Do or DEI? Federal Judge Finds DEI Policies are Mandatory and Unconstitutional in California Case

Below is my column in The Hill on the recent victory of a California professor in challenging diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies on free speech grounds. It is a rare win for dissenting faculty as DEI policies become more expansive and mandatory.

Here is the column:

From academia to corporations to the government, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies have expanded exponentially in the last 10 years. At colleges and universities, administrators now monitor compliance with DEI on every level, from teaching to hiring to promotions.

And there is little subtlety or nuance in these programs. You object to DEI statements, priorities and training at your own peril.

This week, federal magistrate Judge Christopher Baker issued a major 44-page report finding that Bakersfield College in California violated the First Amendment rights of Professor Daymon Johnson with its DEI mandates for faculty. If upheld, the report could be the foundation for a major free speech ruling.

The Johnson case is important because it challenges the claim of universities that DEI policies are simply guidelines and suggested practices. At the same time, universities have massively increased DEI offices and incorporated reviews in every aspect of academic life. The problem is that many DEI policies raise political, religious and academic values that some academics do not support. This can range from pronoun requirements to required perspectives taught in classrooms.

Johnson is one such dissenter. The history professor found himself the subject of a five-month investigation by the college after he criticized a 2019 Facebook post of English Professor Andrew Bond in which Bond called the United States a “piece of s**t nation.” Bond had added, “Go ahead and quote me, conservatives. This country has yet to live up to the ideals of its founding documents.”

Johnson did quote him, with the caption: “Do you agree with this radical [social justice warrior] from BC’s English Department? Thoughts?” A commentator on Facebook later added “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?’”

Bond responded in September 2021 by filing an administrative complaint against Johnson for harassment and bullying. Although Johnson was eventually cleared, the college issued a clear warning to him 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.”

Johnson said that he has experienced retaliation and harassment due to his opposition to DEI policies. Judge Baker’s review of Bakersfield’s policies found that they are clearly mandates, not suggestions. He found that the college used mandatory “shalls” to state the expectations of faculty, including “teaching, learning, and professional practices that reflect DEIA and anti-racist principles, and in particular, respect for, and acknowledgement of the diverse backgrounds of students and colleagues to improve equitable student outcomes and course completion.”

Bakersfield also requires that faculty “promote and incorporate culturally affirming DEIA and anti-racist principles to nurture and create a respectful, inclusive, and equitable learning and work environment.” Judge Johnson found that the claim of the college that these are merely “aspirational goals” is “disingenuous.”

This is not the first such free speech controversy for Bakersfield College. Another Bakersfield College history professor, Matthew Garrett, was previously fired for speaking out against social justice programs. He and other professors are now suing.

After that controversy, John Corkins, vice president of the Board of Trustees of the Kern Community College District Board (which oversees the college), declared, “We have to continue to cull” problem faculty. He added: “Got them in my livestock operation and that’s why we put a rope on some of them and take them to the slaughterhouse. That’s a fact of life with human nature and so forth, I don’t know how to say it any clearer.” He later apologized.

Law schools are also facing controversial mandates. In 2022, the American Bar Association required law schools to “provide education to law students on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism: (1) at the start of the program of legal education, and (2) at least once again before graduation.” Many schools are now requiring faculty to annually confirm DEI or diversity components in teaching.

I have long incorporated race issues in my classes. I also teach critical race theory, alongside other (including opposing) legal theories to my first-year torts students. I do so because I want them to be familiar with these issues and theories in forming their own views and values. However, the increasing mandates raise serious questions about the free speech and academic freedom of faculty who do not share those views.

Often, schools will find alternative grounds for harassing or firing dissenting faculty. Those efforts received a boost recently from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which rejected the free speech claims of North Carolina State University Professor Stephen Porter. The statistics professor had objected to what he considered the lower standards used by his school to hire minority faculty. When he sued over retaliation for his views expressed both publicly and to the faculty, the Fourth Circuit ruled that the school could discipline him for a lack of “collegiality.”

“Collegiality” was long used as an excuse to block promotion or hiring of women, minority and leftist faculty. The decision in Porter v. Board of Trustees of North Carolina State University is pending before the Supreme Court for possible review. If allowed to stand, it would offer universities a ready-made excuse for cracking down on the dwindling number of dissenters.

For faculty, what are presented as suggestions are often treated as mandatory. Take the “indigenous land acknowledgment” created for faculty at the University of Washington. The school told professors that they could add such a statement to their course material to honor “all tribes and bands within the Suquamish, Tulalip and Muckleshoot nations.” Computer science Professor Stuart Reges disagreed with the factual and philosophical basis of the statement, so he posted a land acknowledgment stating that under “the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.”

He was told to remove his optional statement. The request was no longer optional. Dean Magdalena Balazinska explained that “[t]he statement Stuart Reges included in his syllabus was inappropriate, offensive and not relevant to the content of the course he teaches.”

However, the university’s land acknowledgment was somehow deemed entirely relevant and appropriate.

Bakersfield College continues to distinguish itself in these anti-free speech efforts. The school may call itself “The Renegades,” but it has shown a lack of tolerance for any rebellious or dissenting faculty. We may value renegades as mascots, but we increasingly abhor them as colleagues.

Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.

141 thoughts on “Do or DEI? Federal Judge Finds DEI Policies are Mandatory and Unconstitutional in California Case”

  1. “A thousand frivolous pursuits, trifles, and pleasures altered the genius of the French [dare I say American] nation, to such an extent that they who had for so long fought great Caesar, who so often threw off the imperial yoke,…[etc]…, have done nothing in our days but follow the tide of fashion, alter minutely their tastes, despised today what they admired yesterday, introduce inconstancy and frivolity into all they do, and are always seeking new mistresses, new places, new amusements, and new follies.”

