Law Student’s Instagram Posting Triggers Debate Over Anti-White Speech

The University of Miami Law School is facing a controversy over how to handle racist comments directed against white students — with objections over a double standard at the university.  It is increasingly common to read anti-white commentary in the media, including a column recently from Elie Mystal writer for Above the Law and The Nation’s justice correspondent who lashed out at “white society” and how he strived to maintain a “whiteness free” life in the pandemic. Miami Law School has been silent in the face of complaints filed against student Jordan Gary after she posted her comments publicly on Instagram.

Gary publicly declared that she “hate[s] white people,” and noted that “People always tell me like ‘hate is such a strong word. And yes it is, but these are some strong ass stories I heard. And until I can figure out how to reconcile that in my head, and in my heart, I hate white people.”  According to her LinkedIn page, Gary is the president of the Black Law Students Association and also the writing editor for the Race & Social Justice Law Review at the university.

Conservative sites asked Miami’s Dean for a comment but there has been no public statement even after the filing of complaints.

The issue of anti-white commentary raises a subject so sensitive that few universities are willing to openly discuss it. As will come as little surprise to many on this blog, my default remains with free speech, particularly for comments made outside of a school on social media. That does not mean that schools should not denounce intolerant or racist speech.  However, these comments are bound up with an array of personal, social, and political issues for students like Gary. I would rather discuss these views than seek to punish their expression.

The free speech community is always concerned with not just the punishment of viewpoints but any differential or biased punishment.  There is little question that a white student at Miami saying that “I hate [black] people” would be immediately and publicly denounced — and likely would be immediately suspended. If there is a difference between anti-white and anti-black commentary, it should be made clear and debated.

In posting the comments, Gary was clearly inviting a public debate — a debate that might have some positive elements in getting different groups and races to think about racist assumptions as well as free speech protections.

Gary is not alone obviously in voicing such views.  Mystal’s column shows the same sweeping characterization of white people. He writes:

“Over the past year, I have, of course, still had to interact with white people on Zoom or watch them on television or worry about whether they would succeed in reelecting a white-supremacist president….Their cops aren’t hunting me when I drive through my neighborhood; their hang-ups aren’t bothering me (or threatening me) when I’m just trying to do some shopping.

…White people haven’t improved; I’ve just been able to limit my exposure to them.”

Notably, Mystal was one of the most vocal voices denouncing Nicholas Sandmann and continued to slam the wrongly accused student even after the reports of a racist incident were debunked. In the coverage of the initial coverage, Mystal’s denounced Sandmann for wearing his “racist [MAGA] hat” and objected to Sandmann doing interviews trying to defend himself. Mystal derided how this “17-year-old kid makes the George Zimmerman defense for why he was allowed to deny access to a person of color.” Putting aside the fact that Sandmann was not denying “access to a person of color,”  Mystal and Patrice were comparing this high school student to a man who was accused of murdering an unarmed African American kid and even assailing his effort to clear his name as the media continued to label him a racist.

Again, Sandmann was entirely innocent of the racism allegations and the Washington Post reached a settlement with him.

Mystal’s latest tirade however still shows that racist statements can reflect social, political, and other experiences. Mystal does concede that “not that most or even many of my interactions with white people are ‘bad.'” However, he has deep-seated feelings about how whites interact with minorities or what he views as a common sense of white privilege.  Many of these speakers are saying that their hostility is derived from experiences with racism from whites.

This brings us back to the Miami controversy and how schools should handle such disputes. One answer is that the approach should be the same regardless of whether the statements target one race or another. If there is going to be a zero tolerance for racist statements, it must be applied consistently. If not, these schools owe their students and faculty members clarity on where the line is drawn and why some racist comments are treated differently. Silence does not shoulder that burden.  We need to discuss if otherwise racist statements can be differentiated and if such differentiation constitutes tolerance for criticisms based on the race of others at a school. Likewise, there is the question of how such sweeping generalities apply to other races or other categories like gender or sexual orientation. It even ask such questions today is to risk being labeled racist or intolerant. As a result, thee is just silence and the free speech concerns go unaddressed.

Once again, I tend to oppose the regulation of speech outside of schools on free speech grounds. More importantly, I would prefer to speak freely and collectively about such deep-seated views held by students. I recognize that I hold a traditional (and perhaps dated) view of free speech. However, I still believe that the solution of bad speech is more speech, not speech regulation.

