Conservative Judges Boycotting CLS for Clerk Hiring Forum

[Anonymous User]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/conser ... 024-05-06/

This is so stupid. What is the point of this? The vast majority of law students at CLS are not involved in these protests and any CLS students who were would never apply for or get hired by these conservative judges anyway. Foolish.

[Anonymous User]

Agree that it's a bit silly to punish students who weren't involved. Especially from undergrad, that was years ago well before any of this.

At the same time, I do hope this is a wakeup call to CLS and higher ed generally how bad the reputational damage is from the rampant antisemitism and terrorist support on campus.

[lavarman84]

Some of the most rabid Trump appointees are owning the libs by refusing to hire FedSoc students from the same school. I can't argue with that logic. Good work, Trump appointees. You should boycott more of these leftist institutions.

[Anonymous User]

It's not about clerk hiring for the reasons you point out - these Trump judges are just demonstrating their "anti-woke" credentials in the hopes of getting elevated under the next Republican administration. It's basically the conservative equivalent of virtue-signaling (which, funnily enough, parallels what the protestors are doing--this isn't the appropriate forum to discuss a complicated issue like Israel/Palestine, but it's hard to how these protests are actually doing anything to help people in Gaza)

[Anonymous User]

Even as someone broadly sympathetic to the plight of Jewish students at Columbia and thinks the Columbia administration is asking to be sued into oblivion by their Jewish students for their malfeasance and disregard for the blatant antisemtism from their professors and scholarship students, this stuff is all kayfabe. None of these judges have ever hired a single Columbia Law student, and if they really wanted to, they would, boycott or no boycott.

[Anonymous User]

It's not about clerk hiring for the reasons you point out - these Trump judges are just demonstrating their "anti-woke" credentials in the hopes of getting elevated under the next Republican administration. It's basically the conservative equivalent of virtue-signaling.

Yeah, the letter is just taking advantage of the news to engage in posturing. I especially love that they're CONCERNED that if the school doesn't name/shame the protestors, someone might ACCIDENTALLY hire one of these "disruptive and hateful" student protestors, but they're going to start their boycott with people entering Columbia in fall 2024 - so by definition, students who can't possibly have taken part in the protests. Um, okay.

(The thing I find particularly rich is how this bunch of judges with no connection to Columbia whatsoever feels entitled to make demands of the institution? I mean, everyone and their mother is weighing in the protests and how colleges are handling them, so, you know, fine, express an opinion, but sending a letter to the school as if you have any standing to tell the school to take certain actions seems entitled even for your average federal judge.)

[GoneSouth]

Can someone explain to me how it's not a cut-and-dry First Amendment violation for these judges to wield their governmental power over hiring as a cudgel to punish/coerce schools whose viewpoints they disagree with? I had this reaction when they did it to Yale and have been surprised that I haven't seen it talked about in those terms (though maybe I'm missing something obvious).

Would love to see one of these schools have the balls to try to get an injunction against this. Columbia would be a great candidate since none of these judges are hiring from there anyway.

[JorgeMichael]

Can someone explain to me how it's not a cut-and-dry First Amendment violation for these judges to wield their governmental power over hiring as a cudgel to punish/coerce schools whose viewpoints they disagree with?

Because you don't have a right to a federal clerkship? It's not a violation of your First Amendment rights for the judges in question to say that they don't like the way a certain law school handled an issue and then saying they won't hire from that law school. It may be a violation of your First Amendment rights if a federal judge fired you for voicing an opinion outside the workplace, but even then it would depend on a lot of factors.

[GoneSouth]

But I think you do have a right not to be punished or discriminated against for constitutionally protected activity. It would definitely be a constitutional violation for these judges to say they weren’t going to hire from Howard because the school admits a lot of black students, right? It seems like there’s a similar issue with boycotting schools for the First Amendment-protected viewpoints they are perceived to be permitting their students to express.

I could see issues with an individual student trying to bring this type of claim (could you prove standing when it would be hard to show that you would have gotten the clerkship absent the boycott?). But a school wouldn’t necessarily have those issues, particularly if it could show its students have been hired in the past

[Anonymous User]

It's not about clerk hiring for the reasons you point out - these Trump judges are just demonstrating their "anti-woke" credentials in the hopes of getting elevated under the next Republican administration. It's basically the conservative equivalent of virtue-signaling (which, funnily enough, parallels what the protestors are doing--this isn't the appropriate forum to discuss a complicated issue like Israel/Palestine, but it's hard to how these protests are actually doing anything to help people in Gaza)

The hypocrisy is hilarious. "Let's boycott students from YLS and SLS because those schools insufficiently protect conservatives' free speech. But let's also boycott CLS because that school permits student activist speech that I disagree with." What a joke.

