Four years ago, we first discussed the case of Professor Jason Kilborn, who was investigated and punished for using a pair of racial slurs as part of an exam in his civil procedure course. I was critical of the actions of the John Marshall Law School at the University of Illinois (Chicago) as inimical to both free speech and academic freedom. Now, the United States Court of Appeals has reversed a district court’s dismissal of his free speech claims. The UofI will continue to spend huge amounts of money in fighting the protections for academics in their classrooms. It is not simply administrators wasting public funds, but spending public funds against the public interest.
Professor Kilborn’s Civil Procedure II exam described how an employee quit “after she attended a meeting in which other managers expressed their anger at Plaintiff, calling her a ‘n___’ and ‘b___’ [sic].”
The use of the racial slurs led to a complaint in a letter from the Black Law Students Association and later a petition which called for Kilborn to be stripped of his committee assignments and other reforms. The Petition stated:
The slur shocked students created a momentous distraction and caused unnecessary distress and anxiety for those taking the exam. Considering the subject matter, and the call of the question, the use of the “n____” and “b____” was certainly unwarranted as it did not serve any educational purpose. The question was culturally insensitive and tone-deaf. It lacked basic civility and respect for the student body, especially considering our social justice efforts this year.
The integration of this dark and vile verbiage on a Civil Procedure II exam was inexcusable and appropriate measures of accountability must be executed by the UIC administration.
My objection was to the measures taken against Professor Kilborn, which I do believe undermine academic freedom. He was suspended and put on administrative leave because of a complaint that in my view was a denial of his pedagogical privileges. He was ultimately denied a raise. He was also required to undergo drug testing, agree to a medical examination, and complete eight weeks of diversity training.
I was also concerned by the position of University of Illinois-Chicago Chancellor Michael Amiridis when the university disputed the claim that the use of the terms was “pedagogical relevant” or “necessarily germane to the study of civil procedure.” That is a statement that drives to the very core of academic freedom.
Just because Kilborn teaches Civil Procedure does not mean that hypotheticals raising racial discrimination are not germane. The best Civil Procedure teachers show how these rules can raise difficult political, social, and constitutional issues when applied in different contexts. Moreover, professors have been pushed by universities and various academic groups to incorporate greater consideration of social justice and racial equality issues in their classes.
Professor Kilborn wrote an exam question that included the censored versions of words that are commonly found in media articles and academic publications. For that, he was publicly suspended and ostracized.
An appellate court’s decision found the lower court erred in dismissing Kilborn’s retaliation claim without giving a full consideration to his First Amendment protections.
The panel declined to apply Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 418 (2006) as controlling. In that case, the Supreme Court found that public employees are not speaking as citizens when they make statements pursuant to their official duties.” The panel held:
“We decline the University officials’ invitation to extend Garcetti to speech involving university teaching and scholar-ship when the Supreme Court was unwilling to do so. Nor are we alone. Every other circuit to decide the issue has recognized that Garcetti does not apply to university teaching or scholarship.’
According to a FOIA request from the University of Illinois system, UIC Law has already burned through $1.2 million in the case. Rather than discipline these officials who denied basic protections for Kilborn, the school continues to add to the costly effort in the court.
The question is how long the university will burn through funds to fight these core rights afforded to all professors.
Here is the decision: Kilborn v. Amiridis
Mahmoud Khalil. Mahmoud Khalil. Mahmoud Khalil. Not ONE blog post on his plight from Prof. Jonathan “Free Speech” Turley.
Mahmoud Khalil. That’s the negotiator for the terrorist group lending support to the terrorist group Hamas. Nice little university you’ve got here. Would be a shame if you didn’t help us attack Israel and then a riot burned your university down
Matthew/Mahmoud Dunn… have any of you talked about the plight of the Jewish students being attacked by Khalil’s group, prevented from attending their classes, being threatened, etc?
Use your Free Speech to post a rousing concern for the Jewish students being assaulted, threatened and their education being blocked by Hamas terrorist supporters, Matthew/Mahmoud!
