April 18 roundup

Why alimony cheats shouldn’t blog

“Despite claims that she couldn’t work, rarely left home and rarely socialized because of injuries from a 1996 car accident, Dorothy McGurk, 43, was belly-dancing at home and in Manhattan for hours a day — and then spending several more hours a day blogging about [it].” Asked by a Facebook acquaintance why she wasn’t posting pictures of her dance adventures, McGurk said her ex, from whom she was demanding lifetime maintenance, “would love to fry me with that.” Her words sufficed, and Justice Catherine DiDomenico denied most of her maintenance claim as well as awarding the husband “60 percent from the sale of their house and thousands in legal fees for her ‘dilatory tactics.'” [Dareh Gregorian, New York Post]

“A nation of Winklevosses”

Amid the general hail of dead cats that commentators have aimed at the class action suit claiming to speak for unpaid Huffington Post bloggers, Jack Shafer’s contribution stands out (action “proves that we’re becoming a nation of Winklevosses who file legal motion after legal motion every time a pot of money is spotted….the proper time to negotiate payment for an article is before publication”).

Yale adopts submissive posture in Title-IX-vs.-speech case

A fraternity has already apologized for its role in loutish public expressions, but that isn’t nearly enough for some complainants who’ve initiated an investigation by the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights that puts Yale at risk of losing its $500 million in federal funding if it isn’t sufficiently cooperative. Peter Berkowitz in the Wall Street Journal:

That Yale finds itself under pressure from the government, in the face of stupid frat-boy initiation rituals obviously designed to humiliate the pledges themselves, dramatizes how far government and higher education have drifted from the principles of freedom. … What is really at stake in the current investigation of Yale is the proper mission of the university. The complainants, not a few university administrators and faculty, and powerful forces at work in the Department of Education seem to think that one of a university’s top priorities is policing students’ opinions and utterances to ensure that they adopt government-approved ideas about sexual relations. That priority can’t be reconciled with the imperatives of a liberal education.

If a letter just sent to alumni by Yale President Richard Levin is any indication, the university may not intend to put up much of a public stand on behalf of its autonomy of governance, the toleration granted even some offensive utterances in a community of unbridled expression, or the importance of due process for students accused of wrongdoing. Indeed, Levin’s letter does not make even the tamest and most tentative attempt to argue that anything about the OCR complaint is legally erroneous or worth resisting. The full text of the letter follows: Read On…