Log in
 |
| Christus Hypercubus, Salvador Dali. |
IT'S GOOD FRIDAY. AND YOU know what that means here at NOT PC: time to call out (again) the 2000-year ethic of sacrifice as nothing but inhuman. In a more rational place, we'd view the worship of human sacrifice not with celebration, but with horror. ("If you knew a father who gave up his only son to be killed in expiation for the crimes and misdemeanours of other people, would you call that chap a loving father? Or would you call him a psychopath?")
"What's the theme of Easter, and of Easter art? In a word, it's sacrifice: specifically human sacrifice. And more specifically, the sacrifice of the good to the appalling.
"That's the Easter theme we're asked to respond to every year."
Easter through art
"Let’s summarise. In Pagan times, Easter was the time in the Northern calendar when the coming of spring was celebrated -- the celebration of new life, of coming fecundity. Hence the eggs and rabbits and celebrations of fertility. Indeed, the very word 'Easter' comes from Eos, the Greek goddess of the dawn, and means, symbolically, the festival celebrating the rebirth of light after the darkness of winter.
"But with the coming of Christianity, the celebration was hijacked to become a veneration of torture and sacrifice ..."
Easter Week, Part 4: Surely There Are Better Stories to Tell?
"AND MAN MADE GODS in his own image, and that of the animals he saw around him, and he saw these stories were sometimes helpful psychologically in a a pre-philosophical age. But one of these gods was a jealous god. For this god was so angry at the world he sent one-third of himself to die to expiate the sins of those with whom he was angry, for sins that (in his omniscience) he would have always known they would commit.
"It’s not just history the christian story challenges, is it. It’s logic."
Easter Week, Part 3: The Holy Art of Sacrifice
"Christianity didn’t start with Jesus, any more than the Easter story did. Paul, who never even met Jesus but who played the largest part in explaining his life, and his death, had a big hand in both.
"Jesus’s death was a secular event his followers struggled to explain."
Easter Week, Part 2: Enter Hercules…
"IT’S EASTER WEEK – a time, since human cultural life began up in the northern hemisphere, when men and women and their families came together to celebrate.
"To celebrate what?
"Why, to celebrate spring, of course. ..."
Hey, hey, it’s Easter Week!
Oh, and a gentle reminder that the state still owns your shop at Easter. And it still owns you all year. That's the secular sacrifice demanded by the Season.
 |
| Cartoon by Nick Kim |
And a note that the greatest artists can nonetheless find the sublime within the story. Here's Wagner's 'Good Friday Spell,' aka Karfreitagszauber. Turn it up!
Earlier this week, former President Barack Obama applauded Harvard University for standing up to the Trump administration. Unlike Columbia University, which has swiftly fallen in line and agreed to implement various policies demanded by President Donald Trump in exchange for the restoration of $400 million in federal grants, Harvard is prepared to fight back.
"We have informed the administration through our legal counsel that we will not accept their proposed agreement," said Harvard President Alan Garber. "The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights."
The Trump administration had demanded changes to university curriculum, the elimination of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) provisions, the prevention of masked protesting, and other changes ostensibly aimed at countering antisemitism on campus. Opponents of these policies, civil libertarians and free speech groups among them, counter that the federal government's threat to withhold funding is a violation of Harvard's First Amendment rights.
"How Harvard governs its academic programs, and who should have a say in that governance, is up to Harvard, not the federal government," writes the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. "The First Amendment and basic principles of academic freedom require no less."
FIRE also warns that this will likely not be the last time the federal government tries to extort a private institution and that "opposing the government's unconstitutional demands" is the only path forward. Similarly, Obama praised Harvard for setting "an example for other higher-ed institutions."
Harvard has set an example for other higher-ed institutions – rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom, while taking concrete steps to make sure all students at Harvard can benefit from an environment of intellectual inquiry, rigorous debate and… https://t.co/gAu9UUqgjF
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) April 15, 2025
Obama clearly believes the Trump administration's threat to deprive Harvard of billions in federal funding is wrong; he also seems to think that the federal government should not be in the business of harming the climate for free speech and academic freedom on campus. On both these fronts, he is engaged in profound hypocrisy.
