Beyond Peak Woke?: VDH Interviews Ilya Shapiro on Our University Censors

Fellow Americans, a shocking revelation from the Department of Government Efficiency demands

your attention. Doge investigators have already uncovered an astounding $115 billion in government fraud, with analysts suggesting hundreds of billions more will soon be exposed.
This goes far beyond simple waste or mismanagement. We're witnessing the unraveling of systematic corruption that appears to have artificially inflated our economy for years.
Reports indicate the previous administration channeled approximately $1.5 trillion through non-governmental organizations, creating a facade of economic stability that was built on quicksand. Now, as this house of cards begins to collapse, financial experts are warning of an imminent short but deep recession that could devastate unprepared investors.
Consider the sobering question, what will happen to your retirement savings when this fraudulent economic structure finally crumbles throughout civilization, across empires and economic systems. Physical gold has consistently preserved wealth when currencies and paper investments failed.
Shouldn't a portion of your retirement be held in an asset with a 5,000-year track record, one that can't be manufactured by government decree or manipulated through accounting fraud? American Alternative Assets is offering a complimentary wealth protection guide explaining how to shield your financial future from the coming downturn. You'll discover why current conditions may present the optimal moment to secure your wealth through precious metals.
Don't delay until the fraud economy completely unravels. Call 833-2-USA-GOLD or visit VictorLovesGold.com now to request your free wealth protection guide.

That's 833-287-2465 or VictorLovesGold.com.

Safeguard your wealth, protect your future while there's still time. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson with the Victor Davis Hanson podcast.
And today we're doing one of our solo interviews. Jack Fowler and Sammy Wink aren't with us, but I'm interviewing an old friend of mine, Ilya Shapiro, and he has a new book just about ready to be published called Lawless, The Miseducation of America's Elite, and I'd like to talk to him about it for the next 40 minutes.
So, Ilya, I'm going to ask you just to summarize in a couple of minutes what it's about, but it's not just about the corruption of legal education, because by the time students get to law school, they've already been, quote unquote, indoctrination.

It has in the book a broader critique of general education in general, especially at our elite colleges, and then you focus on the law school.

Is that a fair interpretation?

It is, and good to be with you, and thanks for holding up the book so I wouldn't have to. This came out of my lived experience, as they say, with Georgetown Law School when I was hired three years ago.
Now we're coming up on the third anniversary of my, I was supposed to take over as executive director of their Center for the Constitution, which is an important institution because as we've learned, the rest of the law school is the center against the Constitution. But anyhow, a few days before I was due to join that job and leave the Cato Institute, where I had spent nearly 15 years, I tweeted in critique of President Biden's holding to his campaign promise to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court, restricting his candidate pool by race and sex.
I thought that was inappropriate, as 76% of Americans agreed in a poll conducted by that rabid right-wing outlet, ABC News. But anyway, I tweeted in a way that perhaps wasn't the best phrasing.
Who among us hasn't issued a hot take, not best phrased on Twitter, X. But that subjected me to an inquisition by Georgetown's Office of Institutional Diversity, Equity, and Affirmative Action, their DEI office, that lasted four months.
A really bizarre farce in the end. And anyway, so that, you know, I was ultimately cleared on a technicality, but the report I got made it evident that I wouldn't be able to carry out my job.
So I made a loud resignation, as lawyers say, and then joined the Manhattan Institute and have been using that platform that I've been given to shine a light on this rot in academia and specifically on legal education, not just because I happen to be a lawyer and was hired by a law school, but, it's too bad when English or sociology departments

go off the rails.

But with law schools training the next generation of the gatekeepers of our political and legal

institutions, and if they're being trained that there's no objective truth and your rights

depend on where you are in a privileged hierarchy or intersectional matrix or all of this postmodern mumbo jumbo, that's really dangerous for the future of our society. And so I go into how we got to where we are, what the problems are, and how we can begin to address them.
Let me just ask you a series of questions. This tweet that you uh posted common uh commentary on joe biden's uh justice brown wasn't it the it was before ketanji brown jackson uh was nominated it was right after justice briar announced his retirement so it wasn't it wasn't really directed at a specific nominee it was just the this limitation of the field and the manner that he had done with Kamala Harris as well for the vice president, as I understand it.
But what I want to get at is this tweet was how many days or months prior to your appointment? It was four days before I was due to job. So you weren't even an employee of Georgetown?

