TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22 , 2022. THE WASHINGTON POST EZ RE A
TUESDAY OpinionYes, you should be fired for a tweet
if that tweet reveals you do not
have the ability to do your job.
Last month, Ilya Shapiro, a
prominent libertarian, was hired to be a
senior lecturer at Georgetown Law
School and to run its Center for the
Constitution. Before his first day on the
job, he tweeted a critique of President
Biden’s decision to exclusively consider
Black women for his pending appoint-
ment to the Supreme Court.
Shapiro recommended that Biden se-
lect Sri Srinivasan, chief judge of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit, who is of South Asian
descent: “But alas [Srinivasan] doesn’t fit
into the latest intersectionality hierarchy
so we’ll get lesser black woman. Thank
heaven for small favors?”
Shapiro soon deleted the tweet and
apologized for it, calling it “inartful.” But
the damage was done. William M. Trean-
or, the law school’s dean, described Sha-
piro’s words as “antithetical to the work
that we do here every day to build inclu-
sion, belonging, and respect for diversi-
ty.” A large coalition of Georgetown stu-
dent organizations called for George-
town to rescind his employment. Now he
is on paid leave, pending an investigation
into whether he violated the university’s
policies on “professional conduct, non-
discrimination, and anti-harassment.”
I’ve been a tenured law professor atGeorgetown for more than a decade. Let
me make this easy for the dean. Yes,
Shapiro violated those principles. No, he
should not be employed at our school,
which educates more Black women than
virtually any top law school in the
c ountry.
The problem is not that Shapiro is
opposed to Biden’s selection criteria. Sha-
piro is unfit for our community not only
because he called Black women “lesser”
but also because his tweet evidences a
pattern of bias that isn’t just a poor choice
of words.
An interesting mix of conservatives
and mainly White progressives has risen
in Shapiro’s defense. Those on the right
deny that Shapiro’s tweet was racist. Some
liberals concede that point but claim aca-
demic freedom includes the right to de-
scribe Black women pejoratively.
Maybe for conservatives, Shapiro’s
bias would be easier to understand in
another context. Louis Brandeis was the
first Jewish person confirmed to the Su-
preme Court, in 1916. Much of the opposi-
tion to his appointment was blatantly
antisemitic. Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge stat-
ed, “If it were not that Brandeis is a Jew... he would never have been appointed.”
If someone had complained that a more
qualified gentile had been passed over for
a “lesser Jew,” it would be obvious that
comment was antisemitic.
The fact that Shapiro’s tweet isn’t, to
some, as obviously biased demonstrates
the hurdles facing women of color. They
are presumed incompetent, even when
Biden’s two leading candidates graduated
from top law schools, clerked for Supreme
Court justices and have unimpeachable
records as appellate judges.
When President Barack Obama nomi-
nated Sonia Sotomayor to the court, Sha-
piro wrote that “she would not have even
been on the short list if she were not
Hispanic” and used dog whistles, such as
claiming that lawyers question her “abili-
ties as a judicial craftsman” and “erratic
temperament.” But when President Don-
ald Trump announced that his replace-
ment for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
would be female because, in the presi-
dent’s words, “I think it should be a
woman because I actually like women
much more than men,” Shapiro appar-
ently tweeted not a peep.
The problem with the academic-
f reedom argument is that it proves too
much. It is true that Shapiro has the
“right” to say anything he pleases, includ-
ing any stupid racist or sexist thing. But a
university should not be indifferent to
the meaning and impact of those words,
especially on students.
Allowing Shapiro to teach would force
Black women — and other Black students
and other women — to make the kind of
wretched choice no student should have
to make: accept that one of their school’scourses is off limits to them because of
credible evidence the instructor is preju-
diced, or enroll and serve as test cases for
whether Shapiro’s claims to the contrary
are correct.
Two weeks after Shapiro insulted
Black women, another Georgetown law
professor addressed an Asian student in
class as “Mr. Chinaman.” After the pre-
dictable outcry, the professor half-
a pologized, saying he was sorry for any
pain he caused but, as a European, hadn’t
realized his words were racist.
The academic-freedom crew would
say the student should have just patiently
explained to the professor why the slur
was wrong, and the university should
have embraced the teachable moment.
