Just Nuts: History Professor Suspended for Passing Out Candies Marked “HeHim” and “SheHer”

We often follow controversies at universities over free speech, but this week’s addition can be accurately described as nuts. Madera Community College History Professor David Richardson is under investigation as a possible confectionary reactionary . . . or at least that is what the school appears to be investigating. Richardson recently gave out candy on campus from Jeremy’s Chocolates labeled “HeHim” (nuts) and “She/Her” (nutless).  For Richardson, the candies have led to his suspension pending official investigation.

Richardson reportedly brought the candy to an open house event for academic programs. The candy is connected to the conservative Daily Wire, which launched the chocolate brand two months ago in protest of Hershey’s naming “a biological male” as its spokesperson for International Women’s Day.

Richardson said that he had some of the candy left over from an earlier purchase and added them to the “goodies” he has always handed out at the history table for the open house event. That led to a confrontation with a staff member.

Richardson is now banned from “non-public” areas and blocked from his email. He says that he was told that he is under investigation for “serious misconduct.”

He insists that it was just all a joke. That may be part of the problem. The age of rage, however, is a dwindling place for humor. Indeed, even professional comedians have complained that cancel campaigns have virtually banned them from campuses.

Richardson told Just in the News that he was informed that the candies reflected a human sexual binary view that was considered a violation of school policies and created a “hostile work environment.” He said that he was also accused of harassing and discriminating against colleagues “based on gender.”

The site reported that Richardson, who describes himself as a gay conservative,  is already suing over sanctions for comments made during a mandatory October 2021 “pronoun etiquette” seminar led by transgender chemistry professor Jamie MacArthur.

The incident involved  participants being given a “small thumbnail” with fields for their name and gender identity. Richardson jokingly put “Do, Re, Mi” to register his view that the “irrational perception of reality … would frustrate communication for ideological reasons,” according to his complaint.

MacArthur objected later that the “joke” was “extremely offensive” to transgender people. Richardson responded by using “Do, Re, Mi” as his pronouns while addressing MacArthur as “they,” MacArthur’s preferred pronouns.

After a six-month “investigation,” the school found that MacArthur intentionally used “second- and third-person pronouns in a mocking manner” and sought to intimidate MacArthur when Richardson copied others on a response. In addition to a letter of official reprimand, Richardson was ordered to “immediately stop using pronouns in a mocking manner in the workplace” though the school did not define “mocking” conduct.

It is not clear if the school views the candy as a “mocking” incident for a professor effectively on probation from the earlier joke.

Richardson was also ordered to take diversity, equity and inclusion training. Finally, he maintains that he was told to submit a written response on what he learned and how he can “create a more inclusive environment that does not center on homophobia or transphobia” in his home and “religious group.”

Richardson clearly has political and social objections to pronoun policies, a view shared by some academics. There is litigation across the country on the issue involving both students and faculty. Some have been successful or settled in favor of the right to refuse to use such pronouns, including a favorable ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in a case involving a college professor. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently upheld the termination of a high school teacher who refused to comply with such a policy.

Pronouns are fast fading from common discourse under the threat of pronoun penalties. Indeed, many faculty members try to avoid using pronouns altogether in class, rather than look up a student’s designated pronoun. Confirming the right pronouns can be challenging in the middle of a fast-moving class. Students today identify from a growing list of gender identities including, but not limited to, genderfluid, third-gender, amalgagender, demigender, bi-gender, pansgender, and a-gender. Pronouns can include, but are not limited to: He/She, They/Them, Ze/Hir (Ze, hir, hir, hirs, hirself), Ze/Zir (Ze, zir, zir, zirs, ze), Spivak (Ey, em, eir, eirs, ey), Ve (Ve, ver, vis, vis, verself), and Xe (Xe, xem, xyr, xyrs, xe).

