Yesterday, we discussed the effort to remove one of the country’s most distinguished economists from his position because Harald Uhlig, the senior editor of the Journal of Political Economy, criticized Black Lives Matter and the Defund The Police movement. Now, Cornell Law School professor William A. Jacobson is reportedly facing demands that he be fired because he wrote a blog about the Black Lives Matter movement. Jacobson is the founder of the conservative website Legal Insurrection. My concerns were magnified by a letter from his colleagues that would label virtually any criticism of BLM or the protests as presumptively racist. The letter is a chilling reminder of the rapid loss of free speech values on campuses around the United States.
Twenty-one colleagues at Cornell signed a June 9, a letter denouncing unnamed “commentators… attached to Ivy League Institutions” as calls were made to the Dean to have Jacobson fired. The professors lashed out against academic commentators who criticize the looting as effectively racists:
“These commentators express rage over the sporadic looting that has taken place amidst the largely peaceful protests, calling for organized manhunts to track down those responsible. Theirs is a form of racism that gives cover to those police who use their batons and tear gas and rubber bullets and fists to silence and maim their critics.
These commentators are the defenders of institutionalized racism and violence. They are entitled to their viewpoints. We do not name them, so as to deprive them of a larger platform for their racist speech.”
The letter is signed by a huge number of clinicians (Professors Zohra Ahmed, Sandra Babcock, Briana Beltran, Celia Bigoness, John Blume, Elizabeth Brundige, Angela Cornell, Sujata Gibson, Mark H. Jackson, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer, Cortelyou Kenney, Sital Kalantry, Ian M. Kysel, Mallory J. Livingston, Delphine Lourtau, Beth Lyon, Estelle McKee, Keir Weyble, Carlton E. Williams, and Stephen Yale-Loehr).
Not a word about academic freedom or free of speech; not a suggestion that critics of these protests could have anything other than racist motivations. It is the antipathy of the intellectual foundations for higher education. Rather than address the merits of arguments, you attack those with opposing views personally and viciously. That has become a standard approach to critics on our campuses. Unless you agree with the actions of the movement, you are per se racist. It is a mantra that is all too familiar historically: if you are not part of the resistance, you are reactionary … or, in this period, racist.
It is rather bizarre that these professors would focus on “commentators attached to Ivy League Institutions.” First, it confines the objection to Brown University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton University, and Yale University. Second, it is strikingly elitist. It would suggest that somehow these schools are the only important measure — or at least those schools matter the most. From anything other than an elitist (even privileged) perspective, the focus on ivy league schools exclusively is far from self-evident since most of those schools are ranked behind non-Ivy League schools in U.S. News & World Report, including Cornell which is ranked 17th among universities. Finally, it suggests that the presence of conservative (which they seem to view as synonymous with racist) scholars have no place at such schools. That last point is unfortunately the view of many faculty at top schools which are overwhelmingly if not exclusively liberal.
The professors, of course, have every right to to denounce writers for what they believe are racist elements or messaging in their writings. However, they specifically go after scholars who they believe defend “institutionalized racism and violence” and “express rage over the sporadic looting that has taken place.” That would encompass what they describe as seemingly “informed commentary” supporting institutions of a racist society. It is an all-too-familiar attack on campuses against speakers and academics. What is most striking for me is the inclusion of Professors Mark H. Jackson and Cortelyou Kenney, who teach in the Cornell First Amendment Clinic. They are in fact the Director and Associate Director of the First Amendment Clinic, which is presumably committed to the value of free speech even at private institutions. So these professors teach free speech and just signed a letter that people who question the BLM movement or denounce the looting are per se or at least presumptive racists. It is reflection of how free speech is being redefined to exclude protections with those who hold opposing views.
Jacobson wrote two posts he wrote about the Black Lives Matter movement, including one the “hands up don’t shoot” mantra and another on what he viewed as the movement’s destructive politics.