[Anonymous User]

But I think you do have a right not to be punished or discriminated against for constitutionally protected activity. It would definitely be a constitutional violation for these judges to say they weren’t going to hire from Howard because the school admits a lot of black students, right? It seems like there’s a similar issue with boycotting schools for the First Amendment-protected viewpoints they are perceived to be permitting their students to express.

I could see issues with an individual student trying to bring this type of claim (could you prove standing when it would be hard to show that you would have gotten the clerkship absent the boycott?). But a school wouldn’t necessarily have those issues, particularly if it could show its students have been hired in the past

I think you would have a problem on the motivating factor prong, since courts are pretty quick to agree with defendants that they wouldn’t have hired someone notwithstanding their protected conduct. And can a school even sue in this context on behalf of its students (especially where most clerkship candidates are several years removed from their law schools)?

[GoneSouth]

But I think you do have a right not to be punished or discriminated against for constitutionally protected activity. It would definitely be a constitutional violation for these judges to say they weren’t going to hire from Howard because the school admits a lot of black students, right? It seems like there’s a similar issue with boycotting schools for the First Amendment-protected viewpoints they are perceived to be permitting their students to express.

I could see issues with an individual student trying to bring this type of claim (could you prove standing when it would be hard to show that you would have gotten the clerkship absent the boycott?). But a school wouldn’t necessarily have those issues, particularly if it could show its students have been hired in the past

I think you would have a problem on the motivating factor prong, since courts are pretty quick to agree with defendants that they wouldn’t have hired someone notwithstanding their protected conduct. And can a school even sue in this context on behalf of its students (especially where most clerkship candidates are several years removed from their law schools)?

I could see the schools being able to sue because the boycott causes reputational harm and potentially financial harm if they can show that students are not matriculating because of it.

Anyway, constitutional issues aside, using the prestige and authority of your office to try to accomplish a political goal/promote your personal viewpoint seems like it would violate the Code of Conduct for judges in several different ways. I wonder if someone will file a judicial misconduct complaint

[Anonymous User]

Anyway, constitutional issues aside, using the prestige and authority of your office to try to accomplish a political goal/promote your personal viewpoint seems like it would violate the Code of Conduct for judges in several different ways. I wonder if someone will file a judicial misconduct complaint

I agree with the sentiment, but doing so would be a huge waste of time.

[Anonymous User]

Solomson has a gigantic ego.

[Anonymous User]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-wont ... e-8ced4529

I am guessing that this article prompted the comment above about Solomson. I don’t have a subscription, so I don’t know what the article says.

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-wont ... e-8ced4529

I am guessing that this article prompted the comment above about Solomson. I don’t have a subscription, so I don’t know what the article says.

Here's a gift article link you should be able to view:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-wont ... _permalink

[Anonymous User]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-wont ... e-8ced4529

I am guessing that this article prompted the comment above about Solomson. I don’t have a subscription, so I don’t know what the article says.

I joined a dozen of my colleagues on the federal bench this week in signing a letter stating that we won’t hire law clerks who matriculate at Columbia University beginning this fall. We have received criticism for our choice to punish an institution rather than target the individuals responsible for miring it in anti-American and antisemitic radicalism. I want to explain that choice.

The purpose of any boycott is to change the behavior of the target. To be effective, a boycott must rally a critical mass of the target’s customers. Hardly anyone thinks Columbia’s behavior is acceptable. The only question is whether we are being so overinclusive that we will punish the wrong people. I had this concern but ultimately decided that it is a criticism of boycotts per se, not of this particular one.

Boycotts naturally have wide-ranging effects. Those advocating boycotts of Israel know they will hurt not only the country’s hawks and elites but poor and working-class Arabs, black Israelis, dissidents, peace activists—you name it. Boycotts are naturally limited. The anti-Israel boycotters know they aren’t targeting all regimes they perceive, rightly or wrongly, as unjust. Yet they proceed anyway because they have a goal in mind. Everyone who decides to boycott has to decide how legitimate the goal is and how important it is to achieve.

