Re: Boston's Healthy Homeless
 

<Chortle> I've seen your posts, and that is why I made that point. Not so much testing for the virus itself, though, but testing for antibodies to show whether it is so endemic that the removal of restrictions would not cause a spike of cases the system cannot handle.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

the guy who had to switch jobs, because he insisted on saying the n word in lectures?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=409Pjtq7jzY

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Should white American lit profs use the revised version of Huckleberry Finn? Should a law professor teach Cohen v. California by saying that Cohen's jacket said "F" the police?

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Or the guy who is such a respected scholar that he is the only non-Berkeley, Yale, or Harvard prof in the top-10 of cited Con Law professors, and the only one under 60 years old. https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/...2013-2017.html

If I had had a Con Law professor in law school who self-censored Supreme Court opinions, I would have asked to be transferred to another class. If I had a dean who apologized for him quoting US Supreme Court opinions, I would never donate to that school for so long as that person was dean. And, if you are wondering, I have sent Jennifer an e-mail saying just this and how disappointed I was in her.

Re: Boston's Healthy Homeless
 

Nah. They are not sure about what antibodies mean and it’s incredibly common to have antibodies AND test positive nasal swab. Test for contagiousness and act accordingly.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Plus, having to deal with all those cali liberals? Puhleeze.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I hope she's paid well, but I am sure it is way less than what it would take for me to be agree to be the dean of a law school, let alone a public one in California.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Ah, the internet and public institutions. According to some website, she was paid $524,806 in 2018. Not enough for me.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Egg-zactly

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

She didn't say he couldn't say it, did she? Why can't they agree to disagree? There is no right answer.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Reread. I was responding to Icky's comment, not her. Although, given that UCLA is a public institution, her apology for his absolutely truthful, protected speech might be actionable.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I would hope that they could agree respectfully to disagree. This is what right and left did (and quite well) where I went to law school.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I remember coming into second term 1L Con Law. We had grown to be a tight group, night school, all in this together etc. I was wondering what Right of Privacy would do to us. I mean we had a Newt Gingrich aide in our class. But people analyzed the cases without much comment- other than one guy who had like 4 kids saying he thought a father should have some say. Anyway, we got past that. All good- what a tight team we were!

There was this little guy, I think an ensign, who always came to class in dress whites. So Prof is wrapping the topic up. 2 weeks no fights! We are moving on to commerce or some such.

Prof: anyone have any last questions on privacy?
Ensign's hand goes up: the thing that none of us get, is, it's killing babies. Why can't they see that?

I thought the "none of us" part was precious. It led to some heated follow up, I'll tell you.

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

I'm not using gloves. I don't have a ton to change all the time and I am handwashing/sanitizing instead. I bought a stylus for any touch screens I need to interact with. (I sent a bunch to my family too.) Wipe down everything when I bring it home and throw away packaging (which goes against my recycling nature, but I'm sure the carbon offset has been more than met this month).

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 

Anyone want to go in on some crude oil futures? I'm thinking that buying at 0 has some upside.