SDSU Professor Removed from Courses for Using Racial Terms in Course on Racism

Professor J. Angelo Corlett is a philosophy professor who has won multiple teaching awards at San Diego State University (SDSU) for his teaching of classes like “Critical Thinking and Composition” and “Philosophy, Racism and Justice” classes. Those classes often raise the use of racial terminology, which Corlett references in class. After a complaint from students, however, he has been removed from two of his three classes without any prior opportunity to fully present his case and explain his pedagogy. What was particularly concerning was a university statement that such removals are not matters of free speech or academic freedom.

According to a report in the San Diego Union-Tribune, the controversy began with someone who was not one of his students coming to his class: “On March 1 an unidentified Black student, who was not registered in Corlett’s critical thinking course, stopped by and repeatedly challenged Corlett’s mention of epithets, particularly one regarded as the most offensive slur against Black people.” (He was also later accused of using the word “rape” repeatedly in class).

Corlett, who is Latino, said that he tried to explain to the student why he uses such terms as part of classes on racism and engaged the class in that discussion. He said that, without notice or an opportunity to present such arguments to the university, he was told that same day that he was relieved of teaching duties for the “Critical Thinking and Composition” and “Philosophy, Racism and Justice” classes.

In his interview with The College Fix, Corlett explained that

“There is a crucial distinction between racIAL v. racIST words based on whether or not we intend racial animus. When a racIST epithet is USED, it means it is INTENDED to apply to a particular person or group in a hateful or disrespectful way. But when an epithet is merely MENTIONED, it is not at all racist and is a necessary means to explaining why we ought NOT to USE racist language, which is one of my main conclusions.”

In a piece titled “Offensiphobia,” Corlett explained this point in detail. He discussed the use-mention distinction “to explain why linguistic intent is crucial for the determination of what genuinely counts as being racist, sexist or otherwise offensive discourse.”

We have previously discussed cases where such terms were used or read in classes only to have faculty suspended or fired at Georgetown, DuquesneJohn MarshallAugsbergChicagoDePaulPrincetonKansas, and other schools., even where professors used redacted versions of the “n-word.”

What is striking about this account is the lack of due process afforded to Corlett before the action was taken by the Dean of Arts and Letters Monica Casper. That has become a common pattern for professors who find themselves publicly targeted and suspended before having an opportunity to fully present their cases.

The university insisted that this has been a long-standing problem with Professor Corlett. Specifically, Luke Wood, SDSU’s vice president for student affairs and campus diversity, told the San Diego Union-Tribune:

“We have had a number of students who have come forward and who’ve complained about their experience in professor Corlett’s classes.. This has happened this semester but has also been a routine experience. … We took that into account. … This is really a case of a faculty member who is being reassigned. This is not about free expression or academic freedom, but about teaching assignments.”

The last line was particularly concerning. SDSU is maintaining that removing a faculty member from his classes without a hearing or, in his view, cause, is “not about free expression or academic freedom.”  I can understand SDSU contesting the merits of his defense but this is most certainly about both free speech and academic freedom.

The academic freedom element is particularly evident when a professor is removed for his teaching what he views as necessary and relevant material in his course. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education wrote to SDSU demanding Corlett’s immediate reinstatement for that reason. Some of Corlett’s students and colleagues have also supported him, according to The College Fix.

Yet, some disagree including hundreds on a petition posted on to have Corlett fired. San Diego State’s Associated Students group supports the actions against Corlett and accused him of using a specific anti-Black slur “over 60 times” and using the word “rape” for sexual violence.

Other faculty members have joined these critics, including Professor Frank Harris III, who teaches postsecondary education and co-directs the Community College Equity Assessment Lab at SDSU. In  a tweet, he accused Corlett of taking “delight” in using racial slurs and attending his class was like repeatedly experiencing a “hate crime” for black students.

Professor Harris appears entirely unconcerned about the academic freedom elements to the case — elements that the university itself has refused to acknowledge.

SDSU’s Freedom of Expression policy states:

 “Freedom of expression is a tenet of higher education; is integral to the mission of the University and to its students, staff, and faculty; is a central and inviolate freedom to learn and teach; necessary for an educated populace; is a requisite to a free society; is incompatible with the suppression of opinions; is incompatible with prior restraint; encompasses forms of expression other than speech; and defends the expression we abhor as well as the expression we support.”

