There is a disturbing article out this week at the independent student newspaper at the University of Chicago, The Chicago Thinker. The article by Ben Ogilvie addresses growing allegations of ideological prejudice at law reviews that has effectively blackballed conservative students from the prestigious journals. The three top journals cited are Columbia (#8), Northwestern (#10), and Stanford (#1). For full disclosure, I graduated from both University of Chicago and Northwestern University. While at Northwestern, I served as a Chief Articles Editor and the Symposium Editor handling the acceptance and production of all faculty publications. (One of the first pieces that I solicited was by a young academic named Cornell West, his first law review article).
Law review positions are arguably the most sought-after distinctions in law school and are considered a critical, if not essential, qualification for prestigious federal clerkships.
For years, there have been complaints that law reviews have actively discriminated against conservative writers in favor of far left academics. The denial of such publishing opportunities is part of a rising viewpoint intolerance on campuses. As we have previously discussed, faculties have purged most conservatives and libertarians from their ranks. As conservative faculty have retired or resigned, they have been replaced by largely liberal candidates. Many faculties have only a few conservatives or Republicans left. I have seen extraordinarily talented conservative academics who have faced closed doors across the country in seeking appointments. They are often forced to go into private practice or take positions at lower-ranked schools. Those who secure positions often complain that they face hostile treatment if they object to DEI and other policies on ideological grounds.
If young professors are open about their ideology and somehow secure an academic position, they then face difficulties getting published. Indeed, there have been calls for new journals to give the dwindling number of conservative faculty some outlet for their scholarship. Publications are needed for tenure and advancement. The hostile reception at top journals makes it very difficult for young libertarian or conservative faculty to advance.
The Chicago Thinker details how law reviews have added diversity statements and background reviews as part of their selection process.
“These statements are completely open-ended, but they are still generally assigned a number grade—as if “diversity” were somehow quantifiable. The vagueness and unquantifiable nature of “diversity” in real life, however, creates opportunities for abuse. For instance, the managers of the Columbia Law Review allegedly use applicants’ diversity statements to ferret out students who are members of the Federalist Society (FedSoc), a conservative legal organization widely hated by liberals for, among other things, its role in overturning Roe v. Wade.”
The newspaper documents how Federalist Society members appear the most targeted. Top students who went on to secure leading clerkships were allegedly blocked from positions on the law reviews.
The newspaper also accused journals like the Columbia Law Review of practicing racial discrimination by specifying race as a criteria or factor in admission. It is also common for journals to ask authors to identify their race and sexual identity to give greater opportunities to minority authors. There is a common view that the best chance for publication comes with articles alleging systemic racism or attacking core values like free speech. At the same time, it is rare to see articles espousing textualist interpretations or challenging diversity rationales. Indeed, we have seen authors denied publication even after acceptance when their articles challenged such viewpoints.
The reduction of conservative student editors not only means that fewer conservative student notes are published, but faculty publications are selected by a largely liberal editorial staff.
This bias in publications is further magnified when students seek faculty review of submissions. With few conservatives or moderates left on many faculties, conservative authors can expect to be spiked or damned with faint praise from such faculty reviews. Indeed, even faculty members inclined to recommend a conservative submission may fear personal and professional consequences in being associated with a controversial conservative or libertarian publication.
It is hardly surprising to see the same intolerance on law reviews that have been manifested on campuses for years. The bias in selection of these positions not only impacts the diversity of opinion in leading journals but sharply limits the advancement of both law students and young law faculty. Law reviews have become part of the academic echo chamber where viewpoints range generally from the left to the far left. With most faculty and most publications echoing these viewpoints, it forces even moderate faculty to the perceived extremes of intellectual discussions.
One can argue that correlation does not mean causation in the lack of Federalist Society members or openly conservative students. The process of journal selections remains somewhat opaque and it is hard to analyze data that is not released by these schools. Yet, these are long-standing objections to the overwhelming ideological bent of journals.
Ironically, the most obvious explanation is that there are relatively few conservative or libertarian faculty today, so it is understandable that most publications will reflect the liberal makeup of most faculties. It becomes a circular, chicken-or-the-egg debate. In truth, the problem is the coalescing of all of these factors that have been building for years.
I loved my time at Northwestern University Law Review. It was one of the most intellectually rewarding chapters in my education. We even implemented a total blind read system to remove any information about the author, their positions, or their status. We sought to judge works entirely on their merits and selected pieces from across the ideological spectrum. We also had a faculty that was remarkably diverse and tolerant.
