What Did You Say?

Tagged with:

Victor Davis Hanson Op-ed: California University’s New President Vows to ‘Eliminate Whiteness’

Commentary by Victor Davis Hanson | August 06, 2025

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos.

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. Sacramento State is one of the many California state universities that offer a four-year program of education. It tends to be a little bit more pragmatic for teacher education, business, and agriculture than are the UC campuses, the nine UCs. And Sac State, as we call it, is near UC Davis. They’re kind of twin—University of California and State University—campuses.

They have a new president, fairly new—he has been there about a year. Dr. Luke Wood came from UC San Diego, as I remember. And he was famous, in that area, as a black educator who advocated a particular approach to the education, K-12 and college, of black students. And I guess you would call it “a rejection of white standards.” In other words, he believed that black students on test scores or GPA or by traditional criteria were not competitive with other groups because this method of evaluation was intrinsically biased or racist, or did not take into account historical disparities, Jim Crow or slavery, etc.

And so, therefore, he called this term, I think, “blacklighting”— kind of a play on “gaslighting”—that the way white people spoke about student achievement was intrinsically insulting to black students or had the effect of discouraging them. And therefore, you had to have a different type of vocabulary, a different type of approach for black students, in a way you wouldn’t for other students.

This is not gonna work. We have tried that for 50 or 60 years. And we’ve seen that the Great Society specialization and fixation on race did not work. It increased separatism, distrust, racial tensions. And I think we’ve seen that, in the last four or five years, reach a zenith with diversity, equity, and inclusion.

But here’s my point. Dr. Luke Wood just gave an interview to a conservative black radio host, podcaster host, in which he said he wanted to “eliminate whiteness.” He was pressed on that question very effectively. And he said, “Well, you wanna eliminate whiteness, but then that comes from white people. So, if you want to eliminate the manifestation of white people, do you want to eliminate white people?” He said, “No.”

But he found himself in a dilemma, a rhetorical dilemma, an analytical dilemma, because if you apply that logic and you say, “I want to eliminate blackness,” what does that mean? You don’t wanna eliminate blacks. If you say, “I want to eliminate Jewishness,” does that mean you wanna eliminate Jews?

So, what did he mean? He couldn’t define whiteness when he was pressed. Apparently, what he was trying to refer to—and I don’t think he had the knowledge or the historical background or the analytical skills to explain what he meant—but he’s talking about the dominant culture in the United States. And he associates that with “whiteness” because the Founders, of course, were 95% white.

The Founders came from a British empirical, enlightened tradition. But in fact, they were just one offshoot of a larger Western tradition, a Western tradition that began with olive-colored Greeks and olive-colored Italians in Rome. And it transmogrified into Europe. After the end of the Roman Empire, it was enhanced during the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the British/Scottish Enlightenments, the transference of Western culture to America under the Constitution.

What was it? It was an independent judiciary. It was a constitutional government. Tripartite: legislative, executive, judicial. It was an emphasis on individual inquiry, free thought. The separation from religious thought and government or the tolerance for free speech. The Bill of Rights. The free market system. The ability to make money in a capitalist free enterprise system. The idea that the military is separate from the government.

All of these ingredients were created in Rome and Greece—enhanced, modified, rejection, reappearing again during these various stages of Western thought. And then they were transferred to the modern world, and most prominently with our Founders.

But it’s not connected with “whiteness” necessarily. It doesn’t matter. It transcends its skin. It’s the only culture in the world in which you can be Chinese American, you can be black American, you can be Hispanic American, and you can be as Western as anybody else. It’s not predicated on white.

So, he associates this with whiteness. And he does that because he can’t define it. What would he say the dominant culture of America is if it’s not Western? I don’t think he can make that distinction.

In fact, African Americans are as Western as anybody. It’s just a matter of choice. Do you want to believe in consensual government or not? Do you believe in free enterprise or not? Do you believe in free speech or not? Do you believe in the separation of religious authority and secular authority or not? Do you believe in the Enlightenment and rationalism, empiricism, disinterested inquiry or not?

What’s really dangerous is that you have a president at a major university here in California—Cal State, Sacramento—who says he wants to “eliminate whiteness.” He’s trying to inaugurate a black scholars program.

This is in the age of post-DEI, in a very reactionary, retrograde approach, that you’re going to single out particular groups and you’re going to emphasize particular plans, programs based on the color of their skin at a time when we’re all trying to transcend it because when we have done that, it didn’t work. It created tensions rather than alleviated them. It created suspicion and distrust rather than ending such things. It’s a retrograde tribal thought that goes back to pre-civilizational ideas.

Whiteness, Dr. Wood, whiteness is Western civilization. Blackness is Western civilization. Hispanics are Western civilization. It’s a choice of the mind. It’s not the color of your skin. We are Western in this country. You call it “whiteness” because you’re angry, because you perceive particular discriminations or unfairness in the system.

The system says to you, “Everybody is equal under the law, only in the United States. They’re free to do what they want. If people are systematically racist or prejudicial, it’s a self-correcting legal system.” But what we do not want to do is emphasize pre-civilizational ideas that the color of our skin matters more than the content of our character and race is absolutely essential to what we are rather than just incidental.

Category:

Tagged with:

Admission Against Interest: Valley State University Honors College Director Brags About Race-Based Admissions

By: Jonathan Turley | July 9, 2025

“We accept virtually all students of color.” Those words from Professor Roger Gilles, director of the Frederick Meijer Honors College, may seem a bit odd to Supreme Court justices who believe that they ended racial discrimination in admissions years ago in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023). The college is part of Grand Valley State University in Michigan and still apparently uses race as not just one factor but an overriding factor in admissions. Gilles’s April 4, 2022, email to colleagues could prove the ultimate admission against interest. As detailed by the College Fix, he explained to the faculty that “we accept virtually all students of color, except in cases in which the student’s writing is such that we’re convinced they would struggle far too much in our first-year sequences.” He even boasted that “This year, in fact, we accepted a ‘Signature Saturday’ student with a high GPA but an SAT score of 880..!” That score would put a student below the 25th percentile. Gilles also said that race was the predominant factor in aid, stating ‘[w]ith the cooperation of Jodi in Admissions and Michelle in Financial Aid, we’ve tried hard to give most of the limited number of Honors-specific scholarships we award to students of color. This has been the case going back to Dr. J.” Dr. J is a reference to Professor Jeff Chamberlain, who was hired by the University of North Florida to perform the same function and is now an academic program manager for the University of Oregon.

The College Fix alleges that the university redacted portions of the email where the discrimination on the basis of race was discussed.

Despite Gilles appearing to defy the Supreme Court ruling in the Students for Fair Admissions case, it was clearly not enough for some. Professor Melanie Shell-Weiss wrote that “[f]rom a diversity standpoint, the needle effectively hasn’t moved.”

In 2017, Chief Justice John Roberts declared: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

In 2023, Roberts wrote in Students for Fair Admissions that “[universities and colleges] have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

These admissions could trigger a response from the Departments of Justice and Education under Title VI, which prohibits preferential treatment based on race or ethnicity. The government loves admissions against interest, particularly in the area of college admissions where most faculty and administrators rarely publicly acknowledge race-based selections.

Category:

Education, Law, Political

Tagged with:

Federal Judge Rules Against Student Who Wore a “Let’s Go Brandon” Shirt

By: Jonathan Turley | Jonathan Turley.org | May 14, 2025

Read https://jonathanturley.org/2025/05/14/federal-judge-rules-against-student-who-wore-a-lets-go-brandon-shirt/more at

We previously discussed how schools were making students remove sweatshirts reading “Let’s Go Brandon.” I have argued that the shirts should be treated as protected speech. However, United States District Court Judge Christopher Boyko just delivered another blow to free speech in rejecting a claim for such protection, at least as the basis for injunctive relief, in Conrad v. Madison Local School Dist—Bd. of Ed.

In the prior Michigan case with the sweater shown below, Judge Paul Maloney in D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools (W.D. Mich.) ruled that a “Let’s Go Brandon” T-shirt could be the basis for punishment:

A school can certainly prohibit students from wearing a shirt displaying the phrase F*** Joe Biden. Plaintiffs concede this conclusion. Plaintiff must make this concession as the Supreme Court said as much in Fraser … (“As cogently expressed by Judge Newman, ‘the First Amendment gives a high school student the classroom right to wear Tinker’s armband, but not Cohen’s jacket [which read {F*** the Draft}].’”) The relevant four-letter word is a swear word and would be considered vulgar and profane. The Sixth Circuit has written that “it has long been held that despite the sanctity of the First Amendment, speech that is vulgar or profane is not entitled to absolute constitutional protection.” …

If schools can prohibit students from wearing apparel that contains profanity, schools can also prohibit students from wearing apparel that can reasonably be interpreted as profane. Removing a few letters from the profane word or replacing letters with symbols would not render the message acceptable in a school setting. School administrators could prohibit a shirt that reads “F#%* Joe Biden.” School officials have restricted student from wearing shirts that use homophones for profane words … [such as] “Somebody Went to HOOVER DAM And All I Got Was This ‘DAM’ Shirt.” … [Defendants] recalled speaking to one student who was wearing a hat that said “Fet’s Luck” … [and asking] a student to change out of a hoodie that displayed the words “Uranus Liquor” because the message was lewd. School officials could likely prohibit students from wearing concert shirts from the music duo LMFAO (Laughing My F***ing A** Off) or apparel displaying “AITA?” (Am I the A**hole?)…. Courts too have recognized how seemingly innocuous phrases may convey profane messages. A county court in San Diego, California referred an attorney to the State Bar when counsel, during a hearing, twice directed the phrase “See You Next Tuesday” toward two female attorneys.

Again, I strongly disagreed with that decision. However, it has now been replicated in Ohio.

In his complaint, C.C. details how he was wearing a shirt with the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon” on November 25, 2024, underneath a flannel shirt. He alleges that teacher (and registered Democrat) Krista Ferini was bothered after spotting the shirt and ordered him to “button that up. I know what that means.” C.C. did so, but later, he was in a classroom that lacked air conditioning, so he took off his flannel shirt. That is when allegedly Ferini proceeded to write him up for the infraction. Principal Andrew Keeple then instructed C.C. to wear the flannel the rest of the day and never to wear the shirt to school again.

C.C. defied that order and wore the shirt again in January of 2025. While no one else complained, Ferini was reportedly irate and again wrote up C.C. Keeple declared that C.C. had once again violated the school’s dress code and that the shirt constituted a vulgar expression even though it contained no vulgar terms. He stated that further discipline would follow if C.C. continued to wear the shirt.

On March 24, 2025, C.C. wore the t-shirt again. While no one complained, he received a detention from Keeple. C.C. was disciplined on two other occasions for wearing the shirt.

The court ruled:

“While this case presents serious questions of student free speech versus a school’s interest in protecting students from vulgar and profane speech, the Court finds Plaintiff has not met his high burden to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits by clear and convincing evidence. While the D.A. case was on summary judgment and presented facts that are different than those before this Court, Defendant’s burden on summary judgment was a preponderance standard which is a lesser burden than Plaintiff’s here. Moreover, that case presented fact issues going to the reasonableness of the school’s interpretation. Here, as Defendants point out, Plaintiff acknowledges in his Verified Complaint that “Let’s Go Brandon” is a euphemism for F*#% Joe Biden. “In school speech cases where a school limits or restricts a student’s expression, courts must determine whether the school’s interpretation of the expression is reasonable.” “The student’s expression must be considered in the proper context but the student’s motivation or subjective intent is irrelevant.”

Given the strong interests of both sides, the unique characteristics of speech in a school setting, the finding by at least one court in this circuit that the school’s interpretation of the phrase as vulgar was reasonable, and the acknowledgment in this case by Plaintiff that the phrase is a vulgar euphemism, the Court finds Plaintiff has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits to support injunctive relief. This does not mean Plaintiff cannot win on the merits of the claim as discovery will likely provide clearer evidence on the reasonableness of the interpretation. But given the high standard for injunctive relief, the Court finds against Plaintiff….”

“Let’s Go Brandon!” has become a similarly unintended political battle cry not just against Biden but also against the bias of the media. It derives from an Oct. 2 interview with race-car driver Brandon Brown after he won his first NASCAR Xfinity Series race. During the interview, NBC reporter Kelli Stavast’s questions were drowned out by loud-and-clear chants of “F*** Joe Biden.” Stavast quickly and inexplicably declared, “You can hear the chants from the crowd, ‘Let’s go, Brandon!’”

“Let’s Go Brandon!” instantly became a type of “Yankee Doodling” of the political and media establishment.

This teacher was clearly put out over the political messaging of the shirt. However, we should encourage students to be politically aware and expressive. Moreover, if schools are allowed to extrapolate profane meaning from non-profane language, it is hard to see the limits on such censorship.

So, what if students now wear “Let’s Go Krista” shirts? How many degrees of removal will negate the profane imputation. Does that mean that the use of “let’s go” in any shirt is now prohibited?

C.C. and his family should continue to litigate and, if necessary, appeal this worthy case in the interests of free speech for all students.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Education, Free Speech, Law, Political

Tagged with:

“When Must We Kill Them?”: George Mason Student Captures the Growing Violent Ideation on the Left

By: Jonathan Turley | April 23, 2025

There is controversy at George Mason University after Nicholas Decker, an economics PhD student published an essay asking “When Must We Kill Them?” in reference to Trump and his supporters. The essay captures the growing violent ideation on the left, fueled by rage rhetoric from politicians and commentators. The danger is that, for some on the extremes of our society, the question is not “when must we kill them?” but “when can we kill them?”

On his Substack “Homo Economicus,” Decker warns that “evil has come to America” and that Trump is “engaged in barbarism” and seeking “to destroy the institutions which oppose” him. He then suggests that the answer may be murder and violence.

“What remains for us to decide is when we fight,” Decker writes. “If the present administration wills it, it could sweep away the courts, it could sweep away democracy, and it could sweep away freedom. Protest is useful only insofar as it can affect action. Our words might sway the hearts of men, but not of beasts.‘

“If the present administration chooses this course, then the questions of the day can be settled not with legislation, but with blood and iron. In short, we must decide when we must kill them.“

This is obviously just the reckless rhetoric of one individual. However, it is indicative of a larger and growing problem on the left where people are increasingly turning to political violence. Rage gives people a sense of license to break free from basic norms of civility, decency, and even legality.

Decker is an example of that unhinged hatred masquerading as logic.

I found the essay deeply depressing. This is a student who clearly must be interested in teaching, but has not only undermined his chances of teaching but has adopted the very antithesis of an intellectual life.

Yet, I do not believe that this essay should be the basis for prosecution. The university has referred the matter to federal and state authorities for investigation. I have long opposed violent speech from being criminalized.

As someone who has received death threats for years from the left, I do not take such viewpoints lightly. However, I have long disagreed with sedition and violent speech prosecutions as a general matter.

College is often a time when students dabble with extreme or controversial viewpoints. Most quickly return to the center and moderate their positions. Some yield to the impulse to shock or to unsettle others. Again, it does not excuse the chilling statements made in this essay. While Decker added that “violence is a last resort,” he still maintains that it is an option. He ignores that Trump is the product of a democratic process and that the legal process is working to sort out these disputes.

Trump is likely to prevail in some cases, but not all. Our system does not guarantee that you will prevail in such controversies, and failure to succeed is not a license to use violence “as a last resort.”

What I am more concerned about is the culture that is producing such increasingly violent rhetoric on our campuses. Many current faculty have long espoused such violent positions. Indeed, some faculty members continue to make the news for violent political acts.

It is now common to hear inflammatory language from professors advocating “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. One professor who declared that there is “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence as killing conservatives was actually promoted. That is the culture that produces this type of extreme rhetoric among students. These faculty members have normalized violent speech.

Of course, some professors have gone further and committed acts of political violence. Such conduct should be prosecuted and those faculty members fired. However, even in those extreme cases, liberal faculty have often rallied around their colleagues.

Years ago, many of us were shocked by the conduct of University of Missouri communications professor Melissa Click who directed a mob against a student journalist covering a Black Lives Matter event. Yet, Click was hired by Gonzaga University. Since that time, we have seen a steady stream of professors joining students in shouting down, committing property damage, participating in riots, verbally attacking students, or even taking violent action in protests.

At the University of California Santa Barbara, professors actually rallied around feminist studies associate professor Mireille Miller-Young, who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display. Despite pleading guilty to criminal assault, she was not fired and received overwhelming support from the students and faculty. She was later honored as a model for women advocates.

At Hunter College in New York, Professor Shellyne Rodríguez was shown trashing a pro-life display of students.

She was captured on a videotape telling the students that “you’re not educating s–t […] This is f–king propaganda. What are you going to do, like, anti-trans next? This is bulls–t. This is violent. You’re triggering my students.”

Unlike the professor, the students remained calm and respectful. One even said “sorry” to the accusation that being pro-life was triggering for her students.

Rodríguez continued to rave, stating, “No you’re not — because you can’t even have a f–king baby. So, you don’t even know what that is. Get this s–t the f–k out of here.” In an Instagram post, she is then shown trashing the table.

Hunter College, however, did not consider this unhinged attack to be sufficient to terminate Rodríguez. It was only after she later chased reporters with a machete that the college fired Rodríguez. She was then hired by another college.

Another example comes from the State University of New York at Albany, where sociology professor Renee Overdyke shut down a pro-life display and then resisted arrest. One student is heard screaming, “She’s a [expletive] professor.” That, of course, is the point.

This student is voicing the same rage that he has heard from teachers and commentators. The current generation of faculty and administrators has created this atmosphere of political radicalism and moral relativism on campuses.

I genuinely feel saddened by Decker’s essay because we likely share a desire to teach and to be part of an intellectual community. The most essential part of that life is to defend a diversity of viewpoints and oppose violence as a means to force ideological compliance in others. I hope that Decker and others in our community will come to understand that in time.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Crime, Education, Free Speech, Law, Political

Tagged with:

Biden’s Administration May Have Suppressed COVID Evidence Contradicting Chinese Claims

Commentary by Jonathan Turley | April 14, 2025

Below is my column in the Hill on recent disclosure that the Biden Administration may have withheld evidence contradicting the Chinese on the origins of COVID. Millions of Americans lost loved ones and would like to know who was responsible. It appears that our government and many experts were less motivated to find that answer.

Here is the column:

Imagine a world war that left more than seven million dead, hundreds of millions became ill, wrecked the global economy, and left a generation with lasting psychological and developmental injuries. We have seen such wars in history. What is different in this circumstance, however, is that all of that happened, and yet, years later, we still have no agreement on the original cause or possible culprits behind a pandemic that ravaged the world.

Worse yet, many politicians, experts and journalists do not seem inclined to find the answers. This is like fighting World War II and then shrugging off the question of what actually started it.

New questions are being raised over long-withheld evidence on the origins of COVID, information that contradicted the accounts of not just the Biden administration but also allies in academia and the media.

The Chinese first reported the outbreak in December 2019 and insisted that it came from a wet market in Wuhan — a natural or “zoonotic” transfer from bats sold at the market. Others were skeptical and pointed to the nearby Wuhan government virus lab, known to have conducted coronavirus studies with bats. This lab had a history of safety and contamination concerns.

The “lab-leak theory,” which was always the most obvious explanation, was further reinforced by scientists who saw evidence of possible manipulation of the virus’s genetic code, particularly the “spike protein” that enables the virus to enter the human body in a “gain of function” operation. There was (and still is) a serious controversy over the origins of the virus, but any debate was quickly scuttled in favor of the natural theory.

The Chinese immediately moved to crush any speculation of a lab-leak. Wuhan scientists were gagged and the Chinese refused to allow international investigators access to them or the lab in question. The Chinese also used their considerable influence over the World Health Organization and other groups to dismiss or downplay the lab theory..

Now, a long-withheld military report has finally been released by the Trump administration. It appears to confirm what was once denied by the Biden administration: U.S. military service members contracted COVID-19-like symptoms after participating in the World Military Games in October 2019 in Wuhan.

That contradicts China’s timeline. It suggests a longer cover-up in that country, which allowed the virus to spread not only to the U.S. but to countries around the world. Other nations also reported that their military personnel had fallen ill after attending the same games, suggesting that the virus was not only spreading but already raging in the area at that time.

The most disturbing aspect of this report is not the alleged conduct of the Chinese government, but that of our own. Rumors of U.S. military personnel coming down with the virus had long been out there. Republicans in Congress repeatedly asked the Biden administration about any report on the outbreak. Then-Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby told The Washington Post in June 2021 that the military had “no knowledge” of COVID-19 infections among the troops participating in those games.

Even as the illness associated with the games became known, the Biden administration repeatedly refused to confirm the U.S. cases, and a 2022 report was withheld from both Congress and the public. If true, the level of duplicity and dishonesty is shocking. In the U.S. alone, more than 1.2 million died and more than 111 million were made sick by this virus. Yet the Biden administration is accused of withholding this information from the world. Why?

This disclosure follows an equally troubling disclosure that scientists in the Biden administration actually found support for the lab theory but were silenced by their superiors.

Last December, the Wall Street Journal released an alarming report on how these scientists supported the lab theory on the origin of the COVID-19 virus. Not only were the FBI and its top experts excluded from a critical briefing of Biden, but government scientists were reportedly warned that they were “off the reservation” in supporting the lab theory.

