Princeton Student Reportedly Denied Job After Signing Letter Defending Free Speech

220px-Princeton_shield.svgRecently, we discussed how a Georgetown University student was denounced as a racist by the Student Government for writing an opinion column criticizing the Black Lives Matter organization — an attack on a student that did not prompt even a statement of caution or concern from the university.  While we have been following attacks on faculty who state opposing views of police shootings or aspects of the current protests, the risk is even greater for students.  As the Georgetown student senators knew, the labeling of a student as a racist can cause long-standing problems for educational and employment opportunities. Now, the site College Fix is reporting that a Princeton student was denied a job and his fellow students submitted to a campaign of harassment after they signed a letter supporting academic freedom and free speech on campus.  Again, the university has not issued a statement.  Universities and faculties have felt no obligation to protect such students as they are subjected to abuse and harassment for expressing their views . . . even of the value of free speech.

Roughly two dozen Princeton University students recently signed an open letter in defense of academic freedom and free speech.  The letter opposes a list of demands issued on June 22, 2020 by students of the School of Public and International Affairs (“School”). The demands include starting a process for the payment of reparation “to the descendants of people enslaved by the University’s presidents and donors, as well as the historically Black neighborhood of Witherspoon-Jackson destroyed by the Universities’ actions.” It also included a demand for anti-racist training at least once per semester for all faculty (including tenured professors), staff, preceptors, and administrators.

Like the original letter, the countervailing letter contains positions and rhetoric that I disagree with.  However, the thrust of the letter is to object that the demands reflect encroachments on academic freedom and free speech. It also foreshadowed the response to the letter:

“To brand one side of these important debates as ‘racist,’ ‘offensive,’ or ‘harmful’ and seek the ‘training’ of those who hold alternative or ‘unacceptable’ views is to rig the game well before it has begun and weaponize the administrative apparatus of the University against those who would doubt, question, or challenge the reigning orthodoxy of the day and age. This would strike a fatal blow to the very heart of higher education, the first principle of which is that there ought to be no safe space or shelter at a university ‘in which any member of the community is ‘safe’ from having his or her most cherished values challenged.'”

Again, as a site committed to free speech and academic freedom, we are more focused on the ability to voice such views than the relative merits of the two opposing positions.  There is a rising orthodoxy on our campus where dissenting voices are being subjected to abuse or retaliatory actions.  Universities are quick to issue statements of support during these protests but have been conspicuously silent as conservative or libertarian or simply contrarian students are attacked for their views.

In this case, the students signing the letter have reported that their pictures and backgrounds have been used in a concerted campaign for abuse.  We have seen this repeatedly on campus where students and faculty have sought to silence those with opposing views by labeling them as racists or preventing them from speaking.

They have been called “racists” and “fascists” on Princeton listservs and social media.

Of particular concern is report that one of the 22 signers, Jack Warden, lost a potential internship with a major business firm after his contact at the company heard about his signing the letter.  The College Fix states that it read the email that referred to the company’s commitment to “social justice” and “rooting out bias.”  It would not however respond to the media inquiry on whether it punished a student for voicing his position and whether the company’s committee to social justice is accompanied by a commitment to free speech.

Once again, as with Georgetown, I am most concerned about the silence of Princeton as its students report a campaign of abuse and lost opportunities.  Would Princeton and its faculty remained silent if the students who signed the original letter were the targets of harassment or reportedly denied jobs?

Administrators and faculty have stood by silently in the face of such abuse rather than risk any criticism or campaign targeting them.  It is a choice of silent acquiescence to avoid any personal or institutional costs for standing in defense of free speech.  These students are just treated as expendables.  As I have said before, I have never seen the current level of intimidation and fear among faculty in thirty years of teaching. These campaigns have worked.  Students and faculty alike have been silenced by the threat of being called racist or the subject of another petition campaign.  They have chosen to remain silent pedestrians as colleagues and students are abused.

The fact that Princeton (an institution with one of the largest endowments in the world) has remained silent is particularly chilling.  If Princeton is cowed by these pressures, it is hard to imagine other schools summing up the courage to defend free speech or academic freedom.

91 thoughts on “Princeton Student Reportedly Denied Job After Signing Letter Defending Free Speech”

  1. Meanwhile Trump and Ivanka have endorsed Goya with text and photos from the WH:

    Lock her up!

    “An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office to endorse any product, service or enterprise … “

  2. The trend is clear. Democrats act like Brown Shirts or the Red Guard. Dissent is not allowed. A loyalty oath to the violent, Marxist, Anti-semitic BLM movement is required. Criticize BLM, or indeed, any Democrat policy in any way, and be punished.

    The Leftist Guard will come for your job, your placement in a university, and try to ruin you, forever, in any way possible.

