UCF Forced to Reinstate Professor Fired After Writing About “Black Privilege”

We previously discussed the effort to fire University of Central Florida Professor Charles Negy after he tweeted about “black privilege.”  UCF President Alexander Cartwright abandoned any pretense of academic freedom or principle in failing to protect a colleague from an anti-free speech campaign. Now, after a major court ruling against the university, an arbitrator has awarded Negy all back pay and benefits from the time of his firing.  That is good news. What is not good news is that, despite shredding core principles governing higher education, Cartwright remains the UCF president.  To the contrary, the university issued a statement that indicated that it is undeterred by the adverse court rulings.
Negy, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Central Florida, required police protection after he tweeted about what he views as “black privilege.” There was a petition demanding his termination with more than 30,000 signatures and, as we have seen in other schools, his colleagues were virtually silent as Negy was attacked for expressing his views.  While classroom misconduct has been raised by some critics, most of the effort (and the focus of this posting) is on his statements on social media. That petition focused on Negy’s statements on social media as unacceptable and grounds for termination:

“We are calling on the University of Central Florida to dismiss psychology professor Charles Negy due to abhorrent racist comments he has made and continues to make on his personal Twitter account. In addition to racism, Negy has engaged in perverse transphobia and sexism on his account, which is just as reprehensible. While he has a right to free speech, he does not have a right to dehumanize students of color and other minority groups, which is a regular occurance [sic] in his classroom. By allowing him to continue in his position, UCF would simply be empowering another cog in the machine of systemic racism.”

Negy faced protests at his home and on campus, according to news reports  after he explored the concept of “white shaming” as an academic, including his book “White Shaming: Bullying Based on Prejudice, Virtue-Signaling, and Ignorance.”

Negy’s work is highly controversial and his tweets have inflamed critics. In a now deleted tweet, he wrote “Black privilege is real: Besides affirm. action, special scholarships and other set asides, being shielded from legitimate criticism is a privilege. But as a group, they’re missing out on much needed feedback.”

He has also written, again on Twitter, “If Afr. Americans as a group, had the same behavioral profile as Asian Americans (on average, performing the best academically, having the highest income, committing the lowest crime, etc.), would we still be proclaiming ‘systematic racism’ exists?”

Again, the question is not the merits or tenor of such writings but the right of academics to express such viewpoints. There have been few comparable protests when professors write inflammatory comments about white culture or white privilege.

UCF President Alexander Cartwright told students that the university would investigate Negy, and that he and his Administration “are acutely aware of the offensive and hurtful Twitter posts that professor Charles Negy has shared on his personal page. These posts do not reflect the values of UCF, and I strongly condemn these racist and abhorrent posts.”

We recently discussed the Eleventh Circuit ruling against Cartwright and the university over its discriminatory-harassment and bias response team policies as violative of the First Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit overturned a district judge’s rejection of a preliminary injunction against the policy: “[I]t is imperative that colleges and universities toe the constitutional line when monitoring, supervising, and regulating student expression. Despite what we presume to be the very best of intentions, it seems to us substantially likely that the University of Central Florida crossed that line here.”

In oral argument, the university’s own lawyer struggled to define the terms or to say whether particular statements might be deemed prohibited. The court noted:

“The discriminatory-harassment policy’s imprecision exacerbates its chilling effect. To take just one example, what does it mean for one student’s speech to ‘unreasonably . . . alter’ another student’s educational experience? Both terms — ‘unreasonably’ and ‘alter’— are pretty amorphous, their application would likely vary from one student to another, and the university’s totality-of-known-circumstances approach to determining whether particular speech crosses the line only makes matters worse.”

Just as the university spent a huge amount of time and money to fight for these unconstitutional rules, it has litigated the matter over Negy to seek to strip him of his job and all benefits due to his exercise of free speech.

After teaching psychology at the school since 1998, Negy, 61, was fired in January 2021. As Cartwright turned the weight of the university against him, Negy had to sell his house to pay his lawyers.

The arbitrator noted that, while the school added objections to his teaching style, Negy received outstanding teaching reviews. Moreover, he noted Negy “demonstrated a willingness to entertain some change in his style of instruction; however, the record is devoid of any clear evidence that any member of his management requested such effort.”

Chad Binette, assistant vice president of UCF communications, indicated that the university remains undeterred by these losses. He stated that “UCF stands by the actions taken following a thorough investigation that found repeated misconduct in Professor Negy’s classroom, including imposing his views about religion, sex and race. However, we are obligated to follow the arbitrator’s ruling.”

