Persona Non Grata: Yale Professor Who Defended Kavanaugh Is Reportedly Sanctioned Without Notice Or Explanation

Professor Amy Chua was by all accounts a popular and accomplished teacher at Yale Law School.  Chua’s life (and standing) however seemed to change dramatically in 2018 when she published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Kavanaugh Is a Mentor To Women.” She reports that she instantly became a pariah at the school and in the academy.  Now, Chua is alleging that she was subject to the removal from small first-year classes in an action that lacked the most basic guarantees of notice and due process.

Chua’s allegations has received little attention outside of conservative sites but they raise very serious questions about the basis and handling of claims made against her. Indeed, Chua has alleged that the core allegation is demonstrably false.

Chaua alleges that material from her personnel file was leaked to a student journalist who knew of her punishment before she did.  In a rebuttal memo, Chua pointed out what see said were glaring errors in the Yale Daily News article by Julia Brown. The article began with the announcement:

“Law professor Amy Chua will no longer be leading a first-year small group at the Yale Law School next year after students raised allegations that she is still hosting private dinner parties at the home she shares with her husband, suspended law professor Jed Rubenfeld, despite having agreed in 2019 to cease all out-of-class hours interactions with students.”

In her memo to the whole faculty, Chua recounts how she was shocked by the article and the inclusion of non-public information. She objects that “Confidential information about my agreement with Heather has been disclosed to students or the press.To this day, ten days after I was removed from next year’s Small Group roster, I still have received no explanation whatsoever from the Dean’s Office about why this decision was made.” She denied having a federal judge at her house for a party or having any such parties with students during the pandemic.

When Chua reached out to Law School Dean Heather Gerken, Chua says that the Dean confirmed what was in the article on her punishment and confronted her on these claims.

If true, that would seem a curious approach of any school, let alone a law school. Chua insists that she was never given an opportunity to refute the allegations and that non-public facts (and the punishment) were leaked to the media before she was informed of the decision.

Chua says that the article conflated and misconstrued core facts. It specifically alleges that Chua violated an agreement in a 2019 letter to cease drinking and socializing with students outside of class. This was tied to a two-year suspension reportedly imposed on her husband, Professor Jed Rubenfeld, for alleged verbal harassment, unwanted touching and attempted kissing of students — allegations that Rubenfeld has denied.

Chua claims that Gerken repeated the false claim in the Zoom meeting that she had hosted a federal judge at her home and other parties. She says that the claim is “insane” and never happened.  That would seem a material fact that a law school might want to confirm before imposing such a sanction, let alone before someone improperly leaked the information to the press. Chua wrote:

As I wrack my brain to try to imagine what “dinner parties” with students they could possibly be referring to, I can only think of a few possibilities—all of which I not only stand by, but am proud of. As many of you know, there were a number of serious crises for our students in the last few months, including a student sending racist and terrifying violent messages to other students (and then disappearing), accusations of racism at the Law Journal, and most recently the outburst of anti-Asian violence that’s been in the news. In the midst of these events, a few students in extreme distress reached out to me, feeling that they had no one else to turn to, many of them feeling that the law school administration was not supporting them. Because we could not meet in the law school building, we met at my house, and I did my best to support them and console them. One of the students had received death threats; another student was sobbing because of violence directed at her mother. Jed was not present. On my own time, I’ve responded to students’ cries for help and tried my hardest to mentor and comfort students in times of crisis when they feel hopeless and alone—and for this, it appears, I’m being punished and publicly humiliated without anything remotely resembling due process.

It is impossible to judge the merits of these allegations from such statements in letters or articles. However, that is the point. There is no indication that Yale bothered to confirm these facts with the full participation of Professors Chua and Rubenfeld. The leaking of the story and inclusion of non-public information further shows evidence of animus against Chua.

The actions against Chua also seem in sharp contrast to other faculty like CNN analyst and Yale lecturer Asha Rangappa who was accused of doxing a student critic. Other Yale professors have engaged in equally controversial commentary like declaring Trump guilty of genocide. The concern of many conservative or libertarian faculty members is that any claim or alleged error will result in investigations and sanctions. A type of zero tolerance environment for any controversies involving faculty with opposing views. Yale, like most top law schools, has few conservative or libertarians on its faculty.  Intellectual balance at most of these law schools seems increasingly to run from the left to the far left.

The main concern however is not ideology but clarity in how such cases are handled. One high-profile Yale professor was recently terminated but her case actually raises similar issues on the lack of clarity over standards applied by the university.  Dr. Bandy Lee, a former faculty member in the School of Medicine and Yale Law School, spent four years violating the “Goldwater Rule” by offering faux diagnoses of President Trump from afar.  Neither Yale law school nor its medical school made any objection.  However, after receiving a letter from Alan Dershowitz about her similar diagnosis of his mental state, Lee was finally let go. There is no explanation of the standard applied and why it did not apply during the prior four years when Lee was one of the most high visibility faculty members at the law school. Even though I wrote numerous columns criticizing Lee for her unethical conduct, I remain concerned about the unclear grounds for her termination and the implications for free speech. There seems a lack of notice and clarity on the governing rules for faculty engaging in public debates outside of the school. Like the Chua case, it all seems dangerously improvisational and informal.

