Risky Business: Appearance of ‘Risk’ Manager Sends Oberlin Students into Frenzy over the Danger of ‘Risk Aversion’

Below is my column in the Hill on the recent controversy at Oberlin College where students are alarmed by the appearance of a risk manager on campus to address the costly lawsuits draining the school.

Here is the column:

Over its almost 200 years of existence, Oberlin College has faced a civil war, an economic depression and pandemics. But until this year, it had never faced the likes of Kalinda Watson. Student editors on The Oberlin Review have risen up against the addition of Watson to the college ranks as an existential threat.

No, Watson is not a conservative or a Republican — groups that haven’t been welcome on campus for many years. Oberlin is ranked in the top three most liberal colleges in the country, and finding a conservative professor is about as likely as finding a licensed, practicing wizard.

No, Watson is far, far worse. She is a risk management expert.

The panic over the arrival of a risk management expert in this small college is that she may be working … wait for it … to lower the risk of lawsuits at the college. Oberlin, it appears, attracts lawsuits as much as liberals.

The students fear that she will create “risk aversion” that could chill future protests.

Indeed, some of us have written about Oberlin for years as a case study of why higher education is declining in America. The college has yielded to the mob in past controversies that have cost the school a fortune.

The most obvious example is the college’s disgraceful history in a campaign targeting Gibson’s, a small family store and bakery that has been part of this small community since 1885. Despite that long association, the store became the focus of a campaign of destruction led by college officials after three African American students were arrested for shoplifting in 2016.

The arrests sparked an immediate campaign calling the store racist. Undeterred, the police found clear evidence of shoplifting and noted that, over a period of five years, 40 adults were arrested for shoplifting at Gibson’s Bakery, but only six were African American.

Nevertheless, the local prosecutors appeared to cave to the pressure and cut a plea deal to reduce the charge to attempted theft. But a local judge refused to accept the deal and said that the plea was the result of a punishing series of protests and a “permanent economic sanction.” Ultimately, all three students pleaded guilty.

Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo reportedly joined the massive protests and even handed out a flier denouncing the bakery as a racist business. When some pointed out that the students admitted they were guilty, special assistant to the president for community and government relations Tita Reed (who also reportedly participated in the protests) wrote that it did not change a “damn thing.”

The jury in June 2019 awarded the Gibsons $44 million in compensatory and punitive damages. A judge later reduced the award to $25 million. But the college continued to drag out the appeal in what seemed like a revenge litigation against a store that refused to give up simply because it was innocent.

So that brings us back to the student panic over the hiring of a campus risk manager. Rather than look at its own conduct and the lack of responsibility and leadership exercised by Oberlin College President Carmen Twillie Ambar and the Board of Trustees, the college is hiring someone to study what is abundantly clear: that the college is burning through a lot of money in what is little more than woke performance art. One wonders how many students could have been given free rides to the college with the amount of money Oberlin has paid in litigation and insurance.

For the student editors, they do not even want “risk” to be raised because “it seems unlikely that a college living in fear of litigation . . . will behave favorably toward activist efforts in the years to come.”

Oberlin is, of course, not alone in its lack of courage in holding students accountable. Recently, many people were appalled when students shut down a federal appellate judge from speaking at Stanford Law School. Associate Dean Tirien Steinbach even joined in condemning conservative appellate judge Stuart Duncan for causing trauma by sharing his views. While Stanford Law School Dean Jenny Martinez denounced the canceling of the speech as a denial of free speech, she refused to hold the students accountable.

At Northwestern University, students took over a class and forced it to end because the professor invited an immigration officer to discuss issues with students. Those students then gave public interviews celebrating their success, but the university refused to punish them.

In other cases, professors have actively participated in canceling speakers and even committing violent acts. Feminist studies associate professor Mireille Miller-Young was sentenced for criminally assaulting pro-life advocates on campus at the University of California – Santa Barbara. She was not fired. Instead, she was supported by faculty and even honored by other schools as a role model.

