Auburn Professor Triggers Free Speech Fight Over Anti-Police Comments

Auburn Lecturer Jesse Goldberg has triggered a firestorm over social media posting containing anti-police sentiments and other controversial comments.  The recently hired academic drew critics when, after his hire, he would not use the school’s battle cry of “War Eagle” because of the inclusion of “war.” That was however mild in comparison to later postings targeting police or declaring “Wait til M-Fers find out I’m queer and teach in goddamn heels too. They gonna get madder.”  As will come as little surprise to people on this blog, I do not believe that the university should punish Goldberg for his political and social expressions outside of school. We recently discussed such protections for a Texas A&M professor who posted anti-Trump comments.
Goldberg has been criticized for tweets proclaiming “F*ck every single cop. Every single one” in response to the Portland protests and used “ACAB,” the acronym for “All Cops are Bastards.”

downloadAs we have previously discussed (with an Oregon professor and a Rutgers professor), there remains an uncertain line in what language is protected for teachers in their private lives. Recently, a conservative North Carolina professor, who faced calls for termination over controversial tweets, was pushed to retire. Adams (right) later committed suicide.

There were also controversies at the University of California and Boston University, where there have been criticism of such a double standard, even in the face of criminal conduct. There were also such an incident at the University of London involving Bahar Mustafa as well as one involving a University of Pennsylvania professor. Some intolerant statements against students are deemed free speech while others are deemed hate speech or the basis for university action. There is a lack of consistency or uniformity in these actions which turn on the specific groups left aggrieved by out-of-school comments.  There is also a tolerance of faculty and students tearing down fliers and stopping the speech of conservatives.  Indeed, even faculty who assaulted pro-life advocates was supported by faculty and lionized for her activism.

In this case, Auburn President Jay Gogue correctly affirmed that Goldberg’s remarks were constitutionally protected. However, Gogue noted the university had “agreed to Dr. Goldberg’s request that his role transition to a research-focused assignment.”

That drew an objection from two dozen fellow professors over the treatment of Goldberg in an August 28 letter.

The letter legitimately raises the concern over Goldberg’s change in status from a lecturer to a researcher. However, the professors then use their letter to attack another professor who voiced opposing views on transgender issues. Nevertheless, there is a valid concern, as stated in the letter, whether “releasing Dr. Goldberg of his teaching duties as a result of his public politics sets a disturbing precedent in which people outside the academy have influence on how and what we teach.”

It is heartening to see the university support the free speech rights of this professor and I hope that his colleagues will show equal support for those professors who voice countervailing or opposing views on these very same subjects.

 

50 thoughts on “Auburn Professor Triggers Free Speech Fight Over Anti-Police Comments”

  1. This person is unfit for a job in which interaction with others is a requirement.

  2. I don’t say fire this guy for his statements; they should fire him for being a passive/aggressive, instigating arsehole. He’s trying to start trouble.

  3. Well professor Turley is a good liberal person.

    Personally, i have been bullied over enough of my life by rising left wing radical elements, that I am sick of it and fully into the post-modernist way of thinking about them which dispenses with the bromides of classic liberalism.

    So let me elbaorate. There is no worry. Be calm and confident that if this gets worse, then it will be all that much easier to rectify eventually.
    If the Left succeeds in throwing free speech out the door, then one day, it will be very easier to take their scalps in turn.

    This is what the ACLU used to worry about. They seem to think it’s impossible that a resurgent normality and decency will ever grip the nation again, and they are now safe to support the “Red Guard” style persecutions.

    But, we will outlive the Red Guard of today, which is BLM / ANTIFA and all their associates.

    When the counter-stroke to this insanity comes, it must be strong and deep and severe. Now let’s hear from WIKI about the suppression of the insane and murderous Red Guard in PRC, after years of terror from the radical students at all more conservative elements of Chinese society. As you read, consider how this may reflect a moment we are having in America today– or we will soon have, God williing..