The loss of that vibrant intellectual environment remains one of the saddest developments of my lifetime. I have watched my profession become intolerant and orthodox in every aspect of academia. We reached a tipping point a couple decades ago where ideological rigidity seemed to take hold of our schools as professors sought to replicate their own values in hiring, promotion, and administrative decisions. It is not surprising that our student journals reflect the same bias and intolerance.
There is little evidence that the controlling majority of law faculties will change this culture of intolerance. While that culture denies the very core of our intellectual mission, it serves to support the viewpoints (and publication opportunities) of most faculty members. It is not their problem.
Take away the money….end all federal aid and loans from colleges
Article 1, Section 8
Congress has the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense, and general Welfare (excluding individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, charity and favor).
First, my experience on law review caused me to smell a rat when Obama first came on the national scene. He was made President (or whatever the title was) of Harvard Law Review but never wrote a law review note, comment or article even though most law reviews required any candidate for a leadership position to do so. Second, it is abundantly clear now that whenever the progressive left is allowed to take charge of any institution, it soon begins to circle the drain. Consider what they have done to cities, police departments and district attorney offices, and what they are doing to our country, whether it is energy production, defense or international relations. And, there is a growing body of evidence that the progressive mentality has infected the medical profession with the ostracism of any contrary voices about the experimental Covid vaccine and the almost unqualified support of “gender affirming care” before there is any scientific basis for dispensing drugs and even surgery for minors with gender dysphoria. It is not surprising that the legal profession similarly is suffering from the progressive disease. One need look no further than U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell who is so accustomed to doing the bidding of progressive prosecutors that she made a ridiculous finding that President Trump was a flight risk even though the appellate opinion revealed that Special Counsel Smith had mistakenly included the allegation in his filing. With the number of federal judges appointed by Obama and now Biden, we can expect much more of this dangerous, ideological nonsense. As many of us have observed before, Democrats and their policies, with the enthusiastic support of the legacy media and tech giants involved in social media, have brought our country to a dangerous cross-road. If voters do not wake up soon, Portland, New York, San Francisco and the border will be a foreshadowing of what we will become.
Honestlawyer, I just loved your comment. I always wondered why nobody ever talked about Obama having not one item published prior to becoming president of the HARVARD LAW REVIEW???? I also wondered why thy called him an esteemed LAW PROFESSOR when he was only a lecturer??? I also wondered why his wife had a $350,000 job at a hospital while he was senator and yet when they left for DC they never even filled her position????
Obama is the guy that put Joe Biden in charge of the Ukraine portfolio, had him in charge of China dealings, had him running around in Romania and Moscow, knew very well what the intelligence communities were up to (see how the Trump affair went) and yet supposedly (or supposebly if you are “Anonymous) he knew nothing about Biden’s corrupt dealings???
Ever wonder why the party and the media is covering so hard for JOE BIDEN, a man despised by almost everyone when he ran his 3 other campaigns? Maybe they are covering for Obama. IS it possible that Obama, the smartest man in the world, the man on top of everything happening with his intelligence teams, the man that put Biden in a position to make millions, also took a little cash off the top from the Big Guy?
In Watergate we were always told that Woodward was told to “follow the money”, odd that today’s media doesn’t want to follow the money.
If Obama gets caught being a money grabbing loser like Joe Biden it will ruin the Democrat “brand” and the media can’t have that.
Did you say, “Barack Obama?” Thank you so much.
__________________________________________
Barack Obama will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.
Barack Obama’s father was a foreign citizen at the time of the candidate’s birth.
– A mere “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, not after.
– The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;….”
– Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”
– “The importance of The Law of Nations, therefore, resides both in its systematic derivation of international law from natural law and in its compelling synthesis of the modern discourse of natural jurisprudence with the even newer language of political economy. The features help to explain the continuing appeal of this text well into the nineteenth century among politicians, international lawyers and political theorists of every complexion.”
– Law of Nations Editors Bela Kapossy and Richard Whatmore.
– The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.
– Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.
– The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define esoteric words or phrases, while the Law of Nations, 1758, does.
– English Common Law and the Law of Nations were adopted, accepted or employed by the United States.
