Times, Post Mangle the Heaphy Story

Square peg, round hole, mainstream media hammer.

by James A. Bacon

Here is what happens when The New York Times imposes its national narrative upon a Virginia story: we are afflicted with articles with headlines like this: “Top Jan. 6 Investigator Fired From Post at the University of Virginia.”

“Democrats in Virginia,” says the sub-head, denounced the action as “a partisan move aimed at helping former President Donald J. Trump undercut the investigation of the Capitol riot.”

The Times quotes Senator Scot Surovell, D-Fairfax, as saying, “This is purely payback for Jan. 6 — there is no other reason that makes any sense. In our state, we normally leave those decisions to the school’s board of visitors and president.” Surovell presented no concrete evidence to support his speculation.

At least reporter Michael S. Schmidt had the decency to quote Victoria LaCivita, a spokesperson for Attorney General Jason Miyares, who ordered the firing. Not that it changed the way the Times framed the story, but she  directly contradicted Surovell thesis. “The decision had nothing to do with the Jan. 6 committee or their investigations,” she said. Timothy Heaphy had been a “controversial hire,” she added, and the decision to fire him had been made “after reviewing the legal decisions made over the last couple of years. The attorney general wants the university counsel to return to giving legal advice based on law, and not the philosophy of a university.”

One would think that LaCivita was in a better position to know why Miyares fired Heaphy than Surovell (or Congresswoman Elaine Luria, who peddled the same speculation to The Washington Post.) But rather than dig for controversial legal decisions that Heaphy might have made, the Times chose instead to flesh out his leading role in the Jan. 6 investigation.

The Washington Post pursued the same storyline: “Va.’s new attorney general fires U-Va. counsel who was on leave working as top investigator for Jan. 6 panel.” Demonstrating that it has Jan. 6 on the brain, the Post added ominously, “Heaphy’s firing could further inflame the tensions around the [Jan. 6] committee if it is viewed as an act of political retribution.”

The Post quoted Michael Kelly, chief of staff to former AG Mark Herring, who described LaCivita’s characterization of Heaphy’s hiring as inaccurate.

He said in an email that Heaphy was well-qualified attorney with decades of experience who had attended U-Va. Kelly added that Heaphy was the first choice of the school’s administration.

“Far from being controversial, his hire was celebrated by the university community and leadership,” Kelly wrote.

Remarkably, neither the Times nor the Post, nor Kelly, nor Surovell nor Luria paused to wonder why Miyares might have announced the firing of Brian Walther, university counsel for George Mason University, along with Heaphy.  Walther is not working on the Jan. 6 investigation. Could there have been a common denominator in those firings? Could Miyares have had a problem with Heaphy’s and Walther’s legal decisions…. as LaCivita intimated?

As I wrote yesterday in, “Begun, the College Wars Have,” the firing of Heaphy and Walther should be viewed in the context of the leftward lurch at UVa and GMU, where the precepts of Critical Race Theory are strongly entrenched — where, in fact, Critical Race Theory actually is taught (and not just in law school), where, in fact, the ideology has become a driving force of institutional change. Heaphy, I argued, has played a key role in enabling that leftward drift, outraging conservative alumni like those in The Jefferson Council (on whose board I serve). I suspect (but don’t know for a fact) that the alumni ire has been conveyed to Miyares.

The Times and Post know none of this because they operate in information bubbles that acknowledge no reality outside those bubbles. They know nothing about the issues embroiling UVa. They have never acknowledged the existence of the alumni rebellion that has taken root in Virginia and is fast spreading across the country. They jam the facts into their preconceived narratives.

The Heaphy story tells me two things. You can’t believe a [obscenity deleted] thing the Times, the Post and the rest of the mainstream media write about why Miyares fired Heaphy. And you probably can’t believe a [obscenity deleted] thing about what they write about Jan. 6.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

23 responses to “Times, Post Mangle the Heaphy Story”

  1. VaPragamtist Avatar
    VaPragamtist

    Looking at it from a different angle–what about the universities for which Miyares hasn’t fired the University Legal Counsel?

    I understand Virginia Tech has fully embraced CRT and now includes courses emphasizing the CRT principles as a requirement for graduation. Lawsuits have been filed against the University (which I assume are defended by the University Counsel). Has their counsel managed to stay apolitical enough to avoid a purge?

    Or is a purge at VT coming, but later? I understand Secretary Lohr’s daughter is the student body president at Tech. . .big moves can get very awkward, very quickly for everyone involved.

