has apparently falsely accused Harvard Law Prof. Lani Guinier of failing to pay Social Security
taxes for a domestic worker in her employ. They decry the irresponsible, sloppy journalism and
suggest it means the mainstream press can’t be trusted on other issues. Both cover their butts
by asking to be corrected, if they are wrong about the facts from 1993.
A few things bother me about this:
1993 being the Dark Ages as far as online newspaper resources, I have not been able to confirm
the facts here, either. I did find, however, the following excerpt in Prof. Guinier’s book Lift Every Voice :
Turning a Civil Rights Setback Into a New Vision of Social Justice (1998). At page 36, she is describing
the very first press conference after her nomination was announced, and she says (emphasis added):
“ the weight of my description of how prior administrations had tolerated actual examples
of intentional discrimination was more than the reporters wanted to hear that day. Afterwards,
my fellow nominees thanked me for what they took as a filibuster. From their perspective, I had
successfully distracted the press, whose interest in nonpayment of Social Security taxes could
not regain momentum”
So, the issue was out there, although I do not know the context and Guinier does not broach the topic
again in the book. Prof. Volokh tells me that no articles that he has found from 1993 mention the tax issue.
It would be great if Prof. Guinier (who is still very good at getting press coverage) could help us all with the facts — if the mainstream press doesn’t dig out some quotes by their morning editions to silence the gleeful naysayers.
“A Dec. 12 article incorrectly said that Lani Guinier’s nomination to head the Justice Department’s
civil rights division under President Bill Clinton was withdrawn because of a “nanny problem.”
There was no such problem, and the Clinton White House withdrew the nomination because of controversy over Guinier’s legal writings.”
(Dec. 15, 2004, 3 PM): Newsday issued the following Correction this afternoon:
By The Associated Press
December 15, 2004, 1:42 PM EST
In a Dec. 10 brief and story about Bernard Kerik’s withdrawal as homeland security secretary-designate, The Associated Press reported erroneously that Lani Guinier, who was President Clinton’s choice to head the Justice Department’s civil rights division in 1993, had not paid taxes for a domestic worker. A spokesman for her at Harvard Law School said there was no such problem, and the White House never indicated that there was. Clinton said he withdrew her nomination because of her legal writings on racial issues. The same incorrect reference to Guinier and unpaid taxes on a domestic worker was in a 1995 AP item about Clinton choices who had problems in the confirmation process.
update (Dec. 16, 2004): The Philadephia Inquirer issued this erratum on Guinier today: “In some editions of Sunday’s Inquirer, the Associated Press erroneously included Lani Guinier on a list of high-level White House nominees who had run into problems involving hired help. Guinier’s problems stemmed from her writings on racial issues.” See here for the text of numerous Corrections and Letters by Prof. Guinier.
New Year’s Day
nothing to report…
trashy house
honest and true
rustling in the wind…
river shrine boats
ISSA, translated by David G. Lanoue
has apparently falsely accused Harvard Law Prof. Lani Guinier of failing to pay Social Security
taxes for a domestic worker in her employ. They decry the irresponsible, sloppy journalism and
suggest it means the mainstream press can’t be trusted on other issues. Both cover their butts
by asking to be corrected, if they are wrong about the facts from 1993.
A few things bother me about this:
1993 being the Dark Ages as far as online newspaper resources, I have not been able to confirm
the facts here, either. I did find, however, the following excerpt in Prof. Guinier’s book Lift Every Voice :
Turning a Civil Rights Setback Into a New Vision of Social Justice (1998). At page 36, she is describing
the very first press conference after her nomination was announced, and she says (emphasis added):
“ the weight of my description of how prior administrations had tolerated actual examples
of intentional discrimination was more than the reporters wanted to hear that day. Afterwards,
my fellow nominees thanked me for what they took as a filibuster. From their perspective, I had
successfully distracted the press, whose interest in nonpayment of Social Security taxes could
not regain momentum”
So, the issue was out there, although I do not know the context and Guinier does not broach the topic
again in the book. Prof. Volokh tells me that no articles that he has found from 1993 mention the tax issue.
