A Tale of Two Amys And One Sorority: Kappa Delta Profusely Apologizes For Congratulating Judge Amy Coney Barrett

We have discussed the growing intolerance for opposing views of politics or the law on our campuses. The most recent example is small but highly illustrative. The sorority Kappa Delta has issued an abject apology. The reason is that the sorority committed the unforgivable sin of tweeting out a congratulations to Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a member of the sorority at Rhodes College, on her nomination to the Supreme Court. One should not have to agree with Barrett’s judicial philosophy to offer a simple attagirl to a sorority sister for her extraordinary accomplishment. However, other members protested that this simple act of civility was “hurtful” and traumatic to them as fellow members. The most notable however was feminist writer Amy Siskind who previously was attacked on Twitter for her own views opposing Black Lives Matter and supporting such political figures as John McCain and Sarah Palin.  It is a tale of two Amys and one is being shunned for defending her long-held views and one is being celebrated for dispensing with them.

On September 28, the sorority tweeted a congratulations to Barrett reading: “KD alumna Amy Coney Barrett was nominated to serve on the Supreme Court. While we do not take a stand on political appointments, we recognize Judge Coney Barrett’s significant accomplishment. We acknowledge our members have a variety of views and a right to their own beliefs.”

That would seem a balanced and civil acknowledgment. For a sorority, there can be no greater testament to your organization than a member ascending to the highest court in the land. Moreover, many members of the sorority likely share those very same views. Indeed, roughly half of the country supports her nomination.

Yet, after a backlash, the sorority profusely apologized for the fact that its tweet “was disappointing and hurtful to many.” It said that the congratulations was the “cause [of] division among our sisters, or alienate any of our members.” It even thanked outraged members for “holding us accountable.”

Notably, the sorority proclaims that it is values women “from all backgrounds and corners of the world” and focused on “building confidence in women and girls.” Barrett would seem the embodiment of such values. However, there seems to be an unwritten exclusion to the sorority’s motto “KD sisterhood is for life.”

Amy Siskind was one of those declaring outrage that Judge Barrett “is in any way associated with our sisterhood.”  She defended the sorority withdrawing its support with an apology, writing “She does not stand for our values, and that goes well beyond a half century old decision. but [sic] I appreciate national addressing the hurt this has caused.”

Siskind was a surprising addition to this protest. Just two years ago, she faced precisely this type of savage treatment from critics who denounced her for being an embarrassment due to her dissenting views. She was called a closet Republican who mouthed opposition to Neo-Nazis while revealing a lack of knowledge of their history. She was further attacked for praising Palin while opposing Black Lives Matter. Journalist Imani Gandy ridiculed Siskind as insufficiently demonstrating true liberal credentials and asked “when exactly did she start fighting for marginalized communities?”

In the face of such criticism, Siskind accused her critics of being Russian operatives — an accusation that she later withdrew in a column.

However, it is this statement that most sticks out from Siskind: “We were never going to move forward on women’s issues until we could devise something that could be inclusive of all women. Sexism against conservative women is still sexism.”

That was Siskind’s response to criticism of her own views including supporting Palin.  Now however she is objecting that the sorority would simply congratulate a conservative woman who became a leading academic intellectual and would now become the fifth woman ever to sit on the highest court.  After she was ostracized by the left, one would think Siskind would have a modicum of sympathy for Barrett. She was right in 2018 about the unfair treatment of conservative women. In 2020, she became the very thing she denounced just two years before.

The greatest disgrace however remains with Kappa Delta.  The mantra of “Once a KD, always a KD” does not appear to apply for conservative women who succeed in life. While the sorority boasts of shaping young women to think for themselves, that clearly does not extend to thinking in ways that others do not accept. When Kappa Delta withdrew its tweet, it made a mockery of its sororal mission and membership.


81 thoughts on “A Tale of Two Amys And One Sorority: Kappa Delta Profusely Apologizes For Congratulating Judge Amy Coney Barrett”

  1. ACB is singlehandedly making the law hot again and that is the fire. It is so fun to see her make the CPUSA comrades look like Wile E. Coytoe vs. Roadrunner. More confirmation hearings, more ACB, more!

