We have been following the controversies surrounding professors commenting on the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump. Some of those responses have ranged from celebrations to spreading bizarre conspiracy theories. The latest controversy concerns Rutgers University Writing Program Assistant Teaching Professor Tracy Budd, who posted a Facebook message saying ”Let’s hope today’s events inspire others.” These postings raise difficult questions for universities in balancing free speech rights against statements viewed as endorsing violence.
Professor Budd is engaged in what I called “rage rhetoric” in my new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” Indeed, she perfectly embodies the following from the beginning of the book:
“We are living in an age of rage. It permeates every aspect of our society and politics. Rage is liberating, even addictive. It allows us to say and do things that we would ordinarily avoid, even denounce in others. Rage is often found at the farthest extreme of reason. For those who agree with the underlying message, it is righteous and passionate. For those who disagree, it is dangerous and destabilizing.”
Like many on the left, Budd mocked the assassination attempt and seemed to regret that it was not successful. She added ”They shot his wig. Sad.”
For most of us, the comments are shocking, but shock is a relative concept in an age of rage. Budd, like many, does not appear to view Trump as a human being as much as a symbol or object. He is treated as devoid of human components from feelings to family. It is easier to call for the killing of a caricature than a person.
Budd is obviously part of the radical chic in higher education discussed in my book. She has worked at the Rutgers University Writing Program for 22 years.
Conservative sites like Campus Reform have noted that her Facebook account features a poster at a protest that reads: “Capitalism will kill us all. Gender is fake. Eat garbage. Be free.”
The posting is an example of the difficult questions that arise on social media. This was a comment made outside of the campus as a private person, not as an academic.
Yet, there have been calls for Budd to be fired.
My inclination is always to err on the side of free speech in such circumstances. The university can condemn it, but punishing political speech can place a university on a slippery slope.
Moreover, Rutgers is a public university subject to the First Amendment. I do not believe that disciplinary action would be upheld under these circumstances.
Rutgers could argue that this is a call for political violence. However, Professor Budd can insist that this is mere hyperbole and bad humor.
My concern is not with allowing Budd’s hateful speech, but the lack of consistency in how universities respond to such controversies.
Many conservative or libertarian professors find themselves suspended or under investigation for controversial tweets or jokes. Conversely, it is comparably rare to see such action against those on the left who use inflammatory language including professors advocating “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements.
The most analogous case is that of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. Yet, those extreme statements from the left are rarely subject to cancel campaigns or university actions.
Faculty and students often have little tolerance for even jokes from conservatives as they do alleged jokes by liberals like Budd.
For example, conservative North Carolina professor Dr. Mike Adams faced calls for termination for years with investigations and cancel campaigns. He repeatedly had to go to court to defend his right to continue to teach. He was then again targeted after an inflammatory tweet. He was done. Under pressure from the university, he agreed to resign with a settlement. Four years ago this month, Adams went home just days before his final day as a professor. He then committed suicide.
What are often portrayed as harmless jokes from the left are treated as threats from the right. That is the long reality of rage rhetoric; it is either righteous or dangerous depending on your perspective.
Hasn’t controlling emotions been a stable characteristic of human kind of the west? Didn’t Cicero put discipline and self-control of emotions at the top of his human duties list? Most of us are tired of the gutter level of communication in the media. It is unpleasant to hear and to see the ugliness all the time. It has transformed too many in our population into haters. The slut, thug, and vulgar factors are disgusting. BRING BACK THE GOOD, THE TRUE, AND THE BEAUTIFUL. What has made a good and decent human are the cherished qualities of western civilization and as they are overtaken by several nasty trends of politics, new religions, and media manipulation things will not be pretty or pleasant again. When we never as yet had reached a level of the perfect-good human this onslaught and devolution of humans could stop trans-humanism or especially the continued qualities of what good mankind could be or once was. BH
Obviously she should be able to engage in free speech to express her feelings and her work as a sanitation worker is invaluable.
The students say that they are afraid to disagree with this little fascist classroom dictator and that should be enough to have her fired. It is not free speech when the students aren’t also free to speak.
Hearsay much Hullbobby? If students are too timid to disagree then they are not being very good at exercising their privilege as students especially when they are the ones paying to be taught.
The privilege of receiving a failing grade?
Douche
And before you even start with your bull shit, i have put 4 kids, one wife, and 3 girlfriends thru college.
I know exactly how this works, with radical libtard professors. Its disgusting.
FYI repetitive anecdotal evidence is not hearsay.
It is hearsay, “The students say”, riiiigggghtt. Sure.
Who cares what you did. Nobody asked. Do you need some form of affirmation for your….accomplishment?
George is claiming that student evaluations being published are somehow now “hearsay”??? George heard a legal term and decided to use it in one of his moronic comments.
Hey George, how would you feel if your leftwing child had a teacher that gave anyone that supported a Republican or any conservative ideas a failing grade? But of course presupposing that George a) had a wife, b) had children or even c) ever actually kissed a female puts my theory to a test it cannot pass.
Hullbobby, you didn’t say anything about student evaluations. Not a single thing. Comments without context lead to a lot of assumption. Maybe you should start by providing context first not last.
Then making a up an unrealistic scenario based on ignorance to make a useless point somehow…..rectifies it? And you thought I was weird.
HullBobby,
Call it what it is, indoctrination. These fake professors are not passing on any kind of knowledge. They are there to indoctrinate the students. My daughter was forced to take a DEI class in order to graduate. And it is happening at other colleges too.
@Upstate
So did a young cousin of mine. It wasn’t optional. And this was in *Texas*. No one can tell me this isn’t indoctrination when it is mandatory, wouldn’t be an issue if the element of choice weren’t eliminated. Seeing a lot of grads with minors in ‘social justice’ these days, too. I do not want a doctor/lawyer/accountant/engineer who minored in ‘social justice’. And yes, all one has to do to be shut down as a ‘conservative’ is to dare to disagree. It’s madness. The modern left is insane.
“University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence.”
How about we get some laws passed that waive criminal charges against anyone who assaults or kills someone who has openly advocated that murder based on a political or philosophical disagreement or conflict with another person is acceptable? Mostly a rhetorical and facetious question, but I would bet you good money against significant odds that doing so would immediately stop nearly all of these despicable walking anal orifices from polluting us with their vile venom.
It seems professor Turley is taking every opportunity to plug is book. On this issue he’s tip toeing around the fact that this is something he would be vehemently defending as free speech. He does not mention the fact that those calling for her firing are republicans, specifically a Republican gubernatorial candidate. As Turley noted this was made from a private account outside school hours and in jest. That did not deter Turley from claiming it was “rage rhetoric” which was merely a BS excuse to plug his book once again.
“ For most of us, the comments are shocking, but shock is a relative concept in an age of rage. Budd, like many, does not appear to view Trump as a human being as much as a symbol or object. He is treated as devoid of human components from feelings to family. It is easier to call for the killing of a caricature than a person.”
These kinds of comments are commonplace in right-wing circles. It’s only shocking because someone from the right is clutching their pearls on the idea that there are people on the left who do the same thing. In fact plenty of “rage rhetoric” shows up on this blog daily.
Professor Turley is essentially talking about people occasionally expressing intrusive thoughts. But, because this is a case of free speech involving an assistant professor at a public university he seems reluctant to offer a full throated defense like he normally does when conservatives express similar rhetoric. This is just another opportunity to plug his book.
Steaming turd from Svelaz
“These postings raise difficult questions . . .” (JT)
Whether to fire an employee who encourages assassination is a *difficult* question?!
At what point, if ever, does it become an easy question?
It’s free speech. Turley is not saying it’s deliberate. Mere musings are protected speech even if they express a “aw shucks, missed it by THAT much” kind of thought. It’s difficult because he is essentially defending a “lefty” for doing what those on the right do. It’s sort of a reluctant defense and an excuse to peddle his book.
What do you suppose you accomplish with your “peddle his book” nonsense, every day?
How about we just put you down for that and you can stop making yourself look like a douche every day.
It his blog, he can peddle whatever the fvck he wants. People here aren’t third graders who need you to remark on it every day (thats twice already today, douche)
Rather, its apparent you’ve nothing worthwhile to say, so you resort to that.
Well…since it IS a free speech blog criticisms about his constant peddling are fair game. Just as your constant whining about what I post. Free speech is free speech Turley style.
Of course you are free to act like a douche and clog the blog with nonsense. But thanks for admitting you do it just because you can.
Everyone does it because they can. Even you.
Naw, pretty much just you and Ralph.
Gee just imagine someone using their own blog to promote their own book. Get a life, pinhead.
But its not a criticism, douche. Its just whining.
Get a grip. Are you an adult?
George is just a contrarian weirdo.
HullBobby,
Weirdo is an understatement.
Once again you just choose your own reality. What i constantly do is point out the ignorance, falseness, and stupidity in your posts. When you stray from argument with ad hom nonsense, i point that out as well.
It’s’ hilarious when whining ensues because people post their views on a blog dedicated to free speech. Why would that be weird, especially when every poster does the exact same thing.
Its weird to whine about a man promoting his book on his own blog.
Doubling down on stupidity is even weirder.
If the employee in question indulges in this kind of speech completely outside the realm of the workplace, AND there is no contractual provision in place about the behavior, yes, it is a difficult question. The best answer imo would be for employers to cover such behavior by contract and/or published conditions of employment, such that this kind of speech is a clear, pre-existing, justification for dismissal.
That would be difficult when said employer is a public University.
And why is that? Are public universities forced to employee and retain anyone who applies for a professorship, regardless of qualifications or objective moral fitness, or are they also permitted to make employment conditional on reasonable requirements? Actually the presence of this idiot there could be construed of evidence that qualifications are moot, but I doubt that is a legal restriction.
You really struggle with reading comprehension. Perhaps you should re-read Turley’s column and maybe you will get it this time.
I would be surprised if the University did not have a specific policy about this sort of speech – but they are not used to having it applied to Left-wingers, and don’t know how to do that.
The comments were made in a private capacity outside school/work hours. No policy from a public school would dictate what you can and cannot say. Turley would be very concerned about that kind of government overreach.
Would you want this woman or others like her teaching your children? If so, you are without common sense.
There is NO ONE more Hate Filled, Greedy, Lying, Cheating, Hypocrite than a Democrat
Every Democrat Voter HATES America! This is you tolerant left https://twitter.com/TaraBull808/status/1815920863528816944
I see this as a dollars and cents issue as well as a free speech issue. Does allowing that kind of statement from a full professor increase or decrease the value of the Rutgers brand?
In terms of free speech, and if Professor Turley could stop plugging his book every 2 seconds that would be great, I don’t see how Trump’s statements on j6 can be viewed as incitement if this is not. There needs to be consistency in the judicial process.
This just reinforces my belief that leftists are garbage people and I’ve gone out if my way to keep them, or remove them, from my life. I’ve known people for years that have moved in this direction and I finally said, enough, and cut them out. Its unfortunate but I have no regrets. It’s not that I don’t tolerate other points of view, but when we’re talking about a hardcore leftist, their views call into question so many aspects of their lives that there is simply no way we will ever see eye to eye on anything. Many years ago, political differences between Dems and Reps weren’t that enormous. It was mostly along the lines of socio economics. White collar/blue collar, union/mgmt, etc. Now, the differences are off the charts.
I don’t sense any rage in her comment. Blasé, radical chic, maybe, but rage … no. What’s astonishing now is the autonomic nature of the response.
Not only automatic but seemingly one sided. Can you imagine how swift the termination would have been if instead of Trump, it was Kamala? It would have become a national referendum on racial violence and gun control. Non stop coverage and unlimited resources spent to uncover every detail. We know practical nothing about this shooter that we didn’t know the day of the event.
“@LauraLoomer
HAPPENING TODAY:
FBI Director Christopher Wray will be testifying at 10 am ET today about the FBI’s investigation into the assassination attempt against President Trump.