That's right.

And they were trying to suggest that they had what jurisdiction over your behavior before you were – that came up as well.

The ultimate resolution was it took some high paid attorneys at a big white shoe law firm in Washington four months to look at the calendar and determine that I was not yet an employee, as you deduced, and therefore the harassment and anti-discrimination policies under which they were investigating me didn't even apply. So, you know, it was, like I said, it was a technicality.
It wasn't that, yes, the free speech and expression policy protected me or no, I should be fired for heresy. But no, it's just, oh, the students are off campus now.
There's not protests. We can reinstate you.
One of your, you have these iconic chapters and that's one of them. But another one I followed very closely because I was on campus and that was the judge, the federal judge Duncan at Stanford, where his speech was interrupted, disrupted, hijacked, whatever term we use by a lot of activist law students.
And then it was, I guess the word would be hijacked by the DEI law coordinator. And she took over and then you devote a whole chapter to that.
And you quite rightly quoted that one outburst where students said that we hope your daughter is raped. I went back and looked at that and I realized that in the two or three years, Stanford rate of passing the bar on the first time was about 83%.
And that was lower than say, San Joaquin Law School at Fresno, where I live. So, what I'm getting at is, it's a zero-sum game and you imply that throughout your book.
So, if you're spending all of this time on social activism and DEI and as you point Now, the law courses themselves have lost the preponderance of contractual law, contractual law, liability law, all of these foundations of American jurisprudence. So it's not just a sin of commission, but one of omission, isn't it? Absolutely.
These lawyers are not very well trained. Sure.
Absolutely. And so it's not just kind of the sexy headline making things that we see of critical legal studies and DEI.
It's that they've they're failing at their basic tasks of educating lawyers to be lawyers whether in those bread and butter subjects of torts and property and contract or whether uh when there's a federal bench that is always going to be roughly half appointed by republican presidents you don't even teach originalism you don't even teach theories that uh what you would need to succeed to be a zealous advocate for your client, whatever your own personal views might be. Now, especially the elite law schools have long been criticized for being too theoretical.
The joke at Yale Law, which is typically ranked number one in the US News rankings, sometimes Stanford ties it. But the joke is you learn poetry, not law.

And so Yale's bar passage rate has historically been slightly lower

than, say, Columbia

or other Northeastern law schools

that send their students to New York and D.C.

and what have you.

But of late, they still teach torts and property and contracts in the first year required classes. But otherwise, it's kind of this therapeutic stuff.
And it's policy-oriented, and it's not just theory-oriented in terms of legal theory, but it's the theory of relativity, as it were, that there's no objective truth and all of these isms and what have you.

And as you say, they crowd out the ability or the teaching of legal analysis, how to think rigorously about the law, not in terms of to be an intellectual academic, but to actually understand what the law is,

whether you think it needs to be amended, whether you want to argue one position or another on a given clause of the Constitution. But it's the DEI is crowding out the actual teaching of law.
And by the way, it's not just the DEI deans and offices that are at fault. The admissions offices have put a thumb on the scales of activists rather than those that say, well, I just want to be a very good prosecutor or I want to be a leading antitrust litigator or what have you.
We're going to take a quick break. I'm speaking with Ilya Shapiro and his new book just about to appear.

It is, when you hear this, it'll have just appeared, is Lawless, a critique of America's law schools.

And we're going to be right back.

