The takeover of America's legal system(bariweiss.substack.com)
bariweiss.substack.com
The takeover of America's legal system
https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-takeover-of-americas-legal-system
321 comments
An important thing to bear in mind is that the legal profession is largely self-regulated, and lawyers have a monopoly over the legal system. State bars and bar organizations are largely unaccountable to the public. If these organizations abandon principles of neutrality and objectivity, and become overtly ideological, they can use their power over lawyers to exert tremendous, anti-democratic influence over every aspect of life. Everyone should be worried about this.
And when I say everyone, I mean it. People assume that it's just "conservatives" complaining about these ideological changes. But to be clear, all of the people quoted in this article--like the overwhelming majority of lawyers--are liberals: David Boies, Andy Koppelman, Nadine Strossen, etc. Indeed, they're probably well to the left of your average Democrat.
Also, when it comes to the legal system, you shouldn't disregard complaints from "conservatives." The reason legal process works is because, even though it results in winners and losers, everyone at least everyone agrees in the process and the principles underlying it. The faith Americans have in the legal system is remarkable given that 90% of lawyers are liberal Democrats, while most Americans are Republicans or conservative Democrats. (Fun fact: about two-thirds of the country still opposes the half-century old Supreme Court precedent banning school prayer.) Abandoning the dedication to neutrality and objectivity that has been championed by even liberal legal organizations up to this point will have profoundly negative consequences for the rule of law.
And when I say everyone, I mean it. People assume that it's just "conservatives" complaining about these ideological changes. But to be clear, all of the people quoted in this article--like the overwhelming majority of lawyers--are liberals: David Boies, Andy Koppelman, Nadine Strossen, etc. Indeed, they're probably well to the left of your average Democrat.
Also, when it comes to the legal system, you shouldn't disregard complaints from "conservatives." The reason legal process works is because, even though it results in winners and losers, everyone at least everyone agrees in the process and the principles underlying it. The faith Americans have in the legal system is remarkable given that 90% of lawyers are liberal Democrats, while most Americans are Republicans or conservative Democrats. (Fun fact: about two-thirds of the country still opposes the half-century old Supreme Court precedent banning school prayer.) Abandoning the dedication to neutrality and objectivity that has been championed by even liberal legal organizations up to this point will have profoundly negative consequences for the rule of law.
> Then, an associate in her late twenties stood up. She said there were lawyers at the firm who were “uncomfortable” with Boies representing disgraced movie maker Harvey Weinstein, and she wanted to know whether Boies would pay them severance so they could quit and focus on applying for jobs at other firms.
This is an odd hill to die on, especially for an attorney who knows how the US legal system works. Everyone, no matter how despicable, is entitled to legal representation.
You see a similar "code" in medicine. For instance, when the Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was arrested by SWAT, he was taken to the hospital and treated by doctors for his wounds. The medical staff wouldn't even think of objecting to treating a known terrorist, because their duty is to be physicians.
This is an odd hill to die on, especially for an attorney who knows how the US legal system works. Everyone, no matter how despicable, is entitled to legal representation.
You see a similar "code" in medicine. For instance, when the Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was arrested by SWAT, he was taken to the hospital and treated by doctors for his wounds. The medical staff wouldn't even think of objecting to treating a known terrorist, because their duty is to be physicians.
A better answer to the, "‘How can you represent someone who’s guilty?’ question is that defense lawyers defend the integrity of the legal system and process against the people who have found themselves in government because the sovereignty of the process is what the rule of law means.
However, the process of litigation is not the representation or discovery of truth, it means currying the favor of a judge or jury - which is what makes current critical theories of social justice so pernicious, because they are also based on this "throw everything at it and see what sticks," approach to political power. Students coming out of schools appear to not be educated as stewards of truth and culture, but as raiders and looters of it.
If you have ever found yourself in opposition to someone using political complaints, they also often litigate in the same way, where you may not have even done something objectively wrong, but you have let yourself become exposed to someone leveraging a taboo against you the way that prosecutors can choose to lever laws, and it doesn't have to be true, if you have something they want (or don't want) there are no conseqeunces to lying or misrepresenting facts in the course of social justice. The judge and jury today is social media and this ubiquitous "narrative," where participants trade in slanders.