The language is sweeping and insulting of the BLM movement:
“The goal is to destroy capitalism, and to seek revenge. The Black Lives Matter movement, founded based on fraudulent narratives of the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown cases, is led by anti-American, anti-capitalist activists. They have concocted a false narrative of mass murder of Blacks at the hands of police, when the statistics show otherwise. They will exploit George Floyd’s death mercilessly to drive that agenda. And they will have some success, because all the institutions listed above are behind them.”
I am unfamiliar with Jacobson’s writings. Once again, however, the merits of such arguments are immaterial. What is disturbing is the effort to silence Jacobson because he holds such opposing views. This letter coincides with what Jacobson says is an effort to get him fired. That would not be unexpected. Conservative and libertarian academics are increasingly being subject to discipline or harassed by their Administrations in the hope of getting them to leave faculties. Moreover, many in the BLM movement use equally inflammatory language but are rarely called out by Administrators, students, or faculty. Why cannot both views we treated as enriching the debate on a campus, allowing sharply different values to be heard in a pluralistic academic environment?
A petition of Cornell alumni calls for Jacobson to be fired (specifically, “to end its association with Professor Jacobson and publicly condemn [his] views.”). The petition begins with the objection that Jacobson has “written frequently and critically of Black Lives Matter on his blog and, more recently, has written a number of articles concerning the murder of George Floyd and the ensuing protests.” The school has indeed condemned his view and the clinical letter pledges to pursue all those engaging in commentary deemed as advancing unacceptable views or ends.
The message for other faculty by these Cornell clinicians is both clear and intimidating. Disagree with the BLM movement or the protests and you will be labeled a racist. Indeed, the letter ends on a menacing note: “And we will continue to expose and respond to racism masquerading as informed commentary.” Thus, if you attempt “informed commentary” on the costs of looting and the need for great law enforcement, you are a per se racist.
I have previously discussed how college protesters are increasingly denouncing free speech and the foundations for liberal democracies. Some protesters reject classic liberalism and the belief in free speech as part of the oppression on campus. We have been discussing the rising intolerance and violence on college campuses, particularly against conservative speakers. (here and here and here and here). Berkeley has been the focus of much concern over mob rule on our campuses as violent protesters have succeeded in silencing speakers, even including a few speakers like an ACLU official. Both students and some faculty have maintained the position that they have a right to silence those with whom they disagree and even student newspapers have declared opposing speech to be outside of the protections of free speech. At another University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display. In the meantime, academics and deans have said that there is no free speech protection for offensive or “disingenuous” speech. CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek showed how far this trend has gone. When conservative law professor Josh Blackman was stopped from speaking about “the importance of free speech,” Bilek insisted that disrupting the speech on free speech was free speech.
The recent protests have served as a catalyst for the rising intolerance on our campus. There is an enforced orthodoxy that is captured in the Cornell letter. These letters are successful in creating a chilling effect on academics who are intimidated by these threats. To be labelled as a racist is devastating to an academic career and these professors know that. Now, even “informed commentary” will be denounced as racist if a professor raises a dissenting view. It is not just the death of free speech but our intellectual mission on university and college campuses.
My way or the highway.
