In Christianity, it’s referred to as “excommunication.” In Judaism, it’s known as “Herem.” On today’s law school campuses, where one misconstrued tweet can land you an ecclesiastical censure, it’s called “administrative leave.”

Ilya Shapiro, senior lecturer and the executive director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution at the university’s Law Center (GULC), is the latest casualty of the puritanical terror currently bedeviling higher education.

On January 26, Shapiro suggested on Twitter that President Biden should nominate Sri Srinivasan, an Indian-American judge serving the DC Court of Appeals and one of the progressive leading lights of the...

In Christianity, it’s referred to as “excommunication.” In Judaism, it’s known as “Herem.” On today’s law school campuses, where one misconstrued tweet can land you an ecclesiastical censure, it’s called “administrative leave.”

Ilya Shapiro, senior lecturer and the executive director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution at the university’s Law Center (GULC), is the latest casualty of the puritanical terror currently bedeviling higher education.

On January 26, Shapiro suggested on Twitter that President Biden should nominate Sri Srinivasan, an Indian-American judge serving the DC Court of Appeals and one of the progressive leading lights of the judiciary, to succeed Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court, rather than picking “a lesser black women” because of her sex and skin color.

While admittedly poorly worded, had this statement been made in normal times, it would have been received as an unremarkable critique of affirmative action and its racialized pretenses. Affirmative action, after all, is a failed and ill-advised policy. Its programs have at best a negligible impact on the groups they are intended to assist and result in net losses for society as a whole. Choosing a judge for the highest court in the land on this basis is idiotic. It also smacks of the malignant ethnic politics that has plagued and corrupted our nation since its inception and encourages the classing of entire segments of society rather than promoting individuality.

Ilya was simply objecting to the arbitrary exclusion of 94 percent of the country on the basis of immutable characteristics. A black woman may very well be the most suitable person for the job, but the fact that she’s a black woman shouldn’t matter. By limiting one’s criteria, Biden is inviting suspicion about the nominee’s qualifications. And it is embarrassing to the eventual nominee that she’ll have been insulated from so much of the competition.

The most charitable — and probably the most accurate — interpretation of the tweet is that Ilya believes Srinivasan is uniquely fit to replace Justice Breyer. Consequently, everyone else is lesser. In other words, any black woman nominee would not be lesser because of her skin color but rather because they are not the singular person he has in mind.

Alas, it’s 2022. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Diversity is our greatest asset insofar as it doesn’t entail ideological heterogeneity. Reason, liberalism, and meritocracy have all been defenestrated from the ivory tower of academia. And Ibram Kendi has proclaimed colorblindness to be white supremacy.

Ilya Shapiro has no place at Georgetown Law. He never did. Heaven forbid his inclusion actually encourages students at the Law Center to entertain heterodox ideas rather than simply regurgitating the prevailing dogma. That would be an unlawful entry into terra incognita for GULC students (with the exception of a few brave souls).

The Georgetown Black Law Students Association is now demanding a “reparations” package, including free food, excused absences, and a designated place on campus to cry. Imagine having such a low opinion of the students you claim to represent. Irrespective of one’s stance on reparations for slavery, the notion that black students are so feeble that they need a special area on campus to cry about some off-color tweets is incredibly insulting. But of course, in true inmates-running-the-asylum fashion, the administration is acquiescing to their demands, promising they will “always have a place on campus where [they] can go.”

It’s easy to dismiss this as just another instance of crazy campus leftists running wild. But the right’s hands are not totally clean here either.

For as long as it’s been politically advantageous, conservatives have also imposed identitarian requirements on nominees for the bench. From Sandra Day O’Connor to Amy Coney Barrett, Republican presidents have played the glass ceiling-shattering game in making Supreme Court appointments.

What has been the purpose of this ill-conceived effort? There’s certainly nothing conservative about sacrificing meritocratic hiring for the false promise of “cosmic justice.”

In truth, the left has managed to dragoon the right into carrying out its social justice agenda. Instead of attempting to roll back the cultural and political gains made by progressives, conservatives continue to play defense on progressive terms. By selecting judicial nominees on the basis of affirmative action concerns, Republicans are carrying water for the left. They’re also doing an immense disservice to historically marginalized communities. Adopting victimization language doesn’t help our cause either.

The moment is nigh for this to change. Conservatives have an opportunity to make inroads among those disenchanted with the excesses of the “Great Awokening” as millions defect from the Democratic Party. Another “time for choosing” is upon us. Will we seize the reins of history or cede them?

Bobby Miller is a student at Georgetown Law. His political commentary has been featured on Fox News, National Review, and the Wall Street Journal, among other publications. Follow him on Twitter @realBobbyMil.