Prosecutor fired for going to "white preservationist" conference

[isomin at gmu.edu]

In addition to the good points made by David, I would add only that there is a big difference between sexual orientation (which is almost certainly an involuntary psychological attribute, if I understand the scientific consensus correctly) and ideology and political belief. The latter is likely to be a relevant qualification for government employment far more often than the former (which, I believe, will almost never be relevant).

Ilya Somin
Assistant Professor of Law
George Mason University School of Law
3301 Fairfax Dr.
Arlington, VA 22201
ph: 703-993-8069
fax: 703-993-8202
e-mail: isomin at gmu.edu
Website: http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/

----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Sheridan <bobsheridan at earthlink.net>
Date: Saturday, March 4, 2006 0:37 am
Subject: Re: Prosecutor fired for going to "white preservationist" conference

> Let me throw the issue of gay orientation into the mix, and offer 
> the 
> position of a conservative friend, decades ago, on the issue of 
> whether 
> gays should be allowed to teach in the public schools.  He was 
> opposed 
> on the ground that gay role models might influence students in the 
> direction he didn't favor.  To the suggestion that this was not 
> likely 
> to happen, he replied that he "didn't intend to give them a chance 
> to 
> find out."
> 
> This is the essence of what Sen. Joseph McCarthy advocated when he 
> went 
> after supposed Reds in the State Department and, with his allies, 
> in the 
> New York public schools, the fear that a fifth column of secret 
> believers in the wrong thing might undermine correct thinking 
> where it 
> counted most, in the State Department, the public schools, etc.  
> The 
> more the fear, the more the willingness to root out the boogie-
> man, who, 
> after all, might just be real.
> 
> We talk now as though the Communist Party of the '40s, '50s, and 
> '60s, 
> was somehow not quite as real, deadly, or feared, as it was 
> perceived in 
> those days.  However fearsome it may have been in actuality, the 
> general 
> belief was that it operated from secret cells and took its 
> instructions 
> from Moscow, the Cold War enemy who gave us the Berlin Blockade 
> for 
> which we gave them the airlift in 1948.  The Soviets fought us by 
> proxy 
> in Korea.  The Red Chinese that came over the Yalu River fired 
> real 
> bullets into American troops. The fear at home was real, hence the 
> witch-hunt, which was also real.  The Cold War mentality, the fear 
> that 
> Big Brother will use your words and associations and reading 
> matter 
> against you affects thinking to this day.  The fight over the 
> Patriot 
> Act authorization of the FBI to check books read at public 
> libraries is 
> an echo of this experience and well worth the fight.  It's why 
> this 
> discussion is important.  We don't want to repeat the McCarthy 
> experience, but we don't want our public officials attending what 
> we see 
> as racist rallies when his job includes prosecuting minorities.  
> It 
> would take a broad-minded minority member indeed who was 
> prosecuted by 
> such a public official to think that he was just doing his job in 
> a 
> public-spirited racially neutral manner. 
> 
> In state court in California we get one peremptory challenge of a 
> judge 
> if we don't like his leanings.  In court-ordered arbitration, we 
> get a 
> list from which to plink undesirables.  But not with the more 
> powerful 
> prosecutor, with whom we're stuck.  More powerful because 
> prosecutors 
> get to file what judges act on.
> 
> My contribution to the formulation of the rule that Eugene was 
> asking 
> for earlier will be to suggest that when a public official, 
> through his 
> statements or behavior, causes a significant portion of the 
> community at 
> large to have good cause for concern about whether he is impartial 
> or 
> not, he ought to be disqualified from the matter if not the job. 
> 
> Balancing the public's right to have confidence in the neutrality 
> of 
> government against the individual's right to associate and speak 
> his 
> mind, in the racial situation I'm inclined to favor the right of 
> the 
> minority community to have confidence in governmental neutrality, 
> anything less being to bring government into disrepute.
> 
> I might feel differently in a different context, which suggests to 
> me 
> that in these discussions, context is everything, and that no 
> general 
> rule I'm capable of formulating is apt to help decide other cases.
> 
> rs
> 
> isomin at gmu.edu wrote:
> > I do not regard this as a "sanction." Rather, attitude and 
> ideological orientation are part of the necessary qualification 
> for the job of holding public office, especially an office with 
> significant discretionary power over people's lives and liberties 
> (as is certainly true of prosecutors). I do not think that the 
> government is required to wait until a white supremacist 
> government employee actually commits racist actions in office 
> before getting rid of him. By that time, at least some harm will 
> already have occurred. There are some people whose ideological 
> views play no part in how they carry out the duties of a public 
> office, but the government is not required to assume that everyone 
> belongs to this group (which I think is surely a minority).
> >
> > The answer to the question of how much of an inquiry should be 
> made to determine whether someone really is a white supremacist 
> ("are you or have you ever been...") is one that probably varies 
> on a case by case, job by job basis. However, this is separable 
> from the issue of what to do with employees who we know are white 
> supremacists with a high degree of certainty.
> >
> > Finally, I am not arguing that government should ALWAYS fire 
> white supremacists or communists. If the job in question has 
