The Daily Pennsylvanian student newspaper this week ran a story on how some faculty members are panicked at what they consider an existential threat to the safety and future of the institution. No, it is not another pandemic or a wave of terrorism. It is being forced to accept “viewpoint diversity.” The very prospect of hiring faculty with opposing views has led at least one professor to pledge to retire rather than teach in a diverse intellectual environment.
The outrage was triggered by a Dec. 12 email to the Board of Trustees from Marc Rowan, chair of the university’s Wharton business school Board of Advisors and a major donor. Rowan asked about protections for free speech and academic freedom on campus.
Pennsylvania has been regularly criticized as one of the least diverse institutions in the country and one of the most anti-free speech environments. It is ranked at the very bottom of colleges and universities on free speech protection in the annual survey by FIRE.
We have discussed the intolerance at Penn for years. Professors who have even allowed students to discuss issues like transgender status have been attacked for allowing diverse opinions to be heard in class.
Even questioning anti-racism statements is enough to trigger cancel campaigns and calls for termination at the school.
Conversely, it is a school where faculty are lionized for radical statements on the left, even racist language like calling Dr. Ben Carson a “coon.” The same professor, Dr. Anthea Butler, claimed that police held back rescuing children in Uvalde, Texas out of racism and declared that evangelical Christians are white racists who “may end up killing us all.” The MSNBC commentator was given a prestigious academic chair. She is also the chair of the department of Religious Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. If a conservative were to espouse the countervailing views, the reaction on campus would be swift and predictable.
Penn has long maintained such orthodoxy by purging faculties of conservatives and showing little tolerance for dissenting views.
Now faculty are raising the alarm that they could be forced to teach on a campus with conservative faculty. History and sociology Professor Harun Küçük went on to warn that there could be pressure to hire academics with opposing viewpoints. Such diversity, in his view, is nothing short of “a hostile Republican takeover of a distressed institution. He explained that “viewpoint diversity” is “a code word for Republican hires” and that initiatives to protect free speech are nothing other than an effort to “re-engineer the University.”
If “re-engineering” Penn means reintroducing free speech protections and intellectual diversity, it would be a welcomed change. However, political science Professor Robert Vitalis said he plans to retire early to avoid having to teach on a campus with such intellectual diversity.
Cinema and media studies Professor Karen Redrobe even claimed that Rowan’s letter asking about free speech and academic freedom on campus could be unethical: “I think that any advisory board member or trustee who has participated in that kind of use of duress needs to be held accountable for behavior that undermines the educational mission of the University.”
These views are echoed by anti-free speech sites and writers. Sites like Above the Law have spent years ridiculing objections to the barring of conservative faculty. Senior Editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” by arguing that hiring a conservative professor is akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism to teach at a university.
What is most striking is the panic over the prospect of introducing a few opposing viewpoints on overwhelmingly liberal faculties. A survey conducted by the Harvard Crimson shows that more than three-quarters of Harvard Arts and Sciences and School of Engineering and Applied Sciences faculty respondents identify as “liberal” or “very liberal.” Only 2.5% identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”
The same is true at other schools. A study found that only nine percent of law school professors identify as conservative at the top 50 law schools. A 2017 study found only 15 percent of faculties overall were conservative. Another survey showed that 33 out of 65 departments lacked a single conservative faculty member.
The last few weeks have awakened donors to the rising intolerance and extremism on our faculties. Some donors have even pulled funding, including $100 million withdrawn from the University of Pennsylvania.
Donors (and state legislatures with state-funded schools) can use their leverage to force greater diversity of thought on our campuses. The problem is not that we have these radical faculty members. The problem is that we have comparably few faculty with opposing views. The diversity of opinion on most faculties runs from the left to the far left. Some faculty members now argue that intellectual diversity is not a core or essential value in academia.
If donors want to open up our campuses, they may need to close their wallets until real reforms are implemented in higher education.
Prof. Turley,
The Delaware Court of Chancery, in
In re Sears Hometown and Outlet Stores, Inc. S’holder Litig., C.A. No. C.A. No. 2019-0798-JTL (Del. Ch. Jan. 24, 2024),
may have given a new opportunity to push back on DEI, by holding that a stockholder of a controlling interest in a company has a fiduciary burden when demanding a governance change to corporate bylaws.
Say a hedge fund, holding a controlling interest in company Z, (Note that no longer can use “X” as a placeholder company name…) demand DEI policies that are detrimental to management and profitability of the company.
I’d like your analysis of whether minority shareholders could bring action against the hedge fund under this ruling.
The faculty at Penn don’t want to hear opposing views because then they might think and if they think, it might unsettle their prejudices.