    Frederick the Great, 1740, in Anti-Machiavel

  2. Off topic: I just got suspended from Twitter/X for using the expression “Drop Dead” in reference to Jeb DeSantis, one of his stupid tweets, and Twitter/X’s relentlessly using his BS tweets attacking Trump as the FIRST things that appear whenever I go to that godforsaken website. Here’s the entire Tweet that got me suspended:

    “Drop Dead, Jeb DeSantis. You were nowhere before Trump endorsed you, and you’re going back to nowhere for attacking Trump — unless you want to run as a democrat.”

    Setting aside the fact that I really don’t care whether anyone agrees or disagrees with that tweet, I’m at a complete loss to comprehend how any reasonable person could interpret that as a death threat, which Twitter/X has informed me is the reason I was suspended, I will NEVER buy their claim that that’s how they interpret that tweet. Instead, 
    I’d bet the ranch (if I had a ranch — and by way of full disclosure, I do NOT have a ranch — it’s just another figure of speech like “drop dead”) that a bunch of Jeb DeSantils supporters got together and filed a mass complaint against me because they don’t want anyone to be able to criticize Jeb DeSantis — the incredible FRAUD and MORON.

    On its own, “drop dead” is a common expression, same as telling someone to “get lost” or “take a hike” or “pound salt” or a dozen others, NONE of which are taken literally by any reasonable person. And in the larger context of my entire tweet, it’s clearly not a threat of any kind, since it ends with recommending that he run for office in the future as a democrat — and THAT’S probably what the Jeb DeSantis supporters really objected to — LOL LOL LOL — those LOSERS.

    Twitter/X is just another social-media fraud — and they’re ALL frauds (including this site’s comment section) — looking to manipulate public discourse by any means necessary.

      1. LOL — I wish I’d thought of “Go suck an egg.” But then again, Musk’s Twitter Twerps would probably argue than you can get E-coli or Salmonella and become deathly ill from sucking a raw egg, so they’d suspend me for THAT. Virtuallly any insult you can think of could probably be intentionally misinterpreted as a wish for or threat of harm.
        As Harry Nilsson said in The Pointed Man, “The thing is, you see what you wanna see – and you hear what you wanna hear. You dig?”

      1. If he had written “Drop Dedd,” he would not have been banned. Computers are stupid about how language works.

    1. There was no interpretation involved, and there is no conspiracy. You were suspended by an algorithm, not by a human being. It’s like saying the word “bomb” at an airport; it doesn’t matter whether it’s actually a threat, the word itself automatically triggers a response.

  3. People constantly make me miserable, so why should I care if they are ever made miserable by a nuclear war? It would serve them right for all the misery that they have ever subjected me to, settling the score and making us even.

  4. Jonathan: There is other important news you are neglecting. MAGA House Speaker Mike Johnson has released the first tranche of 40,000 hours of videos of the J6 insurrection–excuse me, what you call a “protest gone too far”. Judge Wallace in Colorado has punched a big hole in your theory by ruling was an “insurrection or rebellion” with DJT as the ringleader. No wonder you were upset with that portion of Wallace’s opinion.

    Why is Johnson releasing the videos at this particular time and what are his stated reasons? Johnson is bending to the demands of the extreme wing of his party (e.g., Matt Gaetz, etc.) because his survival depends on that support. In addition, DJT has given his blessing to the release. Johnson says: ” This decision gives millions of Americans, criminal defendants, public interest organizations, and the media an ability to see for themselves what happened that day, rather than having to rely upon the interpretation of a small group of government officials”.

    And what “criminal defendants” might Johnson have in mind? Well, DJT for one, who is facing a March 2024 date for his trial before Judge Chutkan. Helping DJT is now job one for the MAGA Republicans in the House and Senate. Then there are the over 500 J.6 defendants still awaiting trial along with the hundreds the FBI is trying to find. What better Christmas gift to give DJT and his fellow conspirators as they prepare for trial–to try to show J6 was not an “insurrection” after all. And who are the “small group of government officials” Johnson has in mind? Probably the thousands of DOJ officials, FBI and other law enforcement personnel who had to put down the insurrection and prosecute those involved. Not exactly a “small group”.

    So now the MAGA crowd is using the videos in an attempt at revisionist history. On her Fox News show Maria Bartiromo was interviewing Kevin McCarthy and was complaining there were FBI informants inside the Capitol who were “wearing Trump clothing” and were leading and directing the violence. She pointed to one clip from one of the videos that shows a masked individual with a red MAGA hat who Bartiromo claims was showing an FBI badge. Who was that individual? As it turns out the FBI later identified the man as Kevin Lyons. He was arrested, tried and convicted and sentenced to 4 yrs, 3 months. He was not an FBI informant and the thing he was carrying was not an FBI badge but a vape! But things like this fuel conspiracy theories.

    But I think the purpose behind Johnson’s release of the videos is even more nefarious. He is joining DJT in wanting to taint a potential jury pool in DC. Try to convince enough potential jurors that what they saw on live TV is not the entire picture and most of people inside the Capitol were “entirely peaceful”. But that defies logic and the evidence–the broken windows of the Capitol, the beating and injuring of Capitol police with fire extinguishers and poles, the videos of Congressmen and Senators running for their lives trying to escape the violence. Five people died and over $1.5 million in damages to the Capitol. Not exactly a peaceful walk in the park!

    I have faith in the jury system. I don’t think potential jurors are going to swayed by the propaganda campaign by DJT and his MAGA supporters in Congress. When DJT faces the jury in Judge Chutkan’s courtroom in early March only the facts and the evidence will be the things that count!