Law professor Glenn Reynolds has a substack article with many good ideas for dealing with the rogue district courts.
https://instapundit.substack.com/p/trump-and-the-lower-courts?utm_campaign=post&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Like Professor Turley he opposes impeachment, but he has many other good ideas.
Also noted is that courts rely heavily on public respect and that respect has been already lost with the Left and is now being demolished on their instinctive supporters on the right. Dangerous to lose everyone.
As to impeachment, Musk is said to have offered the maximum allowable to any Congressman who supports impeaching these Jacobins.
One would think that Roberts and company would notice how the public is turning against the judges, and now law professors followed by Congressmen and billionaires.
Are they so full of themselves that they don’t see the perils they face?
I absolutely agree that no judge is going to be removed by the senate over this.
But I am not convinced that impeachment by the house is NOT a good idea.
Though it has the downside of typing up the Senate for a protracted trial when we need them to be accomplishing many other things.
Reynolds ideas are interesting and many of them are plausible – though they may take time to enanct – and I beleive Reynolds is incorrect in asserting that they can get through the senate on simple majorities – Matters concerning the judicary do not get arround cloture.
Next, Both Cleveland and Reynolds make a very important point – one that Chief Justice Roberts has missed.
The courts are shredding their own legitimacy. Roberts has had several opportunities to do something about that – and instead has attacked those pointing out that the courts have gone off the rails.
I think the threat of impeachment by the house is important – judges are NOT the same as presidents. It is NOT clear that impeaching them will make them stronger. Clinton and Trump were arguably strengthened by impeachment because they had broad public support that did not wain.
These judges are NOT public figures and they do NOT have the public skills that Trump and Clinton have – as one of Reynolds sugguestions noted – bring cameras into the courts – these people can not continue to behave as tyranical if they have to act in the spotlight.
That BTW is good for the courts – far beyond just these Trump cases.
I am not sure that Congress can order than nationwide – but local courts need to be open to recording too.
I have not made up my mind regarding impeachment. I think many of Reynolds suggestions are good.
But I am not sure that just continuing as we are is NOT the best strategy. It MAY take much longer to accomplish what needs to be done – though I am not that sure that the courts may not fold relatively quickly – they have significantly overreached and they are facing growing anger.
I find it hard to believe that many of the just under 1000 federal judges are not going to start saying – this has to stop before we lose all legitimacy.
Further it is lawfare like this that got Trump elected. It is atleast in part this lawfare that is detroying the democratic party right in front of our eyes.
There is an election coming in 2026. Administrations in power usually lose midterms. But my sense is that if the election was held today – Republicans would increase their strength in congress.
Trump is more popular than he ever was. But his policies are more popular than he is. And democrats are less popular then they ever have been/
Much like during the 2024 election Trump lost lots of battles but ultimately he won the war. Many things contrinuted to Trump’s victory.
But a significant one was the lawfare against him.
The left is winning right now – in the sense that they are slowing Trump’s efforts to reform govenrment as he promised.
But they are losing in the sense that they are destroying their own credibility and public support.
They are also losing – because they are taking responsibility for the bad results of their actions.
If Trump got to do everything he wanted – there would still be another Laken Riley. But now – The left. these judges and democrats will be blamed when the inevitable occurs.
John Say: “The left. these judges and democrats will be blamed when the inevitable occurs.”
I think so too. They have openly embraced madness and it is too obvious to be hidden by the ancient media. Besides, there is X, bloggers and substack to keep people informed.
John,
And they can’t let go of the lunacy..
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/03/judge-orders-bureau-prisons-return-two-biological-men
When I was in law school 25 years ago, my Civ Pro exam included a fact pattern regarding mistreatment of “queer” people. I just ignored the gratuitous political content of the fact pattern and analyzed it as if the people involved had been people of any persuasion. It didn’t occur to me to gripe to the school. As a lawyer the little darlings will regularly come upon subject matter and people who annoy them. If they become litigators it is a virtual guarantee. Calling for protection from unpalatable ideas is an indication that the students are not personally capable of functioning in the real world.
Professor when are you going to address the case of Mahmoud Khalil?