What is not clear to me is how Cartwright retains his position as president in a Florida public university after such a record of attacks on free speech and academic freedom. He has not only sought to impose anti-free speech conditions on faculty but spent copious amounts of money seeking to preserve those rules and uphold those actions. These principles are the essence of any university and their abandonment constitutes a rejection of Cartwright’s obligation as a university president. I would not support his termination as an academic but, as an administrator, he has shown a serial failure to defend his faculty and free speech. Until university presidents are held accountable for failing to defend free speech, they will continue to yield to every flash mob that forms on a campus.

 

 

 

 

160 thoughts on “UCF Forced to Reinstate Professor Fired After Writing About “Black Privilege””

  1. If you doubt that some people have a totalitarian mindset here is a simple example. During the Roosevelt regime a law known as the chicken law was passed in New York. Previous to the new law a housewife would get up early so that she could be one of the first at the market. The chickens at the time were not sold by weight but by the chicken. The housewife wanted to get to the market early so that she could pick out the fattest chicken. The new law required that the owner of the market would pick out the chicken and would get the first chicken that came to hand. You see it was not equitable that the latecomers to the market would not get a chance at a plump chicken. Then as now being diligent and industrious to do the best for yourself and your loved ones is somehow thought to be unfair to others. I think of this story often when I need something that puts the totalitarian mind in a nutshell. The lawmakers who put the chicken law in place were no different than the equity totalitarian lawmakers of today. What people need is not equity but equal opportunity.

    1. Stooge, Roosevelt won WWII and the law you’re referring to was probably war-related.

      1. It was related to a misunderstanding of economics, not the war. Why do you talk when you don’t know.

  2. The equity movement has real life consequences. Equity has found it’s way into the medical profession where black people are not required to have grades equal to other races and are virtually guaranteed to graduate. https://freebeacon.com/culture/woke-medicine-a-prescription-for-disaster/. If you know this is happening what level of trust will you have if your doctor is black. Will you be wary because he has been given a pass that other doctors did not receive. The woke think that they are helping young black people become doctors but as usual they are only causing doubt by their employment of just another give away in a poorly thought out attempt to make things right by any means necessary regardless of the fallout to the health of the patient. Doctrine over compassion is sadly apparent. Wether it’s black privilege or white privilege the results are the same.

    1. The equity movement has real life consequences.

      Think, it certainly will for the majority of the population forced to suffer the “benefits” of socialist governance.

      Another way of describing the goal of the Great Reset is “capitalism with Chinese characteristics”—a two-tiered economy, with profitable monopolies and the state on top and socialism for the majority below.
      https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Imprimis_Dec_12-21_8pgWEB.pdf

      1. Yeah, Olly, the Koch Brothers have done a great job of limiting the influence of billionaires. ..Not..!

    2. Affirmative action undermines the claims to respect of those it purports to benefit.

      1. Daniel, Let’s use an example. When President Reagan used affirmative action to appoint Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court, did that impact your respect for her and did she not benefit from that appointment?

        1. Reagan was so “conservative” he made the Marty Kink Day, he vigorously spread globalization globally (deleterious to his country and countrymen/good for global corporations) and he perpetuated and failed to eliminate the wholly unconstitutional communist American welfare state – matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

          Trump is your man, and even he needs to become more conservative, and advocate the end of the welfare state.

  3. Professor Turley, I am an Adjunct Professor at a small law school in California (Trinity Law School) and I work for a first amendment nonprofit law firm; I just wanted to thank you for your interesting blog.

    1. “I just wanted to thank you for your interesting blog.”

      Good for you!

      Finally, someone offers praise when it is due.

  4. OT: “Georgia sees record early voting turnout despite voter suppression claims” Instead, what we saw was fraud proven by 2000 Mules, now out in movie theaters.

    The Big Lie is defined and proven. The Democrats lied. They perpetrated fraud, and today a senile fraudulent President sits in the White House.

    Vote against all Democrats unless one wants to live under an authoritarian system.

    Do any leftwing Democrats realize that after the Clintons stole the WH silverware, under the next two Democrat Presidents, peace and security were thrown out the window?

    1. Alan, Trump’s claims lost in more than 60 courts. That doesn’t happen when the plaintiff has a case. If Trump’s campaign was a sports team, that many losses would constitute a wash-out of a season.