  2. Women — XX Women — have a genetic disadvantage among their genetic advantages. The human race has changed little from the survivors of the last Ice Age. Woman’s instinct is to have a safe place to raise the kids. It stands in contrast to the XY Man. He will instinctively compete with other men. Form teams to compete with other teams of men. The crafty smart and brutal thug survive.
    Few women can compete among the crafty smart men, but a few can. Few women can physically compete with men, but a few can.

    ACB can compete in the crafty smart endeavor call the Law.

  3. Dear Professor Turley, thank you for gifting me with an epiphany I didn’t see coming. I have always considered myself to be evolved way beyond being a “feminist.” Growing up the sole boy in a family with three girls, I was raised to celebrate and protect my sisters, and as a young adult, in college and then subsequently at work in cooperatively-run counterculture businesses, I took gender equality for granted, and waited only for the rest of the world to catch up. Many years later I find myself frequently perplexed: what went wrong? Watching the infamous Savannah Guthrie performance during the recent pre-election (so-called) town hall, and now reading about this Kappa Delta debacle has changed me. When I read “Yet, after a backlash, the sorority profusely apologized for the fact that its tweet ‘was disappointing and hurtful to many.’ It said that the congratulations was the ’cause [of] division among our sisters, or alienate any of our members.’ It even thanked outraged members for ‘holding us accountable,'” I realized that we have all—men and women— slowly become acclimated to what I can only see as a uniquely feminine generated concept: ‘hurtfulness.’ What self-respecting man in history has ever thought of objecting to an antagonist with a charge of hurtfulness, making a claim to the idea that it’s a crime to hurt someones ‘feelings’? The unquestioned old saying, “sticks and stones” immediately comes to mind, yet nowadays, ‘political correctness issues’ around hurtful words and even thoughts are allowed to tear our hard-won civilization apart, while we ignore or mishandle our real problems. One hundred years after universal suffrage, I’m becoming convinced that we have made a fatal mistake that has slowly grown to strangle our civilization. Perhaps there was a reason God made men men and women women, with each endowed with their unique qualities. Our modern experiment, with it’s blind equality, so-called ‘gender fluidity,’ legally actionable micro-aggressions, word policing, and social justice whining at every turn: is this the true legacy of universal suffrage?

  4. Here’s a little tip for the non-Catholics out there

    Amy is no “Sorority” sister and does not care what they think

    these are generally forbidden to Catholics because of secret oaths. University of Notre Dame hosts no fraternities at all. nor sororities.

    1. Duh stupid me. The article says she is a member. Sorry. I glossed over the main point stupidly.
      Also I guess Amy didn’t catch that little bit of Catholic doctrine. Or maybe it’s changed? Lots seems to change these days

      nonetheless — mea culpa

        1. Sorry I missed that, I apologize. Still one may observe she may not have always been as Catholic as she is now presented.

          1. ” Still one may observe she may not have always been as Catholic as she is now presented.”


  5. Such people are beneath contempt. All they’ve done by abasing themselves before the HIvemind is wrench the spine out of their own words. Henceforth, there’s no weight to any thought that passes their lips – mere eruction.

  6. Oh Nooo, was Mr. Bill’s favorite response on SNL. He was very far ahead of the times. Seems everyday there’s another buffoon making some retarded statement about their HURT feelings. Boo Hoo is the current mantra! The Sissies now control the narrative, what future does this country face when feelings are so easy hurt.

    1. Mr. Bill said ‘noooo’ when he or his dog was physically injured, usually in gruesome ways.

  7. Turley: are you really so dense that you don’t get it, or are you so enamored with titles that you are immune to reality and truth, or, are you just being paid for posting things that try to normalize and legitimize how Trump and the Republicans have politicized the SCOTUS nomination process? Barrett is not a “conservative woman who succeed(ed) in life.” Opposition to Barrett is not because she “think(s) in ways that others do not accept.” Barrett made the short list vetted by The Federalist Society because of her radical views, because she is on record as coming up with ways to reverse or so severely limit womens’ right to choose that it amounts to a functional reversal of Roe, and for ways of striking down the ACA. Trump wants her on the SCOTUS because he believes she will help him cheat his way back for a second term when he loses the election. She was nominated also because she was one of the brief writers for Bush v. Gore, along with John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh. No coincidence. No, she’s not a “conservative woman who succeed(ed) in life.” She knows that most Americans do not approve of her being shoved onto the SCOTUS immediately before a presidential election, especially in view of what the Republicans did to Merrick Garland, who deserves the seat she will occupy. She knows most Americans do not share her views on Roe and the ACA. She doesn’t care, because getting that seat and title mean more than serving the will of the American people.

