Academia, Media, Politics, Society

New York Times Under Fire For Cancel Culture Story on University of Tennessee Cheerleader

The New York Times is under fire for its coverage of how an incoming Tennessee cheerleader was dumped from the team after the release of a three-second video in which she used a racial epithet. Times reporter Dan Levin gave a strikingly positive account of how Jimmy Galligan waited for years to release the video to do the most harm to Mimi Groves.  The article “A Racial Slur, a Viral Video, and a Reckoning,” is being cited as the ultimate celebration of the cancel culture in its tenor and lack of balance.  Everyone agrees that the use of the n-word was a terrible thing. However, the same standard does not seem to apply to professors who use racist and insensitive comments.  It would seem that, even if students are not accorded the same protections for faculty, universities should offer them the same opportunity for redemptive change. After all, college is meant as place for personal growth for students.

Levin’s article was criticized as “glorifying” the decision of Galligan to wait to the release of the three-second clip until after Groves achieved her lifetime dream of being admitted to UT and joining its cheerleading team.  Groves is an accomplished cheerleader who was a varsity cheer captain at her high school.  When asked, some black leaders have said publicly that they do not agree with the action taken by UT.

It now appears that Galligan kept a three-second snapchat video in which Groves used the n-word. Here is how Levin described it: “Galligan, who had waited until Ms. Groves had chosen a college, had publicly posted the video that afternoon. Within hours, it had been shared to Snapchat, TikTok and Twitter, where furious calls mounted for the University of Tennessee to revoke its admission offer.”  The media attention unleashed a torrent of demands from people that Groves be expelled from UT.

The backlash led to UT dropping Groves from the cheerleading team and Groves ultimately left the university.

How is that a balanced or just result for any institution of high education?

As we have previously discussed (including with the controversies involving an Oregon professor and a Drexel professor), there remains an uncertain line in what language is protected for teachers in their private lives. Indeed, faculty have complained of a double or at least uncertain standard that applies to insensitive or racial commentary that depends on the viewpoint. We have previously discussed controversies at the University of California and Boston University, where there have been criticism of a double standard, even in the face of criminal conduct. There were also such incident at the University of London involving Bahar Mustafa as well as one involving a University of Pennsylvania professor.

Some professors have used racist epithets without being fired or even disciplined. Other comments have ranged from openly racist to patently offensive. Professors have claimed the pandemic is a white conspiracy. Another professor said that “white lives don’t matter.” Another wrote about a hatred for all white people. Another appeared to call for the death white people deemed racist. Another professor called Justice Barrett a “white colonizer” for adopting Haitian children.  Other professors have called for doxxing or campaigns of harassment.  Another professor called all supporters of police “white supremacists.” Another professor declared “whiteness is terrorism.” Another professor called for the “miserable deaths” of white men. Another called for “white genocide.”  Another called every Republican “racist scum.”

I have defended faculty members from both the left and the right despite their use of hateful and insensitive remarks on social media as a matter of free speech. Notably, these are adults who intentionally post inflammatory comments but they still are accorded protections of free speech and academic freedom.

This was a high school freshman who made a terrible mistake in a three-second snapchat clip. The New York Times however seemed to border on the gleeful in describing her demise.  I have previously commented on the loss of journalism integrity at the Times. However, the primary blame rests with the University of Tennessee which showed little concern for this student despite her profuse apologies.

I have complained previously that universities are not only allowing for the erosion of free speech but failing to protect students from the retaliation for their political or social viewpoints.  We can all condemn the comment made by Groves while, after her public apology, allowing her to continue to fulfill her dream of attending UT and competing on the cheerleading team.