This case is interesting because it involves a candy bowl as a vehicle of alleged prohibited speech. Richardson insists that he was just getting rid of excess candy but the bars were also a political statement. There are two immediate questions in the case. First, there is the right of Richardson to refuse to comply with pronoun policies. Second, there is the question of the right to publicly question (and, yes, “mock”) such policies.

The position of the school is unclear. Richardson was acting as a representative of the history department. However, it is not clear whether a candy with an opposing humorous political message would have been the subject of disciplinary action.  For example, would a professor be disciplined for joking about those with binary views in class or at an open house? Likewise, could Richardson post an objection to the policy as a matter of academic freedom, as some have done over policies like land acknowledgments?

This is likely to lead to further litigation for both Richardson and Madera Community College. Indeed, Professor Richardson could elect to respond in the same way that Gen. Anthony McAuliffe responded to a demand for surrender in the Battle of the Bulge:


177 thoughts on “Just Nuts: History Professor Suspended for Passing Out Candies Marked “HeHim” and “SheHer””

  1. Trumpers and Bernie Bros are a two-headed beast ripping this country apart. And no issue illustrates this more than T G’s. The amount of time devoted to this non-productive, utterly pointless issue is absolutely shocking.

    1. I would argue it’s not pointless for two reasons:

      1) If anyone can “self ID” as any thing at any time, we are doomed to an asylum society. Time-tested standards “ground” us and give us reference. We can communicate without “looking up” some lunatic’s self-assigned words.

      2) The Bud Light fiasco is not about love of or hatred for “tranzenders” (as Resident Puddin’ Plop calls them…) It’s about Bud’s open declaration of disdain for the company’s customers. Rubes. Frat boys. Losers. Hm… Maybe even deplorables?

      Thanks for “listening”…

  2. Smart move – this will be the basis for a massive civil suit the candy-giver will win.

  3. Nuts! My Dad was a 1st Lt. 17 Airborne paratrooper, one of only roughly a dozen left alive after the Battle of the Bulge, and, if that weren’t enough, Dad also “landed right on the krauts” in Operation Varsity. Silver Star, Purple Heart, 2 Bronze Stars, etc.
    “Trans” is the epitome of psychosis, the delusion of deeming one’s subjective reality, what one ‘identifies’ as or what one chooses to define a word as, as in fact objective reality. A Man can get pregnant? I am a man and I most certainly cannot get pregnant. “Trans” IS mental illness. I ‘identify’ as Napoleon Bonaparte, so, simply by virtue of this, I am in fact Napoleon Bonaparte. Because they are so patently absurd, such notions don’t originate organically…

    — the only American to have dined with Xi Jinping in Tibet.
    https://twoyearsintibet.com/ (no ads, nothing for sale)

  4. I’ve seen people fired for much less. The Gen Z crowd are the most pathetic weak minded crybullies the world has ever seen.

  5. No person can be “transgender” because people don’t have “genders”. THINGS have “genders”. PEOPLE — and other reproductively dimorphic living beings have “sexes”.

    “Gender” refers to the artificial or stereotypical categorization of certain words, ideas, abilities, and other things as having traits like or being associated with a “sex” — “feminine” (associated with the female sex), “masculine” (associated with the male sex), or “neuter” (neutral, associated with neither sex).

    Pronouns refer to their “sex” when we are referring to people and other reproductively sex-differentiated animals.The pronoun for non-living things usually is a form of the word “it”, but gender is a language convention, so, for example, in the English language, a rock is an “it”, but a ship might be referred to as a “she” (artificially “sexualized” as having female traits.) In other languages, conventions differ, so, for example, Spanish and Latin also genderize words other than pronouns. But those are WORDS that are being “genderized”. Not people. Words are THINGS.

  6. Oh, how easily it is to offend those weak in the knee’s liberals. Senator Boxer is a great example, while questioning Brigadier General Walsh he responded addressing her as ‘Ma’am”, (common vernacular in military parlance) where upon Senator Boxer admonished him (“Do me a favor, can you say ‘senator’ instead of ‘Ma’am’?). These functional Illiterates and their palsied picayune dogma strain disbelieve. They must be shown the clowns and fools they are, their Utopia has a verbena of an outhouse.