We think it’s important to force Columbia and its peer institutions to change. Our boycott is prospective only, which means everyone is on notice. High-school guidance counselors should warn students who want to enroll at Columbia that they would likely be closing some doors for themselves. Law-school applicants should be smart enough to figure out that while some schools place many alumni in clerkships, others have the opposite reputation. Our boycott may make a difference in those considerations only on the margins, but other judges may be moved to join us. I hope the reputational costs of being shunned by federal judges will give Columbia’s leaders reason to search their souls and change course before the boycott even begins. I signed the letter not to inflict punishment on students but to send a clear message to Columbia that its approach to campus antisemitism and anti-Americanism is unacceptable.

If federal judges found out there was a school tolerating or fostering a hostile and threatening environment for black students, all of us would boycott that school. We would do so because that’s the tool available to us to enforce the basic norms of decency that undergird our constitutional system. In the process, we’d probably hurt the careers of a righteous majority of students at that school. But no one would lose sleep over that—it would be a small price to pay to do the right thing. Why are we now expected to sit idly by instead of doing what we can when a school has revealed the extent of its corruption?

Our position is no different in spirit from the remedy available under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which the Congressional Research Service summarizes this way: “Agencies also have at their disposal a uniquely powerful tool: the termination or refusal to provide federal financial support to an institution.” Would such a funding termination, even in a proper case, punish professors and students who aren’t part of the problem? Yes. Does that undermine, in some moral sense, the goal of inducing compliance and change? No.

Every elite university asks employers to make collective judgments about their alumni. Graduates of Columbia have been viewed as among the most capable young people in the country. Recent events have made clear that Columbia deserves a very different reputation.

I don’t begrudge judges who choose not to join us in this effort, but I continue to believe that we who have chosen to boycott are justified in using the tools at our disposal—prestigious clerkship slots—as a force for good.

Judge Solomson serves on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

[Anonymous User]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-wont ... e-8ced4529

I am guessing that this article prompted the comment above about Solomson. I don’t have a subscription, so I don’t know what the article says.

I joined a dozen of my colleagues on the federal bench this week in signing a letter stating that we won’t hire law clerks who matriculate at Columbia University beginning this fall. We have received criticism for our choice to punish an institution rather than target the individuals responsible for miring it in anti-American and antisemitic radicalism. I want to explain that choice.

The purpose of any boycott is to change the behavior of the target. To be effective, a boycott must rally a critical mass of the target’s customers. Hardly anyone thinks Columbia’s behavior is acceptable. The only question is whether we are being so overinclusive that we will punish the wrong people. I had this concern but ultimately decided that it is a criticism of boycotts per se, not of this particular one.

Boycotts naturally have wide-ranging effects. Those advocating boycotts of Israel know they will hurt not only the country’s hawks and elites but poor and working-class Arabs, black Israelis, dissidents, peace activists—you name it. Boycotts are naturally limited. The anti-Israel boycotters know they aren’t targeting all regimes they perceive, rightly or wrongly, as unjust. Yet they proceed anyway because they have a goal in mind. Everyone who decides to boycott has to decide how legitimate the goal is and how important it is to achieve.

We think it’s important to force Columbia and its peer institutions to change. Our boycott is prospective only, which means everyone is on notice. High-school guidance counselors should warn students who want to enroll at Columbia that they would likely be closing some doors for themselves. Law-school applicants should be smart enough to figure out that while some schools place many alumni in clerkships, others have the opposite reputation. Our boycott may make a difference in those considerations only on the margins, but other judges may be moved to join us. I hope the reputational costs of being shunned by federal judges will give Columbia’s leaders reason to search their souls and change course before the boycott even begins. I signed the letter not to inflict punishment on students but to send a clear message to Columbia that its approach to campus antisemitism and anti-Americanism is unacceptable.

If federal judges found out there was a school tolerating or fostering a hostile and threatening environment for black students, all of us would boycott that school. We would do so because that’s the tool available to us to enforce the basic norms of decency that undergird our constitutional system. In the process, we’d probably hurt the careers of a righteous majority of students at that school. But no one would lose sleep over that—it would be a small price to pay to do the right thing. Why are we now expected to sit idly by instead of doing what we can when a school has revealed the extent of its corruption?

Our position is no different in spirit from the remedy available under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which the Congressional Research Service summarizes this way: “Agencies also have at their disposal a uniquely powerful tool: the termination or refusal to provide federal financial support to an institution.” Would such a funding termination, even in a proper case, punish professors and students who aren’t part of the problem? Yes. Does that undermine, in some moral sense, the goal of inducing compliance and change? No.

