PPU Students Seek To Expel Conservative Student Who Spoke Out Against Pronoun Rule

We recently discussed the move by Point Park University to include “misgendering, pronoun misuse, and deadnaming” as forms of discrimination subject to discipline at the school. Now students are seeking the removal of Logan Dubil, an undergraduate student who appeared in media criticizing the policy. The Change.org petition has hundreds of signing students and is the latest example of a rising generation of censors emerging from our campuses. Many today focus more on silencing others than responding to their opposing viewpoints.

The petition states “We need to remove Logan Dubil from campus as well as others like him who refuse to respect other people pronouns.”

The poster called “Max” wrote:

“There is no possible way to be a moral correct person while also disrespecting people’s pronouns. Logan Dubil and others like him are the scum of the Earth. No one belongs on our campus who does not respect other peoples pronouns.”

Of course, anyone can post such an anonymous petition and there is no indication that the university is taking such a move seriously. Indeed, one never knows who is behind such anonymous campaigns in this age of rage. However, what does concern me is the hundreds of signatures in support of the campaign and, most importantly, the silence of the university. I could not find any comment from PPU reaffirming that it will not expel a student over his appearing in the media to express criticism of the university or such policies. Such a statement would certainly be reassuring to the school’s faculty and students who may hold opposing views on this or other subjects.

Ironically, in one of the interviews that triggered this angry backlash, Dubil expressed how he and other conservative students have been subject to regular harassment without support from the university:

A lot of conservative students on campus have reached out to me, going along with what you said, how stupid this is. This is not normal in any sense, but God forbid as student of the liberal descent wants to be respected on campus. The organizations and the university bow head over heel to make sure that they’re safe. But when it comes to conservatives on campuses, we don’t feel that same love. Freshman year I dealt with threats of violence, my door was violated. Sophomore year, I dealt with being threatened to be doxed from other students, and nothing has been done to this day.

And it is really scary how easily and how ready the school is to jump to make sure that one side is protected and on side feels safe, but the other doesn’t.

I support the right of Max to denounce the views Dubil and vice versa. It is all free speech. However, as we have seen in other recent cases, universities are often silent in defense of free speech when conservative students are harassed or sanctioned by other students. Just as it did in expressing its position on pronouns, PPU should be clear that the university stands for the protection of a diversity of viewpoints on its campus.

There is a teachable moment in all of this. While the petition will not succeed, the underlying campaign shows a rising intolerance for opposing views on our campuses. As discussed recently, sixty-six percent of students now believe that shutting down opposing speakers is an exercise of free speech.

Free speech advocates are facing a generational shift that is now being reflected in our law schools, where free speech principles were once a touchstone of the rule of law. As millions of students are taught that free speech is a threat and that “China is right” about censorship, these figures are shaping a new society in their own intolerant images.

The most chilling aspect of this story is how many on the left applaud such censorship. A prior poll shows roughly half of the public supporting not just corporate censorship but government censorship of anything deemed “misinformation.”

We discussed this issue recently with regard to a lawsuit against SUNY. It is also discussed in my forthcoming law review article, Jonathan Turley, Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States, 45 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (2021).

111 thoughts on “PPU Students Seek To Expel Conservative Student Who Spoke Out Against Pronoun Rule”

  1. However, as we have seen in other recent cases, universities are often silent in defense of free speech when conservative students are harassed or sanctioned by other students

  2. Isn’t it interesting how the social media giants say they are for free speech as they censor speech on their platforms. A perfect example of doublespeak, newspeak or doublethink. Those who support them in these comments take their poison voluntarily. They believe that if you take the poison gradually you will find immunity. But, they will just die more slowly.

  3. Private industry and academia are creating a social credit system through convergent evolution, to produce a form similar to China’s.

    Key sectors of private industry, the media, academia, and Hollywood have aligned with the Democrat Party. This controls messaging to young, impressionable children and college students. It leads to a world view promoted to audiences through the movie and TV industry. You can’t get through a children’s cartoon without incessant commercials with elements of transgender activism, CRT, and BLM. They maintain blacklists. They can impoverish you, deplatform you, get you fired, destroy your business.