Professor Corlett was teaching a class on “expression[s] we abhor as well as the expression[s] we support.” SDSU then removed him and publicly said that such actions are not about free expression or academic freedom.

SDSU must make a critical decision in this case on whether it will even recognize academic freedom concerns in removing a professor due to his class material or pedagogical choices.

There is also a decision that must be made by the vast majority of SDSU faculty, who have remained conspicuously silent. We have previously discussed the intimidation of faculty members by these campaigns to tag and isolate individual professors.

Few professors want to risk such public humiliation and the loss of academic opportunities or standing that comes from such controversies. However, we now have a university claiming that the removal of a professor from his classes is not even a concern of academic freedom. There must be something that professors are prepared to resist; to say “enough.” One can disagree with Professor Corlett’s pedagogical choices but still object to how the university is handling (and framing) this controversy.

Professor Corlett has been very public about the content of his classes. Students can elect to take other faculty or classes in light of his pedagogical choices. He could not have been more clear in his earlier writings when he declared in his piece on “Offensiphobia” that “there is no moral or legal right to not be offended.” There is a right not to take his class and a right to protest his pedagogy and viewpoints. However, this is most certainly a fight about academic freedom.


105 thoughts on “SDSU Professor Removed from Courses for Using Racial Terms in Course on Racism”

  1. Putting aside for a moment the issues of free speech and academic freedom, and barring possibly unavailable information, I cannot help stressing the seemingly inexistent intention for dialoguing by some of the parties to least state their positions genuinely and try to make some progress before taking actions unilaterally. However, the key assumption above is that the article has presented context and history of the case in full.

      1. I love it. Instead of criticizing Turley’s article, you accuse him of not writing an article about something else?

        1. I already wrote a 10:20 comment about this article. But instead of responding to that, you gripe about my letting someone else know how to contact him. In case you hadn’t noticed, this article is tagged ” Academia, Free Speech,” and yes, it’s relevant to his columns on free speech in academia that he is biased in his choices about which academic free speech issues he comments on and which he is silent about.

    1. “ Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick is proposing to end tenure for new hires at Texas public universities and making the teaching of critical race theory a cause for tenure revocation.”

      Tenure was designed to protect Professor’s jobs, when they delved into controversy during their pursuit of scholarship. College administrators have screwed the pooch on the concept of freedom of scholarship.
      I have no objections concerning exploring any Theories in college classrooms. That means explicitly, a vigorous challenge of any theories, including Critical Race Theories. Like any unproven theories, they need to be in the classroom as an elective endeavor, not a requirement for graduation.

  2. A relevant article:
    Kennedy, Randall, and Eugene Volokh. “The New Taboo: Quoting Epithets in the Classroom and Beyond.” Cap. UL Rev. 49 (2021): 1.

    “The academy, we believe, should be a place where people discuss the facts—whether of a controversy, a historical document, or a precedent—as they have actually occurred. Epithets are part of the lexicon of American culture about which people, especially lawyers, need to be aware. Omitting them veils or mutes an ugliness that, for maximum educational impact, and indeed for maximum candor, ought to be seen or heard directly. And omitting them sends the message to students that they should talk around offensive facts, rather than confronting them squarely—a particularly dangerous message for future lawyers, who (as in the famous example of Johnnie Cochran in the O.J. Simpson trial) may need to be ready to themselves quote the word when necessary to serve their clients.”

    I agree.

    The challenge in academia is to distinguish between appropriate academic use and use that serves no academic purpose, where the speaker (whether a professor or student) may even intend to insult and think that others are deserving of these insults.

  3. It seems the student who wasn’t registered to his class and didn’t seem to care what the class was about only went to the class so he could have “proof” that the professor was using offensive words. It’s so stupid in itself. The student went out of his way to go get offended and have a professor’s class be “ cancelled.

    I would take Turley’s column with a few grains of salt given his bad habit of leaving out pertinent information giving better context on the issue.

  4. With a class title like “Philosophy, Racism and Justice” it requires a person little thought to conclude who would be spending $400 dollars (and a lot of change) per credit hour to take this class. Hint, it is not the student who is paying for this themselves or who has not yet understood what it will be like to be saddled with suffocating, non-default debt burden that is sanctioned by the U.S. government.