    The hate is so pervasive, people cannot continue to ignore it. We see what Leftists do with power. They organize at universities and harass, threaten, and cancel invited conservative speakers. They assault or harass anyone with a Trump hat. They say the most vile, savage thing to conservatives on social media, and on TV. They take over city blocks in Settle, and the politicians cower and remove all police. They promote lawlessness, including demanding that federal immigration law not apply. They promote looting and burning as a form of protest. They promote the very policies that destroyed the black nuclear family, and turned a conservative, religious, law abiding sub culture into one of high crime and low expectations. They tell voters that if they keep voting Blue, they will solve all their problems. Deep blue cities descend further into crime and poverty, and yet they make the same empty promises every election, and keep getting voted in. The more poverty they cause, the more people will vote for Democrats who promise people will flourish under more government care. Treat everyone like children and daddy government will take good care of you. It’s all false promises however. No one thrives under government care, which is a poor substitute for a father.

    Thomas Sowell did a comparative study many years ago, comparing the underclasses of the US with that of the UK. The underclass of the US is mainly African American, while that of the UK is mainly white. However, both have been convinced to give themselves over to government care, and both suffered for it. Academics, crime, drugs, and poor health are terrible problems on both sides of the pond in the socioeconomic group on government care. It. Doesn’t. Work.

    Walk away from the hatred and failure of the Left.

    Black, white, Asian, Latino…join the conservatives. Traditional paths are the way to prosperity – study hard in school. Graduate high school. Go to college or a trade school or get a job. Work hard. Wait to have kids until you are married. These simple things will statistically lead to a middle class life.

    All are eschewed by the Left, especially the nuclear family and taking any personal responsibility at all in steering your boat. They will dump money on a problem, but won’t ask people in a boat to pick up an oar and row.

  3. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/katz-showdown-at-princeton/

    Another tale from Princeton. One of the commenters nails it. They admit marginal students (who are miserable because they’re performing poorly), they hire marginal faculty (who are irritated because their inadequacy is manifest to other faculty) who then agitate for more special dispensations. They do so because the administration is stupid and malicious and attacks defenders of academic standards. Incentives matter.

  4. Princeton University is private property.

    The Constitution does not qualify the 5th Amendment preclusion of the deprivation of property and it is, therefore, absolute.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________

    5th Amendment

    No person shall be…deprived of…property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    “[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

    – James Madison

  5. Students and faculty alike have been silenced by the threat of being called racist or the subject of another petition campaign. They have chosen to remain silent pedestrians as colleagues and students are abused.

    Most of you are tenured. It would get very expensive for the institution to discharge you. In my experience, the tenured faculty get what they want from the board and the administration, if not this year than at some point within the succeeding 15 years. Time to start wanting.

  6. This is a time for a legal intervention. There’s plenty of money on both sides. Both sides need to fund lawyers to go to war against each other; one side defending free speech and the other side defending the institutions against free speech. Harvard law needs to sue itself.

  7. I strongly support freedom of speech, including speech that I find offensive. But I want to remind people that freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequences of one’s speech. If people condemn efforts to combat racism, they shouldn’t be surprised if someone characterizes that condemnation as racist.

    If characterizing someone as having some negative trait (call it “X”) — when you believe that their speech and/or actions demonstrate or are motivated by X — constitutes harassment, then the students who wrote the response letter are also engaged in harassment (e.g., by claiming that the students who signed the first letter are trying to “institut[e] … a wrongthink correctional program” and are “proponents of … reeducation camps”).

    1. My thinking is evolving on this. For decades I too was an advocate of free speech. Now, not so much.

      Free speech has been a sword and a shield for the Left for decades, to disrupt a majority they distrust and dislike.
      And now we see that when Democrats feel bold, like they command a new majority, the mask is off. They only want “freedom” for themselves.

      I am OK to let it die. The First amendment is not the be all end all to government. In a successor regime to the United States, if it crumples under the weight of its own contradictions, their will be a different approach. One in which the majority culture is respected and we do not allow our internal adversaries to trash our time hallowed traditions at will.

      And anyhow, you can’t sustain culture without people buying into it. Americans are so socially atomized and selfish, I question our ability to sustain culture over many generations anyhow. It may have already gone too far down the tubes to be worth conserving.

      But humanity will live on. Begin now to envision it.

      1. “The First amendment is not the be all end all to government.”

        I completely disagree. Free speech is what keeps government honest, from abusing its authority for its own, private ends that it wishes to achieve through subterfuge. “you can’t sustain culture without people buying into it.” You cannot get people to buy into without free speech.

        “I question our ability to sustain culture over many generations anyhow.” Free speech can be a counter-force to those degrading culture; it can be used to strengthen ideals. Free speech prevents stagnation by its renewing and reinvigorating of ideas worn thin by forgetfulfness.

          1. The pen is mightier than the sword. And, the First Amendment, etc are worth fighting for. What you are advocating will dismantle the accomplishments and brilliance of Western Civilization just as readily as those espousing post-modernist, Marxist foolishness. It would become a different sort of horror.