Incredible to see nearly no coverage about this because Biden and Kamala have successfully memory holed the investigation into the attempted assassination by planning Biden’s drop out letter the day before Kim Cheatle’s testimony, and his drop out speech the same day as Wray’s testimony.
This is how the Deep State operates.”
“successfully memory holed the investigation into the attempted assassination by planning Biden’s drop out letter the day before Kim Cheatle’s testimony”
I’m not convinced that Cheatle’s testimony and subsequent resignation was not also scripted to prevent a thorough investigation of the attempt.
I would have difficulty, if I were on a jury, with not finding this Rutgers Professor guilty for advocating for the murder of the former president of the United States. Now she could be expressing some sadness for the destruction of a wig but I believe it has been conclusively demonstrated that it is his hair. So I don’t think she was expressing any real sadness for wig makers in general. I will grant that it is a borderline but then I would probably use the court guidance and decision making used in jailing hundreds of protestors from the 1/6/2021 riot. In that case I would have to vote to convict.
The other option would be to talk to the Big10. Maybe they would consider expressing their displeasure to Rutgers and threaten expulsion or suspension of the University and especially interrupting its shared revenue stream from sports. That might result in punitive measures being delivered to this professor at near light speed.
“I would probably use the court guidance and decision making used in jailing hundreds of protestors from the 1/6/2021 riot.”
Meh. Very few of those 1/6 protestors were justly accused and convicted. Two wrongs do not make a right no matter how egregious the initial wrong was.
Professors/teachers are people of influence. IMHO this government wants schools to have more responsibility over our children. If these educators make public statements such as these, what are they saying in the classroom? In university, many of the students are young, immature, and we find some have “issues”. These educators with their “news media activist” statements are influencing the students. This educator is a sick person, who (IMHO) does not believe in the sanctity of life. If this educator does not like someone–get rid of them? kill them? assassinate? This person has a problem. The best options for president will not run because of people like this.
“IMHO this government wants schools to have more responsibility over our children.”
That is not only 100% correct, it very succinctly identifies the root problem: the one that really needs to be solved. Get the federal government the fornication entirely out of education.
I hope parents (ones that are not progressive haters themselves) are starting to really study where their hard earned dollars are going in supporting these colleges. Kids want to pollute their minds? Do it on your own dime- but then again the left will buy your vote with loan forgiveness..
Not hard.Fire them.
This academic braindead and others of that ilk might well recall Memphis Tennessee, April 4, 1968 and be not so cavalier as to who she expects the target might be in the present day. Twenty-two years and still employed at Rutgers!?!?! Her ratings are grossly uninspiring and, judging from what her students say she’s marketing to them, if this were the ’50’s, HUAC and Senator Joe would be after her ass.
https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/professor/190765
Division, exclusion, and indoctrination. Of what value is an institution of higher learning when it tolerates the likes of a faculty member whose assessment of a student’s ability in an area of academic pursuit is based upon the degree to which the student is in concert with the that faculty member’s unrelated personal agenda.
No, it was not a very good year. June 4, 1968.
I’ve yet to hear anyone on the Left call for an armistice, not a single person. I think most on the Right would be happy to see the back end of cancel culture, but until we see a groundswell from the other side calling for terms, onward.
Let us know when you’ve had enough.
“I think most on the Right would be happy to see the back end of cancel culture,”
We are constantly seeing the back end, and it is unceasingly defecating on us.
Call for political violence is what led to attempt to assassination of President Trump.
I believe that a professor, wishing for the president who has been killed is beyond the scope of free speech and enters into Encouraging and condoning political violence, Specifically murder There should be repercussions for such obnoxious behavior
Biden said to put a bullseye on Trump and now he’s out of a job. Or is he?
A conservative professor, if there is such a thing anymore, would be terminated based on a similar statement. That is the issue.
Whig for the win!
Conservatives are not well known for their humor. But condemning a conservative professor is not the same as calling for his firing. Turley is ok with condemnation of that kind of rhetoric. It’s the victimhood mentality that makes conservatives look like they are being persecuted for their….conservativeness.