Jodi Shaw resigned from Smith College, saying that the school tried to buy her silence about persistent discrimination against white employees.

The President of the school now responds, saying that Shaw demanded money to sign a confidentiality agreement.…
Here's Shaw's statement, for contrast:…
To be clear, I have no idea what a "standard confidentiality agreement" is in an academic setting and I'd love to learn what was meant by that.
Shaw has raised $200,000. since she wrote her letter, but now says that the funds have been put on hold, she fears, for "ideological reasons."
The American conservative says that Jodi now plans to sue Smith College for discrimination:…
Here is Shaw's response to the President's letter:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Andrew Fleischman

Andrew Fleischman Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ASFleischman

15 Feb
Bari Weiss' defense of Carano depends on intent. She says because no anti-semitic intent, Carano should not have been fired. But in the process, she compares Carano's piece to this, from Pedro Pascal: /1
But she doesn't take the next step. What was Pedro Pascal's intent? How do we know what his intent was? What's the context of his statement? These are all things we use to look at intent, past simply asking a person what their intent was. /2
To give an example, the Proud Boys have filed lawsuits to prevent anyone from calling them racist. Should that, alone, insulate them from charges of racism? Or do you have to look at the context of what is said and figure it out? /3
Read 7 tweets
15 Feb
Georgia takes its new "good faith" exception out for a spin in Lofton, where it refuses to rule on whether a 4 day CLSI search violates the 4th Amendment, saying instead that the officers relied in good faith on existence law:…
This ruling is contrary to the Ga Constitution, which has never protected the "good faith" mistakes of officials who violate the law. in Johnston v. Riley, 13 Ga. 97, 1853, SCOG ruled that a governor could not raise good faith as a defense to a technical deficiency in a warrant.
It is also, as @OrinKerr often points out, deeply pernicious to the development of 4th Amendment caselaw. Now there is no Georgia ruling on whether a 4 day CLSI search is constitutional.

It would certainly be a better deterrent if officers knew whether or not that was allowed.
Read 4 tweets
3 Feb
Elias raised a specific claim, in one county, with evidence, on behalf of someone with standing.

Otherwise identical.
Oh and the gap is 12 votes not 80,000.
Read 4 tweets
3 Feb
Nydia Tisdale is a journalist who was arrested for filming a Republican political rally. This week, the Supreme Court of Georgia denied her petition for certiorari. I want to briefly discuss the issues in the case. /1…
An officer, Tony Wooten, asked her to stop filming. But because she had gotten permission from the owner of the property beforehand, she shushed him.

He grabbed her, dragged her to a barn, and arrested her. /2

Tisdale was charged with felony obstruction of the officer, because he claimed she kicked and hit him while he was dragging her, criminal trespass, and misdemeanor obstruction for hindering him in his duties.

She was acquitted of everything but misdemeanor obstruction. /3
Read 8 tweets
2 Feb
I love this game.

"What about this example of political violence?"

"That's not real and MAJOR political violence." Image
For instance, is it real and major political violence to start lobbing tear gas into an unarmed crowd to do a photo op across the street? Image
Is it real and major political violence to send pipe bombs to members of Congress?…
Read 7 tweets
18 Jan
I wouldn't mind these arguments if they were good, or based on some kind of principle. But there's no reference to history or text here.

And in the absence of those things, it's not the Constitution you're defending. It's Donald Trump.
And, this argument sucks. There were 29 votes that the Senate lacked authority to convict Belknap after he resigned (with the specific intent to avoid impeachment).

But there's no mention of the fact that there were 37 votes that the Senate did have that authority.

Turley's a renowned scholar who's done great work in the past. But great work is work.

Before January 2021, is anyone aware of Turley ever forming a strong opinion anywhere about whether only sitting officials could be impeached?
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!