    Universities should be teaching a free class on economic slavery and the crushing impact of student debt and enormous power of compound interest. The graduates are in for a shock when they finally realize that when a person earns a dollar they don’t keep a dollar. What would it be like if they were paid their full wages in ten dollar bills at one table and then instructed to walk to the next table where the federal government takes their part, the next table where the state takes their part, the next where the city takes their part, then sales tax, excise tax, etc. etc. then at the end of this process they will feel what it is like to take a thousand dollars they earned and only have six hundred when they are finished paying their obligations. That would be more effective.

    It is painful to read about the trend to silence academics who dare swim against the current of prevailing dogma. I suspect “those” who complained were not students who simply felt uncomfortable. I suspect that they are part of an activist group(s) that is(are) laser focused on disrupting the educational process and academic discourse. Shame on the academic institutions if in fact they do not afford the accused due process.

    1. Shame on you to assume that it could not possibly be worth paying for a course on Philosophy, Racism and Justice.

      1. Two grand in tuition and fees for this class. Nah…I would (did) spend my hard earned money on classes that compliment a professional degree. Subjects such as these can be thoroughly explored for the cost of a buck or two in late charges from the local library and a few YouTube videos.

        Last I heard, there weren’t many jobs at the Philosophy, Racism and Justice factory. 🙂

        1. Is your ego so large that if you, personally, do not consider it a worthwhile class, then you assume that no one in the world could possibly find it a worthwhile class?

          Philosophy courses can complement work in a number of fields, including law. Maybe if you were more interested in justice, you’d avail yourself of some of those library books.

  5. All will continue until potential employers, and Alumni punish anti intellectual practices.

  6. A reminder:

    If you use the n-word here spelled out in its entirety, Turley will delete your comment.

    1. He really shouldn’t be deleting any comments like that. He is after all a big fan of free speech including offensive speech.

      Ironically Turley does exactly what any other social media platform does. Moderate content. That’s the same kind of “managing” he sometimes calls “corporate censorship”.

    2. Actually the WordPress AI will do so. It is likely Turley has nothing to do with the deletion of that word.

      1. Commenters here have gotten around the WordPress AI (for example, by spelling it one letter at a time with spaces or paragraph breaks in between), and those comments have shown up, and Turley has then deleted them and even blocked commenters who repeatedly tried to get around this.

        1. That you or those of your ilk who might like to curse continuously is an excellent rationale to delete comments or persons as has been done. Maybe that is unfair to those who cannot write without continuous cursing. You seem not to understand that certain words in a discussion can be considered normal, but constant offensive language without a purpose to force censorship is not.

          It is your problem. I don’t see significant censorship that isn’t deserved. I note that points of view from all sides are permitted, even when ignorance prevails. If it weren’t, the moderator would ban one or two folks because they are ignorant and seldom speak the truth.

          1. Conservative Squeeky Fromm is one of the extreme bigots who had her comments removed for repeatedly using the N-word in full. She isn’t one of my “ilk.”

            1. If she is a racist, you and she are the same. However, I don’t think she is a racist because her writing style and sarcasm frequently moved the dial in a different direction. She was intelligent, something you aren’t.

              You call a lot of people who post regularly racists.

              1. Glad to know that you believe that you think Squeeky Fromm, one of the extreme bigots who had her comments removed for repeatedly using the N-word in full, is not a racist.

                You are Meyer the Troll, and racism is OK with you when it comes from a conservative.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid, using the N-word is not necessarily racist; quoting a book with the N-word is not racist either. We have permitted Stupid people like yourself to ban words everywhere, by force. I try not to use N words or curse words when others are available, but sometimes certain words are used with justification. You, like the fascist you are, want to dictate language. But at the same time, you want to force people like Turley to censor you because you want to justify that comments involving free speech have to be limited. Therefore, your side continuously insults Turley to make his censorship the moral equivalent of Twitter. You are a liar, a bigot and a fascist of the worst type.

                    1. If that is the best you can do, so be it. However, I don’t think many will want to reside in the same space you occupy.