 

 

156 thoughts on “New York Times Under Fire For Cancel Culture Story on University of Tennessee Cheerleader”

  1. Tik Tok, WeChat, Whatsapp, Doxing, all types of terrible ways to hurt people. Awful!
    ANTIFA did this to Tucker Carlson to scare him but that was justified.

    https://reparcelasmt.loudoun.gov/pt/Datalets/Datalet.aspx?sIndex=0&idx=1

    PARID: 243268469000
    GALLIGAN, SYBIL A & JAMES 22983 HOMESTEAD LANDING CT
    Owner
    Name GALLIGAN, SYBIL A & JAMES
    Care Of
    Mailing Address 22983 HOMESTEAD LANDING CT
    .
    . ASHBURN VA 20148-1772
    Instrument Number 201704030019503
    Book
    Page

    Parcel
    Primary Address 22983 HOMESTEAD LANDING CT
    Tax Map # /91/D/2///269/
    State Use Class Urban Single Family
    Total Land Area (Acreage) .71
    Total Land Area (SQFT)
    Election District BLUE RIDGE
    Billing District Blue Ridge District
    Billing Split Notes 1
    Billing Split Notes 2

    3. Jonathan Turley (or whomever manages the comment section): This doxxing post by “No Justice No Peace” needs to be taken down immediately!

  2. I’ve read that the Army hearings eventually destroyed McCarthyism, but it ruined a lot of careers before that.
    The Cultural Revolution eventually died out in China, but that was after pitched battles had rocked the country.
    The daycare hysteria of the 80’s just petered out, but it also sent too many innocent people to prison.

    American Maoism is on the march now, and people are talking openly about civil war. I hope the fever breaks soon,
    but I don’t have a theory for what would end it. The timelines of hysterias and financial bubbles are impossible to predict.

    Genuinely interested in what other people (not Maoists) think about this cancel cult and when it will end.

    1. I’ve wondered the same thing. The thing about McCarthyism is they didn’t have social media fanning the flames. As a general principle, I think the only way to cure people of wanting something is to give it to them. That’s actually the basic principle of tantra. So now that there is, as Pelosi says, a supermajority, or there will be after the Georgia runoffs, there will be nothing and nobody to stop the purge, nothing and nobody to stop the socialist takeover, nothing and nobody to stop the bonfire of the vanities that is America in the Year of Our Lord 2020. Sooner or later there will be nothing left to burn and the bonfire will burn itself out. The only real question is whether a country whose name has long been synonymous with freedom can survive a self-imposed totalitarianism without becoming prey to foreign actors only too eager to encourage our self-destructive tendences and march in for a real old-fashioned takeover.

  3. Using what we ridiculously call ‘The N Word’ is not a crime. At most it is coarse and rude. Being coarse and rude is hardly unusual these days. I cannot bear to watch some media because of the need to drop ‘F Bombs’ in every sentence. Possibly she was trying to fit in with the language used by the team. Maybe she was describing the team. Who cares?

    That the NYT would make an issue with this is hardly unusual. That is who they are these days. Lately they have discovered that Tiki Bars are racist or cultural appropriation or some such rubbish.

    The NYT has devolved into something like a student newspaper put out by a leftist animal house college like Oberlin.

    The publication made the mistake of hiring young rascals in their Che T-Shirts out of corrupted J-Schools and now they are stuck with them. Reports are that the seasoned staff at the NYT is appalled by the demands of the junior revolutionaries but they are too terrified to do anything about them.

    Anyone foolish enough to read the NYT deserves what he gets.

    1. Young Americans have been indoctrinated, propagandized and brainwashed in publc school by the perverted, anti-constitutionalist, anti-American, communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) teachers unions.

      1. So ‘The N Word’ is okay so long as it rhymes with something? Is that an apartment complex in a ghetto or a prison? Not much difference I suppose.

    3. Again, the Sulzberger scions could fix this problem in a few uncomplicated steps: (1) depose the current scion in charge of the Times and replace him with a serious person. (2) Have said serious person review intra-office petitions and e-mail appeals, remarking in particular just who it is who fancied they were injured at the prospect of a Tom Cotton op-ed piece. (3) Hire a mess of Pinkertons and have them arrive on a Friday afternoon to escort the woke-tards and their personal effects out the door. When you want to cut the tail off the dog, you don’t do it bit by bit. If it means you have to reduce the content of the paper until you’ve filled the positions, so be it. It’s not as if there’s any high-quality reporting at the Times.

      None of this will happen, of course. The Sulzberger scion currently in charge is all in favor of the crybullies who work for him, and his collateral relatives either favor this course of action or are too otiose to get rid of him. And keep in mind what’s happened (something Richard John Neuhaus remarked upon 15 years ago). The Times first moved into the space once occupied by The Village Voice and now has moved into the space once occupied by what we used to call ‘the nutroots’. If they actually had any integrity and did straight reporting with sensible assumptions they’d lose readership. That tells you more than you’d want to know about the souls of the people who read the Times. This will not end well. .