No wonder they’re terrified.
It’s nearly always the upper crust (the crust part is damn right) schools: training spoiled, elite children to be even more prejudiced, entitled, and insufferable than they were going in. Our universities are a joke, and I personally think the piper will come, eventually. There are thresholds, and snowflakes and their handlers/mentors have pushed to what is probably that point. Stretched to breaking releases a blowback that is quite intense. It’ll probably be the first time in many of their lives they have heard the word, No!’; they have no idea in their crowing/whining just *how* tolerant people have been of them up to this point. 😉
In college back in the day, I had well known professors discussing the ‘convergence theory’ — i.e. how long would it take for the Soviet style of government become more American style, and vice versa. Fast forward to 2023-24, the Soviet style under Vlad Putin is back and has been for quite some time — diversity of thought is met with a Polonium cocktail…….but the surprise is that in America, we have our own version of the KGb and top-down government control, the shredding of our Constitution and it’s looking like we’re approaching total convergence, with rare exceptions.
So diversity of thought is not welcome on the Ivy League campus — shall we say any Alumni who continue to donate are ‘complicit?’
Yes we are, unless we stop.
I am a former donor to my alma mater.
I have let it know why.
I did not receive a response of any kind.
Usually, in business, if a long-time customer tells you they are unhappy with doing business with you, you at least try to ascertain why and maybe retain the customer.
Universities and Colleges apparently haven’t learned that basic lesson.
I hate to break the news to you fellas, but just in case you hadn’t noticed, the U.S. is at WAR.
Yes, since Biden took office the US has become a belligerent in multiple conflicts.
Prior to that we had been actively seeking to end our military involvements across the world.
Far too many here and elsewhere seem to think that the war on Trump and on his supporters is a typical left/right conflict.
The Deep state is NOT especially partisan. It has been the close ally of the right for much of the past 50 years.
But fundimentally it has its own interests.
Obama ran on the same foreign policies as Trump
He quietly reversed in office avoiding the deep state doing to him and his administration what they have done and are doing to Trump.
There are two major policy matters that are sacred to the deep state and these have nothing to do with republicans or democrat.
The first is the US role as policemen of the world. Trump’s Sec Def Mattias argues eloquently for this in the book he wrote after his departure.
This is a valid policy. But it is one that the american people through their elected representatives should choose or reject,
Not the unelected members of the deep state.
Voters decided in electiong Pres. Obama that they wanted an end to the US role as policeman of the world.
But Obama renigged on that promise.
Voters decided AGAIN with Trump that they STILL wanted an end to that.
Trump kept his promise to do so and the Deep State has been trying to destroy him since.
The 2nd area of conflict is over the US foreign policy focus.
Since WWII US foreign policy has been primarily focused on containment of the USSR.
With the end of the cold war instead of adjusting to a new world and trying to incorporate Russia into the west – an eminently acheivable task,
US Cold Warriors sought to continue their power by continuing to trumpet Russia as our permantnent enemy and threat.
Since the 70’s the 2nd focus of US foreign policy has been the mideast.
starting in the late 90’s and proceeding slowly through the Bush and Obama administrations, franking specifically but many other factors have diminished the importance of the Mideast as an energy supplier.
That means that it is also less important to US national security interests.
Today Russia is barely a regional power.
The only important Role the US needs to play with respect to Russia and Europe is continuing to provide nuclear deterrence
Resolving all other national security issues regarding Russia is a European matter – not a US one.
Much the same is true of Europe. The US is energy self sufficient, and even if it were not, today there are abundant energy resources in Mexico and Canada, and beyond that in South america. The US does not need mideastern energy and has no special interest in the mideast.
Conversely neither Europe nor China are even close to energy self sufficient.
Both Russia and The Mideast are critical to Europe energy needs.
Stability int he Mideast is a European problem today.
Finally the emerging power that is an actual threat to the US and many of our allies is china.
While Post Mao to Pre-Xi China was rapidly moving towards free markets and slowly towards political freedom
These reversed under Xi. For the past decade China is moving towards fascism. Litterally.
Pres. Obama tepidly started a policy of containment of China. Trump made that Full throated.
While for many of Trump supporters this is about trade and jobs, and that is the focus of the public discussion.
This is not about trade or Jobs. It is about the fact that China is growing rapidly in military power while at the same time facing serious internal structural and economic threats. China’s one child policy is likely to prove to be one of the worlds stupidest decisions. China is in unarrested population collapse. China’s future is bleak, and they are very close to their peak right now. This is the last opportunity they have to attempt to solve their problems militarily. And they are threatening to do so.
Trump managed to get most of the nations surrounding China to operate in an informal NATO like arrangement.