Professor Chua has demanded an investigation and, in my view, the entire faculty should support that demand. Whatever is found to be true about the merits, there is little question about the abusive process. The lack of notice and due process is chilling. When combined with the leak, it is hard not to see this action as hostile and retaliatory.

209 thoughts on “Persona Non Grata: Yale Professor Who Defended Kavanaugh Is Reportedly Sanctioned Without Notice Or Explanation”

  1. Hunter Biden went to YALE, no doubt due to the infamous ‘Biden connections’. It just about says it all.

    1. Edward M. “Ted” Kennedy went to Harvard and Joseph P. Kennedy paid for everything, including Ted’s grades.

  2. That sounds like a dumb statement. TDS has been defined in the opposite fashion. You wouldn’t recognize that hole in your logic since you have so many.

  3. The university and the media quoted have been supporters of the Socialists party’s victimization of women policy for decades. They victimize themselves because they can’t defend themselves against this criminal position. Just supporting the Clinton’s is proof of that.

  4. This personnel info shouldn’t have been leaked in the first place, and it’s certainly inappropriate for Chua to learn this from an article rather than from the Dean.

    Unrelated: JT needs to learn to check his columns for typos, including his frequent misspellings of people’s names (Chua’s name appears twice in the column as Chau). This is extremely easy to do with any word processor.

    1. I have said the same to the Professor (about typos) several times. He ignores me. Not only is this annoying to the reader, it also implies that his thinking and writing suffer from similar sloppiness. Shape up Professor. I give you a “C” Minus.

      1. Not only is this annoying to the reader,

        It’s not annoying to this reader. If you know a word has been misspelled, then you would apparently know what the word is, spelled correctly or not. To borrow from Dr. King, judge a person from the content of their writing and not by their typos.

      2. Pro Tip #3:

        “C” Minus — should be: C-minus or C-, but never what you concocted.

        I give you a D for dropping the context that this is a *free* blog written by a very busy scholar, and that his prolific output provides you with a *free* forum in which to express your opinions.

        I give an F to the ankle-biters who chronically criticize JT, while never expressing a word of gratitude.

    1. Do you have a specific real claim of perjury ?

      Perjury is not where two people disgree about a fact that can not be established.

      Perjury is a false statement of a proveable fact that is consequential to the hearing in which it was made.

      Do you have one of those ?

      Getting the time of your lunch yesterday incorrect would only be perjury if the error provided you with an alibi for a bank robbery.

      Regardless, you are making a serious moral and legal claim against Kavanaugh.

      If Kavanaugh actually perjured himself then he should be in jail. Few would disagree with that.

      You are making a serious claim of moral and legal failure – the burden of proof is on YOU.

      Yet, you have not made a specific allegation – much less proved it.

      I would further note failure to make atleast a credible case for perjury is therefore a moral failure on YOUR part.

      If you can not meaningfully support your claim – the moral failure is YOURS.

      We have seen way too much of this nonsense from the left. Lobbing moral hand grenades that ultimately prove to be duds and then hiding from personal responsibility for your own moral failures.

      1. “Do you have a specific real claim of perjury ?”

        Several of the people who submitted complains made specific claims of perjury. The complaints can all be read at the link.

        “you are making a serious moral and legal claim against Kavanaugh.”

        No, actually, the people who submitted the allegations are making serious moral and legal claims against Kavanaugh. Keep straight who is making the allegations. THEY — they people who submitted the complaints — are the ones making the allegations. I’m just noting that the complaints were submitted, that the 10th Circuit decided it didn’t have jurisdiction, and that Turley hasn’t ever addressed it.

        “the burden of proof is on YOU.”

        No, I only have a burden for what I said, which was that there were “dozens of complaints alleging that Kavanaugh committed perjury during his confirmation hearings / other judicial misconduct.” I substantiated MY claim by linking to those dozens of complaints alleging that Kavanaugh committed perjury during his confirmation hearings or engaged in other judicial misconduct. THEY are the ones making the allegations, and THEY are the ones with a burden off proof for THEIR allegations.

        “you have not made a specific allegation”

        Hahahaha! Duh!

        THEY are the ones making specific allegations. I’m not going to bottle feed you. If you want to know what THEIR allegations are, READ them at the link.

        “I would further note failure to make atleast a credible case for perjury is therefore a moral failure on YOUR part.”

        I would note that your claim is false. Over and over and over again, you confuse me with the people who made the allegations. Jeez.

        1. John, this guy pulls the same stunt over and over again. He thinks he is a comedian and wants people to laugh with him, but they end up laughing at him.