    The Democrat Party is gaining near total control of the country, through activists in positions of power in the bureaucracy, the FBI, IRS, NSA, EPA, aligned with Social Media, Google, Hollywood, and Academia.

      1. UpstateFarmer:

        “IMHO, public education system and academia are the greatest threats to America. Social media, MSM, Hollywood are close seconds.”

        So, what to do? Maybe it’s time to concede that there is no way to turn back the clock. It’s unfortunate, but there it is.

        1. JeffS,
          Actually Karen S and I have discussed it before in the past: Homeschool.
          Then, take away the focus on higher education as the only gateway to the middle class.
          Hire motivated high school grads, with good to excellent grades, good work ethic and teaching them real world skills in a real job with a real wage.
          Accredit them.
          Not the college.

          1. Homeschool? That is going to combat what you perceive is all secular rot in our culture? Seems like it won’t be enough. Fortunately, there are subcultures that maintain their old ways without much interference from the mainstream culture. I’m thinking about the Mennonite and Amish communities as well as the Hasidic Jews. Those religious movements isolate themselves more or less from contemporary society. So there is hope for those who want to remain “old school.”

    1. Karen laments:

      “The Democrat Party is gaining near total control of the country, through activists in positions of power in the bureaucracy, the FBI, IRS, NSA, EPA, aligned with Social Media, Google, Hollywood, and Academia.”

      And things were going so much better under Trump! Stop complaining and tell us what you propose to do to save the country. What the Republicans started with the Reagan Revolution hasn’t materialized. What could possibly be done at this late date to reverse the predominately secular and liberal values of the population? Granted 4 years of Trumpism was not enough to turn the country around. How many years of Trump as president will it take, do you think, in order to wrest control of the country from the Democrats? Or is yours a lost cause that you just need to resign yourself to accept. Seriously.

      1. JeffSiberman conveniently forgets that Democrats lost down ballot Bigly and that Ole Joe is under water in the polls on most issues. Jeff is not the first leftist to declare that they will have power forever. If Jeff thinks that conservatives are ready to give up their freedom that easily he needs to wait until October 31 to whistle past the graveyard. Fairly often Jeff shows us the fantasy land in which he resides. Let’s invite Jeff back for more crowing after the midterm elections. We might find him at the Crows Nest Saloon slurping down the tenth of his favorite libation with added bitters.

        1. TiT says:

          “JeffSiberman conveniently forgets that Democrats lost down ballot Bigly and that Ole Joe is under water in the polls on most issues. Jeff is not the first leftist to declare that they will have power forever. If Jeff thinks that conservatives are ready to give up their freedom that easily he needs to wait until October 31 to whistle past the graveyard.”

          You really THINK that this country is divided by politics? Whichever party assumes power is there but a few years, and then the political pendulum swings back again and again. Politics can’t arrest progress because

          IT’S CULTURAL!

          The demographic shift is ineluctable. The great Replacement is nearly complete. Trumpism is the death rattle of Conservatism because when all else failed, out of sheer desperation, Trumpists resorted to simply lying through their teeth…. but the truth will out.

          You’ve lost. You’re finished. It’s over. Face it.

  4. “He alone, who gains the youth, gains the future.” Adolf Hitler. Danger in the past? Hitler’s mistake was that he tried to do it all at once. Saul Alinski knew that a gradual mind control of the youth would be more effective and longer lasting. Alinski was a much more prescient politician than Adolf Hitler. Alinski had exactly the same intentions and Alinski’s method has been far more effective in influencing the youth of today. Danger in the present? “We wrestle not against flesh and blood”.

      1. Thanks UpstateFarmer. A lot needs to be said for as long as we are allowed to say it openly and even when it becomes that we are no longer allowed to say it out loud. Keep the faith.

