The Paper Chase (1973)

James Hart (Timothy Bottoms) is a first-year law student on his first day at Harvard University.  He arrives in Professor Kingsfield's (John Houseman) class to learn about contract law and, to his utter surprise, is called upon to relate the details of a case.  He had expected a first-day introduction, not a leap into the material.  Utterly humiliated, he soon joins a study club with 5 other students to get up to speed.  Though he quickly discovers that law school is more work than a fulltime job, he also finds a girlfriend, Susan (Lindsay Wagner).  Where Hart is trying to organize, categorize, and otherwise dissect the world and its interactions into legalese, Susan is a free spirit who dislikes Hart's efforts to classify their relationship and apply contract law to it.  Of course, his studies suffer thanks to his involvement with Susan.  Choices must be made.  Grades are key to his future.

Though Hart is clearly taking many classes, the only one that is ever shown is that of Professor Kingsfield.  With the study club, Hart volunteered to produce a study outline for contract law - Kingsfield - while the others took property, criminal, etc.  By the end of the semester, half the study group had either abandoned the group or dropped out of Harvard entirely.  The stress is intense.

John Houseman is terrific as Kingsfield.  It is no wonder he won an academy award for this performance.  He is the best part of this movie, far outshining all the other actors.  Despite the fact that Hart was a standout student in his class, he appears to not know him at the end of the semester, asking his name.  In fact, this happened several times.  "What is your name?" was one of Kingsfield's most repeated lines.  Is this a tactic to keep students humble?  A way to maintain neutrality toward students?  An indication that he views the students as so many "skulls full of mush" that are not currently worth remembering?  Whatever the reason, it was great.

After the class is done and tests have been taken, Hart has a chance encounter with Kingsfield.  He gushes over how much he got out of the class.  Kingsfield replies by asking his name.  LOL!  "Thank you, Mr. Hart."

As for the rest of the cast, they are fine.  They get the job done but nothing special.  An entertaining movie and worth watching.  Recommended.

The Fall of Harvard

Claudine Gay, President of Harvard University, has resigned in the wake of her disastrous appearance before Congress and revelations about plagiarism in her academic work.  Obviously, if the reports of plagiarism are true, she absolutely should be removed if she had not resigned.  It is unacceptable that one of the premiere institutions of higher learning in the United States, the world, should be led by a plagiarist.  Now that she has resigned, one must ask how did she get the job?  What sort of vetting was done if a serial plagiarist was chosen?

The DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) movement may be at the root of her selection.  For decades, the demand for diversity has been growing and each time a minority or woman is promoted, there are celebrations in the media.  By contrast, when women and minorities are not promoted, accusations of sexism and racism follow.  Strangely, Asians are not considered a minority in the DEI movement.  There is so much eagerness for diversity that competence has become a secondary concern.

In the last year, Harvard has been exposed for discriminating on the basis of race, failing to condemn antisemitism, and now having a plagiarist for president.  Clearly, it is time to change course.

Thus Spoke SCOTUS

As it did last year, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has handed down controversial rulings.

1. Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ruled that the current use of race to determine admission to the university was unconstitutional, violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  Essentially, affirmative action has suffered a blow.  This change is long overdue.  That a less qualified applicant should be chosen on account of race is just racism.  Yes, at one time it may have been necessary to amend for wrongs of the past but it has been half a century.  Those who are 'paying' for this new form of discrimination have mostly been of Asian ancestry.  Let us judge applicants on their merit, not their melanin.  Of note, in the case of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), the court had upheld affirmative action, though Justice Sandra Day O'Connor had suggested that it would no longer be needed in another 25 years.  She was only off by 5 years.

2. Biden v. Nebraska ruled that the President cannot forgive student loans.  The court even offered a quote from Speaker Nancy Pelosi who had stated that only the Congress could forgive loans.  The ruling so obvious that it should never have gotten this far.  Congress allocates money, not the president.  It is so clear in the Constitution that one should be concerned that it was a 6-3 ruling.  Of course, President Biden knew - in his lucid moments - that this wouldn't fly but it was a good campaign issue.  All those young voters might gamble on voting Biden/Democrat in order to escape college debt.  Instead, it turns out of if you agree to a loan, you need to repay the loan.  However, colleges should take some responsibility for the ballooning student debt.  One might say they defrauded the student by convincing them that their degree would get them a high paying career rather than a job as a Starbuck's barista.

3. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis held that a website designer was not obligated to design wedding announcements that were contrary to her Christian faith.  This is a repeat of the cake case and also comes from Colorado.  Businesses should have the right to refuse service.  It is curious how these cases are always filed against Christians but never Muslims.  During the cake case, a YouTuber had gone to several Muslim bakeries and was always refused when asking for a LBGT cake.  Why no lawsuit?  That the same case has repeated only for a different product means that there will be more of them.  Christian florists, Christian DJs, Christian venues, and many others will be targeted.  The point may not be to get all the way to the Supreme Court but merely to bankrupt businesses with legal costs.

That the court has made a decided shift to Originalist thinking has triggered the call for packing the court.  Add another 4 justices and we will have 7-6 rulings with the 'correct' outcome.  The court is far too important because the Congress has outsourced its authority to the court and the bureaucracy.  The government is too big, too intrusive, and unaccountable for failures.

