Martin Luther King Opposed Riots. Full Stop.

The death of George Floyd was horrific and revolting, as was the purported "cause of death" contained in the criminal complaint. A newly released private autopsy now verifies what we all saw with our own eyes: George Floyd was murdered by the police. And now, riots are spreading across the United States.

Reading social media over the last few days, one would get the impression that Martin Luther King would approve of this destructive rioting we are witnessing in Minneapolis and many other American Cities.  What I am seeing on social media is that rioting is justified because it supposedly results only in property damage or that insurance will pay for all the damage. Here is the money quote in which MLK purportedly justified riots: "But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard."  Even MLK's son Martin Luther King III deceptively uttered his father's quote and he was promptly corrected with much vigor on Twitter.  The pro-rioting crowd is unhinged. As though it is necessary to destroy property, livelihoods and even lives in order to exercise the First Amendment. As though "rioting is speech" any more than "money is speech." As though destroying businesses, burning the property of innocent third parties or smashing the skulls of human beings constitutes speech any more than funneling corrupt money to political candidates.  For these folks, why stop at riots? War is now speech too, right? It appears that left now meets right: we've politically come full circle.

Along with the riots, we are thus witnessing selective and deceptive quote-mongering in an attempt to turn Martin Luther King's teachings upside down. He never condoned rioting and he opposed riots for specific carefully articulated reasons. Here are MLK's 1967 and 1968 statements on rioting:

It is as necessary for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities as it is for me to condemn riots. I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met.

. . . .

Let me say as I’ve always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I’m still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve. That in a real sense it is impracticable for the Negro to even think of mounting a violent revolution in the United States. So I will continue to condemn riots, and continue to say to my brothers and sisters that this is not the way. And continue to affirm that there is another way.

. . . .

And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, non­violence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem from a direct action point of view. I’m absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years.

. . . .

Finally,
Now what I'm saying is this: I would like for all of us to believe in non-violence, but I'm here to say tonight that if every Negro in the United States turns against non-violence, I'm going to stand up as a lone voice and say, "This is the wrong way!"

If you really truly believe that riots are justified in response to the death of George Floyd, let's not pervert the teachings of Martin Luther King in the process.  You are not preaching violence in kinship with MLK.  If you are reveling the ongoing joyride of violence through America's city centers, stop (if you can) to remember that facts are not negotiable.  For his entire life, MLK never wavered from the path of non-violence. He never approved of rioting, even where the injury was egregious, as it was in the case of George Floyd.

I was provoked to write this article after reading an article on the same topic. See "No, Martin Luther King Was Not Pro-Riot" at the National Review.

Continue ReadingMartin Luther King Opposed Riots. Full Stop.

New Model Code of Student Conduct by FIRE: A Guide for College and University Administrators

FIRE (FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS IN EDUCATION) recently released its "Model Code of Student Conduct," a guide for college and university administrators for governing student life while protecting student rights.  I've read through the entire Code and I'm impressed.  Much thought has gone into this code.  FIRE has done a good job of striking balances among the rights and duties of the many parties affected by this Code at colleges and Universities.

Here is FIRE's description of the CODE:

FIRE’s Model Code of Student Conduct is a guide for college and university administrators for governing student life. Its provisions are a distillation of FIRE’s experience and expertise gained through over two decades of studying college and university disciplinary systems and responding to daily requests for assistance from students, faculty members, and administrators nationwide.

In sum, this Code is an embodiment of FIRE’s belief that protecting student civil liberties is a necessary prerequisite for preparing our democracy’s next generation for successful leadership and engaged citizenship. FIRE looks forward to discussing these principles and assisting educational institutions in adopting the Code’s provisions.

Continue ReadingNew Model Code of Student Conduct by FIRE: A Guide for College and University Administrators

Axiomatic Civic Responsibility

I’m looking at the “protesters” in Michigan and ruminating on the nature of civil disobedience versus civic aphasia. By that latter term I mean a condition wherein a blank space exists within the psyché where one would expect an appropriate recognition of responsible behavior ought to live.  A condition which seems to allow certain people to feel empowered to simply ignore—or fail to recognize—the point at which a reflexive rejection of authority should yield to a recognition of community responsibility.  That moment when the impulse to challenge, dismiss, or simply ignore what one is being told enlarges to the point of defiance and what ordinarily would be a responsible acceptance of correct behavior in the face of a public duty. It could be about anything from recycling to voting regularly to paying taxes to obeying directives meant to protect entire populations.