As I explained previously, the Obama administration carried out the exact same policy against not just a small number of elite educational institutions, but virtually every college and university in the country. Under Obama, the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights compelled schools that receive federal funding to change their sexual misconduct policies in ways that undermined basic due process protections for accused students and professors; these new policies also harmed free speech and academic freedom, as several professors who spoke out against the policies were subsequently accused of violating them. This was the perverse logic of Obama's approach to Title IX, the federal statute that outlaws sex discrimination in education: His federal bureaucrats created such a morass that campus administrators felt obligated to investigate professors for criticizing the Education Department.
Moreover, the Obama-era policies were stridently opposed by Harvard's law faculty. In October 2014, 28 Harvard law professors signed an open letter condemning the federal government's meddling and encouraging the university to resist tyranny via Title IX.
"The university's sexual harassment policy departs dramatically from these legal principles, jettisoning balance and fairness in the rush to appease certain federal administrative officials," wrote the professors. "We recognize that large amounts of federal funding may ultimately be at stake. But Harvard University is positioned as well as any academic institution in the country to stand up for principle in the face of funding threats."
The signatories included Elizabeth Bartholet, a well-known professor of civil rights and family law, and Charles Ogletree, who has actually been described as a mentor to the Obamas when they were students at Harvard. In separate commentary, Bartholet described the government's position as "madness" and said that Harvard should be ashamed of itself for caving.
"I believe that history will demonstrate the federal government's position to be wrong, that our society will look back on this time as a moment of madness, and that Harvard University will be deeply shamed at the role it played in simply caving to the government's position," she told The Wall Street Journal.
It's a good thing that Harvard has found its spine, now that the president is Trump instead of Obama. But it's risible for Obama to complain at present about an "unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom." He should look in the mirror.
This Week on Free Media
I am joined by Amber Duke to discuss Stephen A. Smith potentially running for president, Taylor Lorenz's commentary on Luigi Mangione, and the Dave Smith/Douglas Murray debate on Joe Rogan's show.
Worth Reading
Having read Agatha Christie's entire Hercule Poirot catalog last year, I had moved on to the more recent Poirot novels written by Sophie Hannah, with permission from Christie's estate. But I have now completed those as well, and the next one won't be published until later this year. And so I ask you, dear reader—what novel should I pick up next?
The post Obama Is a Huge Hypocrite for Praising Harvard's Anti-Trump Stance appeared first on Reason.com.
CHRISTIAN TOTO: Why the Left Self-Censors in Trump 2.0 Era. “Stars are either censoring their own work or finding their voices silenced by fellow progressives. This time, it’s all tied to President Donald Trump. The Commander in Chief, they fear, might punish them for speaking up.”
Everybody wants to believe they’re Trump’s Enemy #1.
U.S. — With politicians and pundits still involved in heated debates over the legality of the deportation of an MS-13 gang member, liberals warned the public that enforcing immigration law was a slippery slope that could lead to enforcing other laws.
VDH: Will Harvard Go Full Hillsdale?
Harvard University has rejected various demands of a presidential commission on anti-Semitism.
The task force wants to persuade Harvard to ensure Jewish students on its campus are no longer harassed, or else lose its federal funding.
Harvard retorts that it won’t be bullied by Washington.
Among its other requirements, the Trump administration also warned Harvard to cease using race as a criterion in its admissions, hiring, and promotion, contrary to law.
And it also directed the campus to ban the use of masks that, in the post-COVID era of protests, have emboldened violent demonstrators with anonymity.
The administration’s order to stop race-based bias was in accordance with civil rights statutes, and a recent Supreme Court decision specifically banning affirmative action at Harvard and elsewhere.
No matter. Harvard claimed that the Trump administration infringed upon its First Amendment rights.
So, it has temporarily rejected the administration’s orders. At least for now, Harvard has lost its annual $2.2 billion grant of federal funds.
