Academia, Constitutional Law, Courts, Free Speech

Sixth Circuit Hands Down Major Free Speech Win for Professor Against the University of Louisville

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit handed down a major victory for free speech this week in favor of a professor challenging his treatment by the University of Louisville. In Josephson v. Ganzel, a unanimous panel ruled for Dr. Allan Josephson who was subject to adverse actions after he publicly expressed skepticism over some treatments for youth diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The decision is important because it deals with qualified immunity and reaffirms liability for the denial of free speech protections.

Writing for the panel (including Senior Judge Ronald Lee Gilman and Judge Allen Griffin), Judge Andre Mathis found that university officials could not claim immunity in the denial of free speech protections for faculty.

We previously discussed this case. Josephson was a professor of psychiatry at the medial school and had success at the school after serving as the Division Chief of the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology at the University of Louisville for nearly 15 years. He has 35 years of experience in the field.

His apparent good standing at the school changed dramatically when he participated in a discussion of the treatment of childhood gender dysphoria at an event in October 2017 sponsored by a conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation.  He expressed his reservations with some treatments and his public comments were reported back to his colleagues.

Dr. Josephson argued that children are not mature enough to make such major, permanent decisions and that 80-95 percent of children claiming gender dysphoria eventually accept their biological sex over time without such treatment.

Those views are widely shared by others and have been cited as the basis for states adopting bans on conversion treatments for young children.

His commentary triggered a backlash at the school, which led to a decision not to renew his contract. When sued, the school invoked the Eleventh Amendment and claimed qualified immunity. The district court correctly rejected that claim and the Sixth Circuit just affirmed that denial.

The university was seeking protection that would have insulated anti-free speech practices from liability, a dangerous prospect that could have dramatically accelerated the growing intolerance on campuses. The University of Louisville was arguing that they could punish faculty for public statements without fear of liability as state officers.

Judge Mathis and his colleagues made fast work of this insidious and dangerous claim:

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity for two main reasons. First, they argue it was not clearly established that each Defendant’s conduct, in isolation, was an adverse action sufficient to show retaliation against a professor because of his protected speech. Second, they argue it was not clearly established that the First Amendment protected statements like those Josephson made in October 2017.

Resolving Defendants’ first argument is not complicated. Defendants argue that Josephson’s rights were not clearly established because no court had specifically addressed whether isolated actions against a professor because of his speech were adverse actions. In other words, Defendants believe they can act as they choose until there is a case on all fours. We disagree. As we have explained, “we do not require an earlier decision that is ‘directly on point.'” McElhaney v. Williams, 81 F.4th 550, 556–57 (6th Cir. 2023) (quoting Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015)). At the same time, “‘existing precedent’ must place the contours of the right ‘beyond debate.'” Id. (quoting Mullenix, 577 U.S. at 12).

During the relevant period, it was beyond debate that “the First Amendment bar[red] retaliation for protected speech.” Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 592 (1998). By the fall of 2017, both the Supreme Court and this court had held that, absent a disruption of government operations, a public university may not retaliate against a professor for speaking on issues of social or political concern. Pickering, 391 U.S. at 574; Hardy v. Jefferson Cmty. Coll., 260 F.3d 671, 682 (6th Cir. 2001). And we had established that a retaliatory “adverse action” is one that “would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that conduct.” Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 394. We had further established that campaigns of harassment, when considered as a whole, may amount to adverse actions. See Fritz, 592 F.3d at 724; Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 398; Bloch, 156 F.3d at 678. It was also established that legitimate threats “to the nature and existence of one’s ongoing employment is of a similar character to the other recognized forms of adverse action—termination, refusal to hire, etc.—even if perpetrated by a third party who is not the employer.” Fritz, 592 F.3d at 728. We have, moreover, “repeatedly held that ‘[a]n act taken in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutionally protected right is actionable under § 1983 even if the act, when taken for a different reason, would have been proper.'” Wenk v. O’Reilly, 783 F.3d 585, 595 (6th Cir. 2015) (alteration in original) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Bloch, 156 F.3d at 681–82). Thus, a reasonable university official during the relevant period would have understood that he could not lawfully terminate or threaten the economic livelihood of a professor because of his protected speech.

Defendants’ second argument does not fare much better. That is because the protected nature of Josephson’s speech was also clearly established. “To be clearly established, a legal principle must have a sufficiently clear foundation in then-existing precedent.” District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 63 (2018). The principle “must be settled law.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Settled law “means it is dictated by controlling authority or a robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

In the First Amendment retaliation context, “we ask whether any reasonable official would have understood that [Josephson’s] speech was protected, and thus that the official could not retaliate against him.” McElhaney, 81 F.4th at 557. The answer: It is, and has been, clearly established that public employees have a right to speak “on a matter of public concern regarding issues outside of one’s day-to-day job responsibilities, absent a showing that Pickering balancing favors the government’s particular interest in promoting efficiency or public safety.” Ashford, 89 F.4th at 975 (first citing Buddenberg v. Weisdack, 939 F.3d 732, 739–40 (6th Cir. 2019); then citing Westmoreland v. Sutherland, 662 F.3d 714, 718–19 (6th Cir. 2011)).