      1. David Hackworth covering the Gulf War noted that some reporters getting first notice of something important refused to cover it until the NYT mentioned it. They needed that imprimatur before they would cover it. It is a corrupted newspaper that should lose its influence.

  4. Any dumbass female whose “lifetime dream” is to be a cheerleader, at a place like Tennessee no less, deserves scorn. Let me guess: she’s bleached–right? And Turley is surprised that such a person would use a racial epithet? Turley comments that college is supposed to be a place where someone undergoes personal growth. This person doesn’t want to go to college for personal growth–she wants to wear skimpy outfits, show her crotch, and hang around with the jocks. She is a throwback to a time when being a beauty pageant contestant or cheerleader was viewed as something for girls to aspire to, instead of wanting to be an engineer, physician or lawyer. So why would it be surprising that a throwback like her would use a racial epithet?

    1. LOL! You sound exactly like that dumbass female that wanted that “lifetime dream” but was rejected because you couldn’t fit into skimpy outfits, show your crotch and hangout with the jocks. You scorn because you were scorned. That explains so much about the hideous personality you display on this blog.

    3. NUTCHACHA,

      Those pretty, good-looking, attractive women don’t need wholly unconstitutional generational welfare, affirmative action privilege, etc., huh?

      1. That’s what college is for–right? Note that the female cheerleaders wear short skirts, hair bows, a fair number of them are bottle blondies, and some are not very pretty. Oh, and for their “athletic endeavor”, they wear heavy make up and their hair is coiffed and sprayed. The males, on the other hand, have their legs and arms covered. no make up, and no long hair, bleached, sprayed or coiffed. The job of all of them is to lead cheers for athletic teams–right? Or, is there another agenda here and what does it say about the relative roles of males and females, in, of all places, an institution that exists to provide higher education?

        If you just got off of a space ship and knew nothing about planet earth and were told that there are 2 genders (generally speaking) that equally contribute genetically to human procreation, would you conclude that the 2 groups are equal based just on this visual? Which of these groups is subservient, required to display their bodies and enhance their appearance to do the same job as the other group, and how do these things relate to the position they hold, which is cheering for a sports team? Or, an even bigger question, is this a metaphor for how males and females are judged in society at large, and why should an institution of higher learning encourage these disparities?

        Since there are female “beauty pageants” with “swimsuit competition”, complete with CFM pumps (which every woman wears when she goes swimming–right? I mean, don’t women competing in the Olympics arrive at poolside wearing their 4-inch Melania stilettos, wearing heavy makeup?), why aren’t there male “beauty pageants”, where contestants wear a banana hammock and let us judge their male “attributes”? Would this be disgusting, and if so, why is judging bodily attributes in the case of males demeaning, but not in the case of females? There is a point to this, but I doubt Olly or George gets it.

        1. “Which of these groups is subservient, required to display their bodies and enhance their appearance to do the same job as the other group … ”

          I get all that, and I’m bemused by the persistence of female beauty pageants. But the overriding point is this: the goal of feminism is to empower women, not dictate what it means to be a “woman”; the latter is for each empowered woman to decide. In other words, the goal of feminism is to give women more options and opportunities, not fewer. If some women choose traditional roles – and (mating) strategies – that shouldn’t be met with criticism from the left. I’d expect an intelligent woman like yourself to be defending this young woman in this situation rather than attacking her (so viciously).

          1. Have you seen the video? I did. She was trying for street cred, but came across as shallow and stupid. Even when I was a very young girl, I recall my parents being shocked when I told them I thought beauty pageants were stupid and exploited women. I refused to watch “Miss America” and preferred to play with my chemistry set. I didn’t use the word “exploited”, but I saw no connection between competition for wearing swimsuits (with pumps and lots of jewelry), competing wearing evening gowns, some “talent” competition–juggling, playing the accordion–whatever– and answering dumb questions as valid reasons to qualify someone to win a scholarship. I thought the analogy to royalty was juvenile–awarding a crown, talking about Miss America “reigning” for a year–reigning over what, exactly? And, all of the tears, waving and flowers while she walked the runway to the strains of Bert Parks singing: “There she is–Miss America–there she is–our ideal”. Ideal what? She wasn’t my “ideal”. Maybe that’s why I am a lawyer–I ask lots of questions.

