Former Miami Law Professor Files Federal Challenge Over Alleged Race and Gender Basis

There is a new legal challenge over academic freedom and free speech brought by former University of Miami Law School Professor Dan Ravicher. Ravicher filed an Equal Opportunity Employment Commission complaint. Such complaints can be the precursor for litigation and there is every indication that Ravicher is intent on a showdown with Miami Law School.Ravicher was a lecturer in the law school and is the director of the Startup Practicum, which allowed students to provide legal assistance to new business ventures.In his EEOC complaint, he alleges a breach of contract, defamation and discrimination against him based on race and gender.

During his tenure at Miami, Ravicher was a relative rarity not just at the law school but in academia as an open supporter of Donald Trump. Most faculties at national universities are overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic. In the view of some academics (including myself), the ideological imbalance has led to a pronounced bias in hiring at many schools as well as conflicts over academic freedom. Indeed, that is one of the issues that I address in a forthcoming law review article. Jonathan Turley, Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (forthcoming).

Ravicher was outspoken in his views outside of the school. That drew objections from some students. Many of the tweets referenced in earlier articles appear to be deleted. However, the accounts state that Ravicher accused of Democrats of cheating in the election. He is also quoted as saying “Cheating in politics is as American as apple pie. If you’re good enough to get away with it you deserve to win. That’s how it always been and how it always will be.”  He reportedly discussed the demographic and political voting patterns of minority voters while welcoming disagreement.

On Nov. 4, Ravicher made unsubstantiated claims about cheating in major cities:

“Democrats in Philly, Atlanta, Detroit, and other swing state cities know @JoeBiden has lost. They’ve stopped counting votes just to deny @realDonaldTrump ability to win tonight, to falsely claim election was close, to weaken him. Like all their other dirty tricks, it won’t work.”

After that tweet, Ravicher claims that he was told by former Dean Anthony Varona that his contract might not be renewed.

The following month, Ravicher wrote an op-ed detailing the effort to fire him for his controversial views. Like his liberal colleagues, Ravicher noted, he engages in political debate outside of the school but his views were treated as unacceptable:

“I, too, keep my thoughts to myself while at the UM campus, but I have a Twitter account and find it an exhilarating Roman Coliseum of ideological debate. Many of my students follow me and we engage in ways we can’t physically. And if spectators want to join in, all the better.

My employer’s Faculty Manual could not be clearer, anything a faculty member says in their personal life shall have no impact on their employment. But promises are not always kept, as I found out after recently tweeting my views on race, abortion, lawful self-defense and integrity in elections.”

His public views on Twitter led to a couple dozen colleagues at the law school to denounce him in a public letter. The professors did not call for Ravicher to be fired but noted “[w]hile Ravicher’s unprofessional behavior may be defended as a matter of academic freedom or free speech, academic and free speech norms do not insulate lawyers from critique.” The basis for their condemnation was stated in the letter:

“On his Twitter account, Ravicher has promoted baseless claims about fraud in the presidential election, suggested a need to use lethal force against protesters after the election, compared calls for political accountability to the Holocaust, groundlessly accused law faculty of retaliating against students for their political views and made several uninformed claims about race, ethnicity and identity in the United States.”

To their credit, the letter was not on the part of the law faculty and did not call for termination. However, Ravicher says that he was effectively forced out by the Administration. He singles out Varona for violating Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act.  Ravicher says that Varona described “my comment was offensive because I am a white man and if I were black or a woman my comment would not be a problem.”

Varona has faced other controversies, including over his handling of a student who declared her hatred for white people. We discussed that controversy and I supported the student’s right to free speech and agreed that she should not face punishment for the racist comments.

Ravicher also noted  “Similarly situated employees like Mary Ann Franks (white, female) and Osamudia James (black, female) were not reprimanded and/or threatened with discharge for engaging in similar behavior.”

Ravicher does not fully explain why he picked out these two professors. Both Franks and James signed the public letter.