                  1. Here are a couple of Squeeky’s racist comments that were deleted:
                    See Svelaz’s quote, April 30, 2021 at 10:08 AM
                    and Squeeky’s response, April 30, 2021 at 10:18 AM

                    That snapshot didn’t capture all of what she subsequently said. In a later comment that was deleted, Squeeky said “George Floyd or Freddy Gray or Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin were definitely n—–s, and I am not sad that any of them are dead. In fact, I view their demise as a good thing for whatever black neighborhood they were from. Their death was a tiny bit of civic improvement. Although far too typical, they were a discredit to their race, and Humanity in general. Good Riddance!”
                    And lest you think I’m making it up, you can see a reference to it in a comment I made at 1:33 PM, “Looks like Squeaky’s comments have mostly been deleted. Perhaps her comment lauding George Floyd’s murder went too far even for Turley.”

                    Tell us, Meyer, can you call her a racist?
                    Can you condemn her for lauding the murder of Black men?

                    1. Did Squeaky finally get banned? I wondered where she’d gone. I was hoping her absence meant she was getting some help for her mental health.

                    2. Meyer, I predict that Darren will remove your 7:28pm comment for the same reason that he removed Squeeky’s comment.

                    3. Anonymous the Stupid, Darren will do what he believes is correct, but the comment I believe was copied from Esquire magazine by Sqeeky.

                      Why should it be removed?

                    4. Ask Darren why he removed it the first time, when Squeeky quoted it.

                      You did notice that the comment was removed from Turley’s blog, right? (That’s why the link was to an archived copy of the page, not to the current page.)

                    5. I assume the John Ridley from Esquire is the same accomplished John Ridley whose accomplishments are easy to look up. Why was this article by an African American deleted? I don’t know. Do you?

                      I should say that I have seen similar things written about other groups, Jews in NYC. German Jews that had come earlier looked down on their eastern brethren. They felt the newly arrived Jews hurt their status in NY society.

                      I don’t write that way, nor could I. It touches on a sensitive issue, but an issue that needs discussion, not censoring. However, whoever decided to delete the piece has his reasons, and since most things that have been done on the blog seem fair and are positive, I do not have significant concerns.

                      For those who haven’t read the article from 2008 in Esquire, it can be found at:

                      The Manifesto of Ascendancy for the Modern American ###*** (It’s a positive story spoken to his people: “If we as a race could win the centuries-long war against institutionalized racism, why is it that so many of us cannot secure the advantage after decades of freedom?” It’s a good question and is not racist. “We need to start extolling the most virtuous of ourselves.” “It is time to celebrate the New Black Americans—those who have sealed the Deal, who aren’t beholden to liberal indulgence any more than they are to the disdain of the hard Right.”)

                      ATS, your prediction is meaningless and demonstrates how shallow you are.

                    6. Anon,

                      You say; “ Can you condemn her for lauding the murder of Black men?”

                      George Floyd died

        2. Turley has then deleted them and even blocked commenters

          Exactly what is the downside to stopping the use of the word? We are talking comments from anonymous posters that are not making adding any intellectual content to the discussion.
          I don’t see anyones innate rights bing infringed. What ever ideas are being presented in such a forum can formulate the comment to advance their idea.

          A far different forum than a college class room. The purpose, to expand and inform students, that are seeking understanding.

          1. Just pointing out Turley’s hypocrisy.

            He says things like “free speech remains the best response to bad speech. Increasingly, free speech is being referenced as a danger in itself that needs to be controlled as opposed to being the very value that defines us as a people. History has shown that limiting free speech will not reduce hateful or false speech, but rather will only fuel such speech in different forums while enforcing approved or orthodox viewpoints,” but he chooses to remove some “bad speech” from the blog comments.

            He says things like “private companies can still destroy free speech through private censorship. … That does not alter the fundamental threat to free speech. This is the denial of free speech, a principle that goes beyond the First Amendment. Indeed, some of us view free speech as a human right.” Yet he is willing to privately censor speech on his own blog, even though he claims that this speech to be a human right and that private censorship is a denial of free speech.

            He should own up to his hypocrisy and discuss why he says things like the quotes above (which he said in Congressional testimony) while also engaging in censorship on his blog.

            1. Anon,

              Read the site’s civility rules below. There is no hypocrisy on Turley’s part except that which you, Svelaz, Dennis, and others attempt to fabricate.

              “We do not delete comments as “misinformation” or “disinformation.” Yet, we have had a few people who simply want to foul the cyber footpath with personal name-calling, insults, and threatening or violent language. We will delete personal threats and openly racist comments. If such posters will not conform to our basic rules (which should not be difficult for any adult person in society), they will have to move on.