    1. Dennis – it is notable that you fear the effect of releasing the J6 video. The truth undermines propaganda, doesn’t it?

    2. So a judge saying something that is legally meaningless, is somehow more consequential that actual facts.

      You really do not seem to grasp that more and more -people understand that you, the left, democrats, the media, much of our government are liars.

      Given the choice between trustion our eyes an trusting YOU – we all go with our eyes.

      More importantly – we understand that when you say X and our eyes say Y – that you are no longer to be trusted on anything.

      Regardless, while I would prefer if Johnson had put all the video except a very tiny amount that the CP has asked to be protected for security concerns, out onto the internet where anyone can review it.

      Johnson has still made this available to anyone. YOU are free to go to DC and you can request to see whatever video you wish.

      So rather than buy what others have said who have repeatedly been caught lying.

      Why not do just that – go watch the video.

      One of the things I find most surprising regarding the video is that SLOWLY the media – including the left, is starting to report on things that many of us have KNOWN for over a year.

      There are now stories regarding the FACT that the violence at the west tunnels started hen the CP teargassed themselves and Then tear gassed a previously peaceful crowd.

      We had video of that over a year ago. But NOW the story is getting more traction.

      NOW what was allegedly a right wing nut conspiracy theory is getting more airplay.

      A wise person would have gone through the past decade of experience and concluded that the media is not trustworthy.

      You keep echoing your prefered media.

      I would suggest that you should pay more attention to FACTS than opinions – not Some judges opinion, not some right or left wing talking heads opinion, But the actual facts.

      Svelaz previously cited Prof. Baude regarding the efforts to remove Trump, and his debate at the federalist society.
      I would suggest actually listening to that debate.
      As the Federal Judge who debated Baude noted, Any definition of insurrection that includes Trump’s J6 conduct or that of the J6 participants, is so broad as to make all political activity into insurrection.

      Or put differently – you are bandyingh insurection about in the same orwellian way you do racist, with the same effect.
      When you cry wolf, wolf, and there is no wolf. no one will come to help you when the actual wolf shows up.

    3. Dennis, The FBI absolutely refuses to comment on its informants or agents participating in J6.

      Whether it was the Black Panthers in the 60’s or young muslims in the early oughts, or the michigan wolverines.

      Most people KNOW that the FBI routinely infiltrates groups it targets.
      That it targets groups it should not,
      and that when it inflitrates groups it quite often does so to push them into committing crimes.

      This is Nothing new.

      I know nothing abut Lyons – and frankly I doubt you do either.

      I do know that a large number of people whose conduct on J6 is highly suspicious – some of whom actually incited violence.
      Have never been arrested, have never been identified and in most cases quickly dropped off the FBI’s list of J6 most wanted.

      We have discussed the issue of guns at J6 repeatedly. Todate there is not a single J6 defendant who had firearms on the capital compound or in the capitol.

      But there are multiple photos and videos of people at J6 with handguns on their person.
      None of these people have been publicly identified, and none are on the FBI’s wanted list.

      Either these are Feds or the FBI is incredibly incompetent and has not sought to prosecute people who are clearly committing crimes.

      Revolver and a few other outlets – have covered the presence of Federal agents and informants extensively.
      You are free to look at what they have uncovered.

      We have testimony at the J6 trials from actual FBI informants – testimony that was on the whole exculpatory.
      We also have from the J6 trials proof that the FBI was using informants to spy on J6 defendants attorney’s during the trial.
      This is in the testimony.

      Separately I would be comoletely chocked if the FBI did not have agents and informants at the capitol on J6.

      They left wing nut claim none were present is just stupid and makes the FBI look incompetent.

      It is beyond question that agents and informants were present.
      The only question is who were they and what were they doing.

      One does NOT have to beleive that the FBI is politically biased, to KNOW that the FBI’s history involves massive amounts of misconduct in the infiltration of disfavored groups. Or just FBI conduct in general.
      Whether it is the Black Panthers, Ruby Ridge, Wacco, the Wolverines, Whitey Bulgar, Richard Jewel, the Anthrax case, Post 9/11 Muslim youth
      or Crossfire huricane – there is LOTS of evidence of FBI misconduct against targeted groups.

      Do you thinkt he FBI has magically changed ?

    4. The jury pool in DC is already tainted.

      Separately it is within the rights of a criminal defendant to attempt to persaude the public and prospective jurrors prior to the start of the trial.

      Tainting a jury pool is something only the governmet can do. A jury is supposed to START from the presumption of innocence.

    5. “Try to convince enough potential jurors that what they saw on live TV is not the entire picture and most of people inside the Capitol were “entirely peaceful”. ”
      That is not only correct, it is also a fact. What most of us have seen on TV is approximately 30sec of highly edited colorized video.

      “But that defies logic and the evidence–the broken windows of the Capitol, the beating and injuring of Capitol police with fire extinguishers and poles, the videos of Congressmen and Senators running for their lives trying to escape the violence.”
      Nope. Absent the spin those things happened. As did much more.

      ” Five people died”
      Nope. this was long debunked. Two people died, Both protestors, and both murdered by the Capitol police.
      There have been many subsequents deaths – all protestors.

      “and over $1.5 million in damages to the Capitol.”
      When a toilet seat costs $400, that speaks very little of $1.5M.
      Regardless, most of the claims regarding damages etc have proven bogus.
      No one shat in the halls.

      Some windows were broken. Those who broke then should be prosecuted – just as those who put an axe through a senator’s desk during the Kavanaugh protests should be prosecuted – but was not.