The conservative site College Fix noted that James also wrote about the views of “white people” in a column. The implication is that discussing views of racial voting or values is not barred from a more liberal perspective.  Franks has also written about how “white people” shared Trump’s racist views: “Trump’s reasoning about race and inequality is only a sensationalized version of how race is too often understood by most white people.”

Ravicher presumably cited these professors to argue that they are all making comments about what they view as the voting patterns and values of white and black voters but his views were opposed by the majority of the faculty and student body.

As will come as little surprise to those who read this blog, my natural default remains with free speech for all of these professors. I have defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments denouncing policecalling for Republicans to suffer, blow up Republicans, strangling police officerscelebrating the death of conservativescalling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. These comments were not protested as creating an “unsafe environment” and were largely ignored by universities.

However, conservative or contrarian professors and students are routinely investigated, suspended, and sanctioned for countervailing views. There were also controversies at the University of California and Boston University, where there have been criticism of such a double standard, even in the face of criminal conduct. There was also such an incident at the University of London involving Bahar Mustafa as well as one involving a University of Pennsylvania professor. Some intolerant statements against students are deemed free speech while others are deemed hate speech or the basis for university action. There is a lack of consistency or uniformity in these actions which turn on the specific groups left aggrieved by out-of-school comments.  There is also a tolerance of faculty and students tearing down fliers and stopping the speech of conservatives.  Indeed, even faculty who assaulted pro-life advocates was supported by faculty and lionized for her activism.

As we have previously discussed (with an Oregon professor and a Rutgers professor), there remains an uncertain line in what language is protected for teachers in their private lives. A conservative North Carolina professor  faced calls for termination over controversial tweets and was pushed to retire. Dr. Mike Adams, a professor of sociology and criminology, had long been a lightning rod of controversy. In 2014, we discussed his prevailing in a lawsuit that alleged discrimination due to his conservative views.  He was then targeted again after an inflammatory tweet calling North Carolina a “slave state.”  That led to his being pressured to resign with a settlement. He then committed suicide

The efforts to fire professors who voice dissenting views on various issues including an effort to oust a leading economist from the University of Chicago as well as a leading linguistics professor at Harvard and a literature professor at Penn. Sites like Lawyers, Guns, and Money feature writers like Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos who call for the firing of those with opposing views (including myself).  Such campaigns have targeted teachers and students who contest the evidence of systemic racism in the use of lethal force by police or offer other opposing views in current debates over the pandemic, reparations, electoral fraud, or other issues.

With the deletion of some of these tweets, it is hard to judge the full range of comments by Ravicher, but these comments were made on Twitter and not in class or on campus. Given the alleged meeting soon after his November tweets, there is an alleged nexus drawn by Varona (who is no longer at the law school) and Ravicher’s status. It is unlikely that the EEOC will take the case but that is just the first round in such challenges.  If Ravicher gets traction in court, Miami could face extensive discovery demands for emails and depositions over the case. 

46 thoughts on “Former Miami Law Professor Files Federal Challenge Over Alleged Race and Gender Basis”

  1. Thanks Prof. Turley for fighting the good fight for free speech and academic freedom, however hopeless the cause may seem. Methinks your case would be strengthened by using the correct spelling for exemplary nemesis Paul F. Campos.

  2. I am overjoyed that Turley is going to publish a SCHOLARLY article about his recent free speech position:

    “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States,” 45 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (2021).

    Since this may not be a publicly available law review, I trust he will publish the piece here. Typically, there are replies published in response to law review articles so I hope that Turley will publish those as well. This article will be the first time that Turley will have to legally justify his free speech claims as well as to defend the anticipated challenges to his position.

    Finally, Turley will present his claims to the academy for its considered reaction and provide his rebuttal to any proffered criticism!

  3. College professors have a duty to be academically honest. They can not publish fake data, plagiarize, or otherwise lie. This professor did just that, he lied and made material false statements about the election. It is not about difference of views, it is about honesty and for that he did deserve to be fired.