The Judiciary's Class War

This Glenn Reynolds' pamphlet posits that the US is divided into two classes: Front Row Kids and Back Row Kids.  The Front Row kids are "mobile, global, and well educated."  Back Row kids are more religious, not as well educated, and usually live near where they were born.  Those who become judges are almost exclusively Front Row kids and are likely to rule with a Front Row kid bias.  He lists a variety of rulings over the decades that have favored Front Row attitudes over Back Row views.  He holds that this is a problem.

 

The Front Row kid bias is a fairly new phenomenon.  Justices were once drawn from a variety of sources but now are almost exclusively graduates of Harvard or Yale (Ruth Bader Ginsburg attended Harvard but graduated from Columbia).  Hmm, this reminds me of blogs I've written about the Presidency and the Senate.  There is entirely too much elitism in the government today.  To resolve this problem, Reynolds holds that a wider net should be cast for potential nominees, not just the Ivy Leaguers.  Also, the justices should be made to ride the circuit again.  At one time, justices would serve on circuit courts between sessions; this would give them a better sense of the rest of the country rather than just the echo chamber of the East Coast Corridor.  Another thought is to make the judges an elective office, which would require an amendment.  He offers a pair of rulings that would have resulted in a very effective attack ad in an election.

 

It is a short read and available on Amazon.  Recommended.

 

Elites of the Senate

The United States Senate, which was initially formed to represent the interests of the States, was undermined by the 17th Amendment.  Rather than being selected by the state assembly and/or the governor, the senators would be popularly elected.  This effectively ended the ability of state governments to directly influence the federal government.  Whereas the state legislature could have recalled a senator who voted in favor of a law that would impose costs on the state government (e.g. Medicaid, Americans with Disabilities Act, No Child Left Behind, etc.), the 17th Amendment removed that check from the state.  Unfunded mandates have proliferated, allowing the federal government to determine how the states must spend their tax revenues.

 

The reasoning behind the amendment was that too many millionaires were 'buying' senate seats.  There was also an issue with legislatures selecting senators in a timely fashion since it wasn't an election with a given day for all legislators to vote.  Popular vote certainly resolved the second of those issues but senators are still among the wealthy elite.

 

Members of the 115th Senate are, on average, 61.9 years old and have been in the Senate for 10 years.  26 Senators graduated from Ivy League colleges (20 of them attended Harvard, Yale, or both) and 55 Senators have a Juris Doctor degree.  By contrast, only 4 senators earned an MD and 6 have an MBA.  Two have achieved PhDs.  Impressive credentials when one considers the mediocre to bad quality of their work.

 

Splitting by party is illuminating.  There are 46 Democrats, 17 of whom are Ivy League graduates (37%) and 32 of whom have a JD (70%).  By contrast, of the 52 Republicans, only 8 are Ivy League grads (15%) and 22 have a JD (42%).  All 4 MDs are Republicans.  The MBAs are split 4 Republicans to 2 Democrats.  Each party has a PhD senator.  50% of the Democrats have worked as lawyers while only 35% of the Republicans have.

 

Considering the low regard in which lawyers are held, it is no surprise that an institution that is dominated by lawyers and Ivy League elites would find itself with similar approval ratings.

Breaking the Elite Clique

I had mentioned in an earlier blog that Trump's election expanded the potential nominees.  I had offered Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerburg but Oprah Winfrey is also qualified by our new standard.  She is tremendously successful in a variety of enterprises, has name recognition as great or greater than Trump, and - unlike Trump - she is almost universally loved.  Though she didn't think she was qualified, now she thinks perhaps she is.  Although Oprah and I are on different sides of the political spectrum, I would rate her as more qualified than most Democratic politicians because she has been successful in the private sector.  Politicians with a long and distinguished career in government think nothing of piling regulations, taxes, and other burdens on the private sector but Oprah has been on the receiving end of that.  Also, she has more character than most politicians.

 

This is exactly why the insiders are up in arms.  Trump has vastly expanded the competition.  The cozy little clique of Harvard and Yale graduates have controlled the presidency since 1989 and are furious that their reign has been interrupted.  A third of all presidents have gone to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton.  These universities are churning out a professional political class which has become the American aristocracy.  In order to save the clique, Trump must fail.  Trump must fail so badly that the voters realize their error and never commit it again.  Then the aristocracy can claim that it takes a particular education to be president and only we chosen few may apply.

 

Here are the last 8 elections.  Only schools that were attended by multiple nominees are highlighted.

 

2016 - Trump (U Penn) vs. Hillary (Yale)

2012 - Obama (Harvard) vs. Romney (Harvard)

2008 - Obama (Harvard) vs. McCain (Annapolis)

2004 - Bush II (Yale & Harvard) vs. Kerry (Yale)

2000 - Bush II (Yale & Harvard) vs. Gore (Harvard)

1996 - Clinton (Yale) vs. Dole (U Kansas) vs. Perot (Annapolis)

1992 - Clinton (Yale) vs. Bush I (Yale) vs. Perot (Annapolis)

1988 - Bush I (Yale) vs. Dukakis (Harvard)

 

Only Dole and Trump did not attend Harvard, Yale, or Annapolis.  Trump is the first person since Reagan in 1984 to win without having attended Harvard or Yale.  If she runs, Oprah attended Tennessee State University.