It would be great if Prof. Guinier (who is still very good at getting press coverage) could help us all with the facts — if the mainstream press doesn’t dig out some quotes by their morning editions to silence the gleeful naysayers.
“A Dec. 12 article incorrectly said that Lani Guinier’s nomination to head the Justice Department’s
civil rights division under President Bill Clinton was withdrawn because of a “nanny problem.”
There was no such problem, and the Clinton White House withdrew the nomination because of controversy over Guinier’s legal writings.”
(Dec. 15, 2004, 3 PM): Newsday issued the following Correction this afternoon:
By The Associated Press
December 15, 2004, 1:42 PM EST
In a Dec. 10 brief and story about Bernard Kerik’s withdrawal as homeland security secretary-designate, The Associated Press reported erroneously that Lani Guinier, who was President Clinton’s choice to head the Justice Department’s civil rights division in 1993, had not paid taxes for a domestic worker. A spokesman for her at Harvard Law School said there was no such problem, and the White House never indicated that there was. Clinton said he withdrew her nomination because of her legal writings on racial issues. The same incorrect reference to Guinier and unpaid taxes on a domestic worker was in a 1995 AP item about Clinton choices who had problems in the confirmation process.
update (Dec. 16, 2004): The Philadephia Inquirer issued this erratum on Guinier today: “In some editions of Sunday’s Inquirer, the Associated Press erroneously included Lani Guinier on a list of high-level White House nominees who had run into problems involving hired help. Guinier’s problems stemmed from her writings on racial issues.” See here for the text of numerous Corrections and Letters by Prof. Guinier.
New Year’s Day
nothing to report…
trashy house
honest and true
rustling in the wind…
river shrine boats
ISSA, translated by David G. Lanoue
silent dawn
the bird’s nest
full of snow
noiseless wind
icicles pend
from the bell clappers
birthday phone call -
your triple bypass
trumps my bad knee
[Dec. 13, 2004]
The Arrogant Nanny Set: I’m never surprised, but always appalled, to see that so many
people in the legal profession (and law enforcement, like Bernard Kerik) are so willing to
violate immigration and tax laws to get cheap child care services — even at risk of foiling
future high office. For lawyers, I think it’s behavior that deserves disbarment. The poor
working stiff and honest taxpayer get to subsidize these arrogant ninnies.
yesterday about children and parents and telephonic privacy. (see our blurb
yesterday) Let’s hope the Washington high court’s triumph of children’s privacy
rights over parental obligations and rights leads to better, truly “family friendly” laws.
I like the TaxProf’s idea for reducing the number of lawyers — let the males use laptops
our young folk may be moving away from law as a profession to areas where they will
be more productive and, hopefully, happier with their career choices.
I left a Comment that might bring a couple guys with straight-jackets to my door.
silent dawn
the bird’s nest
full of snow
noiseless wind
icicles pend
from the bell clappers
birthday phone call -
your triple bypass
trumps my bad knee
[Dec. 13, 2004]
The Arrogant Nanny Set: I’m never surprised, but always appalled, to see that so many
people in the legal profession (and law enforcement, like Bernard Kerik) are so willing to
violate immigration and tax laws to get cheap child care services — even at risk of foiling
future high office. For lawyers, I think it’s behavior that deserves disbarment. The poor
working stiff and honest taxpayer get to subsidize these arrogant ninnies.
yesterday about children and parents and telephonic privacy. (see our blurb
yesterday) Let’s hope the Washington high court’s triumph of children’s privacy
rights over parental obligations and rights leads to better, truly “family friendly” laws.
I like the TaxProf’s idea for reducing the number of lawyers — let the males use laptops
our young folk may be moving away from law as a profession to areas where they will
be more productive and, hopefully, happier with their career choices.
I left a Comment that might bring a couple guys with straight-jackets to my door.
from 