      “Not exactly a peaceful walk in the park!” More peacefull than the Kavanaugh protestors, More peacefull than the recent pro-hamas protestors, more peaceful than any one of the BLM riots, more peaceful than any night in 2020 in Portland.
      More peaceful than the attacks on police in Atlanta.

      Regardless it is estimated that about 3000 people went through the capitol on J6. That is possibly the largest protest to ever go through the capitol. 99% of those people did not break windows, cross barriers, know that barriers had been removed, confront police, leave the public space of the capitol or even chant loudly.

      That is the definiton of “mostly peaceful” This was NOT like events at Portland in 2020, This was not like the BLM riots
      this was NOT like the Kavanaugh protests or the recent prohamas protests.

      Any definition of insurrection that includes J6, also includes everyone in Antifa, everyone in BLM, everyone at portland,
      everyone protesting Dobbs,

    6. If J6 was as you claim then the relase of the video will change nothing – in fact it will strengthen support for your position.

      If the 2020 election was without fraud – you would welcome inquiry instead of trying to hide from it.

      I am not affraid of the Capitol Video – why are you ?

    7. If you have faith in the Jury system then try these cases In jurisdictions where the vote reflects the election outcome – about 50:50.

      Rather than in the most blue and biased parts of the country.

      If you trust the jury system – then you will be OK if a Trump DOJ tried and convicts democrats in red communities.

    8. Do you really expect a trial in March ANYWHERE ?

      Only the facts are supposed to count. We already have seen in the J6 cases todate that is not the case.

      So far you have not provided fats that support your claims – nor has smith.

      Your betting that a DC Jury will convict regardless of the facts or the evidence.

      Sevaral polls have suggested that Trump’s support will decline buy about 10% if he is convicted of anything everywhere.
      With a caveat I think that is correct – but the caveat is huge. He must be convicted in a trial the public sees as fair on compelling evidence that we have not seen as of yet.

      If Conviction means another of thse star chamber trails – Then Trump’s support will rise.

      Those like you do not understand the jury is NOT the people in the courtroom in DC, or Atlanta,

      It is ordinary americans.

    9. “Why is Johnson releasing the videos . . .”

      Your comment would have been far briefer (and more honest) if you had just written: You will see and believe what the Left wishes.

  5. Quoting John Locke: “The Second Treatise of Civil Government” ‘Chapter III:

    ‘Of the State of War’

    Paragraph 16: …. “For it is reasonable and just that I should have a right to destroy anything that threatens me with destruction, because the fundamental law of nature says that men are to be preserved as much as possible, and that when not everyone can be preserved the safety of the innocent is to be preferred….”

    Paragraph 17: “And hence it is that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life. For I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom-i.e., makes me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation…. Freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he that in the state of society or commonwealth must be supposed to design to take away from them everything else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.”

    Chapter IV: ‘Of Slavery’

    Paragraph 21: “…. A liberty to follow my own will in all things where that rule prescribes not: not be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man, as freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the law of Nature.”

    Today in America: I suppose it is divided into three parts, Left East, West Left and somewhere in between. How long will the crumbs of the cake last. We have fools from the asylum imposing rules and regulations on us with abandon, changing existing societal norm, enforcing acceptance of incompetence, and abandonment of free {thought} (I changed thought for speech, for those in Lindo Mara, [Pretty Bitter]).

    God help us ALL!!!!

  6. I note with great disdain that the Commander in Chief was guilty AGAIN today of stolen valor. He claimed in separate comments to have applied, and to have received an appointment to, the Naval Academy.

    Stolen Valor should be disqualifying to be Commander In Chief.

  7. On private property, the owner has the sole power to “claim and exercise” dominion, understanding that bodily injury and property damage are illegal.

    On public property, the Constitution holds dominion.

    The Constitution mandates no diversity or inclusion.

    The Constitution exists in equity or the absence of bias and favoritism.





    eq·​ui·​ty ˈe-kwə-tē

    1a: justice according to natural law or right

    specifically : freedom from bias or favoritism

  9. Jonathan: The title of your column is a bit misleading. Judge Baker is not a “Federal Judge”. He is a “Magistrate Judge”. Big difference. Decisions by magistrate judges are not binding on federal district courts or appellate courts. They can issue preliminary injunctions, as Baker has done in the Johnson case, but as he makes clear in his decision “[t]hese findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge assigned to the case”. This means a federal district court judge can review the record “de novo” and make his/her determination whether Bakersfield violated Johnson’s 1st Amendment rights. So I wouldn’t call Baker’s ruling a “rare win”–well at least not at this stage of the litigation.

    The Q is why is Johnson so vehemently opposed to Bakersfield’s DEI policies? Is it because he endorses policies that would allow discrimination against people of color or the LGBTQ+ community at Bakersfield College? Maybe Johnson is just another racist hiding behind the 1st Amendment? What is remarkable is that Johnson appears the lone opponent of Bakersfield’s DEI policies. The vast majority of professors at Bakersfield College are opposed to racism and support policies that encourage inclusion and diversity. This is widespread across the county on university and college campuses. Even the ABA, that you mention, now mandates that ABA approved law schools include DEI training. The ABA has always been a very conservation organization. So when you see them endorsing DEI policies you know the winds of change are not going away–they are increasing in velocity.

    So why is Johnson one of the last holdouts–and why do you believe he needs protection under the 1st Amendment? Is it is because you are a “free speech absolutist” or is there something else going on here? I suspect it is the latter. Racists are trying to wrap themselves in the flag and the 1st Amendment by claiming they have a right to spew out all sorts of racist, misogynistic and anti-LGBTQ+ hate speech. The real Q is why you support such people like Johnson?

    1. While you are correct in your disinction between article II and article III judges.
      It is odd that you recognized no such distinction in Trump cases.