Former President Barack Obama, among others, lauded Harvard’s rejection of the demands of the administration’s anti-Semitism task force. He claimed the Trump administration’s efforts were ham-handed.
But what academic freedom are Harvard and Obama talking about? The freedom to discriminate and segregate by race in hiring, admissions, dorms, and graduations?
…
Hillsdale does not take federal money, period—whether doled out by either a Democrat or Republican administration.
If Harvard cares for its principles, such as they are, more than your money, they’ll have to go Full Hillsdale.
DISNEY ACTORS SURE MAKE AUDIENCES WANT TO FLOCK TO THE BIG SCREEN THESE DAYS: Kelly Marie Tran on How Wedding Banquet Empowered Her to Come Out as Queer and Why Star Wars Racism Is a ‘Microcosm for the Social Climate.’
A lot has changed for Tran since “Star Wars.” But as she looks back on her experience with that fandom, she knows that the racism she faced was symptomatic of a larger, continuing issue. When considering what she wants to see change for actors of color who might not receive the support they need when they appear in major franchises, she replies: “The world?!”
“It’s interesting how it seems to be happening pretty consistently to actors of color who find themselves in these spaces,” Tran explains. “And I think these occurrences are a microcosm for the social climate that we’re living in. And it’s really unfortunate.”
Tran points out that people of color are often at “the forefront of storytelling” now and that audiences could perhaps begin to evolve, too. “The hope is that people who are not afforded the ability, maybe, to have access to these communities of queer people or people of color, are able to see through the art that people of color and queer people are also human, and they have hopes and dreams,” she says.
“We live in a world where those identities have been weaponized so that people are not able to see the bigger picture,” Tran continues. “I really just want people to recognize, it’s the system that’s the problem. Stop scapegoating people of color or queer people or anyone who’s different.”
Evergreen: The Critical Drinker: Why Modern Movies Suck — They Hate Their Own Fans (Video; NSFW language):
LONDON — Prosecutors were stopped in their tracks this week and left with no recourse to pursue the case any further, after a suspect in a recent stabbing incident in the United Kingdom pleaded Muslim.
EAST OF EDEN — Public opinion was heavily divided this week after accused murderer Cain raised $1,000,000 in crowdfunding donations after killing his brother, Abel.
Today the Fourth Circuit denied the government's motion for an emergency stay in Garcia v. Noem. Here, I will not focus on the merits of the appeal. Rather, I want to highlight how Judge Wilkinson's opinion invokes a defining moment from the Civil Rights Era:
It is in this atmosphere that we are reminded of President Eisenhower's sage example. Putting his "personal opinions" aside, President Eisenhower honored his "inescapable" duty to enforce the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education II to desegregate schools "with all deliberate speed." Address by the President of the United States, Delivered from his Office at the White House 1-2 (Sept. 24, 1957); 349 U.S. 294, 301 (1955). This great man expressed his unflagging belief that "[t]he very basis of our individual rights and freedoms is the certainty that the President and the Executive Branch of Government will support and [e]nsure the carrying out of the decisions of the Federal Courts." Id. at 3. Indeed, in our late Executive's own words, "[u]nless the President did so, anarchy would result." Id. . . .
It is, as we have noted, all too possible to see in this case an incipient crisis, but it may present an opportunity as well. We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos. This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.
Judge Wilkinson treats the story of the Little Rock 9 in a very John-Roberts fashion: it tells a beautiful story about judicial supremacy where everyone did what what the federal court said, and everything worked out for the best. The history tells a different story.
The general story of the Little Rock Nine is known, but the legal posture is not. Randy and I discuss this history in the essay on Cooper v. Aaron in 100 Cases. Please watch the video to catch up. Eisenhower's speech is in there.
For those who do not like to watch videos, you can read the summary, though I think the video footage is compelling:
In 1955, the Little Rock, Arkansas, school board approved a plan for gradual integration. However, the so- called "massive resistance" spread to Arkansas. Citizens approved an amendment to the state constitution that opposed Brown and desegregation. Based on that amendment, a state court judge issued an injunction against members of the Little Rock school board. They were ordered to stop the implementation of the federal court's integration plan at Central High School.