Vacation season is nearly upon us. This year, I'm treating myself to the luxe upgrades I deserve with Quince's high quality travel essentials at fair prices like lightweight shirts and shorts from $30, pants for any occasion and comfortable lounge suits with premium luggage options and durable duffel bags to carry it all.
The best part? All Quince items are priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. By partnering directly with top factories, Quince cuts out the cost of the middleman and passes the savings on to us.
And Quince only works with factories that use safe, ethical, and responsible manufacturing practices and premium fabrics and finishes. I love that! Quince is my favorite store for affordable luxury at home or on vacation.
Everything from Quince is not just affordable but the path to easy comfortable living even when traveling. With spring vacation season here I look to Quince for classy comfortable and cute.
I just recently added a light blue linen vest and a short crop sweater to my Quince collection. And I'm excited to wear them as I go off, especially on my travels this spring.
For your next trip, treat yourself to the luxe upgrades you deserve from Quince. Go to quince.com slash victor for 365 day returns plus free shipping on your order.
That's quince.com slash victor to get free shipping and 365 day returns. quince.com slash victor.
And we'd like to thank Quince for sponsoring the Victor Davis Hanson show. If you've been with us at all over the last six months or so, you are probably familiar with one of our favorite new brews, Wired to Fish Coffee.
As you may know, their coffee is delicious and smooth, but more importantly, the company has amazing commitment to give back. Wired2Fish Coffee gives back 25% of profits, 25% to conservation, clean water, and things like missions and evangelical outreach.
From river cleanups and initiatives for fish habitat, to programs that give people in slums clean water and spread the word about Jesus.

Wired2Fish Coffee is in it to make the world a better place.

They also have just launched a medium roast decaf.

And for avid coffee lovers, their much-loved brew is now available in two-pound and five-pound bags. Join us and enjoy your coffee while making a difference in the world and join a community of like-minded coffee lovers.
Subscribe and save today and enjoy discounted coffee and free freight or just give this great brand a try with discount code JUSTNEWS or JUSTTHENews. For 10% off your first order, head over to Wired2FishCoffee today and make this year a year you align your coffee with your values.
We're back with Ilya Shapiro. I should say that it's been a quarter century when Ilya called me up and he was at a, it was a convention at the Intercollegiate Students.
Intercollegiate Studies Institute, ISI. Yes, yes.
And he called me and you were, as I remember, a quarter century ago in the year 2000, I remember it was Olympiad. You said you were just graduated from Princeton.
You had met me, and you were on your way to Chicago Law School, and you had an interim of three or four weeks, and you wanted to get some firsthand experience about farming life. So that year between college and law school, I was in London at the at the London School of Economics.
That's right. Mostly studying beer, theater and rugby.
But they gave me a degree in international relations for traveling around Europe, I suppose. But, yeah, I had a few months before the start of law school and it was kind of an awkward period.
I couldn't really get a normal internship or what have you. And I thought, yeah, Victor has that farm.
He's also writing a book that's interesting. Maybe I can help you out for a bit.
And I think I ended up being there for about a month, half as a research assistant and half as a manual laborer. It was definitely an informative summer.
Yes, my son was 17 at the time. And I think we were building an arbor and some construction.
So, I've known Ilya, but this leads into a question. So you went to Chicago.
It was starting as all schools were to maybe modulate its curriculum and its admissions, although it had a reputation of being more resistant to those trends than others. But in that quarter century, whether gradually or suddenly, to paraphrase, I mean, when you as an experienced lawyer looked at each cohort that was graduating, did you see a decline in, I don't know, intellectual rigor or empiricism or people were less trained in the law? Could you and other lawyers start to see the practical effects, not just that they were activists, but that people lacked the skills or they lacked the objectivity each year that this continued to go on, especially the last, it seems, last eight years? Well, I'm not a hiring partner at a law firm or anything like that in a prosecutor's office, what have you.
Anecdotally, you do hear that the graduating students need to have their hands held more. And when some traumatic event like an election that doesn't go their way, they need some time off to process and rehabilitate and what have you.
I hired certainly young lawyers at Cato now with the Manhattan Institute to help me, but they're of a different species, I suppose. And Chicago, for that matter, is the exception that proves the rule, whether in terms of protecting free expression or never having diversity statements as a requirement for hiring and these sorts of things.
They've always kind of gone against the grain. But in too many law schools, whether the things that make national news, like the protests and shouting down of Judge Duncan at Stanford, fomented by the associate dean of DEI, or below the radar things that don't make news like the selection of courses and how students are admitted and how rigorous the legal writing sections are and things like that.
There does seem to be a qualitative change. I don't think bar passage rates are necessarily the number one thing you should look at because there's problems with the bars themselves and ABA accreditors that are pushing the DDI.
They've adjusted to this, haven't they? Sure, absolutely. They've become woke at themselves, right? But it's, again, it's surprising.
there are a lot of companies or firms that have taken the position that we're simply not going to hire from Ivy League schools because there's a sense of entitlement and privilege, quote unquote, there that we're better off going to someplace like University of Alabama, which is very good. It's 25th or something at the latest rankings, whatever that's worth.
But the kids there actually are hard driving and want to be lawyers rather than harboring illusions that someone's going to make them a deputy cabinet secretary straight out of law school. Do you feel that way yourself? So if you're at the Manhattan Institute where you are now and you have a project and you need a legal team, would you hire people, say, from Ohio State?