Most recently, at the State University of New York at Albany, sociology professor Renee Overdyke unplugged a pro-life display and then allegedly resisted arrest. Even though the school passed out flyers reminding students that they cannot stop others from speaking, Overdyke allegedly did precisely that. The videotaped arrest showed students screaming “She’s a [expletive] professor!”

And that’s precisely the point. A professor violated the school’s policies and then resisted arrest. The question is whether Albany will penalize or lionize her for obstructing free speech.

The angst of the Oberlin students reflects a fear that the college might not subsidize campaigns that harm other people, including innocent individuals like the owners of Gibson’s Bakery.

Oberlin’s administrators have made such campaigns part of the identity of their students. After all, this is a college where students are honed into such a hair-triggered state that they even protested the serving of sushi in the cafeteria as “cultural appropriation.” Litigation costs are now treated as an entitlement, like entertainment budgets.

They can rest assured. That the college had to bring in a “risk expert” clearly shows it will do little to change its culture or resist future mob actions. If President Ambar and the Board were serious, they would not need an expert. Even after a massive award by the jury, Ambar continued to refuse to apologize. 

In their editorial, the students declared “student activism in Oberlin integral to the culture. Without it, what do we stand for?” Putting aside responsible activism, there are always those other values such as higher education and due process that might appeal to them — if nothing else at least as something of a novelty at Oberlin College.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

130 thoughts on “Risky Business: Appearance of ‘Risk’ Manager Sends Oberlin Students into Frenzy over the Danger of ‘Risk Aversion’”

  1. “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

  2. “[The safety of a republic depended] “essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment, on a uniformity of principles and habits, on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice, and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

  3. If the denial of secession was unconstitutional, the “Reconstruction Amendments” are unconstitutional.

    Illegal aliens of the era must have been compassionately repatriated.

  4. “…the students declared “student activism in Oberlin integral to the culture. Without it, what do we stand for?”

    Seems the question answers itself – there’s *no* other purpose to attend Oberlin.

  5. George Stephanopoulos Can’t Sugarcoat It: New Poll Numbers ‘Brutal for President Biden’


    Former Clinton White House Communications Director George Stephanopoulos, now host of “This Week” on ABC, commented on the results of a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll Sunday.

    The short version: “This poll is just brutal for President Biden.”

    Stephanopoulos was introducing ABC News Political Director Rick Klein, who went into the specifics.

    “The skepticism over his leadership extends deep inside his own party,” Klein said of President Joe Biden.

  6. Jonathan: Complaining about students at Oberlin protesting the appearance of a “risk manager” is your latest attempt to criticize student growing involvement in critical campus issues. Something one would think you would applaud. Nope. You condemn student activism: (1) “Oberlin is a case study of why higher education is declining in America”; (2) Oberlin “is burning through a lot of money in what is little more than woke performance art”; (3) that students are not being “punished” for their activism; (4) and “liberal” colleges have yielded to “the mob” and “finding a conservative professor is about as likely as finding a licensed, practicing wizard”. Didn’t know there is a licensing requirement for wizards. You have been reading too much Harry Potter! Despite your continued litany of complaints it doesn’t appear you are making much headway in convincing universities and colleges to convert to your “conservative” paradigm. You lost that war years ago!

    But don’t despair. Conservative students are fighting back. Adolf Hitler was born April 20, 1889. To celebrate his birthday conservative students at UC Santa Cruz held an on-campus party, singing “Happy Birthday” to Der Fuhrer, ate cakes “adorned with hateful and horrific symbols”, according to press reports. And in downtown Santa Cruz a student found an anti-semitic and anti-LGBTQ+ flyer on his car windshield.

    Predictably, the UC administration issued a statement: “White supremacy has no place at UC Santa Cruz” and promised the on-campus student conduct officials would follow-up with “adjudication”. Now I would think the UC Santa Cruz conservative event would warrant a column by you defending the “free speech” rights of conservative students. We can hardly wait for that one!

      1. The Left use Hitler as their favorite foil. Joseph Stalin killed 30-40 millions, Mao killed 60+ millions, but citing their evil would be too close for comfort. For them, Stalin and Mao are their heroes which is why a crack addict, misogynist like Hunter, and his father the demented, are feeding at the trough of Marxist China. Naturally the MSM applaud. Oberlin’s future looks very bright!

      2. The report is genuine, although McIntyre’s presentation of it isn’t. The few students who supposedly had celebrated were reported by Akirah Bradley-Armstrong, the vice chancellor for student affairs and success at UC Santa Cruz, to have been a “small group” of “white supremacists”, not “conservatives” as the Menace would have it. The difference between the two is remarkable for anyone who has rudimentary grade school knowledge of WWII history. Conservatives were not cast then nor should they be cast now as white supremacists. Persons who do that purposefully intend only to stir passions. Imagine what it would do to disparage liberals by aligning them with black supremacy, the ideology which holds that the black race is superior to all others.

        The account of the hardly newsworthy incident, however, does offer a glimmer of something positive. Bradley-Armstrong has reportedly referred the matter to Student Conduct for follow up and adjudication. Who knows. This could be the beginning of procedures and processes throughout the country for colleges and universities to begin to restrain and tame their campus malcontents. That is of course they do not pick and choose among their malcontents and instead follow up and adjudicate all of them.

    1. Dennis McIntyre: Phony/specious condescension often masks as sarcasm.
      What makes it phony/specious is that the underlying speaker/commenter is not as educated/intelligent/masterful/persuasive/skillful at engaging in open, honest debate and discussion, as his peers/colleagues/fellow commenters.
      I, for one, would appreciate if you responded to JT with a factual, alternative argument about Oberlin’s strengths/merits–
      and stop focusing on sarcastic, immature put-downs of him. Thank you in advance.

    2. Dennis McIntyre, the good Professor does not condemn student activism. He calls for responsible activism. While you in contrast are supporting violent activism. People have noticed. Your getting to fat to fit into your ANTIFA sweatshirt. We know that this is true because you also supported ANTIFA spraying people who were peacefully protesting abortion with pepper spray. No surprise that this is how you roll. We got yer numba.

      1. Thinkitthrough: (Apologies, -this is wholly OT, but speaking of the good professor, I personally, for the first time ever, watched an episode of “The Good Doctor” on television last week. The main character (the doctor) was so convincing that I actually thought he was an autistic actor who was cast for this role. I later researched his name (which escapes me now) and found out that he is not autistic, just an incredibly talented actor. Have you ever seen this show?

        1. Lin I have not seen The Good Doctor but I will check it out. Thanks for the tip.

    3. Whats new, Dennis McIntyre writes about conservatives who support Hitler. Predictably he never provides a source for his hysteria. It sounds like Dennis is taking his ANTIFA newsletter very seriously. We should remember that Dennis has come out for more censorship just like Hitler.

      1. Politically, Dennis is in synch with Hitler, though I don’t think Dennis believes in extermination of the Jews.

    4. To celebrate his birthday conservative students at UC Santa Cruz held an on-campus party, singing “Happy Birthday” to Der Fuhrer, ate cakes “adorned with hateful and horrific symbols”, according to press reports. And in downtown Santa Cruz a student found an anti-semitic and anti-LGBTQ+ flyer on his car windshield.

      That is immoral.

  7. “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

    ― Ronald Reagan

  8. While being “woke” is always exemplary and commendable, sometimes it may be costly.

    I am waiting for the first s@@tlib to explain why Gibson’s Bakery should allow shoplifting from members of recognized “victim” groups. And calling me a slur is not an answer.


      1. @anonymous

        It is usually lefties who go ballistic and name call at the first sign of disagreement with one of their pet issues. They want to doxx, fire and destroy people like me. BTW – I make no special claims of moral superiority over those who merely disagree as leftists love to do.

        So do you think it is ok for certain people to shoplift? That was the question on the table.

        And thanks for not calling me a slur. Since I am Hispanic and member of a recognized victim group, that would be racist.


        1. You post the same slur in every column where you comment. No one is to blame for that except you.

  9. A good description of what is happening today.

    Jacobins sought to wipe out religion, both materially and spiritually. They replaced God, first, with the atheistic “Cult of Reason” and then a stranger still “Cult of the Supreme Being”—a dreamed-up, living, humanistic god that only the murderous Robespierre could fully envision, but eerily similar to our own Green New Deal deity.

    The months of the year themselves were renamed, the days of the week renumbered and relabeled. Statues were toppled, first at night, later in shameless daylight. Place names were erased and renamed. The original revolutionary heroes were not to be mentioned; their uncouth successors deified. Money was printed to “spread the wealth”—until it was worthless.

    Murderous cancel culture ran unchecked. Yesterday’s French revolutionary became today’s counterrevolutionary—and tomorrow’s decapitated.


    1. “Jacobins sought to wipe out religion, both materially and spiritually.”

      That is anti-historical nonsense. They rejected Catholicism, but fully embraced the key tenets of religion (and in fact a theocracy) See Robespierre, the “Cult of the Supreme Being.”

      1. Don’t argue with me Sam, argue with Victor Davis Hanson. He wrote the piece and has an excellent reputation as a historian. Below are two more sites that are of interest.

        I always believed the Jacobins promoted secularism, but I am not an expert. I think there may have been somewhat of a mix depending on time and place, but this type of discussion is above my pay grade. Below provides additional ideas.

        “Another tenet of Jacobinism is a secularism that includes the elimination of existing religions in favor of one run by the state (i.e., the cults of Reason and the Supreme Being).”


        “The wave of Dechristianisation passed across France in just a few months, between September 1793 and July 1794 (brumaire to germinal year II).”


        1. “I always believed the Jacobins promoted secularism . . .”

          France was a union of religion and state before the Revolution (under Louis), under Robespierre, and after the Revolution (under Napoleon).

          The barbarism of the Reign of Terror was directed at any person or institution associated with the previous regime (Louis), which included the Catholic church and Catholics — and which included men of reason, such as the father of chemistry, Lavoisier, who the Revolutionaries beheaded.

          The Reign’s “secularism” was in fact a frenzy of emotion-worship, an ideology they adopted from their guiding thinker — the anti-Enlightenment, anti-reason Rousseau.

          1. “France was a union of religion and state before the Revolution (under Louis), “

            No one said France was not religious before or after the French Revolution. No one said ‘men of reason’ were not involved. France was predominantly Catholic, so saying “which included the Catholic Church and Catholics” is almost redundant. Of course, most anti-Christian activities would be against the Catholic Church. Are you implying that other religions and religious denominations were not attacked during the French Revolution? I hope you did not make that error.

            “The Reign’s “secularism” was in fact a frenzy of emotion-worship”

            If you are admitting this, then I don’t know why you created an argument in the first place.

            I hope you remember that many people were involved, and not all had the same ideas.

            Note: The Cult of Reason (atheism) Preceded the Cult of The Supreme Being. I believe conventional wisdom agrees with Hanson and disagrees with you.

            As a secondary note, I don’t think you believe in a Supreme Being. Would you have been on the side of the Cult of Reason?

            1. “If you are admitting this . . .”

              The important issue is not “secularism,” but the fundamental ideas — the Revolution’s emotion-worship. In an effort to prop up religion, the unthinking often use the term “secularism” without ever asking a basic question: What was the culture’s fundamental philosophy?

              “I don’t think you believe in a Supreme Being. Would you have been on the side of the Cult of Reason?”

              That’s nonsense, and you know it. A rational person does not replace one state-mandated ideology (religion) with another state-mandated ideology (atheism). And rational political leaders (like the Founders) do not use the government’s police powers to persecute those with opposing ideas.

