“I Mean, Because it’s Texas”: Penn Professor Alleges Police May Have Delayed Rescue in Uvalde Due to Racism

University of Pennsylvania professor Anthea Butler is at the center of another controversy after going on Twitter to suggest that the delay in rescuing the children in the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas was due to racism. She asked if the police “didn’t give a damn” about the children because they were “predominantly brown kids.” While she later deleted the Tweet, Professor Butler has a long history of offensive racial statements. While some have previously called for her termination, these comments (including this disgraceful tweet) should be protected under principles of free speech and academic freedom. However, this is another example of the double standard often applied at universities, which are quick to investigate, discipline, or fire conservative, libertarian, or dissenting faculty members in such controversies.

As the rest of the country was still mourning the massacre, Butler took to Twitter to re-cast the tragedy in racial terms. She wrote: “Since no one else will ask, I will. Did those children die because most of them were Mexican American and the police didn’t give a damn about a school w predominately brown kids? I mean, because it’s Texas … and if you think everyone who isn’t white is illegal …”

Critics have pointed out that Uvalde Police Chief Daniel Rodríguez is Latino as is Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District Police Chief Pedro Arredondo. Many of the officers at the scene were Latino. Butler’s suggestion of racism was even more offensive given the stories of officers with children at the school and among the dead.

Last year, Butler publicly condemned what she called “colorblind racism” of people who insist that they do not judge on the basis of a person’s skin: “When people say to you, ‘I don’t see color, I see what Jesus sees in you,’ that really actually means that they just see white.” She lashed out at evangelical Christians who, she claimed, “may end up killing us all” due to their “racism, sexism, homophobia, lack of belief in science, lack of belief and common sense.”

This weekend, we discussed the different treatment given liberal and conservative speakers at Boston University after students passed a resolution calling a conservative speaker a danger to their safety. They further declared that “intentionally incendiary speech and rhetoric” is unprotected by free speech principles. Yet, Boston University Professor Saida Grundy the same week made incendiary comments to justify criminal acts, including looting, as racial justice. Grundy has a history of racial statements against white students and faculty. As I noted, both speakers should be protected by the same free speech values.

The support enjoyed by faculty on the far left is in sharp contrast to the treatment given faculty with moderate, conservative or libertarian views. Anyone who raises such dissenting views is immediately set upon by a mob demanding their investigation or termination. This includes blocking academics from speaking on campuses like a recent Classics professor due to their political views. Conservatives and libertarians understand that they have no cushion or protection in any controversy, even if it involves a single, later deleted tweet.

One such campaign led to a truly tragic outcome with criminology professor Mike Adams at the University of North Carolina (Wilmington). Adams was a conservative faculty member with controversial writings who had to go to court to stop prior efforts to remove him. He then tweeted a condemnation of North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper for his pandemic rules, tweeting that he had dined with six men at a six-seat table and “felt like a free man who was not living in the slave state of North Carolina” before adding: “Massa Cooper, let my people go.” It was a stupid and offensive tweet. However, we have seen extreme comments on the left — including calls to gas or kill or torture conservatives — be tolerated or even celebrated at universities.

Celebrities, faculty and students demanded that Adams be fired. After weeks of public pummeling, Adams relented and took a settlement to resign. He then killed himself a few days before his final day as a professor.

Likewise, Georgetown Professor Ilya Shapiro remains suspended after a poorly worded tweet that he also deleted. He also apologized but it was not enough to protect him from a national campaign for his termination.

The professors who have called for such terminations are conspicuously silent when controversial tweets or statements come from the far left. Dissenting faculty know that few of their colleagues will step toward to defend them against such attacks.

In the case of Professor Butler, she knows that she can write and advocate without fear of university actions to remove her. That is precisely what all faculty should enjoy as a matter of academic freedom and free speech. However, it is a privilege often exercised selectively today. Universities are often quick to denounce conservative or libertarian faculty while ordering investigations and other measures in response to such controversies.

The confidence (rightfully) enjoyed by Professor Butler is the inverse of the constant threat faced by the dwindling number of conservative and libertarian faculty at schools like Penn.

 

 

86 thoughts on ““I Mean, Because it’s Texas”: Penn Professor Alleges Police May Have Delayed Rescue in Uvalde Due to Racism”

  1. This professor and others like her are the reason that race relations are worse than they have been in decades. Por minorities are being told repeatedly that others are racist and that they are getting a raw deal at every turn and it has angered many people. White people are poor, white people get speeding tickets, white people don’t get the job, white people don’t get the grade, white people suffer from inflation and gas prices, but these anti-American losers keep telling blacks and others that it is only them hurting and this causes LESS effort in getting ahead.

    If Nina Jankovitz wants to see the misinformation that is harming the nation she needs to look at Democrats, the media and liberals in schools because they are crushing society right now.

  2. Shouldn’t academic freedom apply only to the subject matter that one teaches? In other words, why should a professor be able to hide behind or claim academic freedom out of area?

  3. RE:”University of Pennsylvania professor Anthea Butler is at the center of another controversy ……………” “‘Tis a tale told by an idiot, full of sound a fury, signifying nothing.”

  4. What else should we expect from the same mindset that pronounced Virginia’s black Lt. Governor, Winsome Sears, a “white supremacst”?

    1. Oh come on….anyone who has been in college during the past 30+ years knows that there are patronage seats given to affirmative action professors who add no academic value to the institution. They are shunted off into the various ethnic studies majors which provide a cocoon for affirmative action students who can’t handle the academic rigor of a regular course of study. That way, everyone is happy. The AA students are able to graduate, albeit with a worthless degree. And because the institution graduates “under represented” students, the government money keeps rolling in. These professors know that they’re third-rate, at best, so in their anger, envy and bitterness they continuously lash out against the very society that is wealthy enough to support their useless existence.

      1. She is quite impressive in her pedigree

        Wiki:

        Early life and education

        Born in Texas in 1960, Anthea Deidre Butler is the daughter of Jesse and Willa Mae (Anthony) Butler.[1][2] She attended La Marque High School in La Marque, Texas, winning prizes in local music contests playing the marimba.[3][4][5]

        She completed a B.A. degree at the University of Houston–Clear Lake; an M.A. in theology at the Fuller Theological Seminary in California; and an M.A. in religion at Vanderbilt University.[6][7] She earned a Ph.D. in Religion at Vanderbilt University in 2001, with the dissertation, A Peculiar Synergy: Matriarchy and the Church of God in Christ, advised by Lewis V. Baldwin.[8]

        1. RE: “”She is quite impressive in her pedigree……” C’mon man!! From what one draws from her Wiki bio, quoted in part by you, she hasn’t had a ‘serious day job’ in her entire life. You think she drove a bus, or hashed at McDonald’s while she went to school at night like so many others have. She was a professional student She studies, she writes, she acquires degrees, receives academic appointments, she opines through a variety of media, she gets patted on the back by her colleagues and confreres. I give her all the credit in the world for her intellectual capabilities and efforts. However, distilled down to its essence, she’s basically a self-important ‘Professor Irwin Corey’t. A ‘worlds foremost authority’ who, from her high place, pontificates, looks down and calls the kettle ‘white’, She’s all academic fluff drawn in from one end and blown out the other.

  5. Apparently, she does not realize that the incident commander who made the decision not to go in is brown, just like most of the first responders. It is frightening that people this ignorant are teaching in our universities. No one wonder so many of the kids are screwed up.

  6. “. . . because they were ‘predominantly brown kids’.”

    Sure. Authorities arrived on the scene. Then some “Texan” said: “Wait. That’s a Brown school. Anyone want to play Candy Crush Saga?”

    With tribalistic academics like that ______, is it any wonder why the country is becoming more tribalistic?

  7. I won’t comment on the police in Uvalde specifically because obviously some mistakes were made but I’m no authority on policing or proper procedures in a situation like this shooting. Anyone who has had lived in Texas or had any significant exposure knows that comments by this Individual from U Penn is totally off base and a smear against the people of Texas and the Hispanic community in particular. The comments of this above mentioned individual suggests an almost sociopathic lack of humanity and empathy towards the people suffering through this tragedy. This individual obviously has had little to no experience in the real world of dealing with uncertainty, and tragedy and disaster which is suddenly thrust upon people. Some, obviously respond heroically, some do not. Some make wrong decisions based on faulty information. It’s very easy to sit at your computer or desk 1000 miles away and pontificate where others are in the fight, clouded by uncertainty and a fog of contradictory information. Especially if your lens is so colored by dogma and irrationality.
    The U Penn individual needs some self reflection, rejoining group therapy, restarting the appropriate medication, and crawling back into their cave.
    Keep on repeating these Professor, repetition is one of the best training methods around, especially for some lesser lights.

  8. This “professor Butler is a despicable human. The uvalde PD – especially its SWAT section is all mexican american. The whole issue here is their absolute pathetic and incompetent response to this situation. Were they intentionally told to hold off ?. They ignored completely their own SOP – training on this …. absolutely dropped the ball. It’s so epic you have to wonder whom and why the order was given to stand to and do NOTHING. This allegedly higher educated professor goes down the slovenly path quickly… racism… and politicizes it by doing so. The killer was of the same ethnic blend as his victims , and as mentioned the Uvalde PD.

  9. Every day, Turley writes columns that feed the “age of rage” he complains about.

    1. It is not surprising that you miss the boat. Turley is highlighting the age of rage because a knowledgeable public is better able to handle your type of nonsense.

  10. You have made your point, Professor. How many times are you going to copy and paste the Mike Adams suicide story?

    Complaining ain’t gonna solve what you perceive as a double-standard. Liberals are going to continue to discriminate against speech which they find abhorrent. That’s their First Amendment right.

    Since gun control is again in the news, let’s revisit your condemnation of gun fanatic Ted Nugent who in 2016 said about Michael Bloomberg, Charles Schumer, Rahm Emmanuel and other exclusively Jewish leaders next to an Israeli flag:

    “Know these punks. They hate freedom, they hate good over evil, they would deny us the basic human right to self defense & to KEEP & BEAR ARMS while many of them have tax paid hired ARMED security! Know them well. Tell every you know how evil they are. Let us raise maximum hell to shut them down!”

    After being criticized, Nugent doubled-down:

    “Just when you hope that mankind couldn’t possibly get any dumber or more dishonest, superFreaks rise to the occasion. What sort of racist prejudiced (piece of sh*t) could possibly not know that Jews for guncontrol are nazis in disguise? “NEVER AGAIN!” Anyone? Anyone?? (Are you f*cking kidding me?”

    You rightly expressed your denunciation:

    “Putting aside that this rant has become barely intelligible, Nugent’s hateful views are breathtaking. While he has been a darling with some on the political right, this posting exposes him as a true lunatic.”

    https://jonathanturley.org/2016/02/10/ted-nugent-unleashes-rabidly-anti-semitic-rant-over-gun-control/

    May I presume that you WOULD NOT object to disinviting this “lunatic” to “rant” at GW? Is good speech really necessary?

    Sadly, most individuals on this blog will unabashedly but *anonymously* come to Nugent’s defense and demand that he be allowed to speak at your law school if only to embarrass himself. However, they should rethink that idea since Nugent is an avowed Trumpist:

    “Ted Nugent Encourages Violence at Trump Rally: Go ‘Berserk on the Skulls of Democrats’”

    “Far-right musician perpetuates Donald Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election being stolen at event in Texas”

    https://www.thewrap.com/ted-nugent-incites-violence-berserk-skulls-democrats/

    Many Liberals regard certain Conservative speech as deplorable as Nugent’s. Naturally, Conservatives will not agree. Fine. But that is beside the point. The point is that Liberals should discriminate against speech which they abhor just as Conservatives will discriminate against, say, CRT.

    1. Where does the First Amendment give the right to discriminate against free speech? Do you mean protest the speech and present a different view? or do you mean altogether ban it. Maybe you need to re-reread Holmes and Brandeis some more. Maybe we all do

  11. The tendency of modern progressives to project their ignorance onto the population at large, and to then seek to control it due to their own misconceptions and personal failings is staggering.

    Heaven forbid we are all human beings and that basic decency and kindness take precedence over circumstantial differences. These are ugly, hateful people, and the reason they harp on whiteness or white privilege is because that is their *own* mentality, and their own proclivity, exclusively. They live in the dark ages in their regressive and inhibited minds, and want to drag all of us backward with them, oftentimes seemingly out of mere prejudice and spite. For all of their ‘education’, their insularity and intellectual cowardice are gobsmacking. It would be hilarious if they weren’t preying upon our young people like psychic vampires due to the fact mature adults aren’t so easily coerced, intimidated, or bullied.

    The rest of us moved on long ago, and it is high time we say ‘enough’ while we still have something resembling society standing.

  12. It’s always the racists that scream ‘racism’. They assume all of us are as ignorant as them. She does not belong in a position where she teaches and influences young people. If we took the word race out of the national dialogue it would be a much better place. No amount of criticism is enough for her.

    1. “The cops were cowards, plain and simple.”

      The Left complains when the police do “too much.” And they complain when the police (allegedly) do “too little.”

      I don’t think the problem is with the police.

      1. There was a problem with the choices made by *these* LEOs.

        The police f’d up here. They’ve admitted that they f’d up here. They allowed the killer to kill more kids while they waited.

        1. “Whoops we made a mistake” is not enough. They still have jobs. They won’t take the true honorable course of action.

      2. They dicked around while children were being murdered and arrested a parent who wanted to save their children. The police were the problem.

  13. Typical lefty response to attribute racism to people that you don’t like.

    Racism has become the go-to charge in lefty attacks.

    Ugly people.

  14. ‘WOKEISM’ IS A DELIRIOUSLY EUPHEMISTIC MISNOMER…THIS IS BLATANT FASCIST ‘VOMITISIM’ ….THE HAPPY HALLPASS IN THE NAME OF SOCIAL & POLITICAL PERCEIVED INJUSTICE….SHOOT FIRST, BUILD THE NARRATIVE AS NECESSARY….

Leave a Reply to Lou Stahl Cancel reply