Part of this ideology is that "muh freedom," e.g. limits to state power and accountability to principle, only deprives marginalized people of complete power to wield justice if/when they seize the reins of it, but it is supported by another intellectual solvent of subjectivity that means there is no objective truth, only appeals to power and consequences.
These are the factors that made their way out of the courts, into the culture, and are now making their way back into the courts as a zombie freak ideology where there is no truth or meaning in language, and sadly I don't see the centre holding.
However, the process of litigation is not the representation or discovery of truth, it means currying the favor of a judge or jury - which is what makes current critical theories of social justice so pernicious, because they are also based on this "throw everything at it and see what sticks," approach to political power. Students coming out of schools appear to not be educated as stewards of truth and culture, but as raiders and looters of it.
If you have ever found yourself in opposition to someone using political complaints, they also often litigate in the same way, where you may not have even done something objectively wrong, but you have let yourself become exposed to someone leveraging a taboo against you the way that prosecutors can choose to lever laws, and it doesn't have to be true, if you have something they want (or don't want) there are no conseqeunces to lying or misrepresenting facts in the course of social justice. The judge and jury today is social media and this ubiquitous "narrative," where participants trade in slanders.
Part of this ideology is that "muh freedom," e.g. limits to state power and accountability to principle, only deprives marginalized people of complete power to wield justice if/when they seize the reins of it, but it is supported by another intellectual solvent of subjectivity that means there is no objective truth, only appeals to power and consequences.
These are the factors that made their way out of the courts, into the culture, and are now making their way back into the courts as a zombie freak ideology where there is no truth or meaning in language, and sadly I don't see the centre holding.
One gestalt impression I'm getting from the parts about "burn the place down" is that the economic precaritization of the professions has produced a mass cohort of young professionals who seriously don't care about the institutions they staff and the social purpose of those institutions. They see themselves as something of a generational social movement instead, taking over and coopting institutions they view as offering them a mostly adversarial social contract to begin with.
Articles like this push a narrative of woke social justice warriors ruining society by ignoring customs and norms. Certainly there are exploitationists who gravitate to any movement to attain power. However, everyone who tries to affect change in bureaucratic organizations knows that the worst things are not the word ‘no’ but complete silence. Customs and norms allow institutions an excuse continue the status quo without thinking too hard about it.
The real story here is that institutions have gained so much power in society such that they have eclipsed every function in daily human life. The people who lead them have arbitrary and capricious control over prices, investment, transportation, and justice. The way people have responded to this is just part of the story. I want journalists to report on the whole story.
The real story here is that institutions have gained so much power in society such that they have eclipsed every function in daily human life. The people who lead them have arbitrary and capricious control over prices, investment, transportation, and justice. The way people have responded to this is just part of the story. I want journalists to report on the whole story.
This article is describing what happens when an institution starts to lose trust. There's a perception, even by participants in the system, that the system results in too many wrongful convictions and too many wrongful acquittals.
That's a problem that should be talked about and addressed, but blaming people who are knowledgable about the system (licensed attorneys) for a changing set of values due to reduced trust in the system is silly. If a system is consistently producing outcomes that are different from its value, the system is broken, and it people are going to rationally lost faith in its old customs.
That's a problem that should be talked about and addressed, but blaming people who are knowledgable about the system (licensed attorneys) for a changing set of values due to reduced trust in the system is silly. If a system is consistently producing outcomes that are different from its value, the system is broken, and it people are going to rationally lost faith in its old customs.
Do people actually agree with the intro to this piece:
> If you are a Common Sense reader, you are by now highly aware of the phenomenon of institutional capture. From the start, we have covered the ongoing saga of how America’s most important institutions have been transformed by an illiberal ideology—and have come to betray their own missions.
> Medicine. Hollywood. Education. The reason we exist is because of the takeover of newspapers like The New York Times.
> Ok, so we’ve lost a lot. A whole lot. But at least we haven’t lost the law. That’s how we comforted ourselves. The law would be the bulwark against this nonsense. The rest we could work on building anew.
> But what if the country’s legal system was changing just like everything else?
Feels like it's kind of pointless to talk about the article and try to have a conversation between individuals who believe this and individuals who think that all sounds like a wild conspiracy theory.
Hollywood has betrayed its mission? And you click through and it says Hollywood used to be a 'boys club', by which I guess they mean full of sexual predators who were above the law? But now it's lost its way?