      It is irrelevant why Johnson opposes DEI or anything else.

      Your rights are not constrained by pubic judgement regarding your reasons.

      Something is either a right – in which case you are free to act in conformance regardless of your reasons, or it is not.

      It would be irrelevant if Johnson was an actual Nazi.

      Many of us are shocked and appallled that our children are out protesting in favor of actual fascist, nazi, terrorist, organizations.

      But few of us seek to condition their right to protest based on our assessment of their reasons.

      As Appalled as I am by the mass demonstrations of young people.

      I am proud to live in a country where their right to do so is respected.

      But that also REQUIRES our government to protect the rights of those opposed to our young.

    2. Your argument has to major flaws – first it is absolutely false.

      Your right to free speech is not conditioned on the requirement that your positions are correct.

      Are you so ignorant of the first amendment to understand that one of the landmark protest cases – Skokie was about the RIGHT of actual nazi’s to march through a community full of hollocaust survivors ?

      Your next failure is your absurd argument that those who oppose DEI are racists. You have not provided evidence that Johnson is racist or sexist or homophobic. While that would not alter his rights. regardless, your argument is typical of the left.

      Someone opposes you – so defame them.

      I would note that the reason you hate Trump so much is that he uses your tactics against you.

      The ABA is no longer conservative and has not been for some time.

      Your own assertions prove that.

      DEI has no place in the law. Or law school. As an adult you are free to hold whatever views you wish.
      You are free to attempt to persuade.
      You are not free to impose those views by force.

      You can not more decide that someone must be DEI trained to be a lawyer than to decide that they must be proficient in underwater basket weaving.

      Diversity is a value – not a principle. It is one that I share. Values are inherently negotiable, they are not absolutes.

      Many of us – myself included beleive that we all benefit from diversity. In fact that is demonstrably true. But it is also true that we benefit in different ways from homogenity. That conflict and fact is part of why diversity is a value – not a principle.

      Even today in the vast majority of the world people do not encounter others that are different from them in race, or religion. anywhere except TV.

      I doubt that more than 1/8th of the world lives in a nation or culture where more than 5% of the people they encounter regularly are of a different race or religion.

      Equity is absolute nonsense. Equity is what lead to the bloodshed of the french revolution and a major factor in the blloodshed and failure of communism and socialism.

      Inclusion is equally absurd. Are you planning to share your home with me ? your property, your wealth ?

      If not, then you have already accepted that you have the right to EXCLUDE.

      Inclusion is a choice – like diversity it is a VALUE, That means it is not immutable.

      It means it is something we constantly balance against other values – sometimes choosing inclusion or diversity and sometimes choosing not.
      That it is a value means that there is NOT always an inherently correct choice.

    3. “Racist hiding behind the 1st Amendment”

      Whether you like it or not, nincompoop, racists are protected by the 1st Amendment. What an inconvenient truth for the little Marxist, Denny.

    4. Wow. Are you the gymnastics coach at Bakersfield? That was was some boiler plate linguistic acrobatics to ask a lot of nothing questions in different ways – that jams your unsupported conspiracy down the throat of all who read. You are indeed the poster child of paranoid leftist psuedo-educators dragging our colleges straight into the garbage. When no parents send their kids to your college, better brush up on your fast food skills…

    5. The Q is why is Johnson so vehemently opposed to Bakersfield’s DEI policies?

      There is no “why” when exercising rights. There is only the action of exercising the right.
      Thats the reason the DoR is crafted is it is. The assumption that the government is always going to silence the people. Just as the govt attempted to silence this Professor.

    6. “[W]hy do you believe [Professor Johnson] needs protection under the 1st Amendment?”

      Well, now, that is *not* the question.

      The real question is: Why does the Left believe that Johnson does not deserve 1A protection?

      And the obvious answer is: Because he disagrees with Leftist propaganda.

      “Judge Baker is not a “Federal Judge”.”

      You got that wrong, too. That is not what JT wrote: He wrote: “federal magistrate Judge Christopher Baker” — which is what Baker is.

  10. The era of “anyone can publish” has not just exposed all the fractures within a free society, it has accelerated them.
    It has empowered malcontents and psychopaths, and spawned sadistic, online ad hominem threats and attacks as a new “sport” for instant political self-gratification.

    What are the chances Congress would be able to regulate the digital infospace in a manner that maximizes the free expression of creative, responsible, good-willed ideas (while suppressing ill-tempered, ignorant, and manipulative-deceptive rants)? It might be as simple as redesigning defamation courts to support rapid due-diligence, and expanding their scope-of-deterrence into attempts to dupe the public, i.e. public frauds waged for political effect.

    If enough people demand it, we can begin to fine-tune the rules governing media. What we have now is not free expression, as most Americans are cowed into fear-induced silence by rampant doxxing and cancel culture. Respect for, and welcoming of well-meaning opinions and viewpoints has actually suffered the past 20 years.

    1. The era of “anyone can publish” has not just exposed all the fractures within a free society, it has accelerated them.

      And Auguste Gusteau claimed that anyone could be a chef. While perhaps that concept did inspire Remy, I still maintain – despite opposition form Anonymous – that no French chef would ever have said that. That is pure American progressive sentimentality imposed onto a completely different culture. And it’s so self-evidently false, anyone with Gusteau’s intelligence would have laughed at the notion; just consider the plight of poor Alfredo Linguini.

    2. “Respect for, and welcoming of well-meaning opinions and viewpoints has actually suffered the past 20 years.”