 

136 thoughts on “Law Student’s Instagram Posting Triggers Debate Over Anti-White Speech”

  1. This student should be treated exactly the same as any other doing the same activity. Nothing more, nothing less. Personally, I would not raise a ruckus any more than I would for any other student. I believe in the open exchange of ideas. Yet, I do point out the apparent hypocrisy of not a peep from her cohorts. That is open and free ideas that they agree with her. At some point this pendulum will swing back.

    1. “I hate white people” is not an idea. It is a feeling. The “idea” suggested by her statement is that of collective guilt, and that is a place she doesn’t want to take this.

  2. This morning in the Floyd/Chauvin trial the defense attorney on cross of the state’s use of force expert got the state’s expert to testify that based on actual experience a suspect who is handcuffed can still present a risk of physical harm to the police and others, citing kicking, biting and even getting control of an officer’s gun.

    That for the trolls and others here who have been declaring that a handcuffed Floyd no longer posed a risk to anyone.

    Meanwhile, it looks as if another prosecution witness has been turned into a defense witness.

    I wonder if the carpet bagger attorneys who joined the prosecution pro bono are beginning to regret that decision?

        1. “Like you, it would seem.”

          Powerful, like that old schoolyard taunt “I’m rubber, your glue, what you say bounces off me an sticks to you”.

          Really food for thought.

      1. Mespo – I had a quick look at the carpetbagger lawyers and most do not have much in the way of actual trial experience. Appellate experience, as you well know, is different from trial work. One of them is an offshoot from some Soros program. One of them does have regular criminal trial experience and he seems to be doing the actual presentation but he is not showing well at this point. Either he hasn’t spent enough time with his witnesses or he has been left holding the bag in a purely political prosecution. Whatever he thought he was going to get out of volunteering to prosecute [who does that?] it looks so far as if he is going to be disappointed. He doesn’t look very good even to most laymen.

        One thing that probably has already occurred to you is that with a disparate team like this there likely will be internal disputes that will produce an even weaker effort than one or two capable lawyers working together could have done. The ‘Dream Team’ on the OJ case had those problems. They had the advantage of facing an incompetent prosecution that began disastrously by moving away from where the trial normally would have been prosecuted to downtown where they were more likely to get a jury that would vote to acquit even if the murder had been caught on tape.

        So far the state in Chauvin’s trial has done nothing to show that anything done by any of the officers caused Floyd’s death. Professor Turley saw some hope for the prosecution in the argument that the officers were negligent in failing to render care quickly enough to Floyd. That looked almost reasonable a few days ago, but on cross the state’s own experts destroyed that argument.

        The only real evidence pointing to Floyd’s cause of death is the autopsy and any reasonable reading of it comes close to wholly exonerating Chauvin. No wonder the state wants to belittle the only true evidence it has on the mechanism that led to Floyd’s passing.

        There have been open threats to burn cities if Chauvain is acquitted. He should be but acquitted I am still leaning to hung jury despite the evidence because of fear of retaliation by the mob.

        If the city burns I am having trouble caring about it. They have abused their police, thinned their ranks, and offered up several of them as a sacrifice to the God of the Mob. Cahuvin didn’t cause Floyd’s death, but the city government arguably caused the mob to destroy the city. But for the chain of lunatic decisions by the city officials, the city would not have these problems.

        1. “Opinion: Don’t read too much into the outcome of Derek Chauvin’s trial”

          Radley Balko
          Columnist

          April 1, 2021 at 6:15 p.m. CDT

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/01/dont-read-too-much-into-outcome-derek-chauvins-trial/

          “Chauvin’s trial matters in the way any trial matters — it demands a verdict driven by evidence, fairness and equal application of the law. But the legacy of Floyd’s death is already written. It effected, and continues to effect, substantive and tangible changes that make this a fairer, more just country. An acquittal can’t unravel that, and it doesn’t need to be validated with a conviction.”

          1. With video:

            https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1379849716729544710

            ‘CBS News
            @CBSNews

            LAPD Sergeant Stiger testified the officers had a duty to help George Floyd when it became clear “his health was deteriorating.”

            “As an officer on the scene, you have a responsibility to realize something is not right … you have a responsibility to take some type of action.”‘

            1. Anon – If you are relying on Wa Po for your information you are getting a different trial from the one the jurors are seeing.

          2. Glad to see that comment by a Wa Po propagandist.

            It almost looks as if he has seen enough to recognize the state has a crappy case against the police officers.