I'm just picking names out.

Or would you go with Stanford, Yale, Harvard?

It depends.

One of the young lawyers that I hired very quickly after joining MI is from Stanford.

He was actually the president of the Federalist Society who had invited Judge Duncan there.

So he had actually gotten some national coverage for his response there. So it just depends.
I have certain advantages in that I can only hire a certain number of people and I want them to be ideologically sound in a different way and rigorous and what have you. So it's kind of self-selective.
And there are still enough students at these big schools that can be good enough. But I'm happy to entertain your Ohio State, your Alabama, your Iowa.
Of course, some of these schools have the DEI networks or the deans can be worse at some of the so-called elite schools, but it just depends. It's different when you're only hiring one at a time versus trying to fill the entering class at a major corporation or law firm.
It reminds me, I gave a lecture not too long ago to some supporters of the Hoover Institution, and I just remarked haphazardly if Stanford had at that point dropped the SAT for two years, then it was four years. This year they reinstituted it.
And they were publishing on their website their demographic breakdown of each new class. And whereas they used to be i would call it proportionally representative you know they would that would translate into something like 12 african american 15 hispanic the rest asian asians always discriminated against even in law school and then white but then they after george, I would call it repertory.
So, they would actually put on the website 20% white admissions at Stanford for undergraduate, 9%. So, roughly that would translate to about 200 white males were let in.
Of course, they had another category called other, which was a mixed heritage. But my point is this.
When you're hiring and you're starting to turn out students that are not taking the SAT, and I don't think that many schools, and correct me if I'm wrong, Ilya, dropped the LSAT, did they? Some did during the pandemic. They did.
Yeah. Yeah.
Anyway, there are some deans actually called for the ABA, which is the only accredited. There's another problem.
I have a whole chapter on the ABA because it's a monopoly on law school accreditation. Some deans pushed for them to call for the doing away of the LSAT.
That seems to have gone away. Well, after this, I just said, if this keeps up, it's the beginning, not the end.
and this applies to your book that came through that once you let people in that are not qualified under meritocratic, or at least there's a baseline, then it starts a process where the classes have to adjust to that. And you have to either introduce new courses or water down the content required of old courses or you have to

have a great inflation. And Stanford, there's great inflation.
Yale gave 80% of all their undergraduate, I think it was last year, A's. So, I was giving this talk to these people.
Many of them were captains of industry in Silicon Valley. And I said, it's going to get to the point where you might not want to hire a Stanford, you know, HR or coder.

And he said, it's going to get to the point where you might not want to hire a Stanford, you know, HR or coder. And he said, where have you been? We've noticed this for years.
So we would rather have a Texas A&M or a Georgia Tech person because they come with better skills and they don't, the first thing they do is not go to HR and complain. Right.
These Ivy League people are very pampered. They're used to being accommodated.
They don't have the technical skills. And what I'm getting at is, do you see that if this were to continue, that there is going to get a point that everybody's talked about, but nobody really believes that these elite schools, and in your case, the law schools, are going to lose this reputation after people bump into their graduates again and again and again, and they're either going to have to adjust, or maybe you're going to see University of Alabama coveted more than Harvard, Yale, Princeton.
It's a little different dynamic at the law school level because the national schools are the national schools, and when everyone's doing law, it's different than, you know, sorting through someone who majors in English versus history versus whatever. And do they actually have a rigorous education, what have you? So it's, it's somewhat sticky, you know, within bands, there's certainly movement.
So Yale, Stanford, Columbia, after the anti-Semitic encampments and all these are definitely losing relative to their competitors. University of Chicago is gaining, for example, relative to its competitors at the moment.
But after a while, certainly it depends where, you know, the biggest firm in Atlanta looks at hiring a little differently than the biggest firms in New York and things like this, let alone smaller cities. So and you have the I cover this, the the judicial boycotts of hiring of law clerks, which, of course, are very important for the elite schools.
They trumpet how many of their students go on to be these as it's kind of like a postdoc for lawyers. You work right beside the federal judge in your first year or second year out of law school and help them with their research and opinions and what have you.
And a dozen or 14 federal judges stopped hiring from Stanford and Yale and later added Columbia for their bad free speech policies. Now it's perspective, and the students currently there would not be penalized, but it's one of these exogenous shocks, one of these external forces that, along with employers saying that we're not going to hire Hamas supporters and things like this, that are the way to check and reform these schools, because it's not just making internal arguments about open inquiry and academic freedom that's going to