The clash of worldviews makes any opinions on specific items almost irrelevant.
> If you are a Common Sense reader, you are by now highly aware of the phenomenon of institutional capture. From the start, we have covered the ongoing saga of how America’s most important institutions have been transformed by an illiberal ideology—and have come to betray their own missions.
> Medicine. Hollywood. Education. The reason we exist is because of the takeover of newspapers like The New York Times.
> Ok, so we’ve lost a lot. A whole lot. But at least we haven’t lost the law. That’s how we comforted ourselves. The law would be the bulwark against this nonsense. The rest we could work on building anew.
> But what if the country’s legal system was changing just like everything else?
Feels like it's kind of pointless to talk about the article and try to have a conversation between individuals who believe this and individuals who think that all sounds like a wild conspiracy theory.
Hollywood has betrayed its mission? And you click through and it says Hollywood used to be a 'boys club', by which I guess they mean full of sexual predators who were above the law? But now it's lost its way?
The clash of worldviews makes any opinions on specific items almost irrelevant.
The sophomoricism in this thread is one of the things that irked me about tech and made me go into law.
I'm going back into tech because the culture of law is much more broken and repellant, but one thing I can say in favor of lawyers over engineers is that, IME at least, they are overall much more willing to recognize when they aren't well-versed in other fields, including both substantively and in terms of mental models.
I'm going back into tech because the culture of law is much more broken and repellant, but one thing I can say in favor of lawyers over engineers is that, IME at least, they are overall much more willing to recognize when they aren't well-versed in other fields, including both substantively and in terms of mental models.
"are more important to more and more law students than due process, the presumption of innocence, and all the norms and values at the foundation of what we think of as the rule of law."
this assumes that there was due process, presumption of innocence and a "rule of law" to start with.
truth is, rich people can afford the best lawyer, poor people have to take a 10 years plea deal.
I gave a bit of thought into this and came out with a solution which is called "loto-lawyer" you spin the wheel, and you get what you get as a lawyer. As ridiculous as it may sound, it would be something closer to justice...
this assumes that there was due process, presumption of innocence and a "rule of law" to start with.
truth is, rich people can afford the best lawyer, poor people have to take a 10 years plea deal.
I gave a bit of thought into this and came out with a solution which is called "loto-lawyer" you spin the wheel, and you get what you get as a lawyer. As ridiculous as it may sound, it would be something closer to justice...
'... on how the legal system in America, as one prominent liberal scholar put it, is at risk of becoming “a totalitarian nightmare.”'
It isn't already? My experience indicates that rule of law is commonly ignored, prosecutorial and law enforcement discretion leads to biased and unequal application of the law, letter of the law and strict construction is ignored in the aim to convict people who "deserve" it, and that the rights of the people are often ignored.
I think that training on bias is a good idea. After all, some of these lawyers become judges and attention to all potential bias would be useful, and necessary for a fair trial.
It isn't already? My experience indicates that rule of law is commonly ignored, prosecutorial and law enforcement discretion leads to biased and unequal application of the law, letter of the law and strict construction is ignored in the aim to convict people who "deserve" it, and that the rights of the people are often ignored.
I think that training on bias is a good idea. After all, some of these lawyers become judges and attention to all potential bias would be useful, and necessary for a fair trial.
> One criminal law professor at a top law school told me he’s even stopped teaching theories of punishment because of how negatively students react to retributivism—the view that punishment is justified because criminals deserve to suffer.
While stopping teaching due to student fragility is rather unfortunate. I have to say this is one aspect of America's brand of justice that I think needs to change. My lay understanding is that retribution simply does not work -- and often is actually counterproductive, especially once you price in the cost of enacting the retribution. Furthermore a vengeful society or plaintiff needs to have some cooling off time, or spiritual growth to come to grips with the reality that life is full of horrific things and that making the best of it (neither nihilism nor resentfulness) is the true optimization of the system.
Instead I'd suggest that American justice needs to focus purely on rehabilitation. How can what remains be optimized? Yes that might even include giving an education to a <insert deplorable> so that they can contribute net positively to society.