    “…By the end of 1966, most of the Cultural Revolution Group were of the opinion that the Red Guards had become a political liability.[12] The campaign against ‘capitalist-roaders’ had led to anarchy, the Red Guards’ actions had led to conservatism amongst China’s workers, and the lack of discipline and the factionalism in the movement had made the Red Guards politically dangerous.[31] 1967 would see the decision to dispel the student movement….

    By February 1967, political opinion at the center had decided on the removal of the Red Guards from the Cultural Revolution scene in the interest of stability.[35] The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) forcibly suppressed the more radical Red Guard groups in Sichuan, Anhui, Hunan, Fujian, and Hubei provinces in February and March. Students were ordered to return to schools; student radicalism was branded ‘counterrevolutionary’ and banned.[36] These groups, as well as many of their supporters, were later branded May Sixteenth elements after an ultra-left Red Guard organization based in Beijing. There was a wide backlash in the spring against the suppression, with student attacks on any symbol of authority and PLA units, but not on Marshal Lin Biao, the Minister of National Defense and one of the Chairman’s biggest allies. An order from Mao, the Cultural Revolution Group, the State Council, and the Central Military Affairs Committee of the PLA on 5 September 1967 instructed the PLA to restore order to China and end the chaos.”

    I add a few thoughts to this wiki quote.

    The Red Guards not only got people fired, including public officials and other insufficiently enthusiastic communists, but they are counted as responsible for over a million executions.

    Make no mistake, a radical left anarchist movement can be the ruination of a nation. But the good news is they bring with them, the tools with which they themselves, can be brutally suppressed, when people have had enough.

    When Mao died, they locked his crazy last wife who was a prime mover in the Red Guard faction up. They got a lot of revenge on the crazy red guards, and those who had been persecuted took over China and took it in a very different direction– including Deng Xiaoping, who had been locked up by the nutjobs.

    We have our own nutjob crazies today. They are the BLM and ANTIFA. Anyone associated or supporting them is an enemy of law and order and the common people. We will have a revenge against them just as the common people of China did. The harder they push their agenda, the surer stronger the more certain the counterstroke will be.

    1. @Mr Kurtz-Well said, Well said. The snap back must come soon, each day these people wound this nation and the law abiding. Because there’s no counter resistance or force of law to these attacks what we are experiencing is predators who smell blood in the water. Until law enforcement is unleashed the flock will have to unite and train to protect themselves. I read an article during the “impeachment coup” the author said that if they continue to fail in attempts to unseat this President they will turn to violence. This guy should have signed the article The Great Karnak”.

  4. My wife works for a major banking institution and they have a place for all people like this, the file room.

  5. This is another of Turley’s confusing posts. The guy tweets that he is gay. He exclaims, ‘F*#k every cop. So, which is it. Does he want to, ‘you know’, every cop or is he using the expression carrying a different and more nasty meaning; perhaps with the use of a baton. It goes without saying that advocating that all cops are b*#tards and that every cop should be so disadvantaged or whatever f*#k means, is an extreme position and amounts to advocating a turning over of society in a most dangerous way. One might equate these rants to yelling fire in a crowded theatre. This seems to be the state of affairs when extremists armed to the teeth are welcomed by the police at riots, allowed to meander about after they shoot a couple of protesters to death, etc. Universities defending this sort of sewer mouth and the Constitution perverted to the point of open carry allowing mentally disturbed people armed attendance at riots means, perhaps that one can yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre. Freedom is not a right but a responsibility. It was termed a right by the same society that determines responsibilities. The illusion of rights without qualification and responsibility is uniquely American in its extreme. If you are irresponsible and break the law, you lose your rights. This ideological BS about being born with rights absolute and defensible individually is the crack in our dam. The problem is that lawyers and politicians spend all the time arguing which digit to stick in the hole. Plays, books, and movies are written without end concerning this. We laugh and are entertained but now it’s walking our streets and teaching in our universities.

  6. The Mental health of professors should be carefully examined. Not many would miss the spoutings of tenured queers.

      1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, and his mental health professional certificate after eighty-seven weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. and is suffering from cementia Adjunct professors are also non-tenured or tenured tracked. However, the credit they give counts the same as if they had a double Ph.D. from Cambridge and a full professorship.