As scientists were being attacked publicly and blacklisted for supporting the lab theory, experts at both the FBI and the Energy Department found the lab theory credible. Although no theory could be proven conclusively, it was deemed a more likely scenario than the natural-origin theory. The CIA also found the lab theory credible.

What the public was hearing was entirely different. They were hearing the same narrative laid out by the Chinese government in December 2019. The Chinese relied upon western scientists to form a mob against anyone raising the lab-leak theory as a possible explanation. Many were enlisted to sign letters or publish statements denouncing the idea. It became an article of faith — a required virtue signal among university scientists. The western media were equally primed to quash the theory.

After President Trump embraced the lab theory, the Chinese had the perfect setup. The media was on a hair-trigger in opposition and denounced his comments as not only unfounded but also racist. MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace mocked Trump and others for spreading “conspiracy theories.” MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt insisted that “we know it’s been debunked that this virus was manmade or modified.”

MSNBC’s Joy Reid called the lab leak theory “debunked bunkum.” Over at CNN, reporter Drew Griffin criticized the “widely debunked” theory and host Fareed Zakaria told viewers that “the far right has now found its own virus conspiracy theory” in the lab leak.

The Washington Post was particularly dogmatic. After Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) raised the lab-leak theory, he was chastised for “repeat[ing] a fringe theory suggesting that the ongoing spread of a coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged epicenter of Wuhan, China.”

The Post’s “fact checker” Glenn Kessler mocked Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) for entertaining the theory. “I fear @tedcruz missed the scientific animation in the video that shows how it is virtually impossible for this virus to jump from the lab,” he posted. “Or the many interviews with actual scientists. We deal in facts, and viewers can judge for themselves.”

Even in 2021 when countervailing evidence was surfacing, the unrelenting attacks continued. New York Times science and health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli urged journalists not to mention the “racist” lab theory. Social media companies also enforced the narrative and, with the coordination of the Biden Administration, experts raising the lab theory were targeted, censored, and blacklisted.

It now appears that the COVID outbreak may have occurred months before the alleged wet market release — months that could have been used to contain the virus. Instead, China is accused of suppressing the news and allowing the virus to spread worldwide. Our military personnel alone went home from the Wuhan games to 25 states, potentially carrying it with them. When information on these infections connected to the games was reported around the world, China even suggested that the U.S. used the games to release the weaponized virus.

In 2020, I wrote a column on why China seemed poised to avoid any liability for what might be the greatest act of negligence in history. The sheer size of the disaster somehow seemed to insulate China. As Joseph Stalin had once said, “a single death is a tragedy” and “a million deaths is a statistic.”

Try more than seven million, and you have a statistic that was not worth confronting the Chinese over. What was done was done.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Education, International Politics, Media, Political

Tagged with:

“Coercive Control”: Parents Could Lose Custody Under Proposed Colorado Law for “Misgendering”

By: Jonathan Turley | April 10, 2025

Parental rights are emerging as one of the major civil liberties movements of this generation — and one of the greatest conflicts between the right and the left in this country. For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled schools can hide a change of gender in young children from their parents. Now, Colorado is poised to pass a law that would threaten the custody rights of parents who “deadname” or “misgender” their own children. If a parent does not adopt a child’s new pronouns or name, they could be found to have exercised “coercive control” and lose custody in divorce proceedings in favor of a more enlightened parent.

As someone who grew up in an Italian family, I must confess that I thought “coercive control” of a parent was called . . . well . . . parenting. I can still remember my Sicilian mother brandishing a broom in front of our door to prevent one of my sisters from going out with a boy that she did not like. She simply declared “I gave you life, I can take it away” and my sister went back upstairs.

I admit the Italian parental style can be a bit shocking for outsiders and misunderstood by many. (My Irish father would sit bemused in the kitchen). In reality, it was all drama, but you knew that it conveyed not anger but love.

Under the new proposal, House Bill 25-1312, Colorado would use the “Kelly Loving Act” to make “deadnaming” and “misgendering” children a factor in child custody disputes. Referring to your child’s biological gender or given name or pronoun would now be considered harmful and abusive, inviting a court to take your child away from you as a coercive parent.

“Section 2 provides that, when making child custody decisions and determining the best interests of a child for purposes of parenting time, a court shall consider deadnaming, misgendering, or threatening to publish material related to an individual’s gender-affirming health-care services as types of coercive control. A court shall consider reports of coercive control when determining the allocation of parental responsibilities in accordance with the best interests of the child.”

So, the state will require parents to adopt a gender, name, and pronoun that they believe are harmful for their children. Many such parents may believe that a young child should proceed slowly and not make such changes as they consider the implications of such decisions.

One question is whether this would be limited to custody proceedings or eventually expand to families generally. If this is deemed abusive or harmful during custody battles, it would also be presumably abusive or harmful outside of such proceedings. The fear is that the underlying conclusions could support a view of a household being abusive and not being in the best interests of the child.

Notably, the Supreme Court will now be considering a Colorado case involving a ban on counselors offering “conversion therapy” for children. Under the state rule, a counselor can lose her license if she agrees to such counseling at the request of her parents. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit tossed the challenge, ruling that conversion therapy is harmful and the rule is part of an effort to regulate the healthcare profession.

Rep. Lorena Garcia, D-Denver, insisted that:

“This bill is the bare minimum of what we can do as a state, and the fact that we have to legislate for people to not bully and misgender and deadname people because of whatever insecurities they might have is sad to me. Why can’t we just respect one another? Why can’t we just understand that someone else’s identity has nothing to do with me or you?”

The bill passed the committee on a straight party vote with Republicans in opposition. I believe that the Democrats are not just ignoring parental rights but political realities. They will find that this is not a partisan issue. It is a primal issue. For parents, Democratic politicians like Garcia fail to “understand” that it has a lot “to do with them.” They are the parents of these children. If Democrats do not “understand” that, they are likely soon to find that out.

Category:

Education, Family, Law, LGBTQ+ AND TRANSGENDER, Political

Tagged with:

The American Jacobin: How Some on the Left have Found Release in an Age of Rage

Commentary by Jonathan Turley | April 7, 2025

Below is my column in the Hill on the rising political violence on the left. Many have found an irresistible release from both reason and responsibility in rage. A new study found more people embracing political violence. Joel Finkelstein, the lead author of the report, stated that “what was formerly taboo culturally has become acceptable… We are seeing a clear shift – glorification, increased attempts and changing norms – all converging into what we define as ‘assassination culture.’” Roughly 40 percent reportedly found it somewhat justifiable to burn a Tesla or even to kill Donald Trump.

Here is the column:

“We should replace our piece of crap Constitution.”

Those words from author Elie Mystal, a regular commentator on MSNBC, are hardly surprising from someone who previously called the Constitution “trash” and urged not just the abolition of the U.S. Senate but also of “all voter registration laws.” But Mystal’s radical rhetoric is becoming mainstream on the left, as shown by his best-selling books and popular media appearances.

There is a counter-constitutional movement building in law schools and across the country. And although Mystal has not advocated violence, some on the left are turning to political violence and criminal acts. It is part of the “righteous rage” that many of them see as absolving them from the basic demands not only of civility but of legality. They are part of a rising class of American Jacobins — bourgeois revolutionaries increasingly prepared to trash everything, from cars to the Constitution.

The Jacobins were a radical group in France that propelled that country into the worst excesses of the French Revolution. They were largely affluent citizens, including journalists, professors, lawyers, and others who shredded existing laws and destroyed property. It would ultimately lead not only to the blood-soaked “Reign of Terror” but also to the demise of the Jacobins themselves as more radical groups turned against them.

Of course, it is not revolution on the minds of most of these individuals. It is rage. Rage is the ultimate drug. It offers a release from longstanding social norms — a license to do those things long repressed by individuals who viewed themselves as decent, law-abiding citizens. Across the country, liberals are destroying Tesla cars, torching dealerships and charging stations, and even allegedly hitting political dissenters with their cars.

Last week, affluent liberal shoppers admitted that they are shoplifting from Whole Foods to strike back at Jeff Bezos for working with the Trump administration and moving the Washington Post back to the political center. They are also enraged at Mark Zuckerberg for restoring free speech protections at Meta.

One “20-something communications professional” in Washington explained “If a billionaire can steal from me, I can scrape a little off the top, too.” These affluent shoplifters portrayed themselves as Robin Hoods. Of course, that is assuming Robin Hood was stealing organic fruit from the rich and giving it to himself.

On college campuses, affluent students and even professors are engaging in political violence. Just this week, University of Wisconsin Professor José Felipe Alvergue, head of the English Department, turned over the table of College Republicans supporting a conservative for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. He reportedly declared, “The time for this is over!” Likewise, a mob this week attacked a conservative display and tent on the campus of the University of California-Davis as campus police passively watched. The Antifa protesters, carrying a large banner with the slogan “ACAB” or “all cops are bastards,” trashed the tent and carried it off.

Antifa is a violent and vehemently anti-free speech group that thrives on U.S. college campuses. In his book “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” Mark Bray explains that “most Americans in Antifa have been anarchists or antiauthoritarian communists. … From that standpoint, ‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”

Of course, many of the American Jacobins are themselves bourgeois or even affluent figures. And they are finding a host of enablers telling them that the Constitution itself is a threat, and that the legal system has been corrupted by oligarchs, white supremacists, or reactionaries. This includes leading academics and commentators who are denouncing the Constitution and core American values. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School, is the author of “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States.”

In a New York Times op-ed, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for the nation to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”

Commentator Jennifer Szalai has scoffed at what she called “Constitution worship.” “Americans have long assumed that the Constitution could save us,” she wrote. “A growing chorus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it.”

As intellectuals knock down our laws and Constitution, radicals are pouring into the breach. Political violence and rage rhetoric are becoming more common. Some liberals embraced groups like Antifa, while others shrugged off property damage and violent threats against political opponents. It is the very type of incitement or rage rhetoric that Democrats once accused Trump of fostering in groups like the Proud Boys.

Members of Congress such as Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) have called for Tesla CEO Elon Musk to be “taken down” and said that Democrats have to be “OK with punching.” Some take such words as a justification to violently attack a system supposedly advancing the white supremacy or fascism. Fortunately, such violence has been confined so far to a minority of radicalized individuals, but there is an undeniable increase in such violent, threatening speech and in actual violence.

The one thing the American Jacobins will not admit is that they like the rage and the release that it brings them. From shoplifting to arson to attempted assassination, the rejection of our legal system brings them freedom to act outside of morality and to take whatever they want.

Democratic leaders see these “protests” as needed popularism to combat Trump — to make followers “strike ready” and “to stand up and fight back.”

For a politician, a mob can become irresistible if you can steer it against your opponents. The problem is controlling the mob once it has broken free of the bounds of legal and personal accountability.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Crime, Education, Law, Political, political violence

Tagged with:

Jonathan Turley Op-ed: UW-EAU Department Chair Allegedly Destroys College Republican Table

Commentary by Jonathan Turley | April 3, 2025

We have been following the rise of political violence on the left since the Trump election. In reality, attacks on conservative and pro-life faculty and students is nothing new. Today, I am speaking at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill on free speech after a student recently trashed a pro-life table on the campus in Asheville. Now, on the campus of the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, a professor allegedly trashed a table of the College Republicans over their support for Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel. The accused José Felipe Alvergue, is not just a professor but the chair of the English department.

Tatiana Bobrowicz, the chair of the College Republicans at the school, said she set up the table supporting Schimel outside the student center about 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, with candy, doughnuts and literature. Then a man walked up and demanded to know what they were doing. He accused them of being too close to a polling location (which was located in the nearby student center).

Bobrowicz tried to explain that they were not in violation (which allows for tables beyond 100 feet) and that location was approved by the university. She then said that the man declared “the time for this is over,” flipped the table over and then walked away.

Bobrowicz immediately called the police and the UW-Eau Claire identified the man as José Felipe Alvergue, the chair of the English department. He has been put on leave by the university.

In his university bio, Alvergue identifies as “a member of the Salvadoran diaspora.” He adds this rather cryptic statement about “unlocking empathy”:

” I believe that we can’t unlock the empathy hidden behind words if we don’t understand what is at stake in the risk writers and artists take when they decide to transform the matter which makes up the world around them into the story words communicate.”

He is now charged with disorderly conduct, according to Wisconsin court records. While this is a relatively minor crime, it was a crime committed against both students and free speech on campus. He must appear for a court appearance on May 7. He would be hardly unique in advocating or even being convicted of political violence on campus.

At the University of Rhode Island, professor Erik Loomis defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. The University of Rhode Island was so appalled by his apparent support for political violence that it made him Director of Graduate Studies of History.

At Hunter College in New York, Professor Shellyne Rodríguez was shown trashing a pro-life display of students.

Unlike the professor, the students remained calm and respectful. One even said “sorry” to the accusation that being pro-life was triggering for her students.

It was only after she later chased reporters with a machete that the college fired Rodríguez. She was then hired by another college.

If convicted, Alvergue would be not just guilty of the underlying charge but committing political violence against students. There does not appear to have been mitigating circumstances or any provocation other than students who hold an opposing view from his own.

He then walked away rather than address the matter with the students and the authorities. If convicted, the question is whether conservative students should have to wait for Alvergue to find a way to “unlock [his] empathy” through what is clearly uncontrollable rage.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

censorship, Crime, Education, Free Speech, Law, Political

Tagged with:

Why Trump’s Right to Axe the Department of Education [Video]

By: Jimmy Parker | April 1, 2025

You ever wonder what would happen if the Department of Education had to compete in the free market? Yeah, it’d be toast before lunch. No bailouts, no excuses, just a long-overdue tombstone that reads: “Here lies a bloated bureaucracy that did nothing but burn your money and babysit mediocrity.”

But because this mess is taxpayer-funded, it’s still limping along, hemorrhaging billions while test scores plummet and administrators polish their nameplates.

Billions Spent, Nothing to Show

The Department of Education was created in 1979 — right around the time disco mercifully died. Unfortunately, only one of those two stayed dead. Fast forward to 2023: the Department’s budget was a whopping $79.6 billion — and that’s not even counting the $120 billion they tossed on top in pandemic relief. That’s nearly $200 billion in a couple years. For that kind of cash, you’d expect students to be splitting atoms or at least knowing how to spell “government.”

But no — math and reading scores are in free fall, American students are getting curb-stomped in international rankings, and colleges are forced to teach freshmen how to read at a 9th-grade level. We’re not investing in education — we’re investing in excuses.

Imagine If This Was a Business

Picture this: Ford spends $200 billion and then sells fewer cars with worse safety records and no innovation. Shareholders would riot. The CEO would be kicked out so fast they’d leave skid marks.

Now look at the Department of Education: same level of failure, but instead of firings, we get raises and more budget requests. Why? Because they don’t answer to you. They answer to no one. There’s no competition, no consequences, and no customer service hotline. Just taxpayer dollars flowing like a busted fire hydrant.

The Nation’s Report Card: F

In 2022, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) showed that math and reading scores for 9-year-olds hit their lowest point in decades. Not just bad — historic failure.

U.S. students ranked 28th out of 37 countries in math. Japan’s at the top. We’re chilling with the bottom third, clutching our participation trophies and blaming “equity gaps.”

And the kicker? From 2018 to 2022, our average math score dropped 13 points. That’s not a dip — that’s a nosedive with no parachute.

But don’t worry, the Department of Education is on it. They’re forming a task force. Translation: they’re going to schedule a lot of Zoom calls, spend $50 million on “equity consultants,” and absolutely nothing will change.

Bureaucracy: The Real Curriculum

Let’s talk about where your money really goes. Hint: it’s not teachers, students, or even books.

A massive chunk of the Department’s budget disappears into a labyrinth of administrative costs. Money filters through federal programs, state agencies, and school districts, shrinking like a bar of soap at every stop — until what’s left for actual classrooms is about enough to buy a handful of glue sticks and a couple packs of dry-erase markers.

Meanwhile, your local superintendent just got a new leather chair and a raise for… well, existing.

No Incentive, No Progress

In business, if your product sucks, you fix it. Or you die. Simple.

But in government? If your product sucks, you blame society, lobby for more money, and slap a rainbow sticker on the failure so nobody questions it.

Remember Blockbuster? They had the money, the brand, and the reach. But they didn’t adapt. Netflix ate their lunch, dinner, and midnight snack. Now Blockbuster’s a meme — and the Department of Education is headed down the same path if we let it.

Only difference? Netflix didn’t use your money.

What Needs to Happen?

Trump’s move to abolish the Department of Education isn’t radical — it’s common sense. If it were a company, it’d be delisted by now. We don’t need more bureaucracy. We need bold, state-led reforms that put parents and students first — not union bosses and overpaid administrators.

So what should we do?

Decentralize it: Let states handle education. California wants drag queen story hour and pronoun worksheets. Fine. Florida wants phonics and discipline. Also, fine. Let the states compete.
School choice: Give parents the ability to walk away from failure. That’s how the free market fixes things — it lets bad products die.
Outcome-based funding: No more blank checks. If your district can’t improve test scores, you don’t get a raise — you get a restructure.
Cut the fat: Fire the bureaucrats pushing paper and give that money to teachers who actually move the needle.

Final Thoughts

The Department of Education isn’t just failing — it’s making failure look like a strategy. We’ve built a system that protects mediocrity, punishes excellence, and gaslights the public into thinking more money is the answer. It’s not. The answer is accountability, competition, and local control.

If this agency were a business, it’d have been gone yesterday. But because it’s a government program, it lingers — burning cash, lowering standards, and calling itself “progress.” It’s time we call it what it is: a sinking ship that never should’ve set sail.

And if that makes me “anti-education,” then fine. I’ll wear it like a badge — right next to my “I prefer competent adults teaching kids” sticker.

WE’D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS! PLEASE COMMENT BELOW.
JIMMY

Find more articles like this at steadfastandloyal.com

h/t: Steadfast and Loyal

Category:

Education, Law, Political

Tagged with:

Davidson College Investigates Student for Speaking Out Against Palestinian and Transgender Positions

By: Jonathan Turley | March 23, 2025

Davidson College officials have launched an investigation into a student, Cynthia Huang, the president of Davidson College’s chapter of Young Americans for Freedom. In two separate incidents, Huang spoke out against Palestinian and transgender claims. In a disciplinary letter, Mak Tompkins, Davidson’s director of student rights and responsibilities, wrote that she was accused of spreading “misinformation” that could foster Islamophobia and transphobia.

Huang has previously received death threats from peers for criticizing abortion, according to the site College Fix. However, Davidson is investigating her because she distributed a pamphlet last fall titled “Five Myths About Israel Perpetrated by the Pro-Hamas Left” that argued that Palestinians are not a distinct people and rejected the premise of a Palestinian state. She was also faulted for social media comments by YAF about Olympic boxer Imane Khelif, whose gender was controversial during the 2024 Olympics.

Huang has refused to yield and cited, in an op-ed, incidents of being threatened and harassed for her conservative views on the liberal campus.

Her account is all too familiar for many of us in higher education. As I discuss in my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” administrators are often on a hair-trigger when it comes to conservative speech while turning a blind eye to inflammatory rhetoric.

I have defended faculty who have made an array of disturbing comments on “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements.

Yet, liberal professors and students tend to enjoy the full protection of academic freedom and free speech. Indeed, at the University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display.

The support enjoyed by faculty on the far left is in sharp contrast to the treatment given faculty with moderate, conservative or libertarian views. Anyone who raises such dissenting views is immediately set upon by a mob demanding their investigation or termination. Conservatives and libertarians understand that they have no cushion or protection in any controversy, even if it involves a single, later deleted tweet.

One such campaign led to a truly tragic outcome with criminology professor Mike Adams at the University of North Carolina (Wilmington). Adams was a conservative faculty member with controversial writings who had to go to court to stop prior efforts to remove him. He then tweeted a condemnation of North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper for his pandemic rules, tweeting that he had dined with six men at a six-seat table and “felt like a free man who was not living in the slave state of North Carolina” before adding: “Massa Cooper, let my people go.” It was a stupid and offensive tweet. However, we have seen extreme comments on the left — including calls to gas or kill or torture conservatives — be tolerated or even celebrated at universities.

Celebrities, faculty, and students demanded that Adams be fired. After weeks of public pummeling, Adams relented and took a settlement to resign. He then killed himself a few days before his final day as a professor.

I do not see anything in the Huang material that is not protected speech. The rationale that it is “misinformation” is revealing in that sense. Davidson is objecting to Huang’s views as simply wrong, enforcing a familiar orthodoxy in policing what administrators deem to be information or misinformation.

Higher education is based on the free flow of ideas, including those that challenge orthodoxy. Some of the greatest social and scientific breakthroughs came only after intellectuals were declared heretics or charlatans. Even if Huang escapes punishment, she will be subjected to an investigation as a chilling message to others who may not want to face such public scrutiny or controversy.

Davidson should instead investigate the handling of this matter and expressly bar the use of disinformation and misinformation as the basis for such disciplinary actions.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Tagged with:

University of Illinois Professor Prevails on Appeal Over his Use of Racial Slurs on Exam

Commentary by: Jonathan Turley | March 19, 2025

Four years ago, we first discussed the case of Professor Jason Kilborn, who was investigated and punished for using a pair of racial slurs as part of an exam in his civil procedure course. I was critical of the actions of the John Marshall Law School at the University of Illinois (Chicago) as inimical to both free speech and academic freedom. Now, the United States Court of Appeals has reversed a district court’s dismissal of his free speech claims. The UofI will continue to spend huge amounts of money in fighting the protections for academics in their classrooms. It is not simply administrators wasting public funds but spending public funds against the public interest.

