Good Morning!

1 Yesterday’s ethics  bombshell was the news that Fox News extended its contract with star bloviator Bill O’Reilly earlier this year, knowing that he had agreed to a $32 million settlement with a woman who accused him of  repeated harassment, a non-consensual sexual relationship, and other offenses. Nonetheless, it decided  it decided to sign him a four-year, $25 million a year, contract extension. The New York Times scoop reported that Rupert Murdoch and his sons,  decided that it was worth it to keep O’Reilly even as Fox News was trying to recover after having to fire Roger Ailes for multiple sexual harassment claims. Fox added to the O’Reilly’s extension a clause that allowed for his dismissal if new allegations of harassment or other relevant information came out regarding the previous accusations.

Boy, am I glad that I didn’t lift my personal Fox New boycott after O’Reilly left.

This is unconscionable conduct by Fox, equal in its slimy ethics void to what the Weinstein Group did when it acknowledged its founders sexual predator proclivities in his contract. Fox News, by keeping O’Reilly knowing that he had harassed its employees (and worse),

• demonstrated to its staff that it cared more about ratings and profits than principles and the safety of its female employees and guests
• sent the message that if you were a big enough cheese at Fox you can get away with abusing women
• proved that the sick and sexist culture nurtured by Roger Ailes from the beginning was still flourishing.

Ugh. But I can’t say I’m surprised. [Mr Kimble (Alvy Moore) on Green Acres: ” I can’t say I’m surprised. Actually, I can say I’m surprised. I’m surprised! But I’m not surprised.”]

How many other companies tolerate sexual harassers in their executive offices outside of Hollywood? A lot.

O’Reilly, demonstrating again that he is a liar as well as as a sexual predator, absolutely denies that he ever harassed anyone. He needs better lawyers, then. Harvey Weinstein paid off an actress he raped for just $100,000, and poor Bill had to fork over 32 million bucks for something he didn’t do!

2. This morning’s “Wait—WHAT?” ethics headline is this one, from the ABA News: “Lawyer who blamed ethics case on mother can’t discharge $500K in student debt, federal judge rules.”

Illinois lawyer Donald Rosen argued that his three-year license suspension for misappropriating over $85,000 in client funds made it impossible to find appropriate work and so should be allowed to discharge his $500,000 student debt. (How did he end up with a $500,000 student debt?). ‘Uh, no,’ ruled U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer, perhaps because Rosen had paid only about $11,000 in student debt over the previous 37 years.

Why did Rosen blame Mom? He claims his 82-year-old mother, who worked at his firm, inadvertently used client funds to pay business expenses.  Rosen said his mother was embarrassed by her actions and falsified bank statements to cover it up. Then, Rosen says, he innocently provided those fake bank statements to police and the hearing board considering the ethics case against him.

3. How can this happen? Why is it happening? Who defends this? How long will it continue?

Stephanie McKellop, a graduate student teaching assistant at the University of Pennsylvania, shameless confirmed that she follows a practice of calling on white men last, and only if she has to, during class discussions. “I will always call on Black women students first. Other POC get second tier priority. WW [white women] come next. And, if I have to, white men,”  she tweeted, prompting an investigation from the university. She’s still employed, however.

Why is she still employed? Her statement translates into “I discriminate by race and gender.” What is there to investigate? Fire her.

“I will always call on Black women students first. Other POC get second tier priority,” she explained. McKellop, who is  white, explained that she was taught this practice by an “amazing” professor. I suppose a professor who is a bigot and a fool qualifies as “amazing.” At least the fact that there are professors who think like that at major universities could be called amazing.

Then again, how else do you end up with products of the American educational system who rationalize prejudice by arguing, “They deserve it.” “In normal life, who has the easiest time speaking, most opportunities? Flip it,” McKellop “explained.” She is completely self-righteous, and convinced that she is right, and those who feel that all students should be treated equally and with respect regardless of the skin color and chromosome distribution are not “woke.”

“I don’t know what you all can do. I don’t know what I’m supposed to do. I had the cute idea that Penn could defend me against Nazis haha. Isn’t that funny,” she has tweeted.

If the university doesn’t fire her, any white male who doesn’t sue to get his tuition back should have WEENIE stamped on his diploma and forehead, and any student of any type that doesn’t deem this worthy of a campus protest is a lost cause.

4. Commenter Other Bill suggested this for commentary:an NBC article condemning “legacy” admission policies at elite universities, specifically Harvard. I’m a good one to ask, since I was a legacy admittee. Oh, I had the grades, scores and other qualifications to justify my getting in without that thumb on the scale, but lots of other applicants had similar assets–minus the family connection— and were rejected. My Dad was a grad. It helped.

I agree with the article across the board, which concludes that legacy admissions are unfair, elitist, and that there is no excuse for it. The practice should be eliminated, along with other biased admissions, like affirmative action.