In my book, The Indispensable Right, I discuss how an enforced orthodoxy has replaced free speech and intellectual diversity in higher education. As suggested in prior columns, the intolerance for opposing views will only increase after the election. Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton (Mass.) has already learned that lesson after suggesting the need for greater diversity of opinion in the party and the reconsideration of issues like transgender athletic policies. The response was fast and furious, including from a department head at Tufts University.
Many of us have been writing about that intolerance for years, but while belated, it is good to see a Democratic member acknowledging the problem. It took the loss of both houses of Congress, the White House, and the popular vote, but the belated recognition from long-silent Democrats is a welcomed sign.
After the election losses, Moulton told The New York Times that it was time for greater reflection within the party, including on the issue of transgender policies: “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete.” He later added in a WBZ-TV interview that “this is an example of a contentious issue that we have to be willing to take on as a Democratic Party . . . we’re losing on issues like this.”
Democratic politicians and pundits immediately confirmed his criticism with a signature flash mob pile-on. Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey denounced Moulton for “playing politics” with the lives of transgender citizens.
Former staffers and interns demanded the usual public confession and apology from a dissenter. One top aide resigned rather than work with Moulton.Steve Kerrigan, Chair of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, expressed outrage and declared “these comments do not represent the broad view of our Party.”That broad view clearly does not include dissenting viewpoints.
This is clearly a debate that triggers intense feelings, including how it is discussed. The Tufts controversy follows a CNN contributor being chastised on air as a bigot and “transphobe” after he also raised objections on the issue by referring to “boys” playing girl sports. CNN commentator Shermichael Singleton rephrased his comments after the heated objections from other guests.
At Tufts University, the chair of the political science department, David Art, went with the “no soup for you” option for Moulton. Art declared that Moulton would be cut off from student internships in the future due to his statements. While refusing to confirm statements made about Moulton to the faculty, he reportedly told the Boston Globe that Tufts would not facilitate such internships, even if Moulton and the students wanted them.
The Globe described Art as “evasive” but quoted him as saying, “I definitely said other things in addition to that.”
Moulton struck out at Tufts, saying that the move is “frightening [and] sounds like China.” Once again, it would have been good if Moulton had shown a modicum of concern over the last decade as the mob was running professors out of universities or canceling events.
However, allies are hard to find in the Democratic party.
I understand objections to how these athletes are referenced. Those objections can be made in the course of a discussion without leveling charges or sanctions against those with opposing views.
Tufts eventually countermanded the policy of the political science department and wrote on X that “we have not–and will not–limit internship opportunities with his office.”
There was, however, one thing missing from the Tufts statement. There was no indication that Art or his department would face any repercussions or review for announcing a type of political litmus test for internships. It suggested that any members taking the same position would also be barred from internships. It was a direct attack on free speech and diversity of viewpoints, but the university simply responded by saying that there is “nothing to see here.”
While Professor Art clearly consulted with colleagues, it is not clear if conveying the views of his department in seeking to sanction Moulton. The assumption is that others in the department supported his position. It is a familiar pattern for those of us who have challenged this orthodoxy for years. Academics enforce a group-think culture that allows for little challenge or criticism.
That is only likely to increase after this election. There is no evidence any real effort to restore a diversity of viewpoints or tolerance on faculties. The mistake made at Tufts was to be so open about it. However, that only demonstrates the level of anger within academia at the results of the election.
The academy can then return to its previous lock-stepped orthodoxy. Indeed, the Tufts Political Science Department was spotted this week heading to another faculty meeting:
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, 2024).
Sonny Tufts started a college??? I never knew! I did like him in this classic film:
“if the Democrats are to survive”
Is there a compelling need for that to happen?
Comic relief?
Serious question. Our system does seem to work best when there are at least two parties that have reasonable prospects for success. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that one of them needs to be the present Democratic Party, or any legacy or heir to it.