    This “conservative woman who succeeded in life” (according to you) stood next to a proven racist, a misogynist who brags about grabbing womens’ genitalia, who insults women in power, like Nancy Pelosi and Gretchen Whitmer, who has cheated on all 3 of his wives (so far) and who cages young children like animals because their parents brought them to the US for a better life. He endorsed her. Standing next to this miscreant implies her endorsement of him. It is repulsive and repugnant to all that educated women believe to support a racist and misogynist. What, exactly, is the “sororal mission”? Ignoring the reality of Trump and how the Republicans are using Barrett to keep political power? Standing next to an unfit, lying narcissist whose incompetence has resulted in the deaths of almost 240,000 Americans and sickness and suffering for 8 million Americans because it will get Barrett that title and seat of power? Yes, the sorority was right to withdraw their congratulations. Barrett is nothing to be proud of. The title doesn’t confer legitimacy, nor does it vitiate the way or reasons she obtained it. She will always have a cloud over her, just like Kavanaugh.

    1. Natacha, thanks for revealing to us what was going on in the minds of those who nominated ACB to SCOTUS. That mental telepathy stuff is really powerful. The rest of the stuff could be dispensed with as we hear it over and over every day from MSM. Thank god they are so totally honest.

      1. Read her writings. The Federalist Society did, and so did aides to your fat hero. Did you forget about the promises he made when he campaigned–to nominate judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade and the ACA? It doesn’t take mental telepathy to see what’s going on here…well, at least for those of us who aren’t members of the Church of Trump. The “short list” came directly from The Federalist Society.

        1. The Dems in Congress and their complicit media allies asked more questions from Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook than they have asked of Joe Biden — who is now in hiding 2 weeks before a presidential election!! and the media DOES NOT CARE to ask Joe Biden anything other than, “Mr. Vice President, what flavor milkshake did you get?”

          Democrats and their fake news media allies are despicable and shameful.

          1. IF by chance, Joe Biden wins the election, we can declare right now, that his presidency will be ILLEGITIMATE.

    2. Natacha
      Hot off the Press from Gallup…… OCTOBER 20, 2020
      51% in U.S. Want Amy Coney Barrett Seated on Supreme Court
      Higher rating than Kavanaugh and Gorsuch

    3. “She will always have a cloud over her, just like Kavanaugh.”

      That’s all the radical left can do, right? Even with Kavanaugh, that was their intent: lie, fabricate, lie, smear, lie….and do it all for the singular purpose of having a permanent *asterisk after his name.

      ACB will become Chief Justice sooner than you may think.

    1. I have always been proud to say I was a kappa delta. As I read the comments written with such hatred I can only say I am ashamed of these so called feminists who have no idea about what is really going on. I don’t know if we can withdraw from a sorority but I now will withdraw my membership. Too bad, they are building a new house, now they won’t get any money from this alum.

  8. Nobody takes the SJW class at all seriously, outside of colleges and Leftist enclaves like Portland, NYC, Frisco, and Chicago. The rest of the country knows the score. We just need to fight back for a change…but we’d better do it before it’s too late.

    1. SJW dominates in big corporate HRS and that’s how they wield their power. it’s far more than just the coastal enclaves defiant

      although I agree those are the hotbeds

      resistance must indeed increase and become sterner and more aggressive

  9. What an embarrassment to women everywhere. Very catty but typical “feminist” type behavior. The sorority people who congratulated ACB should not back down. Women are not this fragile as the crybabies who continue to suppress free speech; at least those of us who had to work in the real world even amidst almost all men in certain fields. There’s no reason that the crybaby women should dominate all discussion and behavior. Grow a backbone because victimization hasn’t worked for anyone, including blacks.