            Not enough people have spoken in support of time-honored wisdom and tradition. People have forgotten the ‘why’ of these ideas and institutions. Remind them of the why. Violence does not answer those questions.

            1. Prairie, Kurtz wants it to be war because he’s an infant who can’t handle democracy. It’s not. He also doesn’t believe in the Enlightenment, so why would he believe in democracy.

      2. Who would you appoint to delineate acceptable speech?
        Who would then be appointed to monitor all speech for compliance?
        What do you propose the penalties to be for violators?

        These are the questions you always need to ask anytime you want the government to take away your freedom.

      3. One in which the majority culture is respected and we do not allow our internal adversaries to trash our time hallowed traditions at will.

        Well done Kurtz! I believe that was the exact sentiments of King George III when the American colonies began to revolt.

        1. well if so then maybe George III was right.

          The US “powers that be” tax us more than he did —
          and do more to destroy our social fabric day after day than the distant Hanoverian despot ever did to us.

          We are in a war now. well not yet, right now it is a slaughter. but it will be improved if we make it a war.
          we are sheep lead to slaughter now. they do not want us to understand that is our fate. we must awaken. fast

          voting will not end this. reelecting Trump would be good but not good enough. they could care less about what we do in elections.

          this all comes down to organized force or the lack of it.

          1. well if so then maybe George III was right.

            I understand your frustration. This opening paragraph from Bastiat’s The Law, describes where we are today:

            The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!

            This paragraph under the heading A Temporary Dictatorship describes what I believe are your sentiments.

            Under these circumstances, it is obvious that the springs of government are slack. Give them a new tension, and the evil will be cured…. Think less of punishing faults, and more of rewarding that which you need. In this manner you will restore to your republic the vigor of youth. Because free people have been ignorant of this procedure, they have lost their liberty! But if the evil has made such headway that ordinary governmental procedures are unable to cure it, then resort to an extraordinary tribunal with considerable powers for a short time. The imagination of the citizens needs to be struck a hard blow.

            He has a lot of wisdom in this pamphlet.
            http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

      4. Kurtz doesn’t understand either history or the future and so has chosen a fictional past as our “culture”.. Our past and the world’s future is non-racial and diversity. They emulate our culture and our politics because it is beautiful – from music to food – and it wins.by innovation helped by immigrants. Our “whiteness” is not what the world or even our own kids going back to the 1920s strive for, it is the mixture of cultures that gave us jazz, r&b, and rock and roll and barbecue, hamburgers all the way, and Tex-Mex. Our universities, tech companies, and design labs are half stocked with guys who’s names we can’t pronounce and that is who is leading the world in innovation. unless we insist on giving the lead up to China.

        Wake up Kurtz. This isn’t 1900.

  8. I was talking with a couple of colleagues this morning and they brought up a great point. When they were in college 20 years ago, there were a significant number of students that did not want to ever leave school. There plan was to get their bachelor’s degree and then proceed to get their Masters. Then they wanted to pursue a Phd for the purpose of becoming a professor. They had no intention of entering the real world and actually put their degree to work. They term they used to describe the behavior of these people was being institutionalized. The more this path to academia becomes a closed-loop system, the greater the likelihood those teaching will become completely disconnected from the very world they’re supposedly preparing these students for.

    1. Universities are part of the “real” world.
      For people who complete Ph.D.s, teaching at a university is “put[ting] their degree to work.” Moreover, at an R1 university like Princeton (R1 is a Carnegie classification, see: https://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/classification_descriptions/basic.php), faculty aren’t tenured on the basis of their teaching but on the basis of their research, which you totally ignore as another important kind of real world work that faculty engage in.

      1. Universities are part of the “real” world.

        Sure they are. And they are increasingly populated by staff that have never earned a paycheck outside of academia. And no, if you need a citation; bwahahahaha. 🙂

        1. Hey, at least I’m making progress by getting you to shift from a clearly false claim “They had no intention of entering the real world” (when the university itself is **part of** the real world) to an uncertain claim (in that you provide no evidence) “they are increasingly populated by staff that have never earned a paycheck outside of academia.”

          Note that you’ve shifted from talking about “professor[s]” to talking about “staff.” Maybe you don’t know that those two words have very different meanings in academia. Tenured and tenure-track faculty are professors, and lecturers and post-docs might or might not be professors, depending on the context. Lots of others (secretaries, coaches, custodians, counselors at the health service, librarians, …, even if they have Ph.D.s) are staff. Admin are yet another category. And regardless of which group you’re talking about, an increase from 2% to 3% would satisfy your claim of “increasingly” even if it was still a small minority. I have personal experience with seven R1 institutions (as a HS honors student, an undergrad, masters student, doctoral student, lecturer, and research assoc. at three – one of which was the same place I got my masters), and I know a lot of people who teach or carry out research elsewhere, and the vast majority of both faculty and staff I’ve known have worked outside of academia, sometimes for many years, including me. Since you don’t care about citations, you can take my personal experience as a counter to your personal experience.