change these things. We're talking to Ilya Shapiro and his new book is Lawless.
By the time you hear this, it'll be released and we'll be right back after a word from our supporters. And we're back with Ilya Shapiro.
You mentioned there's all of these outside influencers and influencers, and I want to be a little bit specific. Do you see any of these outside phenomenon developments having a positive effect? And specifically, do the alumni of the law schools then predicate their support for the law schools on being to remain empirical and disinterested? Or do you see a change because of the Trump administration and the people in the DOJ who they'll hire or their editorialization or the Department of Education? Is there any outside influences that will affect change in these law schools? Are they going to be resistant to it or will market forces or political forces or just common sense try to overwhelm this DEI attitude? The short answer is all of the above.
All of the above is necessary and all of the above may have an effect. In society writ large, it does seem like we've passed peak woke and there's a backlash to all this stuff.
In academia, it's still very much an open question because it's an echo chamber, as we saw from the disastrous testimony of the university presidents in just over a year ago, December of 2023, leading to the resignation of the presidents of Penn and Harvard.

The these institutions are not going to reform themselves, maybe somewhat as alumni and trustees put some pressure on.

There's some evidence of that at Penn because of the Wharton School.

And there's such a business focused place.

And when you a few billionaires start making noises, that can have an impact.

But I think in law schools, it will take these external actors, whether state legislatures

for public schools saying, no, you have to close your DEI offices, we're not going to

fund that.

That's different.

That's not an academic freedom concern, by the way.

That's not dictating to faculty what they say inside the classroom. That's how you organize the bureaucracy structurally.
So those kinds of investigations by state attorneys general or the Federal Department of Education over denial of student civil rights. We've seen since October 7th, especially, as Bill Ackman put it, a big Harvard donor alumnus, billionaire, the anti-Semitism is the canary in the coal mine, the signaling factor of so much, so many pathologies that are going on under the surface, whether whether moral corruption, failure of leadership, all of these things that have been revealed in these institutions and including in the law schools.
And so Heather Gerken, the dean of Yale, who hopes to be president of Yale or Princeton or Harvard, eventually saw the worrying developments and Yale making the headlines for shout downs of speakers and things like this. And so hired Keith Whittington from Princeton and gave him a bunch of money to start a new center on free expression.
Hired a former Alito clerk to be a junior professor. Kind of clamped down on some of these other things.
We'll see. So that's just after a dozen judges announcing opposition and some bad PR.
It doesn't take very much. To mix metaphors, a lot of these structures are Potemkin villages guarded by paper tigers.
And so just a little bit of publicity, I'll give you another example in a non-legal context. My now colleague at the Manhattan Institute, John Saylor, who's an investigative reporter, two years ago published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal after getting public documents through FOIA from Texas Tech, a public school in Lubbock, Texas, saying that they were showing that they were hiring biologists based on diversity statements.
And he just wrote this op-ed, wrote this up, you know, what he found, public documents. And the very next day, the chancellor said, no, we're not going to be doing that anymore.
This is inappropriate. So it doesn't take very much.
And just like, you know, major law firms in New York, a month after October 7th said, you know, told deans, you know, take a look at what's going on in your schools. Make sure you're creating a healthy culture because if these students are all about post-colonial studies and all of this stuff, that's simply not going to work.
The other thing, you focus on more of the elite schools, but not exclusively so. But I think your argument that you is thematic in most of your chapters is that listeners should care about this because it's these people, whether it's fair or not, that graduate from these top tier schools, then they go on in the next decade or so.
And you bump in through them as CEO, legal counsels who can become CEOs, or you bump in through them among the three or 400 political appointments in the DOJ, or they become judges. And the theories that they, I mean- Lawyers are disproportionately represented for good or ill among our elite classes and especially in our political legal institutions.