          He provides a link and expects everyone to argue with a link.

          I did that several times with him and others.

          Lots of his links show absolutely nothing having to do with the discussion. Others show his opinion to be wrong.

          Then he has the links that have argument. I have responded by going over a few of the actual bits of data provided and took a few proving each one junk. If only one or several are junk, then the link is junk unless he specifies which arguments are sound and provides a reason.

          A link from this character is most of the times an admission he doesn’t know what he is talking about. Now he will come back at me in a hostile way and then go back to play with his Cuomo doll holding an Emmy. LOL. He is such a putz.

        2. ““Do you have a specific real claim of perjury ?”

          Several of the people who submitted complains made specific claims of perjury. The complaints can all be read at the link.”
          I asked you. You made the allegation – Don’t you know what you are talking about ?

          ““you are making a serious moral and legal claim against Kavanaugh.”

          No, actually, the people who submitted the allegations are making serious moral and legal claims against Kavanaugh. Keep straight who is making the allegations. THEY — they people who submitted the complaints — are the ones making the allegations. I’m just noting that the complaints were submitted, that the 10th Circuit decided it didn’t have jurisdiction, and that Turley hasn’t ever addressed it.”

          I am keeping this straight. Absolutely “they” are responsible for the claims they have made – Just as YOU are responsible for repeating them.

          BTW it would be beneficial if when you post you could provide sufficient context for others to have some idea what you are talking about.
          Your posts are a mass of vague allegations, pronouns and abdication of personal responsibility.

          IF Kavanaugh actually perjured himself – he should be held accountable. If not – then those making the accusation should AS should those repeating it.

          ““the burden of proof is on YOU.”

          No, I only have a burden for what I said, which was that there were “dozens of complaints alleging that Kavanaugh committed perjury during his confirmation hearings / other judicial misconduct.” I substantiated MY claim by linking to those dozens of complaints alleging that Kavanaugh committed perjury during his confirmation hearings or engaged in other judicial misconduct. THEY are the ones making the allegations, and THEY are the ones with a burden off proof for THEIR allegations.”

          Repeating an allegation – particularly doing so with the presumption that it is true is nearly the same as making it.

          ““you have not made a specific allegation”

          Hahahaha! Duh!”

          Your problem – not mine.

          “THEY are the ones making specific allegations. I’m not going to bottle feed you. If you want to know what THEIR allegations are, READ them at the link.”

          And YOU are repeating them – only vaguely.

          It appears that you think you can escape moral culpability for false moral claims, by vaguely repeating the claims of others, and blaming them. That is not how it works.

          If I say – there are allegations that you are a peodophile, and Turley should report on that. Why isn’t anyone looking into that ?

          Am I completely released from any moral responsibility for my remarks – just because an allegation exists ?

          There are plenty of ludicrously stupid allegations about all kinds of people out there.

          Where have we seen this before ? Oh, The Steele Dossier, and the Biden Laptop.

          The press had the steele dossier long before they published it. But no one in the media (or the FBI) was able to verify anything consequential about it – so no one reported on it – because frankly it is massively defamatory.
          But the moment Buzzfeed ran with it – the rest of the media piled on – because they were just reporting on the reporting.
          They abdicated responsibility for vetting the story – a story that they tried to vett and failed.

          With the Biden laptop – the left got a bunch of IYI’s from the intelligence community to make the idiotic claim that it smelled like Russian disinformation – Glenn Greenwald did an excellent job of eviscerating that nonsense. While NOTHING consequential in the steele dossier has ever been confirmed – numerous facts in the material in the Biden laptop were easily confirmed by the press.
          Yet still instead of reporting the truth – the Press ran with the “Russian disinformation” lie.

          Aparently to lefties – anything damaging to their hypocritical political hero’s is “Russian disinformation”.

          Are we atleast at the point today where idiots such as yourself will accept that Hunter Biden actually was hired by Burisma because of his policital influence, not his knowledge of fossil fuels, that he and his partners and lawyers actively lobbied the FBI, the State department, and his father on behalf of Burisma, that the VP’s office was warned by the US state department that Hunter was selling influence and that the VP should either get Hunter to quit or Joe should recuse himself. That The NYT ALSO notified Joe Biden of his Son’s role in Burisma.
          The Joe Biden was aware of his Son’s role in Burisma – and had talked to his son about it – according to Hunter, and that Joe extorted the Ukrainians to fire Shokin who was investigating – not just Burisma, but Hunter Biden.

          For years we have had all of you on the left tell us all the above is just “russian disinformation” – it is not, it is all verifiable by documents – most from FOIA requests of US government sources – like the state department.

          Do you understand that the above means that the first impeachment of Trump was one of the most vile political hatchet jobs in US history.
          Inarguably based on the facts, the president of the united states, the US state department and the US justice department were justified in both investigating the Biden’s conduct in Ukraine, but also asking that Ukraine do so.