            1. No, I’m not, though I can’t keep you from falsely pretending I am (either out of inattention to what I actually said, or out of dishonesty because you so dislike admitting when you’re wrong).
              I’m a counterexample to your claim. I’ve worked in academia, but I’ve also worked outside of academia for many years, as I already pointed out to you. I did not go straight from undergrad to my masters program, nor straight from my masters program to my doctoral program, and each of those breaks included work away from academia, nor did I stay in academia after my doctoral program.
              Most people I know at universities are counterexamples to your claim.

    2. Olly,
      There are far too many education professors who spent very little time in an actual classroom, choosing instead to move directly or nearly directly into academia.

      1. University classrooms are actual classrooms. Did you mean preK-12 classrooms? If so, I doubt that’s true either. The majority of the education faculty I’ve known have spent considerable time in preK-12 classrooms — some combination of teaching preschool, elementary school, middle school or high schools themselves; supervising teaching interns prior to certification; carrying out research; trialing curricular materials that are in development, … But that’s just my personal experience, and of course there’s no guarantee that it’s representative (and the same for yours).

        1. Commit,
          Thank you for asking for clarification. I was unclear. Yes, K-12 classrooms. I meant as teachers in the trenches prior to earning their doctorate and becoming professors. Several of my ed professors did not seem to have much real world experience teaching kids. Thinking back to what my favorite K-12 teachers modeled in the classroom was the most helpful element for me as I prepared to teach.

          A friend of mine who went through a different teacher education program at another university had a far different experience. Perhaps my experience, which is limited and anecdotal, is not representative. I hope it isn’t.

          1. Prairie Rose – my university required that all education professors have at least 10 years in the trenches in elementary or secondary.

            1. Paul,
              Good! That’s how it should be everywhere. I don’t think that was a requirement at my alma mater.

          2. Unfortunately, there are a lot of crappy teacher education programs in the country (in my opinion). Teaching well is hard. Helping people learn how to teach well is hard. For university faculty preparing K-12 teachers, it’s important for the faculty to have a deep understanding of the K-12 students that the preservice teachers are going to end up teaching (esp. in relation to what’s challenging for those students to learn about a given subject, and what kinds of understandings the kids bring with them that can be used as leverage to help them learn the content that’s hard) AND a deep understanding of the preservice teachers as learners of teaching. Just as lots of people underestimate the challenge of teaching K-12 students/subjects well, lots of people underestimate the challenge of teaching preservice teachers well. Same thing for the experienced teachers in whose classrooms preservice teachers do their student teaching: they need to be good teachers for their K-12 Ss, but also need to understand what’s challenging for the preservice teacher, so that they can really be good mentors.

            1. Commit,
              Well said. “Teaching well is hard.” Which is why the foolish phrase “Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach” is annoying. So short-sighted–who else do you want entrusted to educate children?! Teachers ought to be held in high esteem. Unfortunately, yes, teaching people how to teach is too often done poorly.

              1. Like all of us, just having the title of a specific job – fireman, lawyer, politician, rancher, etc., doesn’t mean they automatically acquire esteem with the title. Only after high performance is clearly seen over much time (and not in one small sliver of their duties), should the high esteem be bequeathed and recognized.

                1. Keltin20,
                  That is indeed true for individuals. The profession at large should be held in high esteem, too, in part, due to the importance of this particular profession. People rise to meet high expectations. Teacher can most certainly be a word of honor. Are we doing our part as a nation to encourage and reinforce real excellence? Test scores are not a particularly good metric but that is too often the focus.

  9. I graduated from Cornell in 1970, then went on to the Big U. in Ann Arbor for graduate studies. The controversy over the war in Vietnam was relentless and fierce — and civil. EVERY point of view was tolerated. No one, ever, was singled out for ostracism on the basis of their views. We had students who burnt their draft cards, very much to the displeasure of (and prosecution by) the federal government. Some went to jail; some went to Canada. But none, none at all, were treated as pariahs on campus. Voltaire’s maxim was followed without a second thought. Those that opposed the war, and those that supported it, respected one another even as their opposing view were anathema. Truly this reminds me of nothing so much as the re-education camps of Vietnam and the Red Guard movement in China, neither of which bode well for those involved therein. As I slide downhill to eventual oblivion, I cannot help but worry what kind of world those succeeding me will share.

    1. arthurjmaurello – in the mid 1960s I was at ASU and the draft stuff was kicking off. I played bridge at the Methodist Center (the Neumann Center would not let us play bridge) and the SDS met upstairs. I knew every member of the ASU chapter of the SDS. Nobody really cared that much.