A fundamental condition undergirding the American concept of liberty is the toleration of opposing ideas. That concept is clearly on trial today. Insufficient obeisance to the progressive concepts of collective guilt and white privilege are now deemed thought crimes by self-anointed social justice warriors. The punishment for not recognizing one’s inherent culpability is loss of economic support and reputational damage. The progressive left fervently believes that the manifest sanctity of their positions on race, gender, and class allows no moral opposition to imposing their solutions. The weakness of a racialist argument fixated on destroying institutions dedicated to securing society is manifestly self-evident. However, weakness can turn into strength when it’s backed by a flying brick or a firebomb or a mob-delivered beating. One might have thought that the enlightened sensibilities of a modern society as well as legal safeguards would protect individuals and property from an American version of a Maoist Cultural Revolution. However, an uncomfortable conclusion is forming that those barriers may just be a thin veneer that can be swept away by those with ill intent. And regardless of the convoluted reasoning used to justify their attacks, those who would silence their opponents through economic intimidation and physical violence are people of ill intent. Claiming sole possession of truth and morality is always an existential threat to society. The silence of countless graves stands as mute testimony to the dangers of fanatics who regard themselves as morally obligated to transform a recalcitrant society. The responsibilities imposed by the privileges of liberty demand toleration of competing critiques of societal issues so that solutions consistent with individual rights can be collectively implemented. Cuba and Iran and Venezuela are tragic examples of what happens when authoritarian methods institute the righteous doctrines of a monomaniacal few. The recent strife has revealed a coalition of intolerance operating across a network of fact-challenged political organizations, universities, and media corporations. This coalition of intolerance is not compatible with American traditions because it commands submission to its version of social justice. Only demagogues lay sole claim to legitimacy and only fools believe them; the country appears to have no shortage of either. But maybe those traditions are just the fading, tired voices of a bygone era. Maybe fanatical mobs mindlessly chanting staggeringly stupid demands will set the foundations of a new American experiment that celebrates political violence over reasoned discourse. Or maybe not. The jury composed of American citizens will return a verdict in the next election. The question settled will be whether a dangerous pathogen is contained within the noxious but closed environment of “Radical Chic” or has instead escaped containment and infected enough voters with a furious need to pull down the columns of American democracy. Liberty hangs in the balance.
The University of Texas, like so many other universities, has coddled its professors and students who feel they have suffered because of bigotry. (Try being a trial lawyer). Now, a group of athletes at UT are requesting changes at UT to make it more racially accepting.
This is what they want:
Getting rid of ‘The Eyes of Texas” and replace it with a new song
Renaming of several buildings, including Robert Lee Moore Hall, Painter Hall, Littlefield Hall and James Hogg Auditorium
Removal of the James Hogg statue
More diverse statues on campus designed by people of color
Modules for incoming freshmen to discuss the history of racism on campus
Outreach program for inner cities, like Dallas and Houston
The athletes also want UT Athletics to make several changes, including:
More diversity in the athletic Hall of Fame, including a permanent black athletic history exhibit
Athletics donating .5% of annual earnings to black organizations and Black Lives Matter movements
Renaming of some part of the stadium after Julius Whittier, the first black football player at UT.
I am not sure what the beef is with Governor Hogg. He was known for creating Texas Railroad Commission to regulate the powerful oil and gas industry, he was a champion of public schools, state universities, and teacher education and during his second term, he urged the Texas legislature to pass an anti-lynching law, which it finally did in 1897.
I don’t think some of the things on the list will go over well with the people who give the big bucks to UT, such as renaming part of the stadium, but the hardest pill to swallow for nearly all alumni will be doing away with “The Eyes of Texas.” The song was written in 1903 and the athletes want it banished because originally it was performed at student minstrel show where the performers were in black face. For more than 100 years, it has been sung by UT students, faculty and alumni at all football games and major events. There is not a racist word in it. Go figure.
It also is a bit ironic that the athletes want “more diversity” in the athletic hall of fame and the way they want to accomplish that is to have an exclusively black athletic history exhibit.
There really is no telling where all of this will end.
honestlawyer – counterdemand that no athletic team can have more blacks on it than the percentage in the state. No money to BLM since is a pass through for the DNC and only the black athletes sing The Eyes of Texas or they look for a new school.
Paul C– according to the 2010 census, 11.8% of the residents of Texas were blacks. That means that under your rule, you could only put 1.29 black players on the field at any one time. There are several questions though. For example, what if President Obama came out for the team. Would he count as a full black player or only one-half? And then things being the way they were in the South way back when, if some of the white players had a percentage of black blood in them, would that count against the total number of blacks allowed? Rules are easy to write but tricky to apply.
honestlawyer – you might see a lot of black players suddenly claiming whitehood just so they could play. 😉
Paul C– I guess if we can choose which sex we are, we should be able to choose our race. Team photos might be a bit of a problem. Is white face as racist as black face?
honestlawyer – there are blacks that are so light they can “pass” so why not claim whiteness to play football? 😉
I have been thinking about the percent of blacks in the Texas population and think we could do DNA tests on each athlete and then that percentage would be added to a spreadsheet during the game as they came in and out. If you exceeded by 2%, someone would have to come out.