Professor Kilborn’s Civil Procedure II exam described how an employee quit “after she attended a meeting in which other managers expressed their anger at Plaintiff, calling her a ‘n___’ and ‘b___’ [sic].”

The use of the racial slurs led to a complaint in a letter from the Black Law Students Association and later a petition which called for Kilborn to be stripped of his committee assignments and other reforms. The Petition stated:

The slur shocked students created a momentous distraction and caused unnecessary distress and anxiety for those taking the exam. Considering the subject matter, and the call of the question, the use of the “n____” and “b____” was certainly unwarranted as it did not serve any educational purpose. The question was culturally insensitive and tone-deaf. It lacked basic civility and respect for the student body, especially considering our social justice efforts this year.

The integration of this dark and vile verbiage on a Civil Procedure II exam was inexcusable and appropriate measures of accountability must be executed by the UIC administration.

My objection was to the measures taken against Professor Kilborn, which I do believe undermine academic freedom. He was suspended and put on administrative leave because of a complaint that in my view was a denial of his pedagogical privileges. He was ultimately denied a raise. He was also required to undergo drug testing, agree to a medical examination, and complete eight weeks of diversity training.

I was also concerned by the position of University of Illinois-Chicago Chancellor Michael Amiridis when the university disputed the claim that the use of the terms was “pedagogical relevant” or “necessarily germane to the study of civil procedure.” That is a statement that drives to the very core of academic freedom.

Just because Kilborn teaches Civil Procedure does not mean that hypotheticals raising racial discrimination are not germane. The best Civil Procedure teachers show how these rules can raise difficult political, social, and constitutional issues when applied in different contexts. Moreover, professors have been pushed by universities and various academic groups to incorporate greater consideration of social justice and racial equality issues in their classes.

Professor Kilborn wrote an exam question that included the censored versions of words that are commonly found in media articles and academic publications. For that, he was publicly suspended and ostracized.

An appellate court’s decision found the lower court erred in dismissing Kilborn’s retaliation claim without giving a full consideration to his First Amendment protections.

The panel declined to apply Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 418 (2006) as controlling. In that case, the Supreme Court found that public employees are not speaking as citizens when they make statements pursuant to their oﬃcial duties.” The panel held:

“We decline the University oﬃcials’ invitation to extend Garcetti to speech involving university teaching and scholar-ship when the Supreme Court was unwilling to do so. Nor are we alone. Every other circuit to decide the issue has recognized that Garcetti does not apply to university teaching or scholarship.’

According to a FOIA request from the University of Illinois system, UIC Law has already burned through $1.2 million in the case. Rather than discipline these officials who denied basic protections for Kilborn, the school continues to add to the costly effort in the court.

The question is how long the university will burn through funds to fight these core rights afforded to all professors.

Here is the decision: Kilborn v. Amiridis

Category:

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Flipboard

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Rotten to the Core

A.F. Branco | on March 19, 2025 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-rotten-to-its-core/

Education In America — A Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco 2025

A.F. Branco cartoon—The Education Department gets billions in tax dollars, but very little of that money goes towards educating students. It has all the appearances of a money laundering scheme, where money is spent on consultants and then kicked back to politicians. Now throw in teacher unions, and the kids haven’t a chance at being educated well.

BRANCO TOON STORE

Conservative Republican Rep. Harriet Hageman on Waste Uncovered by DOGE at Education Department: ‘Money Laundering at its Absolute Best’ (VIDEO)

By Mike Lachance – The Gateway Pundit – Mar 17, 2025

Conservative Republican Rep. Harriet Hageman of Wyoming recently appeared on Winston Marshall’s podcast and talked about the waste, fraud and abuse that’s being uncovered by DOGE.
Using the Education Department as one example, Hageman pointed out that while the department gets billions in tax dollars, very little of that money actually goes towards educating students. Where does the rest of it go?
Hageman suggests that it goes to consultants and then gets funneled back to politicians. She comes right out and calls this a form of money-laundering. READ MORE

DONATE to A.F. Branco Cartoons – Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

Category:

Tagged with:

The Best Thing Trump Can Do for Teachers and Kids Is Shut Down the Education Department

By: Jim Pillen | March 17, 2025

Kids sitting in chairs around a classroom table with teacher in the background — It’s beyond time to return education decisions to the states and restore local control, giving families more freedom.

Author Jim Pillen profile

Jim Pillen

Think about the three people who affected you the most growing up. For a lot of us, I’d bet at least one is a teacher or coach. It speaks to the influence and importance schools can have on our lives and education. Teachers are difference makers who help us, as parents, educate and develop our kids. But just as we don’t need Washington to tell parents how to parent, we don’t need federal bureaucrats telling our schools how to teach. Many classroom decisions are best left up to our leaders at the local level.

Last week, the Trump administration, under the leadership of Education Secretary Linda McMahon, announced it is following through with a campaign promise to rethink the size and scope of the Department of Education. I think it’s beyond time to return those powers and decisions to the states and restore local control, giving families more freedom.

Since the Department of Education was formed as a standalone department in 1980, we’ve seen its budget and workforce bloat — but we haven’t seen improved outcomes for students, parents, or teachers. We clearly aren’t getting what we’re paying for.

For a decade, I served on the Board of Regents for the University of Nebraska system, getting into the weeds of education policy and decision making for our state. One of the philosophies I brought with me from that experience into the governor’s office is that we need more accountability in government.

Just like a teen staring at a phone screen, too often the U.S. Department of Education’s bureaucracy has been distracted from its mission, and American education has suffered for it. We can’t predict the future, but we have to change something. Our kids’ education is too important for us to keep pursuing mediocre results that cost us billions.

For starters, American taxpayers shouldn’t be funding controversial culture wars through our schools. We should expect that our investment will be spent on teaching kids the essentials: math, reading, science, and civics.

There is a simpler, better path forward. By sending education back to states, we let those nearest to the student have the biggest influence. This is a pro-kid, pro-parent, pro-teacher, pro-school position. No matter the style of schooling families choose — public, private, homeschool, or hybrid — our lessons should be focused on helping our youth succeed, and you don’t need federal government mandates to do that.

In Nebraska, I know the type of people who serve in our schools. Our teachers devote their lives to our kids. We’re human, and we’re not going to get things right 100 percent of the time, but I’m confident in our ability to lead and ensure we’re addressing the needs of our students, teachers, and schools.

Because technology and research constantly change the way we learn, educators must be able to move fast in the classroom in ways some faraway cubicle worker in Washington can’t. Teachers and administrators are closer to the action and better prepared for this type of work.

In my state, we’re leading by making localized decisions: We’re rethinking how we invest and fund K-12 schools, raising awareness and doubling down on special education opportunities, and working with students and schools to ban the distraction of cell phones bell-to-bell.

Secretary McMahon’s stated goal is to make the state of education in America “freer, stronger, and with more hope for the future.” That’s a mission all of us should be able to get behind because there’s no politics in it.

Let’s focus more on how to help the teacher in the classroom who is giving our kids this week’s spelling test. Let’s figure out ways to better support dynamic, inspiring lessons. Let’s support the guidance counselor who is helping our students navigate adolescence while they make big, life-long decisions.

Let’s let our country’s kids — and education — reach the world-changing potential they have. That should be the American tradition. The Department of Education just needs to get out of the way.

Category:

Tagged with:

Nevada Professor Wins Major Free Speech Ruling Before the Ninth Circuit

By: Jonathan Turley | March 12, 2025

This week, the Ninth Circuit delivered a significant victory for free speech after Professor Lars Jensen won a critical reversal against Truckee Meadows Community College in Reno. Jensen had criticized the school’s lower standards. Jensen objected in 2020 and 2021 to proposed curriculum changes that he argued would have allowed remedial math classes to count for college credit. He distributed a flyer at an event detailing his concerns and warning that a student would be allowed to graduate from college while only being “ready for middle school math.”

TMCC Dean Julie Ellsworth told Jensen not to circulate his fliers during the break at the event, but he refused to relent. Ellsworth warned him that there would be consequences for his “disobeying” her.

In the two performance reviews following the confrontation, Jensen’s department chair suggested he receive an “excellent” rating, but Ellsworth gave him “unsatisfactory” ratings for “insubordination.” That designation required Jensen to undergo review for possible termination.

District Court Judge Larry Hicks dismissed the case in 2023. Now the Ninth Circuit has reversed Judge Hicks and found that Jensen is entitled to his day in court. Moreover, the panel found that Judge Hicks erred in refusing to allow Jensen to amend his complaint.

The panel applied the Pickering standard that we have previously discussed. The Court has held that, when a public employer retaliates against an employee for workplace-related speech, the First Amendment requires “balanc[ing] . . . the interests of the [public employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968).

That standard, in turn, triggers a five-part inquiry:

“(1) whether the plaintiff spoke on a matter of public concern; (2) whether the plaintiff spoke as a private citizen or public employee; (3) whether the plaintiff’s protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment action; (4) whether the state had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from other members of the general public; and (5) whether the state would have taken the adverse employment action even absent the protected speech.” Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062, 1070 (9th Cir. 2009).

The Ninth Circuit ruled that:

“Jensen’s criticism of the changes in TMCC’s mathematics curriculum addressed a matter of public concern. “[T]he preferable manner of operating [a] school system . . . clearly concerns an issue of general public interest.” Pickering, 391 U.S. at 571. The handout Jensen distributed at the Math Summit spoke to the preferable manner of operating TMCC, specifically its math department. Jensen described how the math department’s lowered standards would impact almost a third of TMCC’s degree and certificate programs and how graduates would consequently have inadequate math and technical skills when entering the job market. Jensen also grounded his criticism in the effect these lower standards would have on the community, noting that employers in the surrounding area subsidize TMCC through their taxes and expect competent graduates in return. The decline of TMCC’s educational standards and the resulting impact on the community is a matter of public concern.”

The ruling remands the case back to the District Court of Nevada, where Jensen’s First Amendment claims can proceed. He may also choose to amend his other claims as necessary to proceed alongside them. Jensen is also represented by Nevada attorney John Nolan, who brought the lawsuit and wrote the briefs filed with the Ninth Circuit.

Here is the opinion: Jensen v. Brown

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.

Category:

Education, Free Speech, Law, Political

Tagged with:

The Educational Cartel: How Randi Weingarten Finally Said the Quiet Part Out Loud

Commentary by Jonathan Turley | March 11, 2025

American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten is known primarily for two things: screaming into microphones at political rallies and making the teacher’s union an extension of the Democratic Party. However, Weingarten had an unintended substantive moment when she changed her earlier position on the elimination of the Education Department. Weingarten previously shrugged off the elimination of the department as not a big deal for education. Recently, she returned to her irate default in denouncing the elimination. The reason, however, was telling.

After Trump was reelected in November, Weingarten said that the elimination was not a big deal and that teachers had originally opposed the creation of the department: “I mean, my members don’t really care about whether they have a bureaucracy of the Department of Education or not. In fact, Al Shanker and the [American Federation of Teachers] in the 1970s were opposed to its creation.”

Now, however, Weingarten has resumed her natural state of being “really angry.” In an interview with MSNBC, Weingarten explained:

“That is why so many people are so mad about it. Because they’re just taking opportunity away from kids that don’t have it. So, billionaires – kids of billionaires, they have it, they go to private schools. Everyone else, 90% go to public schools. Don’t take away their opportunity. Sorry, I’m really angry about this … I’m really angry,”

However, it is the reason that is most interesting.

In a podcast, Weingarten explained that they have to avoid such “block grants” going to families. Host Molly Jong-Fast readily agreed, raising the danger that it might even support Catholic and religious schools. Weingarten stressed that “We know, for example, what Texas would do. They’ll use it for vouchers. So, they won’t give [federal funding] to the kids who have it now, they’ll just give it for vouchers.”

There is reason for Weingarten and the teacher’s union being so concerned. Florida allows for school choice and has demanded greater performance from public schools. Despite attacks by Weingarten and other Democrats, Florida has been ranked as the number one state for both education and the economy.

We have previously discussed how schools have been dropping the use of standardized tests to achieve diversity goals in admissions. That trend continued this month with Cal State dropping standardized testing “to level the playing field” for minority students. I have long been a critic of this movement given the overwhelming evidence that these tests allow an objective measure of academic merit and have great predictive value on the performance of students.

Many colleges and universities are returning to standardized testing after the much-acclaimed abandonment of the tests for a more “holistic approach” to selection.

However, public educators have continued to lower proficiency requirements and cancel gifted programs to “even the playing field.” The result has been to further hide the dismal scores and educational standards of many public-school districts.

I previously wrote about how public educators and teacher unions are killing public education in America. Many of us have advocated for public education for decades. I sent my children to public schools, and I still hope we can turn this around without wholesale voucher systems.

As public schools continue to produce abysmal scores, particularly for minority students, board and union officials have called for lowering or suspending proficiency standards or declared meritocracy to be a form of “white supremacy.” Gifted and talented programs are being eliminated in the name of “equity.”

Once parents have a choice, these teachers lose a virtual monopoly over many families. They are no longer a captive audience. If public unions want to maintain funding, they will have to actually improve educational results for these families.

You see, Weingarten knows that, like her, they are “really angry,” but not about the future of a union that increasingly sounds like an educational cartel.

Category:

Tagged with:

Wyoming Becomes 15th State To Enact Universal School Choice

By: Keri Ingraham | March 05, 2025

boy writing at desk — The act grants families an education savings account of $7,000 per student per year to allocate toward approved K-12 educational expenses.

Keri Ingraham

On Tuesday, Wyoming became the 15^th state to enact universal school choice into law with Gov. Mark Gordon’s signature on the Steamboat Legacy Scholarship Act.

The Cowboy State joins a rapidly growing group of states that have passed laws giving all (or nearly all) families statewide choice concerning their children’s kindergarten through twelfth-grade education. Those states are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.

The act grants families who choose to participate with an education savings account of $7,000 per student per year to allocate toward approved K-12 educational expenses. Education savings accounts with universal eligibility are the gold standard of school choice programs due to the flexibility they provide parents to select the best learning avenues for their children.

It also expands eligibility of the state’s existing pre-kindergarten education savings account program from parents with a maximum income of 150 percent of the federal poverty line to up to 250 percent. The amount provided to qualifying parents is $7,000. According to Gov. Gordon, “early education builds a very strong foundation. It’s important that when kids get to kindergarten, they have the grounding that’s necessary to be able to move forward, thrive and really do well.”

Wyoming Speaker of the House Ocean Andrew is a defender of education freedom and under his leadership the bill promptly passed the House by a 39-21 vote on Jan. 29. It then headed to the Senate.

Mid-February, President Trump applauded the leadership of Senate President Bo Biteman and urged every state senator to vote in favor of the bill. On Feb. 19, the Senate passed the bill with a vote of 20-11. As part of the Wyoming legislative process, a Joint Conference Committee was tasked to successfully negotiate the policy differences between the Senate and House, which was completed on Feb. 27. The following day, the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate both signed the bill, sending it to Gov. Gordon for signature.

Wyoming State Superintendent of Public Instruction Megan Degenfelder, who was voted into office in 2022, has been instrumental in providing a strategic plan for the state’s education system. She is a proponent of school choice and understands that it is a rising tide that lifts all boats. Of her six key initiative areas for education reform in Wyoming, “parental empowerment” are the first two words.

“As an economist, I know that greater choices lead to greater outcomes. I am an ardent supporter of universal school choice because even parents in the most rural corners of Wyoming should have the opportunity to determine the best education for their child,” Degenfelder told me.

Hats off to Wyoming leaders for embracing the innovative educational approach of a free market K-12 education landscape by enacting universal school choice. The market forces of competition will drive quality, spur innovation, and decrease costs, which are foundational for achieving the governor’s goal of a world-class education system in Wyoming.

Dr. Keri D. Ingraham is a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute, Director of the American Center for Transforming Education, and a Senior Fellow at Independent Women’s Forum.

Category:

Tagged with:

If you are a swan, Andrew, be a swan.

Commentary by Jonathan Turley | February 24, 2025

I am returning today after speaking at the Broadmoor in Colorado Springs about my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” Last night, I was approached by a student named Andrew who asked whether he should just remain quiet at his college, where professors routinely slam conservatives and teach highly ideological views as gospel. I went on a walk this morning around dawn and spotted this swan. I immediately thought of the young man who came up to me after my talk.

Andrew, when you find yourself surrounded by ducks, don’t try to be a duck.

There are three simple reasons. First, you will make a uniquely poor duck, and the flight South will be exhausting. Second, none of the other ducks are likely to believe that you are really a duck. Finally, and most importantly, you are not a migratory bird. You only go through this life once and either live it on your own terms or live an inauthentic life.

We have discussed how the current orthodox and intolerant environment in higher education has resulted in a culture of self-censorship. (here, here, here, and here). Surveys show conservative students are 300 times more likely to self-censor. Even the largely liberal faculty at leading schools report self-censoring to avoid being targeted.

This year, Harvard found itself in a familiar spot on the annual ranking of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE): dead last among 251 universities and colleges.

Yet, even liberals feel stifled at Harvard. Only 41 percent of liberal students reported being comfortable discussing controversial topics, and only 25 percent of moderates and 17 percent of conservatives felt comfortable in doing so.

During the Harvard debate, I raised the gradual reduction of conservatives and libertarians in the student body and the faculty.

The Harvard Crimson has documented how the school’s departments have virtually eliminated Republicans. In one study of multiple departments last year, they found that more than 75 percent of the faculty self-identified as “liberal” or “very liberal.”

Only 5 percent identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”

According to Gallup, the U.S. population is roughly equally divided among conservatives (36%), moderates (35%), and liberals (26%).

So Harvard has three times the number of liberals as the nation at large, and less than three percent identify as “conservative” rather than 35 percent nationally.

Among law school faculty who donated more than $200 to a political party, 91 percent of the Harvard faculty gave to Democrats.

While Professor Kennedy dismissed the notion that Harvard should look more like America, the problem is that it does not even look like Massachusetts. Even as one of the most liberal states in the country, roughly one-third of the voters still identify as Republican.

The student body shows the same selection bias. Harvard Crimson previously found that only 7 percent of incoming students identified as conservative, but the latest survey shows that number at 9 percent.

Some faculty members are wringing their hands over this continued hostile environment. However, the faculty as a whole is unwilling to restore free speech and intellectual diversity by adding conservative and libertarian faculty members and sponsoring events that reflect a broad array of viewpoints.

This ignores the fact that they depend upon professors for recommendations, and challenging the school’s orthodoxy can threaten their standing. Moreover, a recent survey shows that even liberal students feel chilled in the environment created by Harvard faculty and administrators.

In other words, these are ducks surrounded by ducks who are still afraid of quacking out of turn.

Even a mute swan is actually not mute and are known to trumpet when other animals (including humans) threaten their nests or cygnets.

In other words, Andrew, if you are a swan, be a swan.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

censorship, Education, Free Speech, Political

Tagged with:

Crimson Tide: Only One-Third of Harvard Students Feel Comfortable Speaking About Controversial Subjects

By: Jonathan Turley | February 10, 2025

Harvard has long been accused of fostering an anti-free speech environment and quelching viewpoint diversity. That was the subject of my recent debate with Law Professor Randall Kennedy at Harvard. A new report confirms many of the objections raised in that debate, including a chilling environment where only a third of Harvard’s most recent graduating class expressed comfort in discussing controversial subjects.

Some 89 percent of the graduating class responded to the survey. The study of the Classroom Social Compact Committee, co-chaired by Economics professor David I. Laibson ’88 and History professor Maya R. Jasanoff ’96, found that, with an overwhelmingly liberal faculty and student body, even liberal Harvard students still found a chilling environment for free expression at the school. And it is getting worse. The results show a 13 percent decrease from the Class of 2023.

This year, Harvard found itself in a familiar spot on the annual ranking of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE): dead last among 251 universities and colleges.

What is most striking is the fact that Harvard has created this hostile environment while maintaining an overwhelmingly liberal student body and faculty. Only 9 percent of the class identified as conservative or very conservative. Yet even liberals feel stifled at Harvard. Only 41 percent of liberal students reported being comfortable discussing controversial topics, and only 25 percent of moderates and 17 percent of conservatives felt comfortable in doing so.

During the Harvard debate, I raised the gradual reduction of conservatives and libertarians in the student body and the faculty. The Harvard Crimson has documented how the school’s departments have virtually eliminated Republicans. In one study of multiple departments last year, they found that more than 75 percent of the faculty self-identified as “liberal” or “very liberal.” Only 5 percent identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”

According to Gallup, the U.S. population is roughly equally divided among conservatives (36%), moderates (35%), and liberals (26%). So Harvard has three times the number of liberals as the nation at large, and less than three percent identify as “conservative” rather than 35 percent nationally.

Among law school faculty who donated more than $200 to a political party, 91 percent of the Harvard faculty gave to Democrats. While Professor Kennedy dismissed the notion that Harvard should look more like America, the problem is that it does not even look like Massachusetts. Even as one of the most liberal states in the country, roughly one-third of the voters still identify as Republican. The student body shows the same bias of selection. Harvard Crimson previously found that only 7 percent of incoming students identified as conservative. The latest survey shows that level at 9 percent.