  7. There is a difference between constitutionally protected speech and socially accepted speech. What is acceptable by the legal world should not always be accepted in the social world.

    Any business, organization or agency should have rules in place that only allows for the same treatment of adults as one finds acceptable in K-12 schools. If being a bully is not acceptable in K-12, it should not be acceptable anywhere.

    But when we have journalist, organizations and other bullies defending bullies and their “speech”, we can only expect our society to further degrade into one where treating people with respect in the norm and not the exception.

    1. Sorry, we can only expect our society to further degrade into one where treating people with respect is the exception and not the norm.

      1. Affirmative action, public assistance, quotas, welfare, food stamps, WIC, HAMP, HARP, HUD, HHS, social services, public housing, rent control, unfair “Fair Housing” laws, discriminatory “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc. ad infinitum are the communists’ (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) idea of “respect.”

        Sorry, Charlie.

        Respect is engendered naturally by people who perform well and appropriately, not by the brute force of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

        All you respect have-nots, go out and EARN your respect – go earn all the respect you can handle – but you don’t get it for free, you don’t get it by force.

        1. George, I think you missed my point. Check my original comment and you will see this “reply” was a correction to my last sentence where I reversed the words and was discussing the impacts of “bullies”.

          Now I may be reading your comment wrong and you may agree that the professor should be allowed to speak in this manner, as well as others. If so, then we can discuss further.

  8. “Success breeds success.”

    – Mia Hamm
    __________

    Bleeding heart liberalism and corresponding failure breed failure.

    Antithetical, anti-American and unconstitutional affirmative action, quotas, alms and public assistance constitute communist social engineering and redistribution of wealth which confiscate success from superior entities and fallaciously provide an empowering and false sense of security to inferior entities who have lost the battle of history.

    Contrived, fabricated and ersatz success will be their downfall; their inadequacies revealed.

    Empathy and charity are religious and moral concerns and exist in separation from the state.

    Covetousness and deviancy are not virtues or concerns of rational constitutional governance.

    Were that the parasitic entities compelled to persist of their own devices, they would be commensurately deferential and obsequious; achieving their own distinct form of success.

    That which is natural, factual and righteous is:

    “Survival of the fittest.”

    – Herbert Spencer

  9. How is it that these so called professors of higher learning have not presented a learned thought process. Why do they think they are smarter than everyone else?? Is a mental disorder a prerequisite to get a teaching job in College these days?
    From reading this blog site, it would appear so! If I were a college grad in this modern era, I would demand my tuition money back. I would bring a lawsuit against the University if they did not refund my tuition. I paid tuition to learn a curriculum and have an open exchange of ideas. Not be indoctrinated or brainwashed!

    1. Again, these are scarce positions. He’d have to run a gauntlet of interviews and reviews to get the job. The hiring committee doesn’t have many excuses.

  10. The trouble with higher educators is that most of them suffer from Liberalism – A well known mental disorder.

    1. They suffered from that 35 years ago, too, but the culture was different.

      See Fr. Paul Shaugnessy, SJ on what he calls ‘sociological corruption’. In his formulation, and institution might have 5 people who are scoundrels, 5 who are heroes, and 90 just keeping their heads down doing their jobs. If the heroes are a critical mass and influence institutional leadership, the nefarious activities of the scoundrels are contained and the heroes set the overall tone. However, without much change in the proportions of each, there can arise situations when institution loses the ability to self-police, and the object of the institution is to avoid bad publicity generated by the machinations of the scoundrels. I suspect you’d have t scrounge to find an institute of higher education which wasn’t sociologically corrupt. When I was in school, the faculty who had an expressed opinion chuckled at the campus commies. The commies had very little manifest influence and you could find non-liberals in many departments. Not so anymore.