          It is interesting that the left seems to think it is perfectly acceptable for VP Biden to blackmail a foreign country to STOP investigating corruption involving americans. But Trump is impeached for asking the same foreign country to investigate strong credible claims of misconduct.

          The hypocracy of the left knows no bounds.

          And YOU and others like you – spread these lies – and like now with Kavanaugh, you are evading responsibility.

          When you repeat something legally, morally and ethically damaging about another person – you have an obligation to assure that there is a basis for the allegation.

          ““I would further note failure to make atleast a credible case for perjury is therefore a moral failure on YOUR part.”

          I would note that your claim is false. Over and over and over again, you confuse me with the people who made the allegations. Jeez.”

          Nope, YOU are repeating the allegation.

          “Someone told me you were a pedophile” – is it OK with you that I repeat that ?

          You have become innured by years of a press that has turned into a propoganda arm for the left.

          You do not seem to grasp that m oral culpability for repeating a claim is only slightly less than making it.

          When you repeat an allegation of moral failure – you are taking ownership of the claim. A wise person would check the claim FIRST.

          So Tell us – did you do so ?

          Is the substance of your comment “Someone said something bad about Kavanaugh”.

          Or are you sufficiently familiar with the specific allegations to judge that they are credible enough to repeat them and thereby take ownership ?

          Or should we just ignore all your future posts – because you are admitting that you have no idea what you are talking able and take no responsibility for what you write ?

          1. “You made the allegation”

            No, I didn’t. Which is why you cannot quote me making an allegation myself. Noting that OTHERS have made allegations does not equate to me making an allegation. It’s me noting the fact that OTHERS have made allegations and the court was unable to respond and linking to evidence for my actual claim: “Turley has never addressed the dozens of complaints alleging that Kavanaugh committed perjury during his confirmation hearings / other judicial misconduct, and the 10th Circuit’s determination that they could not review them – https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/ce/misconduct/kavanaugh-complaints

            “YOU are responsible for repeating them.”

            I didn’t repeat them. I noted the FACTS that
            – these allegations exist,
            – the court was unable to review them and explained why,
            – Turley has never written about the allegations and the court’s inability to review them.

            “If I say – there are allegations that you are a peodophile, and Turley should report on that. Why isn’t anyone looking into that ? Am I completely released from any moral responsibility for my remarks – just because an allegation exists ?”

            I didn’t just “say” that there are allegations, I linked to copies of the dozens of complaints that were submitted to Chief Justice Roberts and referred by him to the 10th Circuit, and to a copy of the 10th Circuit’s statement about why it was unable to review them, whereas you have not linked to a copy of any allegation about me, much less did you link to a Court’s statement in response.

            I’m not going to respond to the rest of your word vomit.

            1. You seem to think that if You are not the person who first claimed Kavanaugh perjured himself that spreading the allegation comes without culpability.

              I have been through this with you and you either can not read or ignored it.

              You are morally responsible for your speech – and in some instances legally responsible.

              When you echo nonsense – like the Steele Dossier or the claims about Kavanaugh, you have nearly the same responsibility for their credibility as the author, and EXACTLY the same moral burden with respect to their moral claim.

              Have you vetted these allegations ? Do you know whether they are credible ? Substantive ?

              You need do none of these – if you do not repeat the allegation.

              If you do, you are betting your integrity on the allegations made by others.

              I would further note – You raised the allegation. It did not come from thin air. The only reason for offering the allegation is because you beleive it to be true.

              You demanded Turley address it – Why should Turley address it. For all I know – it is nonsense or immaterial.

              Is everyone obligated to disprove ludicrously stupid allegations made against them ?

              Of course not. This is precisely why the burden of proof is on you. You do not escape moral responsibility by repeating the allegation of another. When you impugn the morality of another – the burden of proof is on you. Even when you are not the first to do so.

              1. “When you echo nonsense – like the Steele Dossier or the claims about Kavanaugh, you have nearly the same responsibility for their credibility as the author, and EXACTLY the same moral burden with respect to their moral claim.”

                Yet again: this is your OPINION. It is not a fact. You can have whatever opinion you want, but understand that it’s an opinion and not a fact.

                Moreover, you are assuming that the allegations about Kavanaugh are “nonsense.” That’s not a fact either. The 10th Circuit certainly didn’t conclude that the complaints are nonsense.

                “Turley has not written about the allegation that you are a pedophile either.”

                There are no complaints submitted under penalty of perjury to any courts alleging that about me for him to discuss, and no court has declared their inability to rule on anything involving me. I’m also not a SCOTUS Justice.

                You do understand that all of these complaints were submitted under penalty of perjury, right? Or did you never bother to look at even one of them to see that the complaint form requires this?

                “Here is a link to an allegation that you are a pedophile.”

                It’s not a complaint submitted to a court under penalty of perjury naming me. Save your garbage for someone else.