      Pbinca is correct that the suffering over the past 20 years is accelerating. That 20-year acceleration started at the end of Obama’s first term and accelerated in his second when he failed to accept the idea of free speech. It accelerated even more during the Trump Period with continuous lies from the left. The left revolted against the acceptance of an opinion from an outsider who threatened the status quo of our officials in Washington representing themselves instead of the American people. It went criminal under the Biden administration, where the government didn’t just rely on lies and a semi-hidden weaponization of the DOJ but the weaponization of other bureaucracies as well. The Biden administration had to go one step further with almost total disregard for the First Amendment, where it used its power to force censorship by social media and helped create a “conspiracy” of lies by the mainstream media.

      Yes, pbinCA, you and I agree on the damage that occurred over the last 20 years.

  11. It has been reported that the University of Michigan has 142 DEI staff members at a cost of 18 million dollars. Think about that for a moment. Now think about what these 142 do-nothings do all day to earn their 18 million dollars. They look for trouble, make trouble, lie about trouble, exaggerate trouble and create nothing, teach nothing, administer nothing and offer nothing.

    DEI is a grift that is costing the university system around the country over a billion dollars. This is the latest mass psychosis affecting the young impressionable morons. We went from Climate lunacy to BLM lunacy back to climate lunacy and now to Palestinian lunacy. The climate is a hoax (as proved by the fact that the “activists” never go after China or India) that is promulgated by China. The racism canard is a hoax that burst on the scene as a way to get rid of Trump by having riots in the streets in order to make everyone think things were spiraling out of control. BLM was a hoax as we see cops kill about 9 unarmed blacks a year while killing more whites per capita and blacks killing thousands of other blacks every day without a peep from the BLM types.

    Notice liberals crying every time a black is killed by a white (always unfortunate and rightly condemned) but not complaining about blacks being killed by other blacks. This is exactly the same as the riots attacking Israel for killing Muslims in Gaza as they conduct a RIGHTEOUS war but they never marched as Syria killed THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND MUSLIMS. Same as marches and protests against oil in the west and never a peep about coal in China. It isn’t blacks being killed by whites, it isn’t Muslims being killed by Israel and it isn’t oil being used by the west, it is all a hoax being driven by those that hate us and funded by the likes of Soros and the CCP.

    1. HB, I’m not sure you’re right that cops kill more unarmed whites per capita than blacks. I think the relevant question, though, is whether interactions between police and unarmed blacks are more likely to lead to deadly shootings than interactions between police and unarmed whites. Here the proclivity to engage in conduct attracting police attention is relevant. There are far more offences committed by blacks per capita than by whites. When you normalise for proclivity to offend, unarmed whites are killed at a higher rate. This has been discussed in detail by Roland Fryer and Heather MacDonald.

      1. You can be not sure – but the FACTS support the claim. The number of non-violent unarmed blacks killed by police each year is single digits nationwide.

        As to your reframing the question – you are merely restating the same thing. If something is more likely than it will occur more frequently.

        1. Joh Say, you don’t seem to get my point. It is not correct to say that unarmed whites are killed by police at a higher per capita rate. The progressives are correct that unarmed blacks are killed disproportionately by police if you look at mere per capita rates. What they fail to take into account is that blacks commit street crimes at much higher rates than whites. So to see if police are disproportionately killing blacks because of their race you need to consider the question in relation to the number of police contacts with blacks on the one hand and whites on the other. Here, because the proclivity of blacks to offend is so much higher, whites are in fact killed by police at slightly higher rates relative to the number of police interactions. There is no evidence that the police disproportionately target blacks to kill, as the BLM false narrative declares.

          Roland Fryer and Heather MacDonald have considered this in great detail.

          1. As I understand it, it’s not even relative to the number of police interactions, but to the number of people who resist arrest. White people who resist arrest or otherwise give the police trouble are slightly more likely to be killed than are black people who do the same. But more white people than black ones seem to understand that if a policeman stops you or arrests you, you must cooperate even if you think it’s unfair, and make your complaints later. A significant number of black people seem to think that if they don’t feel like being arrested that day they have a right to resist, and that doesn’t work out well for anyone.

  12. Disgraceful decision by the Supreme Court not to hear the Officer Chauvin appeal.

    It’s hard not to suspect that the refusal was based on more than law. Fear comes to mind. It appears to have worked with the judge, jury, media, and Minnesota officials so there seem to be precedents.

    Are we left with mob rule?

    New evidence supporting his innocence has surfaced recently. Once the motions for relief on that evidence are turned down by black-robed invertebrates the highest Court will get a chance to embarrass itself again.

    1. The upcoming appeal you mention is of the guilty plea in the Federal civil case not the conviction in the state murder case. And the supposed new evidence relates to the view of one doctor, in Kansas I believe, that Floyd suffered from a rare heart disease that could have caused his death.

      More interesting is the recently uncovered evidence that the coroner altered his autopsy report under pressure. My recollection of the trial, however, is that it was clear that there was no evidence from the autopsy of asphyxiation or damage to tissue from Chauvin’s hold. Despite this, a very effective and appealing expert witness for the state argued based on modelled physics that the downward pressure from Chauvin’s knee to Floyd’s shoulder and back (not his neck which was not pressured) compressed lung capacity and cut down the flow of oxygen and caused death. That expert testimony was not adequately rebutted by defense experts. A finding by a jury of causality as a matter of fact based on expert witness testimony is virtually impossible to overturn.

      Personally, I remain skeptical that Chauvin caused Floyd’s death, but I think it highly unlikely that any appellate court will overturn that jury finding.

      1. An expert witness is not “effective” when what they claim is GARBAGE.
        I would further note that the constitutional standard for a criminal trial is “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

        It was self evident to all but the moronic left in this country that This was not even close to beyond a reasonable doubt.

        Regardless, what is coming to light is prosecutorial misconduct as well as witness tampering, and failure to disclose evidence.

        The rest of the trial could be “perfect” – that will not alter the fact that Chauvin and company are entitled to a new trial.
        And those engaged in this malfeasance must experience very serious consequences.

        It is irrelevant whether it is a white police officer or a black teen that is subject to abuse of power.
        We can not allow it.

        That you are skeptical is extremely relevant.

        It is NOT the responsibility of the defence to prove innocence.
        It is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

        When they are presenting junk science – and the model you cite is exactly that.

        It is garbage to claim that you can asphixiate someone while at the same time leaving absolutely none of the indicia of asphyixiation.

        Models should not be allowed in courtrooms except to allow the jury to visualize technical evidence.
        They should NOT be allowed as evidence themselves.

        More than a Decade ago there was an excellent study of the various forms of forensic evidence that we have been using in court for decades.

        The results of the National Science Foundation study is that the overwhelmining majority of widely accepted forensic science is total garbage.

        You can not as an example match a bullet to the gun that fired it sufficiently to prove guilt. You can not match hair, or carpet, or fibers,
        Even the typical finger print match is incredibly poor evidence.
        While DNA is better than fingerprints – and the accuracy of current DNA tests is quite good, at the same time they are far far far lower than Juries are told. The odds of two people having the same DNA are just short of impossible. They odds of a match on the commonly used DNA tests, are merely highly unlikely. Modern DNA tests if properly conducted are proof beyond a reasonable doubt – though often NOT that the person committed the crime.

        Yet despite the fact that most forensics that we see all the time – both in the real world and on TV is actually garbage.

        In many cases forensic science MIGHT be good enough to exclude someone. It is rarely good enough to prove that a specific person committed a crime.

        1. I agree with you that Tobin’s analysis may not have corresponded to what actually happened. But I listened to virtually all of it and it was a very effective presentation. The defence had to have been aware of what he was going to argue but failed to mount a strong cross examination or to field a persuasive expert in rebuttal. My guess is that he convinced the jury that Chauvin caused Floyd’s death.

    2. What was Chauvin’s appeal based on? From what I know, appeal cannot change the findings-of-fact of the jury (even if they get it wrong), but only procedural errors in the handling of the case. What were they?

      I did notice that the very last witness at Chauvin’s trial, the forensic pulmonary pathologist, Dr. Martin Tobin, likely perjured himself in his re-direct testimony. In the way he tried to shoot down the exhaust pipe asphixia theory of the defense, he conned the jury into believing that cause of death would have been detectable from the emergency room blood draw. But, when the dying are given 1.5 hours of aggressive oxygenation, bagging (assisted respiration), and external cardio-pumping, the blood O2 sat can be restored to the normal range, even if the patient died despite the artificial resuscitation.

      Chauven’s defense team seemed unprepared to cross-examine Tobin on this point, and declined to do so, ending the evidentiary phase of the trial. It was too late to call an alternate expert.

      Did Chauvin get a bum rap? Perhaps. The 2nd degree murder would have been reduced to manslaughter if in reality Floyd was asphixiated by holding hi head down only 15″ from the tailpipe of a running police cruiser. The body-cam evidence clearly showed that the motor was left running until after the ambulance took Floyd away. And, published literature about the Ford-made Cruiser shows the tailpipe location behind the right-rear tire (where Floyd’s head was pinned down). The “I can’t breathe” protest fits this fact-pattern much better than the rear-neck-restraint being applied by Chauvin. Except, the media and AG got totally invested in a false narrative about the neck restraint being cause of death — it looked bad on video, sure, but likely wasn’t the cause.

      Yet, how incompetent of a bunch of 4 cops to not realize the motor was left running, and the tailpipe was dumping exhaust so close to Chauvin’s head! That level of stupidity deserves at least homicidal gross negligence.

      1. “the blood O2 sat can be restored to the normal range”

        They wouldn’t be looking for O2 in the blood draw. They would be looking for something else. CO remains longer than hypoxia.

        “motor was left running, and the tailpipe was dumping exhaust so close to Chauvin’s head!”

        If I remember correctly, Floyd was at the side of the car toward the rear, and the tailpipe directs the fumes to the rear, not the side. I am sure his CO level would have gone up, but we already had a history of increasing shortness of breath long before placement on the ground. Based on everything we know, I would think it is more likely due to all the other factors killing Floyd, including fluid in the lung.

        They were intent on convicting Chauvin for the most they could. We saw that from day one when the autopsy report was changed. If Chauvin were black and Floyd white, this would be called racism.

        Though I can see the reason for other charges, what Chauvin was convicted for was wrong.

        1. There is no basis for ANY charges against Chauvin.

          Nearly all of the possible contributing factors that are NOT bad choices of Floyd are failures on the part of the municipality.

          If Floyd died of an overdose – which is so likely that all other potential culpabiloity can NEVER reach beyond a reasonable doubt, then MAYBE the city is culpable as it took over 10minutes for EMT’s to arrive.

          Even the claim that Chauvin killed Floyd by holding him down. At trial both prosecution and defense witnesses established that Chauvin’s conduct was compliant with standard police training.

          Frankly I think that claim is garbage – but even if True it is a failure on the Part of the City not Chauvin.

          For a person to be guilty of murder they must KNOW that their actions could cause death.

          1. “For a person to be guilty of murder they must KNOW that their actions could cause death.”

            Not so.

      2. The appeal to SCOTUS was based on procedure: failure to change venue; and improper motive of a member of the jury.

        Not sure the tailpipe had much to do with this. Tobin was a very effective witness on the claimed physics of what allegedly happened, and the defence cross examination and rebuttal expert were ineffective. In my view, Tobin’s testimony was the reason for the conviction.

      3. Anyone who has watched the entire Bodycam’s of the Floyd encounter – from the moment Police first arrived knows that Floyd can not be trusted in self reporting. He was claiming to be unable to breath before the police handcuffed him. Before he was put into a police car.

        He actually ended up on the ground as he did specifically because when handcuffed in the back of the cruiser he was a danger to himself.

        As to your CO thesis – that was NOT the states case, and it was NOT the evidence.

        It is probably unwise to leave someone that close to the tailpipe of a car. But unless they actually die from CO poisoning – which Floyd did not – the same evidence that refutes the asphyxia claim refutes the CO argument. Floyd did not die from lack of oxygen in his blood.

        1. Yes…..I saw the video of Floyd repeating “I can’t breathe” as he was sitting, handcuffed, in the back of the squad car…
          20 minutes or so before they took him out of the car and put him down on the curb.

      1. oldman, thank you for sharing that link. Sadly, I doubt it will have the reach or impact it deserves. Just like the J6 videos, 2000 Mules, Police State, 2020 riots, and so on, it will be viewed by those that want a true system of equal justice and the rule of law. And they’ll have to go looking for it because it will not be covered by the Regime’s media machine. Those that want something else, will get fed their diet of state-run propaganda.

    3. “New evidence supporting his innocence has surfaced recently.”

      From the snippets and interviews I’ve seen, this newly released documentary is worth watching: “The Fall of Minneapolis”

      “Based on conversations with those who were there—including Derek Chauvin, Thomas Lane, and other Minneapolis police officers who’ve never spoken out before—Liz exposes how the facts were manipulated to dupe and divide America.” (

      Liz Collin is a long-time journalist and a very brave woman.

  13. Regarding the University of Washington land acknowledgement, both the University and the good Professor Stuart Reges are wrong. The reason that the various local tribes cannot claim title to the lands on which the University of Washington sits is because that (and almost all the land of the state of Washington) were purchased outright by a series of 1854-1855 treaties including the Treaty of Point Elliot. These land acknowledgements either implicitly or explicitly are based on the idea that the land was stolen from the Indians. While that may be the case in certain areas of the United States, it is definitely not the case in the state of Washington. Both the professor and the university missed out on a teaching moment.

    Regarding the DEI policies in general, the underlying assumption is that one group of people have an easy path to success and another group of people have nothing but difficulties in attaining any level of recognition. Furthermore there is an assumption that one can distinguish between those two groups by either assessing the depth of their skin pigmentation or the type of their gonads. Moreover the accomplishments and ideas of people and institutions in the past are so tainted as to be unworthy. At some point there needs to be a reckoning of the entire basis for the DEI policies as well as the cost of the DEI infrastructure foisted on the lives and purses of ordinary people.

    1. AN, great comment.

      I would in addition point out that the case Turley is writing about here also held that the administration could kick the Professor off its screening committee for new hires because he disagreed with its DEI policies. The magistrate held that this did not violate his 1A rights. That means the administration can ensure orthodoxy going forward by eliminating from the screening committee anyone who has a different view of DEI.

      1. The answer to all of this is to get government out of education.

        All this nonsense is self correcting when teachers are answerable to administrations, and administrations are answerable to the parents who foot the bill.

        If Svelaz or others wish to pay to have their kids sent to DEI High where they are indoctrintated by left wing nuts, and have no prospect of even making a productive contribution to their own or the rest of our standard of living – so be it. Though his kids should piss all over his grave for ruining their lives.

        The problem occurs when Svelaz seeks to impose his will on My children.

    2. I find it odd that a bunch of lunatics that do not recognize property rights are claiming that westerners stole something that the left does not beleive can be owned, from peoples who did not have any concept of private property beyond the right to take or hold property through force.

      Whether by Treaty or Force westerners took land that “natives” did not claim to own, through the mechanisms that the netives recognized as legitimate – through force.

      It is also weird that the left idolizes a group that were so environmentally destructive they were limited to small villages, that were incredibly misogynist.

  14. Chairman Mao was an insurrectionist. The government of China is illegitimate. There are no free and fair elections, and never have been. Xi Jinping is the ideaological offspring of Mao the insurrectionist. If Biden is against insurrections, then he should be against Xi Jinping. It’s not enough to call him a dictator. Don’t invite him. Don’t host him. Don’t shake hands with him. Don’t fly the Chinese flag next to the American flag. Xi Jinping should have never come to the United States. Biden was right to call him a dictator and never should have hosted him.

  15. Saloth Sar, AKA Pol Pot, was a teacher at a private school in Phnom Penh, Communist and leader of the Khmer Rouge who’s program was radical social and agricultural reforms. The Khmer Rouge goals were a classless society. They eliminated intellectuals, doctors, civil servants religious leaders and anyone not in line with the regimes doctrine.

    Vladimir Lenin, “The State and Revolution” goal ‘utopia’: coercive, classless and stateless society.

    Mao Zedong, “The Great Proletarian Cultural revolution”, slogan “Fight selfishness, criticize revisionism”, battle cry “To rebel is justified”.

    Both Saloth Sar, and Mao were in favor of the Paris Commune model.

    The above citations were for demonstration that DEI and any of its derivates are no different than the historical knowledge of past failures, and a great risk to our Republic Government.

    When elders never learn history, or choose to distort history, the youth are lost in their self-conceit of intellectual worth.

    God help us all!

  16. When people are an obstacle to your rights and freedoms, you should be able to mow them down with a machine gun…but with due process, of course.

    1. While you may require a machine gun to mow them down, some of us only need a single shot from a bolt rifle to put you down.

Leave a Reply