  5. No student should be in any danger of expulsion for taking a biological approach to gender.

    My gender is now just a state of mind. Any man may decide he’s a woman, and gain access to women’s sports, and personal women’s spaces.

    The suffragettes and pioneering women who fought for respect, equal rights, an equal say in government, and for our voices to be heard would be appalled.

    Tolerance goes both ways. You can’t force the rest of the world to view you how you wish to be viewed. All you can control is yourself. You’re free to dress, speak, and behave however you want. Men can act ultra feminine, women can portray ultra masculine characteristics. It’s all good. But we are all free to form our own opinions. Many of us view performative behaviors as entirely separate from biological sex.

    I have no issue with calling a transgender person “she” if they’re obviously going for a feminine persona, but I’m not going to bother with 75 different pronouns. That’s my general rule with drag queens, as well, even though they are not transgender. If you ask what gender they are, I would say their biological gender. As for access to women’s private spaces, like changing rooms, a “no penis allowed” rule seems most fair among strangers. Women have the right to change or shower in areas without male genitalia. No one is going to demand proof of gender if someone passes. Just keep penises out of women’s and girls’ changing areas, battered women’s shelters, and other such places for their safety.

    Installing single use bathrooms, showers, or changing stalls would be very helpful, as there are a great many reasons why someone would want privacy.

    The idea that people have no right to use biological gender and pronouns for fear of persecution is illogical.

  6. Jonathan: It is now abundantly clear. When Fox takes up an unpopular cause, defending Logan Dubil at PPU, you dutifully follow up with a supporting column. I suppose it’s a condition of your employment at Fox. So much for your intellectual independence .Regarding PPU’s policies on gender identification this reflects a generational change in student’s attitudes on not only gender and racial issues but a whole host of other traditional and conventional views of our society. Alex Mastin, a conservative capitalist entrepreneur, put the problem succinctly: “A large portion of GenZ views capitalism as an outdated and negative economic philosophy–due to the trauma and economic iniquity it has had on GenZ and their parents”. This is confirmed by studies that show the GenZ generation has pretty much given up faith in the the capitalist economic model. This should be worrisome to conservatives like you.

    Speaking of Fox, your co-worker, Tucker Carlson, is under attack for his openly racist views. The ADL wants him fired for promoting the racist “replacement” conspiracy theory. Carlson, the most popular host on Fox, keeps repeating on his show that the Biden administration is trying to “change the racial mix of the country” to replace white people. When asked about the ADL demand for his firing Carlson said: “Oh, f–k them”. Management at Fox supports Carlson’s racist views. Are you sure this right-wing racist media platform is where you belong? On a host of issues conservative teachers, professors and students are a vanishing breed–isolated in their retro views. You are tilting at windmills if you think you can buck this trend.

    1. Dennis McIntyre tells us how capitalism has failed. Why won’t he just come right out and tell us that he is a socialist? Why won’t Dennis come right out and say that he supports the Russian and Chinese regimes and he is a comrade at arms? Why won’t Dennis come right out and say he supports a system of governments who are accountable for the deaths of millions from starvation? Dennis sets in America with his belly full and tells us about how bad we have it in this nation. Why won’t Dennis give up all his worldly goods to fight his good fight? Dennis, please tell us of your income and how much of your daily bread you are sharing with your comrades. Dennis, proclaim to the world your personal sacrifices for the masses. Enlighten us even more.

      1. TiT says:

        “Dennis McIntyre tells us how capitalism has failed. Why won’t he just come right out and tell us that he is a socialist? Why won’t Dennis come right out and say that he supports the Russian and Chinese regimes and he is a comrade at arms?”

        Can’t you see the hypocrisy in RIGHTLY feeling indignant when Conservatives are UNFAIRLY called “racists” for merely wanting to restrict our immigration laws BUT you reflexively call Dennis a “socialist” for merely wanting to point out some of the inherent flaws of Capitalism?

        Are you too blind to see that both sides engage in this intellectually dishonest argumentation? And both sides must stop in maligning each other’s motivation when trying to make an argument.