While stopping teaching due to student fragility is rather unfortunate. I have to say this is one aspect of America's brand of justice that I think needs to change. My lay understanding is that retribution simply does not work -- and often is actually counterproductive, especially once you price in the cost of enacting the retribution. Furthermore a vengeful society or plaintiff needs to have some cooling off time, or spiritual growth to come to grips with the reality that life is full of horrific things and that making the best of it (neither nihilism nor resentfulness) is the true optimization of the system.
Instead I'd suggest that American justice needs to focus purely on rehabilitation. How can what remains be optimized? Yes that might even include giving an education to a <insert deplorable> so that they can contribute net positively to society.
I sort of agree, but the American legal system wasn't exactly in great shape before. The reaction described in the article is not good, but a reaction of some sort was expected.
This article seems to be purposefully conflating social dynamics (increased social accountability for previously acceptable 'neutral' actions) with the embrace of valid, structural criticisms of the legal system in this country and their increasing acceptance as "obvious" in legal academia.
It feels, at best, like it's purposefully conflating these things so it can discredit those criticisms.
It is not a good article.
It feels, at best, like it's purposefully conflating these things so it can discredit those criticisms.
It is not a good article.
It’s very important, if on trial, that you and your lawyer are able to frame your actions as a reaction to unfairness in our society. This article gives a concrete example where sentencing was halved when the prosecutor noted a defendant’s political alignment.
When arguing about Critical Race Theory it's useful to keep in mind this quote from the person (Christopher Rufo) who brought the term to mainstream prominence over the past year or so:
“We have successfully frozen their brand ‘critical race theory’ into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category."
The whole purpose of this phrase as used by the Bari Weiss types is to be non-specific, hard to pin down, to mean different things to different people. In other words, to make productive conversation or debate impossible.
“We have successfully frozen their brand ‘critical race theory’ into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category."
The whole purpose of this phrase as used by the Bari Weiss types is to be non-specific, hard to pin down, to mean different things to different people. In other words, to make productive conversation or debate impossible.
Ironic the blog is titled "Common Sense", while the contents of the blog are asking you to discard your common sense and accept the implication that somehow the growth of interest in racial equity implies we are approaching "a totalitarian nightmare".
Here's some common sense: Most people are reasonable and aren't interested in promoting a totalitarian nightmare. If all the scary implied slippery slope stuff started actually affecting people's lives in a real and visible way, all those reasonable people would change their worldview because reasonable people want to make other people's lives better.
Here's some common sense: Most people are reasonable and aren't interested in promoting a totalitarian nightmare. If all the scary implied slippery slope stuff started actually affecting people's lives in a real and visible way, all those reasonable people would change their worldview because reasonable people want to make other people's lives better.
I find the current state of the US legal system to be abhorrent, for a variety of reasons not listed in this article. While I'm sure adding woke nonsense to the pot won't help, getting all of that culture war stuff out of the legal system still won't fix the root(s) of the problem(s).
We need a system focused on justice between individuals, not this pay to win legal system.
Edit - Ban plea deals, and publicly tar and feather any judge or prosecutor who fails to uphold the highest legal ideals.
We need a system focused on justice between individuals, not this pay to win legal system.
Edit - Ban plea deals, and publicly tar and feather any judge or prosecutor who fails to uphold the highest legal ideals.
A bit tangential, but I wonder if it's realistic to gradually migrate the common law system to something closer to the civil one. I think that the precedent bloat is one of major factors which makes lawyers expensive and judicial system badly accessible for non-lawyers.
But who I am kidding... The US was unable to even move from the imperial units and Farenheit.
But who I am kidding... The US was unable to even move from the imperial units and Farenheit.
Another good take on the subject is Richard Hanania making the case that "Woke Institutions is Just Civil Rights Law": https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/woke-institutions-is-j...
I really wish Weiss would make her case more quantitatively. But while I'm at it, does she have a piece on the general structural phenomenon of institutional capture, how it works and how to fight it?
For instance:
>The problem has come not just from students, but from administrators, who often foment the forces they capitulate to. Administrators now outnumber faculty at some universities—Yale employs 5,066 administrators and just 4,937 professors—and law schools haven’t been spared the bloat.
This is an actual quantitative, causal explanation. Why does it not pothole to an entire article or study? I want to know more.
For instance:
>The problem has come not just from students, but from administrators, who often foment the forces they capitulate to. Administrators now outnumber faculty at some universities—Yale employs 5,066 administrators and just 4,937 professors—and law schools haven’t been spared the bloat.