There was a hopeful aspect, however, to the debate. Before the debate, the large audience voted heavily in favor of Harvard’s position. However, after the debate, they overwhelmingly voted against Harvard’s position on free speech. It is an example of how exposure to opposing views can change the bias or assumptions in higher education.

There is little likelihood that Harvard or higher education will change. It is like the old joke about how many psychiatrists it takes to change a light bulb. The answer is just one but the bulb really has to want to change.

At the end of the day, there is no real indication that Harvard faculty want any of this to change. They will continue to report the results of surveys and express deep angst and confusion over the results. What they will not do is meaningfully change their course in the hiring of faculty, admission of students, and sponsoring of debates.

Category:

Tagged with:

Universities Announce Plans to Defy Federal Immigration Enforcement

By: Jonathan Turley | January 31, 2025

With the election of Donald Trump, the federal government and both local and educational authorities are on a collision course over immigration policies. Many states and cities have reaffirmed that they will oppose any deportation efforts, including another recent chest-pounding interview by Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker. It is likely that the federal government will squeeze federal funding for sanctuary states and cities, though such efforts can trigger “commandeering” and other legal challenges. Universities may be in a more precarious position, but some like the Los Rios Community College District in California are doubling down on plans to oppose any federal enforcement efforts.

Various university and college presidents have reaffirmed their support for undocumented students and staff, including most recently Fordham University President Tania Tetlow. However, the Los Rios Community College District seems to have laid out a more concrete plan to oppose federal enforcement, a plan that was referenced in a January 28 email. The district covers American River College, Cosumnes River College, Folsom Lake College, and Sacramento City College.

The email states that “[t]here have been reports all over the country of increased immigration raids in association with Executive Orders tied to immigration enforcement.” It seeks to address the “[f]ear … widespread throughout the undocumented and ally communities about their safety and the safety of their families and loved ones.”

Just after Trump’s election, Los Rios published a “Compact in Support of Undocumented and DACA Students and Employees,” including the possible concealment of immigration status.

Here are the eight commitments:

Los Rios will do everything in its power to fight for the rights of our immigrant and undocumented students and employees and will always do everything possible to uphold the values of our institutions.

Los Rios stands with state and local leaders who have pledged to do everything possible to defend the rights and protections of immigrant and undocumented Californians.

Los Rios commits to advocating for a permanent legislative solution to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and a pathway to citizenship for our immigrant communities.

Los Rios will immediately provide additional resources to our Undocumented Resource Centers.

The Los Rios Police reaffirms its commitment to not participate in immigration-related activities, including arresting and/or detaining students, consistent with organizational values and state law.

Los Rios will protect students’ rights and confidentiality and will not share the immigration status of students or employees.

Los Rios, its colleges, and partners will do a full review of internal policies and regulations to ensure that we are doing everything possible to protect the rights of students and employees.

The Los Rios Colleges Foundation will create Dream Center Funds with resources for each college, administered by the Undocumented Resource Center on each campus. The Foundation will encourage other community members, employees, and private and corporate funders to give support to undocumented students to help remove critical barriers to their success, such as paying for DACA renewal fees, legal fees, purchasing laptops, and additional resources.

Number 6 is particularly interesting in promising an active role to conceal or withhold immigration status information.

We have been down this road before. Schools previously fought this battle over efforts to bar military recruiters. While I have been a vocal supporter of gay rights on many fronts, I was one of those who opposed the litigation that my law school joined. At the time, I stated that it was not only a clear loser on the law but also represented a type of hypocrisy: We insist that we cannot allow discrimination, but if money is at stake, we will allow it.

In Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (2006), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the federal government, under the Solomon Amendment, could constitutionally withhold funding from universities if they barred military recruiters from interviewing students. The Solomon Amendment denied federal funding to an institution of higher education that “has a policy or practice … that either prohibits, or in effect prevents” the military “from gaining access to campuses, or access to students … on campuses, for purposes of military recruiting in a manner that is at least equal in quality and scope to the access to campuses and to students that is provided to any other employer.” 10 U. S. C. A. §983(b) (Supp. 2005).

It is easier to limit funds for universities, but it can still raise constitutional problems from free speech to associational rights.

In Rumsfeld v. FAIR, Chief Justice John Roberts noted that such laws could run afoul of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine “if Congress could not directly require universities to provide military recruiters equal access to their students.” He then added:

“This case does not require us to determine when a condition placed on university funding goes beyond the ‘reasonable’ choice offered in Grove City and becomes an unconstitutional condition. It is clear that a funding condition cannot be unconstitutional if it could be constitutionally imposed directly. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 526 (1958). Because the First Amendment would not prevent Congress from directly imposing the Solomon Amendment’s access requirement, the statute does not place an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal funds.

The Solomon Amendment neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything. Law schools remain free under the statute to express whatever views they may have on the military’s congressionally mandated employment policy, all the while retaining eligibility for federal funds. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 25 (Solicitor General acknowledging that law schools “could put signs on the bulletin board next to the door, they could engage in speech, they could help organize student protests”). As a general matter, the Solomon Amendment regulates conduct, not speech. It affects what law schools must do—afford equal access to military recruiters—not what they may or may not say.”

The coming challenges could raise the question left open in Rumsfeld v. FAIR. However, the question is whether universities, particularly state institutions, want to go down this road of confrontation rather than cooperation.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Education, illegal Immigration, Law, Political

Tagged with:

Leeds Student Suspended for Column Questioning Gender Policies

By: Jonathan Turley | January 28, 2025

The student union of Leeds University has suspended a third-year philosophy and theology student, Connie Shaw, for what were declared “gender critical” views. Shaw’s transgression was to discuss her concerns over transgender ideology. We have previously seen student governments or bodies engage in such anti-free speech activities. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the school administration to maintain free-speech protections on campuses.

Shaw wrote an article, “Gender Madness at the University of Leeds,” questioning the university’s “gender expression fund.” She also interviewed Irish comedian Graham Linehan, an outspoken critic of transgender policies.

She promptly received a “notice of suspension” after she allegedly brought the radio station into “disrepute” because of her “social media activity,” according to The Telegraph.

We have previously discussed how free speech is in a free fall in the United Kingdom. This latest case seems to build on prior moves against “toxic ideologies.”

The cases out of Great Britain are chilling and mounting. A man was convicted for sending a tweet while drunk referring to dead soldiers. Another was arrested for an anti-police t-shirt. Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.” Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.” A teenager was arrested for protesting outside of a Scientology center with a sign calling the religion a “cult.”

We also discussed Nicholas Brock, 52, who was convicted of a thought crime in Maidenhead, Berkshire. The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire.

While most of us find Brock’s views repellent and hateful, they were confined to his head and his room. Yet, Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement: “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”

Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:

“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…”

Even though Lodder agreed that the defendant was older, had limited mobility, and “there was no evidence of disseminating to others,” he still sent him to prison for holding extremist views.

After the sentencing Detective Chief Superintendent Kath Barnes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing South East (CTPSE), warned others that he was going to prison because he “showed a clear right-wing ideology with the evidence seized from his possessions during the investigation….We are committed to tackling all forms of toxic ideology which has the potential to threaten public safety and security.”

“Toxic ideology” also appears to be the target of Ireland’s proposed Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) law. It covers the possession of material deemed hateful. The law is a free speech nightmare. The law makes it a crime to possess “harmful material” as well as “condoning, denying or grossly trivialising genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace.” The law expressly states the intent to combat “forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.”

Clearly, Shaw did not confine her views to herself. She wanted to engage and challenge others. She wanted to test her ideas against those who believe strongly in transgender values. Instead of an exchange of differing viewpoints, she received a suspension from further expression by the student group.

The fact that students took the action in Leeds should not change the significance for the free speech community. Universities often allow students to carry out anti-free speech agendas in the name of student self-governance. However, students come to our institutions to learn in an environment of free speech and self-exploration. Administrators cannot simply shrug and walk away as students seek to silence dissenting or opposing viewpoints.

The British government has created a culture of speech criminalization and censorship. This culture infects every aspect of life, from government to the media to academia. It even distorts the view of a group of students engaged in journalism who seek to punish the expression of opposing views. Rather than view this as a great opportunity for a passionate debate, the students prefer to silence or suspend one side in a growing debate around the world. In the ultimate doublespeak, they are enforcing a strict rule of intolerance in the name of tolerance.

I understand that the students have strong views opposing those of Shaw. Those are counter views that should be given the same opportunity of expression. Let’s have the debate rather than focusing on how to silence one side.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Tagged with:

The CIA Report: Why a Low Confidence Finding is the Height of Hypocrisy

By: Jonathan Turley | January 27, 2025

Every modern president seems to promise transparency during their campaigns, but few ever seem to get around to it. Once in power, the value of being opaque becomes evident. We will have to wait to see if President Donald Trump will fulfill his pledges, but so far this is proving the cellophane administration. Putting aside his constant press gaggles and conferences, the Administration has ordered wholesale disclosures of long-withheld files from everything from the JFK investigation to, most recently, the CIA COVID origins report. That report is particularly stinging for both the Biden Administration and its media allies, which treated the lab theory as a fringe, conspiratorial, or even racist theory.

Newly-confirmed CIA Director John Ratcliffe released the report, which details how it views the lab theory as the most likely explanation for the virus. Expressing “low confidence,” the agency did not reject the theory over the natural origins theory, which was treated as sacrosanct by the media and favored by figures like Anthony Fauci. (Other recent reports have contradicted the equally orthodox view on the closing of schools, showing no material benefit in terms of slowing the transmission of COVID).

The BBC reported that “the CIA on Saturday offered a new assessment on the origin of the Covid outbreak, saying the coronavirus is ‘more likely’ to have leaked from a Chinese lab than to have come from animals. But the intelligence agency cautioned it had ‘low confidence’ in this determination.”

The low confidence finding shows that the agency found the evidence fragmented and fluid. However, the point is that the natural origins theory and the lab theory were both viable theories. Neither was disproven or rejected. Other agencies like the FBI seemed to have a higher confidence in the lab theory over the natural origins’ theory.

Even a low-confidence finding shows the height of hypocrisy in Washington where politicians and pundits savaged any scientist who even suggested the possibility that the virus was man-made and likely originated in the Wuhan lab near the site of the outbreak.

This follows a recent disclosure in the Wall Street Journal of a report on how the Biden administration may have suppressed dissenting views supporting the lab theory on the origin of the COVID-19 virus. Not only were the FBI and its top experts excluded from a critical briefing of President Biden, but government scientists were reportedly warned that they were “off the reservation” in supporting the lab theory.

As previously discussed, many journalists used the rejection of the lab theory to paint Trump as a bigot. By the time Biden became president, not only were certain government officials heavily invested in the zoonotic or natural origin theory, but so were many in the media.

Reporters used opposition to the lab theory as another opportunity to pound their chests and signal their virtue.

MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace mocked Trump and others for spreading one of his favorite “conspiracy theories.” MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt insisted that “we know it’s been debunked that this virus was manmade or modified.”

MSNBC’s Joy Reid also called the lab leak theory “debunked bunkum,” while CNN reporter Drew Griffin criticized spreading the “widely debunked” theory. CNN host Fareed Zakaria told viewers that “the far right has now found its own virus conspiracy theory” in the lab leak.

NBC News’s Janis Mackey Frayer described it as the “heart of conspiracy theories.”

The Washington Post was particularly dogmatic. When Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark) raised the theory, he was chastised for “repeat[ing] a fringe theory suggesting that the ongoing spread of a coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged epicenter of Wuhan, China.”

Likewise, after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) mentioned the lab theory, Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler mocked him: “I fear @tedcruz missed the scientific animation in the video that shows how it is virtually impossible for this virus jump from the lab. Or the many interviews with actual scientists. We deal in facts, and viewers can judge for themselves.”

As these efforts failed and more information emerged supporting the lab theory, many media figures just looked at their shoes and shrugged. Others became more ardent. In 2021, New York Times science and health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli was still calling on reporters not to mention the “racist” lab theory.

In Kessler’s case, he wrote that the lab theory was “suddenly credible” as if it had sprung from the head of Zeus rather than having been supported for years by scientists, many of whom had been canceled and banned.

As these figures were attacking reports, Biden officials were sitting on these reports. Figures like Fauci did nothing to support those academics being canceled or censored for raising the theory.

The very figures claiming to battle “disinformation” were suppressing opposing views that have now been vindicated as credible. It was not only the lab theory. In my recent book, I discuss how signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration were fired or disciplined by their schools or associations for questioning COVID-19 policies.

The suppression of the lab theory proves the ultimate fallacy of censorship. Throughout history, censorship has never succeeded. It has never stopped a single idea or a movement. It has a perfect failure rate. Ideas, like water, have a way of finding their way out in time.

Yet, as the last few years have shown, it does succeed in imposing costs on those with dissenting views. For years, figures like Bhattacharya (who was recently awarded the prestigious Intellectual Freedom Award by the American Academy of Sciences and Letters) were hounded and marginalized.

Others opposed Bhattacharya’s right to offer his scientific views, even under oath. For example, in one hearing, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) expressed disgust that Bhattacharya was even allowed to testify as “a purveyor of COVID-19 misinformation.”

Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik decried an event associated with Bhattacharya, writing that “we’re living in an upside-down world” because Stanford University allowed dissenting scientists to speak at a scientific forum. Hiltzik also wrote a column titled “The COVID lab leak claim isn’t just an attack on science, but a threat to public health.”

One of the saddest aspects of this story is that many of these figures in government, academia and the media were not necessarily trying to shield China. Some were motivated by their investment in the narrative while others were drawn by the political and personal benefits that came from joining the mob against a minority of scientists.

The CIA report obviously does not resolve this debate, but it shows that there is a legitimate debate despite the overwhelming message of the media and the attacks on scientists. Of course, the same media and political figures responsible for this culture of intimidation have simply moved on. The value of an alliance with the media is that such embarrassing contradictions are not reported. At most, these figures shrug and turn to the next subject for groupthink and mob action.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

NB: This column was changed shortly after publication to add the link to the meaning of “low confidence” in the CIA report and to repeat that the issue is not which theory is correct, but that neither theory was found dispositive or invalid. Other media links were added as background.

Category:

Tagged with:

Free Speake: Music Professor to Sue Over Cancel Campaign

By: Jonathan Turley | January 15, 2025

Martin Speake, a British jazz “composer, saxophonist, academic and educator” is preparing a lawsuit against Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance over a cancel campaign that targeted him after he criticized the school’s “BLM/anti-racist policies and initiatives” and denied that there was “systemic racial inequality in the UK jazz scene.” His case is strikingly similar to other targeted professors discussed in my recent book on free speech.

The controversy began when Speake was asked to give feedback on the policies. As he later explained, he was immediately set upon by critics calling him a racist. He stressed his bona fides:

“I hold a true and genuine belief in the equality and dignity of all human beings. I have been politically expressive about this and was even arrested in 1977 for protesting against the National Front. More recently, I co-organised the initiative ‘Long Tones for Peace’ in London’s Union Chapel, with the aim of inspiring the peaceful co-existence of all people worldwide.”

They did not help.

Sometime later I forwarded this email to a student with whom I had had a stimulating conversation on the topic earlier that day. This student showed the email to some peers, but didn’t forward it to anyone. Nevertheless, as some students heard about it, the email began to attract some discontent and speculation within the student body. TL [Trinity Laban] then halted my teaching and pressured me to consent to the circulation of my email to the entire jazz department.

Speake said that Trinity Laban “threatened” him with “disciplinary action,” and he was subjected to the all-too-familiar cancel campaign, including a boycott of his classes.

Students complained that his view of the jazz community had “affected their mental health” and a Change.org petition created by “Distressed Student” complained of being “deeply affected” by Speake’s view and how it “perpetuated harmful and defamatory narratives about black musicians in the jazz industry.”

Most disturbing may have been the knee-jerk reaction of the London Jazz Orchestra. Speake was the lead alto saxophonist for 15 years, but he was requested to take a leave of absence. So, the London Jazz Orchestra forced a musician to take leave after he exercised his free speech rights. He would not have faced such action if he had supported the policies. He had voiced a dissenting note on such policies, and the Orchestra tossed a fellow artist to the curb.

So, Speake is now persona non grata because, by offering his view of these policies, he allegedly showed a “lack of sensitivity” and “created an uncomfortable and distressing learning environment.”

Speake later announced that “with a very heavy heart I had no choice but to resign from my post with [Trinity Laban] in November 2024 as my working environment had become unbearable.” He has filed a complaint against Trinity Laban.

George Gershwin once said that “life is a lot like jazz… it’s best when you improvise.” However, Trinity Laban and the London Jazz Orchestra would add that musicians should not take such freedom beyond their music. Improvisation in speech is likely to get you canceled. When it comes to free speech, the jazz community is perfectly Gregorian.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Tagged with:

North Dakota State University Under Fire Over “Violent Speech” Policy

By: Jonathan Turley | January 15, 2025

This week, North Dakota State University is under fire for its statement of diversity, equity, and inclusion goals, including from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The university issued a “statement of inclusivity” that included a pledge to combat “violence in language or in action.” The notion of “violent speech” is a touchstone for the anti-free speech community, which treats the expression of viewpoints as akin to physical attacks on students.

While this is merely a university statement, the inclusion of combatting violent speech as a priority was concerning for many. As I have previously written in columns and my recent book on free speech, violent speech has long been a rallying cry in higher education.

The redefinition of opposing views as “violence” is a favorite excuse for violent groups like Antifa, which continue to physically assault speakers with pro-life and other disfavored views. As explained by Rutgers Professor Mark Bray in his “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” the group believes that “‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”

As one Antifa member explained, free speech is a “nonargument…you have the right to speak but you also have the right to be shut up.” When people criticized Antifa for its violent philosophy, MSNBC’s Joy Reid responded to the critics that “you might be the fascist.”

The Pride Office website at the University of Colorado (Boulder) declared that misgendering people can be considered an “act of violence.”

University of Michigan economics professor Justin Wolfers declared that some of those boycotting the store Target over its line of Pride Month clothing were engaging in “literal terrorism.” (He insists that he was referring to those confronting Target employees.)

The diversity, equity, and inclusion statement at North Dakota State University maintains that the College of Business aims to help students “feel safe” and provide “space to be their own person.” However, the question is how treating speech as violence provides a safe space for free speech on campus.

Blurring the line between speech and violence can lead to censorship and viewpoint intolerance at a university. Speech directed at individuals to threaten them is actionable and potentially criminal. However, sweeping claims that speech is violence are the mantra being used in higher education to rationalize speech codes and censorship. Free speech requires bright lines of protection to avoid the chilling effect of arbitrary or capricious enforcement.

North Dakota State University would be wise to revise its policy statement.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Originally published by The Washington Stand

Tagged with:

Snail Darter RIP: The Species that Shut Down the Tellico Dam May Not Actually Exist

By: Jonathan Turley | January 9, 2025

In the annals of environmental law, no creature is more famous than the Snail Darter, the endangered species that shut down completion of the Tellico Dam in the 1970s. It required congressional legislation to allow the dam to be finished after years in the courts where judges maintained that the species had to be protected under the Endangered Species Act. According to the New York Times., the species may turn out to be as mythical as a unicorn.

The controversy began in 1967 when the Tennessee Valley Authority started constructing a dam on the Little Tennessee River, roughly 20 miles outside Knoxville. Environmentalists and locals opposed the project and, in 1973, a zoologist at the University of Tennessee named David Etnier went snorkeling with his students and found a possible solution. He spotted a small fish and called it a “snail darter” because of its movements and eating habits. He reportedly announced, “Here’s a little fish that might save your farm.”

Dr. Zygmunt Plater, an environmental law professor at Boston College, represented the snail darter before the Supreme Court. He did an excellent job, and, in 1978, the Supreme Court ruled that “the Endangered Species Act prohibits impoundment of the Little Tennessee River by the Tellico Dam” to protect the endangered snail darters.

That was then.

The Times now quotes Thomas Near, the curator of ichthyology at the Yale Peabody Museum who leads a fish biology lab at the university, that “there is, technically, no snail darter.” Worse yet, it was actually just another member of the eastern population of Percina uranidea, or stargazing darters, which is not considered endangered. Near and his colleagues have published the results in Current Biology

In other words, years of litigation and millions of dollars were spent on what was a false claim, and the courts accepted the claims hook, line, and sinker.

Under the ESA, the snail darter was listed as protected and therefore triggered Section 7 of the Act barring federal agencies from undertaking actions that could jeopardize a species’ survival or destroy any of its critical habitat.

In Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978), Chief Justice Warren Burger noted that the finding of this “previously unknown species of perch” changed everything on a legal level. He added:

“Until recently, the finding of a new species of animal life would hardly generate a cause celebre. This is particularly so in the case of darters, of which there are approximately 130 known species, 8 to 10 of these having been identified only in the last five years. The moving force behind the snail darter’s sudden fame came some four months after its discovery, when the Congress passed the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), 87 Stat. 884, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. (1976 ed.).”

Plater insisted that Dr. Near is merely a “lumper” who tends to rely on genetics rather than being a “splitter” who proliferates new species. Dr. Plater added that “whether he intends it or not, lumping is a great way to cut back on the Endangered Species Act.”