            3. I haven’t bothered with the video, but if she “came across as shallow and stupid” that’s all the more reason to defend her.

              Like I said, I find it very odd that beauty pageants haven’t faded away. But maybe it’s because many women really do want to play that role. If so, I don’t think that choice should be condemned. I think it should only be considered a problem if women are choosing it because they believe they have no other path to economic success. (It’s similar to the “sex worker” issue.) Again, every woman should be empowered and allowed to choose. And even then, you should understand that not every woman or man possesses the talent to make the career choice that you did.

            4. one suspects natch is objectively, er, how can I say this. well, I wont.

              i will ask instead, why are you so bitter and spiteful about beautiful women?

              seems to me,

              there is no reason to believe that beautiful people are not also intelligent and good

              there is no reason to believe that ugly people are per se intelligent or good

              of course any one person may have any combination of characters. but i like beauty for my part

              we have seen in life, however, how ugly people perpetuate false stereotypes that beauty and brains are inversely correlated
              their spite is reveals their interior bitterness

              I suspect there is a link between beauty, intelligence, and character.

              the ancient Greeks did too

              “kalòs kài agathòs”

              Sal Sar

            5. Natacha:

              You said, “Have you seen the video? I did. She was trying for street cred, but came across as shallow and stupid.”

              So, you admitted that this girl, at 15, tried to sound like she had “street cred”, rather than being racist.

              Yet, she was kicked off the cheerleading team, forced to withdraw from the university, and all the other universities withdrew their acceptance of her application.

              Her life was ruined…over trying to look cool like the rappers do.

              That’s really savage and immoral. Not something to be proud of. Your having a chemistry set as a little girl does not excuse a moral failing in attacking a 15 year old’s silly actions.

              You keep trying to convince us you’re an elite but you’re just another mean person out there.

          2. Where do you get “intelligent” out of an incoherent, hysterical, raving, maniacal, misandrist parasite, barely persisting on scraps from other people’s money in the forms of generational welfare, affirmative action privilege, etc.?

        2. Nstacha: “Which of these groups is subservient, required to display their bodies and enhance their appearance to do the same job as the other group,”

          ****

          I think you hit on an interesting point. You are wrong but wrong in an intriguing way. Women are not compelled to dress for attention; they are hard wired to want to do it…most of them. Madam deStael said something along the lines of ‘a man desires a woman but a woman desires the desire of a man.” She was very smart and sometimes profound. Men’s magazines when not porn are about sports or cars or other activities. Women’s magazines are about attracting men or satisfying them. Evolution has created different sets of priorities for the two sexes and their personal choices reveal it. You are raging against a hurricane. But you raised interesting thoughts. The two sexes are doing different jobs; not the same job.

        3. Natacha:

          You think cheerleaders are subservient, or forced to do anything? You do understand that cheering is a voluntary sport, right? If a girl thinks it will be fun, then she’ll try out. If she’s not interested, then she won’t.

          See how choice works? If you want to be feminine, there are options for you. If you want to be a tomboy, there are options for you. We women have never been more free.

          It’s really bad character to snipe at young girls who like to cheerlead. You also come across as jealous of blondes.

          Maybe you should check out the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders. They’re not all blonde, not even close. There are brunettes, black girls, Asians, Latinas, and all the wondrous variety that pretty girls come in.

          What would aliens think of men and women? They wouldn’t agonize over the difference between behavior and genetics in regards to sex. Male, female, sex chromosome abnormalities…and that’s it.

          They would quickly realize that males are attracted to beauty, which differs to some degree in each society. Females are attracted to strong alpha males. Female and male children have strong statistical differences in their preferred play and communication skills, which an individual may of course be outside of that statistical probability.

          They would make these anthropological and biological observations free of any societal angst or SJW resistance to science.

          As for Olympic swimmers wearing heavy makeup and heels, are you talking about synchronized swimming, or competitive swimming? Because I watch the latter. Those ladies are ripped, and I’ve never seen any of them wearing a shred of makeup.

