“Maybe Trump’s comment about sh*thole countries was a statement of projection because honestly, the US is a f**king piece of sh*t nation. Go ahead and quote me, conservatives. This country has yet to live up to the ideals of its founding documents.”

[Text changes added to profanity from the original]

Johnson proceeded to do exactly what Bond suggested and quoted him on the Facebook page for the Renegade Institute for Liberty. He asked others “Do you agree with this radical SJW from BC’s English Department? Thoughts?” He then posted on his own Facebook account the following statement according to his complaint:

“Johnson then used his personal Facebook account to comment on what he had reposted: ‘Maybe he should move to China, and post this about the PRC in general or the Chinese Communist Party and see how much mileage it gets him. I wonder, do they still send the family the bill for the spent round?’”

Johnson said that the college would not allow him to read the complaint but subjected him to months of investigation.

After the investigation was finally concluded with no action by the Kern Community College District (which oversees the college), it stated that it would “investigate any further complaints of harassment and bullying and, if applicable, [taking] appropriate remedial action including but not limited to any discipline determined to be appropriate.”

That threat took on a more menacing meaning given the recent controversy involving John Corkins, vice president of the Board of Trustees of the Kern Community College District Board. Corkins declared in an open meeting that critics of Critical Race Theory should be “culled” from the faculty and “taken to the slaughterhouse.”

The college is also being sued by former Professor Matthew Garrett who was fired for a variety of alleged forms of misconduct. Garrett alleges that he was fired for speaking out as a conservative and being a cofounder of the Renegade Institute for Liberty.

Notably, Professor Bond has previously railed against those who post opposing views on campus. He denounced the “vandalism” of those who put up stickers to “Smash Cultural Marxism” and “Never Apologize for Being White.” In his column, he criticized Garrett and rejected the notion that such views should be considered on campus:

“A more productive query would ask whether or not we should consider viewpoints based in hate, racism and xenophobia viable and debate-worthy in an academic setting. To do so would be to concede that such views are on par with fact-based, reasoned perspectives, granting them a legitimacy they don’t deserve. It is possible, and necessary, to discuss the underlying concerns that often lead people to problematic beliefs on the periphery of or directly stemming from white supremacist ideals without elevating hatred at the same time, but such discourse requires thoughtfulness and careful analysis from all involved.”

The invitation to regulate good and bad speech is anathema to free speech values. It is precisely the relativism used by many in higher education to silence and harass those with opposing viewpoints. Yet, while inviting conservatives to quote him, Bond is filing complaints and calling for college action against opposing viewpoints. In his column, he added:

“Nobody at BC is limiting free speech or devoting ‘disproportionate attention and resources to certain groups at the expense of others.’ The college is simply trying to counter the disproportionate lack of attention and resources that all too often limits marginalized peoples’ options while also stifling their voices. The last thing our students need is to be confronted by propaganda that calls into question the legitimacy of their experiences and undermines the means by which the college is helping them succeed.”

The “last thing our students need” in higher education is for colleges and universities to sanitize our campuses from opposing viewpoints because they receive “disproportionate attention.” It is a thinly disguised call for censorship and was once used against faculty and students on the left.

The college clearly must investigate complaints of harassment. However, it is unclear why this public exchange of opposing viewpoints would take months to resolve. Moreover, the college conspicuously did not reaffirm the right of faculty (including both Professors Bond and Johnson) to engage in public debate and advocacy. Such complaints are inimical to free speech when weaponized against those with opposing viewpoints.

While a school understandably must be careful not to punish those making harassment complaints so as not to deter legitimate complaints, it should caution faculty members that the system should not be used as a means to silence or harass those with opposing or controversial viewpoints.