University of North Carolina Rescinds Chair Offer To Hannah-Jones

We previously discussed the controversy over the decision of the University of North Carolina’s Hussman School of Journalism and Media to make Nikole Hannah-Jones a chaired professor. Hannah-Jones was made the offer despite leading academics challenging the historical account in her 1619 Project as deeply flawed as well as criticism of her record as a journalist of intolerance, controversial positions on rioting, and fostering conspiracy theories.  Now the school has rescinded the offer to Hannah-Jones to be the next Knight Chair in Race and Investigative Journalism. Instead, it offered a five-year appointment to the faculty.  I was one of those highly critical of the appointment, but I am equally troubled by the political interference with a faculty in making such academic decisions.

Various historians and experts blasted the 1619 project for erroneous facts (like when slaves first arrived in North America) and conclusions (like declining slavery as the defining motivation for the American Revolution).  Hannah-Jones was accused of ignoring corrections before the publication of the work.  The New York Times was criticized later for a “clarification” that undermined a main premise of her writing. In March 2020, the New York Times wrote “We recognize that our original language could be read to suggest that protecting slavery was a primary motivation for all of the colonists. The passage has been changed to make clear that this was a primary motivation for some of the colonists. A note has been appended to the story as well.” None of that appeared to concern the Pulitzer Committee anymore than University of North Carolina’s Hussman School of Journalism and Media.

Hannah-Jones would later help lead the effort at the Times to get rid of an editor and apologize for publishing a column from Sen. Tom Cotten as inaccurate and inflammatory.

All of those concerns were for the faculty to weigh in before making its decision.  It still made her the offer. What concerns me is the statement of a trustee that the change was due entirely to political pressure from the legislature:

“This is a very political thing. The university and the Board of Trustees and the Board of Governors and the Legislature have all been getting pressure since this thing was first announced last month. There have been people writing letters and making calls, for and against. But I will leave it to you which is carrying more weight. It’s maybe not a solution that is going to please everyone. Maybe it won’t please anyone. But if this was going to happen, this was the way to get it done.”

The political interference with academic appointments should raise concerns for anyone who values academic freedom. I believe that Hannah-Jones’ record is the antipathy of journalistic and academic values of accuracy and objectivity. However, the faculty did not take that view.  They clearly rejected the criticism of his 1619 Project and embraced her type of advocacy journalism. They have every right to do so.  The University has a right to countermand that decisions, but, if it is going to do so, it should be open and transparent on the basis for the action.

The decision lacks any inherent coherence or clarity. Critics believe Hannah-Jones’ record is the rife with inaccurate and biased accounts. Yet, if Hannah-Jones is not qualified to be a chaired professor due to these issues, she is presumably not qualified to be a contract professor. While it is true that tenure requires a more substantial showing of qualifications (and a chair even more so), any academic position must be placed on the candidate’s record and merits.  Hannah-Jones will still be teaching students at UNC and serving as a faculty member.  Moreover, it will not be a tenured position. Universities have a final say on tenure and particularly on chair appointments. However, it is rare to have this type of intervention. Even if the university objected to the chair appointment, this action also rejected the faculty’s decision on tenure.

The UNC action comes at a time when many are calling for more interventions at state schools to try to preserve institutions with a semblance of diversity in viewpoints. Faculties around the country have virtually purged conservative, libertarian, or even contrarian professors from their ranks. Many top schools are virtually devoid of conservative or libertarian faculty, let alone Republicans. We reached a tipping point years ago where liberal faculty members were able to effectively block most conservative applicants. The result is that the teaching academy is overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic.  It is also increasingly intolerant.  Boards may be pushed to be more active to forcing professors to accept greater ideological diversity.

State schools like UNC can offer a degree of tolerance and diversity that is virtually missing in private universities. However, it is unlikely that such balance will be preserved without pressure. That was the case with “free speech zones” and limits on free speech. Faculties uniformly failed to protect conservative and libertarian students and there is still an overwhelming atmosphere of intolerance on our campuses.  Alumni, legislators, and board members can use funding to add pressure to these faculties to maintain greater diversity of viewpoints and ideology.