They are. And do things like critical legal theory, does that come out of law professors or is that something the law for professors adopted? Because I was just thinking that when you look at the law fair, and I think that's a fair term of what I think Fannie Willis was from Emory Law School and I think Alvin Bragg was from Harvard, and then you had Latita James, Jackson.
Where do they, this idea that the law is an instrument of political change or progressive transformation, Do the law professors, are they thinkers or do they just absorb this stuff from philosophy and English or do they actually have theorists that are trying to formulate this idea that it's against the law to steal a candy bar because wealthy white people don't steal candy bars and so they make these arbitrary laws to hurt people? Where does that all come from? Does the law school play a role in the theoretical level? Absolutely. And it's funny.
When I was in law school, as you noted, a quarter century ago, we thought that this critical theory stuff, critical legal studies, that that was something from the 80s and early 90s. It was a spent force that was now some niche thing that's relegated to sociology departments and those weird area studies departments and things like that.

But then it made a roaring comeback with a vengeance.

The racial reckoning, the so-called racial reckoning that started roughly in 2014 with Ferguson and then the election of Trump and all of these inflection points. And, of course, eight years of Obama, too, really.
Absolutely. Obama harmed race relations tremendously in this country.
It's sad, really. But that put all of those theories about how the law needs to be deconstructed, you know, burn it all down and reform to better help marginalized people is kind of, you know, Rawlsianism on on racialist steroids, if you will, to get the name check a few philosophical touchstones.
And it's not so, you know, so there's the faculty part that there are more of those kinds of critical theory faculty than there were in the 2000s when I was in school, but also the bureaucracy. And this is kind of a story that is not told as much, the rate of non-teaching staff at universities broadly and in law schools as well has just exploded such that there are now more non-teaching staff than faculty.
No, there is. Absolutely.
Whatever is going on inside the classroom and who's hiring, and there's huge problems with that, with the ideology.

But the bureaucracy, which in the last decade has been largely, if not almost entirely, in the DEI space, is a huge problem. because they are charged with inculcating the culture of the institution,

having trainings and orientation programs and all these deanly memos

that go out to first-year law students and what have you. And that has really just swamped things.
You talk about the explosion in cost, tuition costs. That is part and parcel with the growth of bureaucracy, which it's not even so much that they're not value-adding're value subtracting.
And we've seen from campus climate surveys, for example, that the growth of these DEI offices, which are meant to have people feel more welcome, more included at their institutions, is inversely correlated to feelings of belonging or feelings of comfort with people of different ethnic backgrounds. It's a really shocking thing.
And as I said, especially in the last five, ten years, this is what's really thrown higher education and worryingly legal education off the rails. We're talking with Ilya Shapiro and his new book is Lawless,

and we have one more segment. We'll be right back.
Ilya, I noticed that the Wall Street Journal, I think it was a year and a half ago, talked about what you were talking about, the administrative bloat specifically accelerated by DEI. They mentioned that Stanford had, and I went and looked at that and that was accurate.