> little discretionary authority and few or no opportunities for the 
> employee's views to influence his conduct, I can see an argument 
> for keeping him on. But I do not think there is any constitutional 
> bar to firing government officials because of their political 
> views. When and if to do so is, to my mind, purely a matter of policy.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ilya Somin
> > Assistant Professor of Law
> > George Mason University School of Law
> > 3301 Fairfax Dr.
> > Arlington, VA 22201
> > ph: 703-993-8069
> > fax: 703-993-8202
> > e-mail: isomin at gmu.edu
> > Website: http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Jeff Renz <jr167163e at mail1.umt.edu>
> > Date: Friday, March 3, 2006 6:01 pm
> > Subject: Re: Prosecutor fired for going to "white 
> preservationist" conference
> >
> >   
> >> Assuming that this organization does not have as its agenda 
> >> violence against non-whites or overthrow of the government, I 
> >> could not disagree more.  What ever happened to sanctions 
> against 
> >> someone for their conduct, as opposed to their beliefs?  Will 
> we 
> >> ask applicants, "Are you now or have you ever been a white 
> >> supremacist?"  Would membership in the Church of Jesus Christ, 
> >> Aryan make a difference?
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>  ----- Original Message ----- 
> >>  From: isomin at gmu.edu 
> >>  To: Kermit Roosevelt 
> >>  Cc: Volokh, Eugene ; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
> >>  Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 3:15 PM
> >>  Subject: Re: Prosecutor fired for going to "white 
> >> preservationist" conference
> >>
> >>
> >>  One further point:
> >>
> >>  I agree that people who attend communist meetings may in some 
> >> cases be just "fellow travelers" who aren't committed to the 
> full 
> >> communist agenda. But of course the same thing can be said of 
> some 
> >> people who attend white supremacist meetings. Maybe some of 
> them 
> >> also don't share the group's full agenda. 
> >>
> >>  In my view, we should generally err on the safe side and get 
> rid 
> >> of such officials anyway, unless there is clear proof that they 
> >> don't really share the objectionalbe group's agenda (e.g. - 
> they 
> >> went to the meeting by mistake, or went there only to do 
> research, 
> >> etc.). More to the point, as a constitutional matter, the 
> >> determination as to whether a given government employee's 
> >> commitment to communism or white supremacy is great enough to 
> >> justify firing is one that should be left to the employee's 
> >> political superiors and not to the courts.
> >>
> >>  Ilya Somin
> >>  Assistant Professor of Law
> >>  George Mason University School of Law
> >>  3301 Fairfax Dr.
> >>  Arlington, VA 22201
> >>  ph: 703-993-8069
> >>  fax: 703-993-8202
> >>  e-mail: isomin at gmu.edu
> >>  Website: http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> >> -----------
> >>
> >>
> >>  Two thoughts.  First, I do think there's a constitutional 
> >> difference between communism and white supremacy in that I see 
> no 
> >> problem with a state government saying in some official way "Of 
> >> course we're going to abide by our constitutional obligations, 
> but 
> >> we want people to know that this state's position is that 
> >> communism is a superior form of government."  I do see a 
> problem 
> >> with that state government saying "Of course we're going to 
> abide 
> >> by our constitutional obligations, but we want people to know 
> that 
> >> this state's position is that the white race is superior."  Is 
> >> that not right?
> >>
> >>  Second, and with reference also to Ilya's suggestion that 
> >> communism is inconsistent with the 13th Amendment, I guess my 
> >> thinking here is affected by my belief that someone who attends 
> a 
> >> white supremacist meeting is quite likely to share those values 
> of 
> >> the organization that are not permissible for public officials 
> to 
> >> act on, and perhaps to act on them.  I find it much less likely 
> >> that someone who attends a communist meeting will approve of 
> >> overthrowing the government by force, or employing involuntary 
> >> servitude.  (I don't know what your source for the 1950s 
> express 
> >> agenda is, but weren't there plenty of fellow travelers who 
> >> attended meetings without intending violent revolution?  The 
> >> American Communist party nowadays, from what I can get off the 
> >> internet, is not advocating violent revolution.) So comparing 
> >> someone who attends a communist meeting to someone who attends 
> a 
> >> white supremacist meeting doesn't strike me as the right 
> analogy, 
> >> any more than comparing someone who attends a Republican 
> meeting 
> >> to someone who attends a white supremacist meeting would.  
> >>
> >>  Volokh, Eugene wrote: 
> >> 	I've always been puzzled by this argument.  If you interpret
> >> constitutional provisions as relevant to evaluating private 
> speech and
> >> conduct -- and not just as enabling government conduct or 
> restricting>> government conduct -- then here is the list of 
> provisions that are
> >> anti-Communist:  Article I, which sets up a (relative) 
> democracy, 
> >> whichis inconsistent with Communist revolution.  Article III, 
> >> which sets up
> >> an independent judiciary, which is inconsistent with Communist
> >> revolution.  The Takings Clause and the Fifth and Fourteenth 
> >> Amendments'Due Process Clauses protect private property rights, 
> >> which is
> >> inconsistent with Communist revolution.  The First Amendment 
> protects>> religious freedom and free speech, which was 
> inconsistent with the
> >> Communist agenda.  I'm sure we can find lots of other examples.
> >> Remember, the 1950s Communist Party weren't the 1980s Euro-
> >> Communists of
> >> Italy and the like; its express agenda was in large part about 
> violent>> revolution and installation of the dictatorship (are we 
> getting>> inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution yet?) of the 