      There were a couple of humorous incidents though. The SDS attacked the ROTC Dept which was under the old stadium and accidentally succeeded in taking it. They had no plans for success. They gave it back after about four hours. Then the SDS held a fast in Danforth Chapel, which is in the center of campus. The YAF brought in catered food and huge fans and set up just outside the chapel and blew the smells of that delicious food into the chapel to those fasting students. 8 hours was all they could hold out.

    2. @arthurjmaurello, “The controversy over the war in Vietnam was relentless and fierce — and civil. EVERY point of view was tolerated. No one, ever, was singled out for ostracism on the basis of their views.” except the kids like myself who went when we were called upon via the draft. When we returned we were treated anything other then civil! Many of these kids bones are now fertilizer for the rice paddies where they fell and were never recovered. You see Arthur in my opinion what we see today are the very people who were so “civil” then, now grown up. They have infected our education system with their views of what a utopian life in America should be.

      Your generation who went to Canada returned and burned their draft cards have never given a thing to this nation but have taken all their lives and complained along the way how unfair this Great nation is to them. In my humble opinion Arthur.

    3. My guess is that UM students in the 70s sometimes treated other students as “pariahs” for other reasons, for ex., being gay. In fact, I bet that it was sufficiently unsafe at the time for people to be out as LGBTQ that many students and faculty went to great lengths to hide this from the general campus community. I could be wrong, but I’m wondering if your suggestion that this is something new is accurate.

      1. My guess is that UM students in the 70s sometimes treated other students as “pariahs” for other reasons, for ex., being gay.

        No, they didn’t, because homosexuality wasn’t taking up rent-free space in anyone’s head in 1968 and active homosexuals did not make a public point of it outside subcultural venues.

        1. You’ve inadvertently underscore my point. Because straight students absolutely made “a public point of” their own sexual orientation, by making out publicly at parties, holding hands in public while walking around campus, talking about their boyfriends/girlfriends in public, …

          Is sexual orientation “taking up rent-free space” in your head? Not in mine. Or maybe you’re just misusing the phrase.

          1. Because straight students absolutely made “a public point of” their own sexual orientation,

            Gosh, no kidding. This may come as a surprise to you, but that’s the ordinary way human beings couple and the subject is, in healthy cultures, discussed only when rubrics are observed. In our own time, homosexuals get positive feedback for being obnoxious about their avocations, while random people who look at pornography are subject not merely to opprobrium but to criminal prosecution. Because each society has standards. Ours used to be better.

            Is sexual orientation “taking up rent-free space” in your head? Not in mine. Or maybe you’re just misusing the phrase.

            You were the one who brought the subject up.

            1. Same-sex coupling is also “ordinary” in humans (in fact, same-sex coupling is found in lots of different species). It simply isn’t the majority. So the fact that most same-sex couples hid this from people in the 70s was evidence of the “pariah” treatment I mentioned earlier.

              “You were the one who brought the subject up.”

              Indeed. Which doesn’t imply that it’s “taking up rent-free space” in my head. My guess: you don’t have a good handle on what “taking up rent-free space” means. It’s not a synonym for “pay attention to.”

              1. Same-sex coupling is also “ordinary” in humans

                I gather your handlers at MoveOn just told you to lie brazenly. Gainesville uses the same tactic.

                1. Learn the difference between “ordinary” and “majority.”
                  There are alls sorts of ordinary variations in humans that aren’t a trait of the majority (e.g., blue eyes, twinning, chromosomal variants, height extremes, homosexuality, deafness).

                  That you resort to ad hom instead of dealing with the substance of my claim is an indication that you’ve got a weak argument.

                  1. Learn the difference between “ordinary” and “majority.”

                    You’re not in a position to condescend to anyone.

                    Again, human equipment is not designed for homosexual practice and the psychology which attends homosexual practice is distinctly corrupt. This isn’t arguable.

                    1. ROFL. Of course it’s arguable. That “equipment” is designed for “practice” by oneself and “practice” with others of either sex. If you’re going to argue that homosexuality isn’t reproductive sex, duh. Neither is masturbati*n. Do you consider the latter “corrupt” too? (If so, then odds are quite high that you’ve engaged in that “corrupt” “practice” yourself). Thanks for making it so clear that you’re a homophobe. I won’t waste my time responding again.

                    2. ‘Absurd’ is one of the blog’s homophobes

                      “… the psychology which attends homosexual practice is distinctly corrupt. This isn’t arguable.”

                      Not in your narrow mind, perhaps, but it is. Said to “This is absurd x XXii.”

                      Glenn Greenwald, today:

                      ‘How “Cancel Culture” Repeatedly Emerged in My Attempt to Make a Film About Tennis Legend Martina Navratilova’

                      https://theintercept.com/2020/07/14/cancel-culture-martina-navratilova-documentary/

  10. These professors are either complicit in these acts of discrimination, or they’re just taking the easy way out – too afraid to stand up for what is right. It’s fascinating and frightening to watch the same process that turned normal, everyday German citizens into passive spectators or participants of genocide – unfold here.