  2. VaNavVet Avatar

    There is misinformation galore regarding Jan 6th and the select committee may well be the only reliable source of the truth as the testimony is under oath. I am not sure where Miyares stands on responsibility for that attack on our government or on the “big lie” that spawned it. Apparently, for JAB, only the right leaning half of the main stream media is to be believed. Guess that it all depends on where you are standing.

    1. When it comes to Jan. 6, I don’t trust anyone to give the full, honest truth of the story. Everyone has an agenda. And that includes conservative media outlets.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Of course not. And my dollar to your dime, completely the opposite opinion about Benghazi.

        1. Opposite?

          So, you think he trusts everyone to give the full, honest truth about Benghazi?

          I think maybe I’ll take that bet…

      2. VaNavVet Avatar

        So just to clarify, the MSM does include conservative media outlets. Does that mean that we are not to trust Miyares either?

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Somebody has to replace Youngkin in 4 years.
      Virtue signal early. Virtue signal often.

  3. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    What was that word you used the other day? Oh yeah! Purge.

  4. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    March 2001. What happened to EVERY USA? Comes with the territory marked with a sign that reads, “I serve at the pleasure of the…”

  5. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    From the Scott Atlas book on the pandemic and his time in the White House:

    “No opportunity to inflame the voters was going to be missed by what I now believe is the most despicable group of unprincipled liars one could ever imagine — the American media.” P 123…

    I mean, doesn’t this change mean the guy has more time and attention to put on that other outside gig with the Congressional committee? Miyares didn’t/couldn’t fire him from that.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Easy target. If bashing the media alone could sell books, why I’d… oh wait it can.

    2. Larry Hincker Avatar
      Larry Hincker

      I had a similar thought. I worked very closely with my legal counsel and the staff at Virginia Tech and know that their plate was always full. How would Heaphy have had time for an external gig without it affecting workflow in UVA’s legal department?

  6. LarrytheG Avatar

    I sort of expected an explanation to support the ” he was a controversial hire”.

    Seems like an uncalled for low blow.

    We’re starting to get a feel for how the new AG operates… reminds me of the last guy in that role who was investigating UVA professors and such.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Herring fired as many or more. Timing might have been different, but not the result. Quite a few changes in his early days, including many I knew.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        you said it was a “at the pleasure plum job”, right?

        So, it’s normal to appoint new ones typically?

        If so, why make negative comments on the ones being replaced? Seem unwarranted to me.

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          How many get replaced varies, but certainly involuntary separations have happened before. Why is nobody asking how he could head a large internal legal office for a multi-billion dollar complex operation and ALSO be running some investigation for another employer? THAT is absolutely unprecedented….

          When it was announced that 30 or so got notice on the final Friday, I winced. Some via email. But in all honesty, no easy way to do that.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            I actually AGREE with that and that would have been an acceptable reason to replace -just say it. Don’t deny it and then say something like “controversial hire” without explaining it.

            I can’t tell if these folks are just plain inept or are going out of their way to make clear their partisan bonifides.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Herring fired as many or more. Timing might have been different, but not the result. Quite a few changes in his early days, including many I knew.

  7. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    What do you expect LaCivita to say?

    Since she brought up the issue of the legal opinions that Heaphy had rendered, it would have helped her/Miyares’ case if she had given one or two examples of the opinions they considered as based on “the philosophy of a university,” rather than on law.

    In the end, however, I cannot really find fault with Miyares’ decision. It was not necessarily retaliation for Heaphy’s role with the Jan. 6 commission, although the perception is certainly there. (It does not hurt Heaphy, but it does deprive the AG of a good lawyer.) Heaphy’s position was a highly visible, partisan one and a lawyer from the AG’s office should not be in such a position. Heaphy should have resigned when he took the Jan. 6 commission position, rather than taking a leave of absence.

  8. I think he should have resigned his position at UVA prior to becoming the lead investigator on the Jan 6 investigation. Managing such an important investigation has to be a full-time job in and of itself…

  9. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    What’s worse than being fired?

    Telling your boss that you’ve accepted a new position and that you’re giving notice, and instead of countering, or looking for a replacement, he sues to block you from starting your new job because you’re irreplaceable.

    Only in America.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Had you read that non-compete document? 🙂

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Yes, I read the ones I signed. None of them would have kept me from resigning and working for a competitor, just raiding my contracts, or former employees.

        BTW, I suspect the NCAs and NDAs will become the subjects of future Federal legislation. Some are quite onerous.

        The judge tossed the case yesterday.

Leave a Reply