This presents a difficult tension for those of us who believe in the need for both faculty governance and greater diversity of viewpoints. However, this is not how a board should respond to such controversies. The Board adopted a position divorced from principle or logic. It failed to explain why it would rescind both a tenure and chair offer. Such rare decisions should come with a full and frank explanation from the University. Instead, we have an anonymous statement that this is a political compromise removed from the academic basis for the offer. If the Trustees want more intellectual diversity on the faculty, they should state so and address how to do so without gutting faculty governance. If it views this appointee as unqualified, it should state so.

In the end, the only thing more troubling than the original offer was its rescission.

61 thoughts on “University of North Carolina Rescinds Chair Offer To Hannah-Jones”

  1. Thank you for this column. A friend of mine wrote one of those online bibliocommons reviews (talk about another anti-free speech, censoring operation) on a chapter in James Cortada’s pathetic drivel titled “Fake News Nation” — the chapter on the JFK assassination was almost all pure fiction. Major problem today is that academics appear NEVER to have to defend the poop they are peddling and real scholarship has gone down the toilet!

    Evidently, American academia today consists of throwing anything against the wall and observing what sticks? He tried contacting Cortada, and several academics at other universities who wrote glowing reviews of his poop pile and no, no, no response.

    He sent comments to the University of Minnesota college newspaper —- ALWAYS censored and deleted!

    American academia today is a farce and lowbrow joke!

  2. Music
    Hanna Jones was her name!
    She ride off with Robert E Lee!

  3. The irony is rich. You can commit war crimes, violate Reagan’s Torture Treaty, violate the Geneva Conventions, lie about it, get caught, admit to committing human rights abuses (while grinning to the DOJ prosecutor) and you can serve as a professor in America’s top universities. You can even serve as a federal appeals court judge. These actual felony crimes and war crimes don’t bar you from teaching college.

    If you exercise a perfectly legal First Amendment exercise, you are banned from teaching. The lesson, commit a felony first, then you can teach at America’s top universities or even be a judge.

    1. Get a life! Instead of whining about conservative views, read posts by someone with whom you agree – and your life will be untroubled.

  4. I would like to share this but pausing due to some grammatical/editing errors – any chance of an editing pass?

    1. If you really wanted to share this a few typos wouldn’t stop you.

  5. At some point you have to fight fire with fire or you will consistently lose. The Left doesn’t care about tolerance or mind using political power or institutional power against its foes. Why should those who oppose the Left forego those same weapons?

    1. …because “all means necessary” and “the ends-justify-the-means” political warfare, if not strenuously opposed by process-loyal institutionalists heralds the end of American-style pluralistic democracy, and ushers in autocracy where the ones in power observe no limits on their self-serving misconduct. The battle to be won is by the moderate center, in which the radical-left and radical-right fringes are delegitimized and disempowered. The universities are NOT a lost cause – because parents and students have the power to reshape these institutions with their choice of where to spend tuition money. It’s foolish and defeatist to think any institution is a lost cause.

      And, academics are still bound to a culture of meritocratic argument, and outright rejection of that culture has only infected a radical minority in academia.

      In other words, persuade. Don’t pick up the tools of intolerance, deceitful infowarfare and ad-hominem character assassination. Any Jacobinist revolution is to be quelled first in your own mind.

    2. Also well answered by Wikipedia (perhaps unintentionally): “The Constitution is not a suicide pact” is a phrase in American political and legal discourse. The phrase expresses the belief that constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people. It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, as a response to charges that he was violating the United States Constitution by suspending habeas corpus during the American Civil War. Although the phrase echoes statements made by Lincoln, and although versions of the sentiment have been advanced at various times in American history, the precise phrase “suicide pact” was first used in this context by Justice Robert H. Jackson in his dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago, a 1949 free speech case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The phrase also appears in the same context in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision written by Justice Arthur Goldberg.

  6. I was one of those highly critical of the appointment, but I am equally troubled by the political interference with a faculty in making such academic decisions.

    JT, this is from the article you posted about her nomination for that chair:

    The concern is that figures like Hannah-Jones represent a fundamental rejection of objectivity and neutrality in journalism. She appears to adhere to a growing view among academics….We are seeing our leading schools teaching such advocacy and bias as values as opposed to dangers to journalism. It is a shift at universities that will impact journalism for many years to come.

    That article alluded to politics interfering in the objectivity of the press and that Dressing up bias as “advocating social justice,” does not remove the taint of yellow journalism.

    If you’re going to decry political interference in the rescinding of a faculty chair position, you have to acknowledge the chair was offered for political purposes in the first place. The principled thing for the UNC to have done was to not make the offer. The principled thing for them to do was to acknowledge the offer was based on politics and not journalistic integrity. Rescission was the right thing to do for the school.

