I'm on vacation, but I'll answer the @popehat challenge, here. I've been on the @FedSoc speaking list for about 10 years. In the mid-2000s, I'd estimate I spoke to about 4-5 law schools per semester, on topics from police militarization, to ...
https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1441046909116768269
... forensics, to prosecutor misconduct, to asset forfeiture, to wrongful convictions. I've always thought this was a credit to the group, since most (though certainly not all) of its members probably disagreed with me on those topics. Sometimes these were debates, but often ...
... it was just me speaking. And often, those talks were co-sponsored by the ACLU, black law student groups, the American Constitution Society, or other left-leaning groups. Which, again, I've always thought was a credit to both FedSoc and those groups.
(I've also found that the student chapters tend to be more libertarian and less conservative than the professional chapters.)
As my talks became more popular, I was told by a couple student chapter leaders that the national FedSoc began to ...
As my talks became more popular, I was told by a couple student chapter leaders that the national FedSoc began to ...
... discourage them from booking me by offering incentives to booking speakers with a more pro-law enforcement message. Which is fine. It's their group, their money. And even here, they didn't prohibit the student chapters from booking me, or take me off ...
... their list of pre-approved speakers.
After the 2016 election, my FedSoc speaking invitations grew rarer. I'm fairly sure my last gig was in 2018. I don't know if this was due to lack of interest from student chapters, or due to actions by the national group. But again . . .
After the 2016 election, my FedSoc speaking invitations grew rarer. I'm fairly sure my last gig was in 2018. I don't know if this was due to lack of interest from student chapters, or due to actions by the national group. But again . . .
. . . I'm not entitled to speaking invitations from anyone. Their group, their money. But it does seem illustrative of the group's change in direction post-2016.
I bring all this up now because @Popehat's thread reminded me that even though I haven't . . .
I bring all this up now because @Popehat's thread reminded me that even though I haven't . . .
. . . given a FedSoc-sponsored talk in a while, I'm pretty sure I'm still on their list of pre-approved speakers. And so long as Eastman is a member in good standing, and the group refuses to condemn his attempt to overturn the 2020 election, I'd rather not be affiliated ...
... with them in any capacity.
I don't want to make more of this than what it is. It isn't some grand sacrifice for me. When I was getting regular gigs, it was a nice source of supplemental income (I received the FedSoc standard of $1,000 per talk) and a chance ...
I don't want to make more of this than what it is. It isn't some grand sacrifice for me. When I was getting regular gigs, it was a nice source of supplemental income (I received the FedSoc standard of $1,000 per talk) and a chance ...
... to travel and see the country.
But it hasn't been either for a few years. So publicly denouncing them me costs me very little. But I do think it's important to take a public stand when necessary, and severing even a tenuous connection with a group whose ...
But it hasn't been either for a few years. So publicly denouncing them me costs me very little. But I do think it's important to take a public stand when necessary, and severing even a tenuous connection with a group whose ...
... (possibly former?) leader tried to overturn an election seems like just such an occasion.
On some level this feels a bit self-aggrandizing. I doubt I'm important enough to have much impact. But as I see it, my options are ...
On some level this feels a bit self-aggrandizing. I doubt I'm important enough to have much impact. But as I see it, my options are ...
(A) do nothing
(B) privately condemn them and ask to be removed, or (C) publicly condemn them and ask to be removed.
(A) isn't really an option. And it seems like if this is important enough for (B), it's important enough for (C).
/end
(B) privately condemn them and ask to be removed, or (C) publicly condemn them and ask to be removed.
(A) isn't really an option. And it seems like if this is important enough for (B), it's important enough for (C).
/end
Quick correction to the first tweet in this thread -- should be the "mid-2010s," not the "mid-2000s."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