I posted this yesterday, but it is more relevant to this topic. Wu is a trans-woman, and this video is certainly worth a look and listen:
“Academics enforce a group-think culture that allows for little challenge or criticism.”
This is the definition of a cult. They may as well make strange looking costumes from bedsheets and wear weird hats and meet in dark places lit only by torchlight.
Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton is re-discovering one of the big problems with transitioning of all sorts (to include the Democratic Party’s transition to fascism): once you transition to intolerance and bigotry, it is really difficult to transition back.
In fact, it appears the Mafia experiences similar difficulties with members occasionally wanting to ‘transition’ back to non-membership status. Seth is finding out how the Democratic Party has adopted, in their own way, the Mafia’s method of solving such ‘problems’.
It would have been a more relevant column today to discuss the Attorney General nomination. Some of us are focussed on the change of political atmosphere unleashed Nov. 5th, and a national reset in the direction of civility, gravitas and problem-solving. The topic of the day is the conservative governing agenda and filling in the plethora of missing details.
A poly-sci professor at Tufts who threatens to cut off internship opportunities for political retribution?…a university leadership that says “no, you won’t”.
Enough hand-wringing. What do you propose to do policy wise to help people get over their rage? What can we do in this new governing majority to encourage and reward civility?…to strengthen media that ignore incivility?
Speaker McCarthy is making it clear that Rep. Gaetz will not be confirmed. He is far too damaged to be taken seriously as Attorney General. By resigning and effectively undermining the ongoing investigation into his alleged sexual relations with a minor, he has made one of the most careless decisions possible. This is hardly what one would consider a valid qualification for AG.
Gaetz is poised to weaponize the DOJ. Many Republicans in Congress have serious doubts about him. He’s not just a bad choice—he might even be worse than Ted Cruz and many members of Congres hate Ted Cruz.
Translation:
Swamp rat suggests that Gaetz is a threat. He is far too dangerous to the swamp to be allowed to become AG. By sidestepping the kangaroo court designed to threaten him, he has made a brilliant decision. This is exactly what Trump voters consider valid qualifications for AG.
Gaetz is poised to weaponize the DOJ. Many Republicans in the swamp have serious doubts about him, but all of the anti-swamp Trump supporters have little doubt. He’s not just a bad choice for the swamp—he is clearly worse than Ted Cruz and many members of Congress hate Ted Cruz.
Start shredding your files swamp mofos, the end is near.
An alligator is not going to clean up the swamp. It calls for a skilled hydraulic engineer. Competence, not ego-driven confrontation, is what it takes to reform federal government. Gaetz is a shallow showboater.
Exterminating rats requires a good exterminator.
Not a big fan of McCarthy or Gaetz, but:
1. McCarthy is no longer “Speaker” and has not been so for quite some time. And he was barely in control while Speaker.
2. Confirmation takes place in the Senate, not the House.
3. The House failed to conclude any investigation into Gaetz so those “alleged sexual relations” remain allegations. Such circumstances are representative of a McCarthy failure. (Do not take this to suggest that there is no basis for the allegation. However, the DOJ has already washed their hands of this situation so it appears moot. Don’t you wonder how the FBI will handle a ‘background investigation’ of a nominee regarding an item they already disposed of for whatever reason?)
4. Given the above, Gaetz’s decision would not appear to be “one of the most careless decisions possible”.
5. The DOJ is already ‘weaponized’ to the point of being dysfunctional. Gaetz’s task to change that in his/Trump’s favor is monumental. And any such change will undoubtedly be viewed as ‘weaponizing’, whether true or not.
6. “Many Republicans in Congress have serious doubts about” about Gaetz. That statement could be said about most anything including the the color of hot air. The only real test will be the confirmation hearing and subsequent vote.
7. ‘Ted Cruz and many members of Congress hate Ted Cruz.’ So what? It is what the citizens of Texas think about Ted Cruz that counts.
“The House failed to conclude any investigation into Gaetz so those “alleged sexual relations” remain allegations.”