      1. XXii The study and results do sound like a study which defined the SILENT MAJORITY. Although the term was used by Nixon (I think) during his term as Pres. Interesting. More than 35 years ago. During the Ecno Meltdown of 2007-08, Greenspan was a disciple of Ayn Rand’s thinking that institutions are self correcting, therefore not needing regulation. What a major stupidity and DUH moment, as they are run only by humans.
        TY

  11. However, the professors then use their letter to attack another professor who voiced opposing views on transgender issues.

    Again, their objects are not your objects. And they are bad men.

  12. What needs to happen to repair the culture of higher education is for state legislature to pass statutory prescriptions and to close corrupted institutions. Shutter UNCW and put them all on the unemployment line, giving severance only to hourly employees and salaried employees working in physical plant and accounting. That might get the attention of those on other campuses.

    NB, Auburn was foundationally an Ag and Tech school. If it had been true to it’s mission, the academic faculty would be there only to teach a core curriculum or fulfill distribution credits. Jesse Goldberg teaches in a niche discipline that hardly anyone majors in (fewer than 700 BA degrees are awarded each year in it coast-to-coast) that hardly has any standing as an authentic discipline. Why are they wasting a salary on him?

    1. That’s a good start. And LOCKING UP errant university leadership for fundraising fraud, for obstruction of justice, for tax evasion and wire fraud, etc. would be a good start.

      OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? where would I get that?

      BALLER RAPIST COVERUPS. Pick that scab hard and deep enough and you will get to the stinking pus of universities covering up RAPES BY steroid-crazed “urban youths” at major universities for decades. .

      Universities are also involved in wire fraud and money laundering and charges could be brought by the hundreds against them such like as the flimsy wire fraud charges brought against Steve Bannon. That is precisely the template to use against these fraudulent university liars.

      I’ll give you an example, sanitized without names and facts.

      let’s say a donor leaves a major bequest earmarked for a sport, let’s say, “Jousting.”

      Then let’s say the sport becomes politically incorrect. Jousting is now considered, unfair to women.

      The muckety mucks and dons want it defunded.

      What to do with the remaining millions?

      Well one thing they can do is go to court and ask for cy pres reform of bequests. Problem is, if you applied that doctrine most of the tricks the universities have done would fail. And they know it. So they do what? They just cheat and lie and move the restricted funds regardless. Nobody much complains. if they do they get bought off. I have seen it done.

      But it is every bit as much fraud and actually criminal wire fraud, as the sort of stuff alleged against Steve Bannon. Well if you can pull it on Steve Bannon, grow a pair and try it out on some Deans. It ought to happen and if anybody wants me to draft up some form complaints and indictments to make it even more obvious how it could be done, just come on back and post a few requests and maybe I will. I ‘ll be back.

      Oh wait,. here in about ten seconds I found an article that goes somewhat along these lines. It CAN be done. SI SE PUEDE!~

      https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2018/03/university-foundations-host-plenty-scandals-avoid-transparency/

      By now, most Americans are aware of the widespread waste and decadence at many private and public universities. From lazy rivers to exorbitant chancellors’ salaries, examples abound. But those well-publicized cases, problematic as they are, can be easily addressed by parents and students who pay tuition and by legislators who control the purse strings.

      However, there is another university entity that is not so visible and has little accountability. They are university foundations set up to raise and manage money for the benefit of universities and students, which have their own boards and governing principles. Existing apart from the university makes it difficult for outsiders to get information on foundation activities and assets. In most states, including North Carolina, even foundations created to serve public universities are opaque and unaccountable. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s university foundation, for example, is not subject to the state’s open records law. (State laws governing university foundations are detailed in this Martin Center article.)

      Lack of transparency is a concern, at least in part because foundations control billions of dollars in assets. Universities use their foundations to manage and control their endowment funds. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the median public university endowment held $7,700 per student in 2013-2014. At private, nonprofit institutions, endowments held $32,800 per student. At least 170 universities have endowments worth over $500 million. Many of them are public universities, including the University of Virginia ($5.6 billion), UNC-Chapel Hill ($2.9 billion), UCLA ($1.8 billion), and the University of Florida ($1.1 billion).