  7. Uh, aren’t state universities and colleges funded to some degree by tax payers? They were established by state legislation in the first place. That makes them political. As for “academic freedom,” bear in mind that term was coined by left-wingers who wanted to use academia to promote Marxism.

  8. The University must fill the Federal half wit quota. Hanna-Jones is the best of a bad lot.

  9. “Now the school has rescinded the offer to Hannah-Jones to be the next Knight Chair in Race and Investigative Journalism. Instead, it offered a five-year appointment to the faculty. ”
    Too bad. Who’ll sit in the Leon Trotsky Chair for fair-minded journalism and pamphlet printing now?

    1. Seems there are quite a few new appointments to the justice dept in general and the civil rights division in particular who could handle that.

  10. It’s interesting that Turley links to the writings of Jones and her arguments, but leaves doesn’t post links or names the critics that claim her history is flawed. It’s convenient when you claim without examples showing how her history is flawed.

    Turley seems to be perpetrating the narrative many conservatives are pushing about the 1619 project. It’s no secret that many conservatives are very uncomfortable confronting the realities of what our history with racism really shows.

    What this criticism from these alleged historians Turley mentions seems to involve may be more of hair splitting on details or parsing words to soften the facts to assuage those who are not so comfortable with acknowledging our country’s deeply rooted racism.

      1. Mespo, the author critical of the 1619 project isn’t completely disagreeing with the project’s general aim which is to have a more serious look into the role slavery and racism played in our history and how it still has an effect to this day.

        Turley mentions historians criticizing the project that “seriously undermine” it. But he never mentions them or what their criticism entails. I did some research and found the historians Turley was talking about. As I suspected their criticism is only about certain claims. Not the overall point of the 1619 project which they wholeheartedly support. Here’s a direct quote from the main author of the letter criticizing the 1619 project Turley is referring to

        “ The letter’s signatories recognize the problem the Times aimed to remedy, Wilentz told me. “Each of us, all of us, think that the idea of the 1619 Project is fantastic. I mean, it’s just urgently needed. The idea of bringing to light not only scholarship but all sorts of things that have to do with the centrality of slavery and of racism to American history is a wonderful idea,” he said. In a subsequent interview, he said, “Far from an attempt to discredit the 1619 Project, our letter is intended to help it.”

        This is from an article in The Atlantic which discusses the letter written by the historians Turley talks about and their specific criticisms. They are not the type of criticism Turley makes it out to be, no wonder he didn’t link to it.

        1. “Mespo, the author critical of the 1619 project isn’t completely disagreeing with the project’s general aim which is to have a more serious look into the role slavery and racism played in our history and how it still has an effect to this day.”
          Exactly. This UNC professor doesn’t want a discussion; she wants a Marxist take-over and is using cancel culture and racism against whites to get it. She doesn’t need a job. She needs a trial.

          1. Mespo,

            “ Exactly. This UNC professor doesn’t want a discussion; she wants a Marxist take-over and is using cancel culture and racism against whites to get it. She doesn’t need a job. She needs a trial.”

            You just made a perfect example of what she’s talking about.

            You’re already deciding on punishing her for something you don’t even understand. That’s how lynching mobs form.

            She welcomes discussion, in fact most intellectual critics of her project welcome her ideas despite a few flaws which she acknowledged.

            Project 1619 has nothing to do with “Marxism” at all. That only shows the level of ignorance that pervades the conservative world regarding this issue.

            It’s not cancel culture or racism against whites. There is no such thing. The funny part is you don’t even know what racism really is. Ironically project 1619 explains exactly what it is.

            The criticism from conservatives is a manifestation of an uncomfortable reality that whites were indeed responsible for many of this country’s atrocities against minorities. It’s a denial of the truth. It is why it’s so difficult to talk about it without having to acknowledge people who are like you treated others so badly and some still do so today.

            This is NOT a blanket accusation that ALL whites are to blame. That has never been the case. The only ones making that claim are whites who are fearful of being associated with it and assuming wrongly that ALL are guilty of racism. It’s like blaming ALL cops for the actions of a few bad cops. Instead of playing victim how about acknowledging others like you are making YOU look bad and calling out those who are like you for making you look bad instead if blaming those who are the real target of racism or bigotry.

