A female law professor who teaches how to sue the government for constitutional wrongs should not be protected from sexist comments of male attorneys?

It was reported that a law professor's complaint to disciplinary authorities about allegedly sexist comments on her blog made under a nickname by an attorney was rejected and the investigation against the attorney closed.


The "criticism" that Professor Leong found offensive (and wouldn't you?) was as follows:


“I think she has the right age, gender, credentials, and eager-to-please attitude for an ‘odd job’ I have in mind . . . Basically it involves the girl dressing up as a law professor, bending over, and trying to ask me questions about International Shoe while I spank her with a wet slipper.”


The "critic" also made the following comment about Professor Leong's arguments regarding the so-called concept of "racial capitalism" that she was making:  “Now that is what I call a gravy train or, shall I say, a luau train.  Law professors enjoying a free Hawaii vacation at some seaside hotel.  All they have to do is attend some ‘annual meeting’ of some ‘society’ where they pretend to listen to Leong yap about ‘pragmatic approach[es] of reactive commodification,’ while undressing her with their eyes.”


Both comments were made under a nickname.


Women in this country were taught for an eternity to keep their mouths shut and feel honored when males appreciate their beauty, even when women find such comments extremely offensive and demeaning to them as professionals.


Yet, to me as a female attorney and a professional, the comments above appear portraying Professor Leong as less of a professor and more of a porn star.  In other words, it may be perceived as defamation per se.  And in this case, Professor Leong had every right in the world to investigate the identity of the person who has made the comment and pursue him.


Defamation of professional character is not protected by the 1st Amendment.  People who make online comments about professionalism do run a risk of a defamation lawsuit.


What is worse is that Professor Leong found out that the person who has posted these comments is a public official, a public defender.




Public defenders all over the country are claiming of being overwhelmed with caseloads and having no time for anything.  This public defender, on the contrary, has plenty of time on his hands to make wet-dreams comments about Criminal Procedure, Constitutional Law and Constitutional litigation professor who happens to be a young pretty female.



When a public official is advertising his wet sexual fantasies about a female law professor online, and is insinuating, as read by an objective observer, that her work is substandard and the attraction to her lectures is the location where they are given and her physical appearance over which male attendees salivate, this is completely beyond the pale and, in my opinion, must be addressed by attorney discipline.

Moreover, I have no doubt that the complaint would have been granted if the complainant was a judge, so there is no cause for celebration here.

Attorneys are suspended and disbarred throughout this country for criticism of judges, even for criticism in private emails. 

But - Professor Leong is (1) an Asian;  (2) a woman; (3) teaches students how to sue the government for civil rights violations and (4) is not a judge, therefore, her complaint was dismissed. 


Therefore, she is expendable in the eyes of the disciplinary committee. 


I wonder if she can still sue for defamation.