It can no doubt be difficult to determine if speech is public or private. See DeCrane, 12 F.4th at 599 (“[W]e have recognized that it can be ‘challenging’ to distinguish public from private speech.” (citation omitted)). Even so, by 2012, “[w]e had held that employees speak as private citizens (not public employees) at least when they speak on their own initiative to those outside their chains of command and when their speech was not part of their official or de facto duties.” Id. at 599–600 (citing Handy-Clay v. City of Memphis, 695 F.3d 531, 542–43 (6th Cir. 2012)). “Would this ‘firmly established’ rule have ‘immediately’ alerted a reasonable person No. 23-5293 Josephson v. Ganzel, et al. Page 22 that” Josephson spoke in his private capacity? See id. at 600 (quoting Wesby, 583 U.S. at 64). We think so.

Defendants also argue that Josephson’s Heritage Foundation panel remarks were a part of his official duties. Even if that were the case, it was clearly established that such speech is protected. See Meriwether, 992 F.3d at 505; Hardy, 260 F.3d at 680; Bonnell v. Lorenzo, 241 F.3d 800, 823 (6th Cir. 2001) (“[A] professor’s rights to academic freedom and freedom of expression are paramount in the academic setting.”).

After a recent blow to academic freedom and free speech by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, this is a heartening opinion. It is particularly important because, as I have previously written in columns and my new book, public universities will be key to any effort to restore free speech values to higher education.

Higher education has already plunged in trust among citizens under the current administrators and faculty at our colleges and universities. They are destroying the very institutions that sustain them.

Public universities can be a strong line of defense for free speech, offering students not just free speech environments but the direct protection of the First Amendment. Not surprisingly, the annual survey of free speech on campuses tends to have public universities at the top of the list of the most protective institutions with a few private standouts.

As shown by the University of Louisville’s medical faculty, administrators and faculty are not necessarily any more inclined to protect diversity of thought at public universities. However, the applicability of the First Amendment subjects them to greater accountability in the courts. In this case, the University of Louisville was seeking to reduce that accountability.

I have written about how taxpayers and legislators can exercise their own power to demand more diversified and tolerant environments at these schools. In the meantime, faculty and students can turn to state schools for greater protections for speech and more diverse environments. This case will help in that effort.

Here is the opinion: Josephson v. Ganzel

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).

214 thoughts on “Sixth Circuit Hands Down Major Free Speech Win for Professor Against the University of Louisville”

  1. Government in business of running academia. Complete with paying payroll to someone preaching DEI religion in medical field.

    WCGW?

    1. Newark and Jersey City are two largest cities in NJ (pop. 1M+ total) have this BS going on for the past 2 decades. Indians, Africans, Haitians, you name it. Also, try Irvington, NJ (adjoining Newark), where half of population are Haitian fresh arrivals. MSM would not touch the subject, as it is contrary to MSM Woke cult believes.

  3. oldmanfromkansas says: September 13, 2024 at 7:02 PM
    The Pope also said Trump was “against life” for thinking immigration laws should be enforced and innocent victims should be protected from rape, murder, assault, and other violent crimes committed by illegal aliens.

    Not that the Bible, the Torah, the Pope, or honesty are important or relevant to conservatives but for the lurkers, there is the following:

    There will be one law for the native and for the alien residing among you.
    Exodus 12: 49

    When an alien resides with you in your land, do not mistreat such a one. You shall treat the alien who resides with you no differently than the natives born among you; you shall love the alien as yourself; for you too were once aliens in the land of Egypt.y I, the LORD, am your God.
    Leviticus 19: 33-34

    For the LORD, your God, is the God of gods, the Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who has no favorites, accepts no bribes, who executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and loves the resident alien, giving them food and clothing. So you too should love the resident alien, for that is what you were in the land of Egypt.
    Deuteronomy 10: 17-19

    You shall not deprive the resident alien or the orphan of justice, nor take the clothing of a widow as pledge.
    For, remember, you were slaves in Egypt, and the LORD, your God, redeemed you from there; that is why I command you to do this.
    When you reap the harvest in your field and overlook a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; let it be for the resident alien, the orphan, and the widow, so that the LORD, your God, may bless you in all your undertakings.
    When you knock down the fruit of your olive trees, you shall not go over the branches a second time; let what remains be for the resident alien, the orphan, and the widow.
    When you pick your grapes, you shall not go over the vineyard a second time; let what remains be for the resident alien, the orphan, and the widow.
    For remember that you were slaves in the land of Egypt; that is why I command you to do this.
    Deuteronomy 24: 17-22

    The LORD protects the resident alien,
    comes to the aid of the orphan and the widow,
    but thwarts the way of the wicked.
    Psalm 146: 9

    Within you, father and mother are dishonored; they extort the resident alien in your midst; within you, they oppress orphans and widows.
    Ezekiel 22: 7

    Thus says the LORD of hosts: Judge with true justice, and show kindness and compassion toward each other.
    Do not oppress the widow or the orphan, the resident alien or the poor; do not plot evil against one another in your hearts
    Zechariah 7: 9-10

    and many many more

    Being a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim is about having a covenant, a contract, duties by the believers, the Faithful. The believer professes and then performs. Thats 2 parts.

    Alas, this is America where relativism, self-referential and denial of absolute truth are paramount. Poor βαsταrds

    1. We have laws and the government exists to maintain peace and safety and an orderly society where citizens and legal residents can live, thrive and flourish by enforcing those laws. All over our cities we see the life destroying chaos that occurs with open borders that result from the government’s failure to enforce our immigration laws. That kind of life- and soul- destroying violence and chaos is not what government should bring about, nor is it the intended result of those instructions given by God ancient Israel.