  7. “First, there is the right of Richardson to refuse to comply with pronoun policies. Second, there is the question of the right to publicly question (and, yes, “mock”) such policies.”

    There it is. Everyone so inclined exercise those two rights boldly at will and without fear of retribution from the post-modern neo-Marxists who only use the transsexual issue to advance their political agenda. Females and trans-females are she/her, males and trans-males are he/him.


    1. Ron A. Hoffman, everyone has the right to their jokes or attempt to use humor to express their views. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. HOWEVER, that does not mean there should be immunity from the consequences that they elicit. Just as you can be as racist as you want and enjoy the freedom to express it openly. That is not a guarantee that there will be no consequences for exercising that privilege.

      1. Svelaz, moron, in your 200th comment of the day you say that anyone can say anything but that there will be “consequences”, which of course negates the so-called freedom to say anything you want.

        Now moron, tell is when a liberal has paid “consequences” for sayiong something “hateful”, “harmful” or even border line criminal while on campus. Did the kid screaming at a FEDERAL JUDGE that he hopes his daughter gets raped suffer any “consequences”? Of course not, but fascist pigs like you will punish a guy for having humorous candy bars.

        1. Hullbobby, it’s always 200? Is that the limit to how high you can count?

          “that anyone can say anything but that there will be “consequences”, which of course negates the so-called freedom to say anything you want.”

          No. It doesn’t negate the freedom to say anything you want. It means if you are willing to say anything you want you accept the responsibility that comes with it. That is accept the consequences that come your way. Not make excuses and whine about being “attacked” or “punished” for what you say.

          Clearly you don’t think before your shoot your mouth. It’s quite funny how you don’t see the problem when it’s right in front of you.

      2. Any consequences post-modern neo-Marxists want to throw at you, let them. Be not afraid, Svelaz. You are your own foolhardy person and surely can handle being reproached by ideologues.

        When you stated “just as [you] can be as racist as [you] want”, am I correct in assuming you did not mean to use the word “you” but the word “one” instead? Having noticed time and again that proper use of grammar is not your strong suit, I’m certain you didn’t intend to call me a racist. Did you?

        1. Ron A Hoffman, using “you” can be in the rhetorical sense the same as using “one”. That rhetorical device can be interchangeable.

          Turley has grammar issues often as well. Many folks do in the blog. I’m sure you ultimately understand the point being conveyed.

  8. The United States is approaching peak woke. We’ve got men in locker rooms with females, men in restrooms with females, taxpayer subsidies of electric vehicles, taxpayer subsidies of solar farms and windmills, penalties on fossil fuels, penalties on internal combustion engines, expanding economic alliances with the Chinese Communist Party, out-of-control illegal immigration, out-of-control federal spending, out-of-control federal deficits, out-of-control inflation, out-of-control federal corruption, and out-of-control violent crime. The Democratic Party has overplayed its hand. Over the next two or three years, the reign of woke will meet its demise.

    1. From your lips to God’s ears. But I haven’t seen much of any change except DeSantis winning with a historic margin and winning in Blue cities like Miami. In most other places, the crazies keep getting voted into office. Look at Chicago. They are going from in the kettle to into the fire with the new mayor.

  9. Since gender is “fluid” and can be changed anytime, I have decided to announce that I am now a girl in the hope it will put me in close proximity to Jennifer Lawrence in her shower, dressing or bedroom.

    And if you question my new femininity, you are a bigot and I will do everything in my power to doxx and destroy you.