Mourners of UT now get to enjoy the fruits of the liberalism they foolishly tolerated, ever ptotected and even preserved.
Yes, you are so correct about the effect of these Democrat Party policies:
It is not just the death of free speech but our intellectual mission on university and college campuses.
Everybody who votes for Democrats is voting for the death of free speech – the intellectual mission has been an arguably dead horse for awhile now.
Tom, we call ourselves the Democratic Party. I believe you call your party the Republican Party and we honor that.
I am a near lifetime Democrat I am fully in favor of the 1st Amendment. I also happened to vote for every winning Democratic Primary candidate since 1992 except this year, so I think I can claim to be representative. By the way, the winning Democratic Primary winner has won the general election vote in every election since 1992 except for one, when the loser of the 2000 vote was an incumbent by mistake during a war. So, I think I can claim to be a close representation of a typical American voter.
There is nothing democratic about your party or its voters…a better name for your beloved party would be the Dictators party
There isn’t a more dangerous person than the white liberal in America for the last 100 years.You and your party are chock full of screaming and coercive fascists who want to dictate every thing in life to the average Joe…from which school their children should go to which health insurance product they MUST buy no matter the actual need for one
You try to dictate what people should say and think…and you punish them kike the Stalinists you are if they dont toe your line …this is exactly what Mr.Turley is pointing out.
There is nothing democratic about the party that you are a member of. Count yourself lucky that you are called the Democrat party and not by its true and most appropriate name…the Dictators party.
With respect – I don’t know if the “typical” American voter can claim so much electoral victory. Part of our system, surely, is *losing* at the ballot box and accepting that loss, while redoubling our effort to win next time.
And therein lies a big hunk of the problem with which we’re now wrestling: 2016’s EC win for Pres. Trump didn’t result in his opponents’ accepting the results of the election and turning their attention to presenting a more compelling case to the electorate for 2018 and 2020, but rather the immediate declaration of “The Resistance” and a sustained effort to render (by rhetoric, with the full complicity of the news media, if not by lawfare) the results of the 2016 presidential election void.
Irrespective, there are far too many liberals that are cowered into silence against the intolerance of the Democrats, among other things that are antithetical to liberalism. Where are these voices? Gone. Until liberals refuse to kneel, and stand up for the conservatives and libertarians to free expression, it’s just baloney.
No, your party’s name is the Democrat Party, not the Democratic Party. That’s a fact.
“Everybody who votes for Democrats is voting for the death of free speech”
I dont suffer TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) but Im inflicted with TES (Trump Exhaustion Syndrome). I long for a more peaceful, lest stressful political environment. YET, the Freedom of Speech is for me the one thing that tops it all. The single MOST important core of the American Nation. Everything else, including a temporary bombastic president, is tolerable. Presidents come and go, but Freedom of Speech has to be maintained at all cost. If it means electing republicans a/o libertarians for ever. so be it. No republican or conservative ever told me to shut up, none, in the 30 years Ive lived in this the greatest nation to ever exist.
Its been said that:
Great minds talk ideals. Moderate minds talk events. Small minds talk people.
I dont like Trump, but thats just small mind talking. I have pro and cons opinions on specifics and individual events, so thats my moderate mind talking. But I care more for the big picture: FREE SPEECH for ever. That’s Great minds Ideals!
Americans enjoy freedom of thought, speech, belief, religion, discrimination, assembly (i.e. disassembly) and every other conceivable, natural and God-given right and freedom per the 9th Amendment. Where are Americans precluded from holding opinions based on race? Please cite the article and the section of the Constitution which precludes “racism.” Understanding that freedom of assembly includes freedom of disassembly or segregation, and that property damage and bodily injury are illegal, Americans may be as racist as they choose to be. Opinions on race and violence are deliberately conflated for inflammatory purposes by the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs). Holding racist views may be boorish but it is distinctly not unconstitutional.
