From:Subject:
Fwd: A Reflection on the Federalist Society and "Dialogue" from the Dred Scott Society
Date:
October 18, 2021 at 8:12 AM
To:
---------- Forwarded message ---------Date: Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 8:11 AMSubject: Fwd: A Reflection on the Federalist Society and "Dialogue" from the Dred Scott SocietyGet Outlook for iOS
From:
TheWall on behalf of
Sent:
Sunday, October 17, 2021 11:14:54 PM
To:
Subject:
[TheWall] A Reflection on the Federalist Society and "Dialogue" from the DredScott Society
Dear W’all, We, the members of the Dred Scott Society, write today to firmly support the leadership and bravery of Marina Edwards and to build upon themessage that she previously shared. While this message is long, if you have ever professed a dedication to “dialogue,” we ask you to read all of itand to take time to reflect on what it means for us, students who are descended from the enslaved and colonized, to engage in dialogue with thosewho have time and again harmed our communities and what it means for us to have extended multiple invitations to talk to an individual who hurtus despite our lived experiences and histories. As YLS students, we are in the unique position to engage in dialogue with people across lines of difference while we are still in the formative yearsof our legal careers. We invite you all to take advantage of this unique opportunity to engage in uncomfortable conversations—as growth isspawned by discomfort. This current situation may be one of discomfort for some of you but we ask that you engage with this piece and allow timefor honest reflection. We are still fighting to make YLS and the legal profession less violent, more centered on the needs of our communities, and more honest,transparent, and accountable spaces. We all have a shared interest in and a duty to build a better community. That must start with naming the harmthat has been done and working together to process, heal, and grow. We do that in the message below, exploring the history of the Federalist Societyand its failure to engage in meaningful dialogue in the wake of multiple invitations to do so. To understand Trent’s actions, we first have to understand the history of the Federalist Society and how it has appropriated the language of dialogueand diversity to push forth an agenda that is unequivocally anti-Black, anti-immigrant, anti-poor folks, anti-woman, and anti-LGBTQAI+. You mayhear from some that FedSoc had little to do with this incident, that Trent acted on his own. But FedSoc has remained silent -- deafeningly so -- incomplicity with this behavior and Trent, along with other commentators, have been drawing on common tropes used by the Federalist Society. The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 by a group of law students at the University of Chicago, Harvard, and Yale Law Schools. Thesestudents wanted to bring the “Reagan Revolution” -- which defunded welfare programs, oversaw the boom in mass incarceration, and ensured theperpetuation of the American imperial project through appeals to small government values -- to their law schools. Numerous chapters popped up inthe next few years. It’s important to underscore that the Federalist Society’s rise to prominence and power was due to “a stream of funding coming from a handful of very conservative corporate donors who were deliberately trying to change the politics and public opinion” in the United States. For instance, the
n ounaon prove see money or e eeras ocey wen was us a suen group a ae, arvar, an cago an esesustained investments have allowed FedSoc to be one of the most powerful legal organizations on the American right. James Pierson, the ExecutiveDirector and Trustee of the Olin Foundation from 1985 to 2005 has said the following: “If you said to a dean that you wanted to fund conservative constitutional law, he would reject the idea out of hand. But if you said youwanted to support Law and Economics, he would be much more open to the idea. Law and Economics is neutral, but it has aphilosophical thrust in the direction of free markets and limited government. That is, like many disciplines, it seems neutral, but it isn’tin fact.” Students join FedSoc often out of a mindset of scarcity of resources and a desire for power. With its ties to conservative leaders across the judiciary,corporate, and legal field, FedSoc has the power to catapult its members into jobs, clerkships and judicial appointments. The power that theirmembers can wield in these roles and appointments is the return on investment that FedSoc’s funders have banked on. Members of the Federalist Society include Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice Roberts. These justices have penned opinions against marriage equality (Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion in
Obergefell v. Hodges;
Chief Justice Roberts and Alito’sopinions in
United States v. Windsor)
, against people’s right to access abortions (Justices Thomas and Alito’s opinions in
Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt;
Justices Thomas, Alito’s and Gorsuch’s opinions in
June Medical Services LLC v. Russo)
, against LGBTQ folks’ right to privacy(Justice Thomas’s opinion in
Lawrence v. Texas)
, against racial integration in public schools (Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion in
Parents Involved v.Seattle School District)
, against people from the country’s identified in Trump’s “Muslim ban” (Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion in
Trump v. Hawaii),
against immigrants seeking to cancel deportation orders (Justice Gorsuch’s opinion in
Pereida v. Wilkinson),
against the procedural rightsof those arrested on erroneous information (Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion in
Herring v. United States;
Justice Alito’s opinion in
Davis v. United States;
Justice Thomas’s opinion in
Utah v. Strieff),
against students’ rights to free speech (
ironic
, considering their emphasis on the FirstAmendment; Justice Thomas’s opinion in
Morse v. Frederick;
Justice Thomas’s opinion in
B.L. v. Mahanoy School District
), against the rights of minors being interrogated by police (Justice Alito’s opinion in
J.D.B. v. North Carolina)
, against the rights of minors sentenced to life without thepossibility of parole (Justice Thomas’s opinion in
Graham v. Florida;
Justice Thomas, Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts’s opinions in
Miller v. Alabama)
, against workers’ rights to collectively sue their employers for wage theft (Justice Gorsuch’s opinion in
Epic Systems v. Lewis),
againstthe rights of agrarian workers to organize (Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion in
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid
), and against Black people’s votingrights (Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion in
Shelby County v. Holder
). In this last opinion, Roberts revived the “equal dignity of states” argument that provided the legal justification for the decision in
Dred Scott --
ourorganization’s namesake and a decision in which the Court held that Black people were property. The pooled legal knowledge of our membershipcannot name every decision that has harmed our communities, a testament to the extensiveness of this violence. And these are only opinions pennedby sitting Supreme Court justices; there are many others in positions of power that have weaponized theories of small government and privatizationto destroy the livelihood and power of the people. To be clear, legal institutions have caused violence long before the Federalist Society, and eventhose who disavow the organization perpetuate white supremacy, racial capitalism, and patriarchy. But it is simply disingenuous to speak of FedSocand describe them merely as a “conservative” group. To engage in dialogue, we must all hold all of the cards. In the past few days, Trent and numerous commentators have claimed that we did not open ourselves up to dialogue. This refrain is often preachedby the members of FedSoc -- “liberal” or “radical” students are willing to “cancel” people without ever having talked to them. In their view, if we just talked, we would see that this is all simply a big misunderstanding. Despite their feigned neutrality and stated commitments to dialogue, FedSoc fears open, transparent, and honest conversations that would shine alight on the toxic issues they continue to support. If you constantly talk about the importance of dialogue without engaging in individual orinterpersonal conversations across lines of difference, then perhaps your obsession with dialogue is just a tool of distraction. Trent’s actions are yet another example of the way that FedSoc members attempt to weaponize discourse against the very people trying to haveconversations in community with him. After Trent circulated an offensive invitation (attached to this email) to a “Trap House” themed party co-hosted by FedSoc and NALSA ladened with anti-Black language, many Black students used the 2L GroupMe to point out these issues and explainthe harm caused by this message. For instance, AJ Hudson created a survey asking 2L class members if they understood what a trap house was (
!
of poll respondents didn’t). AJ then “‘ ’ ‘ ’