              We do allow comments as well as anonymity, which some sites have disallowed. It is a curious thing how anonymity will unleash vile and dark impulses in people. Yet, anonymity is part of free speech and, while we have discussed eliminating anonymous comments due to abuses, we are trying to preserve this important element to free speech. It is possible to be anonymous but not obnoxious.“

              1. Ray,

                I read the Civility Rule long before you ever showed up. Turley and I have even exchanged brief emails about his Civility Rule.

                Your claim that “There is no hypocrisy on Turley’s part” is false. He condemns private censorship before Congress, but carries out private censorship on his site. That’s hypocritical, whether you can admit it or not.

                1. ” That’s hypocritical, whether you can admit it or not.”

                  Perfect is the enemy of good.

                  “Dans ses écrits, un sage Italien
                  Dit que le mieux est l’ennemi du bien.” _Voltaire

                  “Le mieux est le mortel ennemi du bien” _Montesquieu

                  “If you never miss a plane, you’re spending too much time at the airport.” _George Stigler

                  ATS, you take the perfect to the extreme, not to approach perfection but to destroy and defame.

                2. Anon,

                  There are none so blind than those who refuse to see.

                  Turley’s criticism of social media is that they have censored content based on the claim that it is ‘misinformation or disinformation’.

                  He has not, to my knowledge, censored this type of content and the site civility rules state this in the first sentence that I quoted.

                  You are arguing against a straw man by claiming that censoring foul and abusive language is the same as censoring an opinion because you do not agree with it.

                  1. There is no straw man. I quoted some of Turley’s testimony before Congress. His argument wasn’t limited to “misinformation or disinformation.”

                    He argues against limiting hate speech, for example, noting that “History has shown that limiting free speech will not reduce hateful or false speech, but rather will only fuel such speech in different forums.” But he is limiting hateful speech **here**.

                    He clearly has a legal right to do that, even though he complains a great deal about other companies acting on that same legal right. I support his legal right to do it. I’m simply calling out his hypocrisy.

                    1. Anon,

                      You quoted a single sentence out of a twenty-two page statement that Turley presented to a congressional sub-commitee.

                      Nowhere in the statement did Turley argue against private censoring of foul and abusive language or racial slurs.

                      He did argue against the fact that supposedly neutral social media companies covered under section 230 are moderating content based opinion or viewpoint.

                      He also argued against the criminalization of speech which could be considered to be “hate speech” or “disinformation”.

                      In addition, and most importantly, Turley argued strongly against an effort by some Democrats in Congress to push media service providers such as AT&T to remove Fox News and other conservative news outlets from their cable TV or streaming TV services. This is the type of ‘private media censorship that you and your party supports and that Turley objects to.

                      The sad truth is that you, Svelaz, Silberman, and others attack Turley only because, in your belief, he is a ‘sell-out to tour cause’. You can attribute this admission to Silberman, he is the one that ‘said the quiet part out loud’.

                      Turley is a lawyer who is a liberal but he is not a liberal lawyer. His loyalty is to logic, the truth, and the law, not to partisan politics.

                      The reason that you and your comrades attack him is exactly that which he stands for, the truth and the law above all else. The problem is that this has placed him at odds with you and your party so you believe that he must be ‘cancelled’

                      This is also the reason that conservatives like myself respect Turley even though we do not always agree with him; we know that he is offering a purely objective opinion.

                  2. Ray, the sad truth is that you just pretended that I believe something I don’t believe and have never said.

                    Your straw man argument is boring.

                    1. The truth is that Ray got you and the way you manipulated the truth.

                      I congratulate Ray on his results. Based on your responses, this last response makes you look like a fool trying to weasel out of a situation created by yourself.

                      You never learned how to exit a lost cause gracefully.

                    2. No Anon, the sad truth is that I just proved your argument that Turley is a hypocrite to be completely, and maliciously, false and all that you can do is to change the subject.

                      Yeah, I said it; you and the others that I mentioned object to everything (!) that Turley says, or doesn’t say, only because you have TDS (Turley-DS). This is who you are.