    Pronouns: she/hers

    1. Antonio, I mean Antonia ma’am. Congratulations. Best of luck on your new path on life.

  10. Why is it that anyone left of center can say or print any outrageous statement (not even supported by a hint of fact) and the prog/left is fine with it but let any ideology right of center dare speak truth and they are vilified for “hate speech or misinformation”? We all know that this is an attempt to silence dissent for an ever-growing mob of incoherent fanatics being manipulated by those whose end goal is to destroy both this nation and the very concepts upon which it was founded. Their increasing wails over those confronting the prog/left agenda bespeak a growing fear on the part of the prog/left that their agenda is being confronted in ways they had not anticipated (Bud Light being a prime example) and you can begin to smell the desperation that will manifest itself in growing acts of anarchy and chaos (the border onslaught is one prime example). We are at a tipping point and we can either allow the destruction of our nation or we can push back as it appears that the prog/left machine is smaller than the media portrays and weakers then the spokespersons for that agenda want us to realize.

    1. Whimsicalmama,
      Well said.
      I do think we have an issue at this point though: we seemingly have two different sets of values, and each side does not want to have anything to do with the other.
      What does pushing back look like?

      1. Whimsicalmama: spoken as a true disciple of the alt-right, which explains why you are fact-immune and why your thinking is so skewed. You have a flawed system of beliefs for how you process information, and if anyone is out to destroy America is the fat hog who keeps losing elections, who keeps lying about losing elections, and who just can’t shut up or go away because of his mental illness known as narcissism. In his fevered brain, he is a wildly-successful self-made billionaire, a “very stable genius in astonishingly good health”, who has a full head of thick hair (despite having scalp-reduction surgery and wearing a toupee), is morbidly obese, but believes he is sexually attractive to women, whom men are jealous of and who is a master deal-maker. In reality, he is a flashy, braggadocious loser in marriage, in business (6 bankruptcies), whose “deal making” consists of entering into contracts for goods and services that he has no intention of abiding by, forcing the other party to sue him and to settle for less than the contract price, which, because it is a habit, constitutes bad-faith, and he brags about doing this. He is someone who brags that evading taxes “makes me smart” (debate with HRC). He is someone who brags about being able to sexually assault women “and they let you get away with it if you’re famous”, who calls everyone with whom he disagrees names (CNN reporter last night who confronted him with actual facts–“nasty”), who is an avowed misogynist, racist, xenophobe and Islamophobe, who exists to obtain attention, adulation and praise. He literally brought America to its knees by destroying the successful economy he inherited, by starting a trade war with China, causing shortages of consumer goods and computer chips, botched the pandemic by lying about the seriousness and pushing fake “cures”, causing schools, businesses and restaurants to close down for about 2 years (school kids still haven’t caught up) and drove our national debt to record levels by the only legislation he could get passed which was a tax break that mostly benefitted the wealthy. Twenty-five percent of our national debt was incurred during the 4 years he was in office. He drew down our troops in Afghanistan from 14,000 to 2,500, turned loose 5,000 Taliban from prison, and then tries to blame Biden for the diasasterous consequences. He was impeached twice, and when his fragile, but massive, ego couldn’t handle the fact that he got voted out of office, began spreading the Big Lie, leading to an invasion of our Capitol by his fans to try to prevent Biden from taking office. On the way out of office, he stole classified documents and lied about returning them. He continues to double down on the Big Lie and his call to Brad Raffensberger in which he demanded that he “find 11,780 votes which is one more than we have”. Hundreds of his fans now have a criminal record, some are dong prison time for participating in the insurrection caused by this egomaniac, and more than a dozen have been convicted of sedition and similar crimes, and will do years of prison time.

        You speak of “values”? People like you literally worship this creature.

          1. Your use of strange word usage illustrates your lack of ability to understand serious discourse. If you are younger than 60 I would doubt if the education processes available to you would have provided you with enough background to truly comprehend the dire situations we are in and I am almost certain that your grasp of history and philosophy would not allow you the means to discuss or understand the world outside your bubble. Get back to me when you can illustrate a more mature understanding of the world around you.

