Prosecutor fired for going to "white preservationist"conference

[Jeff Renz]

Sholokov's "Virgin Soil Upturned" makes it quite clear that Party
functionaries were hostile to farmers who had employed others (the Kulaks),
as opposed to "middle peasants" who had a little more property but not
enough wealth to hire hands, and "peasants."  They drove the Kulaks off of
their farms and seized their land and personal possessions.  Those who
resisted were killed.

Jeff
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Barksdale, Yvette" <7barksda at jmls.edu>
To: <isomin at gmu.edu>
Cc: <conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 2:13 PM
Subject: RE: RE: Prosecutor fired for going to "white
preservationist"conference


"For example, most communists are deeply hostile to property owners,
small farmers ("Kulaks"), members of the "bourgeoisie," committed
religious believers and so on. It is likely that communist public
officials would use their powers to harm or discriminate against at
least some of these groups, if not all of them."

Hi Ilya,

Isn't the Communist hostility is to policies that favor private economic
interests, or to religious faith in general, rather than to individual
property owners, or small farmers, etc.? If so, it would not be
surprising that a Communist would seek to use prosecutorial discretion
to further policies that he or she thinks are important,  but that is
what all prosecutors do. This ideology certainly may be a factor in
hiring and retention policies, but it is not usually thought of as a
bias or an unfairness which is a disqualification for office. Policy
disagreements may certainly be another basis for discharging a
subordinate prosecutor who serves at will - but that's a "we decided to
go in a different direction" reason, rather than an "you're unfit for
this office" reason.

Perhaps the distinction makes little difference to the person who no
longer has the job, but I think it makes a difference as to whether you
can fire people. Perhaps the question is whether the disqualification
would qualify as a "for cause" firing, as opposed to an "at will"
firing.

Choosing prosecutions that will advance certain ideologies (perhaps even
expected in a prosecutor) has to be less problematic than targeting
people for harsher treatment because of their biology (race, gender,
etc.)

yb

***/////////////////////////////////////////***

Professor Yvette M. Barksdale
The John Marshall Law School
315 S. Plymouth Ct.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 427-2737 (phone)
(312) 427-9974 (fax)

***/////////////////////////////////////////***

-----Original Message-----
From: isomin at gmu.edu [mailto:isomin at gmu.edu]
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 2:12 PM
To: Barksdale, Yvette
Cc: Bob Sheridan; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: RE: Prosecutor fired for going to "white preservationist"
conference

I am not convinced that this distinction is accurate. Even if it is, I
doubt that it should carry much weight.

Communist ideology certainly is characterized by hostility to
"individual persons" belonging to particular groups and not just to a
"system." For example, most communists are deeply hostile to property
owners, small farmers ("Kulaks"), members of the "bourgeoisie,"
committed religious believers and so on. It is likely that communist
public officials would use their powers to harm or discriminate against
at least some of these groups, if not all of them. Even in the area of
racial and ethnic discrimination, communist regimes have often targeted
particular ethnic groups for discrimination (Soviet Jews), deportation
(e.g. - the Crimean Tatars), or even extermination (various ethnic
groups in Cambodia, among others). Even in the US, a communist public
official might well decide to discriminate against ethnic or racial
groups (for example, Jews, or Florida Cubans) he views as hostile to his
ideological objectives.

More fundamentally, if a public official holds ideological views that
are likely to lead him to abuse the powers of his office or fail to
enforce the law, I don't think it matters much whether he does these
things out of hostility to "individual persons" or because he or she
believes that such actions serve to undermine a "system." The effect is
the same and so is the government's legitimate interest in removing such
persons from office.

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: "Barksdale, Yvette" <7barksda at jmls.edu>
Date: Saturday, March 4, 2006 3:53 am
Subject: RE: Prosecutor fired for going to "white preservationist"
conference

> Whether or not it was proper to fire Communists or not, I do think
> white supremacists are different in kind. As Ilya states,
> Communism was an ideology which was simply fighting ideology -and
> thus their antagonism was toward systems, not individual persons.
> Accordingly, there was less reason to question the fairness of
> their individual prosecutorial decisions.  (Unless there was some
> basis for concluding that their prosecutorial discretion could be
> used in a way which furthered their political and economic
> agenda.)
>
> In contrast, white supremacy is predicated on the superiority of
> one group of people over another group of people, based solely
> upon that individual's racial or ethnic identity. And,
> historically, ideological white supremacy has been strongly linked
> with antagonism or hatred of non-white persons, solely because of
> their color.  Whether this particular prosecutor's white
> supremacist views were accompanied by hostility, disdain,
> antagonism to persons of color , for example,  is a question of
> fact. (as opposed to,  perhaps nothing more than a pathetic
> delusional aspiration of a world  sometime in the next millenia
> where everybody looks just like him)
>
> But the prosecutorial problem for white supremacists is not
> distasteful ideology, but a concern that they will in fact
> discriminate against minority defendants (or victims) because they
> think them "inherently criminal" or "less deserving of fair
> treatment and concern", or " a scourge that needs to be removed
> from the earth, whatever the means,  etc. "
>
>
> yb
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of isomin at gmu.edu
> Sent: Sat 3/4/2006 12:24 AM
> To: Bob Sheridan
> Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: Re: Prosecutor fired for going to "white preservationist"
> conference
>
>
> 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.> >
> > >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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.