      While foundations have their legitimate purposes and motives—historically, they have focused on serving as the fundraising arm for universities—they also act as the source of many examples of waste, fraud, and abuse that should concern any taxpayer or donor. Those examples include questionable, and sometimes illegal, activity. Take Jiah Rhea Chung, the former director of Los Angeles Trade-Technical College’s foundation, who was accused of stealing nearly $140,000 from the foundation. Chung led the foundation from 2009-2011, used funds for golfing trips and upscale restaurants, and was accused of forging the university president’s signature on nearly $100,000 in checks. Ultimately, she pled guilty to a felony charge of stealing about $50,000 in foundation money.

      Nor are less-prominent schools the only ones with those problems; nationally recognized universities get mired in foundation scandals too. The University of Louisville almost filed a lawsuit against its own foundation in 2017. It was at risk of losing its tax-exempt status after audits revealed gross negligence and fraud with unjustifiable expenses generated by President James Ramsey and other Louisville officials. Over $100 million in foundation expenses were deemed “unbudgeted or excessive spending,” which ultimately led to Ramsey’s firing. The foundation reached an agreement with the school to preserve its tax-exempt status and avoid a lawsuit.

      While many university foundation scandals focus on dishonesty and illegal actions, Rogers State University (RSU) in Oklahoma had a particularly reprehensible example of university foundation conduct. Bit by Bit Therapeutic Riding Center, a nonprofit organization dedicated to equestrian therapy for special-needs children, filed a lawsuit against RSU’s foundation in 2017 for fraud, accusing it of attempting to manipulate the nonprofit out of several million dollars.

      The situation started in 2004 when Bit by Bit was a department of RSU. A supporter of Bit by Bit donated 60 acres of land to RSU for Bit by Bit’s use. In 2013, Bit by Bit became independent. However, after the split between RSU and the charity, school officials decided to sell the land to its foundation for $1.1 million.

      The foundation proposed a deal in which Bit by Bit could use the land if they raised $1.3 million for the foundation, with the foundation’s assistance. Eventually, Bit by Bit raised $960,210 in donations and pledges as of March 2017. (The charity alleges in the lawsuit that the foundation did not provide the promised assistance in raising the funds). During the fundraising process, the vice president of development for RSU, Maynard Phillips—who devised the plan to have Bit by Bit raise funds so they could continue using the land—told Bit by Bit’s director that she was “lucky” to have his help in keeping the property available to them.

      But not every university foundation scandal includes illegal or unethical behavior; sometimes, their actions are simply wasteful. Often, university presidents gain undue rewards, such as at Florida Atlantic University. In 2002 the foundation’s director gave President Anthony Catanese funds to purchase a $42,000 Corvette, circumventing executive board rules. Funds for the car were given when the director “arranged to channel the money [for the car] through a decorating firm, cloaking it as a consulting fee for [Catanese]’s wife.”

      Houses for the chief executive are another common thread in university foundation scandals:

      Eastern Carolina University’s foundation finalized the purchase of a new 8,400 square foot house for $1.3 million in March 2018 for the chancellor;
      The University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh’s foundation bought the chancellor’s personal house for $450,000 in 2013—over $120,000 above market value. The chancellor then lived in the home for 20 months until his retirement to Florida; and
      The University of Illinois at Chicago was gifted a $1 million home in Chicago to be used as the chancellor’s house and to host events, then spent about $625,000 to renovate and furnish it. Over four years, the university only hosted 11 events there, according to the Chicago Tribune.

      And when a chief executive cannot get a house or a car from the university foundation, they sometimes use the funds as a blank check. In 2015, the College of DuPage in Illinois made headlines for presidential corruption when President Robert Breuder’s habit of lavishly spending school money came to light. Hidden from public records, he spent more than $95 million of foundation money, including:

      $185 to taxidermy a pheasant that he donated to a campus restaurant;
      $610 for a black-powder rifle presented as a gift to the president of the foundation;
      $1,292 for a hunting trip taken by himself and three friends, which included covering the tab for dinner and wine, hunting licenses, gun rentals, and ammunition; and
      $200,000 in alcohol, categorized as “instructional supplies.”