Khalil… isn’t he the extortionist “negotiator” for the criminals from the Soviet Democrats New Hitler Youth wing? The ones assaulting Jewish students, issuing threats to Jewish students, vandalizing and destroying school property, etc?
Well… should he just be shot on sight as the criminal he is, or deported to get a Middle East version of justice when he’s back at his hajji terrorist roots?
There is no case.
He is a direct and mortal enemy of the United States who must have been deported long ago.
#74. OT In the US he is entitled to due process.
OT. The 200 deportees is disturbing. If here illegally they can be sent back to nation of origin. IF they were deported to a prison it lacks due process.
It’s difficult to find information about it. Something is wrong with the story.
Turley is unlikely to address it unless it becoms clear than the DOJ has nothing but Khalils protected speech to rely on.
The Columbia report on the riots alone implicates Khalil sufficiently to deport him.
The purpose of Law School is to prepare lawyers CAPABLE of being gladiators in protection of their clients. That cannot be dome without heat (nasty words, etc) in the forge (socratic discussion and realistic examinations). Our job as professors is to pound their steel in a protective environment.
In the real wotld their opposition will be paid to DEFEAT them not to train them. There is a difference.
Ilya Shapiro said that when he gave a lecture to Georgetown law students some demanded that the administration give them crying rooms.
Pathetic.
When I worked on a forest crew swinging an ax we quickly got blisters at start of season, they broke within a week and the next week we had calluses and were good to go for the summer.
The straw boss told me that when pampered city kids came to him upset, holding up their blistered hands, and asking what could they do about those blisters, he said, “Pee on them. Rub dirt on them. And get back to work.” No crying room in the woods.
I can’t imagine someone so pathetic that it wouldn’t bruise his pride to ask for a crying room because of a lecture. I imagine these sissies will become tyrannical judges in time. God help real lawyers in their courts.
Yeah, and my father could only attend school every other day. He and his brother had to share a pair of shoes. The school was 7 miles away. It was bad in the winter.
Jonathan: Suddenly you complain that UIC has “burned through $1.2 million” in the case involving Prof. Kilborn. Is the cost of litigation to taxpayers now the litmus test for whether public universities should or should not defend themselves in court? Public universities and governments get sued all the time. Are they to just cave every time they get served with a complaint? That’s how silly is your argument?
Now if you want to talk about the waste of taxpayer money what about the stunt by the DJT regime last weekend in flying over 200 Venezuelans to El Salvador to languish in that country’s notoriously brutal prison system. WH press secy Karolin Leavitt said US taxpayers paid the Salvadoran government $6 million to house the detainees–presumably for 1 year. And this doesn’t include the cost of the 3 charter service flights that could have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Leavitt defended that expense by saying it was a lot cheaper than having US taxpayers “house these terrorists (?) in maximum security prisons here in the United States of America”.
Of course, Leavitt ignores the fact that the real reason for whisking the Nicaraguans out of the US was to deprive them of their due process rights under the Constitution. Had ICE simply rounded up and detailed the Nicaraguans here they would have had access to lawyers who could go to court and defend them. That is what DJT wanted to avoid.
DJT knew or should have known his propaganda stunt was illegal. That’s why he waited until late Friday to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, thinking he could secretly whisk the Nicaraguans out of the country without anybody knowing and then declare the next day he had struck a blow against “criminal aliens” inside the US. That plan failed when the ACLU got wind of DJT’s nefarious scheme and got to Judge Boasberg in time for him to issue his order.
So it appears DJT wasted a lot of taxpayer money on what Judge Boasberg will ultimately rule was an unlawful scheme from the get go! Will you say anything in your next column about the precious waste of taxpayer money on that propaganda stunt? Probably not.
Dennis, are you a Bull Dyke in your public life? Your crying about being victimized by the exposing and elimination of taxpayer monies being stolen through corruption or lost to incompetence or political gamesmanship suggests that’s where you’re coming out from.
BTW: there IS a federal program where you can volunteer to be the guarantor for a foreign national who cannot meet the legal requirement to prove their ability to be self supporting and not a burden on American society once in the USA.
Think of it Dennis! You too can apply to be assigned your very own personal Venezuelan or Salvadorian gang member as a permanent house guest until they become self sufficient here!