That was a particularly revealing point from the law professor since it suggests what could be an overwhelming motive could be legal and not scientific in declaring the new species — the very objection raised in the litigation and denied by many advocates.

Roughly three years ago, the government declared victory in restoring the snail darter and the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed removing it from the ESA list of threatened species.

Category:

Education, Green New Deal, Political

Tagged with:

Christian School Shooter Manifesto Documents Family Breakdown

By: Ben Johnson | December 18, 2024

Yellow crime scene tape drapes around a black school sign with white lettering for Abundant Life Christian School. — Crime scene tape stretches around Abundant Life Christian School as police continue to investigate the shooting committed by 15-year-old student Natalie Rupnow on Dec. 17, in Madison, Wisconsin. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Just days before Christian students’ scheduled vacation to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, a lonely and radicalized high school student opened fire inside Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin, killing two people and wounding six more. Police say 15-year-old Natalie Rupnow, who went by the name “Samantha,” opened fire with a 9mm handgun during study hall before turning the gun on herself. Now, an apparent manifesto shows the child’s turbulent home life, isolation, adoption of neo-Nazi views, idolization of school shooters, and her wish to further “evolution” drove her to the brink.

Two Remain in Critical Condition

Rupnow attended Abundant Life, a Christian school founded in 1978, with approximately 400 students from kindergarten through high school, serving 200 families across 56 churches in Dane County. She opened fire in a room of students of mixed ages, killing one teenage student and one teacher. Six people were injured: one teacher and five students. Two of the victims were released from SSM Health St. Mary’s Hospital on Monday. Two victims remain in critical condition.

A second grade teacher called 911 to report the shooting at 10:57 a.m. (The local police chief originally reported erroneously that a second grade student made the call.) Police officers responded to the scene immediately, with 17 ambulances and numerous fire trucks. Law enforcement officers found Rupnow bleeding profusely from an apparently self-inflicted gunshot at 11:05 a.m. Rupnow was pronounced dead from suicide in the ambulance en route to a local hospital. The school notified parents at 11:29 a.m.

Rebekah Smith, the mother of a fellow student, told The New York Times that she believed Rupnow had enrolled as a new student in the Christian school at the beginning of the year, in hopes it would help her turn her life around.

The school does not have a metal detector or dedicated, on-campus security personnel, but has security protocols and participated in a government program to harden soft targets against mass shootings. The school kept all doors locked, conducted lockdown and evacuation drills, and broadcast an announcement telling students, “Lockdown. This is not a drill.” Pastor Kellen Lewis, whose four children attend the school, said its safety measures “probably helped save some lives” and “gave my kids that very important sense of agency—that no matter what was going on, they knew what to do.”

Parents and community leaders continue searching for what drove the teenager to murder her fellow students, with many drawing a parallel between Rupnow’s shooting and last March’s mass shooting at Nashville’s Covenant School by Audrey “Aidan” Hale. The 28-year-old Hale, who identified as transgender, killed six people: three children in the third grade class and three adults.

“I don’t know whether [the shooter] was transgender or not,” said Shon Barnes, police chief in the famously liberal city of Madison, on Monday. “I don’t think that whatever happened today has anything to do with how she or he or they may have wanted to identify. And I wish people would kind of leave their own personal biases out of this.”

“At this time, identifying a motive is our top priority. But at this time, it appears that the motive was a combination of factors,” Barnes added Tuesday. Police have begun scouring social media profiles identified with Rupnow, saying she appears to have idolized school shooters and adopted the neo-Nazi views espoused by the Columbine shooters.

A purported manifesto may offer insight into the mixture of toxic traits that sent the 15-year-old over the edge.

Purported Manifesto Shows Divorce, Hatred of Humanity, Racism, and Support for ‘the Revolution’

One link on Rupnow’s social media accounts linked to a document purported to be her manifesto. A reporter for Reduxx said, after speaking with Rupnow’s boyfriend, she verified the authenticity of a six-page manifesto titled “War Against Humanity.” In it, Rupnow expresses her admiration for the Columbine High School shooters, as well as racial collectivist terrorist Patrick Crusius, and Brazilian school shooter Guilherme Taucci.

“Humanity is filth,” she wrote. “My parents are scum.” The document notes her parents divorced, although she claims it did not affect her at all.

“I’ve grown to hate people, and society,” she wrote. “[A]ll of you and the world have done is pick on me and tease me.” Rupnow wrote of “getting teased and pushed around” at school, where “I always got picked on.”

“My so-called family never included me because I was too weird for them. … My father will always make me stand out in the worst possible way,” stated the manifesto. “I hate humanity for forcing me into this little hole.”

The manifesto expresses profound isolation, which observers believe she filled with harmful online content. “[M]y parents admit they didn’t want me. … I’m always the one who sat out or sat in another room because they didn’t want to interact with me at any point in time, then I stayed in my room all day long and all night and after and before school as well,” she wrote.

“I planned on shooting myself a while ago, but I thought maybe its [sic] better for evolution” to engage in a mass shooting.

Rupnow engages in racially charged rhetoric, indicating another possible motive for her shooting.

“The human scum is color, and how people are raised,” she wrote. She also used a racial epithet for black people.

“The Revolution should be well,” she said. “I am part of the real thought and the real revolution.”

“We need revolution,” she insisted.

“The wolf hunts its prey. … There is nothing more than filth,” the document concluded.

Police are aware of the manifesto but have not officially said Rupnow authored it. “A document about this shooting is circulating at this time on social media, but we have not verified its authenticity,” said Barnes.

Democrats Promote Gun Control

Democrats seized on the tragedy to promote gun control legislation. “Jill and I are praying for all the victims today,” said President Joe Biden in a statement released Monday, before pivoting promptly to eroding Americans’ Second Amendment rights. “Congress must pass commonsense gun safety laws: Universal background checks. A national red flag law. A ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.” Vice President Kamala Harris promoted a similar litany of gun restrictions Monday evening, including regulations of how law-abiding citizens store firearms at home.

None of those proposals would have apparently affected the Abundant Life Christian School shooting. “I got the weapons by lies and manipulation and my fathers [sic] stupidity,” wrote Rupnow in her alleged manifesto. “There would have been no way to change what has happened.”

A Family in Crisis

Family experts say family breakdown leads to loneliness, which can lead to resentment and online radicalization. “This seems to be a family in crisis, and in a way, it could be really anyone’s family. She wrote about feeling very alone, and it seemed that she spent a lot of time alone and a lot of time on the internet, and she had come to sort of idolize other school shooters,” said Meg Kilgannon, senior fellow for Education Studies at Family Research Council. “I hope that the families that are listening to this show and families everywhere will spend the holidays with their kids, really engaging with them and looking honestly at your own family and saying: ‘Is there a child of mine who’s feeling left out, who’s feeling alone? And how much time are they in their room, behind closed doors? And do I need to just go in that room with them and just sit with them and be with them?’”

Rupnow, like other recent school shooters, is female—a trend Kilgannon mourns. “We have a pornified culture, and we also have an incredible glorification of violence in our culture. Both are a function of being in a culture of death rather than a culture of life,” Kilgannon told “Washington Watch,” guest hosted by former congressman Jody Hice, on Tuesday. “The result of that is going to be that it’s not just going to be the boys who will take these aggressive actions, but you’re going to see this behavior adopted by the girls. And that really, for me as a woman, is very, very chilling and very sad.”

As of this writing, the school remains closed. It posted the following notice on its website:

“In response to the devastating tragedy at Abundant Life Christian School (ALCS) on Monday, December 16, United Way of Dane County has established the Abundant Life Christian School Emergency and Recovery Fund. All funds raised will go directly to ALCS to support those impacted by the tragic events. To give, visit www.unitedwaydanecounty.org or text help4ALCS to 40403.”

Barnes said, “We have to come together and do everything we can to support our students to prevent news conferences like these from happening again and again and again.”

‘Christ Came to Us in a Family’

Hice found the alleged manifesto “heartbreaking,” but said her violence should serve as a wake-up call “for those parents who think that a Christian school is all they need.”

Kilgannon agreed that, while attending a Christian school gives children “a huge advantage,” it can “never replace the relationship that we’ll have with our own children and that our children will have with each other if we’re blessed with more than one child. Christ came to us in a family. He could have come as King of the universe, but He chose to come humbly into a family.”

“He adopted us into His family,” noted Hice.

“Of course, I want to offer every parent in this situation love, consolation, and grace—whether it’s the parents of the perpetrator or her victims,” Kilgannon told The Washington Stand exclusively. “We all have questions we need to ask, and answer, as parents. Were there any warning signs missed by the parents and the school? Are there drugs (prescription or not) involved that increased suicidal ideation over time? How is her therapist coping? Are we praying for all these issues? Are we loving our difficult people enough especially in these challenging times? The family is in crisis. At this holy time of year, let’s take whatever time we have and spend it with our loved ones, aspiring to love each other more and more each day.”

Category:

Crime, Culture, Education, Family, Law, LGBTQ+ AND TRANSGENDER, Mental Illness

Tagged with:

Wisconsin Police Chief Says It’s ‘Not Important’ If School Shooter Was Trans

By: M.D. Kittle | December 17, 2024

Madison Police Chief Shon Barnes speaks at a press conference following a mass school shooting. — Three are dead, six others injured after police say a 15-year-old female student shot up a Madison Christian School study hall.

M.D. Kittle

Wisconsin’s capital city is in shock after a 15-year-old girl pulled out a 9mm pistol Monday morning and shot up her study hall, killing a teacher and a fellow student at the Christian school she attended before turning the weapon on herself and ending her life, Madison Police confirmed.

Natalie Rupnow injured six others, including two students with life-threatening wounds and a teacher and three other students who suffered non-life-threatening injuries in the attack on Madison’s Abundant Life Christian School, according to police.

While Madison Police Chief Shon Barnes wasn’t commenting on motive Monday evening, an unidentified law enforcement source told the Associated Press that the shooter “had been dealing with problems and expressed some of those in writings,” CNN reported. There were reports that Rupnow, who police say liked to go by “Samantha,” had penned a manifesto, although Barnes said police had yet to verify the authenticity of the document. “The good news,” the chief said, is that Madison police have shared the information with its partners at the FBI.

There’s no doubt the suspected killer was disturbed, as evidenced by her violent outburst at the K-12 private school with a mission “to develop students who are committed disciples of Jesus Christ through an excellent, comprehensive, Biblically-integrated educational program.”

She planned the attack in advance, a “law enforcement official familiar with the investigation” told CNN.

‘I Don’t Think That’s Important’

There was speculation Monday that the shooter was transgender, although other sources disputed the claim. Some said she had an “online obsession with school shooters.”

Barnes insisted that he doesn’t care whether Rupnow was transgender, as some reports indicated. It’s not important, he said, when asked by a leftist reporter about “misinformation” online. The Madison journalist effectively wagged her finger at parental rights group for claiming the shooter was transgender, “which is a reaction that we see across the country linked with mass shootings to claim that trans people are dangerous.”

Barnes, a far-left police chief in one of the most LGBTQ agenda-pushing cities in America, said he wished people would “leave their own personal biases out of this.”

“I don’t know whether Natalie was transgender or not and quite frankly I don’t think that’s even important. I don’t think that’s important at all,” the chief told reporters at an evening press conference. “I don’t think that whatever happened today has anything to do with how she or he or they may have wanted to identify …”

Barnes subsequently acknowledged that Rupnow’s gender identity “is something that may come out later.”

While investigators continue to search for answers, the transgender question could prove to be very important. Just ask the families at Nashville’s Covenant School.

‘It is Vitally Important’

In March 2023, a 28-year-old woman who identified as a transgender man stormed into the private Christian elementary school and murdered three third-graders and three staff members before Metro Nashville Police officers fatally shot the killer.

Michael Patrick Leahy, CEO and editor-in-chief of Star News Digital Media, has been seeking the release of the Covenant killer’s manifesto for a year and a half. He’s a plaintiff in a lawsuit demanding the police department turn over the shooter’s voluminous writings. Leahy’s flagship publication, the Tennessee Star, has obtained and published dozens of pages of the writings, screeds that offer a glimpse into the twisted mind of a mass shooter.

“We clearly have a huge mental health problem with young people in America today,” Leahy told The Federalist Monday night in a phone interview. “It is very clear that the killer in Nashville suffered severe mental health problems and had in fact been treated for psychiatric difficulties for 22 years. Now, the reports indicate that a 15-year-old girl is responsible for the heinous murders today at a Christian school in Madison, Wis. She purportedly left behind a manifesto, according to some sources.”

“It is vitally important that these documents left behind by young mass murderers be released to the public so that we can understand the deep problems of mental illness that drove them to these actions, so that we can prevent such terrible crimes in the future,” Leahy added.

As the Tennessee Star has reported, the FBI hastily acts to thwart the release of such documents. In the Covenant killer case, the federal agency sent a memo to the Nashville PD “strongly” discouraging the disclosure of so-called “legacy tokens” left behind by mass shooters. The memo was sent just two days after Star News Digital Media filed a federal lawsuit against the FBI demanding the agency release the trans killer’s writings. As former national political editor at the Star News Network, I, too, am a plaintiff in that lawsuit, plodding in federal court for the better part of two years.

The memo explains that mass shooters “often leave behind items [memory tokens] to claim credit for the attack and/or articulate the motivation behind it.” The 90 pages the Tennessee Star published include a wealth of insight from a severely mentally ill 28-year-old woman who identified as a male named Aidan.

As the Star reported, the FBI recommended withholding such items from the public, citing concerns about “conspiracy theories,” copycat attacks, and advancing “the false narrative that the majority of attackers are mentally ill.”

“The FBI also raised the ‘existing precedent’ for the destruction of ‘legacy tokens,’ noting ‘the decision to destroy the ‘Basement Tapes’ produced by the offenders of the Columbine High School attack,’” the publication reported.

Leahy notes the memo also argues that releasing manifestos and other legacy tokens could have negative impacts on “certain vulnerable communities.” The Biden administration has joined LGBT activists in painting the trans population as under the constant threat of violence.

Madison’s police chief on Monday repeatedly thanked the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for their quick response and assistance at the Christian school.

“In this instance it appears to me the FBI may have done the same thing in Madison that they did in Nashville in 2023, that is swoop in and take control of information and refuse to release it,” Leahy said.

Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.

Category:

Crime, Education, Family, Law

Tagged with:

Madison, Wisconsin, school shooting leaves 2 dead, 6 injured; juvenile suspect dead

By Anders Hagstrom , Stepheny Price Fox News | Published December 16, 2024 1:00pm EST | Updated December 16, 2024, 3:51pm EST

At least two people were killed, and six others were injured in a school shooting in Madison, Wisconsin, on Monday, with police saying the suspected shooter was found dead at the scene. During an update Monday afternoon, Madison Police Chief Shon Barnes said a teacher and a teen student were killed. Barnes added that two students are also in critical condition, with life-threatening injuries.

A handgun was used by the shooter and the shooting was confined to one space, Barnes said. A motive for the shooting has yet to be determined.

SUSPECTED UNITEDHEALTHCARE CEO ASSASSIN DRAWS UNABOMBER COMPARISONS

Emergency vehicles are parked outside the Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin, where multiple injuries were reported following a shooting on Monday, Dec. 16, 2024. (AP Photo/Scott Bauer)

“Every child, every person in that building is a victim and will be a victim forever. We need to figure out and try to piece together what exactly happened,” Barnes said.

Barnes added that the shooter’s family was cooperating with police.

He said he did not believe that the school, which serves 200 students according to the school’s website, had a resource officer.

Police say that they train for active shooter situations “almost quarterly,” and that they had most recently conducted the training roughly two weeks ago.

At roughly 10:57 am local time, police responded to reports of an active shooter at the Abundant Life Christian School. They identified a “juvenile” deceased at the scene who they believe was responsible for the shooting. They are encouraging local residents to avoid the area.

Wisconsin school shooting — Emergency vehicles are staged outside the Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wis., where multiple injuries were reported following a shooting, Monday, Dec. 16, 2024. (AP Photo/Morry Gash)

Barnes said officers did not fire their weapons when responding to the scene.

“This is something you prepare for, but that you hope you never have to do,” a police spokesman told reporters. “Today is a sad, sad day.”

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers ordered the flags of the United States and the state of Wisconsin to half-staff across the state immediately until sunset on Sun., Dec. 22, 2024

Video

“There are no words to describe the devastation and heartbreak we feel today after the school shooting at Abundant Life Christian School in Madison this morning,” Evers said in a statement.

“As a father, a grandfather, and as governor, it is unthinkable that a kid or an educator might wake up and go to school one morning and never come home. This should never happen, and I will never accept this as a foregone reality or stop working to change it.”

My full statement on the school shooting at Abundant Life Christian School today in Madison.

I'm directing flags across the state to be immediately lowered to half-staff as we honor those whose lives were senselessly taken in this tragedy. pic.twitter.com/HYIjVYcqaF
— Governor Tony Evers (@GovEvers) December 16, 2024

Police said this remains an active and ongoing investigation and more information will be released as it is available.

“We currently need people to avoid the area,” police added.

Students have been fully evacuated from the school, and police have conducted multiple clears of the building. Barnes said they were conducting a third check using bomb-sniffing dogs “just in case.”

Abundant Life Christian School in Milwaukee — Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wis., where multiple injuries and deaths were reported following a shooting, Monday, Dec. 16, 2024. (Google Maps)

Police say they set up a unification center for students and parents immediately following the shooting.

The school also acknowledged the shooting in a post on Facebook, requesting prayers from the community.

“Prayers Requested! Today, we had an active shooter incident at ALCS. We are in the midst of following up. We will share information as we are able. Please pray for our Challenger Family,” the school wrote.

Emergency vehicles are parked outside the Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin, where multiple injuries were reported following a shooting on Monday, Dec. 16, 2024. (AP Photo/Scott Bauer)

A former student of the school, Aaron Nienaber, told Fox News Digital that he attended high school at Abundant Life Christian from 2000 to 2004 and was shocked and saddened to see this happen at a place he cherished.

“It’s very sad to see this happening at a place where I have so many fond memories with the students and faculty and especially playing on the sports teams. This is not something that anyone would have ever seen coming at this small tight-knit school and community,” Nienaber said.

The FBI’s Milwaukee bureau says it has deployed agents to the scene to assist in investigating.

The White House has also confirmed that President Biden has been briefed on the shooting.

Anders Hagstrom is a reporter with Fox News Digital covering national politics and major breaking news events. Send tips to Anders.Hagstrom@Fox.com, or on Twitter: @Hagstrom_Anders.

Category:

Crime, Education, Family

Tagged with:

Steep Learning Curve: AAUP President Decries Election Results and Pledges Resistance

By: Jonatan Turley | November 19, 2024

I previously criticized the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) for selecting Todd Wolfson as its new president. Wolfson is a controversial voice within the teaching academy and immediately doubled down on the bias against conservatives and those calling for greater intellectual diversity. He is now decrying the election and publicly joining the resistance to the Trump Administration.

Some of us have been writing for years about the decline in viewpoint diversity and the rise of an academic orthodoxy in higher education. It is one of the focuses of my new book, The Indispensable Right. Wolfson personifies the intolerance for free speech and diversity of viewpoints that now characterize American higher education.

Despite calls for greater tolerance, AAUP elected Wolfson, a Rutgers University anthropologist, who was viewed as an ally for those who oppose intellectual diversity in favor of ideological orthodoxy in higher education.

Wolfson is the author of “Digital Rebellion: The Birth of the Cyber Left.” He was known to be openly hostile to those of us who have criticized the purging of faculty ranks of conservatives, libertarians, and dissenters.

Unlike others who try to maintain the pretense of neutrality and tolerance, Wolfson is viewed by some of us as a true believer who supports the activism and orthodoxy in higher education.

It took Wolfson little time to confirm our worst expectations. He issued a statement denouncing the Trump and GOP victories as “disappointing,” dismissing any possibility that he should speak for all academics, including the dwindling number of Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and independents who voted for the GOP.

Before the election, Inside Higher Ed reported that Wolfson called JD Vance a “fascist.”

On November 7th, he stated:

“While the results of this presidential election are disappointing, we remain steadfast in our commitment to our principles and ensuring that future generations of Americans are afforded the opportunity that higher education provides.’

“…The AAUP is committed to defending our campuses and the mission of higher education through organizing our communities to face the challenges ahead. Our collective power is needed now more than ever.”

Wolfson declared, “[t]here are massive political intrusions coming on, coming at us around academic freedom. There’s no way to be a neutral arbiter. We must stand for things in this environment.”

Kelly Benjamin, media relations officer for AAUP, also confirmed to Campus Reform that “the growth of repressive forces in American society, much of which is visible on the campus itself, is a source of continuing and acute alarm to the American Association of University Professors…We call on the academic community to resist all public & private assaults against this principle.”

It is all part of what Wolfson promised would be a “fighting organization” pursuing such activism in higher education.

As my book discusses, the AAUP was once the bastion of free speech and academic integrity values. It opposed the invasion of politics into higher education. However, it has become captured by the same forces that have converted our campuses into intolerant spaces for many faculty and students.

Wolfson has been widely criticized for AAUP’s decision to reverse its long-standing opposition to academic boycotts, which is viewed as targeting Israeli institutions. This move is clearly part of his strategy to make AAUP even more of a “fighting organization,” and he has insisted that “collective action of all sorts does not necessarily come into and undermine academic freedom.”