    1. The idiocy just never ends…

      College professors have a duty to be academically honest. — Oralloy

      Prove Ravicher wasn’t academically honest. Provide, specifically, any and all evidence he used fake data in his classroom, plagiarized any instructional materials, or otherwise lie[d] during his lectures.

      Ravicher tweeted his opinions regarding the 2020 Presidential election and its outcome on his personal Twitter account.

      It is not about difference of views… — Oralloy

      Of course it’s about a difference in points of view. You think the election was fair, he does not — polar opposite opinions.

      …it is about honesty and for that he did deserve [sic] to be fired. — Oralloy

      This has nothing to do with honesty and everything to do with silencing any and all opposition to, specifically, an election marred by serious irregularities and allegations of fraud and, more generally, the entirety of the leftist / Democratic political agenda…

      1. Spanky, Ravicher didn’t just express his opinions he stated proven falsehoods. There’s a distinction that even Turley should know. Ravicher wasn’t fired. His contract wasn’t renewed. That means his term of employment has expired. The school is not obligated to renew it. Ravicher has no right to a job. That’s the basic point. Turley pointedly out that none of Ravicher’s critics called for his termination and his only complaint is that Ravicher is being “punished” for his views because he is a Trump supporter.

        As I have pointed out multiple times free speech does not give you freedom from the responsibility of the consequences of exercising it. Ravicher still has his ability to express his views as he has outside of the school. However because he is associated with the school he is also a representative of the school. His views have an impact on the image of the school as an employer. Just like any other employer the school may not want to have its image or reputation sullied or tarnished by such a controversial individual. He can always find a school who will be more tolerant or acceptant of his views.

    2. In the election, the integrity check for mail in votes was removed, so you have to assume that there was no fraud in order to explain that there wasn’t fraud. One can neither confirm that there as fraud nor confirm that there wasn’t. So “Baseless” is nonsense. Oralloy, please tell us about the internal controls on the ballots that allow us to affirm that there was no fraud. Having the checks in 2016 ligitimzed the election. One could check the # of ballots requested vs the number recieved. The aim seems to be to remove any internal control to make fraud easier. Why not go all the way an remove the internal controls in banking too ? Stop gaslighting people.

  4. Darren,

    I presume you are the moderator. WordPress did not indicate that my comment was awaiting moderation which explains why I submitted it more than once. Of course, it was not my intention to do so. I figured there was some glitch.

    I trust that you will allow just one to be posted. I don’t know why my comment should have been subject to any “moderation” since it does not contain any racial slurs or offensive language. And Turley is certainly not above criticism I hope.

    1. I found three versions of the comment that were shunted. They each contained three hyperlinks. The website only permits two per comment. I edited one of the links so that it would pass and approved the most recent shunted comment. If in the future you would like for the readership to review more than two links, this can be accomplished by using multiple comments of two or fewer links.

  5. Monument says:

    “As soon as Turley posts something that the Lefties don’t like, the shrill cries of “Fox shill” follow.”

    I’m guessing your comment was directed at my efforts to expose Turley’s hypocrisy. Here is another glaring example I recently posted to this article in case you missed it:

    I presume that Turley stands by his 2016 statement that Nugent is an anti-Semite and “true lunatic”:

    And yet, not too much of a Jew-hater and nutcase not to be interviewed by Tucker Carlson recently:

    But Turley blithely appears with Carlson despite the fact that Carlson legitimizes such a hate-monger by giving him a broadcast platform without confronting him on his anti-Semitism.
    Turley will live to regret having kept his mouth shut about Fox’s promoting such an odious Trumpist. It is despicable, and it is inexcusable.

    Nugent says, “Donald Trump was sent here by God.” Yep, he’s a Trumpist….


    Spike Lee finally acknowledges that American Intel knew full well and that 9/11 was a Mossad conspiracy.

    “The amount of heat that it takes to make steel melt, that temperature’s not reached.”

    “And then the juxtaposition of the way Building 7 fell to the ground — when you put it next to other building collapses that were demolitions, it’s like you’re looking at the same thing.”