– The Law of Nations is validated and referenced in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10, of the U.S. Constitution: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;…”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758
Book 1, Ch. 19
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:
“…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787
From John Jay
New York 25 July 1787
Dear Sir
I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d
Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore
Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,
which sailed Yesterday.
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to
provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the
administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief
of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect
Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere
I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt
John Jay
That time of mediocrity is here and now.
We see it when leftists lower the bar of education standards, or declare grades are racist and just give everyone an ‘A’ and pass them to the next grade.
We see it when leftists demand different grading standards for Blacks and when a professor refuses, they get fired.
We see it often with reports of Democrat ran cities who have entire grades that cannot pass the state math tests.
But, those tests are racist.
Yes, mediocrity is here, widely accepted and part of the mainstream. That is why so many parents want more say in their child’s education. That is why so many parents want school choice. That is why so many parents want charter schools or are opting to home school.
Can you blame them?
Yes, mediocrity is here, widely accepted and part of the mainstream
1,000 likes.
I told a buddy at the gym recently that going to the gym has become challenging precisely because > 80% people in the gym aspire for mediocrity. There is the elderly man who wears an N-95 Mask at 4 AM, and uses paper towels to grab the handles of weights and equipment. A young woman, morbidly obese, wears a bikini top with strings in back to tie her top, which allows her sweat to drip on the benches as she flops on the them. Most young “men” under 35 sit on machine benches playing on their phones, and if someone like me approaches them, they practically shriek in fear. This morning I trained shoulders in front of the dumb bell rack as usual, and a young woman grabbed the 40 lb dumbbell, walked across the gym, and took it to her cardio station where she promptly got on the stationary bike. I needed that dumbbell, so I waited 15 minutes, when another man next to me, told me he needed it as well. So I walked across the gym, fetched the dumbbell, told her I was taking it, and left. When I was done with my 4 sets, I racked it where it belonged for others to use. A man in his mid-60s, who trains regularly with determination and focus, commented to me last week that gym etiquette is dead, which is true. Our conversation turned into a 10 minute beatch session that I had to end with, “I sound like that man who screams ‘get off of my lawn”. We laughed, and then continued our training. More than 50% of students at universities, which I have the pleasure to teach, mentor and guide, are aimless, anxious, insecure and confess that they have no clue what they want to be in life. Most should be dismissed from the university because they have no business there. They dress like it too. Dress attire of most folks today is not just one of mediocrity but unserious. I used to tell young men that if they wanted to be taken seriously by others, they needed to take themselves seriously first and evoke that persona. I no longer tell them that because I gave up.
Mediocrity is indeed here and widely accepted and part of the mainstream. I can’t imagine you hiring any of these kids to work on your farm.
So,……”get off of my lawn!”
/sarc
no really
How is it my responsibility to dictate to someone else how to live their life?
I did my best as a parent to my kids but once they were out on their own, living their own lives it is no longer my place. Fortunately I must have done well as my kids are doing fantastic.
As I have stated on the good professor’s blog, I cut the cord well over a decade ago.
As I have also stated on the good professor’s blog, I do not watch Fox news. I read and support alternative media like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss and The Free Press (paid subscription).
No. That is reality. Mom’s For Liberty is highly popular and it did not exist just three years ago.
Parents attending school board meetings and demanding more oversight into their children’s education. These would be the same parents the Biden admin tried to have investigated as “domestic terrorists.”
Or are trying to deny reality?
Okay, let’s talk reality. Produce one example of a parent being investigated as domestic terrorist
The FBI wont tell us how many agents and paid informants were at Jan 6, you think they are going to reveal who they are investigating?
We do know the DoJ announced a plan to surveil parents at school-board meetings
Iowan2,
Then there was this: FBI Used Undercover Agent to Target Catholic Church
https://www.newsweek.com/fbi-undercover-agent-target-catholic-church-jim-jordan-1793446
“We see it when leftists lower the bar of education standards”
“declare grades are racist”
“professor refuses, they get fired.”
They are leftists. Those are not their issues. Those are the tools to break the fabric of our nation so they win. When they win, they have nothing to offer except despotism.
Anonymous……that’s because you’re an idiot.
“Law review positions are arguably the most sought-after distinctions in law school and are considered a critical, if not essential, qualification for prestigious federal clerkships.”
Proper spelling and grammer optional — kinda like grading math tests without knowing how to add or substract.
