“Take Them to the Slaughterhouse”: Trustee Calls for “Culling” Faculty Members

John Corkins, vice president of the Board of Trustees of the Kern Community College District Board, has a simple solution for those faculty who question diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs: take them to the slaughterhouse. Corkins has since apologized but the Board conspicuously failed to address other glaring problems with his extreme rhetoric.At the meeting, Corkins responded to students and faculty complaining about a racially hostile environment. Faculty opposed to DEI policies were referenced as part of this threat. Corkins declared that there are “abusive” faculty that “we have to continue to cull.”He added: “Got them in my livestock operation and that’s why we put a rope on some of them and take them to the slaughterhouse. That’s a fact of life with human nature and so forth, I don’t know how to say it any clearer.”

 

Corkins has since apologized and insisted

“My intent was to emphasize that the individuals who spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting have my full support…several African-American faculty, students and statewide representatives … bravely shared their feelings of fear based on the actions of a small group of faculty members and their feelings of disappointment in the district for allowing these actions to continue.”

Notably, however, the video of the Dec. 13 meeting does not give details on the specific racial incidents. There is reference to an ongoing investigation. However, there are references to faculty who have opposed DEI measures.

That would likely include a  group called the Renegade Institute for Liberty with history Professors Matthew Garrett and Erin Miller, who teach at Bakersfield College. The group filed a federal lawsuit against the district after they were allegedly threatened with termination for questioning the use of grant money to fund social justice initiatives at their college. They are both tenured.

The opposition to DEI measures has led some to object that the group makes them feel unsafe on campus. That reportedly included calls to terminate faculty who oppose DEI to create a safer environment.

While apologizing for calling for the killing of such faculty, Corkins does not address why faculty should be targeted if they oppose DEI measures. The hearing and the statements made against these faculty members creates a chilling environment for academic freedom. The message is clear that these professors are viewed as a dangerous element on campus.

The Board has an obligation to address this uncertain line. Corkins apologizes for calling for the killing of critics but not why criticism of DEI itself is a matter for action. There may be conduct that is threatening or violent. There is no indication of any criminal complaint, but there is a need to preserve an open and tolerant environment. However, that also includes tolerance for opposing views on issues like DEI.

There is no major campaign to remove Corkins. I am less inclined for such removal as I am interested in greater clarity on the rights of free speech and academic freedom.  Everyone makes dumb comments in unguarded moments. I accept that Corkins was carried away by the emotion of the moment. Moreover, Corkins was referencing “abusive” faculty and not necessarily putting all DEI critics in that category. That is precisely what should be clarified.

However, it would likely be a different story if a board member called for the “culling” of DEI supporters or groups on the left. There remains a double standard in how such controversies are handled in academia.

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. At the University of North Carolina (Wilmington) one such campaign led to a professor killing himself a few days before his final day as a professor.

I have defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments on the left, including “detonating white people,” abolish white peopledenouncing policecalling for Republicans to suffer,  strangling police officerscelebrating the death of conservativescalling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. I also defended the free speech rights of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. (Loomis was later made Director of Graduate Studies of History at Rhode Island).

Even when faculty engage in hateful acts on campus, however, there is a notable difference in how universities respond depending on the viewpoint. At the University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display.

When these controversies arose, faculty rallied behind the free speech rights of the professors. That support was far more muted or absent when conservative faculty have found themselves at the center of controversies. The recent suspension of Ilya Shapiro is a good example. Other faculty have had to go to court to defend their free speech rights. One professor was suspended for being seen at a controversial protest.

The message from this hearing could be viewed by some as affirming  that criticism of DEI is now viewed a threatening language. For conservative, libertarian, or contrarian faculty, it is not clear if such views will now be tolerated or viewed as grounds for termination (or a barrier to hiring).

This comes at a time when many faculties have indeed “culled” their ranks of conservatives. A new survey of 65 departments in various states found that 33 do not have a single registered Republican.

 In a recent column, the editors of the legal site Above the Law mocked those of us who objected to the virtual absence of conservative or libertarian faculty members at law schools. Senior editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” based on the fact that liberal views reflect real law as opposed to junk law.  (Patrice regularly calls those with opposing views “racists,” including Chief Justice John Roberts because of his objection to race-based criteria in admissions as racial discrimination). He explained that hiring a conservative academic was akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism (or that the sun orbits the earth) to teach at a university.

It is that easy. You simply declare that conservative views shared by a majority of the Supreme Court and roughly half of the population are invalid to be taught.

It is not limited to faculty. Polls now show that 60 percent of students fear sharing their views in class. Various polls have shown the same fear with some showing an even higher percentage of fearful students. There is a growing orthodoxy taking hold on our campuses with growing intolerance for dissenting faculty and students alike.

There are faculty who have raised concerns over DEI initiatives, land acknowledgment, and other policies. Even with the apology, the Board has allowed the underlying threat to linger. It should state why the opposition of faculty members, including filing in court, could be deemed as threatening or unacceptable viewpoints.

 

 

157 thoughts on ““Take Them to the Slaughterhouse”: Trustee Calls for “Culling” Faculty Members”

  1. Jonathan, et al: Why not, for the sake of clarity, but still using the Left’s nomenclature and terminology, simply rearrange the Acronym Letters to (not so subtly) indicate what the intended outcome is?

    DIE

    As for me and my house, we will serve it up this way.

  2. Why is it that people who had NO slaves, never were slave owners and likely had ancestors who were indentured servants or treated like lepers when they emigrated her legally are constantly tarred with this brush? Slavery was awful, but did happen and has been gone from America since 1865. All white people are NOT automatically bad and ALL people of color are NOT automatically good.Teach history as it was and NOT how you would like it to be!

    1. It actually not about making POC safer, it is about making an upper class richer and advancing their morality. It is a power move, and forces MOST people, white or otherwise, to choose the most powerful.

    2. You are part of the problem, Janice Jones. My ancestors came from Ireland during the Potato famine then worked in the NE Pennsylvania coal mines. My family had NOTHIGN to do with slavery. Tale your DEI and place it where the sun doesn’t shine.

    3. The problem with DEI is not about feelings. it is about Facts.

      Lots of them.

      If you want to increase racism, the best way to do that is to impliment DEI – which is Racism.

      “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

      This is a core value this nation aspires to that it falls short on. But that most of the rest of the world does not even try.

      DEI is totally at odds with that value.

      Did Jim Crow eliminate Racism ? Why would you think the same thing in reverse would do better ?

      Finally, the core principle to all business is to maximize the value returned to investors.

      That principle is absolutely critical. It is why free markets consistently raise standards of living faster than any other system.
      And why all other schemes either under perform free markets or completely fail.

      If Diversity acheives that value – then businesses should work on diversity – along with the ten thousand other things that increase that value.
      The same with equity and inclusion.

      The real world fact is that Diversity does contribute to producing value – but neither equity and “inclusion” do.
      In point of fact Inclusion and equity are destrcutive of value. For obvious reasons.

      We are not equal. That is not just a fact, it is actually an important fact.
      Humans are not ants or bees where there are a few specific classes and all members of those classes are identical and interchangeable.

      No two humans are the same. That is a feature not a flaw. It is part of why humans are so adaptable. It is also why we are so productive – that an opposable thumbs.

      Fundimentally the Diversity and equity are incompatible.

      With respect to “inclusion” – that fails for much the same reason that Equity does.

      WE are not equal. In any given situation with any group, one voice in that group will be closer to the truth than others, and many voices will be wrong. It is not always the same people who are right and who are wrong. But it is a fact that all people are not equal and all ideas are not equal.

      Free markets allow nearly everyone to succeed – but not equally.

      If you are going to place your entire life savings into an investment for your retirement – whose voice should matter more to you – Warren Buffets ? Or the homeless guy on your street corner ?
      Warren is probably not the best person to advise you on where to get fentanyl. For that the homeless guy is a better choice.

      Inside of a business, on the shop floor, in the office, the voices that should carry the most weight are those with the best track record.

      Far too many people on the left think that business is easy. That success is automatic. That all ideas are equal.
      But that is complete nonsense.

      If you are part of some business and you do not think your ideas are being respected adequately – look for another job or start your own business. If your ideas, if your point of view is important – you will succeed. In the real world most ideas fail.
      That is why we trust those with a track record of success.

      This is not about POC or non POC
      It is not about feelings.
      It is not about who feels comfortable and who does not.

      If that is what matters to you – you have no place in business.

      If what matters to you is NOT producing the greatest value you can – as measured by the choice of others to buy the value you produce – then you are harming everyone.

    1. That’s the narrative, but I have found the leftist narrative to be more like a fairy tale, more often than not.

      1. If you listen to the president. the media, the left, democrats, the FBI, the DOJ we are in the midst of the worst waive of right wing domestic terrorism ever.

        And yet, if you look out your window, at your town, your county, your state, the country – there is pretty much no right wing violence.

        Sorry, the parent whose daughter was raped by a transexual in the girls room in her HS, getting angry with a school board for Lying about the event is not a right wing domestic terrorist. He is a Father.

        When I look at our cities – Violences is skrocketing – but the perpitrators are ordinary criminals, and to the extent that politics matters at all – which it does not, they are democrats.

        When I look arround the real world, I see little if anything that is going wrong that can be blamed on the right.

  3. Ritual sacrifice, the next sacrament:

    Ostensibly secular universities are actually deeply religious–their lives as punctuated and regulated by liturgies and rituals as any monastery. There’s the land acknowledgment liturgy, the diversity statement ritual, the pronouns ritual. We have saints, demons, even holy months.

    -Robert George, Princeton University

  4. Planned Personhood to relieve “burdens” has diverse (numeric and color) precedents in nominally “secular” religious sects.

  5. I may be out of step with the leadership of Kern Community College, but I don’t think it is right to round up the people who disagree with you and kill them.

  6. As a youngster, I was taught to believe in the humanist promise that America would rise to her ideals and that she would always be exalted among nations. That promise became part of me.

    In my dotage, I grieve because I’m finally starting to accept that no civilization escapes decadence—not even America. Great nations have a shelf life of 250 years, more or less. The Romans lasted longer, but they were made of sterner stuff. Even they succumbed.

    Great nations are always destroyed either by foreign powers or the lack thereof. Yep, the lack thereof. When a common and obvious physical threat is removed, most people lapse into believing whatever excuses they need to escape reality—or decency. Even in America, absurdity now has the podium.

    Are we not smart enough? Actually, smart people are the usually the biggest offenders. Just look at these asses in the Professor’s blog today, smirking and making threats. The nation’s faculties are full of such hothouse plants. These little orchids belong in the swamp.

    So will globalism’s version of corporate communism succeed as democracy fails? Yes. Because even though corporate communism is just a slurry of corruption, hypocrisy and self-interest, corporate communism was bred in the swamp. It thrives in the swamp. And it will become compost in the swamp for some other folly of human nature.

    And so will we. The problem was never our ideals. It was the components of our ideals. The problem was always with us.

    Someday, the machines will replace humanity. We’ll insist. Injustice was never the worst thing that could happen. The worst thing is getting what we really deserve.

    1. James Madison, in the 1700’s, studied the previous 2000 years of world history and to this day in 2023, is still the world’s greatest expert “on why empires and superpowers fail”. Not a single person alive today has read what Madison read on why governments fail.

      Madison, Hamilton, John Jay and others created a model of government “constitutional democratic republic” with guaranteed individual liberties for all persons on U.S. soil.

      This model of government was a legal “restraint” on governing authority (limited government).

      The very first “supreme law of the United States” was a constitutional Oath of Office. An “indirect” loyalty oath governing an officials authority. The loyalty oath was NOT to the nation directly and NOT to the people directly, but to a “constitutional rule of law”.

      The Framers of the U.S. Constitution, based on over 2000 years of histories failures, believed an “indirect” loyalty oath was the best way to really protect the nation and it’s people.

      All of our national security agencies were required to pledge supreme loyalty to the U.S. Constitution. The motto “Protect & Serve” or “Homeland” are all subordinate to the U.S. Constitution (a wartime governing charter). No American agency has authority to violate the U.S. Constitution.

      The U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1789 and the Bill of Rights in 1791. The DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS and DOD were created almost a century later. All these agencies are sworn to uphold constitutional rights, not to violate them.

      Today, most of these agencies view their supreme loyalty oath as “optional-when-convenient” not as a real legal restraint in their authority.

      We expect doctors to be loyal to their oath (to do no harm). We expect our clergy to be loyal to their religious oath. We expect lawyers to follow their ethics oath. We expect our spouses to honor their marriage vows.

      So why do oath-sworn government bureaucrats get a pass? Maybe simply mandating bureaucrats honor their promise of loyalty is the first best step? Some agencies even advertise “fidelity” in their motto describing their mission.

      Madison gave us a blueprint to follow! If parts of the U.S. Constitution are fundamentally flawed, Madison and the Framers also gave us a “constitutional-amendment process” to improve on that model.

    1. Because the small risk of a global nuclear war has gargantuan consequences.

      300M dead in hours. 3B dead in a year. The entire west wiped out. Much of the world knocked back 100 years.

      Regardless, Why SHOULD NATO fight russia ?

  7. These are what are known as toxic leaders. They are bizarre and dangerous. There is not much separating them from the former leaders (or members) in Jonestown or other weirdo groups who think they have the moral high ground to cast judgment on those who have the intestinal fortitude to call Bull S*** on thuggery and are willing to stand up to their tyranny.

    If any parent sends their child into this meat grinder, they must prepare them in every manner to be able to defend themselves with truth and facts.

    It is imperative that alumni and taxpayers stand together and cut off funding from such institutions and those who do not have the intellect or courage to face dissent. If they are right and their position is sound, then it will withstand scrutiny. However, they know that they have nothing to stand for and nothing to stand on, so they must resort to canceling those who would hold opposing views.

    These are the folks who have never met a payroll, nor have the ability to have a career in the real world.

  8. why do some people have 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 or even more ar-15s

    and dozens and dozens of mags

    and thousands and thousands of rounds of ammo

    its because of people like this

    people like this

    saw the movie schindlers list not as a cautionary tale as it was meant

    but as a how to manual

    theyre coming

    theyre coming for us

    maybe not next week or next month or next year

    but theyre definitely coming

    were past the point of no return

    the bad part is just over the horizon

    and we have to go through the bad part

    to get to the good part

    read history:

    it was only 6 years or so from the reichstag fire in germany in 1933 to the first death camps showing up in poland

    jan 6 was americas reichstag fire

    only 4 years left until americas final solution

    prepare accordingly

    the clock is ticking

    tick tock tick tock tick tock…

    1. is the USA a free country? Or a fascist country? Time to end all federal aid and loans for colleges. If the education is worth it…then people should PAY! 60% of college are now just Democrat indoctrination centers….churning out failure!

  9. Rep. Schiff deeply involved in directing Twitter which accounts to ban. Perhaps this is a previous of tomorrow’s Res Ipsa.

    In the second of two back-to-back batches of Elon Musk’s “Twitter Files” shared on Tuesday by Substack writer Matt Taibbi, he reported that Twitter “received an astonishing variety of requests from officials asking for individuals they didn’t like to be banned.”

    Full article: https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-files-rep-adam-schiffs-office-requested-tech-giant-suspend-accounts

    This type of imploring to silence free speech by government officials should never happen in a free society. Do we still have one?

    1. notsooldthinkingmanfromkansas: I opened your cited link. If even a THIRD of what the report/article states is accurate, I am somewhat appalled that our objective/fair/trustworthy national/mainstream media (NBC/ABC/CBS/NPR/PBS) are devoid of reporting–or even mentioning–anything on this ongoing saga. But then again, I have frequently mentioned on this site their propensity for “selective” facts/stories/news/information. Thank you.

  10. It seems like every time there’s a violent event liberals immediate jump on the airwaves claiming it’s conservative “rhetoric” that’s to blame, even before they know the actual facts of the case. And usually the facts don’t fit that narrative, but that’s beside the point. Even when the so-called rhetoric simply consists of well-used metaphors like a political “campaign” or “targeting” certain areas for advertising, as with the Gabby Giffords shooting. Here, you’ve got a liberal in a position of public trust advocating for culling, roping, and taking to the slaughterhouse some conservative members of his own community – for holding conservative views. And the liberals on this blog can’t even bring themselves to say there’s anything wrong with it. For them it’s all a matter of whose ox is being gored.

Leave a Reply