In response, a federal district court issued an order to block the state court injunction. The situation escalated quickly. Governor Orval Faubus ordered the Arkansas National Guard to prevent black students from entering Central High School. The National Guard blocked nine African- American students — known as the Little Rock Nine — from entering Central High School. Neither Faubus nor the National Guard were bound by the previous court order, which only applied to members of the school board. The situation then escalated further. A federal court enjoined the National Guard from blocking access for the African- American students. In response, the Little Rock Police Department replaced the National Guard. The police had not been included in the prior court order that bound the National Guard.
Two days later, in one of the most dramatic moments of the Civil Rights movement, President Eisenhower dispatched the 101st Airborne Division to Arkansas. "Mob rule cannot be allowed to override the decisions of our courts," he said. This storied division of U.S. Army paratroopers had fought its way across Europe in World War II and held its ground at the Battle of the Bulge. Now its troops were deployed to Little Rock, Arkansas where they escorted the Little Rock Nine into Central High School. Throughout the remainder of the year, the students attended class under the supervision of federal paratroopers.
Even after the federal intervention, the opposition to the desegregation plan did not subside. As a result, the district court granted the school board a thirty-month extension to integrate Central High School. The judge found that a delay was warranted, because the integration plan had caused "chaos, bedlam, and turmoil" in Little Rock. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment because the school board did not advance a sufficient basis to suspend the integration plan.
Shortly before the start of the semester, the Supreme Court convened for an emergency hearing. The question presented in Cooper v. Aaron was fairly narrow: Was the thirty- month extension given to the school board consistent with Brown's requirement to integrate with "all deliberate speed"? During oral arguments, the lawyer for the school board told the Court, "It was certainly not anticipated at the time [the] plan was formulated that the Governor of the State of Arkansas would call out troops to keep integration in the schools from taking place." Therefore, he claimed, a delay was warranted. The school board simply needed more time to deal with the unexpected circumstances. The Court was not persuaded by his argument. Chief Justice Earl Warren asked the attorney, "Can we defer a program of this kind merely because there are those elements in the community that will commit violence to prevent it from going into effect?" Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that the delay was not permissible: "The constitutional rights of respondents are not to be sacrificed or yielded to the violence and disorder which have followed upon the actions of the Governor and Legislature." In an unprecedented showing of unanimity, each of the nine Justices signed the opinion.
This history teaches several lessons.
First, President Eisenhower dispatched the troops in 1957, about a year before the Court's decision in Cooper v. Aaron (1958). (My article on the myths of Cooper should be useful reading now.) The 101st Airborne did little to stop the massive resistance to integration. Indeed, the troops had to escort the black students to school every day to protect them from mobs. Eisenhower's action did little to stop the "anarchy."
Second, the federal district court judge in Little Rock thought it best not to integrate the high school due to the chaos, and instead favored a thirty-month pause. Appellate judges who were not close to the judge sought to dictate the path forward. Which level of the judiciary was acting with the right amount of judicial humility?
Third, even after Cooper v. Aaron, Central High School did not integrate. Rather, the school simply shut down. Indeed, throughout the South, schools, swimming pools, and other institutions were closed or transferred to private ownership to avoid federal court injunctions.
What lesson do we draw from the "incipient crisis" in Little Rock? In my view, courts lack the power to solve all problems. Even where there is jurisdiction and law on their side, judges run out of authority. Despite what Brown said, the Warren Court couldn't integrate schools. They barely tried after Cooper. That task fell to district court judges and federal civil rights enforcement. Decades later, consent decrees were still in force.
We need to take a sober assessment of the power of the courts. As I've said many times, a constitutional crisis is a coin with two sides: what are the courts doing, and what is the executive doing? Not all of the blame can be placed on one coordinate branch of government.
The post About The "Incipient Crisis" In Little Rock appeared first on Reason.com.