This is an actual quantitative, causal explanation. Why does it not pothole to an entire article or study? I want to know more.
> and to a lesser extent, the court system, are shaped by and largely serve the needs of businesses
Meanwhile many businesses are starting to adopt the ideologies complained about in the article. Soon you won't be a viable option for providing services if you do not bear the mark "anti-racist" . Already my employer would likely retaliate and/or limit my career if it was found that I commented anything but purely affirmative towards all forms of anti-racist or critical race theory rhetoric. A rhetoric that completely strips me of any credibility due to my race and gender.
Meanwhile many businesses are starting to adopt the ideologies complained about in the article. Soon you won't be a viable option for providing services if you do not bear the mark "anti-racist" . Already my employer would likely retaliate and/or limit my career if it was found that I commented anything but purely affirmative towards all forms of anti-racist or critical race theory rhetoric. A rhetoric that completely strips me of any credibility due to my race and gender.
I'm just an average American with limited understanding of the "narratives" these days, but what's wrong with teaching CRT if it can help address disparities in criminal justice stats? The system doesn't seem as just as it should be, and the profession should try to fix that.
very funny to write an article about the crisis in the legal system without addressing how it is a pretty good example of almost complete elite capture by a few top law schools whose admissions are far from meritocratic. Or talking about Steven Donziger vs Chevron, a case so shameful the UN Commission on Human Rights has called for his release. Or talking about the basic truth of the US legal system, where the wealthiest can nearly always afford to win a civil case just through a war of attrition by hiring incredibly expensive lawyers while the bottom 50% of America could never hope to hire one lawyer.
But I don't expect much else from Bari Weiss' publication, where the scariest thing in the world is always some college kids that asked each other their pronouns or something. Why is this even on HN
But I don't expect much else from Bari Weiss' publication, where the scariest thing in the world is always some college kids that asked each other their pronouns or something. Why is this even on HN
I don't find these examples particularly compelling. Likes to cite examples of overreach but never describe the counter arguments.
i.e. peremptory strikes. Jury selection was clearly, with many many examples, used in the past to create a group not that was not the defendant's 'peers'. Even with the '86 court ruling that nominally ended peremptory strikes on the basis of race, most lawyers recognize (as do Gerrymanderers) you can find related reasons to strike them within the realm of plausible deniability (i.e bias against police).
The author presents no reasoning from those in favor, only disgruntled and largely anonymous counterpoints.
Furthermore, the praise of S African policy is a cherry picked example and clearly far outside the mainstream. One American official praising an approach is hardly a bellwether.
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, citing one example as a potentially adverse ruling ("liberals would hate to convict this black man!") is hardly a good counterargument towards vigilantism. Just this week, a Florida 70 year old was acquitted after shooting dead a man who threw popcorn in his face. Even if we had to admit there is no perfect middle ground (may or may not be true), I think over-convinction of vigilantes is clearly preferable to allowing greater death and destruction through the furtherance of stupid legal theories like Stand Your Ground.
i.e. peremptory strikes. Jury selection was clearly, with many many examples, used in the past to create a group not that was not the defendant's 'peers'. Even with the '86 court ruling that nominally ended peremptory strikes on the basis of race, most lawyers recognize (as do Gerrymanderers) you can find related reasons to strike them within the realm of plausible deniability (i.e bias against police).
The author presents no reasoning from those in favor, only disgruntled and largely anonymous counterpoints.
Furthermore, the praise of S African policy is a cherry picked example and clearly far outside the mainstream. One American official praising an approach is hardly a bellwether.
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, citing one example as a potentially adverse ruling ("liberals would hate to convict this black man!") is hardly a good counterargument towards vigilantism. Just this week, a Florida 70 year old was acquitted after shooting dead a man who threw popcorn in his face. Even if we had to admit there is no perfect middle ground (may or may not be true), I think over-convinction of vigilantes is clearly preferable to allowing greater death and destruction through the furtherance of stupid legal theories like Stand Your Ground.
If you want a real story about takeover of the legal system, read about the Stephen Donzinger case. Donzinger represented indigenous Ecuadorians in a suit against Chevron. Chevron, having unlimited resources to put into the suit, lost in Ecuador- but has not paid their fine, instead attempting to make an example of the lawyer representing the Ecuadorians by burying him in frivolous lawsuits, trying to get him disbarred, placing him in prison for refusing to violate attorney-client privilege. They appointed a private law firm- one that used to represent Chevron- to represent the government in the case. At this point, when it really matters to them, major corporations own the United States legal system.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/08/chevro...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/08/chevro...
