The information you will read about Harvard Law School, is true. This is not The Babylon Bee.
Harvard Law offers course credit to students who study what a troop monkeys can teach us “for creating a culture free of male sexual coercion.”
The worst is yet to come
This is the fifth part of PJ Media’s journey through the top ten law colleges in the country: Do They Teach Anymore?
Hans von Spakovsky and myself are marching to the top ten law schools ranked by U.S. News and World Report and letting you know what future lawyers will be taught. You will be shocked by the militancy of the curriculum and its lack of usefulness.
Hans has already covered the number two law school, Stanford and Columbia, as well as Yale, which I have already exposed.
The outrageous course offerings so far show that elite law colleges are not training academies for competent and effective lawyers but for radical militants with law degrees. This affects not only your life, but also the country. They have a huge influence on government, the courts, academia and corporate America. These graduates have enjoyed a brand that is elevated, and are not subject to scrutiny by the majority of Americans.
It’s about time we reassessed the brand of elite law schools. It may be time that more conservative judges stop hiring clerks who attended these law schools.
Fasten your seatbelts. Take a look at the courses taught by Harvard Law School.
Critical Race Theory is a mandatory course at all elite law schools. Harvard is known as the People’s Temple of Critical Race Theory. As they were known at Harvard in the past, the “Critters” first promoted the radical notion that law was a neutral means to hold power over oppressed people. They believed that any power, including statutes, should be viewed with a focus on America’s original racist sins. Harvard’s course catalog:
Critical race scholars emerged in the 1980s and made a number of controversial claims regarding law and legal education. They claimed that race and racial equality permeated American law and society. They also said that structural subordination was endemic and that both critical and liberal legal theories marginalized racial minority voices.
Harvard Law students also study monkeys, or the values that humans can learn from apes. The Bonobo Sisterhood at Harvard Law is a one-credit course where future legal elites study:
The power and potential for female alliances to undermine patriarchal systems. We ask, through a legal and political lens, as well as a social, cultural, economic, and cultural one, what lessons bonobos, our close primate relatives with whom we share 98.7% DNA, can teach humans about creating a society that is free from male sexual coercion.
The textbook is The Bonobo Sisterhood : Revolution Through Female Alliances. Ashley Judd begins the forward to the textbook with:
This book offers you a vivid vision and a detailed strategy for forming revolutionary alliances with women, such as the ones typified by the Bonobos, the least-known of the great apes. . . . I’ve seized the Bonobo Call for myself.
Diane Rosenfeld, both as the instructor and the author of the textbook, is the professor of this class. Rosenfeld also teaches “Feminist Utopias,” a course that will teach future lawyers practical courtroom skills.
What impact will feminist governance have on society? What is more effective, reforming the current system or imagining – and building – an alternate one? Students will be able to create their own utopian ideas for a society with equal rights for men and women.
This description illustrates something Hans and I have repeatedly found in this series, namely that law is no longer taught at these schools in an effective way. Harvard and Yale are producing lawyers that don’t understand how to be attorneys.
Recently, I asked a student from an elite school whether they understood the difference between a past memory recorded and a present memory refreshed. Most people are unaware of this, but lawyers use these rules to win or lose cases. Graduates of law schools such as the University of South Carolina or West Virginia University will be able to tell the difference. The student at the elite school had never heard of this topic.
This is the issue with elite law schools. It’s no longer about graduating attorneys with basic skills that can help clients. They are intentionally graduating bad attorneys who are capable of fundamentally transforming the country towards progressive policies.
Why do they have such a strong brand? Another day, another question. The Harvard course catalog proves my point.
Take “Reforming the American Constitution” a course taught – to my mind – by Sanford Levinson, a true insurrectionist. You can call him the domestic enemy of Constitution. His works attack both the essence of the Constitution and its functional provisions such as the “undemocratic veto” power of the president. The course description is:
In 2006 I wrote a book called Our Undemocratic Constitution that focused on structural features that were not able to be justified by any 21st-century theory of democracy. . . . I served as the chair of a group that was brought together in 2020-21 under the auspices the journal Democracy to draft a new Constitution for the United States.
These people exist and teach Harvard Law students.