With declining enrollments numbers and revenue, figures like Wolfson are doubling down on the activism and bias that have turned off many from higher education.

Wolfson’s election shows how the objections of so many to the lack of intellectual diversity and tolerance are having little impact on faculty. When elected officials threaten reductions in support, these same academics are outraged by the attacks on higher education. Many offer perfunctory commitments to intellectual diversity while doing little to achieve it. As shown here, they are continuing to maintain and expand the culture that is suffocating our educational programs on every level.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Tagged with:

Rep. Moulton Under Attack After Objecting to the Lack of Tolerance and Viewpoint Diversity Among Democrats

By: Jonathan Turley | November 15, 2024

In my book, The Indispensable Right, I discuss how an enforced orthodoxy has replaced free speech and intellectual diversity in higher education. As suggested in prior columns, the intolerance for opposing views will only increase after the election. Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton (Mass.) has already learned that lesson after suggesting the need for greater diversity of opinion in the party and the reconsideration of issues like transgender athletic policies. The response was fast and furious, including from a department head at Tufts University.

Many of us have been writing about that intolerance for years, but while belated, it is good to see a Democratic member acknowledging the problem. It took the loss of both houses of Congress, the White House, and the popular vote, but the belated recognition from long-silent Democrats is a welcomed sign.

After the election losses, Moulton told The New York Times that it was time for greater reflection within the party, including on the issue of transgender policies: “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete.” He later added in a WBZ-TV interview that “this is an example of a contentious issue that we have to be willing to take on as a Democratic Party . . . we’re losing on issues like this.”

Democratic politicians and pundits immediately confirmed his criticism with a signature flash mob pile-on. Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey denounced Moulton for “playing politics” with the lives of transgender citizens.

Former staffers and interns demanded the usual public confession and apology from a dissenter. One top aide resigned rather than work with Moulton. Steve Kerrigan, Chair of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, expressed outrage and declared “these comments do not represent the broad view of our Party.” That broad view clearly does not include dissenting viewpoints.

This is clearly a debate that triggers intense feelings, including how it is discussed. The Tufts controversy follows a CNN contributor being chastised on air as a bigot and “transphobe” after he also raised objections on the issue by referring to “boys” playing girl sports. CNN commentator Shermichael Singleton rephrased his comments after the heated objections from other guests.

At Tufts University, the chair of the political science department, David Art, went with the “no soup for you” option for Moulton. Art declared that Moulton would be cut off from student internships in the future due to his statements. While refusing to confirm statements made about Moulton to the faculty, he reportedly told the Boston Globe that Tufts would not facilitate such internships, even if Moulton and the students wanted them.

Moulton struck out at Tufts, saying that the move is “frightening [and] sounds like China.” Once again, it would have been good if Moulton had shown a modicum of concern over the last decade as the mob was running professors out of universities or canceling events. However, allies are hard to find in the Democratic party.

I understand objections to how these athletes are referenced. Those objections can be made in the course of a discussion without leveling charges or sanctions against those with opposing views. Tufts eventually countermanded the policy of the political science department and wrote on X that “we have not–and will not–limit internship opportunities with his office.”

There was, however, one thing missing from the Tufts statement. There was no indication that Art or his department would face any repercussions or review for announcing a type of political litmus test for internships. It suggested that any members taking the same position would also be barred from internships. It was a direct attack on free speech and diversity of viewpoints, but the university simply responded by saying that there is “nothing to see here.”

While Professor Art clearly consulted with colleagues, it is not clear if conveying the views of his department in seeking to sanction Moulton. The assumption is that others in the department supported his position. It is a familiar pattern for those of us who have challenged this orthodoxy for years. Academics enforce a group-think culture that allows for little challenge or criticism.

That is only likely to increase after this election. There is no evidence any real effort to restore a diversity of viewpoints or tolerance on faculties. The mistake made at Tufts was to be so open about it. However, that only demonstrates the level of anger within academia at the results of the election.

The academy can then return to its previous lock-stepped orthodoxy. Indeed, the Tufts Political Science Department was spotted this week heading to another faculty meeting:

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, 2024).

Category:

Education, Free Speech

Tagged with:

Dr. Jay’s Slam Dunk: Blacklisted Scientist Receives Prestigious Award for “Intellectual Freedom”

By: Jonathan Turley | October 29, 2024

Below is my column in the New York Post on the prestigious award given to Stanford Professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya last week and what it has to say about those who censored, blacklisted, and vilified him for the last four years. In celebrating his fight for “intellectual freedom,” the National Academy effectively condemned those who joined the mob against him as well as the many professors who stayed silent as he and others were targeted.

Here is the column:

Few in the media seemed eager to attend a ceremony last week in Washington, D.C., where the prestigious American Academy of Sciences and Letters was awarding its top intellectual freedom award. The problem may have been the recipient: Stanford Professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

Bhattacharya has spent years being vilified by the media over his dissenting views on the pandemic. As one of the signatories of the 2020 Great Barrington Declaration, he was canceled, censored, and even received death threats.

That open letter called on government officials and public health authorities to rethink the mandatory lockdowns and other extreme measures in light of past pandemics.

All the signatories became targets of an orthodoxy enforced by an alliance of political, corporate, media, and academic groups. Most were blocked on social media despite being accomplished scientists with expertise in this area.

It did not matter those positions once denounced as “conspiracy theories” have been recognized or embraced by many. Some argued that there was no need to shut down schools, which has led to a crisis in mental illness among the young and the loss of critical years of education. Other nations heeded such advice with more limited shutdowns (including keeping schools open) and did not experience our losses.

Others argued that the virus’s origin was likely the Chinese research lab in Wuhan. That position was denounced by the Washington Post as a “debunked” coronavirus “conspiracy theory.” The New York Times Science and Health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli called any mention of the lab theory “racist.”

Federal agencies now support the lab theory as the most likely based on the scientific evidence.

Likewise, many questioned the efficacy of those blue surgical masks and supported natural immunity to the virus — both positions were later recognized by the government.

Others questioned the six-foot rule used to shut down many businesses as unsupported by science. In congressional testimony, Dr. Anthony Fauci recently admitted that the 6-foot rule “sort of just appeared” and “wasn’t based on data.” Yet not only did the rule result in heavily enforced rules (and meltdowns) in public areas, but the media also further ostracized dissenting critics.

Again, Fauci and other scientists did little to stand up for these scientists or call for free speech to be protected. As I discuss in my new book, “The Indispensable Right,” the result is that we never really had a national debate on many of these issues and the result of massive social and economic costs.

I spoke at the University of Chicago with Bhattacharya and other dissenting scientists in the front row a couple of years ago. After the event, I asked them how many had been welcomed back to their faculties or associations since the recognition of some of their positions. They all said that they were still treated as pariahs for challenging the groupthink culture.

Now the scientific community is recognizing the courage shown by Bhattacharya and others with its annual Robert J. Zimmer Medal for Intellectual Freedom.

So, what about all of those in government, academia, and the media who spent years hounding these scientists?

Biden Administration officials and Democratic members targeted Bhattacharya and demanded his censorship. For example, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) attacked Bhattacharya and others who challenged the official narrative during the pandemic. Krishnamoorthi expressed outrage that the scientists were even allowed to testify as “a purveyor of COVID-19 misinformation.”

Journalists and columnists also supported the censorship and blacklisting of these scientists. In the Los Angeles Times, columnist Michael Hiltzik decried how “we’re living in an upside-down world” because Stanford allowed these scientists to speak at a scientific forum. He was outraged that, while “Bhattacharya’s name doesn’t appear in the event announcement,” he was an event organizer. Hiltzik also wrote a column titled “The COVID lab leak claim isn’t just an attack on science, but a threat to public health.”

Then there are those lionized censors at Twitter who shadow-banned Bhattacharya. As former CEO Parag Agrawal generally explained, the “focus [was] less on thinking about free speech … [but[ who can be heard.”

None of this means that Bhattacharya or others were right in all of their views. Instead, many of the most influential voices in the media, government, and academia worked to prevent this discussion from occurring when it was most needed.

There is still a debate over Bhattacharya’s “herd immunity” theories, but there is little debate over the herd mentality used to cancel him.

The Academy was right to honor Bhattacharya. It is equally right to condemn all those who sought to silence a scientist who is now being praised for resisting their campaign to silence him and others.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Tagged with:

The Thin Blue Line: University Professors Are Approaching Near Unanimity as a Democratic Lock

By: Jonathan Turley | October 28, 2024

Below is my column in The Hill on the recent poll of university professors in this election. It speaks volumes about the composition of higher education today. Here is the column: The 2024 presidential election is shaping up to be the single most divisive election in our history. The public is split right down the middle with almost every group splintering between former president Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. There is, however, one group that seems almost unanimous: professors.

A new survey of more than 1,000 professors shows that seventy-eight percent will vote for Harris and only eight percent will vote for Trump. Other than a poll of the Democratic National Committee, there are few groups that are more reliably Democratic or liberal.

For anyone in higher education, the result is hardly surprising. The poll tracks what we already know about the gradual purging of departments around the country of conservative, libertarian, and dissenting professors. Indeed, the lack of political and intellectual diversity may be turning some donors and even applicants from higher education. With failing revenue and applications, universities are starting to re-embrace commitments to neutrality on political issues.

Some, however, are doubling down on advocacy and orthodoxy.

In an op-ed this week, Wesleyan University President Michael Roth called on universities to reject “institutional neutrality” and officially support Kamala Harris. Calling neutrality “a retreat,” Roth compared Trump’s election to the rise of the Nazis and insisted that schools should “give up the popular pastime of criticizing the woke and call out instead the overt racism.”

He added, without a hint of self-awareness or irony, that “we should not be silenced because of fears of appearing partisan.”

In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss the intolerance in higher education and surveys showing that many departments no longer have a single Republican as faculties replicate their own views and values. So not only are professors voting en mass for Harris, but Roth would also have the schools themselves work openly for her election.

That ideological echo chamber is hardly an enticement for many who are facing rising high tuition costs with relatively little hope of being taught by faculty with opposing views.

There are obviously many reasons why faculty may reject Trump specifically, but this poll also tracks more generally the self-identification and contributions of faculty.

A Georgetown study recently found that only nine percent of law school professors identify as conservative at the top 50 law schools — almost identical to the percentage of Trump voters found in the new poll.

Notably, Roth acknowledged that the current lack of intellectual diversity in higher education had become so extreme that there might be a need for “an affirmative action program for conservatives.” However, he and others continue to saw feverishly on the branch upon which we all sit in higher education in calling for even greater political advocacy.

There is little evidence that faculty members have any interest in changing this culture or creating greater diversity at schools. In places like North Carolina State University a study found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans 20 to 1.

Recently, I had a debate at Harvard Law School with Professor Randall Kennedy on whether Harvard protects free speech and intellectual diversity. This year, Harvard found itself in a familiar spot on the annual ranking of Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE): dead last among 251 universities and colleges. Harvard has long dismissed calls for greater free speech protections or intellectual diversity. It shows. The Harvard Crimson has documented how the school’s departments have virtually eliminated Republicans. In one study of multiple departments last year, they found that more than 75 percent of the faculty self-identified as “liberal” or “very liberal.”

Only 5 percent identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”

Consider that, according to Gallup, the U.S. population is roughly equally divided among conservatives (36%), moderates (35%), and liberals (26%). So, Harvard has three times the number of liberals as the nation at large and less than three percent identify as “conservative’ rather than 35% nationally.

Among law school faculty who have donated more than $200 to a political party, a breathtaking 91 percent of the Harvard faculty gave to democrats. The student body shows the same bias of selection. Harvard Crimson previously found that only 7 percent of incoming students identified as conservative. For the vast majority of liberal faculty and students, Harvard amplifies rather than stifles their viewpoints.

This does not happen randomly. Indeed, if a business reduced the number of women or minorities to less than 5 percent, a court would likely find de facto discrimination. Yet, Kennedy rejected the notion that the elite school should strive to “look more like America.”

It is not just that schools like Harvard “do not look like America,” it does not even look like liberal Massachusetts, which is almost 30 percent Republican. Our students are being educated by faculty taken from the same liberal elite of just 26 percent of our nation.

Some sites like Above the Law have supported the exclusion of conservative faculty. Senior Editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” by arguing that hiring a conservative law professor is akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism to teach at a university.

The result is that law students at schools like Harvard have relatively few faculty to reflect the views of half of the judiciary and the majority of the Supreme Court. Likewise, having a faculty that ranges from the left to the far left further marginalizes the small number of conservative students. The impact of this academic echo chamber is evident in surveys showing that 28 percent of Harvard students engaged in self-censorship — a figure doubling since just 2021.

Given my respect for Professor Kennedy, I was surprised that he dismissed the sharp rise in students saying that they did not feel comfortable speaking in classes. Referring to them as “conservative snowflakes,” he insisted that they simply had to have the courage of their convictions. This ignores that they depend upon professors for recommendations and their challenging the orthodoxy at the school can threaten their standing.

Moreover, Kennedy defended cancel campaigns or “disinvitations” of speakers as a form of free speech. As students see faculty supporting the cancelling of conservative or libertarian or dissenting speakers, it is hardly an invitation to speak freely yourself in class.

There was a hopeful aspect, however, to the debate. Before the debate the large audience voted heavily in favor of Harvard’s position. However, after the debate, they overwhelming voted against Harvard’s position on free speech. It is an example of how exposure to opposing views can change the bias or assumptions in higher education.

There is little likelihood that Harvard or higher education will change. It is like the old joke about how many psychiatrists it takes to change a light bulb. The answer is just one, but the bulb really has to want to change.

Academics like Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley law school, have denounced conservative justices as mere “partisan hacks.” Other faculty have joined in claims that Trump and his supporters are “fascists” out to destroy democracy. It is only likely to get worse after the election.

The political polling of professors reflects the near complete cleansing of colleges of conservative faculty. The question is whether donors or applicants will continue to support an echo chamber that has become ideologically deafening.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Education, Personal

Tagged with:

“Enjoy Getting this Stain Out”: Turning Point Display Trashed at UC Berkeley

By: Jonathan Turley | October 25, 2024

In my book, “The Indispensable Right, I explore how vandalism and aggressive campus protests should not be treated as free speech but as proscribed conduct. College Fix has another example of this distinction today when a person trashed a Turning Point table on the campus of UC Berkeley.

The posting shows a possible student pouring tomato juice over the group’s fliers and posters. The display promoted an event with Chloe Cole and Harrison Tinsley, who are critics of gender transitioning. The activist responds to objections from the volunteers by saying “Are you worried I’m going to stain your f**king signs as you lie to people, aw so sorry. I f**king tried to talk to you a**holes. Enjoy getting this stain out.”

View this post on Instagram

Likewise, anti-Israeli protesters at the University of Minnesota occupied and reportedly trashed a university building. None of these acts are protected as free speech. They are conduct that violate either university rules or criminal law or both. Much like shouting down speakers, these are actions that silence others or damage property. Trashing displays or silencing others is the antithesis of free speech. Yet, universities often fail to take meaningful action against such actors.

Unlike the professor, the students remained calm and respectful. One even said “sorry” to the accusation that being pro-life was triggering for her students. Rodríguez continued to rave, stating, “No you’re not — because you can’t even have a f–king baby. So, you don’t even know what that is. Get this s–t the f–k out of here.” In an Instagram post, she is then shown trashing the table.

What is most striking about this video is the license that the activist claims in trashing the display in stating “I f**king tried to talk to you a**holes.” The notion is that, if you tell people with opposing views that they are wrong, you are then justified to take violent action. It is the license of rage and this video shows how many today do not like to admit that they like the rage. It is addictive. It gives you this sense of license to say and do things that you would not ordinarily say or do.

This activist has every right to protest this event at Berkeley. However, trashing a display is a criminal act that should be punished by the university if this is a student. It should also be pursued by police to deter such conduct in the future. Free speech is enhanced, not curtailed, when such conduct is barred on our campuses.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Crime, Education, Free Speech, Hate

Tagged with:

Federal Court Rules Against University of New Mexico in Free Speech Case

By: Jonathan Turley | October 1, 2024

We have been discussing how colleges and universities have been using security concerns as a way to bar conservative and libertarian speakers. Another barrier has been the imposition of prohibitive security fees as a condition for such speakers to appear on campus, fees generally not required for liberal speakers. Now, in a significant free speech victory, U.S. District Judge David Urias has enjoined the University of New Mexico from imposing a $5,400 security fee for former collegiate swimmer and activist Riley Gaines after speaking on campus. UNM has a history of cancellation campaigns against conservative and libertarian speakers, as previously discussed on this blog.

Gaines has become a national figure in her campaign against biologically male students competing in women’s sports. While it is a position that is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans, faculty and students have repeatedly targeted Gaines with cancel campaigns and disruptive protests. In this case, UNM originally demanded over $10,000. The lawsuit brought by the Leadership Institute named UNM President Garnett Stokes and other UNM officials as defendants. Judge Urias was legitimately suspicious of the demand and found that it violated the First Amendment.

In his 16-page order in Leadership Institute v. Stokes (D.N.M.), Judge Urias noted that Gaines travels with her own security (itself a sad statement about this Age of Rage). The court noted the rather fluid standard applied to Gaines:

[T]he quote of over $10,000 was for every officer UNM employed—thirty-three officers; nearly one for every three attendees the students expected. When TP-UNM asked why Defendant Stump intended to assign every officer to the Gaines event, and whether it was because of the speaker or the inviting organization, he responded that “it’s all based on individual assessments,” that they were looking at the “individual,” and that “there is not a criteria [sic].”

He also told the students that if an organization were to screen the Barbie movie in a venue on campus, he likely would not require even a single officer because the UNM police were “not worried about the Barbie movie.” He then said that security was “consistent” in how it assessed fees “to Turning Point” in the past. He described past TP-UNM events featuring other conservative speakers that generated protests at UNM. A few times during the meeting, he reiterated that UNM assesses security fees on a “case-by-case basis.” …

Notably, the court detailed how fewer than 10 protesters actually showed up and demonstrated outside of the room. Nevertheless, UNM hit Turning Point with the fee for twenty-seven officers at the event who charged for a total of 95.25 hours.

The court applied the holding in Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (1992) in which the Supreme Court held that the government can impose extra security fees due to the controversial status of speakers or groups. In writing for a 5-4 majority, Justice Henry Blackmun held that “Nothing in the law or its application prevents the official from encouraging some views and discouraging others through the arbitrary application of fees. The First Amendment prohibits the vesting of such unbridled discretion in a government official.”

Judge Urias found precisely such a barrier imposed by the UNM:

When a policy allows “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion by the licensing authority, the danger of censorship and of abridgment of our precious First Amendment freedoms is too great to be permitted[.]” Forsyth County.… Although the question in this case is closer than that in Forsyth, the Court nonetheless finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated the security fee policy in this case is similar enough to render it overly broad. Although the policy lists criteria for officials to consider when assessing event security, such as venue size and location, the list ultimately leaves the decision of how much to charge for security up to the whim of university officials. For example, the policy does not explain a method for determining how much more security is required for a small venue as compared to a large one, or for a daytime event as compared to a nighttime event.

Significantly, the policy states that the “basic cost of security … will be charged to all groups” based on a schedule of charges that the UNM Police Department has on its website, but despite this, the department does not actually delineate the amount of this “basic cost of security.” Though the security fee policy also states that the police department “regularly” updates the “schedule of charges based on the factors” and that “[t]he basic cost of security according to this schedule will be charged to all groups,” there is no schedule of charges.

Additionally, the preamble to the policy indicates that university officials “may” assess security fees but does not provide guidance for when they may or may not assess these fees, which contributes to the problem of allowing university officials overly broad discretion. In sum, Plaintiffs have shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their overbreadth claim because the security fee policy does not contain limiting language that includes “narrowly drawn, reasonable and definite standards[,]” and it does not include anything to prevent UNM administrators from exercising their discretion in a content-based manner….

The ruling is a notable victory for free speech in creating additional precedent against the use of security fees as a deterrent to groups in inviting targeted speakers like Riley Gaines. Conservative groups have long complained that far left speakers are rarely targeted by cancel campaigns and even more rarely hit with these security fees. In past cases, a security deposit is demanded upfront, creating a barrier for many groups.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Education, Free Speech, Law, Political

Tagged with:

Penn Law’s Inflection Point for ‘Elite’ Higher Education’s Intolerance

By: Josh Hammer | September 27, 2024

Higher education has been a cesspool of anti-Americanism, censorious leftism, and cultural radicalism for longer than I have been alive.

The moral rot is, and always has been, particularly acute at Ivy League or otherwise putatively “elite” institutions. The pro-Hamas “protests” that have rocked university campuses since Oct. 7 are indicative: One cannot help but realize that the jihadi anarchy on display at Harvard Yard hasn’t been replicated at red-state public schools, such as Alabama or Ole Miss.

But every so often, something happens at an “elite” university that manages to shock our already jaded consciences. For instance, there was the triumvirate of “elite” university presidents who testified before Congress last December that the permissibility of campus calls for the genocide of the Jewish people “depends on the context.”

There was also Judge Kyle Duncan’s March 2023 struggle session at Stanford Law School, where a baying left-wing mob—egged on by then-“DEI” Dean Tirien Steinbach—prevented the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals jurist from delivering his remarks.