      1. That you do not understand what you are talking about is not unusual. You seldom know the subject matter. The Trump side couldn’t prevail against the fraud perpetrated by Democrats in the time available. Look at how long it took the feds to get Al Capone. You sound rather ridiculous.

        Some of the court cases were decided in favor of Trump. In any event, the data is coming in now and we are seeing people being arrested and information waiting to be disclosed. The Democrats also disposed of election records that were supposed to be kept. When it comes to criminal activities they are much better than the Republicans.

        2000 Mules shows the illegalities and proves that Biden would have lost the election if Ballot trafficking ballots were removed. There are loads of data including tracking, videos, and testimony. Did you see the movie 2000 ? If you have, why not provide your spin?

        SM

      2. FIFY

        “Alan, Trump’s claims lost never were given a hearing in more than 60 courts”.

        1. That is true Iowan, and he won claims as well, but all that is over. The new thing is what we are finding out happened in various states and threats being made to those that wish to prosecute crimes made by those supporting Democrat criminality. 2000 Mules showed Democrat crimes in action. Is the movie playing in your theaters? I fear that people are too complacent. Did you see 2000 Mules?

          Here is a free link to 2000 Mules:

          https://odysee.com/2000mules:c

  5. I don’t see the conflict here. Though his statements were inflammatory, they were mild in comparison to the rhetoric that was hurled against him in retaliation. When will we acknowledge that our young people are being taught to be insane, possibly originally by you, parents, because you refused to expose them to anything resembling reality? I don’t have kids this age, but if I did i would be encouraging them to skip academia and learn a trade. I guarantee you in another ten years or so, the kids that followed that path in lieu of the farce we call ‘academia’, will be the ones calling the shots. STOP paying for this BS. don’t defund the police, defund the universities. Obama lied to you when he said a bachelor’s degree is the modern equivalent of a high school diploma, and that was just one of his endless lies. If you are following his dictates you are pretty much a sheep, and at your age you should know better if you are as educated and experienced as you claim.

    The modern left are fascist bullies, and there is likely no going back in that organization, which it would be kind at this point to refer to as an elitist, globalist cabal. To the stalwart dems of America: pray that your party fractures and it creates a refuge for you after you have blithely gone along with all of this straight up, b*lls to the wall insanity for nigh on 15 years now, and for Pete’s sake, find your dang spines. I have never seen such cowardice among grown adults that are supposed to know how to live in my lifetime, and I ain’t no spring chicken. if you are a real grown up, then start acting like one. YOU created this mess with your attachment to comfort at any cost, and in the long run, it’s going to cost you the things that motivated you in the first place. You are short sighted in a manner that defies description.

  6. Interesting to read an earlier comment that Florida legislators are aware of this situation. And?

    1. The simplest tool to figure out what is happening is frequently not used, Follow-the-Money. Good job Ollie. We need to move away from such a powerful government.

      1. We need to move away from such a powerful government.

        S. Meyer,
        Especially as our government is on the move away from being representative of our national interests to conform with the globalist’s interests. I believe ESG is the principal driver of all of these cases where 1st amendment rights are being violated. Biden, as usual, said the quiet part out loud.

        “And when it comes to the gas prices, we’re going through an incredible transition fundamental transformation that is taking place that, God willing, when it’s over, we’ll be stronger and the world will be stronger and less reliant on fossil fuels when this is over,” said Biden.

        This article regarding where ESG is taking us explains much of the insanity we see in our government, corporations, universities, media and big tech. As the author points out, there is a ray of hope. Unfortunately that is at the end of a very dark tunnel.

        Because the goals of the Great Reset depend on the obliteration not only of free markets, but of individual liberty and free will, it is, perhaps ironically, unsustainable. Like earlier attempts at totalitarianism, the Great Reset is doomed to ultimate failure. That doesn’t mean, however, that it won’t, again like those earlier attempts, leave a lot of destruction in its wake—which is all the more reason to oppose it now and with all our might.
        https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Imprimis_Dec_12-21_8pgWEB.pdf

          1. Thank you Bob. My guess is The Great Reset will put this country back to a “1763” form of governance by 2030. How long our long train of abuses will need to get before the people act is the question.

    2. Yup. And if you are someone that thinks charter schools, who were initially championed by the great Obama, are any different, you are whistling in the dark. These are businesses, with the bottom line of businesses, straight up. School choice my ***.