          2. What happened to mark Esposito read his previous essays written when he was a guest blogger and it is obvious he has suffered tremendous damage evident in his current comments.

    1. I’m not uncomfortable whatsoever. Fire away with your past history idiotic questions. Look forward to them. Just remember, it’s not only stupid,
      It’s real shit-for-brains to judge situations 300 years ago, 200 years ago, up against how things are today.

      1. Pretty good definition of Presentism:
        In literary and historical analysis, presentism is the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past. Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they consider it a form of cultural bias, and believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter. The practice of presentism is regarded by some as a common fallacy when writing about the past.

        If the shoe fits . . .

      2. You may not be uncomfortable, but many others are. Their issue stems mostly from an inability acknowledge an uncomfortable truth.

        Many of the project’s critics are deliberately making misleading claims about it in order to discredit it while others are just too ignorant to grasp what the intent of the project was. The immediate reaction is one of a defensive nature to the assumption that the project implies every white person is inherently racist. The some essays in the project seem to imply that but if one looks much closer to the overall idea they are portraying it certainly not the case.

        Hanna-Jones herself admits some of that criticism is justified due to her use of harsher words that could have been done better.

        As for the curriculum being offered to schools it doesn’t rewrite out history like many conservatives critics wrongly claim. It’s about adding a deeper look at how slavery and racism shaped our country. In fact the critics Turley mentions support such an endeavor.

        1. 1619 Project is total fiction. It shouldn’t be presented in any curriculum except maybe fictional writing.

          1. Anonymous SM. “ 1619 Project is total fiction. It shouldn’t be presented in any curriculum except maybe fictional writing.”

            Actually it’s not. Even the historians who criticized parts of her work. Agree it is a good thing to discuss and acknowledge.

    2. Note the names of the countries behind the slave trade – no to mention the African tribes/kingdoms profiting from it:

      The Atlantic slave trade is customarily divided into two eras, known as the First and Second Atlantic Systems.

      The First Atlantic system was the trade of enslaved Africans to, primarily, South American colonies of the Portuguese and Spanish empires. During the first Atlantic system, most of these traders were Portuguese, giving them a near-monopoly. From 1580 till 1640 Portugal was temporarily united with Spain in the Iberian Union. Most Portuguese contractors who obtained the asiento between 1580 and 1640 were conversos.[45] For Portuguese merchants, many of whom were “New Christians” or their descendants, the union of crowns presented commercial opportunities in the slave trade to Spanish America.

      Until the middle of the 17th century Mexico was the largest single market for slaves in Spanish America. While the Portuguese were directly involved in trading enslaved peoples to Brazil, the Spanish empire relied on the Asiento de Negros system, awarding (Catholic) Genoese merchant bankers the license to trade enslaved people from Africa to their colonies in Spanish America. Cartagena, Veracruz, Buenos Aires, and Hispaniola received the majority of slave arrivals, mainly from Angola.

      This division of the slave trade between Spain and Portugal upset the British and the Dutch who invested in the British West Indies and Dutch Brazil producing sugar. After the Iberian union fell apart, Spain prohibited Portugal from directly engaging in the slave trade as a carrier. According the Treaty of Munster the slave trade was opened for the traditional enemies of Spain, losing a large share of the trade to the Dutch, French and English. For 150 years Spanish transatlantic traffic was operating at trivial levels. In many years, not a single Spanish slave voyage set sail from Africa. Unlike all of their imperial competitors, the Spanish almost never delivered slaves to foreign territories. By contrast, the British, and the Dutch before them, sold slaves everywhere in the Americas.

      The Second Atlantic system was the trade of enslaved Africans by mostly English, French and Dutch traders and investors. The main destinations of this phase were the Caribbean islands Curaçao, Jamaica and Martinique, as European nations built up economically slave-dependent colonies in the New World. In 1672 the Royal Africa Company was founded; in 1674 the New West India Company became deeper involved in slave trade. From 1677 the Compagnie du Sénégal, used Gorée to house the slaves. The Spanish proposed to get the slaves from Cape Verde, located closer to the demarcation line between the Spanish and Portuguese empire, but this was against the WIC-charter”. The Royal African Company usually refused to deliver slaves to Spanish colonies, though they did sell them to all comers from their factories in Kingston, Jamaica and Bridgetown, Barbados.[56] In 1682 Spain allowed governors from Havana, Porto Bello, Panama, and Cartagena, Colombia to procure slaves from Jamaica.

