US Circuit judge denounces 'cancel culture,' vows not to hire Yale law clerks: 'Yale not only tolerates the cancellation of views — it actively practices it'



A federal appeals judge has decided to take action against so-called "cancel culture" by denying clerkships to those educated by a place he considers to be a major cancel culture supply line: Yale Law School.

Judge James C. Ho of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, recently spoke to the Kentucky Chapters Conference of the Federalist Society and openly castigated the intolerant practices promulgated by Yale Law and its graduates.

"Yale not only tolerates the cancellation of views — it actively practices it," he said.

To illustrate his point, Ho cited several recent examples that have affected the legal community. Back in late January, a would-be Georgetown Law senior lecturer, Ilya Shapiro, was placed on administrative leave after he tweeted criticism of President Joe Biden for selecting a candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court based on the immutable characteristics of race and sex. Ketanji Brown Jackson, a black woman, was sworn in to the Court last week, but Shapiro ultimately resigned his position at Georgetown back in June because he said that he could not abide a "place that excludes dissenting voices." Shapiro did not work one official day on the job.

For more evidence of the intolerance propagated at Yale Law, Ho also pointed to an event held at Yale itself. Back in March, more than 100 Yale Law students loudly disrupted a free speech presentation headlined by Kristen Waggoner of the Alliance Defending Freedom and Monica Miller of the American Humanist Association. The activist students caused such a disturbance that nearby classes complained, and police had to escort the speakers safely out of the building and into a police vehicle after it was over.

Ellen Cosgrove, an associate dean at Yale Law, attended the entire event, Ho noted, but "did nothing" to punish the petulant protestors for their behavior.

"It turns out that, when elite law schools like Yale teach their students that there are no consequences to their intolerance and illiberalism," Ho said, "the message sticks with them."

However, in addition to referencing numerous examples of intolerant bullying perpetrated by Yale Law students, Ho also suggested that judges have in their control one possible solution to the problem: Refuse to hire these same students as law clerks.

"We’re not just citizens," Ho reminded his audience. "We’re also customers. Customers can boycott entities that practice cancel culture. ... I wonder how a law school would feel, if my fellow federal judges and I stopped being its customers."

He added that his intention is not to participate in cancel culture per se, but to give cancel culture participants a taste of their own medicine.

"I don't want to cancel Yale," Ho insisted. "I want Yale to stop canceling people like me."

Even a Mother Jones writer agreed with the premise of Ho's new policy, if not with Ho's reasons. "The highest levels of the federal judiciary have for too long been dominated by graduates of the same handful of select law schools," wrote senior reporter Tim Murphy, "and it’d be a mistake to say we’re better for it."

Former President Donald Trump nominated Ho, who graduated from the University of Chicago School of Law, to the federal bench in 2018. According to Reuters, Yale declined to comment on this story.

Federal judge scraps planned speech in order to deliver powerful defense of conservative scholar targeted by cancel culture



Federal Judge James Ho, who sits on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, was scheduled to speak at Georgetown Law School on Tuesday about originalism, a topic in constitutional legal theory.

Instead, he dedicated his speech to Ilya Shapiro, a conservative legal scholar who became a target of cancel culture last month.

What is the background?

Ilya Shapiro was slated to join the faculty of Georgetown Law School as a senior lecturer and as executive director of the law school's Center for the Constitution on Feb. 1. But that all changed after he condemned President Joe Biden's promise to seemingly nominate only a black woman to replace Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court.

"Objectively best pick for Biden is Sri Srinivasan, who is solid prog & v smart," Shapiro tweeted, referring to the Chief United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. "Even has identity politics benefit of being first Asian (Indian) American. But alas doesn't fit into latest intersectionality hierarchy so we'll get lesser black woman. Thank heaven for small favors."

"Because Biden said he's only consider black women for SCOTUS, his nominee will always have an asterisk attached. Fitting that the Court takes up affirmative action next term," he said in a follow-up tweet.

The remarks triggered intense backlash that was led by Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern. Students at Georgetown Law School even demanded "reparations" and a place to "cry" because of Shapiro's tweets.

Despite apologizing for his "poor choice of words, which undermined my message that nobody should be discriminated against for his or her skin color," Georgetown placed Shapiro on administrative leave. Afterward, Shapiro expressed hope that, pending the school's investigation, he would be "vindicated."

What did Ho say?

Speaking to the Georgetown Federalist Society Chapter, Ho acknowledged that he was scheduled to speak about originalism, but decided to use his time for another important issue.

"I’m going to spend my time today talking about Ilya Shapiro," Ho told students.

According to National Review, Ho discussed three important issues related to the Shapiro controversy: ancel culture, freedom of speech, and the substance of Shapiro's criticism.

  • Cancel culture: Ho said that "cancel culture is not just antithetical to our constitutional culture and our American culture," but it is "completely antithetical to the very legal system that each of you seeks to join."
  • Freedom of speech: According to Reason, Ho said, "If you disagree with Ilya Shapiro — if you think his understanding of the law is absurd — if you think his vision for our country is awful — here's what I say: Bring him onto campus — and beat him!" He also described freedom of speech as "the foundation of our entire adversarial system of justice." Ho told students, "You must understand your opponent’s views in order to fully understand, and thus powerfully defend, your own views."
  • Discrimination: Describing equal opportunity as a tenet behind "why America truly is the greatest nation on earth," Ho said, "So make no mistake: If there is any racial discrimination in statements like [Shapiro's], it's not coming from the speaker—it's coming from the policy that the speaker is criticizing. That's the unfortunate irony in this whole discussion. If you asked Ilya, I am sure he would say that he's the one standing up for racial equality, and that his opponents are the ones who are supporting racial discrimination. You don't have to agree with him — but it's obvious that's where he's coming from. And yet I don't hear Ilya trying to punish others for taking a different view on racial equality."

Remarkably, Ho ended his speech by saying that if Shapiro should be canceled, then he should be, too.

"Ilya has said that he should have chosen different words. That ought to be enough," Ho said, Reason reported. "I stand with Ilya on the paramount importance of color-blindness. And that same principle should apply whether we're talking about getting into college, getting your first job, or receiving an appointment to the highest court in the land. Racism is a scourge that America has not yet fully extinguished—and the first step in fighting racial discrimination is to stop practicing it."

"That's all Ilya is trying to say. That's all he has ever tried to say," Ho added. "And so, if Ilya Shapiro is deserving of cancellation, then you should go ahead and cancel me too."