Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

Is the Judiciary Ready to Handle Harassment Charges?

leave a comment »

Cristian Farias writes in New York magazine:

For the better part of his esteemed career, Alex Kozinski, one of the top appellate judges in the nation, has been his own public-relations machine, fielding press inquiries and interviews with journalists, unlike any of his peers in the federal judiciary, who never talk to the press. But when the Los Angeles Times reached the longtime Ronald Reagan appointee this past week for comment on allegations in another paper that he’d been sexually improper with at least six women who had worked with him, Kozinski’s nonchalance with reporters may have gotten the best of him. “If this is all they are able to dredge up after 35 years, I am not too worried,” he told the Times.

That sounded like a challenge. And in less than 24 hours since the story broke, other women took Kozinski up on it. They didn’t hold back. “When I clerked on the Ninth Circuit, Kozinski sent a memo to all the judges suggesting that a rule prohibiting female attorneys from wearing push-up bras would be more effective than the newly convened Gender Bias Task Force,” Joanna Grossman, a law professor at Southern Methodist University, wrote on Twitter, with this kicker: “His disrespect for women is legendary.”

The most eye-opening of these recollections came from Nancy Rapoport, a law professor at the University of Nevada who wrote in her personal blogabout the time Kozinski invited her and other clerks out for drinks. She was clerking for another judge at the time, but she agreed to come along. The meetup turned out to be a setup: No other clerks were there. Just Rapoport and Kozinski. “What do single girls in San Francisco do for sex?” she recalls the judge asking her. During the same encounter, Kozinski offered to “comfort” her when he learned that Rapoport’s mother had just been diagnosed with cancer. Ever since, the law professor has made it a point to steer her own female students away from Kozinski’s judicial chambers by refusing to sign letters of recommendation to go work for him. The title of Rapoport’s blog entry: “There are likely several more stories to come.”

One of those stories came from Heidi Bond, a lawyer turned novelist who chose to break her silence about Kozinski after nearly a decade of agonizing silence. She was one of two women who were willing to go on the record with the Washington Post in its Friday report about Kozinski. But she also wrote her own account of her year with the judge on her website; every word of it matters. Beyond relating an incident in which Kozinski showed her porn on his own computer and then asked her whether it aroused her, Bond discloses a far more disturbing detail: That Kozinski, from the very moment he swore her in as his law clerk, had imposed a code of silence on her. “It’s too late now! She can’t escape any longer. She’s my slave,” Bond said Kozinski told her during the swearing-in. She thought it was all in jest.

The judge meant it. Even though Kozinski is a libertarian jurist who has spent decades on the bench extolling the virtues of freedom and the First Amendment — “The Constitution enshrines a fundamental right to be free of unwarranted restraints,” he wrote in a celebrated ruling earlier this year — he had deeply unpleasant ways of exerting control over his underlings, says Bond. She writes that Kozinski once forbade her from reading romance novels, even during her breaks, because they amounted to “porn for women” — a type of addiction she should avoid for her own sake. “I control what you read, what you write, when you eat,” Bond recalls Kozinski telling her. “You don’t sleep if I say so. You don’t shit unless I say so. Do you understand?” As a young woman near the pinnacle of her legal career, with crippling student debt and a shot at the moon, including a second clerkship at the Supreme Court, Bond was in no position to say no to Kozinski. And so she didn’t.

Bond’s account is essential not just as a damning exposé of a leading light in American law — the federal judiciary’s #MeToo moment. It also raises serious questions about

For the better part of his esteemed career, Alex Kozinski, one of the top appellate judges in the nation, has been his own public-relations machine, fielding press inquiries and interviews with journalists, unlike any of his peers in the federal judiciary, who never talk to the press. But when the Los Angeles Times reached the longtime Ronald Reagan appointee this past week for comment on allegations in another paper that he’d been sexually improper with at least six women who had worked with him, Kozinski’s nonchalance with reporters may have gotten the best of him. “If this is all they are able to dredge up after 35 years, I am not too worried,” he told the Times.

That sounded like a challenge. And in less than 24 hours since the story broke, other women took Kozinski up on it. They didn’t hold back. “When I clerked on the Ninth Circuit, Kozinski sent a memo to all the judges suggesting that a rule prohibiting female attorneys from wearing push-up bras would be more effective than the newly convened Gender Bias Task Force,” Joanna Grossman, a law professor at Southern Methodist University, wrote on Twitter, with this kicker: “His disrespect for women is legendary.”

The most eye-opening of these recollections came from Nancy Rapoport, a law professor at the University of Nevada who wrote in her personal blogabout the time Kozinski invited her and other clerks out for drinks. She was clerking for another judge at the time, but she agreed to come along. The meetup turned out to be a setup: No other clerks were there. Just Rapoport and Kozinski. “What do single girls in San Francisco do for sex?” she recalls the judge asking her. During the same encounter, Kozinski offered to “comfort” her when he learned that Rapoport’s mother had just been diagnosed with cancer. Ever since, the law professor has made it a point to steer her own female students away from Kozinski’s judicial chambers by refusing to sign letters of recommendation to go work for him. The title of Rapoport’s blog entry: “There are likely several more stories to come.”

One of those stories came from Heidi Bond, a lawyer turned novelist who chose to break her silence about Kozinski after nearly a decade of agonizing silence. She was one of two women who were willing to go on the record with the Washington Post in its Friday report about Kozinski. But she also wrote her own account of her year with the judge on her website; every word of it matters. Beyond relating an incident in which Kozinski showed her porn on his own computer and then asked her whether it aroused her, Bond discloses a far more disturbing detail: That Kozinski, from the very moment he swore her in as his law clerk, had imposed a code of silence on her. “It’s too late now! She can’t escape any longer. She’s my slave,” Bond said Kozinski told her during the swearing-in. She thought it was all in jest.

The judge meant it. Even though Kozinski is a libertarian jurist who has spent decades on the bench extolling the virtues of freedom and the First Amendment — “The Constitution enshrines a fundamental right to be free of unwarranted restraints,” he wrote in a celebrated ruling earlier this year — he had deeply unpleasant ways of exerting control over his underlings, says Bond. She writes that Kozinski once forbade her from reading romance novels, even during her breaks, because they amounted to “porn for women” — a type of addiction she should avoid for her own sake. “I control what you read, what you write, when you eat,” Bond recalls Kozinski telling her. “You don’t sleep if I say so. You don’t shit unless I say so. Do you understand?” As a young woman near the pinnacle of her legal career, with crippling student debt and a shot at the moon, including a second clerkship at the Supreme Court, Bond was in no position to say no to Kozinski. And so she didn’t.

Bond’s account is essential not just as a damning exposé of a leading light in American law — the federal judiciary’s #MeToo moment. It also raises serious questions about  . . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

11 December 2017 at 12:38 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.