15,000 I went and looked at that, and that was accurate, 15,000 roughly administrators, administrative staff, and then total graduate and undergraduate and professional schools was, I think, 800 more. So they were one-to-one.
And that costs. So we're looking at this new Trump administration, and whether you look at what they're proposing, it's pretty radical in the first hundred days.
It reminds me of Napoleon's hundred days, if they can pull it off. But they're talking about moving the FBI headquarters or decentralizing it or stopping the revolving door of generals going into contract, all of this stuff.
But if you look at the Department of Education, and I'm not sure that they're going to abolish it, but are there things that people around Heritage or around the Trump administration and our commentators have said would work? And I'll just give you a couple of examples and let you go with it. One of them is that maybe there should be a cap on tax free income from endowments.
So the small schools that say have a billion dollars, liberal arts, but anything, and you could use a ratio from student to endowment cost. At some point, because these are agents of ideological activism, maybe the taxpayers shouldn't subsidize it.
So say Stanford has a $35 billion. Why is that $5 billion plus tax-free? Or if a university like Stanford, when a person is accused of sexual assault, Joe Lonsdale was at Stanford and very treated very unfairly.
And he's not given First Amendment rights, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Amendment rights, or there's not free speech. And then that would be predicated on federal funds, for example.
And of course, this is happening at the NIH now. People are terrified at Stanford.

Jay Bacharya was censored by the Stanford faculty for free expression when he cast doubts about the

efficacy and the dangers of the COVID lockdown. And now Stanford has $700 million in NIH grants.

And a lot of those, if you look at them carefully, just scan them, there's a DEI component to a third of them. So should the federal government come in in this rare moment when there are conservatives that are not just conservative, but they're dedicated to change, to take a look at these law schools, undergraduate schools, just universities in general, and say, there's things that you rely on from the federal government that we cannot continue because you haven't continued in your original mission statement.
Absolutely. And you've hit on a number of different policy areas, none or very few of which actually need new legislation.
So the IRS could make a determination that Stanford or higher education institutions over a certain threshold of endowment aren't using that for the beneficial purpose for which that tax exempt status is around. Now, they would be sued there.
It'd be on firmer legal ground if there was new legislation from Congress specifying whatever the taxation of endowments passed a certain threshold or that aren't used in certain ways. But that is a fight worth having.
And more broadly, you don't need new legislation to withhold federal funds from institutions that deny students their civil rights, whether with respect to due process claims for allegations of harassment or discrimination, whether the anti-Semitic stuff that's come out where UCLA is complicit in blocking students from certain parts of campus and fomenting the mobs and things like that. Whether free speech limitations.
How about segregated dorms, segregated graduate ceremonies? Absolutely, absolutely. Safe spaces that are segregated by race? There are all sorts of strings that are attached to federal funds.
And those are connected to everything from

maintaining accounting standards, so there's not waste, fraud, and abuse, to anti-discrimination principles, and the idea that you're not allowed to go to a certain place or participate in a certain event or access a particular part of educational programming because of your race or religion or gender or whatever it is, that's squarely against federal law. And both DOJ and the Office of Civil Rights at Education need to take a muscular role in going after the schools.
Let me just ask you, since we have a friendship, have people from the administration asked your advice? Are you interested in working for the new DOJ? They have not asked for it as such, at least since the election. I know people who I imagine are going to be going in.
I'm open to opportunities. If someone called me up right after they hear.
I hope everybody's listening because we have some people in the administration that tune in. And Ilya might be one of the people you'd want to have for your district.
Look, I just want to have an impact. It's not a matter of punching my ticket or adding a line to the resume.
If I'm offered to do something to help with these things and check these run amok schools, I'd be very helpful to do that. There is a theme, though, that the left says it's an overemphasis on loyalty, but there is a theme on some of the appointments, many of them, that to ensure integrity or knowledge,