        On the other hand, I call Trumpists “liars” because Trump positively lost the election, AND he and they know it!!

        1. JeffSilberman, Dennis McIntyre did not just criticize capitalism. He pronounced capitalism to be an entirely failed economic system. Mao couldn’t have said it any better. So what system would Dennis recommend in the replacement of capitalism. We have heard it many times from the those espousing Socialism/Communism. If it quacks loudly like a duck, if it waddles like a duck and it says AFLAC!!! very loudly it must be a duck.

          1. TiT,

            I’ll grant you, if it says “AFLAC,” it’s a duck!

            But I’m glad you did not dispute my point that Conservatives are just as prone to scream “Socialist” at Leftists as Leftists are apt to yell “Racist” at Conservatives. Each side takes the easy way of impugning the other’s character. Because a racist can make a valid argument, one is bound to listen to the argument’s reasoning despite the hatred motivating it. It’s likely not a good argument owing to the prejudice, but you can’t be certain. So, I don’t care what motivates a person; I just consider what has been said. Of course, if the remark is racist on its face, that’s a different matter!

            On the other hand, a liar, unlike a racist, can’t be trusted to say anything truthful and should be dismissed out of hand. Liars lose the benefit of the doubt I would grant even an avowed racist though racists are often liars as well.

            Liars are lower than whale dung; and there is absolutely nothing lower than that.

            (I hope that my last comment is not tantamount to “targeting” a contributor)

    2. Reporting that POTUS is on record as saying that changing the racial mix in the US to a smaller % of whites is a good thing, and then showing how it is being done is now a racist act?

      Just like calling a boy a boy is now a homophobic attack?

      These pathetic attacks on the people reporting facts or stating them is simply more of the same BS by the dems – projection. They ALWAYS attack you for what they are doing. obama and his henchman holder are the biggest racists in federal office since robert byrd. dems dems dems.

      Will this clownshow ever end? I don’t think it will as long as the propaganda continues to flow and the poorly educated can’t escape its grasp. What a waste of a great nation.

      Immigration since WWII and the subsequent ruining of colleges and then K-12 schools has devastated this nation. That and a bunch of corrupt politicians letting it happen. Yep, I said it. You know I’m right.

    3. Dennis says:

      “When asked about the ADL demand for his firing Carlson said: “Oh, f–k them”. Management at Fox supports Carlson’s racist views. Are you sure this right-wing racist media platform is where you belong?”

      Supports it or not, Fox is certainly willing to profit on its highest rated show “Tucker Carlson” whatever he may say. If you could ask Turley, he would deny, of course, that Fox is a racist network. I would ask him whether he regrets profiting from income earned through rage which he decries. I would ask him whether he’s ever heard his Fox colleague Mark Levin? He would have to pretend that he has not because it would not survive the laugh test were he to deny that Levin’s unhinged rants don’t fit his definition of “rage”!

      I have not seen Turley on the Prime Time shows for months. Maybe he does now regret aligning himself with Fox, and he is keeping a very low profile so as to limit the damage to his professional and academic reputation.

  7. The more a society drifts from the truth the greater it will hate those that speak it. The regressives in our schools (universities, high schools and elementary schools) hate traditional liberalism. They hate true diversity and unity. The despise critical thought. This didn’t happen overnight.

  8. Teacher, teacher I declare. We can see your underwear!
    Censor in the morning. Censor in the evening. Censor in the school year time.
    Be my friggin censor.
    And shut up all the time!

  9. Using an extreme to exemplify something as the new norm, one ostensibly netted and fixed from the ongoing process of mass social evolution, change and transformation is more sophistry than meritorious. It is so intensely disappointing to witness a fine mind like Turley implicitly endorse radical GOP authoritarianism. This isn’t to say that some movements within neoProgressivism arent equally radicalized, but only to note these issues and their attending values are currently in generational flux. And paralleling the process of sausage-making inherent to legislative deliberation, the identity issues deliberated throughout the practices informing various social forums are often ugly. Indeed, as Nietzsche foresaw and cautioned more than century ago, we are deeply emeshed in a grand reevaluation of the values, concepts & analyses that structured, if not constituted, the prevailing norms of Western Civilization.