    The path of least resistance leads to hell.

    1. ah, gosh, folks, always back to hitler who’s long dead along with nearly everybody who fought on his side.

      don’t whine about Germany so much

      The only passive watching that’s been going on in Germany the past 30 years is regular Germans shutting up for fear of being called racist while the country is filled with millions upon millions of “gastarbeiters” from Turkey and refugees from “Syria” ie all over the Arab world, who suck up the jobs and the welfare state money while the Germans whose ancestors have actually lived there the past 2 thousand years, just keep quiet about it for fear of being called racist. and getting thrown in jail for it. which they absolutely do over there.

      1. Mr Kurtz says Hitler’s dead and so is everyone else who participated in his policies…

        And?

        The broad path they took is still right there. Which was exactly my point. It’s alarming to see anyone follow in his footsteps. Precisely because that road leads to the same place it always did.

        hell on earth

      2. Mr Kurtz says “don’t whine about Germany.”

        Either highlight the parts of my post where I “whined,” or go get yourself a dictionary and figure out what “whine” means.

        1. dont be cute. this is what you meant when you said this

          “watch the same process that turned normal, everyday German citizens into passive spectators or participants of genocide”

          my point apropos of the subject of this column is that Germany is presently at this time, a nation of citizens intimidated into silence at the invasion of their country by foreign refugees, because of various hate speech laws, which we do not have her literally, but in America, the initimdation is accomplished by twitter mobs on the internet and BLM mobs on the street.

          so deal with today, either here or in germany, or both, just stay relevant which means, 2020 not 1940

          1. Mr Kurtz says, “dont be cute. this is what you meant when you said this”

            don’t be turgid. I said exactly what I meant to say. If you can’t see the thread I’m holding up, don’t blame me for your lack of sight, and don’t point hold out some other unrelated thread. I’m not interested.

            To sum up – me:
            When the Many stand meekly by while others are persecuted by the Few, it does not end well. History has shown that time and time again. Take Germany for an example.

            You:
            Stop whining about Hitler. Look what’s going on in Germany today. You’re pretty cute, and I don’t like it. History is irrelevant.

            1. “Many stand meekly by while others are persecuted by the Few,”

              You just described society, every society, in a nutshell

              there is no way out of hierarchy and organization.
              nearly every civilzation is a hierarchy.
              and any socieety that was not– primitive ones– were swallowed and crushed by those which were

              I believe that our degree of “democracy” is very limited and the sense of buy in people have through its supposed systems, is mostly illusory

              1. Mr. Kurtz,
                ““Many stand meekly by while others are persecuted by the Few,”

                “You just described society, every society, in a nutshell

                there is no way out of hierarchy and organization.
                nearly every civilzation is a hierarchy.”

                I disagree that hierarchy equals persecution by the few. Persecution can happen in hierarchies but it does not equal hierarchy.

                Persecution is the way people may treat one another in a hierarchy if leadership is bad or people do not self-regulate, or, curb one another when people start being mean or disrespectful. It is not a given.

      3. Mr. Kurtz,
        I think you missed em’s point. The bullying and resultant cowing from lack of courage erodes freedoms (then and now).

        The lessons of Nazi Germany, and Stalin’s Russia (etc) are just as applicable today, anywhere.

        1. Yes Prarie they are. But what are the lessons? Organize better than your adversaries, and use whatever means to win.

          Understand this is what billionaires and their mercenaries, the Democrat leadership, on down to the BLM foot soldiers, are doing to us.
          When I say us, I mean, the law abiding, modest and orderly population of American workers and middle class. Because we are the targets. we must be subdued.

          Rather than chant Enlightenment tropes about “democracy” we should be organizing and preparing to meet force with cunning, cunning with force; to appear weak when we are strong, and strong when we are weak. This is all a matter of leadership, and the responsiveness of people to leadership.

          “democracy” is a shibboleth. It is a weak flag to fly to rally at this moment. Law and order is a stronger flag. All the freedom talk is naive. Freedom is going away before our eyes. Soon you will only have freedom to decide what sort of garbage to buy or what words you will say to your friends that nobody beyond them will hear. Your precious freedom will be like the freedom of religion that went away due to a virus and still has not been restored even though ten thousand BLM protesters have the freedom that you do not. Oh and what good are these churches anyhow if they don’t even hold services anymore? No martyrs in those whitened sepulchres!

          You will understand this ever more as the fancy words ring hollower and tinnier tones, and then when they reach one party status, then the other shoe will drop.
          America is on its way to becoming a fallen empire, a third world nation,. and it is concealed right behind the false and phony stock market and debt fueled ersatz prosperity. We have had crisis 1, the covid, crisis 2, the BLM, and crisis 3 will be the utter implosion of the economy, which already happened, it is just delayed in effect.