Kumbaya, “we are the world,” yadda
yadda yadda.
Students who think their education
should be free of racist slurs from profes-
sors are not illiberal snowflakes who
don’t understand academic values. They
simply want to learn in an environment
where their teachers don’t judge them by
their race or gender.
There is a necessary — and difficult —
line drawn when free speech conflicts
with anti-racism values. Shapiro’s “lesser
black woman” tweet falls on the wrong
side of that line. Being a member of the
Georgetown community is a privilege
that Shapiro has proved he does not
deserve.PAUL BUTLERYes, Georgetown should fire an academic for a racist tweetover this and other elements of a new
European security “architecture”
would be conducted with Russian
f orces poised all along NATO’s eastern
borders and therefore amid real uncer-
tainty about NATO’s ability to resist
Putin’s demands.Strategic challenges for the U.S.
This takes place, moreover, as China
threatens to upend the strategic bal-
ance in East Asia, perhaps with an
attack of some kind against Taiwan.
From a strategic point of view, Taiwan
can either be a major obstacle to Chi-
nese regional hegemony, as it is now; or
it can be the first big step toward
Chinese military dominance in East
Asia and the Western Pacific, as it would
be after a takeover, peaceful or other-
wise. Were Beijing somehow able to
force the Taiwanese to accept Chinese
sovereignty, the rest of Asia would panic
and look to the United States for help.
These simultaneous strategic chal-
lenges in two distant theaters are remi-
niscent of the 1930s, when Germany
and Japan sought to overturn the exist-
ing order in their respective regions.
They were never true allies, did not
trust each other and did not directly
coordinate their strategies. Neverthe-
less, each benefited from the other’s
actions. Germany’s advances in Europe
emboldened the Japanese to take great-
er risks in East Asia; Japan’s advances
gave Adolf Hitler confidence that a
distracted United States would not risk
a two-front c onflict.
Today, it should be obvious to Xi
Jinping that the United States has its
hands full in Europe. Whatever his
calculus before Russia’s invasion of
Ukraine, he can conclude only that his
chances of successfully pulling some-
thing off, either in Taiwan or the South
China Sea, have gone up. Although
some argue that U.S. policies drovelikely cease to exist as an independent
entity. Putin and other Russians have
long insisted it is not a nation at all; it is
part of Russia. Setting history and senti-
ment aside, it would be bad strategy for
Putin to allow Ukraine to continue to
exist as a nation after all the trouble and
expense of an invasion. That is a recipe
for endless conflict. After Russia installs
a government, expect Ukraine’s new
Moscow-directed rulers to seek the
eventual legal incorporation of Ukraine
into Russia, a process already underway
in Belarus.
Some analysts today imagine a
Ukrainian insurgency sprouting up
against Russian domination. Perhaps.
But the Ukrainian people cannot be
expected to fight a full-spectrum war
with whatever they have in their homes.
To have any hope against Russian occu-
pation forces, an insurgency will need
to be supplied and supported from
neighboring countries. Will Poland play
that role, with Russian forces directly
across the border? Will the Baltics? Or
Hungary? And if they do, will the Rus-
sians not feel justified in attacking the
insurgents’ supply routes, even if they
happen to lie in the territory of neigh-
boring NATO members? It is wishful
thinking to imagine that this conflict
stops with Ukraine.
The map of Europe has experienced
many changes over the centuries. Its
current shape reflects the expansion of
U.S. power and the collapse of Russian
power from the 1980s until now; the
next one will likely reflect the revival of
Russian military power and the
r etraction of U.S. influence. If com-
bined with Chinese gains in East Asia
and the Western Pacific, it will herald
the end of the present order and the
beginning of an era of global disorder
and conflict as every region in the
world shakily adjusts to a new configu-
ration of power.BY SHELDON WHITEHOUSEW
hen Supreme Court vacancies
occur, a Republican dark-
m oney operation swings into
action.
Now, an anonymously funded right-
wing group is airing an ad aimed at the
yet-to-be-picked nominee to replace retir-
ing Supreme Court Justice Stephen G.
Breyer. The group alleges that liberal
dark-money interests will guide President
Biden’s choice. The music is ominous, the
central claim false and the hypocrisy thick.