Inside the US that shifted political power within the US government away fromt he massive deep state aparatus focused on Russia, Europe and the mideast and towards those focused on China.
That is a massive power shift inside the US government and those impacted by it are pissed at Trump.
“The first is the US role as policemen of the world. Trump’s Sec Def Mattias argues eloquently for this in the book he wrote after his departure.”
John, this question of the policeman of the world is not all or none. The existing entanglements can pull us into such a position, though it should be resisted from going too far. Open sea lanes are the first thing to come to mind, for any disruption in the sea lanes involves almost everyone but most of all the United States.
So, they believe in diversity only if you agree with the liberal stance. If you are conservative you don’t have a right to your opinion. Let them all retire and quit so real diversity can be accepted.
The gubment orders who you accept and who you reject.
Trump tonight:
“And you will have, very seldom, but you will have, the rouge — we call it — the rogue cop, the bad apple. And perhaps you’ll have that also with President. But there’s nothing you can do about that. You’re going to have to give the President, you’re going to have to allow a President, any President, to have immunity, so that that President can act and do what he feels and what his group of advisors feel is the absolute right thing. Otherwise you’re going to have Presidents that are totally impotent. And we’ve had enough of them already, we’ve had enough of them already. So having immunity is so important, and I hope the Supreme Court has the courage to do that.”
Or, you know, we could have laws that are written down that everyone, even cops and Presidents, has to follow.
Amazing that he wants Biden to have absolute immunity to carry out whatever crimes he “feels is the right thing.”
Strange that all of the other Presidents didn’t feel impotent in response to not having absolute immunity. Only Trump. He wants to be King.
Other Presidents served before Lawfare became an institution.
Not true.
By Trump’s argument, Nixon should have been immune and Biden should be immune after committing any crime he finds “right.” It’s a dangerous argument/desire. We have Presidents, not Kings. Thankfully, I doubt that SCOTUS is going to say that Presidents have absolute criminal immunity.
NO Nixon was going to be impeached, he was going to be convicted by the senate, and he could then be prosecuted.
SCOTUS has already said that presidents have absolute criminal immunity.
That is NOT the question before the courts.
There are several independent issues.
First there is ZERO doubt that the president has absolute immunity while exercising clearly presidential powers.
There is also no doubt president have absolute immunity from CIVIL cases falling within the outer margins of presidential powers.
Further no one tried to prosecute Nixon while he was president – so that is also settled law.
The courts have not spoken regarding whether a president can later be prosecuted for acts that he could not be prosecuted for while president after he leaves office.
It is highly unlikely that SCOT”US will decide that presidential immunity ends when you leave office – otherwise pres. Obama could be prosecuted for Murdering a US citizen now.
The reality is pres. Obama will not be prosecuted -but that is not because what he did was not a crime. It is not because the circumstances justified it by US law. But it is because jurors, Judges, and prosecutors will view killing a terorist in Yemen as legitimate even though “technically” it is still murder.
Regardless, If Trump can be prosecuted so can Obama, and if that is the case every future president will risk the nonsense that Trump is facing right now.
The next open question is does a president have to be impeached and convicted to be indicted and prosecuted ?
We have had plenty of opportunity to prosecute ex-presidents for illegal conduct. At the very least pretty much every president ever has been accused of crimes by sovereign foreign nations. Are you going to allow Iran to prosecute Trump for killing Soleimani ?
The next open question is whether State courts can prosecute ex-presidents.
I do not personally understand where this would be different but several prominent constitutional scholars have claimed that ex-presidents are absolutely immune form prosecution by state courts, but not federal courts. I understand the reasoning, but there is no constitutional basis for that.
The next question is that Trump was impeaced for much of the conduct he is being prosecuted for. He was NOT copnvicted by the Senate. Trump is not only arguing that the impeachment and conviction was required, but that even if it was not the Senate acquital ends subsequent prosecutions. That is actually an excellent argument – the standard for conviction in the Senate is much lower than in a criminal case. There was a trial on these allegations and Trump was not convicted.
There is also a question of whether the limits used to bar civil charges are the same as those used to bar criminal cases.
“Nixon was going to be impeached”
But Instead he resigned, so he wasn’t impeached, much less convicted. And according to Trump’s lawyers, a former President can’t be prosecuted for anything unless he’s first impeached and convicted. And according to Trump himself, Presidents should have absolute immunity. Both Trump and his lawyers are implying that Nixon didn’t need a pardon from Ford.
“SCOTUS has already said that presidents have absolute criminal immunity.”
It hasn’t.
“That is NOT the question before the courts.”
It’s actually the question currently before the DC Court of Appeals.