Proper spelling and grammer (sic) optional
SMH
la forma correcta de escribir la palabra es grammar not grammer, imbécil
translation: the correct way to write the word is “grammar” not “grammer”, your lordship
Maybee A righter shud gett A do-overer wen thers A typpo inn thu firstest wurd?
Maybe a troll that has been banned on numerous internet forums, per his own admission, should get a life and be thankful he has at least one forum to comport himself like an obnoxious idiot
Bro, at least Peter Shill was entertaining, and Svelaz was passable
The misspelllings were JOKES, moron, Otherwise, your “reply” is pure ad hominem that NO repectable website would entertain.
Good one, Estovir. I always marvel at Prof. Turley’s ability to turn out such timely, thought-proving posts five or six days a week, often two a day. Yes, I’ve caught grammAr and spelling boo boos now and again, but I have caught the same mistakes in articles in the WSJ where they should have a copy editor. At least I know I am reading something by a human when I read the good professor’s posts. What we see in universities and law schools is the future of our society. The only thing different is in the near future we’ll be having AI-generated liberal garbage. It’s already here in many other print venues.
One of the metrics I use in reading and citing scientific literature is grammar and sentence composition. I have a few favorite cardiology researchers and physicians who write like true renaissance men and women. One in particular, Dr Peter Libby, writes on level I could never match, though I still try. Most peer review articles in my field are crap. Their methods, study designs, target populations, introductions, conclusions, written like punks. When it comes to their writing, it is boring and borderline shilling. When I earned an MBA Degree after medical school, my MBA professors would routinely tell me that my papers were written on a level that they rarely saw in the papers submitted to them. I like to think it has to do with my jesuit education and english as a second language. When it comes to my science writing, my peers tell me they want me to write more so that they can match my writing style. Still, I’m a stickler for my own writing, and hold Americans to a far higher bar than they hold themselves, even in commenting on blogs. so it goes
Estovir, let us give others a break. Many do not have the education you obtained. Can you rebuild a transmission? Probably not, but some can do it with their eyes closed. Everyone has (or should have) a job to do. The question is whether or not they do it to the best of their ability.
I prefer better performance, but if everyone else were more able than me, I would be flipping hamburgers at Mcdonald’s.
I thank all those others for doing their jobs and permitting me to do mine.
estovir….You have such an impressive resume’…….Such an incredible list of accomplishments!
I won a trophy at the Austin Tx 1996 “Spam-o-rama”……doesn’t have quite the same cachet 🙂
Cindy, you are graceful, elegant, godly, cheerful, engaging and service directed towards others (e.g. nursing home volunteering). There is nothing elegant about me; I am raw, coarse, foul mouth and terse. Cheerful is not in my DNA, though being bad ass has a strong genetic predilection in my culture! Spam-o-rama? Thanks for the laughter
Estovir! LOL….and very, very kind words from a man whose great accomplishments are truly worthy of praise (although my trophy does have a gold pig on top!)
Estovir,
I do appreciate good writing but I also see the good professor hammering out a column, early in the morning while consuming massive amounts of coffee. So, sometimes his writing may not be so good as he is also in a rush to get to the class room.
As for my writing, I am a former Marine (SQUEEZETRIGGER!GOBANG!HAHAHAHAHAH!) and but a simple farmer . . . and sometimes my brain gets ahead of my fingers.
Case in point, I fat fingered the email address.
LOL LOL LOL
Thank you, Jonathan, for one of your best articles to date. This development in colleges, universities, and law schools is sobering to say the least and real indication of how deep this whole cancel culture has progressed in today’s Amerika. Just cancel and destroy (if possible) anyone with whom you disagree. Little Jack Smith must have graduated cum laude.
Wake up citizens, this has been going on for decades. The progressives have totally taken over our education system, the media and the government bureaucracy to name a few. Yet lifelong democrats like TURLEY still vote democratic. He complains about all the injustices perpetrated on conservatives by this administration yet he still votes for them. Unless they come to their senses it will only get worse
you never give examples of the “attack dog” smear.
All Turley has ever done is defend the Constitution and rule of law, not man. That you fail to understand that truth, after being corrected repeatedly, says all we need to know about you shallow tribal views.
Everyone with a degree of common sense and critical thinking skills knows what Iowan2 meant.
Some people are using phones or tablets with virtual keyboards and they miss a “key.”
Then there is auto-correct or auto-fill.