      By the 1690s, the English were shipping the most slaves from West Africa. By the 18th century, Portuguese Angola had become again one of the principal sources of the Atlantic slave trade. After the end of the War of the Spanish Succession, as part of the provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht (1713), the Asiento was granted to the South Sea Company. Despite the South Sea Bubble the British maintained this position during the 18th century, becoming the biggest shippers of slaves across the Atlantic. It is estimated that more than half of the entire slave trade took place during the 18th century, with the British, Portuguese and French being the main carriers of nine out of ten slaves abducted in Africa. At the time, slave trading was regarded as crucial to Europe’s maritime economy.

      Following the British and United States’ bans on the African slave trade in 1807, it declined, but the period after still accounted for 28.5% of the total volume of the Atlantic slave trade. Between 1810 (2 years after the constitutional ban on imports of slaves to America) and 1860, over 3.5 million slaves were transported, with 850,000 in the 1820s. Where did they go?

      West African slavery
      Slavery had existed in West Africa long before the Europeans arrived there. Prisoners of war captured in battles between rival kingdoms or tribes were commonly kept as slaves. These slaves could be put to work in mines or even put to death in religious rituals.

      European slave traders seldom captured African slaves by themselves. The terrain was too difficult and the native kingdoms often too strong for a handful of white slavers to fight. Most slaves were sold to the Europeans by other Africans.

      African states such as Ashanti (in modern day-Ghana) traded their slaves in exchange for goods – such as cloth, alcohol and guns. They then used their new resources to become more powerful and to fight wars against their neighbours in order to capture more slaves.

      The Kingdom of Dahomey
      The Kings of Dahomey sent raiding parties into neighbouring lands with the sole purpose of capturing slaves. These slaves would then be sold to the Europeans. By 1750, King Tegbesu of Dahomey made £250,000 a year selling Africans into slavery. Under his reign, slavery became the largest part of the Kingdom’s income.

      The demand for slaves soon became so great that prisoners of war were not enough. Raiding parties were organised to kidnap young Africans from rival tribes.

      It has been estimated that 326,000 slaves were taken from the Bight of Bonny (in modern-day Nigeria) between 1780 and 1800. In 1790, Alexander Falconbridge, a slave-ship surgeon, reported that the goods used to buy slaves from this area included guns, gunpowder, textiles, iron bars and brandy. Other popular items traded included copper, brass and pewter goods.

      The area around the Bight of Benin and the Bight of Bonny became known as the Slave Coast.

      The ruling elite of native African Kingdoms prospered from the slave trade. When the British abolished the slave trade in 1807, the King of Bonny wrote to Parliament to complain.
      Slave factories on the African coast

    3. Hey Svelaz, take your tiny little fingers and type in Google. Then take your tiny little fingers and type 1619 project into the search bar.

      1. Thinkitthrough, that’s what I did prior to criticizing Turley. Turns out the author of the 1619 project is largely right. Even her critics agree that discussion needs to be had. The only people who have a problem with it are conservatives who are uncomfortable with the truth about what she’s saying.

        Rather than have a honest discussion about the facts they choose to find any way to discredit the project. The fear of having to acknowledge a hard truth about our history is rooted in willful ignorance.

  11. I am a newly retired professor whose campus was overtaken by intolerant and authoritarian liberal faculty. I was a liberal until I saw what liberalism was becoming. I understand your “a pox on both your houses,” but the future of higher education is at stake. As much as I valued faculty governance, at this point, it has to have some brakes applied. These people are dangerous, made more so by their having gotten rid of conservative and libertarian voices. It seems to me that’s where the REAL diversity lies rather than the kind of diversity liberals favor. You were right in calling them authoritarians and sometimes the only way to dilute that toxin is with a countervailing toxin. So, I’m with the administration on this. More and more, I’d imagine that conservative members of Boards of Trustees and donors are going to wade into faculty decisions. Faculty will lose a lot of their vaunted freedom of action, but it will be for cause. High and consistently applied ideals are should be the norm, however, at the moment every institution in this country is being overwhelmed by Wokeness which is racist, intolerant, authoritarian, and opposed to the First Amendment. Given that it should probably be termed insane, there is no other appeal to them other than force. Sadly, it’s the only approach this crowd understands.

