Shellyne Rodriguez, the machete-wielding former Hunter College professor, has now been fired by the Cooper Union college. The school previously stood with Rodriguez after she trashed a student display and held a machete to the neck of a journalist. It appears that Rodriguez’s anti-Israel comments were finally too much for Cooper Union.
What is interesting is what it takes at both Hunter College and The Cooper Union to be fired.
We previously discussed a videotape of Rodríguez trashing a pro-life student display in New York. Before attacking the table, she told the students, “You’re not educating s–t […] This is f–king propaganda. What are you going to do, like, anti-trans next? This is bulls–t. This is violent. You’re triggering my students.”
The videotape revealed one other thing. At Hunter College, and at other colleges, it seems that trashing a pro-life student display and abusing pro-life students is not considered a firing offense. Hunter College refused to fire Rodríguez.
The PSC Graduate Center, the labor organization of graduate and professional schools at the City University of New York, supported that decision and said Rodríguez was “justified” in trashing the display, which the organization described as “dangerously false propaganda” and “disinformation.”
Rodríguez later put a machete to the neck of a reporter, threatened to chop him up and then chased a news crew down a street with the machete in hand. Somewhere between the machete to the neck and chasing the reporters down the street, Hunter College finally decided that Rodríguez had to go.
Rodríguez denounced the school for having “capitulated” to “racists, white nationalists, and misogynists.” She explained that her firing was just a continuation of “attacks on women, trans people, black people, Latinx people, migrants, and beyond.”
The Cooper Union, however, refused to sever ties with Rodríguez, 47, and decided that she should continue to teach her students. According to the New York Post, Rodriguez attributed her firing to her anti-Israeli comments. She declared
“Cooper Union has fired me because of a social media post I made about ‘Zionists’… effective immediately. This is fascism. Ya’ll are learning about it in real time. Stay strong, [stay] brave, stay defiant, don’t bite your tongue, and drink plenty of water! Pa-lante!”
Students cried foul. One group wrote the dean to object that “this firing represents an intense escalation of McCarthyist repression meant to intimidate and punish those in support of a Free Palestine, and must be resisted to prevent its further normalization and the ongoing genocide in Gaza.”
There is a legitimate question over terminations of faculty for statements made outside of a school on social media. However, there was ample reason not to have a machete-wielding maniac teach students. Cooper Union, however, found the social media more menacing than the machete.
Rodriguez participated in a CUNY for Palestine virtual panel in which she spoke about the possibility of a Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement rent strike in New York involving not making rent payments to Jewish landlords or landlords who support Israel. She is quoted as calling for the targeting of pro-Israeli figures, adding “[y]ou probably wait tables where they go to brunch. Find them, go to their offices, don’t let them sleep.” She also called former Bronx Borough President Rubén Díaz Jr. a “roach” and “Zionist lapdog.”
Notably, others on the left have encouraged such harassment of those with opposing views, including Rep. Maxine Waters, D-CA. Others have supported harassing conservative justices at their homes and offices.
What is ironic about the objection to McCarthyism is that Rodriguez is part of the “radical chic” in academia leading the mob and silencing others.
The one benefit of this controversy is that it is finally confirmed what it takes to be fired by The Cooper Union if you are on the left. Trashing pro-life displays or threatening journalists are clearly no barrier for employment with the school.
Turley,
When one’s actions cross a certain line… the only solution is to part ways.
Here you have a radical ‘professor’ who has demonstrated a pattern of violence.
Her latest acts do threaten Jewish students along w demanding policies that are counter the the University.
So to say this was an isolated incident … is a misrepresentation of the facts.
(To imply that her earlier actions were deemed ok is also wrong.)
Consider the hypothetical.
If the acts were reversed. Her BDS anti-Jewish rants came first and then her trashing a pro-life table… do you think she would have been fired?
Would you then say its ok to be an antisemite?
Occam’s Razor would have us believe its the accumulation of her actions which resulted in her firing.