            1. “use of…usage”–and you think I “lack …ability to understand serious discourse”? You lack serious English communication skills, not to mention displaying the skewed thinking of alt-right disciples. You accuse the “left” of lacking facts–look at my post above–it is chock-full of proven facts to which you have no answer, so you accuse me of lacking a “mature understanding of the world around you.” Just like Trump, you cannot handle facts when they make your hero look bad.

            2. Two bachelor’s degrees (one Ivy League), two master’s degrees and a doctorate, plus membership in Mensa and Triple Nine Society and HS valedictorian to boot, so, yea, I guess you’re right.

        1. Hey Gigi, that tax break you alluded to, you know, the one which mostly benefited the wealthy? It actually benefited me, and I’m far from wealthy. After this tax break was enacted, my electrical provider, XCel Energy, gave me a $45 credit on my utility bill, something I’ve never seen before in my entire adult life. FYI, I’m 100% totally blind, and get SSDI – not wealthy by any means

          As to all the other things you cite, well that’s all debatable. Keep in mind, every president either inherits good things from the previous administration, or not so good things, that’s just a fact of life. Case in point: President Obama got credit for the killing of Usama Binladen, but had it not been for the 5 years of groundwork, laid by the previous administration, he might not have had that feather in his cap.

      2. From my vantage we have always had 4 means of maintaining our government; “for the people, of the people and by the people” and is has been available through the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box and the ammo box. The first three boxes have proven to be corrupted to their cores, which means we only have one box left as I see no pathway to conciliation. We are, in fact, two separate nations coexisting within the same real estate and we must either re-conquer our home and heritage or succumb to the unalterable agenda of the left.

        1. Whimsicalmama,
          John Say and I have had the discussion in the past about a possible civil war.
          Some days, nope.
          Other days, I can see it.

  11. In a normal world, this would have been handled at a local level and would likely involve the dean. The professor and the staff member would be called in the office and there would be a witness and they would have a respectful conversation. Whether it was right or wrong, whether intentional or unintentional, the professor might have had to make an apology to the staff member and life would go on.

    The blowback from faculty and workers comes from the Orwellian, Stalin-Maoist methods of force-feeding society activist indoctrination. This would almost be comical if it did not contain the seeds of something more dangerous.

    The shocking fact is that many legacy media do not hide the fact that they are biased and do not care to hear all the facts. If a reporter finds something that is contrary to the narrative, they are hushed. It is comical to watch some of the interviews. They slow pitch Nerf Balls to the leaders they favor….no follow up questions, unless of course it is someone they do not like. They hush opposing views by not covering an event. It is blatantly obvious but is ignored by those who follow the philosophy, like the Simon and Garfunkel song, the Boxer, “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”

    It is expedient that every citizen in this nation and around the world to question authority, question those in power, question powerful leaders and hold their feet to the fire. If they are only paper, straw and hay, they will not be able to withstand the real heat. That is why they do all they can to suppress opposition. They cannot stand on truth. We live in the world of the children’s story, “The Emperor’s New Clothes.”

    1. In a normal world, the university president would tell the offended parties that they have to deal with being offended and if they were incapable of handling that then perhaps the university is more than they can handle and should plan accordingly

  12. With nuts.

    With out nuts.

    I fail to see the transgender smear.

    Transgenders Identify themselves EXACTLY this way. Its kind of the core of the delusion. ‘I am a woman, proudly with nuts’. That’s what THEY are screaming in MY face.

  13. Mockery is the other side of absurdity. This guy is gay and he’s being called a homophobe. Let that sink in.

    1. A psychology professor at Univ of Central Florida, was fired in 2021 for tweeting that black privilege existed. He is gay and Hispanic. He sued, won, was reinstated, but currently has no classes assigned to him to teach. So now he is suing UCF again.

      The Madera Community College professor has cojones for distributing candy with pronouns. However, he likely knew it would cost him his job. Priorities, priorities.

