The Controversy Surrounding Inclusive Scholarship, Anti-Squatting Law Ineffectiveness, and Other Insights

DEI watch: The ‘Inclusive Scholarship’ Fraud

Arguments urging the “the medical profession to embrace ‘inclusive scholarship’ ” from Stan Gerson, the dean of Case Western Reserve Medical School, “epitomize the falsehoods that govern academic life today,” thunders City Journal’s Heather Mac Donald. “Under traditional scholarship, anyone with scientific insight will be included in knowledge-building. Under ‘inclusive scholarship,’ however, merely having a previously unrepresented ‘voice’ entitles you to a place in the ladder of discovery.” Fact is, “ ‘inclusive scholarship’ and ‘inclusive excellence’ are just the latest effort to provide a justification for racial quotas.” Yet Gerson “speaks for the entire medical establishment — the AMA, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the federal funding agencies, science publishing — in his willingness, for the sake of racial virtue-signaling, to undermine the enterprise that has freed humanity from so much suffering.”

Eye on Albany: Anti-Squatting Law Falls Short

Some state lawmakers “took a victory lap” over a new law “addressing a rash of illegal squatting” in New York that “distinguishes squatters from non-squatters.” “But the law already was clear on that distinction,” grumbles the Empire Center’s Cam Macdonald. “Self-help” eviction lawfully allows “property owners to evict unlawful occupants — squatters — without a court-ordered eviction warrant or government vacate order.” And the new “definition of squatter does nothing to minimize the expense and delay of pursuing a court proceeding that frustrates property owners and may encourage squatters.” Real help would be “a law providing an expedited procedure for squatter proceedings,” as “property owners unwilling or unable to use self-help must endure the same expenses and delays in eviction proceedings that a clearer definition of squatting does not help.”

From the left: Campus Protests Boost the GOP

The protests of the 1960s were an “enormous” gift to the right, recalls Jeff Greenfield at Politico, “and if history comes even close to repeating itself,” today’s demos “will redound to Donald Trump’s benefit.” Campus turmoil over Vietnam triggered a “backlash” that was “a key part” of the 1968 presidential race. “Richard Nixon famously ran a campaign on ‘law and order’ — highlighting both urban and campus unrest”; chaos at the Democratic Convention further highlighted “lawlessness” — and Nixon won. With Trump seeking to score points from today’s campus unrest, continued turmoil “will be another significant burden on Biden’s fight for a second term.

From the right: A Duel To Define Antisemitism

Commentary’s Seth Mandel hails the House passage of GOP New York Rep. Mike Lawler’s bill “to codify a specific definition of anti-Semitism for the purposes of federal antidiscrimination laws,” using language from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Beware the “alternative definition” from “the Nexus project, an effort by activists and academics to shield a segment of the political left from accusations of anti-Semitism by excepting common progressive transgressions.” That’s been backed by Dem NY Rep. Jerry Nadler, as “Democratic politicians loved the idea of being able to hand out ‘get out of anti-Semitism free’ cards.” “Helped by Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer’s efforts,” Lawler’s bill “overcame Nadler’s disapproval to advance a common understanding of anti-Semitism at a crucial time.”

Mideast desk: ‘Orwellian’ Lawfare on Israel

“Karim Khan, chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, is widely expected to issue several arrest warrants” against Israeli leaders, “including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi”; that, gripe Arsen Ostrovsky & John Spencer at The Hill, “will be an unconscionable and unprecedented misuse of the law” — indeed, it’s “Orwellian” to prosecute them “as they defend the Jewish state” against Hamas terrorists. With no sign that “Israel has violated international humanitarian law” nor evidence “that Israel is committing genocide,” the ICC’s Khan must decide whether to “uphold the principles upon which the court was founded” and not issue the warrants, or to “become a willing pawn in the Palestinian lawfare campaign” against the Jewish state.

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board