                Moreover, you repeatedly ignore the 10th Circuit’s discussion of why they could not review the complaints, which (in my opinion) is a significant legal issue regardless of what one believes about the underlying allegations.

                Since we’re not making headway, and since you have a boring tendency to treat your opinions as facts, I’m done with this exchange. I expect you’ll want the last word.

                1. Not an opinion.

                  You have these bizzare delusions.

                  We have spent 150.000 years developing moral standards – they are actual standards – even though those of you on the left do not like them. And even though you try to abolish them by orwellian word games.

                  A meter is a unit of measure – its length was established by humans.

                  That does not make the length of a meter a matter of opinion.

                  The rules of logic were established by humans – that does not make them matters of opinion.

                  You clearly received a poor education – you are unfamily with concepts of right and wrong – morality, as well as ethics, civics, even sometimes math that have evolved over millenia. And you seem to think that your ignorance of them makes them opinions.

                  Further, you are under the delusion that all opinions are equal – they are not.

                  There is a reason we learn history – so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past – but you are ignorant of history. You are ignorant of so many things.

                  Who ever educated you – owes you your money back.

                2. “Moreover, you are assuming that the allegations about Kavanaugh are “nonsense.””
                  That is correct.

                  All allegations are presumed false until proven. The burden of proof is always on those making – or as you are repeating the allegations.

                  “That’s not a fact either.”
                  No it is an assumption that is required in law, and morality.

                  “The 10th Circuit certainly didn’t conclude that the complaints are nonsense.”
                  Anything short of a determination that they are true leaves the default presumption of nonsense.

                  Regardless, absent a finding of truth – the burden of proof remains on you.

                  “Turley has not written about the allegation that you are a pedophile either.”

                  “There are no complaints submitted under penalty of perjury”

                  Complaints are not submitted under penalty of perjury. Perjury is a very specific crime – it has numerous elements, it must be before a tribunal, it must be sworn, it must have had an oportunity to correct, and it must have altered the outcome of the tribunals decsions.

                  “You do understand that all of these complaints were submitted under penalty of perjury, right?”
                  FALSE – see above.

                  I doubt that you are even correct that the YOUR allegations were sworn.

                  When a police officer “swears out a complaint” – they do not swear that the evidence they list is true”, only than an allegation was made to them.

                  In PA the police criminal complaint form is under the following terms
                  “BY FILLING OUT AND SUBMITTING THIS FORM I AFFIRM THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION, OR BELIEF. ”

                  I have not seen the complaints you allege – but my guess is they are far weaker than the over 1000 affadivits of election fraud.
                  These – as opposed to a criminal complaint – which it typically law enforcement swearing that they have received an allegation and that there is probable cause to go to trial, an affadavit is a sworn written statement subject to legal and often criminal penatlies.
                  The standard is actually higher than a criminal complaint.

                  Regardless, you pay no attention to over 1000 sworn affadavits alleging election fraud.

                  BTW an election worker in Detriot has now testified in court – and subject to cross examination that she witnessed thousands of instances of election fraud. Among those changing the dates that a ballot was received. That she was directed to ignore the law and written directions of state election officials. that she was directed to accept ballots with no signatures, and to make no attempt to match signatures on ballots with signatures, That she was directed to accept ballots without verifying that the voter was registered or that the registration information matched.

                  This would be an example of something subject to perjury penalties. Most if not all criminal complaints are not.

                  “Or did you never bother to look at even one of them to see that the complaint form requires this?”
                  Correct – why would I ? You have not provided any basis for doing so.

                  “Here is a link to an allegation that you are a pedophile.”

                  “It’s not a complaint submitted to a court under penalty of perjury naming me.”
                  Nor is it likely the complaints that you refer to are.

                  Generally when a person uses the language “under penalty of perjury” – they do not know what they are talking about.

                  “Save your garbage for someone else.”
                  Take your own advice.

                  “Moreover, you repeatedly ignore the 10th Circuit’s discussion of why they could not review the complaints, which (in my opinion) is a significant legal issue regardless of what one believes about the underlying allegations.”
                  Why ? You have given me no reason to do so.

                  If the 10th circuit determined they could not review the allegations – that has absolutely no weight regarding their truth.
                  The alllegations remain as weakly supported as before.

                  And you refuse to provide any reason that anyone should read any of what you link.

                  You do not seem to grasp – you post as anonymous – so you start with no credibility.
                  Then you are demanding that others read something you claim is significant – without any explanation as to why it is significant.
                  You have no record of trutworthiness.
                  Usually the stuff you link to does not say what you claim it does. Pretty much never does it have the significance you claim it does.
                  And usually it requires reading massive amounts of nothing to reach whatever you think is significant which usually isn’t.

                  Why should anyone bother ?

                  “Since we’re not making headway”
                  that is unlikely – you have offered no basis for taking you seriously. You are essentially arguing that proof of something – that you will not identify, is down the stairs arround the corner and behind the curtain.