The investigation into Gaetz never ended. He resigned so that the ongoing investigation on the allegations would cease. Once a respresentative resings any investigation being conducted ends.
Gaetz is not qualitifed and he is getting pushback from Republicans and Democrats. That’s not a good sign.
LOL. Let the alleged victims get him in civil court. lolol.
BTW, want to know why McCarthy isn’t Speaker of the House: McCarthy’s chief rival, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, orchestrated the rare vote on the obscure “motion to vacate,” and pushed ahead swiftly into a dramatic afternoon roll call.
Given that, the press (err, swamp) runs to mccarthy for an objective analysis. lolol.
Look, buddy, we can have a new day in the US the easy way or the hard way, in either case, your corrupt swamp is going down and the US and its citizens will be better for it, SNS
Gaetz is not qualitifed and he is getting pushback from Republicans and Democrats. That’s not a good sign.
How do you demonstrate you’re qualified to comment on ANYBODY being qualified for ANYTHING?
Have you succeeded in building any credibility when it comes to your ability to offer rational opinions that aren’t heavily corrupted by political biases and hatred?
Four years of increasing dementia, now barely sentient – and Curious George still finds Bribery Biden qualified to be the one with the nuclear football in the White House.
Four years of demonstrated incompetence on the part of Vice President DEI Hire the Border Czar, qualified only by virtue of having a Brown Vagina – and Curious George has been desperately attempting to tell us The DEI Hire is qualified to be the President and Commander In Chief.
Curious George is has spent FOUR YEARS building a personal history proving he is not qualified to assess anybody qualified to be anything.
Speaker McCarthy is making it clear that Rep. Gaetz will not be confirmed… Gaetz is poised to weaponize the DOJ.
Audience, we have another episode of poor reading comprehension in combination with another episode of psychotic channeling as a form of self confession.
Curious George does not know that no longer is Kevin McCarthy the Speaker, but he’s also long gone as Congressman member of the House.
Furthermore, as a self-identifying Constitutional scholar, Curious George should know the Senate confirms nominees – not the House and the Speaker has nothing to do with it.
George might claim he just referred to him as “Speaker McCarthy” as the normal form given to refer to people by their former titles, but the reality is that Curious George The Confederate Constitutionalist NEVER refers to President-Elect Trump as either “President Trump” or since the election as “President-Elect Trump”. It’s just “Trump”.
The second Curious George reality here is that George is desperately channeling onto Gaetz EXACTLY what Biden did with the current Attorney General and DOJ: weaponizing the DOJ.
We have yet to see Curious George ever once refer to Merrick Garland/the DOJ as being weaponized. But now he proclaims that America will see Gaetz weaponize what he believes to be a completely impartial and unbiased AG position and DOJ.
Curious George has about as much credibility as Bribery Biden’s White House spokes liar, Cringe Jean-Pierre.
If the Trump transition team suspects that he likely will not be confirmed by the Senate, was the Gaetz nomination really a way to have him resign from the House to negate the possibility of him wrecking more havoc in this Congress, as he did in the last?
If the Trump transition team suspects that he likely will not be confirmed by the Senate, was the Gaetz nomination really a way to have him resign from the House to negate the possibility of him wrecking more havoc in this Congress
OOOOHHhhhhh… so many possibilities that exposes!
Gaetz is a wrecking ball that has put his personal agenda above the House/Republican agenda more than once, and he certainly wouldn’t be one of my choices for AG, despite the fact it is a no-brainer that he is a safe Republican replacement in that district.
I would have found somebody to be an Attorney General pitbull outside of government, just like Merrick Garland now, and offered Gaetz Deputy Attorney General to replace current DAG Lisa Monaco (straight from working with Jack Smith for Obama). Then tell Gaetz he’s the attack dog whose sole mission is to sniff out the malfeasance and criminality within the DoJ and FBI, and to go take as many of those scalps of individuals within the organization guilty of that. Break the back of the DoJ/FBI engaged in lawfare, versus impartial law enforcement.
Did Trump’s advisors/transition team give him the nomination to get him out of the way?
