Liberal Harvard law professor Noah Feldman probably expected plenty of abuse from the left for writing a glowing assessment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett. However, I’m not sure he expected anything quite like this nasty tweet storm from a Stanford law professor.
Steve has noted one passage from professor Michele Dauber’s rant — her reference to Feldman as a “worthless shitty white man.” Dauber also claimed that Feldman was unqualified to clerk on the Supreme Court because, while in that job, he sought guidance from fellow clerks Barrett and Jenny Martinez, now the dean of Stanford Law School, on complicated issues before the Court. Dauber translated this to mean:
I am stupid and get women to do my homework for me. Yet because of my white penis I had a job I apparently admit I did not deserve.
“White penis”? What combination of alcohol and psychological disorders caused Dauber to include that phrase?
The notion that Feldman is stupid because he talked through difficult issues with the two top Supreme Court clerks — the elite of the elite, one of whom is now a Stanford law dean and the other a court of appeals judge and, perhaps, soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice — is absurd. The notion that Feldman has admitted he got his clerkship because of race is laughable. At most, Feldman admitted only that two of the 30 plus Supreme Court clerks during a particular term were more deserving of a clerkship than he was.
Speaking of deserving, what did Dauber do to deserve to be a law professor at Stanford (and, more pointedly, what did Stanford law students do to deserve having her inflicted on them)? Her credentials at the time of her hire seem underwhelming, at least judged against those of the professors who taught when I was a law student at Stanford.
Dauber’s clerkship was with Judge Stephen Reinhardt. He was the leftist court of appeals judge known for being reversed by the Supreme Court and, lately, for allegedly having sexually harassed his law clerks. Dauber reportedly remained close to Reinhardt until he died, but afterwards supported the former clerk who accused him of sexual harassment and corroborated the claim that Reinhardt harassed women.
Speaking of sexual harassment, Dauber’s claim to recent fame seems to be her work regarding sexual assault on campus. According to this account, she became co-chair of Stanford’s Board on Judicial Affairs in 2011, and helped revise the rules for judging assault cases. Among the revisions was the use of a preponderance of the evidence standard in adjudication.
One standard for dealing (or in Dauber’s case, not dealing) with a powerful judge who, according to multiple accounts, harassed his clerks. Another standard for dealing with an accused student.
A few years ago, Stanford administrators “discouraged” Daubert from using a picture of President Trump to illustrate the fliers for a presentation on sexual assault. Translation: adult supervision required. Judging from Dauber’s latest rant, it still is.
It’s been more than a decade since I donated money to Stanford law school. Readers who are still donating to the law school might want to consider whether an institution that employs a crackpot like Dauber is worthy of their support.
Similarly, alumni of any part of the University might ask themselves if they wish to support an institution that entrusts any aspect of its judicial process to someone with the level of contempt for white males that Dauber displayed in her rant against professor Feldman.