Just sign on the dotted line, Dennis!
It boggles the mind that you continue to ignore the most egregious violations of free speech in this country. People are being deported for speaking out against Israel’s genocide in Palestine, and you remain silent. You are either morally bankrupt, or bought off by the Israel lobby, like so many in the US government.
Oh look! One of the Hamas terrorists is here to complain that they can’t come here illegally, can’t come here temporarily on a student visa and then violate the terms of that visa, and ultimately be deported because of those offenses.
Nothing like a murdering genocidal Hamas terrorist popping up here to tell Professor Turley he is morally bankrupt because he doesn’t share their genocidal Nazi tendencies and doesn’t get his paycheques from his paymaster, Iran’s mad mullahs!
It boggles the mind that the New Hitler Youth Movement wing of the Democrat party claims it is free speech for Hamas terrorist supporters to physically assault Jewish students, threaten Jewish students, prevent them from attending classes, vandalize school property, and attempt to extort from universities.
This is the Democrat and Hamas’s genocidal neo-Nazi pro Hajji lobby – like so many of the Democrat politicians who give them their screeds to post online.
“THE CONQUEST OF THE JURISTOCRACY!”
ROBERTS, BOASBERG, CHUTKAN, ABELSON, OBAMA ET AL.
_________________________________________________________________
“[THE USURPATION AND EXTREME AND EGREGIOUS, PARTIAL AND POLITICAL ACTS OF JUDGES ARE PROTECTED.]”
– CHEAP JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS
I’m curious if most rap music causes momentous distraction to those same students? It’s rare to find a song in that genre that doesn’t use both of those words, repeatedly. Yet they were traumatized by encountering that language on an exam in law school, that outlined a particular case?
America’s allies are stunned by two things Donald Trump has done since returning to power. One is his alignment of U.S. foreign policy with Russia with regard to Ukraine. The other is his fixation on annexing Canada.
Here’s the key to understanding these two confounding moves.
They are related.
Trump thinks about Canada in much the same way Vladimir Putin thinks about Ukraine. He identifies with his fellow imperialist.
In July 2021, Putin published an article outlining his view of Ukrainian history. Historically, “Russians and Ukrainians were one people—a single whole,” he asserted. “The idea of Ukrainian people as a nation separate from the Russians” had “no historical basis.” He dismissed this idea as an artificial result of “chopping the country into pieces.”
Trump has also talked about folding Canada into the United States. It’s not clear how this notion got into his head. But the idea that the America should think about Canada the same way Russia thinks about Ukraine—as a barely distinct neighbor, essentially an extension of itself—is at least four years old.
And the person who proposed that analogy was Putin.
“Look at how Austria and Germany, the USA and Canada live next to each other,” Putin wrote in his 2021 article. These paired countries, he observed, were “close in ethnic composition, culture, in fact sharing one language,” with “the closest integration” and “very conditional, transparent borders.” In a similar way, Putin proposed, Russians viewed Ukrainians in Russia “as our own close people.”
It’s unlikely that Trump, who seldom reads past a headline, paid any attention to Putin’s article. But the way Trump talks about annexing Canada bears a disconcerting resemblance to the way Putin talks about annexing Ukraine.
In February 2022, days before launching his invasion, Putin delivered a speech elaborating on these themes. “Our Ukrainian colleagues . . . turned to us for financial support many times,” he complained. “The subsidized loans Russia provided to Ukraine, along with economic and trade preferences amounted to $250 billion”.
Trump made the same economic case for absorbing Canada that Putin made for absorbing Ukraine. “Canada has been taking advantage of the United States for years,” Trump complained on January 25. “Without our subsidy, Canada, you know, doesn’t exist really. Canada is totally reliant on us. Therefore, they should be a state.”
So basically, Trump is exactly echoing Putin’s rationale for annexing Ukraine when he insists the US should annex Canada.
“We lose $250 billion a year on Canada,” Trump alleged.
The figure of $250 billion is exactly the same one that Putin alleges was the amount of Russian subsidies to Ukraine.
Obviously, Putin has suggested annexing Canada, and Trump is more than happy to oblige his master.
The clear implication is that if Trump talks about annexing Canada, this gives Putin an opportunity to rationalize and normalize the invasion of Ukraine as something that is perfectly legitimate, just like Trump annexing Canada.
“Trump thinks about Canada in much the same way Vladimir Putin thinks about Ukraine. He identifies with his fellow imperialist.”
There may a simpler and more hilarious explanation😀
Maybe Trump hates socialists and communist and just gets a kick out of trolling Leftist idiots here and in Canada.
I can’t wait to see the fist hellfire
missiles take out a Chinese fentanyl lab in Mexico (or Canada)
Is Turley still sticking to these absurd stories? Wow. There are far more serious issues at play, such as Trump’s attacks on free speech and his unlawful deportation attempts using the Alien Enemies Act, especially considering there is no war or invasion. Trump’s Department of Justice continues to make excuses for why it cannot answer straightforward questions posed by a federal judge. Furthermore, Trump has openly called for the impeachment of this judge, which should have prompted another column from Turley reiterating his objections to such calls. Where is Turley’s? It appears he is too afraid to criticize Trump directly. Even after Trump demanded the impeachment of this judge because he is making the DOJ explain why it is willfully disobeying a court order Turley is stragely silent. Turley should be having a field day with this topic; it’s far more important than than this flim flam story about a professor’s wording a few years ago.
Trump is not doing well in court. He’s doing worse than Biden now. Turley loved to keep track when Biden was in office. Trump must have even chilled Turley’s ability to be critical of him. So much for free speech.
“…it shall be lawful…at any time during the continuance of this act….”
“…whenever there shall be…any…predatory incursion…perpetrated, attempted, or threatened…by any foreign…government,….”
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
FIFTH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
At the Second Session,
Begun and held at the city of Philadelphia, in the state of Pennsylvania, on Monday, the thirteenth of November, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven.
An Act Concerning Aliens.
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States at any time during the continuance of this act, to order all such aliens as he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or shall have reasonable grounds to suspect are concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations against the government thereof, to depart out of the territory of the United States,….
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
An Act Respecting Alien Enemies
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies.
If we have laws we don’t like, we should work on getting them removed. We just can’t ignore laws just because at the moment we don’t agree with them. I didn’t agree with this activist judge that wanted to stop Trump for removing illegal thugs from our country. However if I can stand back and try to be objective, this is part of our system of checks and balances.
I agree, but when a judge says in an order that airplanes must be turned around mid-air, I question the mental health of such a judge.
Why? The governmental agency that directs the actions of the plane was not over international waters, was it?
Can the government put anyone it chooses to target – including US citizens – on a plane or helicopter, fly them over international waters before they have an opportunity to go to court, and then kill, injure, or torture at will?
It has been settled since the middle of the eighteenth century that equity has extraterritorial reach. The classic case is Penn v. Lord Baltimore [1750] 27 Eng. Rep. 1132 (Chancery). The principle is even older than that, however, and can be found as far back as the late seventeenth century. The extraterritorial reach of equity was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1810 in a case about whether a federal court’s decree could run in a different state. Citing, among other things, “the celebrated case of Penn v. Lord Baltimore,” Chief Justice Marshall said “the principles of equity give a court jurisdiction wherever the person [i.e., the defendant] may be found.” A widely cited case for the extraterritorial reach of equitable decrees is The Salton Sea Cases, 172 F. 792 (9th Cir. 1909), where actions in Mexico were enjoined because they were damaging property within the United States.
So, no, the mental health of the judge should not be questioned based on his order to turn the planes around. Settled law.
The government’s argument here is risibly weak. Any lawyer would learn this as a 1L.
Weird how Another Soviet Democrat Internet Lawyer claims SCOTUS’s Ludecke v. Watkins decision supports this local District Obama judge who is essentially claiming SCOTUS was wrong and he has declared this matter justiciable! Soviet Democrasts: “Our District Judges are more authoritative than SCOTUS!”
How about the mental competency of district judges who believe their judicial powers include being able to remove the executive powers of the president of the United States?
Is that mental incompetency? Or the actions of very mentally competent district judges who choose not to recuse themselves as required by the canons of judicial conduct which prohibit hearing cases where their immediate relatives stand to profit greatly from a decision they make?
How much does Judge Boasburg’s daughter make being paid to fight deportation of criminal Illegal Aliens, Guest Democrat Internet Lawyer?
The Merchan family wasn’t the only judge who took their lead from Bribery Biden using his son to enrich the family coffers through his public office.
What executive power did the judge exercise exactly?
(Hint: a TRO is not an executive power.)
#74. Absolutely. Maybe he’s being blackmailed.
Boasberg has no legal basis. His motivation and act are political. His method is illicit lawfare.
My feelings are that this judge is truly a political hack. He has abused a system that should be used as part of our checks and balances for the purposes of making our country a better place for the citizens to live in.
trust your feelings. law and fact be damned.
Why that’s precisely what you did.
Are you projecting?
#74. What are the facts of the deportations? They were here illegally and sent back? What were the criminal charges in these 200 deportees? Why were they taken to a prison? It lacks due process if that’s true.
Anyone actually know?
Is Turley still sticking to these absurd stories? Wow.
Does George think his daily displays of virulent hatred of his host, Professor Turley, will ultimately result in Professor Turley shutting down his blog?
Or alternately, will George finally manage to achieve sexual satisfaction if he publicly displays his hatred of Professor Turley long enough?
George is not only a Cheap Fake American. He is also the epitome of what a Bull Dyke thinks would be the perfect son.
George, do you just sit around and play with yourself all day long??? My goodness, but I bet your basement/living room/bedroom smells awful, like old socks that have not been washed. You need to go outside and get some sunlight and fresh air. And, take a bath. And shave your palms, or maybe use some depilatory on them.
Your comment is inane and not germane to the discussion. Of course Mr Trump is the subject of multiple court cases. It is the only tool the Dems have. The fact that these cases exist does not prove that they are substantive. In fact, you guys are going to lose these and end up with the jurisdiction of district judges defined. They will no longer be able to issue nationwide injunctions. You are like a kid playing basketball who screams continuously that he has been fouled. No, you haven’t. Come back in a year and let’s discuss how your lawfare has failed.
15 MILLION UNVETTED LET IN FROM 150 Different countries(many our enemies) is not an invasion??? We have NO idea who these people are!! DF GEORGE!!!
MAY ALL ILLEGALS INVADE GEORGE’S HOME!!!!???
BREAKING: A federal judge (Biden nominee) has just ordered US astronauts rescued by Elon Musk back into space.
Dolphins give Judge the flipper.
____________________________________
Attribution: Proud American.
OK, Number 6 – I did it!
Boeing Once? Boeing Twice? Uh, No!!!
A Parody Song by Squeeky Fromm
(To The Tune of Gilligans Island)
Just sit right back and you’ll hear about
A tale of an epic fail!
Two astronauts, they lifted off,
Into a year-long Hell!
Into a year-long Hell!
One of the astronauts was, “Butch” –
(That’s not a gender slur!)
This was his fourth time into space,
For just a ten-day tour.
Just a ten-day tour!
Sunita, was the second one,
A practicing Hindu –
A veteran of nine space walks,
So this was nothing new!
This was nothing new!
They lifted off aboard a craft,
Starliner by Boeing –
They made it to the ISS,
It was not easy going!
Was not easy going!
See, Boeing practiced DEI!
And this they did not know!
Once in the cold vacuum of space,
The cracks began to show!
Cracks began to show!
For Boeing tried to hire folks,
Who were not males, or whites –
They went for women, blacks and gays,
And silly transvestites!
Silly transvestites!
The lady who worked on the seal –
Was black with a blonde ‘fro –
Some hair glue dripped off of her wig
To the Teflon below!
The Teflon below!
The chemicals in the hair glue
They bonded with the seal!
With temperatures below zero,
It’s a Big Fvcking Deal!
A Big Fvcking Deal!
Because of this, the thrusters failed,
Five of twenty-eight!
Maneuvering was jeopardized,
Things were not looking great!
Were not looking great!
A tranny worked on propulsion –
The Helium system.
Preoccupied with its pronouns,
It preferred They and Them!
Preferred They and Them!
They thought their voice was way too low,
So, maybe on a whim?
They tapped the tank, and they withdrew,
Two quarts of helium!
Two quarts of helium!
They breathed the Helium, and then,
Sounded like Bugs Bunny!
They or Them – just pick whichever!
Thought that it was funny!
Thought that it was funny!
Sooo, then they tapped six other tanks,
Up and down the unit!
They withdrew lots of Helium,
Not caring it would ruin it!
Not caring it would ruin it!
The supervisor of these twits,
Was gay, and into flings!
Loved surfing Grindr on the net,
Instead of checking things!
Instead of checking things!
So this is why the Starliner,
Was Lost up there in Space!
Diversity and equity
Makes Merit, Second Place.
Merit, Second Place!
Sooo, let’s Thank God for Trump and Musk,
And Space X Dragon too!
For being smart and rescuing!
Both of the Crew Nine two!
Both of the Crew Nine two!
Let this be a lesson as to
DEI reliance!
Boeing Woke means Boeing Broke, and
That ain’t Rocket Science!
That ain’t Rocket Science!
@Squeeky
This is where it gets tricky: I too, disavow DEI based on principle (equality vs. manufactured ‘equity’ in the realm of human beings). But I am not a racist like you have demonstrably been in these pages for years. Your justification is not my justification and we had better not conflate the two. 🤷🏻♂️ I want nothing to do with you or your ideas, and I’m sad we voted for the same side in November, as you only prove the detractors right. Grow up.
James – you are constantly calling those you disagree with racist. But you do not provide any actual evidence to support that.
Are each of use expected to go through ever post of those you target looking for hints of racism or just take your word for it ?
I do see evidence of actual racism here occasionally – but it is almost entirely from those on the left pushing nonsense that the world can be made better by discriminating against people because someone with the same skin color almost two centuries ago might have owned slaves.
If you have followed Prof. Gates geneology show – enormous numbers of blacks have ancestors that owned slaves. In many cases black ancestors that owned black or indian slaves.
Regardless if you wish to end discriminationb based on race – then stop discriminating based on race.
@John
No, I’ve seen Squeeky’s comments for some time, it isn’t random or a reaction, and it was before you started posting.
She disappeared for a good long while and is now back, and it saddens me that such folks feel somehow emboldened now when what we had was in my opinion, a populist victory. I disapproved of DEI because it isn’t fair; had nothing to do with ethnicity or cultural background. You needn’t agree with me.
I appreciate your knowledge and salience, i certainly appreciate your thoroughness, it’s why I read this site everyday, so thank you. But understand that I am not speaking from a triggered place. I legitimately disagree with her premise of a mindset, and Floyd’s. I appreciate you taking the time.
Clearly I have stated my case, I can cease now. You all decide for yourselves. I love this space, and I am always open to dialectic. We have that in spades here, in spite of the trolls. What a gift.
What exactly, do you think my “mindset” is? I think that I am a Realist.
NTM that it was humor, and political parody humor at that. Such humor has traditionally been given wide latitude in regard to disregarding the conventional borders of good taste to make a point.
When it comes to good taste, I am probably a few seasonings short of having any.
Oh, Bite Me!!!
Squeaky, I thought it was a brilliant takedown of DEI. I’m not concerned with your inner motivations, I judge your intellect by what it produces.
Even though I disapprove of racism, two points are relevant to me: (1) I believe in assuming an innocent explanation where reasonably possible for the statements made (a/k/a the judgment of charity), and I believe your takedown is a realistic critique of the evils of DEI; and (2) nobody died and made me the racism police, which is not a role I have volunteered for.
(The mindless left-wing tripe police? That’s a different story, haha)
Hi Oldman!!! I am glad you liked it! I am going to leave work in about 30 minutes, and I am going to skip Wednesday Night Prayer Service. (and the cheap, but good hamburgers!) So, I will probably write more comments tonight. After I slop the dogs, and check on the chickens.