            But still, as we see with phony ‘hate crimes’ in academia, we still have to go ahead with the racist ‘racial healing’ programs and expenses even when the charge is phony.

            Thanks for posting it..

            1. Anonymous the Stupid has been posting up a storm. He can’t stop posting and linking. He can’t stop insulting.

              One thing we know is that Anonymous the Stupid posts cr-p. That is why hours or a few days after he posts almost everything he points out is found to be untrue. He likes to post one side of an argument but gets furious when the other side gets posting making Anonymous the Stupid out to be a fool.

              I am embarrassed for the legal profession based on what the prosecution is providing.

          3. Balko is full of horse feathers. All the changes resulting from Floyd’s death make this country LESS fair.

        2. “most do not have much in the way of actual trial experience. “

          You get what you pay for. Democrats are so blinded by their ideology that they have difficulty separating good from bad and believe that a reputation in one type of circumstance can be transferred to another. It generally cannot be transferred.

        3. Young:

          I’m with you on every point. As to OJ, I had the pleasure of taking Lee Bailey to lunch a couple of years after the Simpson trial. We were working on a case here in Virginia and our client hired Lee to do the appeal to the 4th Circuit. Lee is a feisty old fighter pilot with a sense of bravado. He agreed with your assessment of the prosecution team but lavished most of the praise for the favorable verdict on Barry Scheck who meticulously dismembered the state’s forensic evidence. Scheck refused to cash in with a book deal. That’s a lawyer. Must have been quite a trial.

          1. Mespo– Thanks for that. Very interesting time you had with Bailey. I have never actually met him but I took a brief CLE seminar in trial practice from him many years ago and thought he was very engaging. I suppose because of thinking about this trial I ended up discussing the OJ trial last night. I watched much of it and have read several of the books following the trial, including Marcia Clark’s book, and stuck with my original opinion that Bailey and Scheck were the stars for the defense. Cochrane was good at connecting with the jury and giving them a slogan to hang their not guilty verdict on. I don’t think that the jury actually cared much about evidence. Cochran’s glove trick and Bailey’s cross of Furhman’s use of forbidden words probably engaged them emotionally.

            In a separate trial CLE video of Marcia doing cross or direct [hard to remember which] was used to show what not to do. Along with Marcia there was video of Justice Jackson with Goering to show another example of what not to do. I think you disagreed with me on Jackson some while back and recommended Irving’s book on ‘Nuremberg’. I read it and Irving doesn’t think much of Jackson’s performance either. Very good book recommendation from you however. I liked it so much I bought Irving’s biography of Goering but haven’t read it yet.

            1. “Cochran’s glove trick . . .”

              That has to rank up there with the stupidest moves ever by a prosecution.

              Who doesn’t know that leather shrinks, after it’s been wet (with blood) then dried? Who doesn’t know that wearing latex gloves makes it very difficult to put on leather gloves? Why didn’t they know that Simpson was on arthritis meds, which he stopped taking some two weeks before the glove debacle, which in turn caused his hands to swell?

      2. Mespo– Yes, I recall that you had made that point months ago and the next thing to happen was the trolls were trying to bite your ankles. You were right of course.

    1. “That for the trolls and others here who have been declaring that a handcuffed Floyd no longer posed a risk to anyone.”

      Put these cowardly leftist in the local prison alone and open up all the cells.

    2. Wasn’t it only yesterday that a handcuffed arrestee killed a Bibb County (Georgia) officer?

  3. im totally ok with people using the terms “whiteness free” and “white society” as long as they are defining it properly:
    lower in crime
    lower in abortion
    lower in welfare
    lower in poverty
    higher in marriage
    higher in education
    this isnt an indictment of “other than whiteness”
    it is however an indictment of the blue city/blue state governance model and the mainstream media that has propped it up for decades now

  4. (this thing and it’s ilk are the kind that go out in public and randomly start killing white folks. Oh, wait, it’s already being done by “criminal minded
    Black-ass-scum.”)

    “Gary publicly declared that she “hate[s] white people, and according to her LinkedIn page, Gary is the president of the Black Law Students Association and also the writing editor for the Race & Social Justice Law Review at the university.”

  5. Where is Instagram’s cancel culture? Flip this around and a white person would be banned.

    Has the university ever taken action against a white student for off-campus hate speech? If so, whatever happened to the 14th Amendment regarding equal treatment? It was the foundation upon which the civil rights movement was built.

    Despite being an avid follower of current events, the fact that I’ve never heard of either of these people suggests to me that they’re preaching to the choir. Their message isn’t getting carried outside of an audience of sympathetic readers. I don’t use social media but what kind of person follows some idiot’s hate speech on Instagram or Twitter? Someone who already agrees or someone who disagrees and likes to tilt at windmills.

    Although one might say the answer to hate speech is more free speech, I recall my mother’s advice that the worst thing you can do to someone is ignore them. Look at AOC, a screeching blowhard who has never had a single bill make it to the floor of the House.

    1. Michael,
      In a reverse skin color situation, the white student would be expelled without a doubt. But, this is what the left is doing to America today. The divisiveness is more present than ever, thanks to Joe Biden and the new BLM/Democrat party.
      When I saw my child’s school book which stated that “Blacks cannot be racist, only whites can,” I thought it was a joke of some kind. This kind of teaching of our kids, gives black students the license to say and do whatever they want when it comes to race, while making white skinned students hide in the corner for fear of being called “racist.”
      This cannot be accepted in American society. While this is a problem for the entire population, the left has brought this on, and it is the left’s obligation to reverse this trend or risk this country’s destruction. My fear, is that is exactly what the left wants to see.

  6. “And yes it is, but these are some strong ass stories I heard.” That is the crux of the matter right there. She’s basing her emotions on what she “heard,” not on what she’s experienced. “African-American Studies” and “Black History” are based on “stories,” which is the definition of myth and fiction. When my grandmother accused me of lying, she’d say “Sam, you’re telling a story.” This young woman has no clue of reality. Black activists, historians, etc. claim that there was a “Black exodus” from the South because of lynching” but the truth is that thousands, white and black, left the South in the years from right after the Civil War to 1970 because of lack of economic opportunity – and there were at least two white who left for every black. They claim that Emmitt Till was murdered for “talking to a white woman” when the reality is that he mouthed off to the wrong person, a highly decorated war hero who had killed a lot of Germans. Ida B Wells didn’t leave Memphis for “speaking out about lynching,” she left Memphis after her newspaper building was burned down because she wrote an outrageous article that white women raped by black men were “asking for it.” Yes, there have been incidents when blacks were treated unfairly and falsely accused but the reality is that any black alive today under the age of sixty hasn’t experienced much “racism” at all, yet they have become racists themselves in the truest sense of the word.

  7. Without scapegoating White America they would have to look to themselves for their problems and that’s something they don’t choose to see.

  8. Ms. Gary is a (racist) idiot.

    Imagine if whites reciprocated her feelings.

    Ms. Gary would go through life afraid and poor.

    She has the right to feel and speak this way.

    She should remember though that opening the hatred door opens a two-way flow.

  9. We cannot end racism because racism is the backbone of the Democrat Party of today. Without racism the Party folds. No more riots in the streets, no more cancelling of those that don’t sympathize with violent behavior on the left.

  10. The answer is easy–if you are white and are automatically hated, not protected by society, and accused of being racist, well then, be racist. Easy and predictable result.

  11. What happened to Rev. Martin Luther King’s lofty vision that we should be judged by the contents of our character?

    Instead we are now teaching children to SEE COLOR FIRST and then judge based on COLOR?

    We are on the Hightway to Hell if this overt racism and screwed up brainwashing garbage isn’t stopped.

    Take your kids OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT (public) SCHOOLS if you can. Then skip the college track and go straight to something, anything else.

  12. This shows what real racism is. It is OK for me to say and do certain things, but if you say or do the same then it is racist. Unequivocally a double standard. Given that the sources of these statements are from educated citizens I can only assume there is a political intent to inflame the African American society thus creating a need for representation that shares the hate. The truth as I see it, is that the true objective is to influence opinion and create a dependency on politicians that promise to make a difference. The far left in this country is polarizing sentiment in a very dangerous way. The fact is that they criticize and accuse others of their own behavior; do as I say, not as I do.

    I suspect the authors promoting hate do in fact interact with non-African American’s and that their human and educational development has been co-existing with the “whiteness” they hate. For these hate promoters they should have the courage to tell their white professors, that are guiding and giving them power through education, just how much they hate them.

    Their attitude toward society ultimately becomes societies attitude toward them. Newton was right. For every action there is and equal and opposite reaction. Go figure.

  13. This is all further confirmation that Critical Race Theory is in its essentials Nazi Race Ideology dressed up for the 21st Century.

    The answer to Jordan Gary’s point is easy–if hate it must be, hate the people who did the things that you find hateful, but not others who share only some superficial resemblance to them. D’oh.