In nature, some creatures develop in-
genious defenses. The squid, for instance,
can squirt a jet of ink into the water to
create a confusing distraction. On Ameri-
cans’ airwaves right now, this ad is the
dark-money equivalent of squid ink.
The ad, launched by the same right-wing
donor interests that captured our Supreme
Court under President Donald Trump, is
an effort to distract from their own dark-
money operation. Their accusations of
dark-money corruption are a bizarre rei-
magining of the very strategy that they,
themselves, hatched and executed.
The group running the ad, the Judicial
Crisis Network, isn’t even real. Legally
speaking, the “Judicial Crisis Network” is
one of several “fictitious names” created
under a provision of Virginia corporations
law that mask another organization called
the Concord Fund. The Concord Fund and
its array sit within a network of conserva-
tive groups that often share addresses,
donors and staff; it was even traced to the
same hallway in the same building as the
Federalist Society — the gateway for con-
servative lawyers seeking nominations to
the federal judiciary.
Those dark-money groups are linked to
Leonard Leo, Federalist Society co-chair-
man and former executive vice president.
Leo has been a force behind dark-money
court-capture dating back to the George W.
Bush administration. When Trump was
elected, this operation ramped up: The
network selected reliable right-wing judi-
cial nominees, its trusted advisers shep-
herded nominees through the Senate, and
millions in dark-money PR campaigns and
ads propelled nominees’ toward confirma-
tion. Thus, today, The Court That Dark
Money Built reliably hands down decisions
favorable to the donors.
Massive sums of dark money poured
into the effort. According to The Post and
researchers building on its reporting, the
Leo network took in more than $400 mil-
lion in dark money to engineer the take-
over of the federal judiciary. According to
Federal Communications Commission fil-
ings, the Judicial Crisis Network propa-
ganda machine — in its various guises —
has placed more than 10,000 ads since
2012 in pursuit of this mission. The spend-
ing was big, and so were the donors’
checks: We found two for about $15 million
to $17 million, two more for just over
$17 million and one whopper for $48 mil-
lion. So, for the dark-money enterprise to
hurl allegations of dark-money mischief is
pretty rich.
Yes, progressive groups receive anony-
mous donations, because Democrats have
to play by the rules Republicans set, or else
we unilaterally disarm. We came late to the
game, but now we’re there. The difference
is this: Democrats want to clean up this
god-awful dark-money mess; Republicans
created it and protect it.
It’s an old propaganda technique: ac-
cuse your adversary of the exact wrong you
are committing. Russian President Vladi-
mir Putin uses it regularly. It creates
confusion about who is responsible for the
dark-money regime the public hates. But
that’s not all. It takes the public eye off the
Roberts court’s pattern of more than
80 partisan 5-to-4 and 6-to-3 decisions
benefiting easily identified Republican do-
nor interests. Those wins often come at the
expense of regular Americans, stripping
away protections for minority voters, re-
productive rights, the environment, public
health and workers. And they often de-
grade our democracy: greenlighting gerry-
mandering, protecting dark money and
suppressing the vote.
That’s why, as Politico recently reported,
the Senate boss of the court-capture opera-
tion, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
(R-Ky.), is urging GOP colleagues to keep a
low profile on Biden’s Supreme Court
nominee. One liberal justice exchanged for
another isn’t worth the fuss; let the attack
groups squirt dark-money squid ink in-
stead.
The real test on dark money is to
support legislation to clean it up. Every
single Senate Democrat has voted in favor
of my bill — the Disclose Act — to end dark
money in our politics and judiciary. Even
the liberal groups targeted in the Judicial
Crisis Network ad back this measure. But
dark-money power is too important a
weapon for right-wing donors to abandon,
which explains why, just a few weeks ago,
Senate Republicans filibustered to block
that from passing.
As the dark-money squid ink flows in
the weeks and months ahead, Americans
should keep their eye on that voting record
— and an eye on the outcomes from The
Court That Dark Money Built.
The writer, a Democrat from Rhode Island, is a
member of the U.S. Senate, where he serves on
the Judiciary Committee.