                  Give any of us a reason to both checking your claims out ?

                  “since you have a boring tendency to treat your opinions as facts,”
                  You do not know the difference between an opininion and a fact.
                  and you do not grasp that all opinions are not equally valuable or true.

                  “I’m done with this exchange. I expect you’ll want the last word.”
                  No, you can easily prevent me from critizing your posts – just get your facts straight.

                3. According to some, there are no facts only opinions except of course when Anonymous the Stupid provides lies under the guise of fact.

                  Such Stupidity used to be laughed at but now that type of Stupidity is considered WOKE.

            2. Directly addressing your Turley remark – Turley has not written about the allegation that you are a pedophile either.

              You lefties constantly invert the burden of proof, moral responsibility, personally responsibility and the obligations of others.

              If Turley chooses to write about farcical allegations without attacking them – he gives credence to them – he lends his moral authority to them – just as you have lent yours.

              You seem to think that the 10th circuit choosing not to hear these is meaningful – it is. It discredits them. Unfortunately not entirely.

            3. “I didn’t just “say” that there are allegations, I linked to copies of the dozens of complaints that were submitted to Chief Justice Roberts and referred by him to the 10th Circuit, and to a copy of the 10th Circuit’s statement about why it was unable to review them, whereas you have not linked to a copy of any allegation about me, much less did you link to a Court’s statement in response.”

              You think that somehow makes you less culpable.

              Here is a link to an allegation that you are a pedophile.
              https://pics.onsizzle.com/congratulations-you-are-now-a-pedophile-yes-you-6795806.png

              “I’m not going to respond to the rest of your word vomit.”

              Of course not – you are not interested in taking moral responsibility for your words or actions.

              But then you escape all moral responsibility by posting as anonymous.
              There is no actual You.

              You have chosen to sheild yourself from culpability for your words – which is why your words are not entitled to be taken credibly.

  5. Wonder if another factor is that “Tiger Mom’s” guidelines for childhood socialization / upbringing contradict the prevailing “woke” narrative.

    1. No doubt. I’m guessing the ‘woke’ kids never were spanked for their misdeeds and they actually think they are special.

      1. The fundimental problem is that they have never had to accomplish anything meaningful in their lives.

        The real world is about carrots and sticks.

        If we want success – we must reward it.
        If we do not want failure – it must have consequences.

  6. Below is another shining example in the environmental sciences from Dr. Patrick Moore’s FAKE INVISIBLE CATASTROPHES AND THREATS OF DOOM. Dr. Moore was one of the original founders of GREEN PEACE. Here is the excerpt:

    “Until quite recently, despite much evidence to the contrary, many polar bear scientists continued to predict a decline in the population [of polar bears]. Thanks largely to the efforts of DR. SUSAN CROCKFORD of Victoria, British Columbia, these scientists have been obliged to accept the fact that polar bear populations are robust and are continuing to grow in numbers as indicated by the most recent census [bet you never heard that before]… Unfortunately for Dr. Crockford, the nastiest cut was yet to come. First… she was excluded from the University of Victoria’s speaker’s bureau… the same university refused to renew her appointment as an adjunct professor… NO REASON WAS GIVEN.”

    Read this book if you want to be shocked by the appalling truth of thuggery in climate science.

    1. This is not limited to climate science.

      Castastrophism has been an important means to scientific influence throughout out science,
      and yet none of it has ever proven True.

      There has not been a single malthusian prediction of any kind since …. Malthus that has EVER proven correct.

      None.

      1. It’s all part of the Leftist’s agenda.

        With an eye towards scientism, there is a difference between the scientific “Theory of Evolution” and the alchemical “Political Darwinism”; the physics of “Complexity Theory” and the alchemical “complexity theory” which, as an institutionalized metaphysic, is imposed on analysis and decision-making within the government apparatus that becomes more pervasive the higher up one goes.

        Complexity is a narrative designed to make all knowledge seem gnostically unknowable to the uninitiated—“It’s complicated”. Of course, “the world is so complex; all one can do is manage chaos.” There are the environmental sciences and climatology, and then there are their pseudoscience one-offs that distinguish themselves by heightened demands for statist intervention.

        Using “complexity theory” as an example, it is an institutionalized logic attack embedded within the analytical architecture of national security that effectively reduces analytical products to an imbecilic level of incoherence. It is intentional. It accomplishes this by imposing the Hegelian demand to require knowledge of the whole as a condition of having knowledge of the particular. This makes it “complicated”. pg. 26
        https://unconstrainedanalytics.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Unconstrained-Analytics-Left-Strategy-Tactics-231120.pdf

      2. Let me expand on your point, John. The following are drawn from widely-accepted CO2 and temperature data:

        Did you know that at the dawn of life, CO2 levels were around 5,000 ppm (today it’s only 410 ppm). The world didn’t burn up. Instead, plants used CO2 to “pollute” the atmosphere with ever-greater levels of OXYGEN! The oxygen nourished animal life which mixed CO2 with calcium to create shelled animals. This process leeched CO2 out of the atmosphere and oceans for over 400 million years. As a result, much of that “dead” carbon is now sequestered under rock and ocean floors. We are basically returning some greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

        If CO2 was higher throughout all but the last 5 millions years, why didn’t the Earth just burn up in a carbon catastrophe? Why did life flourish and not die out?

