“A Privilege To Teach Future Dead Cops”: John Jay Professor Placed On Leave After Disturbing Tweet


Issacson drew national attention with an appearance on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight” show.   When the New York Daily News contacted Issacson, he was dismissive of the concerns: “Oh, that shit? Everybody dies.”  He added:

“I was talking about police as an agent of control that is actually in less control of the public than it’s supposed to be. I don’t have a problem with individual police officers – I mean, I teach them – but I don’t like policing as an institution. Police officers are agents of that institution.”

Issacson has appeared on a couple of Fox shows and admitted that he is a leader of Smash Racism DC, an organization accused of fostering violence.  He identifies himself as an anarcho-communist and spews the same low-grade and jingoistic platitudes common to the Antifa movement.  Issacson insists that the anti-speech activities of the Antifa are “self-defense.”  He does touch on his teaching in this interview:


He does not that he has taught “alt-right” students and has not discriminated against them.  There is no allegation that he has been biased in his classroom.

John_Jay_logoHowever, in a statement on the controversy John Jay College’s president, Karol V. Mason has stated

“Today, members of the John Jay faculty received threats, and our students expressed concerns for their safety in the classroom. Out of concern for the safety of our students, faculty and staff, we are immediately placing the adjunct on administrative leave as we continue to review this matter.”

 I am not sure that I concur in that rationale. It is one thing for the school to review Issacson’s status in light of his references to the school and his students.  It is entirely a different matter to say that the school will put an academic on leave when his views generate opposition in the public.  That is allowing the mob to control curriculum and faculty — precisely what Antifa has been accused of fostering.
Nevertheless, Issacson has acknowledged that he did put his school at risk:
“My biggest regret is putting my students and the John Jay faculty and staff at risk. That was not a risk that they assumed voluntarily, and that very much contravenes my political convictions. I deeply apologize to the John Jay community for making them the target of death threats and harassment.”
In another interview, Issacson expresses concern over his co-workers and insists that he wants help his students.  He does indicate that he does not want his students to become police officers but does support their becoming fire fighters.

The issue of academic freedom looms large in such controversies.  As we have previously discussed (including the recent controversies involving an Oregon professor and a Drexel professor), there remains an uncertain line in what language is protected for teachers in their private lives. The incident also raises what some faculty have complained is a double or at least uncertain standard. We have previously discussed controversies at the University of California and Boston University, where there have been criticism of a double standard, even in the face of criminal conduct. There were also such incident at the University of London involving Bahar Mustafa as well as one involving a University of Pennsylvania professor.

There remains an undefined line of what academics are allowed to say on social media or public forums.  The danger is that schools will engage in content-based discrimination or, even worse, use public reactions to determine what is permissible or not permissible. What makes the Issacson case a bit different is his reference to his students and classes including not just the “dead cop” comments but not wanting students to become police officers (which is a large portion of students at the college).


70 thoughts on ““A Privilege To Teach Future Dead Cops”: John Jay Professor Placed On Leave After Disturbing Tweet”

  1. This adjunct professor should be sacked at the earliest time possible. It should be self-evident why I say this. If he instructed law enforcement officers at the same time he advocated the killing them, where I come from they would have ran him out of town on a rail. This professor is a jackass in the first degree.

  2. Another thought that I had concerning people like Isaacson, is related to “virtue signalling.” It’s not virtue signalling, but it’s related to it. First, let’s define “virtue signalling.” This is a blurb from the wiki article on it:

    It’s Moral Preening, Virtue Signalling, Competitive Pearl-Clutching, Flashing Tribal Signs—call it what you will—it’s a Superior Dance beyond the Church Lady’s wildest imagination. Screaming ‘racist’ and hitting the fainting couch—PUBLICLY! of course—demonstrates how very sensitive you are, that you’re so far from being a racist that you can sense racism where mere mortals cannot… Best of all, you’re more sensitive than Those People, which gives you license to heap punishment on them in whichever way you deem most deliciously vile.

    They’re [the virtue signallers] not fragile. They’re not offended. They’re not the least bit sensitive or caring. They’re out for blood, which their ostentatious virtue entitles them to spill. We’re fools to let them get away with this aggressive bullsplat this long.


    So, with that out of the way, I think there is another form of “signalling” which often goes along in tandem with the “virtue signalling”, which I call “intelligence signalling.” Because of the onslaught from the left wing media which presents Leftist Ideas and The Democratic Party Narrative as the only permissible idea which intelligent people can hold, there is an attempt to glom onto those ideas as a means of presenting the speaker as intelligent. Simply because he identifies with those ideas.

    With Isaacson above, notice how you get the Leftist Phraseology of SJW Jargon only occasionally broken up by any original thought. I submit that Isaacson maybe isn’t all that smart, and to appear smart he simply latches onto the Left Wing Narrative. Same with the Meryl Streeps, Steven Colberts, Jimmie Kimmels, Barbra Streisands, etc. They really don’t know what they are talking about, sooo they simply repeat the latest DNC type talking points to cover up their own ignorance.

    Which also explains why so many Democratic shills and wannabees who comment here simply call those they disagree with various names, and so often are unable to explain their beliefs, or engage in any substantive argument.

    Presented FWIW.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeeky – I just watched a series of videos of the various networks calling the Trump/Clinton election and virtue signalling was all over the place. I had not watch election night because I thought Hillary was going to win so it was a pleasant surprise when I found out she hadn’t. Now I hear she is considering contesting the election. God only knows why?

        1. Squeeky – you can just see the sweat flop in those videos. If they had not put roll-on deodorant on their foreheads before the show started, they would have lost at least 15 to 20 lbs in sweat.

Comments are closed.

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: