“Some are More Equal Than Others”: University of Oregon Sued After Blocking Professor Who Posted “All Men are Created Equal”

There is an interesting lawsuit filed against the University of Oregon after Portland State University Professor Bruce Gilley was blocked from a social media account. Gilley claims that he was blocked  after he tweeted “all men are created equal.” The lawsuit names Tova Stabin, communication manager for the university’s Division of Equity and Inclusion, as the sole defendant. Gilley may believe that “all men are equal” but the censoring of his post suggests that, as in Orwell’s Animal Farm, “some are more equal than others” at the University of Oregon.

Gilley told College Fix  that he viewed the lawsuit as necessary to protect academic freedom values.

The controversy began on June 14, when UO’s Equity and Inclusion Twitter account tweeted “You can interrupt racism” with a wording prompt on how to start a conversation about racism: “It sounded like you just said [blank]. Is that what you really meant?”

Gilley responded with a posting that “all men are created equal,” tagging both the University of Oregon and its Equity and Inclusion Twitter accounts. That is when Stabin allegedly blocked Gilley and “[b]locking also removed Bruce Gilley’s ‘all men are created equal’ reply from @UOEquity’s timeline and prevented other users from viewing it or interacting with it, and with Gilley, including followers of the @UOEquity account.”

The complaint alleges “Tova Stabin blocked him from the Equity Division’s Twitter account, because he promotes a colorblind viewpoint with which she, and her employer, disagree. Stabin’s blocking constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination, and it violates the First Amendment.”

Here is the screenshot from the Complaint:

College Fix reported that Gilley has been previously targeted in 2018 after authoring a book in defense of colonialism and his course on conservative political thought was canceled by Portland State.

Gilley’s complaint details his dissenting views on the faculty:

“50. Bruce Gilley categorically rejects his employer’s claims that his university sits on “stolen land” and resists attempts by his employer to impose the ideology of diversity, equity, and inclusion on campus. He has previously declined to sign a “black lives matter” statement because it amounts to an ideological pledge. He also resists what he views as the ideological indoctrination of students.

51. Bruce Gilley is a critic of the DEI principles promoted by the Division, VPEI and defendant Stabin, because he believes that DEI calls for discrimination against university faculty, students, and applicants who are not members of groups favored by the Division, VPEI and defendant Stabin.

52. He also believes that the principles they promote are based on what is called “critical theory,” which threatens freedom of thought at Oregon universities; including by labeling competing ideas, such as colorblindness, as “racist,” “white supremacist,” “oppressive,” and otherwise “unsafe” to express in public.”

As a state school, the University of Oregon is subject to the full weight of the First Amendment, making such censorship a viable legal claim. The notice of his blocking clearly shows the school emblem on the page:

We previously discussed Oregon’s checkered history on free speech, including its announced program to monitor social media accounts. It has also faced controversies like removing its famous Pioneer statue. Even the school’s president has faced cancel campaigns from campus activists. Conversely, the school honored a professor who assaulted pro-life activists.

107 thoughts on ““Some are More Equal Than Others”: University of Oregon Sued After Blocking Professor Who Posted “All Men are Created Equal””

  1. It used to be that all men are equal under the law, though not so much these days with the Stasi in the Richard Jewell Building.

    But in absolute terms we obviously are not all equal, not even within the confines of a single race. Some are smarter and some are stupider. The modern universities have had remarkable success recruiting the stupider sort for important posts.

  2. Jonathan: Professor Bruce Gilley is no stranger to controversy. In 2017 he wrote an article “The Case for Colonialism” arguing: “Western colonialism was, as a general rule, both objectively beneficial and subjectively legitimate in most places where it was found”. Gilley ended his article: “It is time to make the case for colonialism again”. The article naturally provoked a storm of protest from academic critics who pointed out the pernicious effects of colonialism. Third World Quarterly, that published the article, received a petition with 6,936 signatures accusing Gilley of “pseudo-scholarship” and “arguments that reek of colonial disdain for indigenous peoples…with the predictably racist conclusion”. Students and academics at Princeton University called for Gilley’s Doctorate to be revoked. One academic called Gilley a “racist fascist author”.

    Since that article far-right scholars, like Gilley, have labored to promote pro-colonialism views–fundamentally an anti-intellectualism endeavor. If you read his article Gilley claims are not based on objective evidence–it’s ideology over evidence. Gilley is pushing his reframing of colonialism to promote a white nationalist agenda–something we see today in the form of attacks on “critical race theory”, the banning of books in public schools and telling teachers they cannot discuss racism or colonialism. So Gilley has effectively had an influence beyond academia.

    Gilley was not sanctioned or fired as a result of his 2017 article. He has largely remained out of the limelight–suffering only rejection by the rest of the academic community. But, like Donald Trump, Gilley welcomes criticism because it gets him attention. But he doesn’t suffer lightly being ignored. This probably explains why Gilley is suing Portland State over what would be a relatively minor issue. He wants his racist views to be front and center again. And this is why “College Fix”, a journalist group that promotes the right-wing views of certain professors, is taking up Gilley’s cause.

    But what is curious is why you would want to join the cause of a white racist nationalist who thinks colonialism was a good thing. It can’t be just about “free speech”. Otherwise, you would have taken up the cause of thousands of public school teachers whose “free speech” rights will be severely restricted this Fall. Please explain your counter-intuitive reasoning.

    1. Dennis, you and your thinking are indeed a product of those that believe that only one voice be heard.

      1. S. Meyer: I welcome all POVs. I don’t believe “only one voice be heard”. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be participating in this forum. So, specifically, what in my comment do you disagree with–the part about Dr. Guilley being a “white nationalist” because he thinks colonialism was a good thing and actually wants to reinstitute it in parts of Africa? Have you read his 2017 article or his other writings–or listened to several of his interviews and speeches? I have. Or, to be more specific, do you agree with the Professor’s thesis about colonialism? Please explain. Unless, you have some useful insights don’t waste my time! You are just taking up valuable space in this chatroom.

        1. Dennis, you throw out big words like white nationalist meant to close off any thought that he might have ideas that are worth considering. Why would you do such a thing? You want to close the door to alternative ideas by impugning the integrity of one you don’t like and who isn’t here to defend himself.

          You then engage in another big word, colonialism without a proper introduction of a very big word.

          I think he has a point when he says ” both objectively beneficial ” which is something that can be discussed, but you close off all types of discussion by impugning character instead of discussing the benefit and harm. Phrases like “fundamentally an anti-intellectualism endeavor” are not meant for wide discussion. They are meant to exclude those with a point of view that differs from yours.

          It’s not your argument against Gilley that I find objectionable since I like to hear both sides of an argument. Rather it is that I have read much of what you have said before and now which is what leads me to believe you and your thinking are a product of those that believe only one voice should be heard.

          1. Meyer,

            Regarding your very good recent questions on Trump, Judaism and Catholicism, I will reply here. I do not follow the blog regularly to reply to questions/comments in a timely manner. If I were to look for the comments where you made your questions, I will likely not find them, spend too much time therein, or you may not notice my replies. This will have to suffice. Two words will do:

            Edith Stein

            Perhaps you have read some of Edith Stein’s works. She was born in 1891 as the 11th child of a devout Orthodox Jewish family on Yom Kippur in Breslau. She died at age 50 in 1942, murdered along with her sister in Auschwitz by the Nazis. Her mother considered her birth on Yom Kippur as a sign from God that she would be a special child. Her father died when she was age 2, her father ran a timber business, and the mother had to run the business and raise all of the 11 children alone. Edith was a precocious child, and soon showed her gifts of intellect with her reading interests. She became an atheist in her teen years due to seeing much suffering in her mother, and turned to philosophy in her academic pursuits, trying to understand the world. She pursued a doctorate in philosophy at a time when women were not encouraged to study at universities, never mind earn an advanced degree. She wanted to be a professor but was never able to achieve that goal due to discrimination of women in academic circles. World War I had her go to nursing school to learn how to care for the injured in Austrian hospitals from the effects of war as well as Typhus. She was a disciple of some very big names in philosophy at the time, most notably Edmund Husserl, Max Scheler, Martin Heidegger, Hedwig Conrad-Martius, Roman Witold Ingarden, and Jacques Maritain, as well as others. Phenomenology was her school of philosophy, started in part by Husserl, and it was a critique of Immanuel Kant.

            She wrote extensively, her PhD thesis was on empathy, which is available online to read if you wish to explore. In spite of her advanced educational training, her gift of intellect, her impressive circle of intellectual colleagues, and her beautiful family history, she became disenchanted with the world. While on a break from work as a school teacher in Frankfurt, she noticed a woman at midday enter the Cathedral to pray daily. She thought that odd as a non-believer, considering she thought people went to churches only on Sundays. She came to observe the woman’s daily exercise when Edith took her lunch break, and approached her. After a brief interaction, she wanted to feel what the woman felt: hope, joy and peace. She returned to Breslau to work as a private tutor to students, and it was then that she was introduced to the writings of Saint Teresa of Avila, Catholic mystic. She devoured St Teresa’s Vida, and concluded that she finally found what she had been missing in all of her studies, readings, writings and life experiences, formidable that they all were. She then started reading St Thomas Aquinas, St Ignatius of Loyola, Kierkegaard and St Ignatius of Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises and eventually converted to Catholicism in Cologne, to great disappointment to her mother and Jewish friends.

            Edith Stein joined the Carmelite Order, and flourished. She wrote many philosophical papers and books while in consultation with her philosopher colleagues, while respecting her secluded, mystical life in the convent. World War II erupted, and the monastery sent her to Echt, Holland to flee the Nazis, where a Carmelite Abbey would protect her from Nazi persecution of Jews. Her sister had also become Catholic and joined her in the monastery. However, the Nazis became enraged when the Dutch Catholic Bishops condemned Nazism from the Catholic Churches during Masses across the country. They retaliated by searching for all Jews in the region, and took Edith Stein (now known as Teresia Benedicta a Cruce or Teresa Benedict of the Cross) to the concentration camps. She and her sister were killed days later at Auschwitz. Edith Stein’s memorial in the Catholic calendar was just a few days ago, August 9, the day she was killed in Auschwitz, and I have been re-reading some of her works since then, hence my reply

            Donald Trump is a disgrace. I don’t know how you or anybody could praise him. He declared bankruptcy 6 times in spite of being a millionaire or billionaire. I recall the days when bouncing a check was something that caused shame. To declare bankruptcy once was even worse. Trump’s behaviors towards other Republican candidates during the Republican Primaries was grotesque. His insults of Carly Fiorina were disgraceful. His crude remarks towards Megyn Kelly were beneath contempt. The list is just too long and not worth my time to bring to your attention who Donald Trump is. The character of a man meant something at one time. It still does to me. He told us back in 2015 when he sought the RNC nomination who he was. I was stunned he won the nomination, and embarrassed he won the US Presidency. Alas, Hillary is just as worthy of scorn on every level.

            When you have been trained in the ways of God, when you have read the works of holy, righteous and intellectual giants that the Catholic Church offers, I can not accept anything less for myself. Having studied at Jesuit schools and taken courses in the writings and teachings of great minds like St Augustine of Hippo, St Bonaventure, St Thomas Aquinas, St Ignatius of Loyola, St John of the Cross, St Teresa of Avila, Edith Stein (now St Teresa Benedicta of the Cross), and after having personally met Mother Teresa of Calcutta in the 1980s face to face, and after having concluded that these individuals are the standard to meet, of course I shun what you and Ollie embrace vis a vis conservatism. For me to live is Christ, to die is gain.

            I make no judgements of your path, your journey or your choices. I will argue however, that my way is the minority way, and it was the way that America was founded, on the religious principles that most Americans reject today. However, you get what you ask for. With Americans having rejected the foundational religious principles that George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and others embraced, everything that is happening today in our nation is not surprising. It was expected. It was predictable and it was totally preventable.

            such are my thoughts to your questions. I hope these help.


            1. “I will argue however, that my way is the minority way, and it was the way that America was founded, on the religious principles that most Americans reject today.”

              Estovir, there is nothing wrong with the minority way unless that path leads to the ultimate destruction of all that is good. No man is a Saint, and sometimes what appears to be the devil turns out to be a Saint. Who knows who the next Bartolo Longo will be, and who is it who knows what path will bring him there? Can good come from evil? Yes, and I will accept good from anyone if it makes the world a better place.

              There is no way I can dissuade you from hating Trump though hate is not something one should carry in their heart. Catholicism and Judaism teach love, something you know is my preference, even when others have caused me harm.

              Be that as it may, Trump does have some bad qualities. He is a sinner, but so am I.

              Everything you mention has to do with the man before he was President. Who is Trump? The man before 2016 or the man afterward? Trump post 2016 improved the lives of our citizens and the citizens of the world. He created peace. He also promoted what you love, which at the same time promotes morality. Such actions are not those of a devil.

              I’m not going to say that his prior life was perfect. I will say that I do not believe you understand the workings of businesses. Trump does, and he benefited countless numbers of people.

              You focus narrowly on bankruptcy. Do you realize what percentage of new businesses quickly die, with many going bankrupt? Do you know how many new businesses he was involved with? Percentage-wise he beat the averages.

              Do you know that he never personally went bankrupt? There is more than one type of bankruptcy, and one type frequently makes all concerned better off.

              I should also ask if you realize that Trump didn’t own all these businesses. He was a partner, perhaps a minority partner with little control. I urge you to reexamine the bankruptcies you are talking about. I don’t see the same as you, because I know the game for what it is, risk. Sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose, but the wins are what has made this country great, and most of the winners were former losers.

              I can’t say I was happy with Trump’s actions toward other candidates, but politics is a bloody sport. We can see how politics rears its ugly head with rioting, libel, loss of freedom, etc. Trump’s actions during the campaign were regrettable. I heard his harsh words toward the Republican candidate that I supported. Nonetheless, that candidate has made amends with Trump, and I have too, based on Trump’s success, I support him wholeheartedly, knowing the opposition, even in his own party, might lead to the catastrophe of an American Venezuela.

              Character is important to me, but what I have learned in life is that living is more important, so at times I have to ride side by side with one I dislike in the hope that my ability to compromise will bring a better life to all.

              I am not sure if you have the original question or not. It is at: https://jonathanturley.org/2022/08/11/the-mar-a-lago-raid-criminal-prosecution-or-political-indemnification/comment-page-5/#comment-2212281

              The question remaining unanswered was: “Would you vote for Biden or Harris instead of Trump?” That is the key question and represents whether one will fight to win (the big game) or fight to lose. One can only have the empathy you describe if one remains alive.

              I did not want to complicate the discussion earlier with what I know about Trump and who he is. Overall, he is a better man than most. He called his limousine to a stop when he saw a man attacked. He got out to stop the violent action of another, risking himself.

              I’m originally a New Yorker and still maintain a home in Manhattan. As a builder in NYC, Trump was a people man, frequently skipping the executives and speaking directly to the worker, whether black, Latino, Asian, etc. He hired women for executive positions when virtually no builders did so. On a personal level, he is very polite and frequently quiet rather than what you are used to.

              He has been accused of a lot of things. They say he took advantage of NYC’s laws. Thank God he did for that helped save NYC from bankruptcy. Those laws were intended to promote businesses to build bigger and better, which is what he did. He has gotten under the skin of Mayors because privately, with little funds, he did what the Mayors could not do with much larger amounts of money.

              Some say he is not honest with people that work for him. Such work is based on contract law. The contracts determine who is right and who is wrong. Do you think people would be clamoring to work for him if he didn’t pay his bills or pay the fair market value? Of course not. Same with banks. Will Chase loan money to him? Of course, based on the risk and the interest charges.

              I will skip my personal story of how I was flim-flammed by one who could not stop complaining that Trump didn’t pay him. He got paid, perhaps more than he deserved. He just didn’t get the final draw. I hired him as well and paid dearly for the bad experience. I wish I was as smart as Trump, and I wish I didn’t pay him at all. So be it. This contractor got me but didn’t get Trump.

          2. S. Meyer: On last time. You say I am throwing around big words like “white nationalist” and “colonialism” and I am “impugning the integrity of one you don’t like”. The last part you got right. I don’t like Dr. Gilley. He is a racist–promoting the specious argument that white Western capitalism/imperialism/colonialism brought the benefits of “civilization” to areas like Africa that were inhabited by “primitive” peoples. But don’t take it from me. Read his article “The Case for Colonialism”. Or watch his lecture at Texas Tech in 2017 and the interview with Dr. Stephen Bach, the director of the Texas Tech Institute for the Study of Western Civilization. You can see them on YouTube. After you have done that come back and answer my original Q: Do you believe, as Gilley does, that colonialism, particularly in the 17th-19th centuries in Africa, brought the marvelous benefits of white western civilization? If so, do you also agree with Gilley that in post-colonial Africa the “failed states” there would benefit from the re-introduction of the “colonial experiment”? Answer these Qs and I am prepared to reengage. Otherwise, I must conclude you have nothing of interest to offer on the subject.

            1. Dennis, you continue your quest to impugn people’s character rather than ideas while you close the doors to intelligent discussion. You haven’t provided your case, expecting everyone to do the research you lack.

              If you wish to discuss colonialism, start with India. That rids the idea of black racism from the discussion.

            2. Dennis, I provided you with the ability to have a fair discussion of colonialism in India avoiding complicating issues. You haven’t responded. Are you thinking about the discussion or are you going to avoid it?

        2. Dennis:
          A nationalist is, by definition, a patriot. Where’s the problem there? Maybe you don’t like the race, eh Gov. Wallace? Colonization worked well for the more savage people it civilized and less well for the more civilized people like those in America. Another big “so what else is new.” The Left is plain dumb.

    2. ‘Gilley welcomes criticism because it gets him attention.” (so do you.)
      “But he doesn’t suffer lightly being ignored.” (apparently, neither do you.)

  3. Temperance movement 2022? Superior morality and beyond reproach!

    Blame one class of citizens as racist (or whatever the soup du jour may be) cancelling any input from the accused, swearing your ampoule is the path to nirvana. The movement is peripherally blind and deaf, uses negative accusation and cancelations as their codicils. The movements purveyors must be shunned, made fun of, and ridiculed at every juncture.

  4. It is so totally mind-boggling that people still send their “children” to these indoctrination societies! When will parents wake up?

  5. One wonders if you can even find Animal Farm in high school or college libraries. Of course there was the Animated movie which was actually quite good but had a more contrived happy ending than the book. Don’t think you will find it on the Disney Channel. God forbid you find The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged in any of the same libraries.The Fountainhead starring Gary Cooper, Patricia Neal and Raymond Massey was an excellent film for the time but nowadays we would not like the overacting although Mr. Cooper tended to be understated in his performances.
    Strange about this “stolen land” stupidity. Please point out any present tribes, ethnicities, races, nations or other subdivisions of mankind that don’t live on land previously owned (controlled) by someone else. The whole history of mankind is about migration which virtually always occurs in multiple waves.
    Basically every landmass’s of any consequence (except Antarctica)was already peopled and most of them had kicked out previous occupants.
    Using Europe as an example it was peopled by Celtic groups followed by Anglo Saxons, Jutes, Germanic tribes, Magyars, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Huns, Mongols, Muslims from Western Africa (Al Andalus). Middle East, India, Southeast Asia and everywhere else was very much the same. Who has title. Maybe that’s why there is the statement “possession is 9/10’s of the Law”.
    What do the DEI people want? Title Insurance!

    1. RE:”God forbid you find The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged in any of the same libraries” Ironic that you cite Ayn Rand. I doubt that one can hope to find a contemporary ‘John Galt’ enabling the escape of today’s Captains of Industry’, withdrawing in protest to a colony concealed within a cloaked bubble. China being far too profitable a business partner to be ignored. Her take on the present day would be most interesting.

    2. GEB: “What do the DEI people want? Title Insurance!”

      They want Entitlement Insurance! 😉

  6. I like that the professor has named Stabin in his lawsuit. She can’t possibly claim qualified immunity for her actions. Go for the big bucks Dr. Gilley!

  7. Afirmative Action is a funding mechanism and a tool to abuse society to the benefit of the left.
    It’s tentacles can’t be poisoned.

  8. “That is when Stabin allegedly blocked Gilley . . .”

    Since UoO is a government institution, that is a clear violation of 1A.

    Those academic fascists know no bounds, and never see a right they wouldn’t violate.

  9. RE:”Division of Equity and Inclusion,” Academic institutions and others of different stripe which deem it necessary to host divisions or departments as such, do so as to virtue signal that they are in step with the current attempts at the sociopolitically and economically re-engineering tof he structure of society. They are, in actuality, little more than facilitators of inequity and exclusion. They are discriminating on the basis of the expression of sociopolitical and economic belief through what might best be described as a Cancel Culture Gestapo. It is time for such bias to be ruled unlawful under the Civil Rights Laws.

  10. What’s so disconcerting is that previously (seemingly) intelligent Democrats and Liberals have become so ignorant as to not even understand our Constitution or common morality and civility. And of course this DIE administrator is too dumb to even understand that signing pledges to absurd language is anti-thetical to our country. But my favorite Orwell line is most definitively the “Some Pigs (Democrats) are more equal than others” typifying Biden – Kerry – CLinton – Obama- world all rolled into one!

    1. They have become the party of National Socialist.

      The parallels to the Third Reich become clearer ever day. The 2nd Amendment and prayer are the only hope to restrain this evil that has come upon us.

      1. ZZ, many on the left think America should be more like China. They openly state so, and some companies and government agencies act on it.

        What then is China? She’s a combination of corporatism and socialism subservient to the goals of a one-party dictatorship.

        That, ZZ–as you suggested–is fascism, not communism. China is a fascist state and the Democrat Party is a fascist party with odd pretensions of progressivism.

        If a man can give birth, a fascist can now be a communist. Orwell was right.

        1. China is a restricted-vote republic.

          America was designed and intended to be a restricted-vote republic (ref. Ben Franklin).

          The difference is the U.S. Constitution vs. the Communist Manifesto and its “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

          American turnout in 1788 was 11.6% by design; vote criteria, set by States, were generally male, European, 21, 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres.

          The vote was relatively moot to the Framers as the literal “manifest tenor” of the Constitution describes America and holds dominion.

          The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America have acted subversively and treasonously to nullify the Constitution and implement the principles of communism since 1860.



          “These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.”

          – Abraham Lincoln, from his first speech as an Illinois state legislator, 1837

          “Everyone now is more or less a Socialist.”

          – Charles Dana, managing editor of the New York Tribune, and Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war, 1848

          “The goal of Socialism is Communism.”

          – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin


          “The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.”

          – Karl Marx and the First International Workingmen’s Association to Lincoln, 1864 https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

          “ON DECEMBER 3, 1861, a former one-term congressman, who had spent most of the past dozen years studying dissident economic theories, mounting challenges to the existing political order and proposing ever more radical responses to the American crisis, delivered his first State of the Union address as the sixteenth president of the United States.

          “Long before 1848, German radicals had begun to arrive in Illinois, where they quickly entered into the legal and political circles in which Lincoln traveled. One of them, Gustav Korner, was a student revolutionary at the University of Munich who had been imprisoned by German authorities in the early 1830s for organizing illegal demonstrations. After his release, Korner returned to his hometown of Frankfurt am Main where, according to historian Raymond Lohne, “he was one of about fifty conspirators involved in an attack upon the two main city guardhouses and the arsenal at the police facility and jail. This admixture of students and soldiers had planned to seize cannon, muskets, and ammunition; free political prisoners accused of breaking press-censorship laws, and begin ringing the great Sturmglocke (storm bell) of the Dom, the signal for the people to come in from the countryside. At that point, the democratic revolution would be announced…. Unfortunately, they were walking into a trap…. Betrayed by both a spy in their midst, and the reluctance of the common people to rise, nine students were killed, twenty-four were seriously wounded, and by August 3, 1833, Gustav Körner found himself riding into downtown Belleville, Illinois.”

          “Within a decade, Korner would pass the Illinois bar, win election to the legislature and be appointed to the state Supreme Court. Korner and Lincoln formed an alliance that would become so close that the student revolutionary from Frankfurt would eventually be one of seven personal delegates-at-large named by Lincoln to serve at the critical Republican State Convention in May 1860, which propelled the Springfield lawyer into that year’s presidential race. Through Korner, Lincoln met and befriended many of the German radicals who, after the failure of the 1848 revolution, fled to Illinois and neighboring Wisconsin. Along with Korner on Lincoln’s list of personal delegates-at-large to the 1860 convention was Friedrich Karl Franz Hecker, a lawyer from Mannheim who had served as a liberal legislator in the lower chamber of the Baden State Assembly before leading an April 1848 uprising in the region—an uprising cheered on by the newspaper Marx briefly edited during that turbulent period, Neue Rheinische Zeitung—Organ der Demokratie.

          “Even as they agreed on homesteading, Greeley and Lincoln wrangled over the timing and scope of an emancipation proclamation. The editor joined Frederick Douglass in demanding that the president take steps to make the Civil War not merely a struggle to preserve the Union, but “an Abolition war.” Even as Greeley and Lincoln exchanged sometimes pointed letters, the Tribune’s longtime managing editor Charles Dana was now working for Lincoln. Officially assigned to the War Department — where he would eventually serve as assistant secretary — Dana’s real role was as an aide and adviser to the president on questions of what the former newspaperman described as the “judicious, humane, and wise uses of executive authority.” That Lincoln spent much of his presidency reading dispatches from and welcoming the counsel of Marx’s longtime editor—like the fact that he awarded military commissions to the numerous comrades of the author of The Communist Manifesto who had come to the United States as political refugees following the failed European revolutions of 1848—is a shard of history rarely seen in the hagiographic accounts that produce a sanitized version of the sixteenth president’s story. In the years following Lincoln’s death, his law partner and political comrade, William Herndon, complained that Lincoln’s official biographers were already attempting “to make the story with the classes as against the masses,” an approach that he suggested “will result in delineating the real Lincoln about as well as does a wax figure in the museum.”

          – ISR International Socialist Review

      2. “The 2nd Amendment and prayer . . .”

        Guns wielded by those invoking the “word of God.”


        Have you learned nothing from history?

    2. I agree, highlyeducated. There was a time when the Democrat Party served America most by assimilating young people and immigrants to the values of free speech and the protection of political and ethnic minorities. Not anymore.

      It would appear the Democrats aren’t assimilating the immigrants. The immigrants are assimilating the Democrats.

      Politics is now a weapons platform. Conservatives are trolled by the judiciary, Jews are vilified as racists, and Christians are not just disputed but insulted. Really ugly reverse bigotry is the coin of the realm in some blue communities like Chicago, NYC, LA, and D.C.

      For decades, liberals insisted on free speech and minority protections to protect themselves and others. Now they think they’re ascendent and suddenly, those protections are passe. Scratch many “liberals” and you can smell the communism.

      The problem with liberalism is its aping, intellectual faddism. That kind of thinking gets lost easily. I hope America isn’t lost.

  11. Good for this professor. Imagine having some fascist administrator making demands that you find counter to your entire political philosophy. Imagine being a serious professor and having this pencil pusher who has achieved nothing other than to graduate with a major in Female Studies Black Studies, the Male Oppressor Studies or some other useless “field of study” making demands that you adhere to her world view. She is useless, she is harmful, she is a control freak that needs to be sued into oblivion.

  12. Two issues: 1) The Coms director of DEI has to justify her grifting little job and hence these types of actions. When I say “little job”, I mean little as in importance not little as in her salary, pension and other benefits.

    2) These little positions are being paid by tuitions that are guaranteed by the government and this is the problem. Make these schools back their own loans and watch standards change.

    I will also add that if moronic alumni would cease contributing to these insane asylums maybe the insanity would end.

  13. I don’t personally think we can any longer deny that real live Marxists have achieved what they had hoped would happen during the McCarthy era due to complicity on the part of our entire left wing culture. It has invaded every aspect of our society.

    The kicker is that it’s still just a wealthy and connected minority. I think it’s high time we start kicking back. Ignorant, spoiled (largely white) adults and teens do not get to redefine reality for the rest of us. Defunding is a great idea, but good luck with that – it’s a quaint notion in 2022 America when the Soros network can just write a check. Stop sending your kids to these schools, k-Phd. As Silicon Valley well knows (it’s what, through greed, made them so slimy decades ago) no eyeballs = no sale.

  14. We don’t know the allegations in the Affidavit, but one wonders what evidence the Government could possibly have that Mr. Trump violated the Espionage Act of 1917. That’s a high bar!

    1. Broadly the Warrant cites the laws that were violated.
      The Affadavit provides the evidence to support those claims.

  15. The 4th Amendment uses the adverb, “particular[ly]” to limit the scope of what the Government can search AND what it can seize. Without the Affidavit we’re at a bit of a loss, but simply based on the search warrant and attached receipt an argument could be made that the warrant is overly broad on both points.

    1. The warrant is overly broad regardless.

      That is not going to get Trump far in terms of supressing evidence.

      But it goes along way to proving corruption and bias on the part of the DOJ and FBI

  16. College enrollments are down 4 million, owing to the increasingly exorbitant cost of degrees.

    Who would have guessed Marxism was a luxury good?

    1. Well… everywhere Marxism has been tried, the populace has paid dearly for it, so…

  17. When free speech isn’t free we have a problem. And it’s a problem that is a direct attack on our Constitution which is a sacred tool of our Republic. Any time this occurs, at any school, federal funds must cease to support them. That will get their attention.

    1. There are problems with constraints on speech that go beyond even the constitution.

      There are some excellent podcasts on Barri Weis’s honestly with Prof Haidt of Heterodox accademy and Greg Lukianoff of FIRE

      Restricting free speech literally makes us stupider, less stable, more violent.

  18. It is a bit more accurate to state that all men are created unequal. Each set of DNA unique. One-of-a-kind, each of us.
    If, on the other hand, you want to take note that justice demands that all men be treated equally before the law, I can agree with that.

    1. OG, that’s far from more accurate. Besides the obvious fact he wasn’t talking about our DNA, he was describing how we are created in the state of nature. We are created equal in our natural rights. Those unalienable rights prexist government. Government’s purpose is to secure these rights. And in doing so, we are all treated equal under the law.

    2. George , that is the total point of the statement “All Men Are Created Equal”… as in the eyes of the law and lord. Don’t muddy the water with leftist dingbat talking points. The disgusting wave of wokeism takes these counterproductive and counter common sense POV’s as their gospel to a twisted and sick conclusion every time. It is cultural cancer.

Comments are closed.