    – Spike Lee

  7. This is just the tip of the iceberg. The ABA also seeks to require (in Proposed Standard 303(c)) law school curricula to include “training and education to law students on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism: (1) at the start of the program of legal education, and (2) at least once again before graduation.” Here also, the ABA’s interpretation does not define “cross-cultural competency,” preferring to leave the determination of compliance entirely up to the overseers at the ABA: “[L]aw schools must demonstrate that all law students are required to participate in a substantial activity designed to reinforce the skill of cultural competency and their obligation as future lawyers to work to eliminate racism in the legal profession.” (Emphasis added.) Faculty critics charge that this constitutes an “unwarranted intrusion” into course content and an “overreach.”

  8. Turley says: “During his tenure at Miami, Ravicher was a relative rarity not just at the law school but in academia as an open supporter of Donald Trump.” Yeah, Turley, that’s right–and do you want to know why? It’s not politics. It’s because Trump is:

    1. a racist;

    2. a misogynist who brags about grabbing women by their genitalia;

    3. a xenophobe;

    4. an Islamophobe;

    5. a chronic, habitual liar;

    6. a serial bankrupter of businesses.

    7. a flashy, braggadocious failure of a man who has a well-earned reputation for cheating at business;

    8. someone who cheated to get into the White House and who fomented an insurrection at the Capitol to try to prevent the Vice President from accepting certified vote totals from the 2020 election; Ravicher actually endorses cheating to get into political office.

    9. someone who cheated to get out of military service, who insults our service men and women by calling them “suckers and losers” and who insulted John McCain, a US hero who endured years of incarceration as a POW because his plane got shot down– because McCain wouldn’t support Trump’s stupid bill to repeal Obamacare, relied on by over 20 million Americans for health care;

    10. someone who continues to stir his guillible followers into believing that he was somehow cheated out of a second term, despite all evidence to the contrary, despite losing dozens of court challenges, despite all polls predicting his loss, and all because of his malignant narcissism; the will of the American people is irrelevant to Trump. It’s all about Him, HIM, HIM.

    11. someone who was impeached twice, and who had 48 U.S. Senators vote to remove him from office;

    The values of most institutions of higher learning are incompatible with the above. Trump is NOT bona fide as anything–a person, a patriot, and certainly not qualified for the title of “President’. Anyone not wise enough to appreciate this truth and who supports Trump doesn’t belong in a teaching position in an institution of higher learning. Anyone who espouses the sorts of unhinged nonsense of Ravicher, including support for Trump, either has emotional problems or doesn’t understand the role that faculty play in developing the values of students at an institution of higher learning.

      1. I loved reading how the State Department blocked the visas of the first Afghani girls’ robotics team. It was the supposedly “Islamophobic” Trump who intervened on their behalf and got them visas.

        Luckily, most of those same girls were rescued from Afghanistan by Qatar, with the help of a tireless American woman who’d worked with them during the robotics competition.

        First they said Trump was an anti-semite. Really naive people claimed Trump would send death vans for the Jews. Trump was the first sitting president with a Jewish family, participated in many Jewish events, was friends with Netanyahu, and was the only president to fulfill Congress’ promise to move the embassy to Jerusalem, despite the howling of terrorists.

        That propaganda that he was antisemitic quietly died away. What started out as “what everyone just knew”, faded to nothing.

        Then they said Trump was Islamophobic. Trump’s administration negotiated 4 Middle East peace deals.

        Then they said Trump was way too tight with the Saudis when he did not go to war over the terrible murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

        They said Trump had dementia. He took a cognitive function test and instructed his doctor to share it with the public, and answer questions from the press.

        They said Trump had heart disease. Same as above.

        They said Trump was a Russian asset. It turned out Hillary Clinton paid millions for Russian disinformation she’d planned to use as an October Surprise. This fake dossier was then used as the basis to get a FISA warrant. All attempts to lie about who paid for it, and that it was used to get the warrants, were disproven.

