« Waste of Taxpayer Dollars on Misdemeanors Is Criminal, New Study Says |
Main
| Why Lawyers Rule the U.S. and What It Says About Our Culture »
Judge Tosses Discrimination Suit Against Columbia for Lack of Men's Studies Program
Last August, I posted about lawyer Roy Den Hollander's lawsuit against Columbia University, charging that the school had "thrown its influence and prestige into violating the
rights of men by offering a women's studies program but no men's
studies program." Seems that Den Hollander won't find vindication for men's rights any time soon because last week, Judge Lewis Kaplan of the United States District Court in Manhattan summarily dismissed Den Hollander's case, reports the New York Times City Room Blog.
Judge Kaplan rejected all of Den Hollander's claims, including a novel argument that Columbia violated Hollander's First Amendment rights by promoting the religion of feminism. Judge Kaplan found that "feminism is no more a religion than physics," concluding that the core of the complaint was frivolous. Kaplan also disagreed with Den Hollander's argument that the judge should recuse himself because he is a Columbia graduate.
The Columbia case might not have generated the legal outcome Den Hollander was looking for, but it did prompt student journalists to dig into the lawyer's background for clues that might help explain his anti-feminist legal crusade. According to The Columbia Daily Spectator:
Hollander, who now devotes his full time to men's rights, worked for ABC News, several law firms, and the Russian branch of security firm Kroll Associates. Through Kroll, Hollander said he learned that the wife he brought to the U.S. from Russia was a prostitute allied with the Chechen mafia. A scuffle with her -- including a brush with the Violence Against Women Act -- sparked Hollander’s activism, which has included a case against women's nights in bars.
He might have lost yet another battle, but Den Hollander has vowed to appeal Judge Kaplan's decision to the 2nd Circuit.
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on April 29, 2009 at 11:45 AM | Permalink
| Comments (2)