The right has
leaped through
a dark-money
looking glass
Let’s assume for a moment that
Vladimir Putin succeeds in
gaining full control of Ukraine,
as he shows every intention of
doing. What are the strategic and geo-
political consequences?
The first will be a new front line of
conflict in Central Europe. Until now,
Russian forces could deploy only as far
as Ukraine’s eastern border, several
hundred miles from Poland and other
NATO countries to Ukraine’s west.
When the Russians complete their
o peration, they will be able to station
forces — land, air and missile — in
bases in western Ukraine as well as
Belarus, which has effectively become a
Russian satrapy.
Russian forces will thus be arrayed
along Poland’s entire 650-mile eastern
border, as well as along the eastern
borders of Slovakia and Hungary and
the northern border of Romania. (Mol-
dova will likely be brought under Rus-
sian control, too, when Russian troops
are able to form a land bridge from
Crimea to Moldova’s breakaway prov-
ince of Transnistria.) Russia without
Ukraine is, as former secretary of state
Dean Acheson once said of the Soviet
Union, “Upper Volta with rockets.” Rus-
sia with Ukraine is a different strategic
animal entirely.
The most immediate threat will be to
the Baltic states. Russia already bor-
ders Estonia and Latvia directly and
touches Lithuania through Belarus and
through its outpost in Kaliningrad.
Even before the invasion, some ques-
tioned whether NATO could actually
defend its Baltic members from a Rus-
sian attack. Once Russia has completed
its conquest of Ukraine, that question
will acquire new urgency.
One likely flash point will be Kalin-
ingrad. The headquarters of the Rus-
sian Baltic Fleet, this city and its sur-
rounding territory were cut off from
the rest of Russia when the Soviet
Union broke up. Since then, Russians
have been able to access Kaliningrad
only through Poland and Lithuania.
Expect a Russian demand for a direct
corridor that would put strips of the
countries under Russian control. But
even that would be just one piece of
what is sure to be a new Russian
strategy to delink the Baltics from
NATO by demonstrating that the alli-
ance cannot any longer hope to protect
those countries.
Indeed, with Poland, Hungary and
five other NATO members sharing a
border with a new, expanded Russia,
the ability of the United States and
NATO to defend the alliance’s eastern
flank will be seriously diminished.
The new situation could force a sig-
nificant adjustment in the meaning and
purpose of the alliance. Putin has been
clear about his goals: He wants to rees-
tablish Russia’s traditional sphere of
influence in Eastern and Central Eu-
rope. Some are willing to concede as
much, but it is worth recalling that
when the Russian empire was at its
height, Poland did not exist as a coun-
try; the Baltics were imperial holdings;
and southeastern Europe was contest-
ed with Austria and Germany. During
the Soviet period, the nations of the
Warsaw Pact, despite the occasional
rebellion, were effectively run from
Moscow.
Today, Putin seeks at the very least a
two-tier NATO, in which no allied forc-
es are deployed on former Warsaw Pact
territory. The inevitable negotiationsROBERT KAGANWhat we can expectafter Putin’s conquest of UkraineCHRIS MCGRATH/GETTY IMAGES
A civilian uses a log as a gun during a military training course conducted in Kyiv, Ukraine, on Saturday. Thousands of
Ukrainian civilians are participating in such groups to receive basic combat and survival training.Moscow and Beijing together, it is really
their shared desire to disrupt the inter-
national order that creates a common
interest.
Long ago, American defense strategy
was premised on the possibility of such
a two-front conflict. But since the early
1990s, the United States has gradually
dismantled that force. The two-war doc-
trine was whittled down and then offi-cially abandoned in the 2012 defense
policy guidance. Whether that trend
will be reversed and defense spending
increased now that the U nited States
genuinely faces a two-theater crisis re-
mains to be seen. But it is time to start
imagining a world where Russia effec-
tively controls much of Eastern Europe
and China controls much of East Asia
and the Western Pacific. Americans and
their democratic allies in Europe and
Asia will have to decide, again, whether
that world is tolerable.A recipe for endless conflict
A final word about Ukraine: It willWith Poland, Hungaryand five other NATOmembers sharing a borderwith a new, expandedRussia, the ability of theU.S. and NATO to defendthe alliance’s eastern flankwill be seriouslydiminished.