      1. James, I won’t comment about school systems other than those in NYC though other school systems could follow some of the ways that worked in NYC Charter Schools. Read Tom Sowell’s book on charter schools and look at the data from all the schools directly compared based on random acceptance, same building, same grade, etc. There was a complete reversal from public school failure in English and math to success for most in the Charter Schools. It was an incredible study with fantastic results.

        You can listen to an interview with Sowell below. Where kids were failing, kids ended up going to college.

        1. S Meyer, that is absolutely right. I recall Trump and Barr saying school choice is the civil rights issue of our time. By contrast, Biden has said transgender rights is the civil rights issue of our time. His administration is systematically cutting off the growth of charter schools.

          The first step in ending neo-racism is for the Federal government to defund every entity that takes race into account in admissions, hiring, evaluation, promotion, retention or firing, to end contracting with any such entity and to end all race-based set asides. Trump was heading in that direction. Maybe a second Trump administration, or a DeSantis administration, would do this. If a Republican Congress is elected and has courage, maybe it could legislate in this area. Once there are substantial financial consequences for neo-racism, the culture will begin to change. Persuasion will not work. The ideology is too deep and the vested interests too strong.

          1. “His administration is systematically cutting off the growth of charter schools.”

            Daniel, that is what NYC is doing as well. They want the poor minority students to be deprived of a better education so they can remain in power.

            “defund every entity that takes race into account “

            What happened to MLK’s character over color. The left has forgotten about that and has taken us back to the Jim Crow version 2.0. I was brought up drinking from black water fountains when travelling in the south. We never tolerated racism, and now because I don’t kneel to the God of the left, I am suddenly supposed to be a second class citizen.

    3. What does this clause mean…

      “…TO PAY THE DEBTS AND PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES;…”?
      _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

      Article 1, Section 8

      The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
      ___________________________________________

      The literal words of the English language herein appear to state that Congress may tax and pay the debts ONLY for defense and general Welfare (excluding private, individual or specific welfare, and charity), as commodities and services that the general (i.e. all) population utilizes are basic infrastructure and essential commodities such as roads, post office, water, electricity, sewer, air ports, railroads, etc., which are impossible or not commonly provided in the free markets of the private sector.

      It very well may be that “federal funding” for universities et al. is unconstitutional and that the Founders and Framers fully intended for most activities to be conducted in those free markets of the private sector, as free enterprise by free people, and that those industries would self-regulate – avoiding debilitating or terminal litigation being a primary motivating factor for said well and sufficient self-regulation.

      Upon further investigation, Article 1, Section 8, enumerates, limits and restricts the power of Congress to regulate only the value of money, commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes, and land and naval Forces.

      All of which would mean that most of the government is unconstitutional and may not enjoy “federal funding.”

      1. All of which would mean that most of the government is unconstitutional and may not enjoy “federal funding.”

        Agree George. One of the most abused is Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 The Necessary and Proper Clause. Which should be renamed The Blank Check Clause.

        1. The Necessary and Proper Clause is a moot, impotent and meaningless formality; it is simply a redundancy which alters or modifies nothing.

          It confers no power which was not previously, or subsequently, conferred by the Constitution.

          Of course, Congress, the legislative branch, has the power to and shall make laws to exercise its enumerated powers, which spring variously from the entirety of the Constitution.

          Invocations of the “Necessary and Proper” clause must be ignored and mocked humorously, nay, prosecuted as attempts to confound, defraud and corrupt.

          The singular American failure, and the source of constitutional corruption, is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, all of which must be addressed and corrected through impeachment.

          Enough!
          _______

          “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

          – Declaration of Independence, 1776
          _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

          Article 1, Section 8

          The Congress shall have Power…

          To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

  7. Jeani-Pierre, tenure as press secretary is over. John Kirby from the Pentagon is coming to the White House,

    Another Affirmative Action hire is exposed. Maybe her resume isnt complete, but I see nothing , other than her diversity classifications, that would offer a hint she could do the job. And frankly, after watching the last 16 months, who ever was responsible for giving her the job should be fired. I know if I would have promoted a person so unprepared to perform the duties, I l would have been looking for a job.

    1. …a rub-it-in-your-face affirmative action hire.

      These people hate, understandably.

      With tremendous foresight, the American Founders required citizens to be “…free white person(s)…” and they expected comprehensive assimilation by immigrants, which, for these people, will be forever impossible, without the loss of constitutional rights and freedoms resulting from the application of substantial amounts of political emulsifiers, aka the principles of the Communist Manifesto.