  14. So obvious that it doesn’t (or shouldn’t) need commentary.

    But the Lefties want to reintroduce racism – this time against whites.

    Their motives are power, division, and public unrest.

  15. “Gary publicly declared that she “hate[s] white people,” and noted that “People always tell me like ‘hate is such a strong word. And yes it is, but these are some strong ass stories I heard. And until I can figure out how to reconcile that in my head, and in my heart, I hate white people.” According to her LinkedIn page, Gary is the president of the Black Law Students Association and also the writing editor for the Race & Social Justice Law Review at the university.”
    *********************************
    Jordan Gary is a racist pure and simple and her title as BLSA Presidente casts serious doubts on the seriousness of that little collective. If you think a racist has some right to practice law you should by all means advocate for her admission to the bar. My own thinking is that she has disqualified himself from the privilege of practicing law and ought to be drummed out as any other miscreant would. Racism isn’t a one-sided mental affliction as many would have you believe. It’s an equal opportunity stupid that comes in all shades, genders and ages.

  16. Yes, ‘black racism’ exists. It’s a thing. Even though blacks compose 12.9% of the population they commit well over half the crimes in the USA, notably 55.9 % of all homicides. So maybe white have a reason to be wary around them. Seems to me the black community ought to do some soul searching. And yes, they should be accountable for their ‘hate speech’; No one should get a ‘skin color’ pass.

    1. @cathycarron

      White supremacists possess such great mystical powers and can actually force blacks to commit murders at the astronomical rate you mention.

      And remember if you ever encounter diversity in an up close and personal way, the perpetrator is not really responsible, see above.

      Again, this is an easy call. Can’t believe you are unaware of these powers since you probably possess white privilege.

      antonio

  17. This is the fruit of what Critical Race Theory has sown. It begins with the assertion that all white people are racist, which means every black is the focus of white peoples hatred or disdain. Imagine what it does to a black child for a teacher to tell them that the white kids sitting to their left and right think he is less than them because of his skin color. Imagine what you get when you teach all black students in high school and college that all white people have constructed a system to oppress them and maintain white supremacy over them. Imagine what you get. You get senseless hatred. You get Elie Mystal.

  18. All humans “are people if color”. Brown, yellow, tan, black, white are all colors which different people have. Many are of mixed color. The Vice President is not black. Obama was half white. Mom was light brown.
    The language and sentences spewed out are ridiculous.

  19. This is an easy call. The reason anti-white speech is acceptable and the anti-anyone else speech is not is because whites possess mysterious powers that can actually force make minorities to commit crimes even when there are no whites around. White Supremacists possess amazing powers, don’t they? That is why their activities including speech must be curtailed.

    See the attached story regarding another “White Supremacist” attack on Asians:

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/juvenile-arrested-in-videotaped-attack-on-asian-couple-in-tacoma-washington/ar-BB1fgdAo?li=BBnbfcL

    antonio

    1. I can’t find a reference to the color of the assailants’ skin, which means they were not white.

        1. And another thing these former communist refugees told me was that in the Soviet Era, you never, ever expressed a view that deviated from the official line except to a close, trusted friend. You might get ‘cancelled’ by the establishment. And that usually did not mean going to prison. Just meant you couldn’t get a good job, go to university, move to a new flat, etc. There were all kinds of things communist regimes could do to you that didn’t involve jail. Kind of like China’s social credit system which many leftists long for here. We already have such but it is done by private companies. Expect it to get tighter and more encompassing in the years ahead.

          From the UK Independent:

          64% of Americans view ‘cancel culture’ as mounting threat to freedom

          https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/64percent-of-americans-view-cancel-culture-as-mounting-threat-to-freedom/ar-BB1f720i

          Of course, I fully expect some adherent of the Church of Woke to comment saying it is part of a conspiracy and is not really happening, similar to the “White Supremacist” attacks on Asians we hear so much about.

          antonio

  20. The issue is how Miami or other publicly funded institutions would handle the reverse; i.e., similar statements from a Caucasian student. I think most sentient people know how the school would address that.

    The law student is entitled to free speech and opinion. He should not be punished for his views. However, none of this is helpful to society as a whole

    1. “One answer is that the approach should be the same regardless of whether the statements target one race or another. If there is going to be a zero tolerance for racist statements, it must be applied consistently.” This is not one answer, this is the only answer. If you are trying to build a racist-free society, then any form of racism should be condemned.

Leave a Reply