          My own sport is equestrian. Both men and women jumpers wear breeches, and exactly the same show attire. Literally the only difference is that in some divisions, the men wear a tie and the women wear a choker or stock tie with a pin. And the choker isn’t jewelry; it’s a piece of fabric the same as the shirt. In dressage, everyone wears the Shadbelly. And the women and men compete against each other just fine. The only gendered difference in horse shows is in Western pleasure classes, where the women wear bling. But they’re all just pushing peanuts on the ground and shambling around pretending to canter, so forget that class as it’s been ruined anyway.

          If you want real sports equality, then follow equestrian sports.

    5. “[S]he wants to wear skimpy outfits, show her crotch, and hang around with the jocks.”

      She was a cheerleader in high school, and in 2018 was featured on the cover of “American Cheerleader.” She is currently a cheerleader at the University of Michigan.

      The “she” in this case is Sasha Obama.

      Oops.

      1. Good get Sam. Natahsa’s over the top damning of Ms Groves for not being as cool as she was in HS deserves it. Not the 1st time she has dumped on kids – see MAGA kid vs phony Indian in DC posts.

        Yeah, this i me, Joe Friday. Talk to me Natasha, or better yet, read the NYTs artcile and still come off hating Ms Groves? I don;t think so.

        1. Joe Friday, I agree that Natacha’s et al bloodthirsty reaction to the Covington High School kids was disturbing. As a mother, this behavior bothers me.

          There is a mob mentality that does not even spare children. Celebrities have posted some rather savage fantasies about Baron Trump online, as well.

  5. Since this is a legal blog site, I’d like to know whatever happened to the enforcement of the law obliging the obtaining of written permission in a release from anyone playing a predominant role in a video to be published?

    Do you lawyers out there agree that Galligan violated the video privacy rights of Mimi Groves in neglecting to obtain her permission to publish the clip?

    Does Ms. Groves have the basis for a lawsuit?….aren’t the damages levied on her pretty convincing?

    I’m not aware that the law concerning permissions was altered when Silicon Valley techies put a video camera in every cell phone?
    I am aware that these tech firms did absolutely nothing to respect that law, and willfully undermined it with the way “sharing” was coupled to video clips.

    1. pbinca, my thoughts too. Also, I wonder if her being a private person (not public) would have any legal ramifications, especially regarding the NYT piece.

  6. “Everyone agrees that the use of the n-word was a terrible thing.”

    I don’t agree. The young woman didn’t use the word as an insult, she used it in the same manner that blacks use it. If it’s such a horrible word then blacks shouldn’t use it.

  7. I’m blessed to have not had to mature in this current culture. The things I did in my teens would have been social media fodder. There’s a reason my 12 year old has no phone and no social media access. And he won’t get them until I’m convinced he would be able to responsibly use them. This story should be discussed in every middle school and high school. Parents should be made aware of this story so they can discuss this with their children.

    I agree with DSS’s point that the vindictive attack reflects poorly on the character of Galligan and not Groves.

    1. journalists and social media custodians, are hired hands of those who own their employer entities, or at least have controlling interests

      ie, the billionaires

      Sal Sar

  9. The NYT may delude itself that it is “objectively” covering a story of “public interest”. Maybe it is, but it hides from itself that it makes a bad situation worse. The NYT didn’t start this indecent narrative; Galligan and UT made themselves part of the story first. But the NYT is like them in thinking it is doing a “public service” with NO RISK to themselves. Uh-uh. Not any more. Cancel culture is a disease, and the public feels the symptoms. “Backlash” is too mild a word. Don’t ignore that this what the NYT sells, its work product. As long as there’s no down side for it, or for Galligan or UT, they’ll continue to keep congratulating themselves. But I’m gratified to see that the public doesn’t hide its revulsion. The Gray Lady, Galligan and UT will find there are cultural and commercial costs to doing their “public service” when the results offend the public’s sensibility.

    1. The NYTs made this story national news and it is definitely not a celebration of cancel culture, but it’s opposite. If you and Turley didn’t do the knee-jerk, you’d both have no reaction at all.

  11. Just another reason to not read the Trashy NYT. Make them the model of the cancel culture, their opinion does not count. I’m sure Attorney Lynn Woods should be consulted.