    1. …we are deeply emeshed in a grand reevaluation of the values, concepts & analyses that structured, if not constituted, the prevailing norms of Western Civilization.

      So why not let ALL views be heard and accessed?

    2. Extreme? What makes this extreme, anymore? This is a daily occurrence, more-so even.

      Radical GOP authoritarianism? Who is acting as the authority…these mentally unstable identitarian clowns are the ones demanding their authority be carried out.

      Pointing out extreme authoritarianism is not authoritarian.

      “Some” movements within neoProg? Appears to me they are all founded on authoritarian radicalism.

      Pure projection in your comment, imo.

    3. Stoya says:

      “It is so intensely disappointing to witness a fine mind like Turley implicitly endorse radical GOP authoritarianism.”

      That’s how I feel, and we are not alone. There was an article not long ago published in which several of his acquaintances were mystified (an evasive world often used by Turley) by his turn from liberal darling to a contrarian. I have argued that Turley remains liberal to the core, but professionally, he has taken refuge at Fox News. One can only speculate whether he wanted to migrate to that side or was pushed away from the mainstream. Not unlike a lawyer, perhaps he went simply to the highest bidder. Who knows.

      But it is clear that he has become an advocate for Fox- not an independent legal analyst as he holds himself out to be. He simply will not expose the faults at Fox which he points out at Fox’s economic competitors. His hypocrisy is on the record.

      Although he has condemned Trump and called him out for his revolting behaviors as well as dishonesty, he had yet to denounce in plain and simple terms the Big Lie and the deleterious effect it has on our faith in elections. When Trumpism finally is marginalized to insignificance as it must be, unlike Liz Cheney among some notable others, no one will ever thank Turley for his efforts. It will be his sad legacy that he chose to bite his tongue instead of being an outspoken critic of the scourge of Trumpism.

      1. Whatever you think of her is irrelevant to Trump’s attempt to NDAs to completely silence her and others about anything Trump-related.

        The arbitrator, Andrew Brown, wrote that the terms of the agreement were “vague, indefinite, and therefore void and unenforceable.” The NDA “effectively imposes on Respondent an obligation to never say anything remotely critical of Mr. Trump, his family or his or his family members’ businesses for the rest of her life…Such a burden is certainly unreasonable.”

        1. Not sticking by your word and not saying remotely critical things are unreasonable for her?

          At least the swamp is trying to use potential truths, nowadays.

        2. You quote:

          “The arbitrator, Andrew Brown, wrote that the terms of the agreement were “vague, indefinite, and therefore void and unenforceable.” The NDA “effectively imposes on Respondent an obligation to never say anything remotely critical of Mr. Trump, his family or his or his family members’ businesses for the rest of her life…Such a burden is certainly unreasonable.”

          Yo

          1. Anonymous,

            That “Yo” was from me! I hit accidentally in doing a little due diligence in trying to find if Turley had ever opined on the free speech implications of NDA’s. I could not find much of anything pertinent though I did find this:

            https://jonathanturley.org/2018/08/17/the-false-friend-dilemma-why-trump-has-few-options-in-dealing-with-omarosa/

            It is not about NDA’s, but Turley’s quotation about Omarosa’s conduct struck me:

            “The problem is not the lack of criminal penalties but the lack of shame in our society.”

            I could not agree more. Which is why I advocate so strongly that good speech is not sufficient to counter bad speech. There has to be public humiliation for bad speakers as well- for the individual stating it and for the media company broadcasting it to millions. But in his criticism of bad speech, Turley refrains from *advocating* any conduct other than mere good speech as if that is sufficient.