      1. oldmanfromkansas says: September 13, 2024 at 11:29 PM
        We have laws and the government exists to maintain peace and safety and an orderly society where citizens and legal residents can live, thrive and flourish by enforcing those laws. All over our cities we see the life destroying chaos that occurs with open borders that result from the government’s failure to enforce our immigration laws. That kind of life- and soul- destroying violence and chaos is not what government should bring about, nor is it the intended result of those instructions given by God ancient Israel.

        You, like the relativists on the Left, changed the subject, and failed to mention at least one rubric (of many that I provided) from the Old Testament, e.g. care for the orphan, the widow, the alien, etc

        You do not want the responsibility of caring for the orphan, widow, alien, your neighbor. That is America today, aka self-centered, self-absorbed

        NB: All over our cities we see the life destroying chaos that occurs has existed since Americans rejected natural law and God’s laws, e.g. >60+ million murdered unborn babies since 1973.

        It it too hard for you to be introspective and be honest? No worries. Its hard for all of us. But at least try. Dying to self is hard

        1. Your comments proceed from conflating the obligations of government and the right thing to do by private individuals acting in their private capacity. I am only referring to the proper role of government. Your error mirrors that of the pope in his critique of a person running for president and discussing governmental duties and policies.

          1. You are on the correct path, oldman. The Torah, Mishnah, and Talmud abound with quotes that agree with you. Aiding another is one thing, but not to the extent that the ensuing chaos destroys what is good.

    2. “There will be one law for the native and for the alien residing among you. Exodus 12: 49”

      One must read the Torah deeply to understand. One must start with the understanding that the Lord gave each of the tribes (sons of Jacob)(except the Levi’s) areas with defined borders. Why would the borders be “defined?”

      Trump wants to keep America’s borders defined, and the Pope will protect the Vatican’s borders as well. They are alike in that regard. However, Trump’s policies permit a large number of legal aliens to gain citizenship every year and even a group of aliens who are in great need. The Pope and the Vatican do not do that. Trump will not stop visitors, students, etc., from our country and advocates that they be treated under the law. Trump and all presidents provide foreign aid to help the foreigners in need.

      I think the US and all of its presidents live up to that passage in the Torah, but that doesn’t mean people can run roughshod over Americans or the Hebrews.

      Much can be said about Exodus 12:49, but let me offer some other thoughts. The Bible isn’t saying that anyone gets privileges without responsibility. If you read the Torah, you realize there are a lot of responsibilities. 613 of them. Take note of what the Torah says about blasphemers and idolaters.

      Let me provide a few words from the sages.

      “When Israel [meets the conditions for observing the Jubilee], it is forbidden for us to allow an idolater among us. Even a temporary resident or a merchant who travels from place to place should not be allowed to pass through our land until he accepts the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants, as the verse states: “They shall not dwell in your land”9—i.e., even temporarily. A person who accepts these seven mitzvot is a ger toshav, “resident alien.” __Maimonides

      “Your locks are iron and copper, and the days of your old age will be like the days of your youth.” Deuteronomy 32:25

      Which means:

      “The mighty men of Israel would dwell in the border towns and lock the frontier so no enemies could enter; it was as if it were closed with locks and bars of iron and brass” __Rashi

      “In a border city, even if the non-Jews approach you [ostensibly] regarding straw and hay, one must violate the Shabbat to repel them, lest they take over the city and proceed from there to conquer the land.” ___Caro Jewish Code of Laws

      I can add more to Exodus 12:49 and continue with the other passages with time.

      1. S Meyer: very interesting, thanks. I am naturally skeptical when people proof text the Bible, especially instructions given to ancient Israel, to suggest it requires specific policies or actions on the part of the US government in the 21st century. All the more so when those policies require the most fundamental failure by the government to obey the law or act for the safety and protection of its own people.

        1. Thank you. I believe the Torah is a document to help man progress and improve. That is why much is written in the Torah on this subject. In its basic form, the Torah says to love your neighbor but stay away from anarchy and things that cause the devolution of the human spirit and mind. The Pope has most of it correct, but in his desire to love, perhaps he forgot that excessive love is no longer love and can destroy it.

          1. True, but I don’t consider open borders or a refusal to enforce immigration laws to be excessive love. Such acts and omissions put innocent people in mortal danger (think: Laken Riley). The people put in danger are the very ones the government has an obligation to protect by carefully executing the law of the land. It would not be excessive love for me to allow criminals into my home to murder my wife and kids. The pope’s comments in this topic are ignorant in the extreme. He is blinded to the truth by his own leftist ideology.

            1. not-so-old: even more, I personally do not believe that the Pope should be “pontificating” on political/geo-political subjects al all, period. I’m certain he would not appreciate Trump or Harris explaining Catholic dogma/doctrine at rallies. Stay in your lane, says me. (Not intending to be or sound sacrilegious or anti-Pope.)

            2. ” It would not be excessive love for me to allow criminals into my home to murder my wife and kids. ”

              While love is desirable, excessive love isn’t. That is the problem with the Pope’s statement. His statement looks at only one side of the coin. The excessive part is for show at another party’s expense.

            3. * yeah, and Aiden Clarke and a woman run over in the street would ACTUALLY still be alive if it weren’t for illegal migration due to economic collapse and violence in nations worldwide. Those people would still be living but no sacrifice is too much, huh?

    3. “The believer professes and then performs.”

      Fine. Then in the name of that “performance,” the Vatican can pay the immigrants’ expenses. Its wealth is some $10-15 *billion*.

      Stop forcing hard-working Americans to pay those expenses. What your ideology “professes” is the barbarism of sacrifice — a sacrifice that is bleeding Americans dry.