  10. Our constitutional freedoms of speech, political affiliations and the rest depend on tolerance of those with different views. It is slipping away rapidly.

  11. “disappointing and hurtful to many”

    Further evidence that “Self-importance is man’s greatest enemy”.

    All disappointed means in this context is that someone expected something from someone and didn’t get what they were expecting.

    Which is what happens when you reward children for doing nothing more than just showing up to practice even if they fail to actually win anything. That creates an expectation that all they have to do is show up to receive a trophy, even if they suck massive amounts of hind tit at their chosen sport.

    Those children then grow up to be adults who are constantly disappointed and hurt whenever they don’t get exactly what they expected from other people.

  12. JT, could this be your school:

    Georgetown University’s website lists Peter Strzok II as an adjunct in its undergraduate program, and Strzok has added his position at Georgetown to his Twitter bio.

    1. “JT, could this be your school:”

      Ah, no.

      “After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. “

  13. It’s difficult to locate an institution these days run by people who merit any respect. BTW, anyone who uses the term ‘hurtful’ needs to be given a pummeling that actually does hurt, just to re-orient them.

    1. agreed

      i did find out there is a new-ish excise tax imposed on private university endowment earnings. very small 1.4% or so. new regulations in federal register. i posted them here last night.

      they need to tax these behemoths into submission and then they will cut the stupid majors to save money. perhaps.

      if not on to sterner measures

  14. “Labels” are never entirely accurate and we should use more precise language when using them. There are fiscal-conservatives/liberals. There are social-conservatives/liberals. There are constitutional-conservatives/liberals. There are religious-conservatives/liberals. Both parties have both conservatives and liberals on a variety of topics.

    For example: Eisenhower was a fiscal-liberal but social-conservative. John F. Kennedy was a social-liberal but a fiscal-conservative. Bill Clinton, the last president to balance the budget, was a fiscal-conservative but a social-liberal ((similar to JFK). George Bush Jr. was a fiscal-liberal but social-conservative. Obama (who inherited a huge deficit from fiscally-liberal Bush) brought the deficit lower than Bush, so Obama was a fiscal-conservative and social-liberal. If Bush had balanced the budget, Obama could have balanced it also. Today’s president is very fiscally-liberal but a social-conservative on most issues.

    Maybe Americans need more referendum-voting on individual issues, since Democrats and Republicans actually agree on many things. Ranked-choice voting would help also (being used in Maine this election). Labels are inaccurate.

    1. “Obama brought the deficit lower than Bush”

      Might want to take another look at those numbers. First time I’ve ever heard Obama called a fiscal conservative.

  15. Instead of pulling down statues, why don’t we totally eliminate the archaic segregationist sorority-fraternity elitism on our college campuses?

    1. Craig:

      Likely because they are neither archaic or segregationist unless you really hate the right of people to associate with whom they please. As for hating the elite in any organization, that’s your self-image problem.

    2. “…why don’t we totally eliminate the archaic segregationist sorority-fraternity elitism on our college campuses?”

      a great idea

    3. Why don’t we just eliminate colleges and universities? Talk about racist and elitist – look at our higher education establishment.

  16. “Yet, after a backlash, the sorority profusely apologized for the fact that its tweet “was disappointing and hurtful to many.” It said that the congratulations was the “cause [of] division among our sisters, or alienate any of our members.” It even thanked outraged members for “holding us accountable.”

    I loved it when we stood for saying anything you damn well pleased. This sorority is the very antipathy of that position. You ladies ought to be ashamed of your cowardice and your obsequious allegiance to the norms of political correctness. Self-loathing is surely a mental disease but a spiritual one, too.

    1. Very few people are ‘self-loathing’, and hardly any are voluble about to anyone outside their own household. These women aren’t self-loathing. You have a mess of aggressive shrews and on the other side of the equation is a mess of women too craven to tell the shrews to bugger off.

      1. “It even thanked outraged members for “holding us accountable.”
        I’d agree with you but for this sentence. It smacks of “thank you sir, may I have another.”

Leave a Reply