December 2025/January 2026
, / , / , / ,
Our intrepid reporter now whisks you into the future to a hearing in a standard civil proceeding, where the testimony continues on an issue of proof:
P’s [Plaintiff] Atty: Mr Jones, can you give us an idea of your background and training?
Jones: Yes, I have a master’s in social work, and a PhD in Urban Studies from U.T.
P’s Atty: Did you have a concentration in your graduate work?
Jones: Yes, I studied employment issues, in particular hiring and promotion policies. We used statistical data from eight of the largest U.S. cities to analyze trends in diversity.
D’s [Defendant] Atty: Objection, your honor. The Court may not consider insupportable and heretical theories.
Court: Sustained!
P’s Atty: Uh… your honor the witness isn’t here to discuss findings, … he’s just testifying about his academic background.
D’s Atty: Your honor, the mere mention of that word is “repugnant, perverse and obscene” according to the recent case of Fakir v. Science.
Court: Indeed. You left out “loathsome.” Counsel, move on.
P’s Atty: Mr. Jones, did you ever work for a major city government?
Jones: Yes, I was the Human Resources director in the City of Houston. I implemented programs in Diversity…
D’s Atty: Objection your honor. I request the Court allow me to voir dire this witness!
Court: Yes, Proceed.
D’s Atty: Are you admitting to this Court that you considered, illegal, insupportable and forbidden considerations while a public employee?
Jones: Well, our job was to investigate if statistically valid reasons existed for our presumptions, and ….
D’s Atty: What! Statistics? You used MATH? Another forbidden junk-science measurement?
Jones: Well, Math wasn’t illegal then. Or science for that matter.
D’s Atty: Your honor, I move that the testimony of this witness be stricken, and he be advised of his remaining right to have an attorney present for his incarceration for heresy. And, that he be searched to ensure he is not carrying a forbidden weapon.
Jones: What? I don’t have a gun!
D’s Atty: I said a “forbidden” weapon: a calculator! Bailiff. Search, please.
Clearly, this is all intended in jest. Of course, I do recommend that you upgrade your survival skills, like knot-tying, hiding, and long division.
But, for you lawyers who harbor a secret yearning for critical thinking, let me share my concerns for our future. Think of our first semester in law school, when you were forced to stand up and explain a concept, to defend a premise, or subject yourself to the Socratic cross-exam of a wily professor, who demanded why another premise shouldn’t be more logical. After surviving a few of those, you inevitably felt inspired and reassured that you could meet these challenges without the knots in your stomach. We were forced to consider and address attacks on our beliefs and understandings, and it felt good. We also discovered how our legal system developed, and that there are reasons why certain positions and philosophies do not promote justice. We were actually allowed to discuss, to put our ideas out there, even if they were shot down. We learned the supreme importance of seeking truth.
Speaking for myself, it made me more tolerant and empathetic, as I discovered facts beyond my ken. And isn’t that the true goal of education? And isn’t it why our wonderful legal profession is given a special responsibility to make this a BETTER society? Of course it is! Then…why do I fear that this freedom to consider, advocate, and ultimately lead now appears to be in jeopardy?
On October 12 of this year, UT Professor Lisa Moore, a veteran professor of 35 years, described the dismantling of the educational institutions that have traditionally been the pride of our fair University. In a point-by-point fashion, she itemized how political agenda has overwhelmed the University’s mission to analyze, investigate and explore ideas big and small in our quest for a better world. The word “Woke” inspires the same fear and disgust as the word “Witch” did 400 years ago. Accusing a professor of being Woke is a career death sentence. Consider that a dozen top administrators have been replaced by political appointees, and the Faculty Council, a venerable and vital advisory body, was dissolved overnight. Poof. Student conduct procedures were revised to make it harder to contest accusations, risking easier suspensions or expulsions simply for speaking out on important issues. We are now informed that the so-called “Flag” courses, which required students to study things like diversity, global cultures, ethics, and reasoning, are being dropped immediately. The reason given was: it is no longer required. Uh…okay.
Our social anthropology professors inform us that nearly all large societies go through this intellectual crucible, usually when open discussion of new ideas threatens those in power. We already know how Galileo was prosecuted for suggesting that the Earth revolved around the Sun (“Heliocentrism”), and not vice versa. Galileo, of course, learned that from the works of Copernicus, who wrote five volumes of proofs and notes, but, not being a fan of being tortured as a heretic, told his assistants, “Do not publish these until after I die.” But over the centuries, trying to control the thoughts and outcomes of the human mind is a fool’s errand. Knowledge eventually wins out, but often at a breathtakingly brutal cost. Galileo complained that some of his accusers refused to even look through a telescope. But refusing, denying, opposing, and punishing the truth doesn’t make it go away.
As a profession, we have the opportunity—and even the duty— to improve our society, to uphold human dignity, and to ensure that our chosen ideologies are sound. If, by demanding that truth and justice be the guides for our nation, we feel like a “Voice Crying in the Desert,” so be it. Keep yelling until you’re hoarse.
Keep the Faith.