  12. In it’s eagerness to become “woke” the university seemingly didn’t even check the facts of history or ask the opinions of history scholars if her 1619 Project was even accurate (which it wasn’t). The University is a state supported institution so of course politics is integral to it’s existence. They never should have offered her the chair in the first place, they, at best, should have offered an adjunct position. If they want diversity of thought they should cull the herd of “woke” professors and create academic balance. This is one of the very.few times I disagree with Prof. Turley.

  13. Nicole Hannah-Jones is not a scholar; she is a journalist who has written about ‘racism’ and been extravagantly rewarded for doing so (she received a MacArthur grant, woth $625,000, and a Pulitzer). Each reader can decide whether her work was worth either, but more than one practicing historian considered the 1619 project, for what she is best know, to be seriously flawed, among them Gordon Wood, who also won his share of awards, but for writing history, not for lead articles in the NYT.
    It seems to me that her appointment was political, so it is perhaps fitting that its recision should be too.
    As for politics at universities, like the French inspector in Casablanca, I am shocked, shocked . . . .

    1. Old Guy: “It seems to me that her appointment was political, so it is perhaps fitting that its recision should be too.”

      Well said. It is a little late for these people to complain about politics. That’s what is left. Mary Ann Caton made a clear and strong statement above as well. The drift Left into insanity needs to be stopped.

  14. As they call it, the circular firing squad? When the NY Times corrected/changed the wording that the primary motivation to protect slavery was not all colonists but may have been some colonists–In 1619 I and 1620 I think the colonists primary concern was survival considering many were malnourished, there were poor crops or they arrived late in the season. There may be some good points in this history that should be uncovered but when one comes from the direction of derision and division, more questions should be allowed, more research done. And they have just now allowed anyone else to speak.

  15. The danger in academic consanguinity is a limitation and stagnation of original thinking, which is the magic ingredient that has made our universities renowned.

  16. I understand your principled argument that rescinding that offer doesn’t make sense if she is left to teach as a professor. That ultimately is where the pressure was – hiring her and the 98% who are far left with ever increasing ‘leftness’ so that there is NO principled hiring applied to the overall academic freedom that should govern all schools protecting contrary opinion. Hers is not so much contrary opinion but a continuation of the rewriting of history in the initial waves of wiping out our institutions, history and family orientation to prepare for ever increasing government-central control leading to Marxism. Mayor Lightfoot of Chicago has taken us to the local government equivalent as she now announces that she won’t do interviews with white reporters. When we get to this point, we’ve got to use something besides Marquis of Queensbury Rules. The Marxists believe in fair elections to get to the election where they win power. That is then the last election. Even if they let people vote, they will remain in power as is the case in Iran, China, Russia, Venezuela, etc. The Democrats are clearly trying to accomplish this with HR1. The commission to study the ‘Insurrection’ is just a third impeachment as the dems will pick the entire staff and, as usual the media will climb completely on board with the leaks and lies to follow.

  17. I think she’s pretty much reaping what she sowed. The fact that she is also a cowardly hypocrite doesn’t exactly engender sympathy, either.

    It has me wondering if wokeness is beginning to have an impact on bottom lines, though, because that is the only reason I can conceive of for them to do anything whatsoever.

    I don’t judge the Professor, but his belief to a fault in good intentions is baffling at times, particularly as an attorney of such breadth.

  18. Lack Of Faculty Republicans Should Be Blamed On Republicans

    Professor Turley writes:

    “Many top schools are virtually devoid of conservative or libertarian faculty, let alone Republicans”.

    When one political party is at war with Science, and essentially at war with women, placing them as faculty members at ‘any’ university becomes problematic.

    1. I’d love to know who these phantom Republicans hiding in the shadows are. I suspect they take tea with Harvey the rabbit. Guess I failed to take note that folks like Al Franken or Jeffrey Epstein or Harvey Weinstein are Conservatives. I also suppose all the non-dem sligned women currently in our government must be drag queens, and if that ain’t a non-sequitur, I don’t know what is.

  19. Wasn’t pretty, but was well done.

    1619 is a set of lies supported by a propaganda machine.

    We need to stop the rot, and if playing dirty is what is required…

    I have warned for a long time that the Left is destroying the country.

    Just one more data point that the country will suffer in this war.

    We will not lose by default.

  20. You may be right in principle Jonathan, but Hannah-Jones and her ilk made these “rules.” It’s only fair that they be judged by them.

Comments are closed.