-G
What violence?
Sorry have to repeat this… Seems that the blog hit a glitch…
@RB,
You either didn’t read the article or you are a troll.
She put a machete to the throat of the reporter. That’s assault w a deadly weapon.
Then she knocked over a table of pro-life supporters.
Then her rants about Israel which were antisemitic …
You have your pattern.
-G
“You’re triggering my students.”
According to the Left, persuasion and arguments are bad. But wielding a machete and vandalism (e.g., defacing art) are good.
When you abandon reason, there is only one means left for settling disputes: physical violence.
O T
Please check out the interview by Tucker Carlson of Brett Weinstein of the latter’s visit to Panama, above the Colombian border. Apparently there are transit camps of people from around the world waiting to “visit” the USA. In most of the camps, people will talk to you about their motives for coming here. None of them claim to be political refugees. Weinstein does not pull punches in describing the suffering of these people in making the arduous trip. But, in contrast, and ominously, there is a very different Chinese camp where the residents are generally military-aged, single men. Visitors are not allowed into that camp. Weinstein characterizes this worldwide enterprise as part a migration and part an invasion. The interview can be found on YouTube and The Daily Caller.
@edwardmahl
No one really believes the fiction that these people are coming to the US for asylum reasons.
There’s one video of a reporter interviewing a group of Indians where one guy first said to find work… then changed his statement when his friend reminded him that they were seeking political asylum.
The reality is that the court system is so clogged it will take 10yrs before their case is heard.
Now if you want to fix that… Seeking political asylum is an affirmative defense. You’re entering the US illegally, acknowledging this fact by claiming to be persecuted and requiring protection. So then the court has a two pronged test.
1) Did you seek asylum from the first foreign country you visited. (e.g. you flew to Mexico to then enter the US illegally, so you needed to seek asylum in Mexico first.)
2)Can you show/prove that you are at risk if you’re returned to your native country?
Failing one, or both of those questions alone would mean you’re out of here and are going to be sent back.
Now you can start to clear the log jam.
Also if you can’t notify them of the changes in their hearing date… that’s on them too.
(You can create a registry where they can update their contact information, check in, and see the status of their court date.)
This will fix the problem quickly if you take those 80K IRS agents and put them on this…
-G
The one benefit of this controversy is that it is finally confirmed what it takes to be fired by the Republican voters if you are Donald Trump. Raping 13 y.o. Katie Johnson, Grabbing E. Jean Carroll by the pussy, and attempting a coup against the U.S. Government are clearly no barrier for the presidential nomination the party.
None of your assertions here are real. E. Jean Carroll won a “civil” suit with a stacked jury. Did you know E. Jean Carroll cannot recall what year it happened, what day of the week or what she was wearing. Have you ever been through a violent, PSTD inducing event such as this- you remember details. You can’t ever forget them. Katie Johnson is an also a complete fabrication. Trump is a narcissist (like almost every other politician). Do you think Biden is less a narcissist? Also, Trump has been a serial philanderer in his past so he’s akin to 75% of US senators and congressman. I have friends who ran with him in 70’s / 80’s / 90’s. Their collective opinion- a womanizer but not a rapist-ever. Did you know he tossed Epstein out of Mira Lago estate when he found out Epstein was coming onto young girls there?
Having been the recipient of an attack when I was 14, 60 years later I can still recall when, where, who, and what I was wearing. E. Carroll can’t even recall what department of the store the alleged attack took place, let alone the date (or even the time of year). Did she even know what store it was in? I agree with you. Trump could never get anything near a fair hearing in NY or DC or any place run by the blue machine.
What you write is not true. EJean recalls it was the lingerie department of Bergdoff. She knows this because she jokingly suggested that Trump try on lingerie, which he took as a threat to his masculinity, prompting him to teach her a lesson.As far as the jury is concerned, Trump’s attorney had every opportunity to question each of them and ferret out any bias.