    4. You are misquoting Zechariah

      It says: “And the word of the LORD came unto Zechariah, saying,

      9 Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Execute true judgment, and shew mercy and compassions every man to his brother: 10 And oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart.”

  4. DJT is a stupid fricken idiot. Threatening the NASDQ because of their rules that apply to everyone, including him.

    And to think anybody, ANYBODY! Wants this guy, dumber than a rock to be president.

    Why is NASDAQ halting the sale of DJT? What right do they have to do this? They have done it twice today. What’s going on? Are they taking orders from the SEC, which, for political reasons, delayed us for an inordinate amount of time, therefore hurting the stock very badly? I am going to hold NASDAQ, and maybe the SEC, liable for doing what they are doing. If they do it again, we will move the stock to the New York Stock Exchange. It is my intention to own this stock for a long period of time. In my opinion, it is THE REAL VOICE OF AMERICA, but it is definitely MY VOICE, and it will be for a long time to come!

    1. And to think anybody, ANYBODY! Wants this guy, dumber than a rock to be president.

      Kamala Harris’s sorority sister is here to plug for her as president.

  5. Jonathan: In this column and many previous ones you have argued about the threats to “free speech” coming from the Biden administration, Antifa and generally from the “left-wing”. What you ignore is right under your nose–the real threats by right-wing controlled states, the banning of books and other attacks on free expression–not to mention the GREATEST threat to “free speech” posed by DJT.

    The latest example? In the last couple of days DJT has complained falsely that he was “unfairly” treated at his first debate with Kamala Harris. He whined about being outnumbered 3 to 1–that he was fact-checked twice by the ABC moderators Lindsey Davis and David Muir–like his false claims that Haitians in Ohio are eating the cats and dogs of neighbors and abortions are being conducted after birth. Of course, if DJT told the truth no fact-checking would be required.

    On Fox @ Friends, apparently the only place where he thinks he gets sympathetic ears, DJT complained the ABC moderators were not “fair” to him: “ABC took a big hit last night. I mean, to be honest, they are a news organization, they have to be licensed to do it. They ought to take away their license for the way they did that”.

    By “they” DJT is referring to the FCC. The FCC apparently heard DJT’s dangerous threat because the Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel pushed back: “The First Amendment is a cornerstone of our democracy. The FCC does not revoke licenses from broadcast stations simply because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes content or coverage”.

    The FCC’s five Commissioners are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Does anyone doubt that if DJT got back in office his first order of business would be to try to stack the FCC with his own appointees and revoke ABC’s or the license of any other news outlet he doesn’t like? That would be a much GREATER threat to “free speech” than anything you complain about!

    1. Bill Clinton was the architect of the New FCC allowing monopolies within media. A rewrite of FCC or reinstating the original laws is in order.

      The malice requirement also needs a revision. When media becomes politically motivated that media should fall under campaign contributions.

      There isn’t common ground currently between moral and immoral. Truly pearls to the swine.

      You’re shallow dogma …

      1. Please cite the Constitution for any power of Congress to regulate communication enterprises or the industry.

        2. Look around you. Is there anything you actually created or produced? Anyone can regulate you using commerce into oblivion.

          Stand on a hill and yell out your genius thoughts.

    1. The Pope also said Trump was “against life” for thinking immigration laws should be enforced and innocent victims should be protected from rape, murder, assault, and other violent crimes committed by illegal aliens.

    2. The Pope said:

      “Both are against life, be it the one who kicks out migrants or the one who [supports] killing babies,” he said. “Both are against life.”

      I remember the last time I was in the Vatican. They had walls and guards. They wouldn’t let me in. How can he say what he did about illegal immigrants. I was taught to help my neighbor and my fellow man. That didn’t mean that I had to guarantee him room and board.

      He was right though Kamala and the Democrats represent the culture of death.

      1. Also that doesn’t mean you stop protecting your home and family from violent intruders. Allowing such people in your home to injure or kill your family members would hardly be pro-life.

    3. God supports miscarriages. The biggest abortionist is God. If the fetus is genetically damaged the woman will miscarry. Believe it or not. When God said perfect he really meant it.

      Pardon me for not saying pregnant people. The FDA and CDC do but I’ve dated myself.

      What a mess and the Pope runs his own nation.

  8. “In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs,” Trump said Tuesday night. “The people that came in, they’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what’s happening in our country. And it’s a shame.”

    Isn’t trump the guy that also said grab em by the pussy?

    1. * The religion in Haiti is voodu with some Roman catholic memes mixed in. They aren’t eating the dogs, cats etc. They are sacrifices to the ghosts for help. When the dog dies it moves into ghost world. The ghost then has a dog from the suppliant.

      1. Nothing wrong with that. Judge Joe Brown said that’s what the Vice President sacrificed to there.

    5. No. He spoke of social liberal club, and thereby broke the first rule which (pun intended) launched diverse witch hunts. Never speak of business on Uranus, not Venus, nor Mars. #HateLovesAbortion

  9. Good news. There are many issues where the “woke” seem to have such dominance that traditionalism is lost. The issue of childhood gender dysphoria (and gender non-affirming treatment) is not one of them. The traditionalist pushback seems to be making real headway and traditionalist views are widely and dominantly popular. We need to celebrate the wins and examine how the pushback is working so we can apply the tactics in other areas.

    2. Progressive sects of ancient religion share dreams with Democratic and transnational socialists and Herr Mengele, too.

  10. * ” …reaffirms liability. ” Anyone care to explain that?

    OT
    It’s they against them and who will win. They functions on destruction long term and with theft and murder to prove their champion status. Them simply fails to fight proving nothing.

    God does appear to like the USA. He finds its weaknesses and its traitors periodically. It makes it more perfect I suppose.

    It also appears Israel is the actual target. Most interesting in these days of forced racism.

    2. It also appears Israel is the actual target. Most interesting in these days of forced racism.

      That if it isn’t just Israel, but the civil society of America that is the actual target.

      That all civil societies are the target of both American Hamas defending and supporting totalitarians and the commie totalitarians here in America

  11. Off topic

    While Putin gets more military aid shipments from Iran & North Korea, Putin cries that NATO will send long range cruise missiles to Ukraine. Putin might use nuclear weapons.

    1. Trump expounded in the “rigged” debate on the failed Harris policies of the past 4 years that have resulted in wars and will end in nuclear war if not curtailed by a new Trump administration. 

      1. Trump expounded in the “rigged” debate

        George is about to explain how the moderator that used to brag she was Harris’s sorority sister and David Muir who for years has called Trump “Hitler” actually gave Americans a fair, professional and unbiased debate?

        Most impartial, professional presidential debate ever, George?

        Four fact checks for Trump (all of which were lies i.e. “no state allows killing newborns like Tim Walz’ state”), ZERO fact checks for Harris.

        Six interruptions for Trump saying “we have to move on”, while ZERO interruptions for Harris as she filibustered for minutes on end rather than answering a simple question like “Are Americans better off now under your Bidenomics, rather than under Trump’s administration?.

        George: explain how it wasn’t “rigged”!

    2. “Putin might use nuclear weapons.”

      Here are words of advice from esteemed mathematician and songwriter Tom Lehrer:

      “Just sing out a te deum
      When you see that ICBM,
      And the party will be
      Come as you are.”

    3. Colonel Douglas McGregor last podcast is ominous. Putin has warned all Nations providing long range weapons to reach inside Russia. Expect a tactical response inside your country if you venture to play the game.

  12. There was a reported disturbance of earth heaving and shaking at Sheridan Dr. and Weeks Dr. in Arlington, Virginia. Authorities couldn’t determine the cause, the ground seemed to be alive; the authorities postulated that it may have been a soul turning in their grave.

    How many souls shiver in their grave wondering if America the Beautiful will survive the onslaught of the Socialists/Communists takeover of the United States Government by the American Democratic Party?

    1. Karl Marx conquered America in 1860 and commenced the incremental and “Progressive” implementation of the principles of communism that rule today. 

      The key to Marx’s conquest was fellow traveler Lincoln’s wholly unconstitutional dictatorship and denial of not-prohibited and fully constitutional secession that the Founders had availed themselves of.

      Southern states must have been allowed to fail and reunite.

      Reprehensible slavery must have been legislatively abrogated and existing immigration law enforced. 

      Voila!  America the Beautiful in the Land of the Free, not the Dungeon of the Foreign Communist Oppressed and Enslaved. 

      1. The key to Marx’s conquest was fellow traveler Lincoln’s wholly unconstitutional dictatorship

        George’s atheist Confederate soul (in a struggle session with his cultural Marxist atheist self who today claims God is a tranny) will never forgive Lincoln for defeating the Confederate slave states after they started the war by firing on Fort Sumpter.

        And George will NEVER forgive Lincoln for freeing the enslaved black Americans, the third and fourth generation Americans born on American soil – and then not “compassionately repatriating” i.e. deporting, those newly freed American citizens to countries that even their grandparents had never set foot in.

        George won’t explain why his fellow Confederates, the Confederate slave owners, didn’t “compassionately repatriate” their black American slaves. Instead, as though on a weekly schedule, he condemns Lincoln for not deporting those black Americans to countries they had never seen as soon as they were freed Americans.

        George is a vile Cheap Fake American. A perfect match for his atheist commie soul.

    1. Ahhh…a grammar lesson from the good “professor”. Finish your brocolli today, Davey.

  14. Just an observation by my informal assessment the off-topic posts are in the clear majority. Prof Turley, true to his word and values, is generously allowing all postings including those that are quite head-snappingly disconnected from the topic of his essay. However, it is more than a bit annoying and disheartening for readers interested in the essay topic and relevant responses to have to wade through this tripe to arrive at thoughtful and on-topic posts. I am quite sure that there are other sites where the, for here, off topic posts would be welcomed and potentially valued.

      1. Hear, hear!

        The Mary “Arnold Nordsieck” Poppins and Her Disinformation Governance and Lonely Hearts Club Board.

    3. Perhaps you should visit them Arnold, Turley provides an open forum of discussion. Most ALL of his articles are relevant to the same current daily situations as relating to current political events, therby leading to off topic comments. Yes, there are trolls, yes there are psychopaths, yet his site provides for many a relief valve for off gassing their total disgust and disdain for the Marxists war against our Constitutional Republic.

      Thank you Professor Turley!

      1. Well in a way I kind of agree with the OP up to a point. But then let’s suppose a monitor or the good Professor himself intercedes and deletes all OT posts. What would the result be?

        First, he’s a defender of free speech according to his writings. (Perhaps a reason he provides this site). Such might not play well to then exercise censorship on his own site.

        Secondly, I’m not entirely certain, nor do I care, what all of his motives are for providing this site. But I doubt it is entirely out of the goodness of his heart. He gets to advertise his books (nothing wrong with that), and he may have other reasons and motives perhaps even having something to do with his profession in the field of education. But any internet site lives and dies by it’s total number of visits. And this site generates a lot of visits with it’s back and forth dialog. Each time someone checks the site, Cha-Ching, the total visits counter goes up.

        And as distasteful as it may be to say; President Obama spoke one truth, perhaps the only one, while in office when he said; “It is difficult to find two people in America that agree on anything.” There are many reasons for that, but essentially it comes down to history. America is a Nation of individualist character. It is one reason, if not the primary reason the Marxists are having such a difficult time, despite their recent gains, in acquiring full control of the National apparatus and explains their increasingly desperate attempts to erase our history.

        In a final analysis it would also be extremely difficult to discuss the issues the Professor writes about without often going astray into vaguely connected areas of global ideologies and their impact on day to day issues of National interest, political confrontation, and popular concerns. Frankly, I don’t think it is at all possible without reducing the total number of visitors and participants to a near zero. Defeating the entire purpose of the site.

        Frankly, electronic blogs, social media, and the plethora of modern electronic communication devices, have only elevated the back side of the public restroom stall door from illiterate slogans scrawled upon it with ink pens and black markers, to a broadcast vehicle exceding anything Walter Cronkite had in his day, so that any common nitwit and crackpot can easily reach the entire planet with their instantaneous pearls of wisdom. At least once a month or so, someone is hunted down in some far flung country usually south of the Equator, and burned alive for being a witch. All because someone broadcasted an accusation from their cell phone in the midst of the jungle where otherwise modern civilization as most of us know it, is many hundreds of miles away.

        No doubt it is one of mankind’s greatest achievements that the entirety of humanity no longer needs to carry around a black marker to the public restrooms to facilitate communication with the world at large.

        1. A moderator for social etiquette and rules of engagement might help. With AI it would seem every comment could easily be rated with a truth standard so that the pack herd could measure their worth for themselves. You know, like GiGi and Dennis could be the low end as a bottom start point.😂😵‍💫

          1. “With AI it would seem every comment could easily be rated with a truth standard ”

            You are vastly overestimating AI. Go spend some time at Reddit with an eye to seeing just how loony AI bot moderation can be. I’ve recently had some totally ridiculous experiences trying to post civil, on-topic posts in some subreddits. If that was brought here, I’m pretty sure that comment section would quickly be deserted. Hey, maybe the AI bot could be trained to make comments, some on-topic, and some off, with it adopting differing personalities so that it could argue both sides of any possible issue with itself. From what I’ve seen at Reddit and elsewhere, artificial schizophrenia must be trivially easy to induce in such a bot; maybe the technology even shows an intrinsic tendency for that.

          2. AI is still incapable of discerning truth or actual thinking. It’s off on or this or that. Only humans are capable of actual thinking.

        2. No doubt it is one of mankind’s greatest achievements that the entirety of humanity no longer needs to carry around a black marker to the public restrooms to facilitate communication with the world at large.

          One of the better posts I have ever read here, despite arguably being off topic, including Professor Turley’s columns.

          You really should take a few moments to link posts such as this to a Username, rather than posting Anonymously. Posts like this make me want to be on the lookout for posts like this – doesn’t work when there’s a universe of “Anonymous” posts.

          1. Yeah! The wrong doing of the graffiti artists! Voodoo … I’d have made spray paint by prescription only

        3. Ok. On topic only.

          The win for free speech took much effort. It began in 2017? The destroyers consider it a blip.

  15. Dennis McIntyre LIE OF THE DAY

    Episode VI

    Jonathan

    It would appear that Dennis McInliar has changed tactics. Thanks to our relentless pressure on him and his blatant lies, he is reduced to his Supermarket Tabloid gossip today.

    He does seem to be so proud that Kamala went all night without informing a single undecided voter what her policies are. He is also proud that the “moderators” allowed her to go all night without answering a single question. In fact, she wouldn’t even answer a question on the issue most important to her and Dennis. When asked “do you support any restrictions on abortions”, she ducked and lied.

    So let’s see what its really all about for Dennis, the 80 year old adolescent.

    When a boxer gets knocked down four times in the first round there is no reason to go on. That’s DJT’s problem. Harris had DJT on the ropes all night in the first debate.

    Performance art. Dennis is giddy that Kamala didn’t answer a question. Dennis is giddy that Kamala dominated the game with lies. Dennis doesn’t mind that the referee in this boxing match put on a pair of gloves and joined in. You see, its all a game to him.

    Win at all costs. The ends justify the means. Dennis has said it many times.

    BTW, Denny did tell one small lie. There has ALREADY been a second debate. On FOX. Kamala was a no show. Coward.

    When McIncrier decides to change tactics out of desparation, we will be here to ridicule him for his stupidity as well.

    Let there be a second debate. On Fox. With Greg Gutfeld and Kellyanne Conway as the moderators.

    How does that sound to the resident projecting coward, Dennis?

  17. “ I have written about how taxpayers and legislators can exercise their own power to demand more diversified and tolerant environments at these schools. In the meantime, faculty and students can turn to state schools for greater protections for speech and more diverse environments. This case will help in that effort.”

    That’s weird. That is essentially what DEI is. Promoting diversity, equality and inclusion. But conservatives that Turley is concerned about not being able to express their ideas or views are the ones who oppose the idea of diversity and inclusion.

    “ Dr. Josephson argued that children are not mature enough to make such major, permanent decisions and that 80-95 percent of children claiming gender dysphoria eventually accept their biological sex over time without such treatment.”

    Children are not making those decisions. Dr. Josephson it seems, is arguing that children are the only ones making the decision. Turley leaves out the fact that in these situations it’s not just children who are involved. Parents and doctors are also involved and include extensive testing, therapy and exploring options before parents, yes parents, decide what to do. These issues are not as black and white as the professor makes them out to be. There is a lot more being involved than just jumping into a decision as if it were choosing what flavor or ice cream you want.

    “ studies have been conducted looking at whether gender dysphoria persists throughout childhood. On average 80% of children change their minds and do not continue into adulthood as transgender. Some of these studies are very old, the first being published in 1968 and others in the 1980s. This was during a time when being transgender was not accepted as widely in society as it is now so it can be argued that this may have influenced many to change their minds.”

    https://www.transgendertrend.com/children-change-minds/

    These studies don’t make the case that every child or parent is going to end up having surgery or identify as transgender. What the study does confirm is that it is really a thing and it’s rare.

    Weirdly enough those how oppose it are religious and ignore the fact that even god is transgender. He’s neither a man or woman. Something to think about.

    1. Not really, God the creator is not human. There is simply no gender to differentiate upon. If you are referring to Jesus, he was sent here as a male human.

      1. But god is always referred as a male. So god is non-binary. But it prefers a male pronoun.

        1. “But god is always referred as a male.”

          WRONG

          Get a clue. You seem as ignorant as George.

    2. Please cite the Constitution for any power to impose affirmative action, quotas, or diversity, equity, and inclusion, understanding that equity is defined as the absence of bias and favoritism, leaving merit as the sole relevant criterion which the Constitution does by omission. The imposition of affirmative action would be licit and constitutional in the case of private property and illicit and unconstitutional were the property public. 

      1. Please cite the Constitution for any power to impose affirmative action

        Why would you care about a Constitution written only by men while within the same hour your Woke Marxist core is outraged that God is always referred to as being a man, no soothing assurances that God is actually a Birthing Person?

    3. “Weirdly enough those how oppose it are religious and ignore the fact that even god is transgender. He’s neither a man or woman. “

      You are really stupid. God is one. Some will define him as an infinite light, but that is because the human mind doesn’t have the capacity to define God. You don’t have the capacity to define a woman.

      When the Ottoman Empire broke up, portions of the Middle East were divided into Mandates. Some of the major countries of the time each got a piece of land, which, under specific laws, was to be divided up to become nation-states. That is how many of the countries were created and the boundaries settled. Therefore, each country created worked under the same international rules.
      What happened to the British Mandate?

      Time for you to respond, but you don’t. You can’t. You are too stupid to do so.

      1. What is a man? If god doesn’t have a gender why are religious folks so offended if god is referred as a woman? God could be a woman or man. It identifies however it wants. So it would be ok to refer to god as a woman? By feminine pronouns?

        “ Some will define him as an infinite light, but that is because the human mind doesn’t have the capacity to define God.”

        God is defined as male or as a father figure by the majority of religious leaders. Why is he male? Is god she/male, man/woman? According to us god prefers male pronouns. Does that make him a man?

        3. What is a man? If god doesn’t have a gender why are religious folks so offended if god is referred as a woman?

          They’re offended? You conducted a poll to see who was offended by cultural Marxist demands that the Bible referring to God as “he” isn’t Woke Inclusive enough for Bolshevik Birthing Boys cospaying as women?

          George, why don’t you ask that question of your fellow commy atheist: the last Birthing Person justice Bribery Biden put on SCOTUS?

          You sleazy old commy grifter from the Rock Fairy Religion Of Atheism cult… why are you so obsessed with demanding your atheist religious cult is the right religion? With the same obsession that you demand that men can become women and go into little girls’ changerooms to put their wedding tackle on display, the moment they cosplay as women.

          Looks like pedophile old white guys demanding that women submit to their perverted misogyny.

          Ask your favorite SCOTUS justice your question, George: the one who, when under oath, said she couldn’t explain what a woman was, even after giving birth and even after taking a squint down into her birthing panties, to see what that was winking back up at her?

          Get back to us after Justice Birthing Person Ketanji-Jackson gives you the answer, George

          This is the way God has chosen to reveal Himself to us. God is never described with sexual characteristics in the Scriptures, but He does consistently describe Himself in the masculine gender. The Bible has been referring to God as “He” since the beginning when Moses wrote Genesis approximately 3,500 years ago. In the Torah and Old Testament, God is referred to with masculine pronouns and described in paternal terms as a father figure to the Jewish and Israelite people. God said in the Bible that He created us male and female, made in His own image. The reason the Bible refers to God as male is because this is the way God has chosen to reveal Himself to us.

          Ask your fellow commie, Justice Birthing Person Woke Still Alphabet Sex Pride Questioning Ketanji-Jackson if she has a problem with any of that.

        4. God doesn’t care what you think and knows you are a moron.

          What more is there to be said? What I posted flew over your head. You have succeeded in getting what you want most; to be noticed. It doesn’t matter to you that people usually laugh and shake their heads when you are. You are an exhibitionist and demonstrate your stupidity to anyone who passes by.

        5. Adam and Eve George. God created Adam (Man) in his image then created Eve (Woman) from the rib of MAN. At least that’s what the story in the Bible tells us.

    4. Well, not really. Read the standards of the APA. Therapists are virtually required to accept the child’s self-diagnosis. Then, on many occasions, trans advocates pressure parents to knuckle under with canards like “would you rather have a live daughter or a dead son”. To a great degree, children ARE in the driver’s seat and their feelings are to be validated, not questioned. I refer you to Abigail Shirer’s Bad Therapy.

    5. Children are not making those decisions… Weirdly enough those how oppose it are religious and ignore the fact that even god is transgender.

      Of course they’re not – they’re being FORCED by their teachers and parents to demand they be castrated, neutered, and mutilated for life. Despite being minors who never thought of asking that, and NEVER EMPOWERED by commies like Governor Tim Walz to request that despite what their parents want.

      Not weird that our resident atheist commie expert on gender blenders, George, also demands readers Don’t Believe Your Lying Eyes, and accept his commie atheist pronouncement that while the atheist religion believes their Rock Fairy deities are all trannies, the Abrahamic religions’ dieties are also trannies.

      So the Hebrew diety Yaweh, the Christian deity God, the Muslim Allah… George here to helpfully instruct all that commie atheist cultist members like him have determined they’re all trannies like they are.

      Despite all the books of those faiths without exception referring to them deities as masculine, not even birthing persons.

      And Buddha? Not one of the Abrahamic religions? Yep; you guessed it: George says the commie religion of atheism has declared him to be a tranny as well.

    6. That’s weird. That is essentially what DEI is. Promoting diversity, equality and inclusion.

      Predictable – not weird – that George would project DEI to include “equality”, NOT equity.

      “Equality” is completely opposite of the racist “equity” that DEI and black supremacist Marxist Critical Race Theory has as the foundations of it’s faith.

      “Equity” is about everyone achieving equal outcomes, economic class, career achievement. Equality is providing the same level of opportunity and assistance to all segments of society as they grow and become adults

      Equity is favored by Marxist theology, which demands that all have the same economic outcome in life, whether or not they work their asses off creating a business, improve their value as an employee through school, trades training, etc – or sit on their asses at home depending on government programs and entitlements to be their source of income.

      How could George make such a massive error on lecturing us on what DEI stands for during his lecture on tranny Wokeism – and how God is a tranny as well?

  18. You’re gunna be nuked while contemplating your navels..

    What masterful thieves and murderers… it’s AI.

    The smartest comment here is , don’t go on MSM. Fade them away

  19. At the core of this, is that our allegedly most prestigious colleges and universities have become the exact opposite of what made them truly prestigious in the first place.

    A universe of different opinions on display, endlessly debated in the public square, while universities remained peaceful, secure places to study. The pillars of our civil society revered, even as we recognized flaws that needed correcting.

    And today, all that has been thrown out: they are marketing factories for all forms of Marxism: cultural, economic, and political. Herbert Marcuse bringing his communist “Critical Marxist Theory” to America while fleeing the Nazis has been adopted and repurposed by changing economic condition to skin color: “Critical Race Theory”.

    You will find few if any openly conservative professors allowed in the faculty teaching political science, sociology, psychology, public policy, etc. That is now the turf of “progressive” neo-communists. Marx and Engels never referred to their theology as “Marxism”, they called it communism. The “progressives” of the day is the result of endless name changes by communist, continually changing their label as Americans found the one they were using odious. Eventually, “progressives” will be changing to a new label once “progressivism” becomes associated with the police state fascism and totalitarianism that has advanced under Obama and Biden/Harris.

    Meanwhile… are other professors willing to speak out when it may result in them being fired? Willing to do that while thinking “If they do that, I’m willing to put my time and my career and my academic interests into suing for redress and hopefully a decision that will compensate me for what I lost and went through”.

    I would assume most will decide it is not worth it, and move on.

    Silence is consent. And the neo-communists controlling our education institutions know that.

    2. @Oldairborne,

      Harvard Professor Roland Fryer is appearing on many podcasts lately and he is well worth listening to.

      Disgraced president Claudine Gay attempted retaliation against him for daring to publish his research showing blacks aren’t subjected to lethal police force more often than whites. For awhile he needed personal security because his research was so counter narrative that radicals were threatening him.

      I don’t know whether he regards himself as liberal or conservative and I don’t care because he is an absolutist on standing up for the truth and for following evidence. When he started his study he thought it would confirm the narrative that police are murdering blacks at a high rate and he was so astonished at the results of his study of the data that he repeated it with a different group of researchers only to arrive at the same result–not happening.

      His courage in standing up to the attacks on him reminded me of Ibsen’s great play, ” An Enemy of the People” a man of courage and principle.

      I read Ibsen’s play when very young and I think I adopted it as an ideal. For Professor Fryer, nothing trumps truth insofar as we are able to see the truth.

      1. Remember folks, the ends justify the means. Even Alynski noted this. You do what you need to in order to achieve power and then you can sort it out as you wish.
        This guy said something that harmed the cause. He had to go. Everyone is playing politics and trying to sand on principal when the enemy is playing for keeps.

  20. Fact Check: Kamala Harris said she grew up in a middle class family. Her father was a full professor we taught Marxist theory at Stanford University and her mother was a cancer researcher. I only wish that my middle class family could have made as much money as Kamala’s “middle class” family. The good old blue collar Joe from Scranton worked for Biden so why shouldn’t it work for Kamala. Both of her parents were immigrants who came to America the legal way when value to the nation was considered important. Do you believe her when she says that her values have not changed?

    1. I believed her when she said; “The wheels on the bus go round n round, round n round, round n round, oh the wheels on the bus go round n round, early in tha mornin…”

      After that, meh.

Comments are closed.