      Such examples of waste and fraud make it unsurprising that public trust in higher education is at an all-time low. An annual survey by the Pew Research Center on Americans’ views of national institutions, released in January, revealed that 36 percent of Americans believe that higher education has a “negative effect on the way things are going in the country.”

      But working together, legislators, donors, and university alumni can rein in the worst abuses at university foundations. Donors and alumni can put pressure on private university foundations to which they give, insisting on open and transparent accounting practices and contracts. State legislators can make university foundations that benefit public universities subject to the same open records laws that govern the universities themselves. These measures will help to curb the worst cases of waste and abuse—and perhaps help to restore public trust in higher education.

  13. What is sad is that the tweets show a lack of professionalism from someone whose role is training future attorneys. That is what is disqualifying, not the content.

    1. Goldberg isn’t a law professor. His book is ‘African-American Studies’. (I.e. victimology).

    2. The content sucks and the judgment sucks and he has no place anywhere near young people. He should be fired. There will come a day when we no longer tolerate this and decades of unfair treatment from Leftist leaning admins will pave the way for the counter-attack using the very same tools they have honed to a razor’s edge. Then one day they will get the haircut themselves.

      Democrat national leadership of today are a pack of corrupt and wicked fools. They and their entire leftward bureaucratic constituencies care nothing about fairness. The only thing that matters now is that we face them with strength, unity, and vigor. Gain power, and use it, and cripple them and hobble ASAP or it will be too late. There is no room for mercy in this struggle. Mercy shows weakness. We should now be showing all the mercy of Atilla the Hun against these decadent and corrupt bureaucratic miscreants.

      The counterattack must come, come soon, come hard, and it must be apocalyptic in scope and vigor.

  14. You always fail in your commentary because you’re fixated on legal issues. The problem at Auburn and at UNC Wilmington is one of culture. There are two elements of that:

    1. A refusal of academics and the administrators who supervise their institutions to recognize the legitimacy of society’s rules manifest in law and to recognize their fiduciary responsibility to the public who erected the institutions at which they work. They fancy their status entitles them to disregard people they fancy are inferior, e.g. state legislators and the voting public. The institutions decay into sandboxes run to please the tenured faculty. The administrators engage in try-every-door non-compliance.

    2. The culture of faculties is degenerate. Honestly, what sort of bourgeois adult talks like Jesse Goldberg. He’s a damaged arrested development case. The faculty are shot through with damaged arrested development cases and the rest of the institution act as their enablers.

    3. You’ve stated a false analogy here and failed to understand the source of the problem. MS Adams was a conventional academic in most respects who was playful with the institution’s pieties. So, the establishment sought to ruin him. He didn’t behave like a head case or harass students or harass other faculty. They harassed him. You need to acknowledge why Goldberg will be indulged up to the point he generates possible tort liability risk and why they swine who run UNCW used ever dirty trick they could to get rid of MS Adams.

    4. Absolutely none of your portside posters will acknowledge these problems. Most liberals are garbage people in their civic capacity who will be on the side of injustice in every situation.

    1. “Most liberals are garbage people in their civic capacity who will be on the side of injustice in every situation.”

      smh

    2. I hope to live to see one day a ruthless purge of the Red Guard like factions that have gripped academia and mass media. If they could purge them in the PRC as fast and strong as they did, maybe we can get it done here too. There is hope.

      In another post I am copying the wiki entry subpart about how China got sick of them and finally gave the radical left student persecutors and murderers the boot.
      Mao was actually still alive and vaguely supporting them, but the PLA had enough .That is the army. They shut them all down very fast and locked them up.

      I am done with Enlightenment bromides where the BLM-ANTIFA scourge is concerned today. They should be locked up and prosecuted for mass crimes under RICO laws and the predicates can be riot, looting, arson, protection, extortion, money laundering, tax evasion, and a host of other crimes. It can come and it must. One hundred prosecutions is nothing. One thousand is a start. Ten thousand is a good effort. And, reaching up to their financiers, will be a true success, if and when it comes. And it must.