        They said if Trump was elected, he would attack any country that angered him with nuclear bombs. They said his election meant war. For the first time in many years, we went 4 years without a war.

        They said Trump was lying when he said he could get a vaccine out before the end of 2020. He did it.

        They said Trump engaged in quid pro quo when in reality he inquired with Ukraine about a quid pro quo Joe Biden bragged about on camera, which benefitted his drug addict son making millions in Oil & Gas.

        They said Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian misinformation spread by Trump to influence the election. Turns out it was absolutely true, but the media and politicians called it misinformation in order to influence the election.

        At some point, these people have burned through all their credibility. If they said it was raining, I’d have to open a window and stick my hand out before I’d believe them.

        They have weaponized ugly politics to the point people have stopped listening.

        1. Do the endless nonsensical pro-Trump rants ever end with you, Karen? It was Trump’s Stephen Miller who took steps to prevent Afghans who helped us from getting SIVs. Many of those who are worried about getting out of Afghanistan would be out now but for Miller. Please stop denying that Trump is an anti-Semite. His own niece says otherwise–and this isn’t too far-fetched, since his supporters include Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists, and he’s anti everybody else who isn’t white, Christian and straight. You say he has “Jewish family”. Jared wouldn’t marry Ivanka unless she converted. That doesn’t change Trump’s lifetime of anti-Semitism. And, the little Middle East deals are a nothing burger–all for show–they accomplished nothing tangible–all to help burnish Trump’s image–and it was Jared who did these, not Trump. When did Congress “promise” to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and how does spending millions of our tax dollars to do this benefit Americans, anyway? It’s a symbolic middle finger to the Palestinians living in Jerusalem who get pushed around by Israel and moved off of their land–all to make it look like the US is siding with Israel, and all to curry favor with wealthy US Jews for campaign contributions.

          Trump did nothing about Khashsoggi’s murder–he didn’t care. Khashoggi was an American journalist, but because he worked for WaPo, Trump couldn’t care less, much less try to do anything about it. Khashoggi was lured to the Saudi Embassy on the pretext that it was the only place he could obtain records to prove the divorce from his first wife, so he could marry his fiance. He was brutally murdered and his body was chopped up in little pieces. Trump had nothing to say about this.

          Trump IS fat and 75 years old. He does have hypertension, elevated cholesterol and atherosclerosis, so he is high-risk, which is one reason he was sent to Walter Reed, over his objections, when he couldn’t maintain his oxygen saturation levels at an acceptable level when he got COVID. This is according to the book “Only I Can Fix It” by Leonnig and Rucker. The basic memory test is not a cognitive test–it is nothing but a screening tool to see whether the person can correctly plot the hands of a clock to show certain times and recall 5 words. According to multiple sources, Trump either has ADHD or just doesn’t care enough to pay attention to details, including the PDB, which had to be dumbed down for him to just one page. The same is true for oral briefings. He just won’t listen.

          I don’t know who the “they” is that you launch all of your ridiculous accusations against, but Trump only got into office by cheating with Russia’s help, and he did publicly defer to Putin over his own American intelligence officials–something unthinkable. The Steele Dossier has not been proven to be “fake” or any of it untrue, and it was not the impetus for the Mueller investigation. Repeating this lie won’t make it true. Trump is emotionally unstable, and everyone who knows him worried about his access to nuclear weapons–with good reason. The power of nuclear weapons in the hands of a malignant narcissist who isn’t patriotic and who is vindictive is a frightening prospect.

          Trump didn’t “get out a vaccine”–the scientists did this. All Trump did was send them money to purchase additional equipment to ramp up production and he purchased some doses in advance. He is taking too much credit for his miniscule “contribution” to the vaccine, which was the product of scientists, not him. You apparently believe all of his bloviating lies about his “success” in “creating” a vaccine and how he proved his critics wrong. Diverting taxpayer money to drug companies doesn’t take much talent or skill. And, according to Leonnig and Rucker’s book, Trump whined and pounded on the drug companies to get out a vaccine before the election because he knew he was losing, according to all polls–he repeatedly accused them of being motivated by politics by not announcing a vaccine before it even had the minimal level of safety and efficacy testing for EUA. Now, Trump is telling the faithful like you that it’s OK not to get vaccinated.