This is Browns from the most depressing articles truly has ever written. It shows the nearly complete social dominance of the left. It’s quite clear that they control everything from the deep state, Hollywood, our schools, nearly all our cultural institutions, our media, our municipal governance, and now the halls of higher learning. Should we simply raise the white flag and given to the 1984 post apocalyptic world we now live in
Leftist control the journals.
In order to sound smart they MUST operate in an echo chamber.
Leftists ALWAYS lose in the Arena of Ideas.
Grammar police come out when they have nothing to refute the facts.
Iowan2…..excellent point.
Most liberals don’t think enough to recognize the issue.
A few thinking liberals recognize what is happening but don’t care.
Fact is, most liberals both hate and feel contempt for conservatives.
I think the main problem is not with the leftish composition of the law faculty. Most law students are in their mid-20s and sometimes much older. They have already reached a developed political viewpoint. I would blame mainly the preceding 4 years at a liberal arts college. We should abolish the requirement that law students need college degrees to gain admission.
Except for a handful of people like George Will, I’m not aware of any real Conservatives or real Republicans in existence today. The GOP is quite liberal on the constitutional rule of law, liberal on fiscal policy and liberal on the Bill of Rights.
However, whatever one calls themselves, as long as the speaker is civil and focused on the message (not attacking the messenger) – they should be allowed to speak.
Yes – the willingness to engage in civil conversation is more important than the beginning or ending point of the discussion. One of the admirable aspects of RFK Jr. is that he seems to willing to discuss almost any issue with almost any person, without resorting to insults.
I’ve been telling people I know that this is what is going to destroy us. This is the plan on how to remove the bill of rights and we will not be able to stop it since one, most of the population is not paying attention to it and two, it has been going on for some time now. The courts will be filled with these students as lawyers and worse, judges.
Jim22,
Below, ATS mentions ‘mediocrity’ in an attempted jab at the good professor.
However, I then dismantle his jab by pointing out the fact woke leftists are the ones promoting mediocrity.
While the leftists have infected various aspects of society, they are also dumbing themselves down and feeding into their infantile hyper-emotional state well past high school age.
Antoinio often mentions the desire for a national divorce. Several reports have shown people are doing exactly that: Moving to places that reflect their political beliefs. At some point in time we are going to have one group that can think critically, math, read, write. And another that can only throw temper tantrums and demand others to be canceled.
We are not ignorant.
We can define what a woman is.
We know there are two biological sexes.
We can math.
We can still have open, honest debates.
Using a statistical outlier? Really?
Lame.
No. I meant “math.”
Censorship of you. You have proven yourself to violate the civility rule time and time again. You did so yesterday.
I am not denigrating anyone.
I am pointing out your need to have to resort to a statistical outlier as lame.
The “math” was sarcasm that you missed.
Can you show me where I used the term s^ithead like you did yesterday twice when responding to Antoinio? Where did I post a penis picture?
You have earned your censorship all by your own doing. Man up and stop playing the victim.
“I am just pointing out what’s actually happening. Notice I don’t care much that I’m being censored, if I did I’d stop frequenting this place. Turley needs a mirror to point out his hypocrisy since it’s so abundant.”
You are pointing out that you like to pee on the lawn of others rather than on yourself since you don’t have one. Your lack is because you are a do-nothing and a know-nothing.
You do care about censorship, or you wouldn’t complain so much. The problem is not with Turley. It is with small minds and your mind that is even smaller.
Mammals have four legs.
you demand the definition be changed because 3 legged and five legged mutations exist.
Yes your pedantry is noted and laughed off, just as it deserves.
Like i like to tell people, “The average man has less than two legs”
UF,
I guess I’m more pessimistic. Moving will not have much effect if the bill of rights are gone. We will not be able to fight back.
I hope that when Turley edited law review articles he knew that “criteria” is a plural.
So is “data”, but it is very often used as a singular noun. We don’t teach Latin anymore, so we don’t recognize Latin plurals. The same confusion happens with a Greek word like “kudos” which looks like a plural but which is a singular in Greek. Obviously, we stopped teaching Greek many decades ago. I’m not sure it can be said that using “criteria” and “data” as a singular noun is clearly wrong now.
“To Right to Write?”
Shouldn’t that be “TOO Right to Write?”?
Maybee A righter shud gett A do-overer wen thers A typpo inn thu firstest wurd?
LOL.
It don’t matter. Turley may get a few litters wrong here and there but I knowed what he means.