Actually no Trumps’ attorney did NOT have the oportunity to remove biased Jurrors, or to properly challenge Carrol.
Actually, YES he did. The process is called “voir dire”, and there is no cap on the number of potential jurors that can be removed for cause–of which bias is one. I was speaking of the first trial, in which Trump chose not to testify on the advice of counsel. The reason is simple–Trump is a pathological liar, and would get slaughtered on cross-examination. And, it is an alt-right theme that New York judges and juries can’t be trusted, which is another lie. Trump was born and raised in New York–it’s his home town. How was he denied the opportunity to “properly challenge Carroll”? She was called everything but a white woman and accused of everything under the sun, both inside and outside of court. Trump’s demeanor and overt disrespect and hostility to the judge and opposing counsel also figure into the equation. Then, there’s HER credibility. Despite the lies you hear on alt-right media, Carroll is a very respected and accomplished journalist. She told 2 friends what he did right afterwards, and the jury found them credible, too. What I find most convincing is the circumstances of her assault–she jokingly suggested that Trump try on lingerie. Knowing that deep down he is emotionally insecure and has a violent temper when he feels his manhood threatened, it’s totally logical to me that he would shove her into a dressing room, pull up her skirt and shove his fingers into her vagina to teach her who’s boss. He did the same thing to Ivana when she was less than sympathetic to his postoperative pain after he had scalp reduction surgery to cover up a bald spot. She testified in her deposition in their divorce case that he blew his top and violently raped her (and, yes, a wife can be raped). Then, there’s the lie about never meeting her or knowing who she was–she had photographic proof–a picture of her with her husband, Ivana and DJT. Trump misidentified E. Jean as Marla Maples.
@Giggily,
Is this the same woman who claimed that she kept the clothing she wore in her closet, and we later learn that it wasn’t even created until over a year after her claimed rape?
So lets put it this way…
You have an allegation of rape.
You don’t know when it happened, and there’s no evidence of what happened other than your vague recollection.
Were this a criminal case… it would never get past a grand jury.
No its a civil case where the jury wants to ‘get Trump’.
That’s it.
Its a perversion of the law.
It would be the same if I were to accuse Schumer of groping me in the Men’s bathroom in Union Station back in the ’70s.
Only I can’t remember any of the specifics, other than I know it was him.
Should I sue?
-G
She DOES know when it happened–her journalist friend she told about it had just interviewed Trump at MAL when he turned it into a private club because, truthfully, he couldn’t afford the upkeep. The friend testified and the jury believed her. I don’t know where you get your information (well, maybe I DO know). She DOES know the specifics–lingerie department at Bergdorf, and that she laughinly suggested he try on lingerie. She told a second friend, too.
Poor Giggly.
I suggest you read her testimony.
And that she then committed perjury when the story about the dress came out after the trial.
There’s more, but lets see what the appellate court has to say.
Carroll is not credible. But the victims of Trauma do not react to it consistently. It is far far far more common than not for victims to be able to recall large numbers of precise details.
PTSD literally is an inability to escape past Trauma. It means being triggered by the weather, the date, a specific model car, a color, a smell, some detail that instantly drags you back to the moment of trauma. It is extremely difficult to get past that. I usually involves reprogramming the brain to break the associate between the trigger and the event.
Regardless, it is possible that Carrol is telling the truth. It is highly improbable.
We have statutes of limitation though because Time makes proving innocence impossible.
I can not see this case holding up on appeal and I can not understand Why Judge Kaplan allowed it.
The only ways of trying to disprove claims like this is to catch the plantiff in lies – and Judge Kaplan blocked that.
The defendant can not disprove a claim that has this few details. What is Trump to do pull out a dairy and review 4 years of hist actions to show that he was not in Bergdorfs for 4 years ? It is likely Trump has diaries – date books, appointment books, it is likely that they werre tossed decades ago.
We have statutes of limitations to prevent this.
I would further note that Kaplan and Carrol are actually risking an even bigger Defamation decision by the Supreme court.
