While challenging politically, the payoff—better medical care at much lower costs—is too substantial to abandon for a lower-performing alternative.
David Henderson queries if Ethel Rosenberg was born bad?
Russ Roberts’ EconTalk from a few weeks back was with Scott Atlas on American health care. This is worth a listen.
$25 Billion Dollars, that’s the deficit for taxpayers in the great auto bailouts.
Buy this casebook! Or listen to the new Federalist Society Faculty podcast with the editors of Firearms Law and the Second Amendment: Regulation, Rights and Policy.
Bogus! Ted Frank at Point of Law comments on a new study “demonstrating” why diversity among law students creates a superior legal pedagogical experience:
Leave aside the constitutional question whether these unquantifiable diversity benefits survive strict scrutiny. How much diversity is required? If every law school abolished diversity-based race discrimination (so that schools that refused to participate in the race-based race wouldn’t lose qualified students to better-ranked law schools that reach down to inflate their non-Asian minority population), would the resulting percentages of non-Asian minorities be sufficient to inculcate students with the benefits of diversity? If so, why need affirmative action at all?
If the argument that diversity is good because of the exposing of students to differing viewpoints, wouldn’t students be better off if a law school went out and used affirmative action to recruit a Hasid, a Sri Lankan, a Macedonian, an Argentinian, a Mennonite, a Latvian, a Roma, a Gujarati Hindu, a Tibetan Buddhist, and a North Korean refugee? That surely does much more to increase the number of viewpoints available to students than disregarding African-American LSAT scores in admissions. Many law schools have no Hasidim or Roma or North Korean refugee students whatsoever, and the increase from zero to one surely does more for promoting diverse viewpoints than the twenty-third African-American does.
If law schools really care about diverse viewpoints, shouldn’t they be doing more to promote diverse viewpoints in faculty hiring? In particular, it’s well known that Federalist Society membership and conservative credentials result in blackballing at many law schools; even the schools with token conservatives are overwhelmingly liberal. Surely to the extent students benefit from diverse viewpoints, they’d especially benefit from diverse political viewpoints from faculty. Perhaps we should have a two-year hiring freeze on non-Federalists until conservatives catch up?