> proletariat.>>
> >> 	If some speech can be more suppressed because it's somehow
> >> "anti-Constitutional" (not my view, but the view that I'm 
> responding>> to), then Communist speech, it seems to me, would 
> surely have to head
> >> the list.
> >>
> >> 	Eugene
> >>
> >>  -----Original Message-----
> >>
> >>
> >> Is it?  Aren't white supremacy and communism different 
> >> because the 14th 
> >> Amendment is more anti-white-supremacy than anti-communist?
> >>
> >> Volokh, Eugene wrote:
> >>
> >>       Any thoughts on the First Amendment issues?  The natural 
> >>      analogy, 
> >>    of course, is whether it was proper for prosecutors to be 
> >> fired for 
> >> similar Communist-related activities.
> >>
> >>   Eugene
> >>
> >>
> >> >From the Hornell Evening Tribune
> >> March 3, 2006 
> >> http://www.eveningtribune.com/articles/2006/03/03/news/news03.txt
> >>
> >>
> >> Allegany DA fires 'white preservationist' prosecutor: 
> >>      Firestorm erupts 
> >>    downstate, with call for investigation of DA's office; 
> >>      Alfred U. will 
> >>    still allow Michael Regan to serve as adjunct professor
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >From Wellsville Daily Reporter and Associated Press reports
> >>
> >> BELMONT - Allegany County Assistant District Attorney 
> >>      Michael Regan was 
> >>    fired from his job as a county prosecutor Thursday over his 
> >>      attendance 
> >>    at a conference of "white preservationists."
> >>
> >> Regan was terminated following an investigation by his boss, 
> >>      Allegany 
> >>    County District Attorney Terrence Parker, who said he had 
> >> received 
> >> numerous e-mails expressing concern about the assistant 
> district 
> >> attorney's presence at a meeting of the New Century Foundation 
> in 
> >> northern Virginia last week....
> >>
> >> "It has become clear that his recent activities will continue 
> to 
> >> significantly disrupt and impair his effectiveness as an 
> assistant 
> >> district attorney and the operations of the entire district 
> >>      attorney's 
> >>    office," Parker said.
> >>
> >> Regan was quoted in Saturday's Washington Post as calling 
> >>      participants 
> >>    at the conference "white preservationists" rather than white 
> >> supremacists, and saying U.S. policies on immigration, trade 
> and 
> >> demographics have put the country on the wrong path. He 
> declined 
> >> to 
> >> comment in the days that followed....
> >>
> >> Wellsville Attorney Bill Gunner said he has opposed Regan in 
> >>      court and 
> >>    has never seen any "bigotry or bias toward any particular 
> >> ethnic or 
> >> religious group." ...
> >>
> >> The Anti-Defamation League characterizes the New Century 
> >>      Foundation's 
> >>    ideology as "intellectualized, pseudoscientific white 
> >> supremacy" and 
> >> said the group promotes "genteel" racism.
> >>
> >> The ADL's regional director for New York was among those who 
> >>      wrote to 
> >>    Parker, noting the article also quoted Regan as saying: "You 
> >> can see 
> >> European Christian Americans are an endangered species." ...
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
> >> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> >>
> >> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be 
> >>      viewed as 
> >>    private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages 
> >>      that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and 
> list 
> >> members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> >>     
> >>
> >>      -- 
> >> Kermit Roosevelt
> >> Assistant Professor
> >> University of Pennsylvania Law School
> >> 3400 Chestnut Street
> >> Philadelphia PA 19104
> >> 215.746.8775
> >>
> >>
> >>    _______________________________________________
> >> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
> >> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> >>
> >> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be 
> viewed 
> >> as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages 
> >> that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list 
> >> members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> >>  
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Kermit Roosevelt
> >> Assistant Professor
> >> University of Pennsylvania Law School
> >> 3400 Chestnut Street
> >> Philadelphia PA 19104
> >> 215.746.8775
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> >> -----------
> >>
> >>
> >>  _______________________________________________
> >>  To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> >>  To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, 
> see 
> >> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> >>
> >>  Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be 
> >> viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read 
> >> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and 
> >> list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to 
> others.>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> >> -----------
> >>
> >>
> >>  _______________________________________________
> >>  To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> >>  To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, 
> see 
> >> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> >>
> >>  Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be 
> >> viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read 
> >> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and 
> >> list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to 
> others.>>     
> > _______________________________________________
> > To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> >
> > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be 
> viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read 
> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and 
> list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> >
> >   
>