This been a point I have made many times. Racism, is sad, immoral, disgusting, whatever insult you want to add to it, but ILLEGAL IS NOT. Why not, because racism like homophobia, xenophobia, mysoginist , love,hate, indifference, etc are all ABSTRACT feelings, therefore , both human and unquantifiable. There is NO way to prove that anybody who doesn’t vote democrat is racist unless you put some kind of mind reading device in the voting booth. Yet in the mind of these illiberal regressives if you don’t vote for the democrats there can only be one reason and one reason only: you are racist.
Not to be confused with discrimination, which refers to an actual, concrete action based on racism/genderism/homophobia , or what have you. Discriminatory practices are forbidden by law. To be sure, these actions DO happen. For example a black couple is denied a house by a realtor using some bogus excuse, but not because there is a government sanctioned law that forbids renting to black people. In fact is the opposite, there Ian Equal Housing Opportunity Act.
Not a chance that maybe you could be voting on other items, such as gun rights, Supreme Court, economy, defense, etc.
That’s how arrogant and pedantic they can be. Since their entire world evolves around identity politics, they assume that ours also does. Therefore if you are not pro-whatever they are, then is because you HAVE to be an anti-whatever they are for, No middle points here.
Have to get it somewhere. For sure there is no ‘informed commentary’ emanating from Fort Ivy. Maybe that’s a better place to tear down some meaningless statues.
Race track betters sing this song..
Do da…do da!
Race track betters bet a long..
All the do da day.
It’s all about Race..
When you’re in the chase..
Race matters if you bet..
All the do da day.
–Race Matters
Fred Trump’s in the Ku Klux Klan..
Trumpie..Trumpster!
Fred is a new York man..
All in the Klan.
And he has a son!
Donald is the one.
Donnie is a bigot too..
All the do da day!
Fred was a Nazi too…
Yeah. A Nazi.
He was in the German American Bund…
He’s a Nazi too!
Look up Fred, his wife and Donald on Google Images.
A great contribution to the discussion. Is poetry your major?
He’s probably one of the adjunct faculty that signed the letter (as a way of opening a tenure track faculty spot that they could take)
Au contraire. I support Jacobson. I was spoofing the poetry.
J’aime ton style.
“It is not just the death of free speech but our intellectual mission on university and college campuses.”
*****************************
Oh that died decades ago when the Left took over the campuses. You must have missed the obituary. But fear not about half of the education camps will be gone in 10 years if a professor from the Harvard business school is right. We can then marginalize the remainders by having kids skip needless undergraduate degrees or opt for online courses. That means fewer and fewer full time professorships and finally the leftist crowd will have to work for a living. Viva la counter-revolution! It’ll be economic and it’ll be devastating. Same for professional sports who sign their death warrants every day.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/30/hbs-prof-says-half-of-us-colleges-will-be-bankrupt-in-10-to-15-years.html
hey, that’s too bad, but they can reverse their course if they get out of the propaganda business
some of them could simply shutter their incompetent humanities programs. and keep STEM alive.
humanities are important, but if they are just red guard sessions, end and defund them.
let the kids learn from reading great books, as was done in days of yore/
Professor Turley should read up on what Black Lives Matter itself says are its aims and objectives.
It’s merit that matters. You cannot deny physics. You cannot deny axioms. You cannot deny the truth. You can fool lamebrained, milquetoast, guilt-ridden liberals but you can’t fool mother nature. The unconstitutional and contrived political emulsifiers of generational welfare and affirmative action privilege won’t falsely mix oil and water forever. Money talks and bull—- walks. Image is nothing. The Black Lives Emperor Has No Clothes.
It’s merit that matters.