      In order to affirmative action it to them, they have to deny rights and freedoms and remove it from you.

  8. “. . . how Cartwright retains his position as president . . .”

    Not surprising, at all. He endorses the activist faculty’s ideology of race/gender/class. And their fascist desire to quell all dissent.

    Remember Brodhead, Duke’s president during the lacrosse hoax? He actively endorsed the attempted frame of his own students. Then when the truth finally prevailed, he kept his job. (And some of the worst faculty agitators were *promoted*.)

  9. “There have been few comparable protests when professors write inflammatory comments about white culture or white privilege.” Perhaps a protest and/or discrimination law suit issued every time a professor or group makes such comments there would be fewer ready to mouth off if legal action were the end result of such hate speech. It is far past time for whites to use anti-discrimination laws in retaliation for the over-the-top usage these laws against whites.

  10. The professor at UCF got on his soapbox and said his piece and stepped down. UCF and it’s agent, the president, kicked over the soapbox, removed it, fired the speaker for standing on it and speaking and then dared anyone else from saying much the same thing. (Force and Intimidation) Meeting free speech with free speech would have required the UCF president to get on the soapbox and present a better argument but UCF and it’s president committed an illegal act. UCF’s president should be fired for committing the illegal act and I suspect UCF may find this to be an expensive act if the injured Professor sues for damages. I agree better speech should be used to counter bad speech but force should be countered with an appropriate use of force. Anything less is appeasement and surrendering the battlefield.

  11. By far the most privileged people in the US today are blacks in intact families with sufficient income to send their children to good primary, middle and high schools. They and their children are handed opportunities at every stage, without regard to their actual competitive position, on the grounds of “equity”. If they confront any actual racism at all, it has no impact on their life prospects, and is mainly limited to hurt feelings, if that. The low level of real racism against blacks has led to the woke campaigns against “microagressions” and “systemic racism” to convert imagined slights and statistical disparities into debilitating racial victimisation.

    Turley is right that the root of many problems today is the failure of those in leadership roles to defend basic principles of free speech and race-neutral standards of evaluation. This appears to be true not just in academia but throughout our elite institutions and companies. Trump’s administration was beginning to try and root this out, but was replaced by a Democratic hegemony committed to unrelenting identity politics. Unless and until today’s Democratic Party is destroyed, and it’s ideas discredited, political power will stand behind the neo-racists who now run this country and no progress will be possible.

    1. Daniel, Wouldn’t you say white families with high incomes and connections live a more privileged life?

  12. Interesting how each and every time someone suggest they have “privilege” they spas out. They never challenge the view with proof of meritocracy only immediate attack and banishment. I think President Cartwheel is more in line with California not Florida. Hopefully his contract will expire quickly and he can take his view’s on free speech elsewhere. 30,000 signatures?????

  13. “UCF stands by the actions taken following a thorough investigation that found repeated misconduct in Professor Negy’s classroom, including imposing his views about religion, sex and race. However, we are obligated to follow the arbitrator’s ruling.”
    ***************************
    English Translation: Awwwww. Being a tyrant is hard. Those meany old lawyers who decide this stuff are racist, homophobic, misogynist blah, blah, blahers who aren’t nearly as virtuous, kind, friendly, good to their birthing person and wonderful as we mortarboard heads and we’ll abide by the terrible decision but do every damn feminized, passive-aggressive, underhanded, unethical thing we can to make “Prof.” Negy’s life hell. We do this because we’re the new religion and our “priests(esses)” are better than yours. And there’s no debate about it … Ever! Ipse dixit (That’s Latin, you dumb prols!)

  14. Turley warns:

    “Until university presidents are held accountable for failing to defend free speech, they will continue to yield to every flash mob that forms on a campus.”

    This sounds like a shot across the bow of Turley’s own liberal GW administration.

    1. Let’s hope, but I suspect Turley is in no position to shoot across his boss’s bow and follow it up with anything meaningful. My family has 3 GW degrees and I am skipping my 6oth Reunion Gala next week because the main item on the agenda is a celebration of the university’s success in implementing its Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policy. “Liberal” is not the right word to describe GW today. “Far-Left Radical” is more like it.

      1. Wise, I just hope you stopped sending GW donations!! The next time Liz Warren screeches about taxing billionaires Republicans should ask her if she supports taxing Harvard’s 39 billion dollar endowment.