    1. If the NYTs had not published this excellent but disturbing article, you wouldn’t know it happened doofus. It could not have been more fair to Ms Groves, recounting her own actions in opposition to racism and the severe price she paid at the hands of UT for a past misstep. Turley’s baseless attack on the NYTs is unforgivable.

      1. Oh such breaking NEWS! A teenagers sticks foot in mouth, I’ll show that little girl. This is not journalism, and I wouldn’t care in the least about someone using inappropriate language which I’m assured Mr. Friday you’ve never in your life have used. YA RIGHT!*

  12. I read the story, ” Carefully written, objective story”. Give me a break!! NYT has not been objective in well…ever! I just might give pussy Jimmy’s dad a call.

  13. ” Everyone agrees that the use of the n-word was a terrible thing. ” Not necessarily the word which actually came from the German word for black, but the inflection applied when de-NIG-rating a race. Red-Neck, Cracker, Honkey, Deplorable, etc should also undergo suppression.

    1. actually ethnic epithets will never go away, because ethnic competition will never go away

      it is a utopian fancy that these words can be “suppressed”

      Americans are totally clueless about how “racist” or at least “ethnocentric” the world outside of “The West” is and still remains

      white people are woefully ignorant about other cutlures. if whites knew how other people thought about race and ethnicity, they would not be so ashamed of their own natural inclinations to continue to consider it against all the exhortations of the billionaires and their lackeys

      ah the billionaires. on the one hand, they penalize Westerners for any form of ethnocentrism or nationalism

      then, in some countries and places, they instigate it

      Isn’t it amusing, how Geo Soros was a big champion, of Aung Sun Suu Kyi, when she was a dissident. Of course he wanted to trouble the “military junta” because he had some plans to profit on the place once it “opened up” just as he has done in so many other “color revolutions.”

      and then once she was president of Myanmar, then she was thrown overboard. The billionaires found a new favored destabilizing agent in Myanmar, the Rohynga Muslims

      https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11685977

      the key insight is this: billionaires ever and always advance liberalism and individual rights, not because they are good, but because, they want to destroy the nations. the nations depend on the human ethnocentric interest, to help build up a country, and make it proseperous, and strong against rivals and adversaries

      billionaires want all nations weak. that is the essence of globalism. billionaire profit from the destruction of nations.

      occasionally, a little story will slip out like the one about the cheerleader, to mollify victimized majorities, like white folks. the water is kept to a certain temperature to cook the frog, not a rolling boil, lest the frog jump out of the pot

      Saloth Sar

    2. @ rwcrampton “the German word for black”?
      You mean Schwartz? I’m pretty sure it’s origin is Latin- Niger, which is why it’s close to Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian etc romantic languages. Some say Latin itself may have morphed the word from ancient Egypt’s NTR for God or some Semitic language that evolved into Amharic which uses Negus for king but I’m not about to research those claims. Suffice to say it’s twisted English origin stems from our language’s Latin roots, not it’s German ones.

  14. How does Turley’s reaction to a carefully written objective story justify the comment that “New York Times however seemed to border on the gleeful.” No, it didn’t. We’re all supposed to react with his bias, as if only he his point of view is correct? Amazing arrogance!

  15. The story is very disturbing and opens many concerns, with the latest perhaps being the repercussions for ignorant children filming themselves during and saying things they don’t realize may impact them forever.

    However, Turley typically links and mimics the Fox News line which tries to weaponize it against the NYTs. The story could not possibly have been written more fairly and objectively and in no way celebrates cancel culture. Read it and judge for yourself. Turley is a reckless phony and propagandist.

    1. @Allen Stewart I don’t agree with what Galligan did, and am pissed about it in the same sort of way but not nearly the same degree I was when the Smollett story leaked (which was obviously phony to anyone with half a brain whose been to chicago in winter). Mainly because it’s counterproductive to the movement they claim to support and makes it seem like actual victims don’t have real issues to pursue, such that people have to either make up issues or magnify issues so petty they could have been handled on the playground. If the things most of the millennials said in the 90’s about members of the lgbt community were replayed, hardly anyone of them would have jobs at this rate.