          The reality of economic ruin will hit, and God only knows where “the powers that be” will take us then. Survival is the goal, not fake words like liberty, it is always survival and the more your own team and wider groups are healthy and flourishing, the more your chance of surviving too. All the fake slogans are just rallying cries. The real objective is always life, and for life there must be power, and behind all power is the reality of organized force.

          Then, you will wish you had understood at this moment, that behind all the pretty words, and slogans, whatever they may be, there ever was just organized force as the basis of all politics.

          http://www.telospress.com/carl-schmitts-theory-of-the-partisan-and-the-stability-of-the-nation-state/

  11. Professor, we must all be able to express ourselves. There will be and always has been some degree of consequence for the expression of an opinion. The difference now is that the expression of an opinion is pre-empted before it is stated. There is no opportunity for discussion, nuance or anything perceived as contradiction. Mindless dogma, adherence to doctrine and stifling of opposing opinion before it is spoken will not end well. Never has.

  12. Interesting that the side that most loudly condemned McCarthyism in the 50s, now actively practices or at least condone it. Have they forgotten this history? Do they not see the obvious parallels? Or do they feel what THEY see as the righteousness of their cause as out weighing the harm they are inflicting on innocent people?

    1. Again, the nexus of practices called ‘McCarthyism’ was injurious to the interests of people who wanted to garner or maintain themselves in federal employment while having been associated in the past with the Communist Party (though some were only associated with ‘front organizations’). It affected another crew of people who were employed in Hollywood and, again, were associated with the Communist Party or at least its front organizations. Some other people were injured. I happened upon a magazine article about a spinster school teacher who lost her job around 1954. Jessica Mitford contended she lost a job selling classified ads around about 1957 when some FBI agents showed up and ratted her out (I know, a grain of salt). There was a war veteran named James Kutcher who was the subject of harassment over his association with the Socialist Workers’ Party. This was a vastly smaller (and much creepier) segment of American society than the people being subject to harassment today.

      Note, Howard Zinn was a member of the Communist Party ca. 1947. Not an ordinary dues-payer, but a three-meetings-a-week member. He later hid out in the old American Labor Party in New York during its terminal phase. The FBI was all aware of it and we know now because of FBI document dumps. Didn’t prevent him from being hired by BU in 1959 and didn’t prevent him from being granted tenure around 1964.

  13. More of the leftist tolerance for which they are so well known. Let’s be honest, ALL LIVES DON’T MATTER and at least many leftists are now honest about saying it. Say “ALL LIVES MATTER” to the wrong people and you may get killed. Anyone see the story on CNN?? Wait, you mean they didn’t cover it…..

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/07/young-white-mother-killed-black-lives-matter-mob-allegedly-saying-lives-matter-national-media-fully-ignores/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons

    Wonder how life is going to be for gentry liberals when you are a despised minority in another 50 years? Anyone want to speculate. Hope you are secure in that gated community where you live and like paying reparations for something you never did.

    Wonder how life is going to be for Blacks in a Hispanic-Asian dominated society in another 50 years? Can tell you as a Hispanic myself, I owe and my descendants owe you NOTHING. And neither do today’s Whites, only wished they realized that. Whites have been paying for 50 years through such mechanisms as affirmative action, minority set asides, lowered standards and tolerance of disproportionate black crime,

    antonio

    1. The “gentry liberals” will be eaten up and it won’t take 50 years. We have seen more things go in the toilet in five months than you usually do in a decade.

      Personally. I welcome growth in the Asian population, because they have the smarts to make certain obvious conclusions anybody can see with two eyes–
      and act on them.

      Now, you wouldn’t know that from some of the Asians like Andrew Yang who get up there and spout the usual Democrat platitudes about race, but, as they say in Chinese —

      “ta fang pi le”

      Take a look at Asian societies where there are a lot of Anglos– specifically, Hong Kong and Singapore– and it’s obvious that whites and Asians can cooperate in a law abiding civil society.

      The “race problems” of the US are overwhelmingly related to two things:

      a- ongoing low social attainment and crime from blacks, most of all; and
      b- a massive surge in the “non-white hispanic” immigration from Mexico, Honduras, etc. in the past 40 years– to a lesser extent.

      All these BLM riots just prove the point.

  14. Really, Mr. Turley,

    As much a fan of yours as I have been now for many years,
    I find it odd you feel quaint assumptions of common decency, mutual respect and freedoms of thought and speech,
    to be accepted fundamentals to current dialogue in this Nation ~ amusing.

    I must suspect you are at least beginning to see the larger patterns by now.
    But, Emily Post in the face of Reichstag ~

    I applaud your courage my friend, but can’t help but wonder how long do you imagine “they” will let you stare down that Tiananmen tank
    before cancelling you too.

    Regards,
    a fellow American

    1. The problem is most of his ‘colleagues’ have been cosseted in ways that aren’t good for them and are of deficient character. So these feckless, other-directed schlubs do nothing. The faculty who say something are the worst.