      2. Wiseoldlawyer says about the young:

        “Liberal is not the right word to describe GW today. Far-Left Radical is more like it.”

        “Thus one generation is always the scorn and wonder of the other, and the notions of the old and young are like liquors of different gravity and texture which never can unite. The spirits of youth, sublimed by health and volatized by passion, soon leave behind them the phlegmatic sediment of weariness and deliberation, and burst out in temerity and enterprise. The tenderness, therefore, which nature infuses, and which long habits of beneficence confirm, is necessary to reconcile such opposition: and an old man must be a father to bear with patience those follies and absurdities which he will perpetually imagine himself to find in the schemes and expectations, the pleasures and sorrows of those who have not yet been hardened by time and chilled by frustration.”

        Johnson: Rambler #69 (November 13, 1750)

  15. Come now. Good speech is enough to rectify Cartwright’s bad speech.
    Come on retard, this isnt about free speech, it is about actions. Firing, to be specific. The fired professor was the one countering the bad speech with his good speech. The Dean fired him for it.

    Retards should not comment on forums designed for dialog among those with functioning IQ.

  16. I spoke to several members of the Florida legislature over the last couple of years about this situation. They are aware of it, and I suspect will do something about it.

      1. The best punishment would be to make Cartwright personally liable, removing all his qualified immunity for obviously violating the civil rights of Nagy.

  17. RE:”””Until university presidents are held accountable for failing to defend free speech, they will continue to yield to every flash mob that forms on a campus.””” Clearly, another way will have to be found at law. Making ‘discrimination on the basis of political affiliation or orientation either written, or spoken’ unlawful under Civil Rights laws might be a pathway to countering woke prejudice and censorship across the board.

  18. Turley says:

    “Cartwright remains the UCF president and no one has been fired to seeking to punish an academic for the exercise of free speech.”

    Come now. Good speech is enough to rectify Cartwright’s bad speech. By firing this president, Conservatives will succumb to the hated Liberal “Cancel Culture.” Instead, Conservatives should practice what they preach and really stick it to the Liberals by doing the exact opposite of what they would do!

    1. Jeff

      Your comments have lost meaning.

      You are so caught up in trolling that you no longer think.

      Shame, you were once worth reading.

      1. RE:””Your comments have lost meaning.””” Seriously. Why do you and others even bother!! Time to cease feeding his ego.

          1. RE:”””Love the moniker””” Thanks. Bestowed upon me by a patient when I told him I was a blues guitarist as well.

              1. RE: “Heading to New Orleans/Baton Rouge shortly. I’ll give your regards!” Much obliged. Safe journey!

      2. Hahaha. You’re very amusing! I’m serious as a heart attack. If you can’t beat Trumpists, join ‘em!

    2. Jeff:

      “Come now. Good speech is enough to rectify Cartwright’s bad speech. By firing this president, Conservatives will succumb to the hated Liberal “Cancel Culture.” Instead, Conservatives should practice what they preach and really stick it to the Liberals by doing the exact opposite of what they would do!”
      *****************************
      We try to avoid taking advice from our adversaries. Call us mapcap!!

      Oh and deposing a tyrant isn’t the same moral equivalency as the tyrant deposing the underling. Look up Spinoza on that point. Read more. Blather less.

      1. Helpihurt, eh? Help I hurt?

        That low brow appeal is what I might expect to see plastered on a billboard in a poor part of town advertising the services of an ambulance chaser.

        Jesus.

          1. Mespo,

            I applauded your article yesterday and asked whether you still stood by it. Does your silence indicate that you wish I had not brought it up?

            S.Meyer saw fit to attack me as if *I* had authored this article. His comments should have been directed at *you*. Accordingly, I am posting his comments so that you may respond to him:

            “Unfortunately Jeff, you don’t know why that poorly written law was enacted. The aim was not to stop speech between a patient and the doctor or to put the government into the examining room.”

            “It was to stop making physicians search for information on who owned a gun and where they were kept. There was a realistic fear that this information in the hands of physicians would go to insurers. That information placed gun owners at risk from your type of crazy individual.”

            “Already physicians were being “attacked” for not telling patients to see a dentist twice a week or telling patients to wear helmets when bicycling and documenting that information in their charts. Many were unaware of what was going on at the time. Today we have to deal with ignorant people like yourself that do not know anything about the subject and then make stupid comments.”
            ———————

            I trust you will not remain silent in the face of S.Meyer’s criticism that you “know anything about the subject and then make stupid comments.”

            1. What Mespo said about the law interfering with speech and care was true. The law was not well written. I don’t think he had the background information. But you commented on what he said in a silly manner which is par for the course. There are always multiple considerations to be weighed, but you start from a narrow endpoint and work backward to create your story.

              1. Mespo says:

                “I stand by every word. As I said the other day, I don’t like tyrants of the Left or Right. Back then the Maoists were Tea Partiers trying to deny the free speech of doctors and patients. Who could possibly be for that? Dumb ol’ Rick Scott, that’s who. I know you think I just pace around one box. In fact, I’m always on the side of more freedom to the largest extent possible. I’m glad we agree on one. It’s about time.”

                Ha ha! Wrong again Meyer. That’s what is so right about you.

                1. “Ha ha! Wrong again Meyer. That’s what is so right about you”

                  You failed again, Jeff. There are two parts to the story. One was the law which was poorly written. Mespo is addressing that part of the law and from that perspective he is correct. One does not impair freedom of speech and the communication between a doctor and the patient. The other was the threat to gun owners where physicians were pushed to question guns and record the answers in the patient chart. This action was directed against gun owners. The information in the chart is not completely private as insurers have a right to see the records and from there anything can happen. Mespo can evaluate in his mind what was potentially in store for gun owners.

            2. Jeff,

              Your tactic of trying to pit Mespo against S.Meyer is transparent to all and is rather pathetic. Make no mistake, when S.Meyer wrote “Today we have to deal with ignorant people like yourself that do not know anything about the subject and then make stupid comments” he was speaking to you, not to Mespo.

              1. My comments were approving of Mespo’s. Meyer was attacking Mespo’s position, like it or not.

      2. I was searching Turley’s blog on gun rights in light of the recent mass murder, and I uncovered your article:

        https://jonathanturley.org/2011/09/17/federal-judge-florida-docs-can-talk-to-patients-about-guns/

        You still stand by it?

        I dare say that most if not all Trumpists would call you a “retard” for slamming the Tea Party- forerunners of MAGA:

        “Tea Party busybodies now feel quite entitled to intrude upon the examination room. Apparently, it’s conservative politics that trumps all; a Constitutional provision merely the clothing for the wolf. Judge Cooke saw through the disguise.”

        Excellent!

        1. Unfortunately Jeff, you don’t know why that poorly written law was enacted. The aim was not to stop speech between a patient and the doctor or to put the government into the examining room.

          It was to stop making physicians search for information on who owned a gun and where they were kept. There was a realistic fear that this information in the hands of physicians would go to insurers. That information placed gun owners at risk from your type of crazy individual.

          Already physicians were being “attacked” for not telling patients to see a dentist twice a week or telling patients to wear helmets when bicycling and documenting that information in their charts. Many were unaware of what was going on at the time. Today we have to deal with ignorant people like yourself that do not know anything about the subject and then make stupid comments.

          1. RE:”Already physicians were being “attacked” for not telling patients to see a dentist twice a week” Such is the effluent from a litigious society wherein liability for loss due to one’s own lack of intelligence, accountability, responsibility, procrastination and sloth among other failings. must fall on the shoulders of others. Sue your physician for malpractice for failing to remind you of the 4-way stop sign at the intersection outside the office and you get T-boned by a vehicle crossing because you failed to yield right of way.

            1. ZZ, at one time or another, HMOs and PPOs were trying to prove how good they were regarding preventative care. To get proof they used a questionnaire that was not meaningful. Dentists and bike helots were included in the questionnaire. The failure rate was high among physicians. They then came back sometime later and checked over records to find that the records improved. The news media then reported HMOs led to considerable improvement in preventative care.

              What ended up happening was that some of these things were put on a piece of paper and handed over to the patient to sign along with whatever signatures were desired. Poof the physicians suddenly became compliant. A lot of the positive news about HMOs and to a lesser extent PPOs were bogus.

              The malpractice issue was very real and in some specialties in medicine in some areas of the country physicians went bare. The lack of insurance caused legal claims to fall.

    3. Jeff,
      This is disingenuous. Cartwright did not respond to the professor’s (alleged bad) speech with (good) speech but took action by firing him on grounds of what he said. Similarly, a ‘bad’ firing (of the professor) should be countered by a ‘good’ firing (of the president.

Leave a Reply to PaulD Cancel reply