Pete Hexeth wrote a book critical of the Pentagon. He was attacked by that.
He's running it. Jay Bachari was attacked by the NIH.
He's going to run it. Tulsi Gabbard was put on a watch list.
She's now the director of – Cash Mattel was spied on the FBI. So maybe I so maybe ilia shapiro was dealt a uh bad hand by the the di industry and trying to attack his character and you might be the ideal person for a deputy attorney general of civil rights well your your uh your lips to uh you know whoever's appointing whoever handles trump's uh truth social accounts ears because that's how we how it's how we learn about these appointments.
Yeah, well, that would be a good appointment. Any last words, Ilya, that where could, where, what is the pub date? It's out, but where can people find it? The usual places, Amazon, where else? You have a website? Yeah, so it's put out by Harper collins their their broadside books imprint and uh it's available wherever fine and not so fine books are sold should be in your stores barnes and noble what have you online at amazon or if you prefer to buy it at walmart it's available at walmart online so we're lawless the miseducation of america's elites i also have a subs go ahead i'm sorry i also have a suback Shapiro's gavel, which has kind of early versions as I was having these musings and right after I quit Georgetown and kind of had to get off my chest, all of this process that I had, had gone through, you can have early versions of my thinking as, as it developed on, on these areas there.'m on X at iShapiro.
You can look me up at the Manhattan Institute website. Yes, that's where a lot of people find your work, and that's where I find it and consult at the Manhattan.
What's the Manhattan site? So it's simply Manhattan.Institute. Oh, great, great.
People don't realize they're expecting some .org or . com or something but dot institute is is a suffix that you can now have online so it's simply manhattan dot institute and if you want to drop me a line for that matter i'm i shapiro at manhattan dot institute well that's everybody's got that information i urge you all to buy this book i didn't have a time to go through all the chapters but i hope you got a a flavor of it and this is a lot more important topic than just uh fights among the elite and and victor you'll you'll be amused by this i i include in an appendix uh the full 10 page yes he does that i that i got from the dei office which had never been published before i'd let some i didn't journal some journalists see it and quote from, but it's never been published in its entirety.
What's funny was the publisher's lawyers had an issue here, not with slander or libel or anything, but they said, well, technically that report, Georgetown has a copyright on it. So can you like every couple of paragraphs put in your commentary about it, which would transform the work.
So that's what I did.

You have my little snarky comments about what the inquisitors are doing. I think that's important because as illustrated from my point of view, what they officially told you and what they were telling other people or what the media was reporting from leaks didn't quite jive otherwise.
In other words, they were acting as if they were magnanimous and disinterested and concerned about your welfare and wanted to treat you. But that's not what the media who was being leaked to told us.
Yeah, I mean, I was banned from campus because my presence would be triggering of some students. It was really a bizarre situation.
I mean, I was on paid leave. So it was actually financially, they did that so that I wouldn't have as strong a legal claim later on.
So I was paid. So I was prohibited from doing any work from Georgetown.
So instead I was doing writing and speaking and other things, legal consulting, what have you. But ultimately you talk about the external pressure group and what have you.
Alumni of Georgetown Law obviously brought up my situation with the dean in various receptions and what have you. And he got so tired of it.
From what I understand, he curses my name and what have you. And you talk about karma.
Apparently, he lost out on the presidency of Fordham, where he had come from uh to george town uh in large part because of his handling of of my case so um he's he's since announced that he's leaving georgetown the deanship at least this is his last year uh he's announced this uh right as my book is coming out so i'm very sympathetic i'm very sympathetic the stanford faculty senate was considering censoring Neil Ferguson, Scott Atlas and myself all at once. And then somebody on CNN said that I had been a Soviet spy and he got the wrong Victor.
So anyway, it's or the wrong Hanson. Yes, there's yes, yes.
Maybe it was the right. You right, it was the wrong Hanson, who was a CIA traitor or a traitor.
He said I was a traitor. But in any case, thank you very much, Ilya.
And I hope all of you go out and buy his book, Lawless. Thank you.
And I'll be at Stanford the first week of February. Hope to see you in person.
I hope so, too. Before you go, you may want to hear this urgent financial alert that could affect your retirement savings.
The recent Doge investigation findings should concern every American with retirement savings. As government investigators continue to uncover billions in fraud and economic manipulation, financial experts are

warning of potential market instability ahead. Throughout history, physical precious metals have served as a reliable source of value during economic uncertainty.
When paper assets falter, gold has consistently maintained its worth. If you're worried about what the coming fraud economy correction might mean for your retirement, American Alternative Assets has prepared a free wealth protection guide specifically addressing these concerns.
This comprehensive resource explains how a modest allocation to physical gold could help shield your hard-earned savings from the economic turbulence that many analysts

now predict. Call 833-2-USA-GOLD or visit victorlovesgold.com today to request your complimentary guide.
You'll discover why the current economic climate may present an ideal opportunity to diversify with precious metals.

That's 833-287-2465 or victorlovesgold.com.

Protect your wealth, secure your legacy while there's still time.