But perhaps the single biggest disgrace to rock academia in recent years has been the University of Pennsylvania’s yearslong crusade against one of its own tenured law professors, Amy Wax.

In 2017, Wax coauthored an op-ed in The Philadelphia Inquirer that lamented the decline of traditional bourgeoisie values across American society and suggested this decline is blameworthy for many of America’s present social maladies. Almost immediately, 4,000 people signed a petition calling for Wax’s ouster; 33 of her Penn Law colleagues also condemned her instantaneously. Wax, a vocal critic of mass migration and skeptic of multiculturalism, admirably refused to be silenced. She ruffled more feathers when she observed that, in her two decades of teaching experience, Black students rarely finish in the top half of graduating law school classes.

Statistics, it seems, are racist.

For 2-1/2 years, a period spanning successive Penn Law deanships, Wax has been subject to a probe into her alleged “wrongthink” and misdeeds. The investigation has depleted valuable funds that Penn Law could have used to foster free speech or—how’s this for an idea? —actually train students to practice law.

The probe has been exorbitantly expensive, forcing Wax to retain counsel; thankfully, a GoFundMe legal defense fund for the embattled professor has raised nearly $200,000 since its July 2022 launch. The witch hunt, as Aaron Sibarium observed for the Washington Free Beacon, has also “made Penn a pariah among academic freedom advocates.”

The judgment finally came this week: Penn Law suspended Wax for a year, reduced her pay for that year by 50%, permanently stripped her of her endowed chair and summer pay, and publicly reprimanded her. Interestingly, as Sibarium scooped, Penn Law had previously offered Wax a settlement that would have lessened her penalty on the condition that she not “disparage the University,” not sue Penn, and not publicly disclose the exculpatory evidence she had presented during the yearslong probe. Translation: Shut your mouth, and this problem will go away quickly.

Chairman Mao would have nodded right along.

Penn Law, in the most recent version of the oft-cited U.S. News & World Report law school rankings, is tied for fourth place. High-achieving law school applicants (rightly or wrongly) seek to enroll there, and high-end law firms (rightly or wrongly) seek to recruit from there. When such an institution allocates immense time and resources to punish and humiliate one of its own faculty members, the goal is clear: to send a message. In this particular case, the message could not be clearer: You must bend the knee. Wokeism, unlike the liberalism of old, brooks no dissent. Free inquiry must yield to the stifling intellectual conformity that leftists delude themselves into thinking is “progress.” On the substance of Wax’s comments, to merely speak of race-based outcomes and speculate as to the underlying social phenomena that might have affected those outcomes is verboten.

Anyone who does not toe the line, condemn America as a bastion of “systemic racism,” and endorse everything from reparations to race-conscious admissions practices is, in turn, deemed a racist him/herself. To call this spectacle “Orwellian” would risk understatement.

The Amy Wax struggle session ought to be an inflection point in our higher education wars. College students should stop applying to Penn Law. Employers—from law firms to individual judges—should stop hiring from there as well.

And Congress should pass a new law placing a hard condition on the disbursement of higher education funding: No private university that punishes a tenured professor for engaging in First Amendment-protected speech will receive a single penny in public funding.

Wax is vowing to fight on. Perhaps she will sue Penn Law. Perhaps she will prevail in that suit. But as is so often the case, the process is the real punishment. And the indignity is the whole point.

Category:

Tagged with:

What Happens if We Hold College and Nobody Comes?

By: Jonathan Turley | September 27, 2024

Below is my column in the New York Post on a growing crisis in higher education as enrollments and trust falls. Despite these trends, administrators and faculty appear entirely oblivious and unrepentant. They continue to alienate many in the country who view schools as pursuing indoctrination rather than education.

Here is the slightly expanded column:

In the 1930s, Bertolt Brecht asked “What if they gave a war and nobody came?” As someone who has been a teacher for over 30 years, I find myself increasingly asking the same question as trust and enrollments fall in higher education.

Trust in higher education is plummeting to record lows. According to recent polling, there has been a record drop in trust in higher education since just 2015. Not surprisingly, given the growing viewpoint intolerance on our campuses, the largest drops are among Republicans and Independents. There has been a precipitous decline in enrollments across the country as universities worry about covering their costs without raising already high tuition rates. From 2010 to 2021, enrollments fell from roughly 18.1 million students to about 15.4 million.

There are various contributors to the drop from falling birthrates to poor economic times. However, there is also an increasing view of higher education as an academic echo chamber for far-left agendas. For many, there is little appeal in going to campuses where you are expected to self-censor and professors reject your values as part of their lesson plans. That fear is magnified by surveys showing that many departments have purged their ranks of Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians.

In my new book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss the intolerance in higher education and surveys showing that many departments no longer have a single Republican as faculties replicate their own views and values.

One survey (based on self-reporting) found that only nine percent of law professors identified as conservative. Some anti-free speech advocates are actually citing higher education as a model for social media in showing how “unlikeable voices” have been eliminated. Many of those “unlikeable” people are now going elsewhere as schools focus on degrees in activism and denouncing math, statistics, the classics, and even meritocracy as examples of white privilege.

Schools offering classic education are experiencing rising enrollments, but the growing crisis has not changed the bias in hiring and teaching. Despite repeated losses in courts, universities and colleges continue to deny free speech and diversity of thought. The fact is that this academic echo chamber may be killing educational institutions, but the intolerance still works to the advantage of faculty who can control publications, speaking opportunities, and advancement with like-minded ideologues.

We have seen the same perverse incentive in the media where media outlets are seeing plummeting readers and revenue. Journalism schools and editors now maintain that reporters should reject objectivity and neutrality as touchstones of journalism.

It does not matter that this advocacy journalism is killing the profession. Reporters and editors continue to saw at the limb upon which they sit due to the same advantage for academics. For reporters, converting newsrooms into echo chambers gives them more security, advancement, and opportunities.

Recently, the new Washington Post publisher and CEO William Lewis was brought into the paper to right the ship. He told the staff “Let’s not sugarcoat it…We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.” The response from reporters was to call for owner Jeff Bezos to fire Lewis and others seeking to change the culture. The Post has been eliminating positions and just implemented another round of layoffs to address the budget shortfalls.

In the meantime, trust in the media is at record lows — paralleling the polling on higher eduction. The result is the rise of new media as people turn to blogs and other sources for their news.

The same phenomenon is occurring in academia. People are now evading campuses with online programs. For those of us who believe in brick and mortar educational institutions, we may be watching a death spiral for some universities and colleges as administrators and faculty treat their students as a captive audience for their ideological agendas.

In the meantime, alternative educational opportunities are seeing a rapid rise. Take the Catherine Project, a project started four years ago, to offer free discussions of classic works that is also free from ideological indoctrination. The project has reportedly doubled in size since 2022.

With online educational technology, universities and colleges no longer have a monopoly on education. People have choices and they are increasingly choosing alternatives. To paraphrase Lewis, “let’s not sugarcoat it…People are not [buying our] stuff.”

We are killing our institutions through an abundance of ideology and a paucity of courage. Recently, interim Columbia President Katrina Armstrong actually apologized to students who took over and trashed a building in pro-Palestinian protests.

During the protests, a Jewish Columbia professor was blocked by the school from going on campus because he might trigger anti-Semitic students. Yet, Armstrong apologized for the alleged abuse of police and the role of the university in allowing them to be harmed, adding “I know it wasn’t me, but I’m really sorry.… I saw it, and I’m really sorry.”

Like many conservatives and libertarians, Jewish students and families are now reportedly looking for alternatives to schools like Columbia.

What is clear is that many administrators and departments will continue to bar opposing views and maintain the academic echo chamber. Many have tenure and expect to ride out the decline of their institutions while enjoying the acclaim of being academic crusaders. Of course, it will become increasingly hard to be social warriors if you hold a war and nobody comes.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage”

Category:

Education, Media, Political

Tagged with:

“Slitting the Master’s Throat”: Fired Machete-Wielding Professor Leads Protesters in Chilling Chant

By Jonathan Turley | September 24, 2024

We previously discussed Shellyne Rodríguez , the machete-wielding former Hunter College professor. Rodríguez is back with a large following shown in a video with protesters chanting with her about “slitting the throats of the masters.” We previously discussed a videotape of Rodríguez trashing a pro-life student display in New York. Before attacking the table, she told the students, “You’re not educating s–t […] This is f–king propaganda. What are you going to do, like, anti-trans next? This is bulls–t. This is violent. You’re triggering my students.”

The videotape revealed one other thing. At Hunter College, and at other colleges, it seems that trashing a pro-life student display and abusing pro-life students is not considered a firing offense. Hunter College refused to fire Rodríguez.

The PSC Graduate Center, the labor organization of graduate and professional schools at the City University of New York, supported that decision and said Rodríguez was “justified” in trashing the display, which the organization described as “dangerously false propaganda” and “disinformation.”

Rodríguez later put a machete to the neck of a reporter, threatened to chop him up and then chased a news crew down a street with the machete in hand. Somewhere between the machete to the neck and chasing the reporters down the street, Hunter College finally decided that Rodríguez had to go.

Rodríguez denounced the school for having “capitulated” to “racists, white nationalists, and misogynists.” She explained that her firing was just a continuation of “attacks on women, trans people, black people, Latinx people, migrants, and beyond.”

The Cooper Union, however, refused to sever ties with Rodríguez, 47, and decided that she should continue to teach her students. Later it too fired Rodriguez after continued radical conduct. However, according to the New York Post, Rodriguez attributed her firing to her anti-Israeli comments. She declared:

“Cooper Union has fired me because of a social media post I made about ‘Zionists’… effective immediately. This is fascism. Ya’ll are learning about it in real time. Stay strong, [stay] brave, stay defiant, don’t bite your tongue, and drink plenty of water! Pa-lante!”

Before watching this video, it is important to keep in mind that the faculty members and administrators previously wanted Rodríguez as a colleague.

In a video on X shared by journalist Andy Ngo, Rodríguez leads a group of pro-Palestinian protesters in chanting “Our ancestors … dreamed of us slitting the master’s throat.” The scene shows a clearly unhinged Rodríguez who is not just supported by these protesters but clearly thrilling them with her rage rhetoric.

NYC, Sept. 20 — Shellyne Rodriguez, the far-left academic who put a machete to the throat of a NYPost reporter last year, lead a crowd outside the Brooklyn Museum in chanting: “Our ancestors dreamed of us, slitting the masters throat.” Video by @L2FTV: pic.twitter.com/iEwl5UhZtz
— Andy Ngo 🏳️‍🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) September 21, 2024

I discuss Rodríguez in my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” as an example of the radical chic in higher education.

Rodríguez leads the pro-Palestinian protesters in anti-police chants:

“Our ancestors are horrified to see black people, Latinx people, indigenous people, children of migrants, and Muslims joining the slave patrol NYPD and [inaudible] plantation overseers in the jails and prisons.”

For a person who chased reporters with a machete, it is a curious choice for a speaker against violence. However, Rodríguez is clearly revered by the crowd. The fact that she pleaded guilty to harassment and menacing charges clearly did not reduce her popularity. To the contrary, for some, it may have increased it.

This was the person that two colleges wanted on their faculties and resisted efforts to fire her, even after trashing a table in an insane diatribe against pro-life advocates. She is the person that the PSC Graduate Center declared was “justified” in her violence against those peaceful advocates.

She is the very face of an age of rage.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).

Category:

Tagged with:

Age of Rage: 26 Million Americans Believe Political Violence is Justified

By: Jonathan Turley | September 17, 2024

A poll released by the University of Chicago via the Chicago Project on Security and Threats offers a chilling account of the growing radicalism in America, particularly after the second foiled assassination attempt of former president Donald Trump, the poll found that 26 million Americans believe “the use of force” is justified to keep Trump from regaining the presidency.

As discussed in my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” we have seen an increasing level of rage rhetoric in our political system. For some, violent language can become violent action. There is a normalization that can occur as extreme actions become more acceptable to more and more citizens:

“We are living in an age of rage. It permeates every aspect of our society and politics. Rage is liberating, even addictive. It allows us to say and do things that we would ordinarily avoid, even denounce in others. Rage is often found at the farthest extreme of reason. For those who agree with the underlying message, it is righteous and passionate. For those who disagree, it is dangerous and destabilizing.”

With the unrelenting claims of President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and others that democracy is about to die in America, some now feel a license to commit criminal acts in the name of “saving democracy.” It is the ultimate form of self-delusion that one saves democracy by committing political violence against those with whom you disagree. We have seen this radicalism spread in past years from higher education into society at large.

At the University of Rhode Island, professor Erik Loomis defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence.

At Hunter College in New York, Professor Shellyne Rodríguez was shown trashing a pro-life display of students. She was captured on a videotape telling the students that “you’re not educating s–t […] This is f–king propaganda. What are you going to do, like, anti-trans next? This is bulls–t. This is violent. You’re triggering my students.” Unlike the professor, the students remained calm and respectful. One even said “sorry” to the accusation that being pro-life was triggering for her students. Rodríguez continued to rave, stating, “No you’re not — because you can’t even have a f–king baby. So, you don’t even know what that is. Get this s–t the f–k out of here.” In an Instagram post, she is then shown trashing the table.

Another recent example comes from the State University of New York at Albany, where sociology professor Renee Overdyke shut down a pro-life display and then resisted arrest. One student is heard screaming, “She’s a [expletive] professor.” That of course is the point.

While Democratic leaders have condemned the second assassination attempt on Trump, they have continued the unhinged rhetoric of how this may be our last election and democracy is about to die in America. At the same time, some leaders have allied themselves with violent groups.

We have continued to follow the attacks and arrests of Antifa followers across the country, including attacks on journalists.

Some Democrats have played a dangerous game in supporting or excusing the work of Antifa, one of the most violent anti-free speech groups in the world. Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, now the Minnesota attorney general, once said Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. This was after Antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence and its website was banned in Germany.

Ellison’s son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to Antifa in the heat of violent protests. During a prior hearing, Democratic senators refused to clearly denounce Antifa and falsely suggested that the far right was the primary cause of recent violence. Likewise, Joe Biden has dismissed objections to Antifa as just “an idea.”

These politicians are playing a dangerous game in toying with groups like Antifa, which will not stop at threatening their opponents. Politicians like Ellison could easily find themselves the next target as groups seek to “strike fear in the heart” of the establishment.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).

Category:

Crime, Culture, Education, Political

Tagged with:

Teaching Joy: L.A. School District Opts for “Educational Enjoyment” Over Standardized Tests

By: Jonathan Turley | September 16, 2024

It appears that the Harris-Walz campaign to embrace “joy” has taken hold among educators in L.A. The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) voted 4-3 to allow 10 schools to opt out of standardized tests and test preparation beginning in the 2025-26 school year. LAUSD President Jackie Goldberg declared the move was a blow to “corporate America” and would restore the “enjoyment of education.”

Many colleges and universities are returning to standardized testing after the much-acclaimed abandonment of the tests for a more “holistic approach” to selection. However, public educators have continued to lower proficiency requirements and cancel gifted programs to “even the playing field.” The result has been to further hide the dismal scores and educational standards of many public school districts.

Goldberg lashed out at the “testing industry” which tends to expose the continued failure of public education to give these students a fighting chance in society. Rather than look at their own failures over decades to significantly improve scores, Goldberg said that she “hoped” the resolution would “begin to change how we look at student assessment.” In other words, students would be assessed without looking at how they actually perform on tests with other students.

Tests, it appears, are just a buzz kill for teachers and students alike: “Because the whole goal of life became not the love of learning, not the enjoyment of education, not the exchange of ideas, but whether or not your school could move up on its test scores. For at least 20 years, I have found that repugnant.”

It shows, Ms. Goldberg, it shows.

The retiring Goldberg has always been more focused on increasing budgets than improving scores. Her website declares

“California is the world’s fifth richest economy. There are 157 billionaires here who pay almost nothing in taxes. There is no excuse for why New York spends $29k per pupil while we spend $16.5k. It’s time to tax the great wealth in this state and re-invest in our children!”

That appears to be one statistical score that Goldberg does find relevant as a measure of education. Others at the meeting noted that they have falling enrollments, and this will not help.

Teachers and boards are killing the institution of public education by treating children and parents more like captives than consumers. They are force-feeding social and political priorities, including passes for engaging in approved protests. As public schools continue to produce abysmal scores, particularly for minority students, board and union officials have called for lowering or suspending proficiency standards or declared meritocracy to be a form of “white supremacy.” Gifted and talented programs are being eliminated in the name of “equity.”

Once parents have a choice, these teachers lose a virtual monopoly over many families, and these districts could lose billions in states like Florida. This is precisely why school systems are facing budget shortfalls as families vote with their feet. These families want a return to the educational mission that once defined our schools.

L.A. will pursue a program under which they appoint a “lead teacher” for additional professional development from Community School Coaches and the University of California Los Angeles Center for Community Schooling. They will focus on an effort to “integrate culturally relevant curriculum, community- and project-based learning, and civic engagement” into their programs. The “relevant” curriculum would not include actual standardized testing.

It promises more the same. Bringing “joy” back to schools will come without the accountability of standardized testing. For teachers, such tests are decidedly not joyful since they expose their own failures and set goals for improvement. Now they can just “assess” students as successful and send them along their way.

Public schools across the country will continue to fail inner city children and leave them in the same crushing patterns of poverty. In Baltimore, a survey found that forty percent of schools did not have a single student proficient in math. Rather than reverse that trend, the schools are just waiving the tests and graduating the students. What is so frustrating is reading about failing school systems lowering proficiency standards and claiming that it is better for minority students.

American education faces the perfect storm. Despite record expenditures on public schools, we are still effectively abandoning students, particularly minority students, in teaching the basic subjects needed to succeed in life. We will then graduate the students by removing testing barriers for graduation. Then some may go to colleges and universities that have eliminated standardized testing for admission.

At every stage in their education, they have been pushed through by educators without objective proof that they are minimally educated. That certainly guarantees high graduation rates or improved diversity admissions. However, these students are still left at a sub-proficient state as they enter an increasingly competitive job market and economy. Any failures will come down the road when they will be asked to write, read, or add by someone who is looking for actual work product. They will then be outside of the educational system and any failures will not be attributed to public educators.

As I have previously written, if we truly care for these students, we cannot rig the system to just kick them down the road toward failure. It is like declaring patients healthy by just looking at them and sending them on their way. We have the ability to measure proficiency, and we have the moral obligation to face our own failures in helping these kids achieve it.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage”

Category:

Culture, Education, Political

Tagged with:

“American Democracy Doesn’t Survive”: Brown Professor Warns of the “Dangers of the Constitution”

By: Jonathan Turley | September 13, 2024

We have been discussing a slew of books and interviews by academics denouncing the Constitution or individual rights as a threat to democracy. The latest is Brown University Political Science Professor Corey Brettschneider who is warning about the “dangers of the Constitution.” It is all part of a counter-constitutional movement challenging the very documents that have protected freedoms for centuries. It is hardly a perfect record, but it has served the country and its citizens well. Brettschneider explained to the Brown Daily Herald that the constitution is not only a danger to us all, but “the traditional checks and balances don’t work, and that impeachment and the Supreme Court have failed to check rogue presidents.” He warned that “it could be that we’re at the moment where American democracy doesn’t survive.” The reason appears in large part Trump. Like many, Brettschneider brushes over the fact that the system has worked as designed, including after the Jan. 6th riot. Notably, I agree with aspects of the book in highlighting the courageous struggle of dissenters in our history and the criticism of figures like John Adams, who is also criticized in my new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Moreover, he is correct that abusive presidents have avoided impeachment, and the Court has historically failed to protect individual rights. We both criticize those failures, particularly by the Court. Ultimately, however, the Court did embrace more robust views of individual rights and has repeatedly blocked the overreach of presidents.

Brettschneider describes what he calls “constitutional constituencies” in their struggle against such abuses.

“These constitutional constituencies, the citizens readers of the Constitution who played a critical role in defending and furthering our democracy, therefore disrupt a standard story told by constitutional law scholars and political scientists – experts who declare that checks on the president come mainly from Congress or the Supreme Court or locate the foundation of our democracy with the writers of the Constitution in 1787.”

He adds “If history is any guide, today’s crisis makes this a time ripe for constitutional recovery. In that sense, this book offers hope for current citizens seeking to restore democracy.”

While the book is about historical abuses by presidents and the struggle against them, the book’s pitch pushes all of the anxiety buttons: “Imagine an American president who imprisoned critics, promoted white supremacy, and sought to undermine the law to commit crimes without consequence.” (The book addresses five prior presidents and the pitch does not make direct reference to Trump).

I have no objection to those who speak out against Trump or his conduct. That is part of a worthy national debate in this election year. However, more professors and pundits are suggesting that it is not just Trump but our Constitution that is threatening our democracy. While others have called the Constitution “trash” in their books, Brettschneider is a bit more circumspect in his interview and reportedly calls the Constitution a “dangerous document.”

The remarks of Professor Brettschneider is part of a growing library of books and interviews attacking the Constitution. As discussed earlier, law professors have led this effort. For example, in a New York Times column, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for the Constitution to be “radically altered” to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”

Other professors have called for amending the First Amendment and have attacked free speech as a danger.

The United States Constitution is the oldest and most successful Constitution in history. It has survived crises that have destroyed other nations. Yet, we are a people who have not experienced true tyranny. We can lose our appreciation for how fortunate we are to have this system and the stability that it has afforded this country.