  15. That image is of Mike Adams, the professor that was an activist conservative professor who committed suicide. It is wrong to use his picture.

    1. Was it wrong to “use” this plagiarized doctoral degree?

      What purpose would the “use” of a plagiarized doctoral degree serve?
      ______________________________________________________

      “Boston U. Panel Finds Plagiarism by Dr. King”

      A committee of scholars appointed by Boston University concluded today that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. plagiarized passages in his dissertation for a doctoral degree at the university 36 years ago.

      “There is no question,” the committee said in a report to the university’s provost, “but that Dr. King plagiarized in the dissertation by appropriating material from sources not explicitly credited in notes, or mistakenly credited, or credited generally and at some distance in the text from a close paraphrase or verbatim quotation.”

      Despite its finding, the committee said that “no thought should be given to the revocation of Dr. King’s doctoral degree,” an action that the panel said would serve no purpose.

      But the committee did recommend that a letter stating its finding be placed with the official copy of Dr. King’s dissertation in the university’s library.

      The four-member committee was appointed by the university a year ago to determine whether plagiarism charges against Dr. King that had recently surfaced were in fact true. Today the university’s provost, Jon Westling, accepted the committee’s recommendations and said its members had “conducted the investigation with scholarly thoroughness, scrupulous attention to detail and a determination not to be influenced by non-scholarly consideration.”

      – New York Times, Oct. 11, 1991

  16. I don’t see what’s so usual about liberals sticking up for other liberals. Why is this even a story? A noteworthy story would be a liberal university and faculty sticking up for conservatives. If this guy was straight white conservative and made comments supporting they police…. he would be fired.

    1. If this guy was straight white conservative and made comments supporting they police…. he would be fired.

      Not fired at this time, if he has tenure. That’s down the road. But subject to a vitriolic libel courtesy the provost. The character of higher ed administrators is low.

      1. Here’s what they have been doing to guys who have tenure who wander off the reservation. And it’s been happening for a solid 2 decades now.

        1. deans issue statements denouncing them
        2. their teaching positions are taken away even if they have been rated as good teachers
        3. the faculty commissars denounce them and circulate defamatory remarks to the mass media who amplify them with the help of such like as SLPC
        4. eventually their grants dry up
        5. every non-tenured privilege that can be taken away, is
        6. this is a systematized response now that is well honed even before the current BLM-ANTIFA red guard phase. this phase adds to it:

        a, denunciations from radical student groups
        b. death threats and petty crimes aimed at the dissenting professors
        c. a search for plantiffs who are willing to bring frivolous lawsuits
        d. outside agitators finance whatever other mischief can be cooked up and executed from campus radicals

        See right now we are way past talking these things over. We need to be clearing out boards of trustees and governors ruthlessly, and firing entire top administrative strata, and elevating to deanships suitable new leadership.

        There are a lot of young people inside graduate schools and at associate levels who remain silent but hate what’s happened. They can be brought to the fore very quickly if things are reversed at the top/.

        And the change must come at the top. If it is ever to be effective it must be. We can pressure from outside and the bottom, but academia in this country needs a ruthless purge and deep reform. Not just firings but criminal charges for mishandling funds, fraud, wire fraud, racketeering, tax evasion, money laundering, and RICO

        See how easily they threw the book at Steve Bannon for some fundraising negligence? the same thing needs to happen to the Deans of the big evil universities. LOCK THEM UP FOR TRIFLES

          1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, and his mental health professional certificate after eighty-seven weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. and is suffering from cementia – David, you are not one to talk about Making Stuff Up.

            1. “David, you are not one to talk about Making Stuff Up.”
              *******************
              Au contraire, Paul. Benson is the master at making things up and should regularly opine so we can see it in full bloom.

          2. And that is precisely what you do – only when you make stuff up, you call it original thought. Hmmmm

        1. Mr. Kurtz, you have a blueprint on how to resolve the question of Anarchy at the highest levels of academia. I am not 1 of the 90 silent majority.

Comments are closed.