Fairly basic exercises in logic should suffice to define the difference between legitimate civil disobedience and civic aphasia. Questions like: “Who does this serve?” And if the answer is anything other than the community at large, discussion should occur to determine the next step.  The protesters in Michigan probably asked, if they asked at all, a related question that falls short of useful answer:  “How does this serve me?”  Depending on how much information they have in the first place, the answer to that question will be of limited utility, especially in cases of public health.

Another way to look at the difference is this:  is the action taken to defend privilege or to extend it? And to whom?

One factor involved in the current expression of misplaced disobedience has to do with weighing consequences. The governor of the state issues a lockdown in order to stem the rate of infection, person to person. It will last a limited time. When the emergency is over (and it will be over), what rights have been lost except a presumed right to be free of any restraint on personal whim?

There is no right to be free of inconvenience.  At best, we have a right to try to avoid it, diminish it, work around it.  Certainly be angry at it.  But there is no law, no agency, no institution that can enforce a freedom from inconvenience.  For one, it could never be made universal.  For another, “inconvenience” is a rather vague definition which is dependent on context.

And then there is the fact that some inconveniences simply have to be accepted and managed.

Continue ReadingAxiomatic Civic Responsibility

Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Target on the Back of Roe v Wade

In the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision of Ramos v. Louisiana (decided April 20, 2020), Justice Kavanaugh looks like he's putting a target squarely on the back of Roe v Wade.  The decision focuses on the legal doctrine of stare decisis, a doctrine with a troubled legal history and a fascinating concept for those willing to view it through the lens of cognitive science (as I recently did in this article for the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis). The Kavanaugh Concurrence is getting lots of attention for his treatment of stare decisis.

It goes with out saying that the official Roman Catholic position is that abortion is a form of murder.  This view is embraced even by the current leader of the Catholic Church, Pop Francis.  See here.  Kavanaugh is one of five men on the Supreme Court who are practicing Roman Catholics (Kavanaugh, Roberts, Thomas and Alito) or who were (in the case of Justice Neil Gorsuch) were raised Roman Catholic. Justice Sotomayor is also Roman Catholic.

Here are a couple excerpts from the Kavanaugh concurrence:

The doctrine of stare decisis does not mean, of course, that the Court should never overrule erroneous precedents. All Justices now on this Court agree that it is sometimes appropriate for the Court to overrule erroneous decisions. Indeed, in just the last few Terms, every current Member of this Court has voted to overrule multiple constitutional precedents.

Continue ReadingJustice Brett Kavanaugh’s Target on the Back of Roe v Wade

New Podcast for Trial Lawyers: “The Jury is Out” Featuring John Simon and Erich Vieth

For ten years I had the privilege of working as a trial attorney with John Simon. I learned firsthand why John and his team so often won substantial verdicts for their clients on high profile cases. The “secrets” turned out to be nonstop hard work and a recognition that law school is only the beginning of one’s legal education.

About five years ago, I branched off into my own law practice, but I continued working with John on a variety of projects. A few months ago, John invited me to be his co-host on a podcast to teach trial law skills to lawyers and law students. Both John and I teach law students at Saint Louis University School of Law and we both present at legal seminars. Offering a podcast was thus a natural extension of our interests in legal education. We named our new podcast “The Jury is Out” and we released the first five episodes to the public a few days ago. We record our podcasts at a dedicated recording studio at the Simon Law Firm in downtown St. Louis.

John and I will be passing on what we've learned over the years, including lessons we’ve learned from hard experience. Our trial law episodes are geared to particular skills, including multiple episodes on the topics of “Opening Statement,” “Voir Dire” and “Expert Witnesses.” We will also offer interviews with prominent attorneys from St. Louis and beyond. Our guests on upcoming episodes include Hon. Mike Wolff (persuasion), Yvette Liebesman (intellectual property issues of concern to artists), Amy Gunn (efficiencies in the practice of law) and Hon. Glenn Norton (mediation).

You’ll quickly see that our approach for each episode is to roll up our sleeves and get right to it. After you listen to a podcast or two, we would appreciate if you would take a moment to rate this new podcast. And feel free to send us an email with suggestions you might have for future episodes.

You can find “The Jury is Out” wherever you get your podcasts. We’d be honored to have you join us.

Continue ReadingNew Podcast for Trial Lawyers: “The Jury is Out” Featuring John Simon and Erich Vieth