I was going to suggest that Prof. Turley invite Prof. Jacobson to debate Jacobson’s contention that BLM is itself fascist and anti-capitalist, if Turley believes that Jacobson’s rhetoric is overheated and inaccurate. I’m pretty certain that Jacobson will have his ducks in a row, but if Turley can counter his arguments, great – we will be enriched by the debate.
Yes, I would agree. His characterization of Prof Jacobson’s critique of BLM as ‘sweeping and insulting’ is a little naive. BLM says in their own position statement that they are for dismantling ‘white supremacy, colonialism, capitalism, the patriarchy and the nuclear family’. Note that ‘white supremacy’ is going to be whatever and whoever they say it is, as recent actions show.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/06/theres-an-effort-to-get-me-fired-at-cornell-for-criticizing-the-black-lives-matter-movement/
Jonathan: I think it’s time for a fact check. So far as I can discern no one at Cornell has called for the firing or censure of Professor Jacobson. The “Letter to the Editor” (6/9/20) doesn’t mention Jacobson by name and only states forcefully that “And we will continue to expose and respond to racism masquerading as informed commentary”. In his “Featured Post” (6/11/20) Jacobson is exorcised because “Student groups plan to demand the law school ‘critically examine the views of people they employ as professors of law'”. That was enough for Jacobson to falsely conclude that faculty and students are out to get him. You conclude the challenges to Jacobson’s racist views are “a chilling reminder of the rapid loss of free speech values on campuses…”. You and your conservative brothers on campuses around the country have very thin skins. No one is going to take away your free speech rights. But when you think that “the costs of looting and the need for great law enforcement” are more important priorities than addressing the continuing outrage over the killing of George Floyd and racist police practices around the country don’t be surprised when your views are labelled “racist”.
Sorry, Dennis, but you’ve obvious either remained studiously ignorant of the situation at Cornell, are grossly naive, or are complicit and the shaming (by claims of racism) of those who see nuance — and daresay an opposing perspective — in the current protests, riots, looting, insurgency, occupation, and mayhem. I think, frankly, it’s all three, but it could simply be the phenomenon we’re seeing all around us: otherwise sensible, rational people swept up in a gross derangement brought on by Trump.
This is the dumbest comment I have ever read. You label police practices as “racist” without evidence. In fact, “racist” are beliefs associate with race, such as your own. Those whose beliefs are based on race are themselves “racists.” George Floyd’s death is unfortunate but there is no evidence that it was due to his race, just proclamations by people who have no evidence to back up their claims.
Actually, that jerk cop had 17+ complaints over his sorry career, which included multiple races, not just black. So he was mostly a hideous jerk, more than a racist.
Oh, so now Jonathan Turley is a racist according to Dennis. Unfortunately, that is the default argument when confronted with opposing points of view. I guess Dr Turley lost a few friends on the left when he testified against impeachment.
I would suggest that those interesting in supporting Dr Jacobson send a polite letter to the President of Cornell (Martha Pollack) and the Dean of the Law School, (Eduardo Penalver).
president@cornell.edu
eduardo.penalver@cornell.edu
Sorry, do you think Prof. Turley is a *conservative*?
And you’re making his point for him when you say:
“But when you think that “the costs of looting and the need for great law enforcement” are more important priorities than addressing the continuing outrage over the killing of George Floyd and racist police practices around the country don’t be surprised when your views are labelled “racist”.”
Prof. Turley’s not suggesting that one idea supplant the other. He’s saying that not allowing debate on ideas is chilling. Further, he’s saying (he actually *says*):
“Thus, if you attempt “informed commentary” on the costs of looting and the need for great law enforcement, you are a per se racist.”
Your statement says that Jacobson deserves to be labeled a racist because he dares to *question* the societal cost of, for instance, destroying the livelihoods of those whose businesses have been ransacked and burned, many of whom are themselves black. Explain how your position is a liberal one.
If you can win the argument through presenting a better argument, by all means win it. If you can only win by shouting down your opponent (which is what name-calling is), you’ve lost.