        Did you know, Ollie, that CO2 sometimes lags temperature instead of always leading it like a true cause? Did you know that CO2 and methane levels have been rising substantially for the last 5,000 years, not just the last 150 years? Did you know that during the last 5,000 years, temperatures were actually falling significantly except for the last 400 years?

        Did you know that when “experts” show graphs of the strong correlation of CO2 and temperature, that the strong correlation is MAINLY THE SHARED IMPACT OF THE MILANKOVITCH CYCLE on temperature and CO2? The Milankovitch cycle is the effect on climate of the Earth’s tilt, eccentricity, precession, and nutation. That theory is widely accepted by astronomers and climatologists. Some scientists claim that CO2 is causing a departure of temperature from what the Milankovitch cycle would have predicted. These are the same scientists who told us that the north pole’s summers would be ice free by now and the polar bears were dying off. Both contentions are demonstrably untrue!

        Let’s suppose, John and Ollie, if I wanted the world to turn socialist and put me in charge, which argument would I choose? Would I say, “Capitalism is destroying the planet because it creates too much CO2”? Would many people buy that? Maybe.

        Would I say instead, “Capitalism is destroying the planet because it disturbs the Earth’s orbit and tilt”? That wouldn’t work except with the most fried of eggheads.

        Hence, CO2 is now proclaimed a pollutant. BUT CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT! If CO2 falls below 150 ppm, plant life literally suffocates and the entire food chain collapses. During the last glacial maximum, about 20,000 years ago, CO2 dropped to an all-time low of 180 PPM! Whew!! That was close!

        You guys probably never heard about all that because the media and big education lie and censor. But it’s their data, believe it or not.

        1. I am well aware of the innumerable flaws in CAGW theory.

          The global temperature anomaly at the end of March 2021 is -0.01C – i.e. March was slightly colder than the average since 1979.

  7. The very same people who are running Yale and most of Accademia are running our media including social media and our country.

    These are NOT decent moral ethical people.

    They are vile idiots whose ideology is so crippling it can not survive competition of sunlight.

    This nonsense only survives because few will cover it.

    1. “The very same people who are running Yale and most of Accademia are running our media including social media and our country.”

      You mean wealthy capitalists?

        1. just because one is wealthy does not make one capitalist, nor or all capitalists wealthy.

          In a real free market people try, fail, succeed, fail, and start again.

          One stays at the top of a free market only by continuously making wise choices.

      1. Nope.

        Your first problem is that you seem to confuse capitalism with corporatism.

        Corportism is what you get when government rents power to the highest bidder.
        This is why in a free market government must be limited.

        A capitalist is someone who competes in a free market – not someone who buys advantage from political shills selling government.

        As an example – the people who paid Hunter Biden to influence his daddy to supress an investigation into their misconduct are not capitalists – they are corporatists.

        But the real crime was not that of Burisma, or Hunter Biden – if you give power to government – it will be made available for rent, and even free markets will create a market for influence – if government influence is offered for sale.

        This is the fatal flaw of lefties – you seem to think that Trump is corrupt – without evidence, when it is self evident that Biden is corrupt, because people were renting his influence through his son.

        No one would have paid Hunter Biden a dime – if he could not deliver.

        The Crime is that Vice President Biden was for sale.

        That is a GOVERNMENT problem – that is not capitalism.

        Next – why do you connect wealth and capitalism ?

        There are infinite numbers of ways for individuals to acquire wealth – renting government power and protection is one of those.
        That is not capitalism.

        Fidel Castro was incredibly wealthy – he certainly was not a capitalist.

        The leaders of the USSR and CCP live high on the hog – they are certainly not capitalists.

        Many of the richest americans – were capitalist once. Many of them are not any longer.

        This BTW is also a natural consequence of government excess.

        Bill Gates was once a politically uninvolved capitalist – so the government went after him.

        Gates learned that he can either pay lawyers a small fortune – and ultimately lose, or he can rent protection from politicians.
        Gates and many of the wealthiest have little choice but to pay protection to politicians.
        There is little difference between many politicians – particularly those on the left and the mafia.

        Look at the news – some left wing nut blogger pisses of AOC and he is carted away in handcuffs.

        Do you think that the wealthy do not get the message ?

        Pony up to the left or men with guns will come after you.

      1. Just do not send your kids there – that is a start.

        They will not get educated and they likely will come out stupider than they went in.

