elected a patriot as its president to replace Ma Ying-jeou, who spent his term acquiescing to nearly every PRC demand.  Tsai Ing-wen, with her countrymen’s welfare in mind as well as her nation’s short-term interests, is interested in stable relations with the PRC, but she’s not interested in “reunification.”  That’s why she was elected, too: neither are her fellow RoC citizens.

Despite this, The Wall Street Journal has editorialized in a different direction:

Ms Tsai faces a challenge of resetting Beijing’s expectations.  One way to do so might be to present herself as a mediator between Chinese leaders and increasingly nationalistic Taiwanese citizens.

No.  There’s nothing to mediate.  There’s no need to equivocate, either; equivocation just plays into the PRC’s hand and facilitates its long-term effort to conquer the RoC.

Federal Bailout “Prevention”

Asset managers such as Pacific Investment Management Co look set to lose hard-fought protections against the cost of a bank failure, when the Federal Reserve on Tuesday proposes yet another rule aimed at preventing taxpayer bailouts for financial firms.

How disingenuous does this sort of administration get?  No rules are needed to prevent taxpayer bailouts for financial firms, or any other enterprise, government (Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, for instance) or private.  There’s no need for preventing what ought not exist in the first place; there’s only need for firing politicians and bureaucrats who keep trying for taxpayer bailouts.

Free Speech PRC-Style

Chinese authorities are training their sights on a new set of targets: economists, analysts and business reporters with gloomy views on China’s economy.

Securities regulators, media censors and other government officials have issued verbal warnings to commentators whose public remarks on the economy are out of step with the government’s upbeat statements….

And

Early this year, Mr Xi [Jinping] visited the country’s three big state news organizations—Xinhua, the People’s Daily and China Central Television—to lecture them on the need to toe the party line, “tell China’s stories well” and enhance the nation’s influence in the world.

But, of course.  Can’t have truth conflict with Party.  After all, “truth” means that 2 + 2 will be 5 whenever the situation warrants.