At this point, the term higher education likely only refers to what these professors are smoking.
Their socks.
For expressing an original thought Professor Amy Wax received the same kind of abuse from the jackals at the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 2017, which school is prominent among the academic jackals now howling, whining and snarling at Cornell’s Professor Jacobson.
Moral cowards think and attack in packs.
Academic ideologues are herd animals.
Ivy league! KGB! Bee eye Biki eye, bye o we. Bicky eye Ivy League for you. Commies.
Get it through your head. The professoriate is shot through with people of low character and the rest do nothing to rain in the scoundrels. There was no reason for Sandy Babcock and the rest of them to comment on the content of Legal Insurrection at all.
Since we now know that donations to BLM are going to ActBlue, which is a SuperPAC for the Dems, we can see who the spokesmen are for trying to keeping us in the dark. I do follow Professor Jacobson and he has a daily newsletter written by himself and several people. This is just the Dems, working under the cover of supposed “racism”, to silence the exposure of a Dem cash cow.
Paul C…….Squeeky left us a message on NoFundMe post last night .on the page betweeen older and newer comments
Cindy Bragg – that is vague 😉
Thanks for the note, Cindy. Glad to see she’s still in her usual spunky form!
JT, this column is BS. The letter writers who you apparently seek to muzzle do not mention the professor by name or even hint at him, and so are not part of a campaign to fire him as you pretend. In your column yesterday – which you referrnce here – you fail to underline that those seeking to remove the U of Chicago from a position were not addressing his tenured seat but his heading a journal and organization in which they are active.
This is purposefully obtuse propaganda, not information. If your position has merit, give it to us straight and quit the bait and switch.
PS JT, what was the point of your posting the names of the signees of that letter if not intimidation? You must know that you attract right wing extremist here and some actually threaten physical violence. They wrote their letters to the Cornell newspaper, a decidedly different audience. If they wanted your readers here to be part of their audience they could have posted it themselves, but why would they?
ha ha there is very precious little “right wing violence” at this time
after 2 weeks of well defined, massive “left wing violence” such that the scope or riot looting and arson is worse than 1968, you shamelessly raise the straw man to scold Turley.
This is the greatest act of misdirection — claiming that an act of intimidation (the letter) if published in full is an act of intimidation.
Some media is actually pointing out Trump’s daily lies – which are protected free speech, and music to his cult followers.
Yet again, a post referring to Trump when the subject has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH TRUMP … except in the minds of the deranged.
When you are suffering from severe TDS, as billy mac clearly is, EVERYTHING is about Trump. EVERYTHING. NO LIMITS!!!!
Useless idiots
The best course of action for an individual with no ability to affect policy at these instutions is to simply avoid them and those who espouse such closed minded world views. It’s not worth the aggravation. Why would anyone in their right mind enroll in a university with these types of people among the staff? There’s no point when decent colleges can be found elsewhere. It is fruitless to even attempt to reason with them. You can’t fix stupid.
Darren, Cornell is a private university – though I believe it partners with the state in agriculture and maybe some other fields. Why would you want to affect policy there if not a student, parent, or alum? I don’t think I should try to influence Liberty U policy, nor do I desire to?
Cornell is a private university – though I believe it partners with the state in agriculture and maybe some other fields
maybe some other fields……
maybe. that’s like say “a little pregnant” or “slightly intoxicated”
https://finaid.cornell.edu/types-aid/loans/federal-and-university-loans
Need-Based and Non-Need-Based Loans
Loans are a resource that can help fund your education. Typically, you do not have to begin repaying loans until after you have left school. Below is a list of the various loan options available, as well as details and requirements for each.
Undergraduate Student Loans:
Federal Direct Subsidized Loan
A Federal Direct Subsidized Loan is a federal loan for undergraduate students who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents and who have demonstrated financial need determined by a completed FAFSA application.
Interest Rate & Terms
There is a 2.75% fixed interest rate for loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2020, and before July 1, 2021. There is a 4.53% fixed interest rate for loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2019, and before July 1, 2020. The government pays the interest while the student is in school.