I like Bro Cornel West. Presently, he’s high on my list of ppl running for president. .. and short of that, I believe he would make a fine mediator for the president.
(disclaimer. of course, the kind of ppl I want running things are not running for anything .. . it’s the ‘running’ what does it.)
Turley needs to pack some bags and go help sort out the ‘boxes of papers’ case against the MAGA hats down in Mar a lago.. . it appears Joe Biden introduced the CIPA rules governing the process of ‘classified discovery’
“Congress enacted CIPA in 1980 to limit the practice of “graymail,” in which defendants threatened to disclose classified information at trial in an effort to get prosecutors to drop charges rather than risk the disclosure of government secrets. The bill was introduced by then-Sen. Joe Biden, who sat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.”
*looking back through history, it appears Joe Biden has been involved in everything since Strom Thurmond succeeded from the Union. .. leaving his droppings like cow paddies in a Chicago slaughterhouse stockyard.
Too is exactly what I meant.
“to an excessive extent or degree; beyond what is desirable,”
Shallow thinking leaves you unable to consider all the possibilities
Good read Jonathan. Sad developments at multiple institutions. The left always espoused their tolerance. What happened?
The weakest arguments can only succeed in an echo chamber. That’s what they’re creating here.
This is only the latest example. See COVID, global warming debates, etc.
Unfortunate.
“The weakest arguments can only succeed in an echo chamber. “
“The left always espoused their tolerance. What happened?”
Jason, the hard left never espoused tolerance. It is violent and garners power to control others while living an elitist life, selfish without care for others. The classical liberal did not represent the hard left who used them to gain power. Today we don’t see many classical liberals from the left because, for the most part, it was a smokescreen to fool the public. Yesterday’s leftist classical liberal is mostly a myth proven by the fact most have disappeared. Today those pretend classical liberals of the left censor and lie while throwing stones at people like Turley and Dershowitz.
Look on the blog how many tried to sound like classical liberals, and today we note them being more like Stalinists.
S. Meyer,
Well said.
The few times I have watched HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, I may not have agree with Maher on everything but I for the most part I enjoyed his commentary.
He reminds me of what a classic liberal is or should I say was. I could sit down and have a discussion with him. Not likely with our leftists friends.
Jason asks, “what happened?”
They lied, Jason. Most leftists were always privately intrigued by communism. Their use of constitutional protections was just a cynical tactic when they felt weak.
There were actually very few intellectually-honest and coherent leftists. I have great respect for those that were, but behind every leftwing party there’s a Rwanda or Katyn Forest just waiting to happen.
Now we know. They’re telling us.
So much for the “Thinker.”
Next step is the inquisition.
Mao Tse Tung and his Red Guard would be proud.
Was the title supposed to be “The right to write?”
Typo
I see. Too Right to Write
Three words out of 4 with several definitions. Spoken it can mean almost anything.
Of all the upsetting and troubling columns that Professor Turley has written this may be the most egregious example of how the left has won. It is like reading the prequel to 1984, and we all know how that turned out!
Even after all these years and all these examples of leftist people being closed-minded and exclusionary (odd for the diversity crowd) it still boggles the mind seeing how different the left is from the right. You will most likely never see an example of a Robert Reich or a Lawrence Tribe do the equivalent of what Turley did when making sure Cornell West got published.
As I always say, if a conservative doesn’t like CNN they don’t watch it, if we don’t like The NY Times we don’t read it, if we don’t like a leftist or Democrat blog site we don’t frequent it too much, but the leftists tried to get Tucker canceled, tried to get Hannity canceled, tried to get Laura Ingraham canceled, tried to get cable companies to eliminate Fox News and very tellingly we have leftist wannabe tyrants coming on this site and commenting 200 times on every issue as a way to try to ruin our little comments section. People that won’t even take a name. Hint, hint.
Sure we will boycott a product like Bud Light or Target, but we don’t demand that the local store stop selling it, we just stop giving them our money. The left will boycott the supermarket for carrying a product they don’t think you should buy.
It’s nice to know that even the morons are allowed free-speech on this platform. Unlike the way the left treats conservatives.
In the Counseling professions, the purging began long ago. I resigned from many of the professional groups because of their prejudicial policies. Currently, hard science is regularly disregarded in favor of ‘affirming’ behavior that has been deemed a sign of serious dysfunction for decades.