There are classes where Harvard Law students can relax if things get too intense. The course: “Thinking Like Yourself: Law, Poetry, and Social Justice.” Berets are optional. The course:
The course will use poetry to explore and explode our understanding of fundamental concepts such as equity and governance. We’ll also look at substantive areas, like criminal justice, emerging technologies, and how we see ourselves as advocates and lawyers.
This is not The Babylon Bee. This is the real deal.
If Harvard Law Students grow tired of reading poetry by a convicted carjacker for the “Thinking Like Yourself,” class, they could move to Virginia Woolf’s “Individuality?” and take that course. Virginia Woolf and Social Justice and Law.
Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway, and To The Lighthouse were both published nearly a century before. Each meeting will cover approximately 70 pages. In both novels, Woolf gives a magnificent portrayal of the female protagonists as well as a multitude supporting actors. Both novels are dominated by male dominance, war, and social class. What can we say about this, as lawyers who are used to thinking of large groups and forces in our day and age? Can individuality as a value or experience survive?
There is also a course that is worth one credit called, “What should we believe?” It is taught by Professor Deborah Hellman. According to her Harvard faculty page:
Hellman’s writings are divided into two major strands. The first is a focus on equal protection and its philosophical basis. She is the co-author of When Is Discrimination Wrong? . . The second part of Hellman’s work is devoted to the relationship between money, legal rights and campaign finance laws. It also includes articles about bribery, corruption and bribery law. Hellman challenges and explores the normative justification for current doctrine in this work. Her article, “A Theory of Bribery”, won the 2019 Fred Berger Memorial Prize for Philosophy of Law from the American Philosophical Association.
Harvard Law School teaches “Art of Social Change.”
This course examines different strategies for systemic reform of law and policy, with a focus on education, child welfare, (abuse, neglect, foster care and adoption) and juvenile delinquency/law-enforcement.
It is not the case that the professors are teaching the law, but what they wish it would be. It’s called the utopian pedagogy, which is prevalent in elite law schools. This is a system built on arrogance, selfishness and egoism. They do not want to produce lawyers who are able to help clients with actual problems. Instead, they want to produce lawyers with a theoretical foundation to overturn the law. Harvard has more examples:
The course is entitled “Theoretical Issues in Anti-Discrimination Law” and instead of focusing solely on what the law actually is, you will be given credit for what it should be. This seminar will examine anti-discrimination laws from a philosophical perspective. After considering foundational issues about the nature of discrimination and its legal regulation in general, we will turn to a variety of more specific controversies–potentially including the proper role of disparate impact in establishing discrimination.” I wonder if they will study the Brnovich vs. DNC decision that rejected this sort of nonsense.
The “Crimmigration Clinic” is a course that combines the history of immigration enforcement with the horrors associated with turning innocent migrants into criminals.
Students in the Crimmigration Clinic work on cutting edge issues relating to the intersection of criminal and immigration law. The clinical projects’ content will be determined by the current legal and political environment at the time the student enrolls.
The “political environment at the time” of enrollment is a code word for whoever the president may be.
What is a Republican? Crimmigration reaches its peak when families are separated, children are screaming, and prisons facilities are full. A Democrat? Crimmigration then is about Delta Airlines tickets to Boston from Brownsville, to settle hardworking migrants. Or evil Republican Governor Greyhound caravans going to Mystic in Rhode Island and Sheldon Whitehouse’s beach club.
Already, I have 1600 words. Not enough room for all the courses. A final lightning round:
The “Compromise”, a training course for future Democrat Debt Ceiling Negotiators, is based on the current polarization in American politics.
The course “Communication, Law and Social Justice”, will focus on the role of written, oral, and multimedia communications in the development and implementation of American laws and policies, with an emphasis on social issues and movements. We will examine how different change agents have used messaging and strategic framing to influence law and policy.
“Diversity & Dispute Resolution”: “In this course we will examine how various types of differences – such as race, class, gender, ethnicity, disability, religion, and sexuality – can impact our ability to negotiate and resolve conflicts, including the effect of intersectionality.”
Harvard Law’s course catalog includes “Nietzsche For Lawyers” to further inflate egos.
This course will be a reading of Nietzsche’s works [plus The Genealogy of Morals] with this spirit in mind. This course is based on the idea that this Master Provocateur’s provocation may be exactly what law students need.
This is not The Babylon Bee, I warned you. The nation’s top law schools are graduating waves of Ubermenschen who want to change the world.