Among the sane there is little doubt this was an abuse of the legal system. Bad cases make bad law.
And we have had a whole slew of abysmally bad politically motivated defamation cases recently.
Those may cause the Supreme court to make big changes to defamation law.
Speaking of exposing a liar, Trump testified that he never met E Jean and when he was shown a photo of him, Ivana, EJean and her husband, all laughing and appearing to be having a good time, he misidentified E Jean as Marla Maples.
The photo shows Carrol looking at Trump and smiling. Carrol’s husband looking at Trump. Trump from the rear looking at Carol’s husband.We do not see Trump’s face, only that it is facing Carrols’ husband not carol.
The people whose faces are visible in the photo look happy – but then people are generally happy at parties. That does not mean they know each other.
It is highly likely the person in the photo is Trump, but it is not certain, though I do not think that is being challenged.
There are no other photos of Trump can Carrol – not from this party. not ever. There is no reason to beleive that this is more than a random photo of 4 people who were milling about a party 40 years ago who bumped into each other casually.
It is likely that dozens of photos were taken at this party – lets see them all. If this is the only one with both Trump and carrol in it, it means very little.
The more troubling part of this photo for Trump is that he identified Carrol as Marla Maples – undercutting Trump’s “She is not my type” claim. Of course – Carrol was 10 years younger in the photo than she was in the time frame she claims this assault took place.
Do you know every person you have every been photographed with ?
Do you know every person you have ever been at a party with ?
Can you PROVE that you and I were never at a party together in the past 40 years ?
If there was a relationship of anykind there would be more evidence than this.
Regardless, Carrol’s claim as YOU are framing it is that Carrol and Trump met at a party in approx 1987, that there is no evidence they ever encountered each other again. Yet, Trump remembered her a decade later, bumped into her on the street and randomly decided to ask her to help him buy lingerie for another woman – that she agreed to do so, took him into a dressing room with her, asked HIM to wear womens lingerie, and he was so incensed by this that he sexually assaulted but did not rape her.
A story that come right out of a 2001 Law and order episode.
Carrol subsequently claims to have been wearing a dress that was not made until many years later,
Can not document a single other encounter with Trump ever.
Her proof that Trump knew her is a photo where Trump is looking at her husband a decade earlier.
I am reading way too much into the photo – but so are you – and that is the point.
We can not without far more evidence tell if this is evidence these two people actually engaged, or just a random encounter between happy party goers.
This is not the first photo of Carrol and Trump that has been made public.
It is just the only one that has not proven to be a hoax.
Actually, if I am not mistaken, when shown the picture he asked the question “Is that Marla?” So, he did not misidentify, he wasn’t sure who it was.
Gigi – I once had my picture taken with Newt Gingrich at a fundraiser. He wouldn’t know me from Adam (or even Eve). People like you say such absurd things about Trump.
@John Say,
There’s a bit more to this.
She’s not credible, for sure.
But the law which she is suing under was set up specifically to get Trump.
(Of course there are others caught up in this too. )
Kaplan should be censured for his violation of his canons.
Clearly this is politically motivated.
The actions of the judge to shut down Trump’s attorneys was wrong.
Its worse in that after the jury found in her favor, her testimony is called into question over the dress she claimed she was wearing.
There’s a lot more… and its a sham. It’s hurtful for those who actually were survivors of a sexual assault.
It makes Kavanaugh’s accuser look credible compared to her.
-G
Do you have actual evidence that any of these things took place ? You can not even place these people in the same place at the time the alleged events occured – which is understandable as no one knows when the events occured.
How about it I accuse you have sexually molesting me 30 years ago – give or take, and then go after you for defamation for protesting your innocence.
Can YOU prove that you did not sexually molest me 30 years ago ? That is the standard you are trying to impose.
There is a reason we have statutes of limitations. Among other reasons the ability of someone to defend themselves against false accusations diminished dramatically with time.
If you want people to beleive you – quit trotting out this nonsense.