    1. If you’d bothered to click on the relevant link, you’d know that the student doesn’t name the company, so Turley can’t name it either. That link makes clear that the student is claiming this and apparently provided a private copy of the email to the reporter, but the student hasn’t presented public evidence, which is why Turley says “reportedly.”

  15. It takes no courage to be a closeted liberal, which is what 99% of academia is comprised. Take caution that those who are brave and cherish our freedoms will not tolerate this damage to our nation for very much longer, a storm is coming.

    1. Alma Carman– In a conversation with my oldest friend the other day, I mentioned the tainted jury problem with Roger Stone’s conviction. He is a retired professor, very well read and keeps up with the news. He had never heard of it. The actors who control the information we receive are widespread. Consider Google. A few minutes ago I googled “Roger Stone tainted jury”. The Google result was an entire page of articles discussing how the jury was not tainted. I then Binged the exact same phrase. The result was a page of articles, some saying the jury was tainted and some saying it was not. Obviously, Google is the dominant player in this market. I do not believe many Americans appreciate how much the information they receive is controlled by one side. And, members of academia do not speak out either because most of them agree with those controlling the information or they lack the courage to do so.

      1. You are exactly correct. Control the flow of information and you control a population. I fault not those who are on the left, but those who have claimed to be on the right for abdicating their duty for either profit or lack of courage. We, on the right, allowed the media to silence that untoward yet correct voice; Joseph McCarthy and when they left realized we were cowards, they went full steam ahead while we remained willfully ignorant.

      2. Judge Berman Jackson disagrees with you that the jury in the Store case was “tainted,” and I bet she’s looked much more thoroughly at the relevant evidence than you have.

        That you believe the jury to be “tainted” is not evidence that your belief is true.

        1. ToCommittoHonestDiscussion: I have practiced law for 40 years. I have never been more disappointed with the judiciary than I am now. You may be giving the judge too much credit! It’s a sorry state of affairs.

          1. I’m disappointed in some of the judiciary too. But my guess is that you and I are disappointed by different people / different issues.

            Here’s Judge Berman Jackson’s ruling about Stone’s motion for a new trial: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14515855/362/united-states-v-stone/
            I don’t think I’m giving her too much credit. I think she considered the issue pretty thoroughly. Did she write something that indicates a lack of thoroughness to you?

        2. Commit– I don’t know about where you live but in Texas if I am able to demonstrate to a court that a member of the jury panel has significant bias for or against a party, particularly dealing with his or her ethics and honesty and even to a lesser degree than that of the Stone jury foreperson, that juror would be struck for cause sua sponte if necessary. Given the depth of her animosity, the jury was tainted by her presence. I do not know why the foreperson failed to answer the questionnaire truthfully or why Stone’s attorneys apparently did not do a social media check on the jurors before the voir dire. Regardless, when Judge Jackson learned what had occurred, she had a duty, in my opinion, to grant the motion for new trial.

          1. I’ve lived in TX, but don’t live there now.
            And the Stone trial didn’t take place in TX, so TX law is irrelevant to his trial.

      3. To Honestlawyermostly: Thank you for your keen observations. I share your perspective. It is hard to watch and experience this current environment of intolerance. Where to we begin? I usually think that each individual can take a stand and make a difference, but facing off against the universities and the social media giants is daunting. Any thoughts about how David can take on Goliath now?

        1. Cassidy– thank you for the kind words. I do not believe this necessarily is going to be David taking on Goliath. Right now I am trying to determine clearly who still believes in American values and who has succumbed to the mob. Surprisingly, at least to me, I have seen quite a bit of caving by clergy as I have by a number of my social and political friends whom I thought I knew better. I do believe that the people in this country mostly stay quiet but there is a tipping point. We saw it with Richard Nixon and Watergate. He seemed untouchable, even bringing on a Constitutional crisis, but all of sudden the tide turned and when it turned it was a huge wave. Was it the seemingly innocuous testimony of Col. Butterworth who disclosed the taping system in the White House? I think something similar is going to happen here. Americans are good and decent people. I think the images that have flooded the airways in the last few months have been accumulating behind a “wish it wasn’t so” kind of mental dam but I believe something will happen that will cause the dam to burst. When that occurs, the mobs and criminals and politicians who have brought this on will feel the wrath of the American people. As with the Japanese in World War II, they may well regret awakening the sleeping giant.

    2. The storm is here and it is pounding the regular people.

      When the re-inflated stock market bubble bursts, maybe around the end of the month, that may be the spark. Then after that, the deluge. Even more chaos. I don’t put my stock in law abiding people to fight back, not yet they havent, and without leadership and organization, it may never happen.

      But it’s already been raining like hell all year long. The year of the rat is quite a rat so far. but its only half done, we shall see

Leave a Reply