            He does not advocate shaming bad speakers. How do you shame someone? First, you denounce what they said with good speech. Fine. Second, you tell the person, we will ignore your speech until you correct it or otherwise apologize. Third, you may dissociate yourself from that individual by refusing to host that person on your media platform (e.g., you don’t see Matt Gaetz on Fox anymore on account of his bizarre last interview on Carlson’s show). Lastly, that person may be made persona non grata at parties and events- given the cold shoulder.

            These are the social means by which you shame a bad speaker. Liz Cheney knows what I’m talking about. She is persona non grata in the Republican Party for telling the truth. I don’t agree that she should suffer shame for what she said, but that is not the point of my argument. My point is that Turley apparently thinks that “silencing” bad speakers by refusing to continue to grant them a *private* speaking platform is tantamount to censorship. It is not. They are free to speak to those who they can find on their own to listen, but those who don’t want to hear more of it are free to turn our backs.

  10. OT:

    Defense Secretary Austin, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Milley, and the head of U.S. Central Command Gen. McKenzie testify today before the Senate Armed Services Committee at 9:30am ET.

    Expect them to be questioned about the exit from Afghanistan and that Milley will also be questioned about the alleged quotes in the Woodward & Costa book.

  11. Why don’t you comment on the fact that your network Fox has banned Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Mike Lindell from appearing on its shows to continue spreading the claim that the election was stolen? I’m sure the Trumpists here are outraged that Fox has censored them as well as Trump.

    While we are on the subject, are you going to comment on the merits of this lawsuit?

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-25/ex-trump-campaign-lawyer-powell-sues-voting-firm-for-suing-her

    Are you going to continue to maintain radio silence on ALL matters and lawsuits regarding the Big Lie because you must self-censor on account of your allegiance to Fox?

    Jonathan “Fox News” Turley is a sellout who has bargained away his freedom to criticize Fox.

    1. Jeffy-When you mention the “big lie” your referencing Russia Russia Russia or the phoney impeachment trials or “we’re getting all Americans out of Afghanistan” or the whipping of illegals? Right Jeff’s?

          1. Carpslaw says:

            “So what was it when Hillary kept telling people she really won the 2016 election?”

            Be more specific please.

              1. TiT,

                Thanks for the link. I read it.

                Hilary’s guarded stance that she did not rule out challenging the election IF it was determined that the Russians assisted Trump even though she acknowledged that it was unlikely that she could win such a Constitutionally unprecedented case is NOT what Carpslaw claimed:

                “So what was it when Hillary kept telling people she really won the 2016 election?”

                Thanks for proving Carpslaw wrong.

                I’ll add that Hilary’s stance is 180 degrees different from Trump’s claim that he won, no questions asked, and if you don’t accept my winning, you are a RINO. Period.

        1. Jeffy – I don’t recall my mention of an election but since you deflected from my question to you—hell yea he won the election.

          Do you copy and paste all your posts, because everyone is the same: “Trump, Trumpist, Fox News, Turley on Fox News”. Your whipping a dead horse bud, your boring.

          1. Margot says:

            “Do you copy and paste all your posts, because everyone is the same: “Trump, Trumpist, Fox News, Turley on Fox News”. Your whipping a dead horse bud, your boring.”

            Ever notice how much Turley copies and pastes links in his articles condemning censorship? So, I follow suit. I need to repeat myself to get my points through your thick head full of lies like your lie that Trump won.

            The question is: how long will you keep it up- lying for Trump?

            1. Jeffy-No doubt Jeffy, I have a thick head but Thank God I don’t have TDS x 2 = Trump Derangement Syndrome & Turley Derangement Syndrome.

              Your still booooorrring.

              1. Margot says:

                “Jeffy-No doubt Jeffy, I have a thick head but Thank God I don’t have TDS x 2 = Trump Derangement Syndrome & Turley Derangement Syndrome.”

                My name is “Jeffrey” or “Jeff”; your name is “Margot.” I presume you an adult; so stop acting like a child by making fun of names. If you have something intelligent to say, say it!

                You keep saying:

                “Your still booooorrring.”

                Then ignore me. I don’t bore everyone here- just Trumpists.

    2. Turley is clearly free enough to ignore the clowns who feel the need to mindlessly defecate on his site every single post.

      Glad he doesn’t ban them because they illustrate the reason why they need to be defeated.

      Krasenstein, jr. Yawn.

      1. I suggest you ignore my comments because I am not going to stop pointing out that Trumpists are liars and Turley is a hypocrite for not condemning the Big Lie like Liz Cheney. If you don’t like it, tough!

        1. Your posts don’t change the fact that PPU has a bunch of loser nazis trying to control what people say, like you are doing here.

          Get your own blog and you can control the editorial content, I’m sure plenty of people are dying to read what you’ve been told to think.

          1. Bobthere says:

            “Get your own blog and you can control the editorial content, I’m sure plenty of people are dying to read what you’ve been told to think.”

            I have as much right to be here as you, and those of you who do not enjoy my contribution are not going to cancel me from this blog. If I have to put up with your comments, you are going to have to put up with mine. Too bad.

            1. Like I said, I’m glad you are here. You illustrate the need to politically purge the system of its off-topic and destructive elements.

              Keep it up, you are a beacon.

        2. And Bidettes like you are ignorant and need to look in the mirror if you want to see what a liar looks like.

    3. Jeff, how about commenting on the subject matter at hand? Do you rehearse your ” Fox news/ Turley hypocrisy” diatribe the day before and use it to respond on this site regardless of the topic addressed? It is a legal blog and you are a lawyer. Some of use would be interested in your legal opinion on Turley’s comments/observations. Then maybe vent your frustrations.
      Also responded earlier to our back and forth on Kamala. Would be interested in your reply.

      1. Paul asks:

        “Fox news/ Turley hypocrisy” diatribe the day before and use it to respond on this site regardless of the topic addressed?”

        Turley’s hypocrisy for working at Fox cannot be overstated though I am doing my damnedest to try!

        I’m glad that you are getting my point. It proves that my efforts have been successful! I will redouble them!

          1. Just for that shot in the arm, I’m going to bring you a genuine French wine to our eventual dinner not some Napa swill (unless that conflicts with your AmericaFirst attitude).

              1. Actually, I don’t have any Chianti’s. I won’t buy Italian, German or Japanese wines. It’s too soon…

                (I can’t be such an SOB if I have a good sense of humor!)

                1. Jeff, not buying wines from our WWII foes? You sound like a Nationalist. Who carries a grudge. BTW what is the statute of limitations on forgiveness? Would you eat Vietnamese food?

                  1. Paul says:

                    “Jeff, not buying wines from our WWII foes? You sound like a Nationalist. Who carries a grudge. BTW what is the statute of limitations on forgiveness? Would you eat Vietnamese food?”

                    I was joking, but I still don’t own any Chianti’s. I got Burgundy, Bordeaux, Chardonnay and Cabernet. Take your pick. I like all food forms.

                    1. I know you were joking. You should realize by now a significant of my repertoire is sarcasm. A former ” Class Clown” should recognize this. Also the Italians were smart enough to switch sides before the inevitable defeat.

    4. U.K. betting sites give Trump an 78% chance of beating Biden in the next election and a 93% chance of beating Harris if she’s the nominee. lol.

      1. No you won’t. The MSM long ago stopped broadcasting the Big Lie from these Trumpist lawyers as well they should have. But Turley does not believe that liars should be banned since their lies can be and will be disinfected by the truth in the court of public opinion.

  12. I suppose we can take solace that the brainwashed little nazis have tempered their urges and merely want the non-bootlicker expelled.

  13. The majority of these social justice people wouldn’t even be in college if there was an active draft. How many are c students and are there on our dime? College used to be a place where you could prepare to enter the world getting a good job, a place of excellence. College has become the 5th and 6th year of high school. We are 26th in math and the sciences that’s where their concerns should be.

    1. The majority of these social justice people wouldn’t even be in college if acceptance was merit based like it used to be.

  14. The petition proves the student’s point about harassment.

    “most importantly, the silence of the university”

    Are they, perhaps, ignoring the tantrum?

    1. Prairie Rose,

      Good morning.

      Turley is silent too. He will not criticize Fox for censoring ALL Trump supporters advocating that Trump’s election was stolen. He is a hypocrite, for he condemns the MSM for its silence about the Hunter laptop, but he ignores the total blackout on his network about the Arizona Audit, the Georgia investigation into Trump’s conduct in trying to overturn the election results, etc.

      1. Do you even bother to check your information before you dump a rant on this site? There’s no “total blackout on his network about the Arizona Audit” — a quick search brings up several articles on the audit, including one by Bret Baier and one by Andrew Mark Miller. Likewise for the Fulton County investigation of Trump’s phone call to the GA secy of state — Brooke Singman and Griff Jenkins from Fox did an article on that. Your ad hominem attacks are not only out of place on this site, but they are based on false information — information you could have easily looked up if you weren’t so intellectually lazy and mired in hate. I’ve never seen you reply with a substantive comment on any issue. Rather, you seem to think that personal attacks somehow substitute for intellectual discussion. The very fact that Turley doesn’t block your obnoxious comments is a tribute to his integrity — and a huge black mark against yours.

        1. I watch only the 3 prime time shows- Carlson, Hannity and Ingraham. They do not discuss the Arizona Audit and the Georgia investigation as topics. I have no doubt that these matters are noted in print by some reporters, but these topics are *ignored* on Fox’s most watched programs! The prime time programs which broadcasted that the election was stolen are now silent on topics which prove that claim was a lie. Turley does not appear any longer in prime time to comment on the legal fallout of the defamation lawsuits against Fox or the Trump lawyers being disciplined by a judge for perpetrating a fraud on the court. The main Fox personalities are silent as I have said.

            1. Wen says:

              “You need to get over your obsession with Fox. Seek help!!!”

              I’m a loyal Fox viewer. I’m sure Turley appreciates my increasing Fox’s Nielsen ratings and hence it’s ad revenue. Turley relies on Fox’s ad revenue to pay his salary at Fox.

              1. Hey JeffSilberman, Professor Turley also gets his revenue from a college where he teaches, from the Washington Post, from the New York Times, from the Hill magazine and many other sources both on the left and the right that he appears on or writes for. Are we correct in assuming that you have the ingenuity to write about the subject matter at hand? We may assume that you have the ingenuity but we are not yet convinced that you have the required industrial capacity.

                1. ThinkItThrough,
                  I have noted that Professor Turley has written not only for Fox, but The Hill, and USAToday to this day.
                  The assertion that he is a loyalist to Fox is simply wrong.

                  1. UpstateFarmer says:

                    “The assertion that he is a loyalist to Fox is simply wrong.”

                    We have read where Turley lavishes his criticism on Fox’s cable competitors. Cite me just ONE example of Turley criticizing Fox. Go ahead. Prove my claim wrong that Turley does NOT hold Fox to the same standard which he holds CNN and MSNBC for committing “advocacy journalism.”

                    I’ll give you all day….but you won’t reply in all likelihood.

                2. TiT says:

                  “Turley also gets his revenue from a college where he teaches, from the Washington Post, from the New York Times, from the Hill magazine and many other sources both on the left and the right that he appears on or writes for. Are we correct in assuming that you have the ingenuity to write about the subject matter at hand? We may assume that you have the ingenuity but we are not yet convinced that you have the required industrial capacity.”

                  I have not seen Turley write for The Post or The Times in a long time, correct me if I am wrong. I don’t deny that Turley has other sources of income though I would be willing to wager that his Fox salary exceeds his law school income.

                  Your use of the words “ingenuity” and “industrial” capacity are probably mistaken spell-checks because they make no sense. Please try again.

Leave a Reply