Every elite university asks employers to make collective judgments about their alumni. Graduates of Columbia have been viewed as among the most capable young people in the country. Recent events have made clear that Columbia deserves a very different reputation.

I don’t begrudge judges who choose not to join us in this effort, but I continue to believe that we who have chosen to boycott are justified in using the tools at our disposal—prestigious clerkship slots—as a force for good.

Judge Solomson serves on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Hi, I'm a federal judge who is pro genocide. AMA.

[Anonymous User]

Are there even Columbia students who want to clerk on the court of federal claims? I’m sure it can be a good experience, but prestige-obsessed students don’t even want to clerk for magistrate judges, let alone an Article I court.

[lavarman84]

If federal judges found out there was a school tolerating or fostering a hostile and threatening environment for black students, all of us would boycott that school. We would do so because that’s the tool available to us to enforce the basic norms of decency that undergird our constitutional system. In the process, we’d probably hurt the careers of a righteous majority of students at that school. But no one would lose sleep over that—it would be a small price to pay to do the right thing. Why are we now expected to sit idly by instead of doing what we can when a school has revealed the extent of its corruption?

If anyone has imposter syndrome, just read stupidity like this from a federal judge and feel better about your capabilities. This argument is so mindless. Why would you boycott the SCHOOL? That would mean that you'd be boycotting the Black students stuck in that hostile environment.

"Sorry Black student from Racist University, I am standing on principle by refusing to hire you because your university has put you through hell.
In solidarity,
Judge Solomson"

(That's without getting into the merits of the underlying controversy here.)

[Anonymous User]

Are there even Columbia students who want to clerk on the court of federal claims? I’m sure it can be a good experience, but prestige-obsessed students don’t even want to clerk for magistrate judges, let alone an Article I court.

As a Columbia Law alum, I completely agree with this point. Like most top law schools, we’re pretty prestige obsessed and clerking for magistrate judges or non-Art III judges is really not something 99% of students aspire to. Columbia students only really want to clerk at the SDNY (Manhattan only)/EDNY (BK) and in urban circuit courts.

[Anonymous User]

Even as someone broadly sympathetic to the plight of Jewish students at Columbia and thinks the Columbia administration is asking to be sued into oblivion by their Jewish students for their malfeasance and disregard for the blatant antisemtism from their professors and scholarship students, this stuff is all kayfabe. None of these judges have ever hired a single Columbia Law student, and if they really wanted to, they would, boycott or no boycott.

I think Judge Branch has hired from CLS in the past, and she is one of the lead authors.

[Anonymous User]

Even as someone broadly sympathetic to the plight of Jewish students at Columbia and thinks the Columbia administration is asking to be sued into oblivion by their Jewish students for their malfeasance and disregard for the blatant antisemtism from their professors and scholarship students, this stuff is all kayfabe. None of these judges have ever hired a single Columbia Law student, and if they really wanted to, they would, boycott or no boycott.

I think Judge Branch has hired from CLS in the past, and she is one of the lead authors.

I’m the same CLS alum from above. Can confirm Branch has not hired a CLS alum (just checked our clerkship alumni directory)

[Anonymous User]

If federal judges found out there was a school tolerating or fostering a hostile and threatening environment for black students, all of us would boycott that school. We would do so because that’s the tool available to us to enforce the basic norms of decency that undergird our constitutional system. In the process, we’d probably hurt the careers of a righteous majority of students at that school. But no one would lose sleep over that—it would be a small price to pay to do the right thing. Why are we now expected to sit idly by instead of doing what we can when a school has revealed the extent of its corruption?

If anyone has imposter syndrome, just read stupidity like this from a federal judge and feel better about your capabilities. This argument is so mindless. Why would you boycott the SCHOOL? That would mean that you'd be boycotting the Black students stuck in that hostile environment.

"Sorry Black student from Racist University, I am standing on principle by refusing to hire you because your university has put you through hell.
In solidarity,
Judge Solomson"

(That's without getting into the merits of the underlying controversy here.)

The functional impact of a boycott is relatively meaningless in this context, its just a catchphrase that drives clicks. Schools do not like being targeted by federal judges and getting tons of negative publicity, hence why Yale hired the first conservative faculty member in the school's entire history this year.

Who knows how things will shake out at Columbia, but the media attention is the point.