      ‘Politically inconvenient:’ UCF professor files lawsuit against university officials over 2021 termination

      “After Charles Negy posted several tweets to his personal Twitter account expressing his views that, contrary to the ascendant orthodoxy on campus, Blacks are not systemically oppressed in the United States, he became the target of a Twitter mob that demanded he be fired,” the complaint says.

      “Negy is a minority, being both gay and Hispanic, and in fact was identified by UCF in 1998 as a ‘Diversity Enhancement Hire,’” the complaint reads. “However, Negy holds opinions that do not align with the way the way minority individuals are expected to think by those in power at America’s colleges and universities, including UCF.”

  14. Second, there is the question of the right to publicly question (and, yes, “mock”) such policies.

    Transgender ideology is the devil, and the one thing the devil cannot abide is to be laughed at.

    Luther says, “The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn.” For his part, St. Thomas More writes, “The devil…that proud spirit…cannot endure to be mocked.” . . . To laugh at Lucifer does not mean that we disregard him or underestimate his power. What it does mean is that we engage in the battle with a sense of humor, and a sense of proportion.


    1. Upstatefarmer, Trump can’t handle being mocked either. According to your view, he’s to be seen as evil as well. No?

      1. You need an elementary lesson in logic. Your assertion is: if A implies B, then B must imply A. Anyone who has studied logic, even for one hour, knows that.

        (If you can’t comprehend the above, I’ll spell it out for you: A is “the thing in question is the devil” and B is “the thing in question can’t stand to be laughed at.”)

        1. Upstatefarmer, Trump can’t stand to be laughed at. YOUR logic suggests he is evil.

          “ Transgender ideology is the devil, and the one thing the devil cannot abide is to be laughed at.”

          1. You still don’t comprehend the logical point. See the comment below which corrects the accidental omission in the one above.

          2. This is why it’s futile to try to have a logical back-and-forth with you: you don’t comprehend basic logic. The devil cannot abide to be laughed at. You then turn that around to say, if anyone cannot abide to be laughed at, they must be the devil. Your assertion does not follow from mine. You overlook that there could be multiple people who can’t abide to be laughed at: the devil, and some other people too. So what you said does not logically follow from what I said. Consider this my complimentary contribution to your education. For the next one I’ll send you an invoice.

            1. Upstatefarmer, I didn’t say “anybody”. You added that. All I used was YOUR own quote.

              “Transgender ideology is the devil, and the one thing the devil cannot abide is to be laughed at.”

              I’m sure you would agree that the devil is naturally evil. It goes hand in hand. Trump hates being laughed at. Ergo he’s evil according to your logic. It’s not hard to grasp. It seems you’re more confused about YOUR own logic not I.

              1. No, Svelaz, you are all wet. Not abiding laughter does not imply that the not-abider is the devil.

                But on other grounds indeed, Trump is evil; takes after his father.

      2. *knows that is not true.

        Example: If my pet Fluffy is a dog, it has four legs. My pet Fluffy has four legs, therefore it must be a dog. (Wrong, Fluffy could be a cat)

        1. Upstatefarmer says,

          “ Example: If my pet Fluffy is a dog, it has four legs. My pet Fluffy has four legs, therefore it must be a dog. (Wrong, Fluffy could be a cat)”

          Fluffy can be trans too. If you neuter fluffy is he still a male dog? Other male dogs trying to hump fluffy would make him a….her? We may never know. Only fluffy will know for sure.

          Can a eunuch be considered a man?

          1. Yes, a neutered Fluffy is still male as is a eunuch. Both had sex organs and other features exclusive to males. End of discussion.

            1. JoeSee, not male. A man. Can a eunuch be considered a man?

              What makes a man a man? We already know he’s male. But is he really a man? It’s the same question as “what is a woman?”

        2. Upstatefarmer, many ask what is a woman? It’s difficult to answer.

          What is a man? Is a eunuch a man? He may be male, but is he really a man? Is a man defined solely by the presence of sexual organs? Or is the proper function or completeness of sexual organs that defines a man? Is a woman with no breasts still a woman?

Leave a Reply