      That being said, if you play the video it’s clear she ended it with an “ers” and not an “as” so to say it’s the variant found in thousands of rap songs is simply incorrect. I saw the original a day or so ago. Most of the edits left on YouTube have bleeped it out so it’s harder to tell. Again I don’t fault the kid for taking issue with the bullying he was experiencing but to bottle up all of his aggression and unleash it on her for something that wasn’t directed on him is just dumb.

  16. What is left out of the story is that she didn’t use the term toward anyone. She used it the same way the rappers do in the videos posted here.

    Seems to me this young lady has a cause of action against a whole host of people.

      1. Funny thing….you post a video of Groping Joe….uncut…full length….and it gets censored…..but this young woman gets hammered despite it not being directed as anyone person directly…..go figure!

        You cannot even use Guy Gibson’s dog’s name in a movie despite it being historical fact.

        But listen to Farrakhan, Sharpton, Jackson, and so many other Race Baiters and they get a free pass.

  17. This is a horrible norm to set. Should she have said it, no. Should people have bullied him. Absolutely not. Should the high school have done more about it, without a doubt. Should revenge have come 3 years later to the girl who was a minor at the time in the way it did? Absolutely not.

    She wasn’t the main offender. It would be one thing if this girl were the one picking on him daily but it sounds like a school environment full of this. Most white parents aren’t going to read this and think “way to go kid, you got rid of a real monster there!”
    They’re going to think “oh sh*t what is my kid who listens to rap music all day and can cite the lyrics verbatim posting on social media? Is some vindictive twerp going to help derail their lives to make a point 3-5 years later?”

    This isn’t the way to make allies who are down for the cause of helping you. It’s the way to make enemies and seems very petty this long after the fact. You can file a lawsuit against the school alleging emotional distress and keep a collection of all the times issues like this were allowed to slide but I think this does more harm than good. We’ve got a school in Georgia where a black kid was rolled into a gym mat found with his organs removed. Not to mention blatant prejudice accepted at high levels in corporations across America.

    This would be like someone making a stink because their shoes were spat on due to race in the civil rights movement when little girls were getting bombed to death at churches, buses set on fire, schools attacked over integration; or someone getting a kid kicked out of college for bringing a toy gun to school in junior high when there are actual school shootings going on. It seems unfocused like you don’t have any actual issues going on and undermines the mission.

    Ignorant or not it doesn’t sound like the post was even directed at him. Is this really the worst he could come up with, some girl posted a video saying the n word 3 years ago trying to be funny not demeaning and failing miserably? 90% of minorities across America have easily heard and seen much worse probably directed at them. This is dumb.

    1. What’s even more lame/funny the context in which the minor used the ‘verboten’ word, was the ubiquitous universal greeting meaning.

      LIke saying hey ‘dude’ , check it out ‘man’.

  18. That was a pretty nasty thing for the UoT and NYTimes to do and they do deserve scorn. However, Jimmy Galligan’s name is now forever attached to this story and future employers may not look favorably to having such scum on staff.

    1. Jimmy Galligan appears to be part of the Super Woke Militia…He’s just another fake black / half black mutt, his looks suggests he’s also a f****** in the head tranny pole puffer…I’m sure his woke white guilt parents are very proud. Let’s turn the tables and cancel this piece of worthless dog s***

      It looks like Jimmy’s father is the founder and CEO of a general contracting firm…maybe give him a call and ask him about his parenting skills or lack thereof.

      https://www.scafacilities.com/about

      James Galligan, CEO
      tel 703.989.7658

      Strategic Consulting Alliances, LLC is a Virginia Domestic Limited-Liability Company filed on January 6, 2004. The company’s filing status is listed as 19 Canc (Auto-Fee) and its File Number is S112100.

      The Registered Agent on file for this company is James M Galligan and is located at Strategic Consulting Alliances Llc 280 West 8th Street, Front Royal, VA 22630-3506. The company’s principal address is 230 West 8th Street, Front Royal, VA 22630-3500.

      The company has 1 principal on record. The principal is James M Galligan from Front Royal VA.

      2. What you just did is far worse than what Jimmy Galligan did, execrable as it was. Pretty sure you just doxxed the guy. Hope JT deletes your post, and quickly…

Comments are closed.