You should learn these facts before you start spouting off.
“You should learn these facts before you start spouting off.”
When you attempt to taint another person’s views, the least one can do is have an alias so the other can return an explanation or revise his statement. You insist on being anonymous, which is a cowardly way of attacking another.
Why should we listen to one who cares little about honest dialogue?
John, there was far more statesmanship in Nixon’s era than there is today. I believe Nixon had a love of country, something lacking today in Biden and many Democrats. The absence of ethical values by today’s Democrats is demonstrated by the fact that Republicans, the same party as Nixon, led the impeachment action against Nixon. At the same time, there was no thought of impeachment by Democrats who appear to be colluding with a dishonest, dangerous President who happens to be of the same party.
The charges laid against Nixon were.
1) obstruction of justice
2) abuse of power
3) contempt of Congress.
Look at the struggle by Democrats today when impeachment is considered, and look at how Biden appears guilty of the first two charges. Contempt of Congress is a difficult charge when Congress itself is mostly contemptible.
I don’t know if Nixon chose not to resign if he would be convicted. I doubt it. Yet, if we had taken the same House and Senate of 1974, I believe Biden would have been long gone, and many Democrats would have sighed in relief, saying thank goodness this reprobate is gone.
Nixon had nothing to gain outside of political gamesmanship. Biden is all for personal gain, even though many who treat politics like sports, rooting for the home team no matter what, keep claiming Biden is innocent.
The lack of statesmanship, predominantly from the Democrat Party, is tearing the nation apart, something that doesn’t happen when spectators leave the ball field.
100% true.
Both can be impeached. Nixon resigned because he was going to be impeached. Why? Because the Republicans were going to do it.
Biden? it is clear Democrats support all his corruption.
Our system is centered on the premise 100 guilty men go free before one innocent is jailed.
If congress refuses to put their vote for impeachment before the people, then yes the corrupt President is also immune from the DoJ
The courts haven’t ruled on it yet.
“The Courts haven’t ruled on it yet”
Is that the idiocy you hide behind? Meaningless pedantry?
Our hosts post, and the open comments session is not to merely wait for a ruling, and just report the results
It’s about examining the constitutional premises, and how they applied to the facts at hand.
The Premise I laid out is the essence of the Constitution. If the President is to be denied office, only congress has the power to do that.
The reason is simple. Congress is held accountable by the people at the next election.
We saw Liz Cheney be held accountable by the people. Because that is how the system works. Congress exercised their power, the People exercised their power. Next the people will exercise their power in Nov . 2024 . After that Congress responds to the peoples actions. 2 years later, the People hold those congressmen accountable. . Rinse and repeat.
Your small mind freezes up because you have no constitutional rebuttal.
That’s why you run away and hide behind you cozy little pedantry.
Presidential immunity is not new. It has applied to all presidents since Washington.
There are legitimate questions as to the scope of that immunity.
Presidential immunity does NOT mean presidents can do whatever they please.
It just means that you can not indict or prosecute the president for acts within the scope of presidential powers without impeaching convicting and removing them first.
Pres. Obama ordered the Killing of a US Citizen in Yemen. are you going to allow him to be indicted by some state AG for that ?
But for Presidential immunity there is no reason that he can not be indicted prosecuted and convicted right now.
Pres. Biden is violating existing US immigration law and violating his oath of office. Can I sue him for that ? Can a state AG indict and prosecute him for that ?
You keep pretending this is simple – and even Judge Pan was stupid about this.
Can Pres. Biden order Seal Team 6 to assassinate Donald Trump ? Absolutely. It is highly unlikely that anyone in the chain of command would execute such and illegal order – unless the order was NOT illegal. If as an example there was credible evidence that Trump was about to detonate a nuclear weapon and there was no other means to stop that. Regardless can give such an order.
And if he did, and he did NOT have an excellent basis for it, the House would impeach the Senate would convict and he would be subsequently indicted prosecuted and jailed.
Presidential immunity is NOT a get out of jail free, it is just an additional layer of due process that presidents get because there job may require them to violate the laws in the US or in other countries – as noted above Pres. Biden had a US citizen executed – that is murder.
That is murder. The citizen in question was an alleged terrorist – but no court found that, no attempt was made to arrest and try him.
He was not at that moment and immediate threat tot he life or others.
Police officers have qualified immunity which is different and somewhat broader.
When a police officer violates the civil rights of another person AND his conduct does not Shock the conscience, AND no other court within the jurisdiction has explicitly found the specific conduct to be unconstitutional, then the officer can not be sued.
Don’t tell me. another libturd democ-rat-tick professor, that can’t debate, without throwing tantrums.