              You and others are being very sloppy about the ideas, goals, policies, and practices of the “Cult of Reason.”

              And that is why I latched onto the concept “secularism.” You’re package-dealing secularism with emotionalism, as did Hanson. That “Cult” was not pro-reason. It was Rousseau — Dionysus, not Apollo. it was a stew of emotionalism, collectivism, and state terror. If you want to see a real “cult” of reason in the creation of a country, look to the Founders.

              You, Hanson, and countless others conflate “secularism” with a Bacchanalian orgy, in an attempt to kick reason off the scene, and to make religion look good by comparison. That is the creation of a deadly straw man.

              1. “The important issue is not “secularism,” but the fundamental ideas ”

                Since you wish to change the subject matter, I oblige.

                “Revolution’s emotion-worship.”

                Most revolutions get caught up in their imaginations. Congrats, you are making a statement that few would disagree with.

                “In an effort to prop up religion, the unthinking often use the term “secularism” without ever asking a basic question:”

                There is nothing inappropriate in using the word secularism in the context used. Again you are changing the subject matter, and, as usual, I will oblige.

                “What was the culture’s fundamental philosophy?”

                That is a debatable philosophy to which there is no basic answer unless you wish to select a specific population and consider that population to represent the movement.

                With the guillotine rapidly chopping off heads and then being used to savage their own, one could say there were radical shifts in the movement’s philosophy as time passed. Robespierre is not the same as the deceased Rousseau, yet he was also not alive to see the end of the revolution. That is how drastic the changes were as an emotion-driven revolution proceeded.

                >>“I don’t think you believe in a Supreme Being.
                >That’s nonsense, and you know it.”

                You have stated your atheism many times, never acknowledging a supreme being. I am happy to be wrong. Do you believe in a supreme being other than yourself?

                “And rational political leaders (like the Founders) do not use the government’s police powers to persecute those with opposing ideas.”

                They shouldn’t, but you do recognize that there were state religions that those of different faith had to support?

                “You and others are being very sloppy about the ideas, goals, policies, and practices of the “Cult of Reason.”

                What you deem sloppiness is merely the inconsistencies that occur in your rhetoric. You also generalize a lot. What I have stated is reasonably historically correct.

                “You’re package-dealing secularism with emotionalism, as did Hanson.”

                You are misreading everything and everyone. If you were more precise at the start, we would not have such disparities in logic.

                “You, Hanson, and countless others conflate “secularism” with a Bacchanalian orgy, in an attempt to kick reason off the scene, and to make religion look good by comparison.”

                I have no concern over how religion looks. However, I do recognize, as many of our founders did, that our Republic required a framework of belief, belief or it would fail. Psychologically man has an innate need to believe in something. They said that in the DOI, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    2. Tara Reade 🐎
      I want to make something clear. If something happens to me, all roads lead to Joe Biden.
      Joe Biden and DNC political machine threats, bullying and intimidation over the last three years will not work. I am not suicidal. I should not be under investigation nor am I a foreign agent. I am a private citizen. I was a former staffer of Joe Biden’s that has chosen to step forward to tell the truth. The tactics using intimidation and bullying to silence me and suppress me using DOJ and FBI and social media will not work. Leave me alone. I will testify under oath in Congress if asked to do so and tell what happened and what I know. The Biden corruption must end. Period Thank you @RepMTG and @mattgaetz for inviting me to testify and caring about the truth!
      3:43 PM · May 7, 2023

      1. E. Jean Carroll has testified under oath that Trump raped her, and two other women testified under oath that E. Jean Carroll told them about Trump raping her when it happened, and yet two more women testified under oath that Trump sexually assaulted them. The civil trial for this is in its closing arguments as we type.

              1. Yes, you pointed that out 3 hours ago, and I pointed out to you that if you want more specific info, you can look it up for yourself.

        1. We get cr-p from anonymous and people that wish to be like him. The lies and ignorance never cease. We see the same type of game repetitively.

        2. One question comes to mind. Why didn’t Carroll or her two witnesses go to the police when she was raped by Trump. Now after THIRTY years in the year before Trump runs again for President this news comes out. Why not. The did it to Thomas and Kavanaugh. The pattern is easily discernible. They tell women that Trump and Kavanaugh are rapist to keep the women under their thumb and tell Black people that Republicans are going to put them all back in the chains that Democrats had them in. I understand. They poll tested it and it works to keep the suckers down on the farm so why not try it again. They used rape in the south to hang black men to get the vote so why not stick with what works?

          1. Your question was addressed in the trial. If you’re too lazy to read what was said under oath about it, that’s your choice.

            1. Predicting what Victims actually do is very nearly impossible – contra police and others people react quite differently to crime and trauma.

              While I do not beleive Carroll, what is much more important is that 30 year old stories are never accurate

    3. Thanks for the link to the Legal Insurrection column about where they= Gibsons finally got paid by Oberlin. From that column, it is clear that the college has learned nothing, literally nothing, from this episode:

      “While Oberlin College announced, after the Ohio Supreme Court ruled, that it had agreed to pay the judgment, in fact it did so out of legal compulsion, not good faith. The Gibsons were poised to execute on the appeal bond. As we noted at the time, Oberlin College, even in legal defeat, refused to apologize or acknowledge it did anything wrong:

      Notice what is not in the statement: An apology. Oberlin College still appears not to understand or accept what it did wrong. It considers itself the victim.

      There also was no apology, instead a dismissive attitude, in a mass email sent by the president of the college ….”

  10. JPMorgan’s Risk Manager: General Raymond Odierno. The guy who caught Saddam Hussein.

    Raymond’s tenure was short at JPMorgan. He past away, 8 October 2021 at the age of 67. RIP General Raymond Odierno.

  11. “The students fear that she will create ‘risk aversion’ that could chill future protests.”

    This sordid affair illustrates a fundamental, irrational premise of the Left. It’s the same premise animating the Left’s anti-law enforcement, anti-police policies. It rejects any restrictions on its animalistic behavior. It spurns boundaries, limits, standards. It abhors anything that smacks of a code of behavior or principles of action. It is *not* amoral. It is anti-morality.

  12. “The question is whether Albany will penalize or lionize her for obstructing free speech.” A rhetorical question the good professor throws out there, no doubt.

  13. Turley,
    I have to ask… who’s idea was it to bring in a risk manager?

    Usually it would be the insurance companies who would insist. No risk manager… no insurance coverage. No insurance coverage… no cap on damages. (More on this in a bit…)

    Or it could be the trustees who manage the funds. They have a fiduciary responsibility to the University and when you have to protect assets… you tend to lose your liberal angst and desire for an all or nothing approach.

    While some may point out that there really isn’t a cap on damages… if you were ever involved in a personal injury lawsuit… most settle and the settlement is usually limited to what the insurance company is willing to pay. Its funny how that happens. Now there are cases where that isn’t the case, but those tend to be rare. I learned this fact from a couple of lawyers, one who was a PI specialist in the South East… many moons ago.

    If there was no cap, or you exceed what insurance covers… you end up putting the defendant out of business and have a harder time collecting anything.
    So you lose.


  14. If you have never practiced critical thinking, then you simply see what you’re told to see.

    @8:25 Freedom is fragile. I don’t want to alarm you, but it is. It only took three generations to make North Korea into George Orwell’s “1984.” It took only three generations.

    1. @estovir

      They just have the “wrong” people running Communism in North Korea. I am quite hopeful that today’s woke mob will complete the task and the result will be heaven on earth.

      BTW – Fidel and his folks didn’t quite get it down in Cuba. My family left the worker’s paradise after 1959.