In challenging constitutional values like the system of checks and balances, these academics are seeking to strip away the very elements that have forced compromise and moderation throughout our history. It is the very genius of James Madison that allowed the most pluralistic nation on Earth to govern as one.

The post-constitutional world that some professors describe is no doubt attractive to many. It promises more immediate gains from raw political power. However, it would endanger all rights by reducing the guardrails that have served us so well for centuries.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).

Category:

Tagged with:

Sixth Circuit Hands Down Major Free Speech Win for Professor Against the University of Louisville

By: Jonathan Turley | September 13, 2024

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit handed down a major victory for free speech this week in favor of a professor challenging his treatment by the University of Louisville. In Josephson v. Ganzel, a unanimous panel ruled for Dr. Allan Josephson who was subject to adverse actions after he publicly expressed skepticism over some treatments for youth diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The decision is important because it deals with qualified immunity and reaffirms liability for the denial of free speech protections.

Writing for the panel (including Senior Judge Ronald Lee Gilman and Judge Allen Griffin), Judge Andre Mathis found that university officials could not claim immunity in the denial of free speech protections for faculty.

We previously discussed this case. Josephson was a professor of psychiatry at the medical school and had success at the school after serving as the Division Chief of the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology at the University of Louisville for nearly 15 years. He has 35 years of experience in the field. His apparent good standing at the school changed dramatically when he participated in a discussion of the treatment of childhood gender dysphoria at an event in October 2017 sponsored by a conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation. He expressed his reservations with some treatments and his public comments were reported back to his colleagues.

Dr. Josephson argued that children are not mature enough to make such major, permanent decisions and that 80-95 percent of children claiming gender dysphoria eventually accept their biological sex over time without such treatment. Those views are widely shared by others and have been cited as the basis for states adopting bans on conversion treatments for young children.

His commentary triggered a backlash at the school, which led to a decision not to renew his contract. When sued, the school invoked the Eleventh Amendment and claimed qualified immunity. The district court correctly rejected that claim, and the Sixth Circuit just affirmed that denial.

The university was seeking protection that would have insulated anti-free speech practices from liability, a dangerous prospect that could have dramatically accelerated the growing intolerance on campuses. The University of Louisville was arguing that they could punish faculty for public statements without fear of liability as state officers.

Judge Mathis and his colleagues made fast work of this insidious and dangerous claim:

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity for two main reasons. First, they argue it was not clearly established that each Defendant’s conduct, in isolation, was an adverse action sufficient to show retaliation against a professor because of his protected speech. Second, they argue it was not clearly established that the First Amendment protected statements like those Josephson made in October 2017.

Resolving Defendants’ first argument is not complicated. Defendants argue that Josephson’s rights were not clearly established because no court had specifically addressed whether isolated actions against a professor because of his speech were adverse actions. In other words, Defendants believe they can act as they choose until there is a case on all fours. We disagree. As we have explained, “we do not require an earlier decision that is ‘directly on point.’” McElhaney v. Williams, 81 F.4th 550, 556–57 (6th Cir. 2023) (quoting Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015)). At the same time, “‘existing precedent’ must place the contours of the right ‘beyond debate.’” Id. (quoting Mullenix, 577 U.S. at 12).

During the relevant period, it was beyond debate that “the First Amendment bar[red] retaliation for protected speech.” Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 592 (1998). By the fall of 2017, both the Supreme Court and this court had held that, absent a disruption of government operations, a public university may not retaliate against a professor for speaking on issues of social or political concern. Pickering, 391 U.S. at 574; Hardy v. Jefferson Cmty. Coll., 260 F.3d 671, 682 (6th Cir. 2001). And we had established that a retaliatory “adverse action” is one that “would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that conduct.” Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 394. We had further established that campaigns of harassment, when considered as a whole, may amount to adverse actions. See Fritz, 592 F.3d at 724; Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 398; Bloch, 156 F.3d at 678. It was also established that legitimate threats “to the nature and existence of one’s ongoing employment is of a similar character to the other recognized forms of adverse action—termination, refusal to hire, etc.—even if perpetrated by a third party who is not the employer.” Fritz, 592 F.3d at 728. We have, moreover, “repeatedly held that ‘[a]n act taken in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutionally protected right is actionable under § 1983 even if the act, when taken for a different reason, would have been proper.’” Wenk v. O’Reilly, 783 F.3d 585, 595 (6th Cir. 2015) (alteration in original) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Bloch, 156 F.3d at 681–82). Thus, a reasonable university official during the relevant period would have understood that he could not lawfully terminate or threaten the economic livelihood of a professor because of his protected speech.

Defendants’ second argument does not fare much better. That is because the protected nature of Josephson’s speech was also clearly established. “To be clearly established, a legal principle must have a sufficiently clear foundation in then-existing precedent.” District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 63 (2018). The principle “must be settled law.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Settled law “means it is dictated by controlling authority or a robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

In the First Amendment retaliation context, “we ask whether any reasonable official would have understood that [Josephson’s] speech was protected, and thus that the official could not retaliate against him.” McElhaney, 81 F.4th at 557. The answer: It is, and has been, clearly established that public employees have a right to speak “on a matter of public concern regarding issues outside of one’s day-to-day job responsibilities, absent a showing that Pickering balancing favors the government’s particular interest in promoting efficiency or public safety.” Ashford, 89 F.4th at 975 (first citing Buddenberg v. Weisdack, 939 F.3d 732, 739–40 (6th Cir. 2019); then citing Westmoreland v. Sutherland, 662 F.3d 714, 718–19 (6th Cir. 2011)).

It can no doubt be difficult to determine if speech is public or private. See DeCrane, 12 F.4th at 599 (“[W]e have recognized that it can be ‘challenging’ to distinguish public from private speech.” (citation omitted)). Even so, by 2012, “[w]e had held that employees speak as private citizens (not public employees) at least when they speak on their own initiative to those outside their chains of command and when their speech was not part of their official or de facto duties.” Id. at 599–600 (citing Handy-Clay v. City of Memphis, 695 F.3d 531, 542–43 (6th Cir. 2012)). “Would this ‘firmly established’ rule have ‘immediately’ alerted a reasonable person No. 23-5293 Josephson v. Ganzel, et al. Page 22 that” Josephson spoke in his private capacity? See id. at 600 (quoting Wesby, 583 U.S. at 64). We think so.

Defendants also argue that Josephson’s Heritage Foundation panel remarks were a part of his official duties. Even if that were the case, it was clearly established that such speech is protected. See Meriwether, 992 F.3d at 505; Hardy, 260 F.3d at 680; Bonnell v. Lorenzo, 241 F.3d 800, 823 (6th Cir. 2001) (“[A] professor’s rights to academic freedom and freedom of expression are paramount in the academic setting.”).

After a recent blow to academic freedom and free speech by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, this is a heartening opinion. It is particularly important because, as I have previously written in columns and my new book, public universities will be key to any effort to restore free speech values to higher education.

Higher education has already plunged in trust among citizens under the current administrators and faculty at our colleges and universities. They are destroying the very institutions that sustain them. Public universities can be a strong line of defense for free speech, offering students not just free speech environments but the direct protection of the First Amendment. Not surprisingly, the annual survey of free speech on campuses tends to have public universities at the top of the list of the most protective institutions with a few private standouts.

As shown by the University of Louisville’s medical faculty, administrators and faculty are not necessarily any more inclined to protect diversity of thought at public universities. However, the applicability of the First Amendment subjects them to greater accountability in the courts. In this case, the University of Louisville was seeking to reduce that accountability.

I have written about how taxpayers and legislators can exercise their own power to demand more diversified and tolerant environments at these schools. In the meantime, faculty and students can turn to state schools for greater protections for speech and more diverse environments. This case will help in that effort.

Here is the opinion: Josephson v. Ganzel

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).

Category:

VIDEOS TAKEN INSIDE APALACHEE HIGH SCHOOL SHOW GUN, ORDERED EVACUATIONS

Tagged with:

‘No Politics’ Classical School Opened By Conservative School Board Rocks Colorado Tests

By: Joy Pullmann | September 09, 2024

Author Joy Pullmann profile

Joy Pullmann

Visit on Twitter@joypullmann

Aclassical charter school that was preserved after Republican-backed candidates took over the local school board just posted the top state test scores in the district. Students at Merit Academy, a 3-year-old K-11 public school that opens its 12th grade in 2025, also posted the best scores among the four districts that families in the Woodland Park exurb of Colorado Springs can choose from under open enrollment.

While test scores scratch the surface of student and school academic quality, these do help vindicate Teller County parents dissatisfied with extended school lockdowns, an increase in screen-based schooling, and creeping politicization of taxpayer-provided education. Due to these frustrations, this group of parents started a new public classical school in 2021 and took over their school board that fall to keep Merit open and growing. Merit nearly doubled in size the year after that. Charter schools are public schools run by independent boards that can be closed if students perform poorly.

The Denver Gazette offers a data visualization tool for state English and math tests. It shows Merit Academy’s top standing in the Woodland Park Re-2 district on both measures of academic performance.

The below graph that Merit Academy Headmaster Gwynne Pekron sent to parents, teachers, and staff last week shows the classical school’s test scores at No. 1 compared to the Woodland Park School District, Manitou Springs, Park County, Colorado Springs Early College, and Colorado Springs District 11.

The state scores for the last school year, 2023-24, came out for specific schools and districts on Aug. 29. Like their counterparts across the United States, Colorado children are still struggling to overcome lockdown-caused learning declines. This year, some grade levels of Colorado children performed as well as the same grade level in 2019, but many average results remained below pre-lockdown levels.

High schoolers have particularly shown less recovery of lockdown losses than younger students. Math scores are especially abysmal. Here are two graphs illustrating Colorado high schoolers’ PSAT results, from Colorado Public Radio.

Merit’s high schoolers — it had no eleventh grade in 2024 — also outperformed these state averages on the PSAT, a college entrance prep exam.

*Image by Joy Pullmann using Colorado data.*

“We are extremely proud of these results and the work they represent, but aren’t done striving for improvement by a long shot,” Merit Academy founding board member John Dill told The Federalist.

In 2023, teachers unions vociferously targeted the Woodland Park school board and managed to narrow its conservative majority. The contest gained hostile national media coverage from activists at NBC who support showing children transgender pornography. The local city council is attempting to remove approximately 10 percent of the district’s income and the police were called on a board member’s wife after conservatives decided to contest and win school board posts for the first time in 16 years.

The school board majority has publicly pledged support for high student achievement and parent choice at all Woodland Park schools, and points to Merit as an example of the effectiveness of their leadership on behalf of all local taxpayers and students. In the last three years, the board has raised teacher pay 16 percent and instituted performance-based raises.

Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist. Her new book with Regnery is “False Flag: Why Queer Politics Mean the End of America.” A happy wife and the mother of six children, her ebooks include “Classic Books For Young Children,” and “101 Strategies For Living Well Amid Inflation.” An 18-year education and politics reporter, Joy has testified before nearly two dozen legislatures on education policy and appeared on major media including Tucker Carlson, CNN, Fox News, OANN, NewsMax, Ben Shapiro, and Dennis Prager. Joy is a grateful graduate of the Hillsdale College honors and journalism programs who identifies as native American and gender natural. Joy is also the cofounder of a high-performing Christian classical school and the author and coauthor of classical curricula. Her traditionally published books also include “The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids,” from Encounter Books.

Category:

Education, Family

Tagged with:

Apalachee High School shooting victim Mason Schermerhorn sent last text to mom from restroom, chaplain says

By Pilar Arias Fox News | 2 min read | Published September 5, 2024, 2:27pm EDT

Ronald Clark, a youth minister, talks about learning of the shooting at Apalachee High School and the final moments of victim Mason Schermerhorn.

Mason Schermerhorn last texted his mom from the restroom before he was discovered as one of the four killed in a mass shooting at Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, a chaplain and youth minister who tried to help find the teen said. Ronald Clark had stopped at a store on his way home Wednesday morning, when he learned of the shooting from his wife via phone call. He rushed to the scene, and quickly offered his services to law enforcement at the command post. He was instructed to assist crews on the investigative side.

About an hour later, he said he started seeing the students, who were “hurt.”

Instagram photo of Mason Schermerhorn. — Mason Schermerhorn, 14, was killed in a shooting Wednesday, Sept. 4, 2024, at Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia. (Fox News)

“You want to have the arms big enough to grab everybody, but it’s only so much that you can do,” he said, calling the situation “challenging.”

He described the look on victims’ faces as “shock,” and said those who provided their testimonies to him in an attempt to cope were “strong.”

About 30 minutes later, Clark said he began assisting Schermerhorn’s mother, who is his coworker, with trying to find him.

“It was hard, because we were just talking about her kids on Tuesday this week,” Clark said. “She was saying that the bond and the connection she has with her kids is unbreakable.”

APALACHEE HIGH SCHOOL SHOOTING VICTIMS IDENTIFIED, STUDENT SUSPECT WAS FLAGGED TO FBI LAST YEAR

Former Mason Schermerhorn teacher lies flowers — Wes Robertson, area county teacher and former teacher of slain student Mason Schermerhorn, lays flowers at the entrance sign of Apalachee High School on September 5, 2024, in Winder, Georgia. (Jessica McGowan/Getty Images)

Schermerhorn’s mother told the chaplain she believed that the 14-year-old autistic student was okay.

“‘Hey, I can’t find him,” Clark remembers her saying. “‘I’m just here to pick him up. I know he’s safe. He text me that he’s in the restroom. Can you please help?'”

Clark then took a photo of the teen to the command post, where he quickly learned that Schermerhorn was one of the “confirmed” dead.

Four-way split photo of the victims of the Apalachee High School shooting — From left to right: Math teachers Richard Aspinwall and Christina Irimie were killed at Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, along with Mason Schermerhorn and Christian Angulo, both 14, officials say. (Fox News)

“He was a great kid, from what I was told. Loved life, didn’t have any issues with anyone. He was autistic, but that didn’t stop his glow,” Clark said.

As for any advice the youth minister could give parents, it is to maintain communication with their kids.

“You don’t understand how much we are valued at home,” he said, adding that some children’s faces lit up on Wednesday when they were reunited with their parents following the school shooting. “Pay attention to your children.”

Category:

Crime, Education, Family

Tagged with:

Harvard and Columbia Rank as Worst Colleges for Free Speech in Annual Survey

By: Jonathan Turley | September 5, 2024

For the second year in a row, Harvard University is ranked dead last among universities and colleges on the annual survey of free speech on campuses by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). Harvard shares a score of 0.00 with Columbia University. They are followed by New York University, University of Pennsylvania and Barnard College.

In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss free speech on campuses and note that public universities could prove the last line of defense for this right. It is not that faculty members are necessarily any more protective of free speech or intellectual diversity at these schools. However, they are directly subject to the First Amendment as state schools and thus can be taken to court more readily for denials of the right.

Conversely, at schools like Harvard, Columbia, Penn, and NYU, the faculty appears unconcerned about their dismal records on free speech. There is still a growing anti-free speech movement on our campuses. It is notable that these schools also have largely purged conservative and Republican faculty from their ranks. A past survey found that over 75 percent of faculty identify as liberal or very liberal. Another survey found that many departments do not have a single Republican.

I was disappointed that my alma mater University of Chicago has fallen from number 1 to 44, though it still gets a shout out from FIRE as being a consistently strong free speech environment. The concerning fall has occurred under with the presidency of Armand Paul Alivisatos. He replaced one of the greatest advocates of free speech in academia, the late Robert Zimmer.

My proudest moment came when Zimmer sent a famous letter to the class of 2020. The letter warned students that they will not be shielded from views that upset them or given “safe spaces” on campus.

In the letter, the university declared that “our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.”

It was a moment of clarity that is missing in today’s environment of speech codes, microaggressions, and cancel campaigns. When Zimmer stepped down in 2021, there was a virtual panic in the free speech community. He was our champion and placed one of the premier academic institutions in the world on the side of free speech.

Notably, Barnard College (unlike the other schools at the bottom) has joined other schools in adopting the Chicago Principles. It released a statement committing itself to a new course. We will have to wait to see if faculty will honor such a commitment.

George Washington University, where I teach, is 161st out of 251 schools with a below average ranking. What was surprising this year were the schools receiving a “warning” about anti-free speech policies. They include Pepperdine University, Hillsdale College, and Brigham Young University. FIRE found that all “have policies that clearly and consistently state” that they prioritize “other values over a commitment to freedom of speech.” The President of Hillsdale responded in this column.

If there will be substantial improvements in the anti-free speech environment in higher education in private colleges, they will only come from donors refusing to support these schools until they change their policies and culture. Administrators and faculty feel little pressure to reverse these trends. However, they will respond if their intolerance begins to threaten their own budgets and departments.

Higher education has already plunged in trust among citizens under the current administrators and faculty at our colleges and universities. They are destroying the very institutions that sustain them. In the meantime, public universities can be a strong line of defense for free speech, offering students not just free speech environments but the direct protection of the First Amendment. What is missing is greater diversity of viewpoints on faculties. I have written about how taxpayers and legislators can exercise their own power to demand more diversified and tolerant environments at these schools.

While some professors have argued that free speech and intellectual diversity are not essential to higher education, most of the public disagrees and has a right to expect a diverse and tolerant environment at state-supported schools.

In my book and past congressional testimony, I have also encouraged Congress to adopt ten basic prerequisites for federal funding for colleges and universities on free speech. If these schools want to continue to deny free speech to students and faculty, they should do so with their own funds and contributions from donors who share their anti-free speech agendas. Taxpayers should not be supporting schools which deny a right considered “indispensable” to our constitution and culture.

You can see the full rankings here.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Category:

Tagged with:

“The United States Hates Women”: ASU Event Offers Dystopian, Anti-Capitalist Vision of America

By: Jonathan Turley | September 2, 2024

In my new book and prior columns, I have described a “radical chic” in academia, faculty who thrill audiences with extremist rhetoric and calls for radical reforms, even revolution. The latest example comes from Arizona State University where professors laid out their dystopian vision of America, a vision that apparently can be avoided by “dismantl[ing] capitalism” and “elect[ing] a female president.”

At the outset, it is important to note two things. First, the program covered by the conservative site College Fix was a small event. Second, these faculty members have every right to espouse these views, and it is good for students to have a wide variety of viewpoints on campus. My objection in the past has not been the presence of far-left faculty on campuses but the purging of conservative, moderate, and libertarian faculty.

It is also important to address what are becoming common and extreme arguments on our campuses, including a growing Anti capitalist movement.

The event titled “Jenny Irish’s HATCH: A Speculative Future for Reproductive Rights” was held both in person and via Zoom. Jenny Irish, an ASU English professor, was joined by Angela Lober, director of the Academy of Lactation Programs at ASU’s Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation. Lober, who runs major programs at the school, offered some of the most extreme viewpoints, including the assertion that “the United States hates women and everything the female body does.”

It was a remarkable claim for a nation that has been a leader in the world in women’s rights for over a century and has long had major female leaders from the Vice President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives to various cabinet members.

Not to be outdone, Irish expressed her fear that the United States could see “forced breeding camps” and “cannibalism.” She told the students and faculty that “so much of our reality points toward those futures.” She was less clear on what specifically is pointing to that future other than the Supreme Court’s decision to leave abortion to the states.

Lober was, however, clear about the solution in calling for the audience to help “dismantle capitalism” and “elect a female president.”

The event was co-hosted by ASU Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics, which hosts events that aim to design “a future keyed to human flourishing.” Putting the hyperbolic rhetoric to the side, the anti-capitalist calls have become ubiquitous on campuses. Socialism has become a rallying cry with polls showing that young people have a more positive view of socialism than capitalism. There is an interesting dynamic to the push for socialism in the United States. Advocates may have a harder time convincing new migrants and citizens who fled socialist countries like Venezuela.

The draw of a “land of opportunity” has been due to not just our laws but also our economic system. The ability to sustain that growth (or support the existing social welfare systems) depends on a competitive economic system.

The irony is found in comments like those of Fidel Castro who declared that “my idea, as the whole world knows, is that the capitalist system now doesn’t work either for the United States or the world, driving it from crisis to crisis, which are each time more serious.” Cuba was (and continues to be decades later) an utter economic basket case without either liberty or prosperity.

Hugo Chavez made the same claim before driving his country into an economic tailspin.

As a student at the University of Chicago, I was fortunate enough to attend lectures by Milton Friedman and, despite being a liberal, I was convinced that there was a connection between capitalism and individual liberty. There are liberty-enhancing economic systems and those that are liberty-reducing. The freedom of economic choice in a capitalist system has historically reinforced individual liberty in my view.

The ASU event captures a rising call for dismantling an economic system that helped drive industrial innovation and massive wealth creation. It has also left great wealth disparities. We have sought to address poverty with social programs that offer greater opportunity for those who have not been able to escape cycles of poverty. We have much work to be done. However, the anti-capitalist movement often offers few specifics on the alternatives, as at the ASU event.

This is a debate that should be welcomed but not in this type of one-sided, jingoistic presentation. Imagine how much more substantive this panel would have been with an alternative viewpoint. Let’s have a discussion on the merits of capitalism and the record of alternative systems. That would offer educational and not merely emotive benefits to our academic community.

Jonathan Turley is a Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).

Category: