We previously discussed the treatment of Professor Jason Kilborn, who was put on indefinite administrative leave after using a censured version of the n-word in an exam question at the University of Illinois Chicago (UIC). He is now suing the school over his treatment, including the required participation in sensitivity training and denial of a standard pay increase for faculty. We discussed today another free speech controversy at University of Illinois (Urbana Champaign) over the student government seeking to bar former Attorney General Jeff Sessions from campus.
Kilborn wrote a Civil Procedure exam based on an employment discrimination hypothetical. Kilborn’s Civil Procedure II exam describing how an employee quit “after she attended a meeting in which other managers expressed their anger at Plaintiff, calling her a ‘n___’ and ‘b___’ [sic].”
The use of the censored references led to a complaint in a letter from the Black Law Students Association and later a petition which called for Kilborn to be stripped of his committee assignments and other reforms. The Petition stated:
The slur shocked students created a momentous distraction and caused unnecessary distress and anxiety for those taking the exam. Considering the subject matter, and the call of the question, the use of the “n____” and “b____” was certainly unwarranted as it did not serve any educational purpose. The question was culturally insensitive and tone-deaf. It lacked basic civility and respect for the student body, especially considering our social justice efforts this year.
The integration of this dark and vile verbiage on a Civil Procedure II exam was inexcusable and appropriate measures of accountability must be executed by the UIC administration.
I previously objected to the measures taken against Professor Kilborn, which I do believe undermine academic freedom. He was suspended and put on administrative leave because of a complaint that in my view was a denial of his pedagogical privileges. The matter could have been investigated further by the university after an initial determination not to change his status. Instead, he was suspended — a decision that clearly will create a chilling effect on other academics at the school.
Kilborn is being represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which announced the First Amendment lawsuit against the school. The lawsuit notes that “This same question had appeared on Plaintiff’s exam in exactly this way for the previous ten years, administered to at least a dozen classes that included numerous Black and other non-white students. No one had ever suggested the question was objectionable.”
It also recounts how he was later told that his suspension was due to a conversation that he had with a member of the Black Students Association:
Plaintiff participated in that conversation which was generally cordial and constructive, and at one point about an hour into the conversation, the student asked why the law school dean had not shown Plaintiff a student petition criticizing his exam question. Plaintiff responded, using the same common metaphorical expression he had used in a similar conversation with his dean days earlier, that perhaps she had not shared the petition with him because she feared that if Plaintiff saw the hateful things said about him in that petition, he might “become homicidal.” The conversation continued with no indication that the student felt in any way distressed or threatened…
It was reported to Plaintiff that on the following Monday, January 11, 2021, several students met (electronically) with the law school dean and other UIC administrators during which meeting the student with whom Plaintiff had spoken misreported that Plaintiff had exclaimed that he “was feeling homicidal” or “would become homicidal.” . 21. The law school dean, along with other defendants, invoked UIC’s Violence Prevention Plan to convene a Behavioral Threat Assessment Team (“BTAT”) to assess this purported “threat” of imminent physical violence. Without communicating with Plaintiff or any other person with firsthand knowledge, the BTAT authorized the law school dean to take the most extreme measures.
When he met with OAE, Plaintiff openly admitted the “become homicidal” comment; at which time Defendant Bills revealed to Plaintiff that this comment was the basis for his summary and previously unexplained “indefinite administrative leave.”
Kilborn was later informed that he was the subject of an investigation into “allegations of race based discrimination and harassment” for allegedly “creat[ing] a racially hostile environment for … non-white students between January, 2020 and January, 2021, particularly during your Civil Procedure II course.”
After concluding that allegations of racial discrimination had not been substantiated, the university found that Plaintiff had nonetheless violated the harassment aspect of UIC policy because his final exam question and his “responses to criticism of the final exam question” had “interfered with Black students’ participation in the University’s academic program and therefore constituted harassing conduct that violates the Policy.”
Besides his suspension and pay raise denial, Kilborn was informed that he
would be subjected to an 8- week diversity course 20 hours of course work, required “self-reflection” papers for each of 5 modules, plus weekly 90-minute sessions with a trainer followed by three more weeks of vaguely described supplemental meetings with this trainer. The trainer would provide “feedback regarding Professor Kilborn’s engagement and commitment to the goals of the program.” Only upon satisfactory completion of this program would Plaintiff be allowed to return to class in Fall, 2022.
The complaint describes a process that lacked specificity and basic due process for a faculty member to be able to understand and to challenge allegations. These lawsuits can play an important role in reinforcing basic fairness in the handling of such allegations.
Here are the four counts and the complaint:
COUNT I Violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments
COUNT II Violation of University of Illinois Statutes
COUNT III Violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
COUNT IV Violation of the Illinois Violence Prevention Plan
Here is the complaint: Jason-Kilborn-v.-University-of-Illinois-Chicago-—-Complaint1
OT
THE DOORS WERE OPENED FROM THE INSIDE
“January 6th” was a false flag, communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO), Deep Deep State event.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Retired Marine: We’re on the top level now – about 15 feet from the doors just before they opened up. People are yelling and screaming. Everyone’s cheering, all kind of stuff. It’s chaotic. But we’re just kind of there. And then all of the sudden the doors open up from the inside. I have a picture taken about two seconds before the doors opened. And then I have a picture taken about six seconds later and the doors were open.
Jim Hoft: And they were not opened from the outside?
Retired Marine: They were opened from the inside. Now one of the stories I read recently was that some Marine, some Marine Major, went inside and managed to run around and open up the doors. And I think that was on your website, as well. But here’s what I can tell you about magnetic locks. If a door is locked by a mag lock it cannot be opened from the outside or the inside unless the person controlling that door opens that door by turning off the magnetic lock which those doors according to the photos I took are equipped with.
Jim Hoft: Holy cow! That’s really big news there!
Retired Marine: Now these magnetic locks, I worked in the American embassy overseas. They are very, very strong.
Jim Hoft: I’m sure and they, you would think at the US Capitol they would have top security there.
Retired Marine: Now to give you an idea how strong they are, you could tie a chain to the handlebars of the door and tie it onto a truck. And you can take off with the truck and it is probably going to rip the door handles off but it is not going to open that door. The only way those doors can be opened if they want to be opened is from inside a security booth that is also equipped with a magnetic lock.
Jim Hoft: Has this ever been reported?
Retired Marine: Not that I’ve heard of.
Jim Hoft: Oh my God, this is really big!
Retired Marine: If those magnetic locks had been engaged, in other words, if Capitol Police did not want people opening that door. Now I can understand they might say, “We had police outside so we didn’t want to engage them.” If they did not want those magnetic locks open, there is NOTHING, nothing, no person, no group of people, no hundreds of people who could have opened those doors. No one. Unless the Capitol Police wanted those doors open. As soon as those doors were open, I was lifted off my feet. There was a forward momentum.
– Jim Hoft
Essentially Ban The Teaching Of Race-Related Subjects
A proposal aimed at limiting how various race-related concepts are discussed in classrooms and workplace training sessions received initial backing Wednesday in the House, inching forward Gov. Ron DeSantis’ push against critical race theory.
The Republican-dominated House Judiciary Committee approved the bill (HB 7) in a 14-7 vote. In part, the proposal seeks to prevent workers or students from being subject to training or instruction that “compels” them to believe a slew of ideas spelled out in the bill.
https://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/politics-issues/2022-01-27/a-bill-that-would-limits-teachings-on-race-gender-and-sex-gets-support-in-the-florida-house
………………………………………….
How odd Professor Turley didn’t choose this as a topic of discussion. Florida Republicans want to prevent teachers from ever addressing race or gender. Instead the Civil War was only about ‘state’s rights’. Slavery had nothing to do with it (wink, wink).
The article states:
“The House bill needs to clear two more committees before it can be considered by the full House. The Senate bill needs approval from the Rules Committee before it could be teed up for floor action.”
Maybe this matter is not *ripe* enough to be worthy of Turley’s attention. Perhaps, he hopes that it will die in committee so that he is not faced with having to criticize it publicly. It doesn’t behoove Turley to look for trouble on the Right when he is paid by Fox to look for trouble on the Left.
Turley says:
“He was suspended and put on administrative leave because of a complaint that in my view was a denial of his pedagogical privileges. The matter could have been investigated further by the university after an initial determination not to change his status. Instead, he was suspended — a decision that clearly will create a chilling effect on other academics at the school.”
What are “pedagogical privileges”? Teachers have a privilege to use racial slurs in the context of their teaching? They may teach by using ANY of the dozens of racial slurs with complete impunity?
If that is a teacher’s prerogative, then I am at a loss to understand on what basis Turley indicates that the University should have investigated further the use of this slur!
Not all chilling effects of free speech are unwarranted. When Turley called for Trump to be censored by Congress for his 1/6 “reckless” speech as he characterized it, I presume he wants to chill everyone for speaking so recklessly before a raging mob in the future.
Jeff,
Have you read about the conflict involving Spotify, Joe Rogan, and Neil Young (and now Joni Mitchell and perhaps other musicians)? (If not, here’s one description: https://www.wsj.com/articles/neil-youngs-music-is-being-taken-down-by-spotify-after-ultimatum-over-joe-rogan-11643230104.)
I saw the following response from Justin Amash (former Republican Rep. who voted in favor of impeaching Trump, now an independent and no longer in Congress) and thought of you:
“The problem isn’t @joerogan; it’s people who demand submission to their views and seek to silence others rather than persuade.”
His is a false dichotomy, as the situation involves multiple problems, including Rogan’s disinformation. More to the point, Amash — like Turley — assumes that the answer to bad speech is more speech, when for many people it’s not clear that they’re open to persuasion and will even listen to views that are different than their own. It’s a challenge in this age when social media provides megaphones to some and makes it easy to avoid views that one disagrees with.
I worry about the increasing polarization in the country.
Turley stated on April 24, 2020:
“The maker of Lysol also issued a statement warning against any internal use of its disinfectant after President Donald Trump suggested the possibility of an “injection” of disinfectant into victims of the coronavirus. The warning reflects an interesting legal problem for these companies. Under product liability rules, a company is liable for the “foreseeable misuse” of its products. While the intentional ingestion of household cleaners have been a problem in a small number of cases, President Trump’s musing about its use could encourage others to attempt such a home remedy. We have already seen such poisonings from products ranging from tainted alcohol to fish tank cleaners. Lysol and other companies have every reason to issue warnings, particularly in the baffling absence of a corrective statement from the White House. Polls show that only 23 percent of viewers have a high level of trust what the President says on the pandemic. That is notably lower than his support in most polls overall. There are still many who trust the President on advice to a moderate or high degree. Ultimately, this is not about politics. This type of statement is dangerous for those who do rely on the President for information on the virus.”
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/04/24/foreseeable-misuse-trumps-suggestion-of-possible-use-of-disinfectant-in-the-blood-triggers-industry-warnings/
Turley demanded that the White House disavow Trump’s statement. Indeed, the White House did put out a statement, as Turley noted:
“Update: The White House comments falls considerably short of a clarification. The White House Press Secretary stated: “President Trump has repeatedly said that Americans should consult with medical doctors regarding coronavirus treatment, a point that he emphasized again during yesterday’s briefing. Leave it to the media to irresponsibly take President Trump out of context and run with negative headlines.”
“I have often criticized the media for unfair coverage but this was not taking a comment out of context. Moreover, it did not appear to be either a comment made to the media or a comment made in sarcasm, as later claimed by the President. It was an ill-conceived and potentially dangerous comment that could have been addressed with a simple clarifying statement last night.”
In other words, the White House was lying.
THE question for Turley:
Since it is an article of faith that good speech invariably will inoculate bad speech, is it impermissible for a network to censor Trump’s musings? Would he not defend the freedom of speech of a network to continue to broadcast Trump’s disinformation? Would he not be opposed to those who seek to ban Trump’s statement and argue instead that they should resign themselves to persuading his followers that he is an idiot.
His is a false dichotomy, as the situation involves multiple problems, including Rogan’s disinformation…. I worry about the increasing polarization in the country.
Sure you do.
Crosby Stills Nash Replace Neil Young With Joe Rogan
There is a new development in the case of Neil Young vs Joe Rogan and Spotify. One day after Spotify announced it was dropping Neil Young in favor of Joe Rogan, Young took another hit. His former bandmates announced they are reuniting but replacing him with Joe Rogan.
Crosby, Stills & Nash are reuniting but have chosen to add Joe Rogan as the fourth member instead of Neil Young. “It was the perfect answer” said David Crosby. “It is true that I am a pain in the arse and I have alienated all of my former bandmates, but it was Young who was blocking a reunion. He was mad at me because I called his skank wife a skank. Neil poisoned the other members against me.”
https://madhousemagazine.com/crosby-stills-nash-replace-neil-young-with-joe-rogan/
Sprec free or forever hold your piece. They her is an ak47 or a dong.
That is either an ak47 or a dong.
Hope his suit goes well.
In the meantime, <>
Give me an “f”, lover!
Give me a “u”, lover!
Give me an “n”, lover!
Now all together, “fun lover!”
Are we allowed to use the racial slur in question or does it violate this blog’s civility rule?
Refraining from using slurs as a matter of civility is not unlike wearing a mask out if consideration for your fellow citizens. Do we care anymore to be courteous?
If you spell out the N-word in a comment here, the comment will be removed. However, you can reference the word as I just did. Someone who used to comment here, a conservative bigot who posted under the name Squeaky Fromm may have been blocked for her repeated use of the slur.
Yes, Jeff, you can wear a mask while driving down the empty road with no one else in the car. That way you can virtue signal how polite you are while what you promote causes ruin.
OT
In a near-midnight filing, John Durham’s office admits that it f’d up and neglected evidence that it was notified about in 2018, after falsely claiming in a recent filing that his office had only just learned of this evidence, and then has the temerity to tell the judge that they can’t yet provide all of the Brady evidence to Sussman’s defense because they haven’t yet reviewed it. Talk about incompetent.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21192523-durhamphonesflg012822
REGARDING ABOVE:
John Durham is the most irrelevant Special Counsel since Lawrence Walsh.
Of course, this was merely an inconsequential human oversight.
The efficacy of Special Counsel John Durham will be determined by his patriotism and support of the Constitution, or his fealty and allegiance to the communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) Deep Deep State.
The evidence proving the insidious and pervasive totality of the Obama Coup D’etat in America is incontrovertible and irrefutable.
Whether or not Durham can resist the pernicious hegemony of the communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) Deep Deep State, and unveil and expose the truth remains to be seen.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history.
The co-conspirators are:
Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,
James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic,Sally Yates,
James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove,
Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper,
Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power,
Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,
Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg, Emmet Sullivan, Gen. Milley, George Soros, John McCain,
Marc Elias, Igor Danchenko, Fiona Hill, Charles H. Dolan, Jake Sullivan, Strobe Talbot,
Cody Shear, Victoria Nuland, Ray “Red Hat” Epps, Don Berlin et al.
John Durham’s office admits that it f’d up and neglected evidence that it was notified about in 2018,
That’s not what the filing says.
Durham wasn’t appointed till October of 2020. so how something from 2018 is relevant is curious. But the filing says the OIG “would have” mentioned the evidence now in question. No person is making the claim that the evidence was handed over, or even discussed.
On October 7, 2021, at the
initiative of the Special Counsel’s Office, the prosecution team met with the DOJ Inspector General
and other OIG personnel to discuss discoverable ma terials that may be in the OIG’s possession.
The Special Counsel’s office subsequently submitted a formal written discovery request to the OIG
on October 13, 2021, which requested, among other things, all documents, records, and information
in the OIG’s possession regarding the defendant and/or the RussianBank-1 allegations.
But it was not until January of 2022 and a second specific request that the OIG admitted they had 2 FBI general counsel cell phones, connected to the Sussman indictment.
In short the DoJ and the DoJ inspector Generals Office is as corrupt as any drug cartel.
But there is no there, there, right? That’s why everybody is working so hard to hide evidence.
“No person is making the claim that the evidence was handed over, or even discussed.”
The second half of your claim is false.
There’s an explicit claim in the document that the cell phones in question were discussed with an AUSA working for Durham and likely with Durham himself. The filing says:
“on February 9, 2018, in connection with another criminal investigation being led by then-Acting U.S. Attorney Durham, an OIG Special Agent who was providing some support to that investigation informed an Assistant United [States] Attorney working with Mr. Durham that the OIG had requested custody of a number of FBI cellphones. OIG records reflect that among the phones requested was one of the two aforementioned cellphones of the then-FBI General Counsel.. OIG records further reflect that on February 12, 2018, the OIG Special Agent had a conference call with members of the investigative team, including Mr. Durham, during which the cellphones likely were discussed. OIG records also reflect that the OIG subsequently obtained the then-FBI General Counsel’s cellphone on or about February 15, 2018.”
Durham recently claimed in a court filing that he had been unaware of these cell phones. He should have been aware, since they were mentioned to an AUSA who worked for Durham and likely to Durham as well.
That was 2018, Durham had no reason to be concerned, he was not appointed special counsel until October of 2020.
The Special Counsel’s office subsequently submitted a formal written discovery request to the OIG
on October 13, 2021, which requested, among other things, all documents, records, and information
That request did not yield the cell phones. Not until early January 2022 that a specific request to the DOJ, OIG, did the OIG produce the cell phones.
Its all in the filings. Its all there. The evidence of how deep the corruption in the DoJ runs.
Also note the the filing you are relying on says specifically “during which the cellphones likely were discussed
“Likely” is a guess, not a claim.
Again back in 2018 a long time before Durham was appointed special counsel.
In other words, you can’t admit that “No person is making the claim that the evidence was … even discussed” is false.
BTW, did you notice that he didn’t make this request until several weeks *after* he indicted Sussman? Don’t you think he’d have wanted to check all of this prior to deciding whether to indict, especially since he has a legal requirement to turn it over to the defense once he indicts?
Your opinion is that this makes the DOJ OIG look bad. My opinion is that it makes Durham look worse.
BTW, did you notice that he didn’t make this request until several weeks *after* he indicted Sussman?
on Bengahzi before The State Dept admitted Clintons wife was doing business
There were 6 congressional hearings before the State Department finally admitted there were more that 100,000 emails the had been hiding.
Did you notice the OIG refused to hand over ALL relevant material? Some how you believe an unfounded claim from 2018, But after the appointment of the Special Counsel, the OIG started hiding evidence.
You cant have it both ways The OIG knew the phones were relevant back in 2018, but needed to be asked repeatedly in in 2021.
The DoJ, including the “watcher” are hopelessly corrupt.
Considering the subject matter, and the call of the question, the use of the “n____” and “b____” was certainly unwarranted as it did not serve any educational purpose. The question was culturally insensitive and tone-deaf. It lacked basic civility and respect for the student body, especially considering our social justice efforts this year.
Given their social justice efforts, it is no wonder they could not see an educational purpose. There is an ongoing educational purpose that the university and their SJW’s aren’t likely to accept on their own.
I can potentially see an educational purpose but I don’t have context for the environment, the overall attitude projected by the professor, or any other incidents which may have informed those who complain. Neither does Turley who tells us there were no other complaints over the years when clearly if there were they wouldn’t have been relayed. I don’t have enough information to take a clear side, I just don’t like Turley explaining what everyone intended and misrepresented when he doesn’t know either.
How noble. How embarrassing. Can we get rid of unconstitutional generational welfare and affirmative action now?
Enigma:
In general, would you have a problem with a law professor discussing a case that centered around the plaintiff being called the N-word and the b-word? Would you consider the censored words, the exact words, or both to be unacceptable topics of education discussion?
I recall when I was in college, it was a bit shocking how the professors did not censor their speech at all, not like a high school teacher would. We were expected to be adults and tackle serious subjects, without shrinking from the tough topics. It seems like the psyche of today’s students is incredibly fragile.
What do you think?
Does it really matter what the intention is? It’s a law school course, and the topic is that the plaintiff was called a racial and gender slur. Why would the professor’s private feelings matter? Such cases come up in real life, and law students should be educated on how to analyze them. What if the intention was to introduce a shocking, emotionally charged, or sensitive topic, in order for law students to get exposed to the kinds of difficult cases they may encounter. If the intention was to shock, or push the envelope, shouldn’t that be allowed at a university?
Personally, as long as the professor did not call or refer to any of the students thus, and the language was confined to the case study, then this seems legitimate.
What you seem to be saying is that previously, teachers didn’t give a damn about hurt feelings which might reflect the lack of ability for students to fight back.
Intention and attitude does matter, if someone I perceive as being racist based on my interaction with them throws out words I find offensive, I would respond differently than someone explaining why these words were being used and that these are potentially real life situations. I don’t have any interaction with the professor and have no personal knowledge of his history. The students do know him and his admitted threat of going homicidal doesn’t make me feel more comfortable.
Enigma:
Do you think they didn’t care about student sensibilities because there was nothing students could do about it, or because they expected students to act like adults? While there were professors who abused power, and you had to write your essays accordingly, I got the feeling that most of them expected you to be adult about difficult subjects. Today, it seems to me like students are encouraged to be fragile.
You make a good point that intention matters if the speaker is racist. However, what if the intention is to shock in order to see how they deal with it? What if it was to see if students could deal with real-world cases involving topics that they actively avoid on campus?
As for his “admitted threat of going homicidal”, as you say, that does not appear to be accurate. Based on the below, what appears to have happened is that he used a figure of speech. The student he was speaking with took it as a figure of speech. It’s like rolling your eyes watching the news, saying, “This makes me nuts”, compared with a man hunched on the curb, rocking back and forth, pulling his hair out, screaming, “This makes me NUTS!”. Using exactly the same words, the former is just a figure of speech, understandable to all, while the latter is a crisis.
As a mother, I would take a threat of murder against a student dead serious. Since the student appeared to not feel threatened, then this does not seem to be a threat at all. What I’m not clear on is the section below, about how the student “misreported” that he said he would be homicidal. Did the student admit the error, or is that the Plaintiff’s position?
“Plaintiff responded, using the same common metaphorical expression he had used in a similar conversation with his dean days earlier, that perhaps she had not shared the petition with him because she feared that if Plaintiff saw the hateful things said about him in that petition, he might “become homicidal.” The conversation continued with no indication that the student felt in any way distressed or threatened…
It was reported to Plaintiff that on the following Monday, January 11, 2021, several students met (electronically) with the law school dean and other UIC administrators during which meeting the student with whom Plaintiff had spoken misreported that Plaintiff had exclaimed that he “was feeling homicidal” or “would become homicidal.””
Since when is “becoming homicidal” a figure of speech? I liken it to joking aboiut bombs on an airplane. The mad admitted saying it so where was the misrepresentation? This conversation and many others are about the free speech right to be offensive, abusive, racist, misogynistic, or just nasty. Free speech doesn’t mean no repercussions.
Enigma, what did he actually say?
Have you ever examined your own idioms? If I was given a transcript of your life, would I ever find such figures of speech? I think people live in glass houses on this one.
“This is driving me crazy.”
“I’m going to go ballistic.”
There aren’t very many movies you could get through without one of the characters saying such a figure of speech, whether it’s “I’m going to kill you if you leave the toilet seat down when you pee”, “I’ll bust a cap in your a$$”, or “If I have to burn dinner one more time because all the restaurants are shut down I’m going to hang myself.” Heck, when we first moved in the existing fencing proved totally inadequate for our draft horses. We had to upgrade to velociraptor proof. My husband came up with very colorful metaphoric threats, but he loved the horses and didn’t mean a word of it.
People say these things all the time but their tone conveys they are not literal. To me, the case depends upon the details of the encounter. Did he slam her up against the wall, get in her face, and say in a low, dread voice, “I’m going to go homicidal”? Did he make jazz hands and squeal, “This makes me so homicidal!” What exactly did he say and how did he say it?
This reminds me of when the media claimed that Sarah Palin discussing flipping seats “in her sights” made a madman shoot a Congresswoman, Gabbard. The mainstream media tried to avoid all warlike rhetoric in election coverage. They gave it up after a week, because every few minutes they stumbled and apologized over “in our sights”, “target”, “enemy lines”, “take aim” and other metaphors.
As for your saying you can no longer joke about bombs on planes while flying, that’s true. But there’s a difference between saying “I’m going to blow up if I have to wear this sweaty, stifling mask one more minute” and “I put a bomb on this plane. Just kidding!”
https://youtu.be/pofUsd9hEi8
LOL this is a better clip. “You can’t say ‘bomb’ on an airplane!”
https://youtu.be/rXFwiESB9WI
I could understand if I wasn’t allowed to teach at a grade school level because of the truthful things I say about American history. I talk about historians that lie to protect the image Americans would prefer to believe. Edwin Betts https://democracyguardian.com/edwin-betts-the-man-who-literally-changed-history-d5e9674ad6fd?sk=8d2e1da005e3b00e86f2658f8a8cee17
and Jenny Bourne https://medium.com/the-hbcu-chronicles/dear-jenny-bourne-ph-d-expert-on-slavery-2d0b2cd84028?sk=1bcbd4856c3ccf77c29a6887b6459ced as examples. My writings are for adults yet I recognize that most children have Internet access and it’s very common to look up their teachers and what they do. Similarly, if I originate or even retweet, badly worded statements that could reasonably be construed as racist. I wouldn’t expect my employer to have to understand. There is a difference between I’m going to blow up and I have a bomb. I can’t think of a situation where homicidal doesn’t literally mean killing someone else, can you?
Karen, do you wonder why the law professor chose to test students on a case that centered around the plaintiff being called slurs for a Black woman instead of a case centered around a plaintiff being called slurs for a white man? Wouldn’t the latter raise the same legal issues?
Anon,
This was a question presented to law students about a hypothetical instance of race and gender based workplace harassment. In principle, it should not matter what race or gender is invoked when the harassment takes place.
But in actuality, it does matter that for 10 years in a row, he chose an example denigrating a Black woman instead of varying the question.
People do not live in a hypothetical world. People live in a real world where their professor’s examples either strike closer to home or further from home. Why should the white male students be consistently protected from encountering slurs about white men on a test, while Black and female students are not?
Anonymous:
Ironically, I do believe that all racial slurs should be held to the same standard. Surely you would agree that racist slurs against whites would not get someone fired at the same rate as racist slurs against blacks.
The value I see in using that example is that this generation has been encouraged to become neurotic and emotionally fragile. In a very short few years, even the censored n-word is treated as if someone actually said the real word. This is troubling. Years from now, someone could go through your written and oral history, find you or I using the censored n-word, and excoriate or try to ruin our lives. Perhaps, in the future, this entire blog will be banned because it contains posts with the censored n-word. Not the actual word. The censored one.
How can lawyers actively defend clients if they break down just hearing the censored n-word? Many of these people listen to the full n-word in rap music, without issue. But they’ve become trained to crumble and shake if a professor discusses a harassment case using a censored slurs. It’s cognitive dissonance.
If they aren’t mentally fit enough to handle this class, then they are not competent to handle such a case in real life. Law school is supposed to prepare students to practice law. Any student too mentally fragile to even handled censored words, which they can hear in rap music, should confine himself or herself to safer specialties such as patent law.
Karen, well said!
Unfortunately, these words form the basis for innumerable discrimination claims, which are part of the normal grist of state and federal court litigation. I am curious what these students will do once they confront these words in a real complaint. Will they ask the court to strike complaint allegations because it causes them anxiety? Or will they ask the court to grant them default judgment or to disqualify opposing counsel? Surely, there is a legitimate pedagogical interest in preparing law students, who at least ostensibly want to be trained to practice law, on what to do when faced with unpleasant realities when practicing law.
As the Don Henley song goes, ‘Get Over It!’ When did black ‘skin’ become so thin?
From the information in the post I see that the professor cause a small number of students, who share the same skin color, to complain. No substance to the complaint and no wide spread claims exist in the Prof’s class work. Why do administrators jump to appease students that know nothing? All of these events need to be documented so people that recruit law graduates know which law colleges to boycott.
Iowan2 says:
“All of these events need to be documented so people that recruit law graduates know which law colleges to boycott.”
By Jove you’ve got it! That’s what I have been advocating. Boycotting is free speech! If you can boycott, you may certainly ignore, shun and ostracize. People- not government- should discriminate against intolerable speech and conduct in order to make America great again!
Boycotting is free speech!
Hey dope!
The only speech being punished by the government is the professors.
“He was suspended and put on administrative leave because of a complaint . . .”
If the campus “untouchables” lodge a complaint against you, you’re screwed.
“The Queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. ‘Off with his head” she said, without even looking around.” (L.C.)
If you just yelled the letters “n” and “b” at these students, would that be enough to create for them “a momentous distraction” and cause “unnecessary distress and anxiety”? How about if the professor responded with “f” and “u”?
In the aggrievement industry, the specific words are not the issue, it is the mere plausibility of aggievement that elevates the matter.
Students tell tales of ‘momentous distractions’ which cause ‘unnecessary distress and anxiety’ much like a personal injury claimant wears a neck brace while being wheel-chaired into the courtroom.
“How about if the professor responded with “f” and “u”?”
Ha! We already know! You dropped a bomb on me! An F-bomb!
They would immediately invoke the Violence Prevention Plan and convene a Behavioral Threat Assessment Team (“BTAT”) to assess this purported “threat” of imminent physical violence!
Why? Because words = violence! Duh! When you drop an F-bomb, you are causing “imminent threat of physical harm” …. or something….get with the program, man!
Old saying: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.
Ah, the good old days when kids were taught to grow thick skins and get over it.
Now? Words we’ve all heard will: “shock students” and “create momentous distraction” and “cause undue distress and anxiety” ….and the person using those words instructively — to ‘teach’ no less — must be denied ‘due process,’ silenced, punished, utterly destroyed….all in the name of: Social Justice!
My god, why anyone would PAY to put their kid through this phucked up indoctrination system, as it is today, is a mystery.
The most frightening thing is that these students, who think like this, are our future leaders.
God help us.
Anon: “The most frightening thing is that these students, who think like this, are our future leaders.”
+++
Not our leaders. They intend to be our masters.
Young: good one.
Young warns:
“Not our leaders. They intend to be our masters.”
I’m glad that you can appreciate how NeverTrumpers feel about Trumpists wanting to be our masters. The feeling is mutual.
There is your core misunderstandings, 1. you think democratically elected people should be ‘masters’ (ironic you use that term) and 2. that Trump people want anything to do with herding the morons on the left, we simply want to be free from you morons.
How you ever gonna be free of us morons? We outnumber you.
“How you ever gonna be free of us morons? We outnumber you.”
+++
True. There are a lot of morons. But maybe we can outsmart you.
How? Trump University shut down. Prager U?
Prager U is excellent and free. Their videos are 3-5 minutes and fairly cover that you know nothing about. It would be best if you avail yourself of their information. Then you won’t sound like the moron you talked about in another post.
By letting you speak freely. Not letting us speak freely is how you try to hide the fact.
You are utterly insane. Trumpists don’t want to be anyone’s masters. They just want you to leave them alone.
Young believes:
“They [Leftist morons] intend to be our masters.”
Do you share Young’s fear? You don’t think Leftists want Trumpists to leave them alone?
With every respect to the professor, when he was asked the question by the black law student, he probably should have smelled a set up. Also, I would have thought twice before repeating the Dean’s comment, and simply told the student that the Dean needs to speak for herself.
Now? Words we’ve all heard will: “shock students” and “create momentous distraction” and “cause undue distress and anxiety”
I’m sure the University has banned all rap music from campus.
Those words are the chorus to lots of rap songs.
Exactly! We hear all those “n” and “b” words booming out of car windows at every red light in every city. Talk about ‘creating momentous distraction’…..can we sue for noise pollution that physically assaults our ears and brains just sitting at a traffic light??
Don’t forget the “reprogramming” part of this professor’s punishment!
“Besides his suspension and pay raise denial, Kilborn was informed that he
would be subjected to an 8- week diversity course 20 hours of course work, required “self-reflection” papers for each of 5 modules, plus weekly 90-minute sessions with a trainer followed by three more weeks of vaguely described supplemental meetings with this trainer. The trainer would provide “feedback regarding Professor Kilborn’s engagement and commitment to the goals of the program.” Only upon satisfactory completion of this program would Plaintiff be allowed to return to class in Fall, 2022.”
“Besides his suspension and pay raise denial, Kilborn was informed that he
would be subjected to an 8- week diversity course 20 hours of course work,
This should have been clear to me from the start. Follow the money.
Where do all these ‘gender studies’ and CRT graduates go for income?
These rulings are closing the circle. Providing work for graduates that would otherwise starve, or live in their parents basements. The university is charging big money for a degree, so the university then provides income for the worthless degree. Its a symbiotic relationship. Neither entity exists without the other.
Ask the son-in-law of our current Attorney General, Merrick Garland. He’s making big bucks in the CRT business.
I have a comment “awaiting moderation.”
There was not a cuss word in there.
Turkey:
Moderate your moderators.
I suggest you contact your local Black Law Students Association so that they can pen a letter to Turley informing him that this is not proper moderation and that it has caused you unnecessary anxiety.
“allegations of race based discrimination and harassment”
Hmmm would that be like “And that person will be the first black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court.” a la PINO Biden?
Hope the Professor Kilborn wins a good deal cash.
And I hope the names of all those law school students are made public. Otherwise one of them could land on the Supreme Court in a future decade.
What is the difference between this type of university and a reeducation camp of the style Mao would have liked?
Thankfully we have Turley to tell us who misrepresented what because he was there and obviously knows. He also knows, ” No one had ever suggested the question was objectionable.” Especially when the university had a history of not bringing complaints to the professor. Yet another example where Turley shapes the story to his view.
Enigma, Turley supplied the actual complaint. What do you find wrong with the complaint? What do you wish to add to Turley’s statement?
I wish to subtract from Turley’s statement for example where he claims something was misrepresented yet later admitted to. Turley slants his stories and presents his opinion as factual information. I would change that.
The text of the complaint had nothing to do with Turley.
If you think Turley had conflicting statements, copy the statements and write out your complaint. Then, maybe we can understand what you are talking about.
That you don’t understand is a reflection on yourself.
“That you don’t understand is a reflection on yourself.”
Enigma, you are taking the cowardly way out, trying to hide that you can’t discuss your ideas or, alternatively, that the thoughts you expressed had no basis.
I read what you said and asked for further clarification. Instead of clarifying, you used your time to insult and hide.
Turley has provided you an opportunity to voice your opinion even if it opposes his. He generally is reasonably straightforward, which irritates you because you cannot do the same. Don’t fret so much. That is his line of work.
Yes, I don’t have the ability to express my ideas. Go with that!
We already knew that but in the spirit of equity we wanted to make sure there wasn’t another reason.
If you don’t like Turley’s analysis, why don’t you just scroll on, or not visit his page. It must be nice to have the time to stalk him and hate……
Actually, I talk about Turley’s stories because I don’t have time to argue with all the commenters.
Enigmainblack.com,
This reply is no different than the reaction from the students and faculty, who don’t regard free speech as part of our culture any longer.
There are limits to free speech (yelling fire in a crowded theater). Maybe the right to use N* and B* in an environment that hurts some people (while they are paying to be there) should be considered as well. These students are the customers of the university and have speech rights of their own.
Yes, they have FREE SPEECH rights!
I’m offended by some words too. Maybe some of your words hurt me. My offense is subjective. Should universities develop a list of banned words? How about banning more books?
If those words are banned in classrooms and books, then are those same words permitted in dormrooms? Concert halls? Or in cars on campus blasting music with lyrics using the “offensive” words?
Do you not even see where this leads???
sarc ON
Haven’t you noticed that books are being banned in school districts and libraries across the country. A couple have been because of the use of words like N* like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird, the vast majority is because they are making white people uncomfortable. The whole fake CRT censorship (which isn’t being taught in elementary, middle or high schools in America) is censorship, where are your complaints about that. The Texas school system has been rewriting American history for decades to make slavery less of a thing, promote American (white) Exceptionalism, and prevent new information from surfacing about The Alamo. On the subject of race, white people are responsible for far more censorship than Black people ever are.
https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/calls-to-ban-books-by-black-authors-are-increasing-amid-critical-race-theory-debates/2021/09
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2021/12/10758842/book-bans-schools-authors-color-children-suffer
To be fair, there are also attempts to ban books on the Holocaust because white kids are apparently too sensitive to learn about the horrors white people have committed. I’d provide more links but I’ve reached the limit.
I get my stories censored by Facebook because of complaints and every time I dispute it the story gets restored for not being in violation of community standards. You want me to see where this leads when it’s been happening to Black people who weren’t allowed to legally read or attend school for most of American history.
Is your point that, yes, you do approve of banning words and books because gee, some words may hurt some people some of the time –especially people who are paying customers because if you are paying to be there, you definitely have “speech rights” and can shout “Fire! I’m on fire! My feelings are on fire! Ban those bad words that hurt MY feelings!”
Is that your point?
No, that’s obviously not the point of his 12:52 comment.
Thanks Captain Obvious….ya think??
Are you telling us that Enigma is not intelligent enough to defend his position? I hope not. Enigma doesn’t seem shy about dealing with these things.
No, my point is that it is Turley that misrepresented the episode so that the only conclusion one can draw is to side with the professor. My point is also that the students have the right to loudly say that we don’t expect to pay for your freedom to say whatever you like in the name of academic freedom. My other point is that the people crying over free speech are doing much more to restrict the speech of others and make sure their children’s feelings don’t get hurt by learning actual history or being exposed to other points of view. I’m not in favor of banning any books but would object to some books being part of a curriculum. Make it available but don’t teach it. As an example, teaching the holocaust didn’t happen wouldn’t make it onto my list of approved books. Let Huck Finn, To Kill a Mockingbird, Maus, and the restexist but stop coming for Toni Morrison and inventing imaginary things to excuse banning actual history.
Got it. Thank you for clarifying. If we were having an actual debate, IMO, you would have won this round. Well done, you.
Good discussion, sir.
FWIW, if you omit the https://www. at the start of the URL, then the system doesn’t recognize it as a link, and you can include additional links that way.
Agreed that a lot of people complaining about censorship don’t recognize how much occurs on their own side. Turley is pretty biased in his selection of what censorship he writes about and what censorship he ignores.
It’s pretty sad. He’s not a stupid person. He could choose to write a thoughtful column acknowledgng that words can hurt, but it’s important for students to understand many hurtful words in historical context, and addressing the actual teaching challenges of doing this productively. But he doesn’t. He seldom addresses his censorship here (clearly legal, but hypocritical given his arguments) and never in detail.
” but it’s important for students to understand many hurtful words in historical context, and addressing the actual teaching challenges of doing this productively. But he doesn’t.”
Yeah, he actually kinda does highlight the “actual teaching challenges” if you care to notice.
Do you understand the difference between “teaching challenges” and “teaching challenges of doing this productively“?
He said nothing about the latter.
It’s a blog, man. Turley is HIGHLIGHTING the topic and presenting some of the legal challenges here on his blog –not trying to teach the definitive “productive” Master Class!!
Agreed!
enigmainblack,
The black community has become so delicate that one wonders how they survive. It’s a mean old world for ALL of us…..and it’s definitely not for sissies.Your obvious problem is you desperately want to be white, and are so jealous of us.
You stomp your feet, point your fingers, call people malicious names, but guess what?
When you wake up in the morning, you’re still gonna be black.
So, accept it. Embrace it. Be proud of your race and get on with life.
Faux victimhood is not an attractive look, and all the other races in America are sick of it.
Cindy, you cannot possibly talk for all of the other races in America. You can’t even talk for everyone in your own race(s). I’m white, and you certainly don’t talk for me.
The Black community isn’t delicate. They’ve lived with centuries of abuse. Their strength in the face of that has helped to make America strong. Would we have even won the Revolutionary War without the efforts of Black soldiers? or the Civil War? Or WW1 and WW2? Nor are their contributions limited to war efforts. Can you name even a single field of endeavor where Black Americans have not contributed to our strength?
Can you accept that there’s actual victimhood, and we must deal with it honestly? Because ethics demands we deal with it honestly.
Anonymous———-representing what remains of pathetic, hackneyed, stench-filled, rotting Leftist pablum takes a toll, I’m sure. Get help.
I repeat : We’re all sick of it!
I take it that your answer to “Can you name even a single field of endeavor where Black Americans have not contributed to our strength?” is “No.”
And that your answer to “Can you accept that there’s actual victimhood, and we must deal with it honestly?” is unfortunately also “No.”
Take your own advice.
anonymous…..I have no idea what you think you’re talking about.
Ramble on, genus ovis.
Go Cindy!
But we need more cowbell from you! See what you can do…. 🙂
More cowbell? Why? Do you have a fevah? ( :
Wow Cindy, I’m impressed, you say so much by saying so little.
enigmainfrownyface: Still black, are we?
I wouldn’t have it any other way, but still working to make things better.
enigma……….you’re “working to make things better” ? Really? What happened…..did you find out your mother reads this blog?
If you believe you’re working to make things better, then I think we’re found the problem!
Trying to educate the uneducated and unwilling is often fruitless, but it isn’t me that’s the problem. You usually try to argue facts, Cindy. Do you really have nothing but insults to offer?
“Trying to educate the uneducated and unwilling is often fruitless”
Enigma, it takes the right approach to educate the uneducated. Look at NYC. The right approach reversed the numbers and made most of the inner city kids taught in charter schools reverse course from failure to success. I know that subject doesn’t interest you, so one might assume you cannot educate the uneducated, but maybe you are the uneducated one.
Cindy, keep your eyes on VA Lt Gov Winsome Sears.
Estovir….Isn’t she wonderful?! So refreshing!
Cindy, I am making it a priority in 2022 to meet her in person. Im in the throes of writing and finishing a research paper in my field for publication. Once I submit it, I plan on contacting her office, and request a face to face meeting to discuss health care needs of Latinos, immigrants and Blacks in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Im so taken with her that I hope she plays her cards right to go really far.
Estovir….Oh I hope you get to meet her!
Cindy, I agree with Enigma: are you ever going to tell George that he’s a tiresome old bigot?
Or do you approve of George endlessly repeating his racist, sexist, xenophobic çomments?
You know, George argues that you and other women shouldn’t have the right to vote. He wants you to produce more white babies.
Are you going to tell Estovir that his many homophobic comments make him a tiresome old bigot?
Anonymous………….Are you ever going to be honest and use your actual name instead of hiding behind “anonymous”? What a coward. A commenter of color: yellow
Thanks for reading with such great frequency.
I had no idea.
Oh, and secession is not prohibited by the Constitution.
Your whole Lincoln thing must have never happened, by law.
Oops, America!
Anon,
I was asked a question recent I’ll ask to you.
Please name all the Non-White Nations that have advanced humanity’s condition?
Oky1, my opinion is that every nation on earth has advanced humanity’s condition in some ways and hindered it in some ways. I believe that all acts of kindness, generosity, love, creativity, … advance our condition, while acts of hate, greed, violence,.. hinder it. Your opinion about these things may be different than mine. I’ve traveled on 4 continents, and my experience is that there is a mix of good and bad everywhere.
Let’s talk law on this blog.
The Naturalization Act of 1802 was in full force and effect in 1863, upon the issuance of the unconstitutional, private-property-confiscating, emancipation proclamation.
That Act required citizens to be “…free white person(s)….”
It transformed the status of freed slaves from “property” to “illegal alien”, requiring immediate, compassionate repatriation.
Let’s talk law, Anny!
Lincoln didn’t like the laws in America so he declared martial law, seized power as a despot and dictator, and killed Americans (not slaves).
That’s your kind of law, right?
It’s like “shopping night” in Compton Americans see so often in the news.
Like improperly ratifying unconstitutional amendments with a gun pointed at America’s head and under the duress of brutal, barbarian, post-war military occupation.
Like unconstitutional generational welfare, forced busing, unfair “fair housing” laws, and affirmative action.
No justice, no peace.
Anon,
Are people still trying to convince us normal humans that Islam is just culture enrichment & diversity?
Hopefully Jesus sends all those Demonic worshiping Lunatics to where they should go. Not Here!
****************
Prosecution of Muslim for Raping a 3-Year-Old Girl Reveals that Pederasty is Accepted in Islamic Culture
January 26, 2022 by Edward Hendrie
On January 25, 2022, Frankie Stockes reported for the National File the following:
An Afghan migrant who worked with U.S. troops before being evacuated to the United States has been convicted of raping a 3-year-old girl on a Marine Corps base in Virginia, telling authorities that the molestation of children is merely a part of his people’s culture, and no reason to throw him in prison.
24-year-old Afghan, Mohammed Tariq was found guilty of abusive sexual conduct in Alexandria’s U.S. District Court last Friday, after being arrested in September at Quantico’s Camp Upshur when a group of Marines caught the Afghan refugee imported by the Biden regime in the act of raping a toddler.
https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2022/01/26/prosecution-of-muslim-for-raping-a-3-year-old-girl-reveals-that-pederasty-is-accepted-in-islamic-culture/
*************
Going by the name Tommie Robinson he knows all about those Demonic Islamic Creeps from around his home in Britain.
Here’s his latest video.
There is no hope of reforming Islam, the govt of Demons & Pedos. At least send them all back to their Sandbox.
******
The Rape Of Britain – Nicole’s Story
17,737 views
·
Jan 29, 2022
24
Share
Download
Tommy Robinson
Tommy Robinson
Please support our work . Donate here – https://urbanscoop.news/donate/
There’s much more to come, this is only the beginning. Help us get there.
https://www.banned.video/watch?id=61f59e91dcac242732215fa0
Maybe one to many links in my post?
Oky1 says:
January 29, 2022 at 11:41 PM
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Anon,
Are people still trying to convince us normal humans that Islam is just culture enrichment & diversity?
Hopefully Jesus sends all those Demonic worshiping Lunatics to where they should go. Not Here!
****************
Prosecution of Muslim for Raping a 3-Year-Old Girl Reveals that Pederasty is Accepted in Islamic Culture
January 26, 2022 by Edward Hendrie
On January 25, 2022, Frankie Stockes reported for the National File the following:
An Afghan migrant who worked with U.S. troops before being evacuated to the United States has been convicted of raping a 3-year-old girl on a Marine Corps base in Virginia, telling authorities that the molestation of children is merely a part of his people’s culture, and no reason to throw him in prison.
24-year-old Afghan, Mohammed Tariq was found guilty of abusive sexual conduct in Alexandria’s U.S. District Court last Friday, after being arrested in September at Quantico’s Camp Upshur when a group of Marines caught the Afghan refugee imported by the Biden regime in the act of raping a toddler.
https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2022/01/26/prosecution-of-muslim-for-raping-a-3-year-old-girl-reveals-that-pederasty-is-accepted-in-islamic-culture/
*************
Going by the name Tommie Robinson he knows all about those Demonic Islamic Creeps from around his home in Britain.
Here’s his latest video.
There is no hope of reforming Islam, the govt of Demons & Pedos. At least send them all back to their Sandbox.
******
The Rape Of Britain – Nicole’s Story
17,737 views
·
Jan 29, 2022
24
Share
Download
Tommy Robinson
Tommy Robinson
Please support our work . Donate here –
There’s much more to come, this is only the beginning. Help us get there.
https://www.banned.video/watch?id=61f59e91dcac242732215fa0
“the vast majority is because they are making white people uncomfortable. “
Enigma, are you Injecting race into a valid discussion once again? Who are these white people? For the most part, they are race-hustlers that join with their black brethren hoping to make a buck by causing racial strife that was never necessary. They do that to gain power. Today, that type of activity comes from the left most of the time.
These white people include those in school districts across the country, insisting on banning CRT which already isn’t being taught below a graduate school level and banning books by Black authors because they feel uncomfortable. They include white politicians, knowing CRT isn’t a legitimate issue but fanning the fire.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/texas-school-district-reviewing-over-400-books-pulls-them-library-shelves-2021-12-08/
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/07/02/why-are-states-banning-critical-race-theory/
They include right-wing media sources including presumably benign constitutional law professors who shine a light solely on the relatively few times the rights of the right and mostly white are abridged while never speaking out when it happens to their political foes.
“These white people include those in school districts across the country, insisting on banning CRT which already isn’t being taught below a graduate school level ”
Call CRT whatever you wish. The name is not important. What is being taught, white privilege and the like, should not be taught in the schools. It’s racist and divisive. Your rhetoric is mostly propaganda and not based on reality.
You need to be specific about what you feel shouldn’t be taught in the schools? Also, what you feel I’m saying isn’t based on reality while I’m constantly providing examples
At best you are only providing outliers. At worst, you don’t know what you are talking about.
Why is it you get to claim everything I say is an outlier? One example was 400 cases of banned books in Texas, outlier? Just because you aren’t aware of something your news sources never report, doesn’t make it not true. This blog is one of your potential news sources where you’ll never hear about them.
“One example was 400 cases of banned books in Texas, outlier?”
Enigma, we may have a lot of agreement in that area. I don’t like censorship as a rule. Schools are slightly different as young minds are being taught, and the parents aren’t there. However, even here, you provide an example of one school district out of hundreds in Texas and thousands in the US. You provided an anecdote, not a study.
Since you are unaware, the Texas school system has been found guilty of rewriting history and because of their size, books printed in Texas are used in multiple surrounding states.
https://www.today.com/tmrw/who-chooses-history-textbooks-t190833
Enigma, why would you think I am unaware. I am probably more concerned than you are since I am more interested in the education of our youth.
Not only that, but I have been involved in dealing with textbooks used as propaganda tools. I didn’t say that these things don’t exist in public schools. Instead, you used an anecdote rather than a study.
The greatest fraud in the textbook world (the highest selling or one of the highest-selling textbooks) was written by Howard Zinn. I think I recently mentioned his name to you or someone else on the blog not that long ago.
“Enigma, why would you think I am unaware?”
Because I read what you write!
Enigma, then you have difficulty reading. That, however, is understandable since you can only read what you wish to hear. So far, you are not doing too well.
I wear you not agreeing with me like a badge of honor.
https://www.aol.com/news/books-race-gender-pulled-schools-100038556.html
enigma—–you’re becoming a tiresome old bigot.
I hear that when pointing out bigoted behavior. Do you say the same to George?
Enigma is cherry picking. Blacks are also railing against Critical Race Theory, and these folks are academic scholars. Condi Rice, John McWhorter, Glenn Loury, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and many more have denounced the Woke movement portraying Blacks as victims.
John McWhorter is simply dazzling in this short clip from a long video presentation he gave in Berlin recently on CRT. All extemporaneous. Just stunning
I did listen to the entire clip, some of his criticisms of CRT and those who promote it may have some merit. What he doesn’t address at all is how that “anti-woke” religion on the right is making CRT out to be something it isn’t and attacking it where it is not. To my knowledge, nowhere lower than the graduate level is CRT actually being taught. Yet the anti-woke including many Republican legislators are attacking any mention of race in grade school, middle school, or high school, as CRT (which it isn’t) and participating in a crusade to purify curriculum, schools, and libraries of those things that might hurt white kids feelings, based on the premise that CRT is somehow brainwashing people when it isn’t being taught there. I propose a test, tell me the name of the County you live in and I’ll bet their are right wing activist claiming CRT is being taught there and demanding some type of action to fight it. Here’s what’s going on in my county.
https://medium.com/the-polis/the-school-boards-in-trump-country-8369dec5c6b7
I do note it isn’t the students but the parents that are the problem.
I propose a test, tell me the name of the County you live in and I’ll bet their are right wing activist claiming CRT is being taught there and demanding some type of action to fight it
The regulars on here know I live in Richmond, VA. The regulars on here also know Im neither left nor right. Im an immigrant, a person of color, was raised in poverty, have a very long “funny” name, speak 3 languages fluently and my parents never went beyond the 6th grade in the Caribbean. I am an unabashed advocate for the poor, the sick, the marginalized, particularly immigrants. Blacks arent marginalized in Richmond. They comprise 50% of the population, and the political leadership of Richmond has for decades been Black leaders solidly Democrat. Thomas Sowell was right about Black Democrat politicians in cities like Richmond. They have done nothing to improve the black population they purportedly serve. Richmond schools are one of the worst public schools in the country. Violent crime soared in 2021. BLM ANTIFA burned parts of the city, and had public meetings literally across from our home. My family got me an AR15 to protect our home because police stopped responding to 911 calls. Thats what BLM ANTIFA did with a Black mayor.
Your new Governor inflamed the public with his lies about CRT and likely won as a result of convincing/scaring enough people to get him to save them from the CRT not being taught in their schools.
https://vademocrats.org/news/icymi-politifact-exposes-youngkins-lie-on-critical-race-theory-in-virginia-schools/
I confess to getting tired of seeing articles about all the surrounding counties and school boards like Henrico but not finding specifically about Richmond.
I used to visit Richmond somewhat regularly. I ran the merchandise concession at the Richmond Coliseum for several years. I had a crew that handled it for me but I came for major events like NCAA Basketball, Garth Brooks, and other major concerts. The city has deteriorated because the manufacturing base left and port activity dwindled. I don’t know that Republican leadership would have changed that. I’m sure you know your city better than I do. The first article I pulled up was about white supremacists starting the riots but I don’t know what credibility to give it.
https://www.wsls.com/news/virginia/2020/07/27/police-richmond-riots-instigated-by-white-supremacists-disguised-as-black-lives-matter/
Good luck. Even a majority population can be marginalized if they don’t control the levers of power and I’m not talking about the Mayor’s office.
Academic scholars and Professors Glenn Loury and John McWhorter on CRT. Professional, academic, respectful and insightful discussion on CRT. Ignore the race pimps. These guys speak intelligently, articulately and persuasively.
“. . . insisting on banning CRT which already isn’t being taught below a graduate school level . . .”
If CRT is *not* being taught in K-12, then why are you worried about banning it?
Because under the pretense of banning CRT they are banning books, firing teachers and principals, and curtailing the accurate discussion of history. Schools at every level teach history.
“. . . the accurate discussion of history . . .”
CRT peddles a racist interpretation of American history (and a racist view of individual identity).
If that is an “accurate discussion,” then tribalism is the path to peace and unity.
I’m willing to bet you don’t have a true understanding of either CRT or what is being taught in American history. Much of America is already teaching an American Exceptionalism view of history which translates exactly into white exceptionalism. Look at Texas which has been doing so for decades and Trump’s statements on what we should be teaching. The new standard is not to teach anything that makes white people feel uncomfortable.
“I’m willing to bet you don’t have a true understanding of either CRT or what is being taught in American history.”
How long have you been on this blog?
Your silly ad hominem is a typical tactic of those peddling irrational ideas. When their irrational ideas are explained clearly and forthrightly, they bare their puny teeth and whimper: “I’m so misunderstood.”
I wish your ignorance wasn’t my problem, but when you want to impose it on the rest of us, it is.
“I wish your ignorance wasn’t my problem . . .”
Repetition is tiresome. Yet seemingly necessary:
I spent 17 years at a T1 university, that is a hotbed of CRT, where I taught, gave speeches around the country, and published articles on CRT.
Other than being a keyboard warrior, and a race-huckster (who can’t even define “racism”), your credentials are . . .?
If those students ever hope to be litigation attorneys, they need to get used to unpleasantness.
And why must the Uni bring all the complaints to the professor?
Why waste an educated person’s time with the rantings of ignorant woke robots?
Customer service maybe, if you are unaware of the complaints how can one be expected to change? If you don’t care about the complaints, that is a different issue. It seems like most of Turley’s examples of “free speech” are related to the right to be hurtful to others. Also, the issue that brought on the punishment was the “become homicidal” threat which Turley says in different places was misrepresented and was openly admitted. You’re free to feel that homicidal isn’t a threat and “n_____” and “b___”
don’t create a hostile environment but is that really your call or Turley’s to make?
I’m certain that none of the students has ever listened to any rap, ever for fear they might hear the offending words 100’s of times
Context is everything, a context which I admittedly don’t fully know, but neither does Turley who doesn’t let that stop him from explaining his version of the facts.
Is there any other offense in academia that requires this sort of marxist style re-education and self-flagellation?
“Is there any other offense in academia that requires this sort of marxist style re-education and self-flagellation?”
Yes.
Asking questions like that.
Good luck to Professor Kilborn.
Perhaps th emost troubling aspect of all these reports, particularly at the law schools, is that these are the people who will one day set policies for the Republic