  15. Everyone Everywhere have lost Their: Patience, Control, Reason, …
    SCREW YOU, JUST GIVE IT TO ME NOW !!! goes the Mantra.
    Reparations, Rights, and Revolution (R.R.R.)
    And They’re coming in from all over the World, America has it and I want it for ‘FREE’.
    That’s what ‘FREEdom’ means.
    I know it and I’ve seen it on the Internet.


    Is it the effects of Global Consumer Commercialism?
    It’s ‘The Real Thing’

  16. It’s not uncommon for institutions of all types to have a risk management infrastructure. For example, many financial institutions have a Chief Risk Officer. The concept of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) is fairly common and can be beneficial in many scenarios, even in a governmental context. Consider the policy failures of the Biden Administration, the open borders, the climate agenda, etc. These policies are formulated in accordance with a political agenda that does not take obvious risks into account. For example, the electric grid in this country is, and has been, vulnerable for quite some time. Yet the Biden Administration is providing economic incentives for people to purchase pricey electric cars. I am not aware of any meaningful risk analysis that has been done that would justify this emphasis on climate change. In fact, the ever-changing geopolitical alignments make the case for energy independence which we had achieved under the previous administration.

  17. Jonathan: I will get to the controversy at Oberlin but first an update on the mass shooting in Allen, Texas over the weekend. The shooter has been identified as Mauricio Garcia, a resident of Dallas. Federal authorities say Garcia’s online activity indicated an interest in white supremacist and neo-Nazi views. Garcia also had a patch on his chest that read “RWDS”–a phrase that means “Right Wing Death Squad”. If “guns don’t kill, people do” then many who have been committing recent mass murder suffer from a severe mental disorder–an adherence to extreme right-wing white supremacist and neo-Nazi ideologies. Sorry, Jonathan, but none of the shooters in the recent mass shootings have been identified as belonging to Antifa.

    1. It’s been noticed that Turley isn’t calling for the shooter or driver in Texas to release their manifesto. Because he sure did jump fast on the Trans girl. Of course we know why he did that.

    2. “Federal authorities say Garcia’s online activity indicated an interest in white supremacist and neo-Nazi views.”

      Wow. *That* manifesto sure came out fast.

      1. Sam,
        Call me crazy, but someone named Mauricio Garcia a neo-Nazi?
        That is one messed up Hispanic.
        And did he have truly interest in white supremacist and neo-Nazi views?
        Or is it like Dennis, Fish, Gigi, et al interest in the good professor’s blog?
        Need more information to make a logical conclusion. Too soon to make snap judgements with out further evidence.
        An additional bit of information that would be helpful, is the ethnic background of all those shot.

      2. There have been no media reports about a manifesto of which I am aware. All that has been reported to date is that authorities are looking into Garcia’s background with nothing yet known or confirmed about his ideology. Statements circulating that the nonwhite suspect is a white supremacist have not been confirmed by investigators. Unlike the case involving the transwoman in Nashville the investigation in Dallas is still ongoing and further arrests and prosecutions have not been ruled out. In the Nashville case, there has been no excuse not to release the confirmed manifesto. Without evidence in the Dallas case that a manifesto even exists in a matter still under investigation, to be prudent suggests everyone hold their fire until further notice. Everyone that is but the few scheming and fantasizing illiberals who post here.

    3. McIntyre: Who pays you to spout this off-topic crap? Regardless of what happened in Allen, TX, there are good and bad and deranged people on all sides. So your point is that right wingers like to kill people? OK, sure.

    4. You seem to have this obsession with inner city violence.

      Now, it was actually a topic I was interested in since my freshman year of high school. A lot of the local channels reported on gang violence in places like Compton. Perhaps Allen, Texas is Texas’s version of Compton.

      Nevertherless, I do notbring up the subject in blog posts and Facebook posts and forum threads that have nothing to do with it.

      Why do you? What is so imp[ortant about inner city violence that you bring it up here?

  18. They are idiots. Wait until they have to worry about something important–like survival.

Leave a Reply