Gaetz is not stupid either, so I’ll assume before resigning he considered GOP Senators that don’t want him, particularly with Thune as Majority Leader. Thune is hardly what anyone would call a Trump fan. But then, like Gaetz and McConnell, Thune is often about himself rather than supporting the party platform and agenda. Gaetz feels sure that the new Majority Leader will make him AG as Trump wants, even if the Leader is Thune?
Would Gaetz be safely out of the way if Thune didn’t use his power as the new Majority Leader to whip the vote to get Gaetz confirmed? They have no concerns Gaetz would NOT go quietly into the night and become even a more dangerous figure following in the footsteps of Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Adam Kitzenger, etc?
Many believed Thune replacing McConnell as Senate Leader was a foregone conclusion with McConnell’s power and money to influence the secret ballot system protecting who Senators vote for. So did Trump confirm with Thune before naming Gaetz that he would force the vote to ensure Gaetz is swiftly confirmed?
Was Thune willing to do that with the thinking that, if Gaetz quickly imploded or failed, it would be on Trump’s head instead of his?
How about some Democrats willing to confirm Gaetz, seeing Gaetz as a boobytrap as AG, likely to blow up and badly damage Trump as a result with the mid-terms less than two years away?
And what is Gaetz thinking of the confirmation process: Curious George was salivating at the sexual allegations still out there against Gaetz. The Democrats will be looking under every rock and stone looking for actual evidence of criminality/misconduct.
Gaetz seems confident that the background investigation prior to the confirmation vote won’t find actual evidence to back up the accusations of Curious George and Democrats? Those investigations are going to be far more invasive into his past than a House Ethics investigation. No worries they’ll find real evidence that will lead to actual criminal charges rather than political allegations?
What is the likelihood the “sex with underage girls” accusations are true? Is it possible that the vicious police state fascist AG Merrick Garland WOULDN’T have given the FBI a green light to investigate Gaetz for those potential crimes as they did while investigating other Republican politicians that they claimed to believe were participants enabling the three hour long J6 riot?
Or is Gaetz confident because the FBI and other law enforcement have already done that, found nothing, and told Gaetz they found nothing?
The Gaetz confirmation (if the nomination stands) will be interesting from all aspects, particularly with how the Thune controlled Republican Senate deals with it.
Only someone in academia would say that a CONGRESSMAN is now to be denied interns from their university. Hey Art, tell your students that even though they are paying $300,000 for their “education” they will now not be allowed to get their foot in the door on the Hill in DC as kids from other “less prestigious” schools will “allow” their students to get these huge opportunities.
TAX ENDOWMENTS! Liz Warren screams, that’s right screams, about taxing billionaires all the time so it is now the perfect time to tax true billionaire endowments.
An alternative to taxing endowments would be to use university endowments to “cancel” college student loan debt instead of sticking it to the taxpayers. I recommend totaling college student loan debt eligible to be “cancelled” and fractionally apportion the liability to colleges and universities based upon the value of their endowment. That way the “richer” colleges and universities can “pay their fair share”.
Any day that we, with utter accuracy, link Woke tantrums and “rules for thee but not for me”, to the deeply intellectual philosophies of Monty Python, is a good day. 😉 Great stuff as always, Professor Turley.
“All common sense abandon, ye who enter here”
It’s pretty ironic to see how Turley characterizes individuals who call for punishment or sanctions against those who hold differing views as being anti-free speech. This view seems to contradict itself, as he simultaneously advocates for consequences for those who express their disapproval and urge for punitive actions against others. This duality raises important questions about the true meaning of free speech and the complexities surrounding the discourse on accountability for differing opinions. It highlights the tension between advocating for freedom of expression while also navigating the repercussions that come from vocal disagreement.
“I understand objections to how these athletes are referenced. Those objections can be made in the course of a discussion without leveling charges or sanctions against those with opposing views.”
Turley then switches his position and suggests taking the same approach..
“There was, however, one thing missing from the Tufts statement. There was no indication that Art or his department would face any repercussions or review for announcing a type of political litmus test for internships.”
Turley calls for retribution for those who express condemnation and demand punishment. However, these expressions are also forms of opinion and represent disagreeing viewpoints. His contradictory view reveals a real misunderstanding of free speech principles.
“It’s pretty ironic . . .”
It’s pretty predictable to see you use a shopworn tactic: dropping the context.
The *chair* of Tuft’s political science department used his academic position to promote a political agenda, to penalize dissenters — and to punish his own students.
That is not free speech. That is the nadir of academic malpractice.
It’s a matter of free speech. The chair is free to promote whatever he chooses. Turley’s stance is to criticize those who call for punishment against individuals expressing dissenting opinions or demanding consequences for them. However, he contradicts himself by also advocating for punishment against those who disagree by calling for punishment or consequences. This approach undermines his criticism, ultimately suppressing the expression of alternative viewpoints. Turley’s call for punishment against those advocating for specific actions undermines civil discourse. This is why the school decides not to conform to Turley’s suggestion; they recognize that doing so would be counterproductive.
Supporting “my way or the highway” when “my way” equals adherence to leftist dogma is always what is counterproductive in the long run…as you are about to find out.
That does not change the fact that Turley’s position is purely hypocritical from the perspective of a free speech advocate.
George: With all due respect, perhaps you need a refresher course in proper construct of equations. Thanks for considering.
If you read Turley’s book “The Indispensable Right”, you find a law professor who deeply values civility, but who does not have any strategy (legal) to nurture it in the public square. He argues that you have to allow people to rage (unrestrained by civility) or else not being able to rant about their grievances will only increase their rage.
OK, but then, why even insist on civility in places like courtrooms, legislative houses, and school board meetings? Why not open up these venues to inauthenticity, artful deceptions, and intimidating militant verbal tactics?
Turley is not convincing that letting people vent their rage is the corrective that restores civility and authenticity. The experiment with unmoderated social media shows just the opposite: rage begets counter-rage. Weakening standards of civility under the rubric of “free speech” increases rage, intolerance, false narratives, intimidation, and emotional sensationalism — it stifles dispassionate free expressions being exchanged in an environment of mutual trust and goodwill. It defeats collaborative problem-solving.
Turley even goes so far as to denigrate collaborative problem-solving at the societal level as somehow not a strong enough rationale for measures to uphold norms of civility. He poopoos this as “functionalist” thinking, the idea that free speech exists as a support tool necessary for adaptive problem-solving. This leads to many disturbing contradictions.
I recommend reading JT’s book, so that the philosophical framework he is pushing can be better appreciated as incomplete. It fails to tackle the gnarly problems we are struggling with in our public square.
“Why not open up these venues to inauthenticity, artful deceptions, and intimidating militant verbal tactics?”
We’re already there, dude. A fake person lied in senate hearing for a SCOTUS nomination, a bat$hit crazy liar testified and won 10s of millions against a past POTUS based on lies. The 34 counts against Trump…BS,…the kid who meme’d and got sent to prison, and on and on and on.
What is amazing is that the level of rage is not higher, the fact that the right has yet to do what the left has done repeatedly since 2000, with 2015-2020 in particular being clear evidence.
Be grateful for the low amount of citizen rage and be outraged at the high amount of civility towards courtrooms, legislative houses, and school board meetings.
It’s pretty ironic to see how Turley characterizes individuals who call for punishment or sanctions against those who hold differing views as being anti-free speech.
It’s both irritating and laughable (as well as evidence of Curious George’s lack of reading comprehension and appreciation of context and nuance) that Curious George comes here every single day for one single reason: to launch attacks at his host, Professor Turley. Whatever the topic, George will launch repeated attacks on Professor Turley.
And Curious George will do so while in another one of his serial psychotic episodes of self-confession through channeling. Channeling the sins and malfeasance of the Soviet Democrats in their hypocrisy onto the head of Professor Turley.
Curious George considers doing this every day as a form of self-help? What else – he finds no support for his ranting and raving here.
In Curious George’s curious view, in his Soviet Democrat Woke world view where they sexualize children and support Hamas terrorists, no reasonable member of his world would agree there should be sanctions and repercussions for malfeasance, malevolence, fraud, and outright criminality.
Normal Americans think differently. And they voted against the world view of Curious George and the Soviet Democrats just over a week ago.
Suck it up, Curious George.
“At Tufts University, the chair of the political science department, David Art [. . .] declared that Moulton would be cut off from student internships in the future due to his statements.” (JT)
There sure are a lot of “isolated cases” of propagandistic professors at “insignificant” colleges. (Tufts is ranked 37 out of 436.)
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment by the following statutory provision (42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e-2(a)(1)): It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of empoyment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Amend to include politics, after “religion,” and before “sex.”
I raised 2 smart daughters…both going to elite schools…the number of opportunities they got just for being bright in math and science were astounding….almost all were STEM DEI programs while males not allowed…NASA, government labs, HS programs….etc
it is CRIMINAL the unfairness to boys that we have today!
the solution is TAKE AWAY Democrats Money
End all Federal Aid to cities, states, colleges and non-profits
ban public unions which just bribe democrats
Let democrat fund their own failures! Why should farmers in IOWA fund Harvard professors?
It’s not like farmers in Iowa are getting Ethanol subsidies or anything. Try a different example.
dumbest comment ever and completely non-analogous
Moulton’s objections to his party’s obsession with transgenderism would have been more impressive if, instead of worrying about the political consequences to the Democrats, he had said simply that mutilation of children is wrong, and that self-mutilation of adults is both wrong and violates the conclusions of evidence-based medicine.
“self-mutilation of adults is both wrong and violates the conclusions of evidence-based medicine.”
Adult self-mutilation may be stupid, but it isn’t “wrong” in the sense of being immoral. Any adult is free to treat his or her own body any way he or she desires. What is not morally acceptable is using the force of law to compel anyone else to bear the consequences of those personal choices.
As a country we spend a fortune, on scholarships, grants and tax exemptions, to support private universities like Tufts. In theory they were going to provide balanced educations, unbiased scholarship, and useful research. In reality they are no more than outposts of Blue arrogance and bigotry. Let’s defund them all.
Maybe Moulton should just declare he is now a Republican. Would be interesting to see if he could then be re-elected in 2026 in Taxashussetts. Now that would send a real signal to the Democrats.
Dollar Bill, as a former resident of MA I can tell you that if Seth runs as a Republican he will lose. The place is nuts.
“Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey denounced Moulton for ‘playing politics’ with the lives of transgender citizens.”
This is my favorite rhetorical tactic. A politician “denounces” a citizen for “playing politics”, with zero self-awareness.
If you wait long enough, every argument about transgenderism eventually degrades into threats of self-harm. If you don’t accept their rejection of biological reality, they threaten to commit suicide. They don’t actually mean it, it’s just a rhetorical move, but if you’ve never experienced it being used against you, it can work. If you (un)fortunate enough to have experience with emotionally manipulative people, you can just call them out on it, and they’ll abandon it right away.
” ‘playing politics’ with the lives of transgender citizens.”
I would also be very interested in hearing Healey’s explanation about exactly how preventing altered males from playing contact sports with sound females jeopardizes the lives of the former.
Re:” If you don’t accept their rejection of biological reality, they threaten to commit suicide.”
‘If they are like to die, let them do it and decrease the surplus population”…….Ebenezer Scrooge
Quote from above: “Art declared that Moulton would be cut off from student internships in the future due to his statements.”
A terrible attitude for an academic. Free speech aside, he’s treating adult human beings like children.
Speaking in historical terms, Rep. Seth Moulton may be suggesting a reformation to the iconoclastic theology of the far left. Someone will need to play the role of Martin Luther if the Democrats are to survive.