  8. It’s nice that Prof. Turley brings these situations to light, but it’s high time to stop wringing our hands about these abuses and create a public interest law firm designed to go after cancel culture and crush them financially. An individual lacks the financial resources to sue an institution, but a group of top lawyers, funded by the public, could make clear to them that their actions will result in severe financial repercussions.

  9. Where’s Kurtz (Sal Sar)? In his quest to out the billionaire class, is there any doubt how damaging these university, multi-billion dollar endowments are to the stability of this country?

  10. When shall Conservatives be required to wear a white armband with a logo at least 15 cm in size to identify us from the rest of the Population?

    Will the Logo be in the form of an Elephant or something like that?

  11. Jesus, what a dysfunctional school full of fruits and nuts as professors and administrators. It’s full on loondom. Turley address the loss of intellectual freedom, but there is also, and we see it more and more in this technology age, the loss of privacy per restrictions on her home activities and why is having a federal judge at your house restricted?

    1. Read more carefully. “It specifically alleges that Chua violated an agreement in a 2019 letter to cease drinking and socializing with students outside of class. This was tied to a two-year suspension reportedly imposed on her husband, Professor Jed Rubenfeld, for alleged verbal harassment, unwanted touching and attempted kissing of students — allegations that Rubenfeld has denied.”

      1. In an attempt to troll we note that the troll links an unproven case of another party to the party in question. This demonstrates desperation. He has a problem. There are too many on the blog with a level of intelligence higher than what he posses.

        He is a loose cannon that fires blanks.

      2. A non-public agreement that is somewhat different from reported and Chua claims was not violated, and consequences were imposed on Chua without any adjudication fo the evidence or notice to her that there was a claim of violation.

        We do not jump from allegation to punishment.

        I would further note Chua claims that agreement is being misrepresented – which seems likely – why would any university constraint a professor who was NOT accused of wrong doing from engaging in activities that are a pretty standard part of law school mentoring.

        Again the UNSUBSTANTIATED allegations were against Chua’s husband not her.

        Yale is making a huge mistake.

  12. “Chua’s allegations has received little attention outside of conservative sites”

    That is one of the reasons why so many leftists bloggers attack Turley. He provides knowledge and thought that doesn’t appear in what they read. They find diversity of opinion an affront to their assumed right to dominate everyone else.

    1. You are correct, S. Meyer. At a time when the left demands “diversity and inclusion,” there is no tolerance for diversity of thought. It’s outrageous!

      1. You prove on a daily basis you don’t know what a troll is. Like another species you run through a maze but are totally unable to find an opening to prove your case.

        I am not reading minds. I am reading comments that are being made. You are desperately trying to troll and validate your existence on the blog. You are failing badly.

      2. There is very little mind reading in SM’s post – what is it that you refer to ?

        The only thing I can see is his claim that the left finds diversity of opinion a threat to their presumed right to dominate everything.

        It is self evident that the left is intolerant – just recently a left wing anonymous poster on twitter found the police at his door and was arrested for threatening to Kill AOC in a post on Twitter.

        The post said that AOC’s recent inteview speaking on mideastern peace was tame and without substance.
        There was nothing within 10,000 miles of a threat. And infact AOC’s interview was tame and without substance – but some of us think that is an improvement as AOC’s public remarks are normally brain dead stupid.

        Regardless AOC has directed he sychophant followers to report everyone who disagrees with her to the social media star chambers and some idiot their doxed the left wingnut who dared to point out that AOC had not clothes – with the result of his being drug from his home in handcuffs.

        It is self evident that the left is intolerant of diversity of oppinion – ANY opinion that violates the ever changing dogma of the moment.

        This same example also demonstrates a presumed right to dominate – otherwise why essentially SWAT a left winger who deviates from orthodoxy ?

        So what part of SM’s post is mind reading ?

        the assumption of dominance and the Intolerance of diversity of oppinion is something that can be objectively observed.

  13. Yale Law School? Sounds more like a Nazi tribunal during the time of Hitler’s reign in Germany. Could this all be because the Professor is Asian and her husband is Jewish? Hmmmm!

  14. Lefty justice.

    Lefties are angry and vindictive, justifying actions with the phrase: “Trump…”.

    These actions pull down the whole country because they prime conservatives to retaliate.

    Whatever happened to fairness, due process, and tolerance?

        1. So what is it that Trump supporters are “deranged ” about ?

          As I note REPEATEDLY – Tin Foil hat right wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has been right more often than any anchor on MSNBC, CNN, …..

          You want to know one of the reasons that many people do not trust the election results ?

          Because you, the left, democrats the media have been caught in lying and massive malfeasance over the past 4 years,
          without consequence.

          It is not hard to immagine that the people who lie about the hunter biden laptop, who lied about the collusion delusion. who lied about Clinton. Who actually conspired in a soft coup – that those people might cheat in an election.

          No one is entitled to trust – no person. no party, no government.

          Trust is earned, and it is also lost.

          No sane person would trust the left today.

Leave a Reply