  7. I’d like to see this person’s course of study and their GPA.

  8. “On March 1 an unidentified Black student, who was not registered in Corlett’s critical thinking course, stopped by and repeatedly challenged Corlett’s mention of epithets, particularly one regarded as the most offensive slur against Black people.”

    “Stopped by” a course on critical-thinking to challenge the award-winning professor’s pedagogy. Keep that student away from the school of medicine.

  9. Attempting to enlighten the unenlightenable out of injuring you and others is a futile lost cause. A better approach is to build a castle and stock it full of guns and ammo.

  10. How appropriate that Turley is discussing a racial issue the day after total fraud Smollett was rightfully sentenced to jail time. Even totally immune from criticism by virtue of her race (RACIST!!), gender ( SEXIST!!!) and sexual orientation ( HOMOPHOBE!!) Lori Lightfoot praised the decision. And of course Lucifer Incarnate funded Kimm Foxx had her op ed ready to go demeaning the justice system. She demeaned the justice system. Not that it really mattered, she got a call from Michelle Obama former chief of staff Tina Tchen and the race to obfuscate was on. Foxx then said she would recuse herself. But not really. The real injustice is what Smollett did to harm future hate crime accusers. I live in a suburb of Chicago. I have lived through 64 winters. Smollett’s story was ridiculous to anyone having an I.Q over room temperature. He might have had a chance for no jail time if he had not lied repeatedly under oath. He might have had a chance at no jail time if he was anywhere near contrite. But no, he maintained his innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence.
    Once a narcissist, always a narcissist.

    1. “How appropriate that Turley is discussing a racial issue the day after total fraud Smollett was rightfully sentenced to jail time.”

      Had no idea! Oddly the liberal outlets did not mention this shining example of our judicial system working for all. Oh well. There is one perk to this act of justice. Now Smollett can practice on his next gig while incarcerated.

      Shout out to Enigma!


      1. Based on his actions, I wonder if his sentence shouldn’t have been longer and the fines greater.

        1. You called someone a bigot. Is that so?

          Why not quote the words that made you feel that way and at the same time defend your comments. I don’t think anything he said proves what you say to be true. Then again, many have noted that you or another anonymous poster from the left demonstrates bigotry all the time. Perhaps this is one of your typical knee-jerk reactions.

          1. So you see someone say “Shout out to Enigma!,” a Black man, followed by a video using the N-word, but you don’t recognize any bigotry. Got it.

            1. Shout out to Enigma!,” a Black man

              I had no idea about any superfluous traits, I only respond to the content of the post. But I guess those thing shade your opinion of others.

              1. I doubt that he considers being Black to be “superfluous” to his experiences in life.

                1. I doubt that he considers being Black to be “superfluous” to his experiences in life.</I
                  Well then, why did you day it was? I never said, nor alluded to such silliness.

                  1. “why did you day it was?”

                    I didn’t say it was.

                    “I never said, nor alluded to such silliness.”

                    In response to my noting that he is a Black man, you said “I had no idea about any superfluous traits.” I interpret that as you alluding to his being Black as a “superfluous trait.”

                    1. I interpret that as you alluding to his being Black as a “superfluous trait.”

                      You deceptively omitted the context. The context of responding to a written comment. Yes, the comment stands alone. Confined only to the words of the comment.

                      Just admit you’re racist. First you see race, from that you determine their character.

                    2. No, I didn’t.

                      I told Meyer “So you see someone say “Shout out to Enigma!,” a Black man, followed by a video using the N-word, but you don’t recognize any bigotry. Got it,” and you quoted “‘Shout out to Enigma!,’ a Black man” and responded “I had no idea about any superfluous traits.” That’s the context. Again: I interpret that as you alluding to his being Black as a “superfluous trait.” If that’s NOT what you meant, what “superfluous trait” WERE you alluding to?

                      “First you see race, from that you determine their character.”

                      You’re lying. You prefer to delude yourself and project beliefs into my head that aren’t my actual beliefs.

                      I determine character by people’s words and actions. Choose any race, and you’ll find that some people are good and other people are not.

                      I consider your choice to lie about me as reflecting poorly on your character.

                    3. “First you see race, from that you determine their character.”

                      I can’t tell who is talking to whom. Is anonymous talking to Mr. Meyer (signing as anonymous), Mr. Iowan, another anonymous or any of the above listed names? I think this is the same anonymous I just replied to. I don’t think you are a racist, but your ideas here and elsewhere could give others that impression.

                      I do not wish to get embroiled in this type of discussion so I doubt I will respond.

              1. And what was the point of that specific music video as a “shout out” to Enigma, stupid?

                1. All it shows is that you’re a racist who willfully ignores the difference between n—a and n—er.

                2. Anonymous the Stupid, I think he was trying to point out the cultural surroundings of the N- word. You must have hit your head on the video.

                  1. You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid. He already explained his intent, and Turley deleted his explanations because of their racist content.

    2. Trevor Noah:
      “What Jussie Smollett did was dumb as hell. But it’s crazy that he’s gonna spend more time in jail than the family who are mostly to blame for America’s opioid epidemic.”

  11. Universities are no longer centers for learning and should be discarded as useless wastes of money and dangers to society. Believing otherwise is illogical at this point and their issuances a menace to the peace and security of the nation, if not the world.

  12. The USE vs MENTION distinction is important. If I mention that someone told me “f*ck you” I have not used the phrase against you, my interlocutor. I have merely mentioned it. When I note that I was called a Bohunk (the Bohemian parallel to “kike” for a Jew) and that it is a racist word, I have not used it toward you, but merely mentioned it.
    “Offensiphobia,” indeed.

    1. Gotta bea dum Da to go to that so called school or college. Or a Diego

  13. Turley often takes it on himself to tell us what is and isn’t racist without giving us the actual context and details so that we can judge for ourselves. He gives the impression there was no chance for the professor to explain himself yet barely mentions there has been an ongoing discussion over years apparently during which the professor could have explained himself many times.
    I personally find that the word rape isn’t used nearly enough to describe American history. Whole lots of historians have used the term “natural increase” to describe the systemic forced mating and rape of female enslaved people to produce domestic slaves for sale at a higher price after eliminating the International Slave Trade. Jefferson wrote Washington about it in a letter about female slaves being more profitable than the hardiest male. Jefferson implemented the plan foreseen in the Constitution in Article One: Section Nine, Clause One on the first day possible which made richer plantation owners in Virginia, Delaware, and Maryland (including himself). You generally will never be taught that in school because it might hurt some feelings.
    I don’t have any idea whether the professor was racist in his teachings based on the material presented. I do have an idea his removal was not sudden or without the opportunity to explain himself or change his behavior. Free speech doesn’t mean you don’t have to satisfy your boss.

    1. A Civil War (at a cost of over 2% of the population) was fought over these questions you raise and slavery ended along with the rape of slaves.

      1. It’s only the legal rape of enslaved people that ended. The illegal rape of enslaved people continues in the form of sex trafficking, and the illegal rape of non-enslaved people also continues.

        1. Yes, that is correct, and that is why I said, “slavery ended along with the rape of slaves.” However, we have a lot of illegal traffic from the border, and I believe rape and potentially a different type of slavery because of Biden’s policies.

          Some people only worry about enslavement and rape of enslaved people when it concerns the time before the Civil War but have no concern for those same things occurring today on our southern border.

          1. “Some people only worry about enslavement and rape of enslaved people … occurring today on our southern border,” but have no concern for those same things occurring elsewhere in the US and cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that these things didn’t start with the Biden Admin.

            1. but have no concern for those same things occurring elsewhere in the US
              The laws have been on the books for centuries. Have you finally realized, rapes and other violent crimes have been ignored in Democrat controlled cities like Chicago?

              1. “finally realized”??

                Tell me: on what date did I not already know that rapes and other violent crimes have sometimes been ignored in Democrat controlled cities and towns AND in Republican controlled cities and towns?

            2. “these things didn’t start with the Biden Admin.”

              No, but Biden has opened the doors wide open. You are a fraud.

  14. All the signs are there showing us that totalitarianisms evil tentacles have rooted themselves deeply in our society and our Constitution based culture that has held the USA together for hundreds of years is rapidly becoming a quaint anecdote of history.

      1. jeffsilberman wrote, “Oh well. C’est la vie.”

        Throwing up your hands is defeatist and how cowards react to their culture being destroyed; are you a coward? Do you want our Constitution based culture to be destroyed?

        1. I think it’s beyond the point of no return. It’s easier to change your mind than change the world I’m afraid.

Comments are closed.