You have engaged in LawFare against Trump – though not just Trump – you have been doing it to EVERYONE you do not like or who crosses you.
You pretend that conduct that is not a crime has magically become one – because you do not like it.
You manufacture things so old no one can prove their innocence.
No ordinary people do not trust you.
Here’s a correct statement of the law: even if there is no physical evidence in a criminal case involving rape, the testimony of a single witness is sufficient for a conviction. This was a civil case with the “preponderance of evidence “ standard. It was up to the jury to decide whom they believed. And, E Jean told 2 friends about it right after it happened. Trump is a chronic, habitual liar. It’s not difficult to impeach him.
Out of historical context as usual, better to fiddle away your Nation Nero?
And to think, you let the slaves, women, illegal aliens, and related flotsam vote in the America of its Founders.
Would any shepherd worth his salt turn his flock over to the wolves, delivering that flock on a silver platter?
If you can keep it.
Where have we heard that before?
When the American Left seeks to persuade, it sounds silly. When it seeks to intimidate, it sounds insane. What we need is a piece of fiction where a young girl goes down a rabbit hole and finds herself transported to a fairytale land of comical, bizarre, frightening, half-human beasts resembling the academics being spotlighted in Prof Turley’s recent columns. No one would believe it, but it is essentially true!
Edwardmahl,
Wonderland is right.
It truly is comical, bizarre and frightening as it should be something of fiction but it is the reality that leftists display on a daily basis.
Just read Natasha/Gigi’s posts. A work of bad fiction at its finest.
My vote for the Queen of Hearts is Hillary. We all know who the Mad Hatter is. And the cards who are running in lock step with each other has to be the Mainstream Media, led by Jake Tapper.
What is disturbing today is that there are still over 100M people that buy this garbage.
The left wants to insult Trump supporters – yet they are not the ones that are constantly falling for absolutely insane claims, tolerate insane behavior, and keep trying to pretend away reality.
I have one simple question for you: if border security is so important to Republicans that they are hammering Joe Biden about it as the most important issue facing America, why didn’t they do something about it when they had the White House, the Senate and the House? Why didn’t they pass strict immigration laws when they had the power to get them passed?
They did do something about it when they controlled the Senate and House.
They followed the law.
That is all that they expect out of Biden right now.
You are echoing a common bit of idiocy by the left – that when there is a problem the answer is always to pass another law.
99.99% of the time all we need do is enforce the law that we have.
BTW we already HAVE strict immigration laws.
It is nearly impossible to get asylum – about 20,000 people per year are granted asylum prior to Biden – and even under Biden that number has not doubled, much less reached millions.
If you cross into the US illegally, and are cuaght within 100miles of the border, you are supposed to be detained, a hearing held in 90 days or less, where you will with near certainty be convicted of illegal entry and you will be permanently barred from entering the US,.
THAT is the law, as a result most caught at the border voluntarily agree to be deported rather than be convicted which bars them permanently.
There is a reason the US has “ports of entry” – that is specifically because you can not just cross wherever you wish and demand asylum.
The primary changes to immigration law in HR2 – the house bill are mechanizms to hold the administrations feet to the fire for failing to follow the law – something that every government employee agrees to do when they are sworn in.
Regardless the only reason we need new immigration law is because neither Biden nor Obama follow the current law.
What is university for now? I feel there are specific reasons to go to university–engineering, computers, science, health care (Drs, Dentists, nurses, PAs), trades (plumbing, electrical, construction, mechanical) and law. Math is important in all of those areas. Proper language skills and grammar (reports, grant applications). Universities have endowments–is it possible that those endowments could cover the cost or a good portion of the students’ costs? It appears to me schools receive the endowments and invest them making lots of money. A Harvard type school has huge endowments. A Bridgewater type school isn’t doing too badly. Why do the students have to be so in debt?
I don’t think that the professor didn’t pay attention during civics/government class. Whatever fired her wasn’t fascism.