          Trump’s first impeachment was because he tried to get Ukraine to gin up lies about Joe Biden. There is no truth to the Hunter Biden fake “scandal” or the mysterious laptop that Giuliani somehow found after Trump flubbed the first debate. You say it turned out to be “absolutely true”. No, Karen, this is absolutely NOT true. You are the one with credibility problems.

          1. Do the endless nonsensical pro-Trump rants ever end with you, Karen?

            Do the endless nonsensical anti-Trump rants ever end with you, Natacha?

            It’s perfect that you have chosen Karen as the Yang to your Yin. Her rational, reasoned and fact-based approach is polar opposite of you. Whatever you do, don’t disrupt the equilibrium and throw this blog out of whack.

            1. Karen is neither rational nor reasonable. She is immune to facts. She merely repeats, and often embellishes, the slop she heard the night before on her alt-right media. My posts are supported by facts, which you Trumpsters cannot handle.

    1. “Turley says: “During his tenure at Miami, Ravicher was a relative rarity not just at the law school but in academia as an open supporter of Donald Trump.” Yeah, Turley, that’s right–and do you want to know why? It’s not politics. It’s because Trump is: ….”
      “[A] fixation is an obsessive drive that may or may not be acted on involving an object, concept, or person. Initially introduced by Sigmund Freud, a fixation is a persistent focus of the id’s pleasure-seeking energies at an early stage of psychosexual development. Oral, anal, and phallic fixations occur when an issue or conflict in a psychosexual stage remains unresolved, leaving the individual focused on this stage and unable to move onto the next.”

      Just seems appropriate.


      Stop at the next gas station and find out where the —- you are.

      Please cite the Constitution wherein Americans are precluded from the freedom of discrimination, including holding opinions on race, women and any other subject.

      Freedom of speech, thought, religion, belief, assembly, segregation, press, discourse, the right to “claim and exercise dominion” over private property and every other conceivable, natural and God-given right, freedom, privilege and immunity per the 9th Amendment are enjoyed by Americans.

      Your entire communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) welfare state is criminally unconstitutional.

      You communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) are the direct and mortal enemies of the Constitution, Americans and America.

      The Constitution does not warrant your success or acceptance; the Founders denied you the vote and designed a turnout of 11.6% in 1788, the Naturalization Act of 1802 required the summary deportation of freed slaves – a cold case involving descendants awaiting resolution, wouldn’t you say – crime doesn’t pay – or does it?

      If Americans cannot discriminate, Americans cannot be free.

      If Americans cannot be free, America is under dictatorship.

      The American Founders missed that part, NUTCHACHA.

    3. Oh dam nastycha…… you are the pot calling the kettle black like no other !!!. The hypocrisy you wallow in is legend here !!!. Chyna joe…opposed desegrated bussing…he didn’t want tender hunter to go to school with OMG – blacks – . Baizou biden had more than a handful of well documented business and personal friendships with certified racists, segregationists and KKK pukes. And yet here you are accusing Pres. Trump of being a racist…you are world class stupid. Hell you should petition a job at the Baizou whitehouse and get hired as Biden’s fluffer to make him at least seem human, let alone cognizant. Oh and how did Baizou bidenski never serve ?. Impeached twice… ha the theatrics and abuses of pigloosi and her cohorts…political kabuki theater for partisan hacks like yourself !. Cheated to get into the whitehouse…wow monumental brazen lies…hypocrite much there The DN-KK-C colluded with dominion , the chicoms and just a couple inner citiy demoratzi areas to steal states…ergo the election. But yeah you are too yellow to see that as it does not fit your politically insane narrative. Flashy braggodocious of a man….. guess you never listened to baziou biden and his multiple embellished lies of grandeur and plagiarism….. oh but your a hack so you can be down with that sort of sickness. Misogynist … really give us a break. He didn’t raise a bunch of alcoholic drug addicted children….introduce them to a dark world of political easy money and easy sellout like chicken leg cornpop joe HAS. And Lord senile Darth Biden…king of the grifters , dumber than the bocks the rocks came in , but he is mr 10% on the take….. but hey your OK with graft as long as a demratzi gets the cashola…pretty obvious you swim in hypocrisy like a pool of koolaide !.