Loan Fees
There is a 1.062% origination fee for loans disbursed from October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2019, and a 1.059% origination fee for loans disbursed on or after October 1, 2019.
Repayment Terms
Repayment is 10–30 years, beginning 6 months after the student leaves school.
Maximum Loan Limits
Loan limits are set by the federal government and vary based on the student’s need and year in school. For additional details, please refer to the U.S. Department of Education’s page on Direct Loans.
Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan
A Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan is a federal, non-need based loan for students who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents.
Interest Rate & Terms
There is a 2.75% fixed interest rate for loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2020, and before July 1, 2021. There is a 4.53% fixed interest rate for loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2019, and before July 1, 2020. This loan will accrue interest while the student is in school.
Loan Fees
There is a 1.062% origination fee for loans disbursed from October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2019, and a 1.059% origination fee for loans disbursed on or after October 1, 2019.
Repayment Terms
Repayment is 10–30 years, beginning 6 months after the student leaves school.
Maximum Loan Limits
Loan limits are set by the federal government and vary based on the student’s need and year in school. For additional details, please refer to the U.S. Department of Education’s page on Direct Loans.
Graduate Student Loans:
Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan
A Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan is a federal, non-need based loan for students who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents.
Interest Rate & Terms
There is a 4.30% fixed interest rate for loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2020, and before July 1, 2021. There is a 6.08% fixed interest rate for loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2019, and before July 1, 2020. This loan will accrue interest while the student is in school.
Loan Fees
There is a 1.062% origination fee for loans disbursed from October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2019, and a 1.059% origination fee for loans disbursed on or after October 1, 2019.
Repayment Terms
Repayment is 10–30 years, beginning 6 months after the student leaves school.
Maximum Loan Limits
The maximum loan limit is $20,500.
Grad PLUS Loan
A Grad PLUS Loan is a federal, non-need based loan for students who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents.
Interest Rate & Terms
There is a 5.30% fixed interest rate for loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2020, and before July 1, 2021. There is a 7.08% fixed interest rate for loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2019, and before July 1, 2020. This loan will accrue interest while the student is in school.
Loan Fees
There is a 4.248% origination fee for loans disbursed from October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2019, and a 4.236% origination fee for loans disbursed on or after October 1, 2019.
Repayment Terms
Repayment begins 60 days after the second disbursement OR may be deferred until 6 months after the student leaves school.
Maximum Loan Limits
The student may borrow up to the total cost of attendance less any financial aid.
First, he’s saying avoid them, not change them. But everyone who pays taxes subsidizes private colleges and we get institutions intent on deconstructing our society. Why should they be immune from our criticism?
Because Cornell U is important, and Darren is smart.
The reason you dont care about “Liberty U” is because it is insignificant.
if it was, you would care about it. Just like i care about Cornell. and you do too.
By the book,
I taught at a major university in California for 18 years and experienced this nonsense first hand. Unfortunately, it is pretty much across the board with a few exceptions. When freedom of expression is shut down on a university campus, it is of interest to all, not just those on that campus.
What Jacobson is experiencing is not uncommon. I have seen too many incidents of conservative or pro-Israel speakers being shouted down and disrupted by those on the left and the pro-Palestinian crowd. The whole idea of free speech on campus, which should be the foundation of a university, has been destroyed.
Presently, the entire country is in turmoil over what is happening in our cities. Yet on campus, we are not allowed to question the motives of BLM-and Antifa- and speak critically over the riots? That is fascism.
There is hardly any disagreement in America that what happened to George Floyd was wrong and must be prosecuted. There is very little disagreement over the right of peaceful protesters to march. Where we part company is over the rioters and those engaged in violence. There is a legitimate question as to whether BLM is a peaceful organization or not. Are they all marching peacefully, or are some of them involved in the violence? Professor Jacobson has his opinion on that. He cannot express it?