[deleted]
Very funny article: absolutely clueless.
> All of sudden, critical race theory was more than mainstream in America’s law schools. It was mandatory. Starting this Fall, Georgetown Law School will require all students to take a class “on the importance of questioning the law’s neutrality” ...
Sounds good. Lots of people mistake the law for morality, it's important to make them think about how that's not the case, and if the law is made by agenda-driven politicians, it will necessarily be unfair to some.
> As of last month, the American Bar Association is requiring all accredited law schools to “provide education to law students on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism,” ...
Sounds good. These are things adults should know about.
> One criminal law professor at a top law school told me he’s even stopped teaching theories of punishment because of how negatively students react to retributivism—the view that punishment is justified because criminals deserve to suffer.
Sounds good. Deterrence is ineffective, and the criminal justice system needs to move to a more rehabilitative model.
> [reparations & prison abolition shirt image]
I'm not sure why I should care about this. It's not censorship or illiberalism to advocate for these positions.
> At Boston College Law School this semester, a constitutional law professor asked students: “Who does not think we should scrap the constitution?” According to a student in the class, not a single person raised their hand.
This would be the expected response to any question in an 8 a.m. class.
I could go on. These cancel culture/critical race theory/campus illiberalism stories are junk.
Sounds good. Lots of people mistake the law for morality, it's important to make them think about how that's not the case, and if the law is made by agenda-driven politicians, it will necessarily be unfair to some.
> As of last month, the American Bar Association is requiring all accredited law schools to “provide education to law students on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism,” ...
Sounds good. These are things adults should know about.
> One criminal law professor at a top law school told me he’s even stopped teaching theories of punishment because of how negatively students react to retributivism—the view that punishment is justified because criminals deserve to suffer.
Sounds good. Deterrence is ineffective, and the criminal justice system needs to move to a more rehabilitative model.
> [reparations & prison abolition shirt image]
I'm not sure why I should care about this. It's not censorship or illiberalism to advocate for these positions.
> At Boston College Law School this semester, a constitutional law professor asked students: “Who does not think we should scrap the constitution?” According to a student in the class, not a single person raised their hand.
This would be the expected response to any question in an 8 a.m. class.
I could go on. These cancel culture/critical race theory/campus illiberalism stories are junk.
"none of this was supposed to happen"
It really wasn't, and I'm sorry. I'll bring this up at the next Deep State meeting. Keeping college kids under control is something that all political conspiracies struggle with, and we'll do better.
It really wasn't, and I'm sorry. I'll bring this up at the next Deep State meeting. Keeping college kids under control is something that all political conspiracies struggle with, and we'll do better.
Most legal bills are paid by large corporations. The U.S. is the leader in this respect--on average U.S. companies spend about 0.4% of their revenue on legal services, almost triple the rate in a civil law country like Germany. Effectively most lawyers (including me) work directly or indirectly for businesses. This means that the legal education system, and to a lesser extent, the court system, are shaped by and largely serve the needs of businesses.
And what are all of these businesses doing with their legal spending? Largely litigation defense, transactions (M&A, issuing securities, or buying/selling assets like real estate), and interacting with government and regulators.
Lawyers that don't work for large business organizations spend their time representing individuals or classes of plaintiffs in tort litigation or in matters like criminal defense, immigration assistance, family law, or estate planning. Things that may not involve the huge dollar amounts of business transactions but that matter a lot to the people affected.
For every law school class on critical race theory or other topics the writer criticizes, a law student will take dozens on administrative procedure, taxation, federal courts, etc. etc. etc.
There are many valid criticisms of the American legal system. For example, you might feel that it's too easy to file a frivolous lawsuit that will settle for nuisance value. Or you might observe that corporations have been able to cripple or stall regulation that the public demands. Or that mass incarceration is bad social policy. This kind of introspection, including CRT, has long been a part of the academy and the profession, and I think a useful one.
The situation depicted in this article, that everyone's suddenly gone out of control "woke," is just ridiculous and doesn't at all fit my own experience.