  9. It’s political bias and harassment. Only Democrat views, no matter how violent, are allowed and, in fact, encouraged.

    Why should universities receive any public funding when they have become little more than Democrat madrassas? It’s taxpayer funded political brainwashing that benefits one political party over another. Such schools should be forced to disclose their political bias in all their student materials, or else be guilty of false advertising. If a conservative student is going to be harassed with the blessing and participation of the university, then there needs to be full disclosure during the admissions process.

    ALL PERSONAL POLITICS on the part of the professor or teacher should be left at home. The reality is, that the preK- grad school education system has been taken over by Democrats who use their access to promote their ideology to students and harass students and coworkers with which they disagree.

    I remember a late poster named Aridog posted about having a Communist professor in college. He said that you didn’t need to espouse Communism to get a good grade. As long as you defended your position in your essay, you would earn a good grade, regardless of whether the professor agreed. It’s too bad this professional behavior has been abandoned on most college campuses today.

    1. No, Karen, opposing Trump and the things he does and stands for are NOT political. Saying so is to unreasonably elevate racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, misogyny and lying to a level where such things are on a par with political views, which is wrong. It’s not “brainwashing” to teach, directly or by example, that those things listed are WRONG. Racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, misogyny and lying are NOT conservative values, which is why Trump and people like you, who support him, are NOT conservatives. I have repeatedly suggested that you read the writings of well-known and respected conservatives like Rick Wilson, George F. Will and Bill Kristol for enlightenment as to why Trump is NOT a conservative and why they can’t stand him. A student who espouses racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, misogyny and lying doesn’t belong in college. It is not Democratic ideology to condemn racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, misogyny and lying. And, since you’ve never attended college, you don’t know what goes on there, so I’ll help you out: all colleges, universities and even junior colleges have mission and values statements, and virtually all of them make clear they don’t tolerate racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, misogyny and lying, which includes cheating like Trump did to get into Wharton. Someone who teaches at university has the rights of any other American to his own views, but spouting them in the teaching setting can, and should, get him fired.

      1. NAT Did you read as Turley said his statements and contents were Not in the Classroom settings. Let me help you out I am a college graduate. No one has lied like the Dems and the MSM. If the chernaggans (sexual activities) of JFK had been published, igt would have made a huge difference and same for MLK, JR. If morals matter, then MLK, Jr would have been a world leader. Wilson, Will, Kristol, and 99.9% of Dems and you are simply Trump haters. No one can have a different opinion that all of your kind. So by GOD the Democrat Socialists will censor it. For the record, The FBI did not find a DT insurrection occurring at the WH 1-06-2021. I take your position, you have a different opinion? Just stick it.

        1. For the record, the FBI hasn’t issued ANY opinion on Trump’s fomenting of the insurrection. Everyone hasn’t been arrested yet, much less charged, and the House investigation is just getting started. Turley had a post a couple of days ago that tried to tap dance around this story, but the wording does not claim there was no insurrection. The piece was talking about a coordinated effort, which remains to be investigated. I find it doubtful that you ever attended, much less graduated from any college. FYI: the word is “shenanigans”. You claim that people like me and conservatives like those named are merely “Trump haters”. No, we are American patriots, and a flashy, draft-dodging, fat slob racist who lies, brags about grabbing womens’ privates, who cheats at business and who cheated to gain the power and glory of the US Presidency is repulsive to us, as it should be to any American who loves his/her country.

          1. Natacha for your reading pleasure concerning the FBI position on the possibility of an organized insurrection. Has anyone else noticed that Natacha never provides any source other than her completely dishonest opinion. She doesn’t want to see what she doesn’t want to see and she will not substantiate her claims with anything that she doesn’t want to see. Come on Natacha and just once sight a source so that our ability to consider you opinion is validated somewhere other than thoughts that are to be found residing only inside your head.

            1. Thinkitthrough,

              Natacha has a role on this blog which is to play the role of villain. Her weapon is her opinion. Everything she writes spews from her own imagination as if it were fact. She is impervious to outside things like facts and evidence. And like every villain, she has her exact opposite, the hero Karen. Karen’s weapon is facts, she has tangible, real world evidence to support everything she posts. If she discovers she has made an error, she will correct the record.

              This blog needs a Natacha to offset a Karen and vice versa. If Natacha suddenly provided a fact-based opinion with links, then we would need Karen to make a purely emotional rant. I’m not sure this blog would recover from such a scenario. I believe however that scenario is not likely to threaten this blog.

  10. QAnon views do not need to be represented in diversifying a law school’s faculty. We do not need people who think that Donald Trump is going to expose a Democratic international child sex ring at a Washington pizza parlor.

    Unfortunately, that is what too much of today’s Republicans believe. Ideological diversity should be limited to those who are not cult members.

    1. “QAnon views do not need to be represented in diversifying a law school’s faculty. We do not need people who think that Donald Trump is going to expose a Democratic international child sex ring at a Washington pizza parlor.”
      I liked your comment better in it’s original Mandarin or Russian. More feeling and better context.

    2. Qanon

      And there in a nutshell is the arrogance of the Left, telling us what views are appropriate to be expressed.

      1. So here we go again with the left getting to set the roules of discourse and somehow all their hate and vitriol is pure as the driven snow…laced with their toxic morbid hypocrisy…yeah right OK…we see and smell whom you haters are. You want to hate , subjugate and oppress…go back to russland , CHYNA , or whatever hole your lineage crawled from that hates free thought and freedom so much.

    3. Ha! Ha! Leftist with ridiculous name only can point to some obscure group that is so tiny that it has no significance.

    4. “Ideological diversity should be limited to those who are not cult members.”

      That would exclude every race/gender/class academic — and those pushing the racist cult of CRT.

  11. Democrats and leftists are the home of hypocrisy. For a year we’ve seen unrelenting, unrepentant Democrats and especially their leaders show disdain for the 330M regular people. The ignominious examples should be front page news (and are not due to a dishonorable Press). But some deserve repeating: Pelosi’s hair salon and recent Napa gathering, Newsome French laundry and his kids maskless schools and summer camps, Hunter’s prostitutes and his laptops revealing his families graft, Joe Biden’s continuous lies most horridly about Afghanistan, multiple Dem Covid Hypocrats like Rashid, Obama, Bowser, Whitmer, Kerry, Cali and TX Dem Lawmakers, Lightfoot, Garcetti. Now the University of Miami is publicly a member of the hypocrites. Where are the honest liberals? Maybe there just aren’t any left?

  12. Look no further than the Lefty posters on this blog for censors.

    As soon as Turley posts something that the Lefties don’t like, the shrill cries of “Fox shill” follow.

    Little debate, less analysis, just attacks alleging partisan bias, and worse lack of integrity.

    Many Lefties are despicable people.

    Fortunately, we have identified most of the rabid posters and have learned to ignore them.

  13. Off topic. Guns. Every dumb smoker in the u.s. needs to be given a gun with 45 cal bullets. Guns are quicker. Quicker than cancer or heart disease.

  14. Good for him. As a student, I had to go to the Professor’s office to ask any legal questions for my classes which may offend other students. It was ridiculous that neither I nor the Professor could have questions/answers discussed in class where ultimately they belong.

Comments are closed.