Squeeky – My son is unfortunately ill today (worry not, he is on the mend), so I won’t be taking him to youth group . . . I’ll look for the fruits of your creative talents.
Uncle Henry
*Sqeeky (my bad)
-OMFK
@James: There is a way to determine whether what someone wrote is racist or not: ask. Squeeky is meaningful and edgy; sometimes, she says things that cause a shiver down my spine. Is that her being racist, or is it my own inhibitions causing the anxiety that may not be justified? We’ve become conditioned to search for racism everywhere. And in doing so, we’re paying the price for being so compliant to those who seek to control us by instilling fear.
Hi SM!!! I am sorry that I send shivers down your spine!!! I just say what I think, and what I think a lot of people are afraid to say. It seems to me like most people, particularly white people, think if they don’t say anything, all the problems will just disappear or something. But they won’t. All around us, our cities and towns and malls and schools are dying, and it will not magically stop.
Let’s all express our thoughts freely. This is the path to true clarity.
“It’s [Merit] That Matters.”
– Randy Newman
Great parody as usual! Thanks!
“I was critical of the actions of the John Marshall Law School at the University of Illinois (Chicago) as inimical to both free speech and academic freedom.”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
Profane and obscene language is boorish, impolite, and fully constitutional; it may not be codified as illegal.
Quoting profane language to establish a legal or academic point is constitutional and legal.
The John Marshall Law School at the University of Illinois (Chicago) must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for conducting criminal lawfare, frivolous prosecution, malicious prosecution, and defamation.
The freedom of speech must be enjoyed reasonably and may not be fundamentally transformed into an illegal disturbance of the peace.
The Black Law Students Association is not dissimilar to and is as utterly racist as the NAACP, BLM et al. and the KKK and must be prosecuted for such by John Marshall Law School at the University of Illinois (Chicago).
Forced busing, affirmative action, quotas, DEI, grade inflation, public housing*, Obamacare et al. are invalid, illegitimate, illegal, and unconstitutional.
All forms and modes of affirmative action, quotas, and grade inflation must be prosecuted by John Marshall Law School at the University of Illinois (Chicago).
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
* AI Overview
In 2023, approximately 48% of public housing households were Black [ ~ 12% of the general population].
The use of derogatory profanity was unnecessary.
Collage level test or not.
The two words that have gone by the wayside and value sidelined in today’s society:
derogatory /dəˈräɡəˌtôrē/ adjective
and
profanity /prəˈfanədē/ noun
Sure, go ahead and use words that fit these meanings in the name of Freedom of Speech.
But don’t expect to be respected with their use (or hold a Job).
There are plenty of other ways the Professor could have used to convey the same objective.
Alas the Professor doesn’t deserve his job because he is not smart enough to use other ways to convey the subject matter.
“He didn’t think before He wrote” is not an excuse, it is a symptom that He’s not very smart after all.
Have you spoken to him and asked him why he used the words instead of a generalized description that “profanity was used in the meeting to describe the plaintiff”?
I wouldn’t conclude, before hearing his explanation, that he lacked a valid educational purpose. If you do know his specific reasons, please do share.
It’s called: Having Good “Manners”, something that is reflective in ones Character and in the Teaching profession one must be exemplary. There were many ways to provide the example he wished to convey, however how he chose to do it was not in good manners nor professional. His method should not be construed to be the contemporary standards. His position is to set contemporary standards in the Teaching (Civil Procedure II course). It is a shame that College settings have abandon the standard of having Good Manners.
Unless of course you are in the Camp that the Course be renamed as: Profane Procedures II course.
At the least, He could have been familiar with or googled the: List of ethnic slurs (to avoid).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs
Look, some People don’t understand ‘manners’. I have seen it across the spectrum of humanity. Rearing has much to do with it, but it is not an excuse. Class (being a classy person) is not something that can be taught, it is a learned behaviorism (good manners) that conveys the Person’s respect and regard for Other’s personages. I understand Trump is a pretty classy Guy, as I imagine his Kids are, Martha Stewart, how’d you like to be her daughter? pretty classy Gal I bet. It doesn’t mean that the Social-Set you come from \produces an Individual of a Good Character or Good Manners, there are a number of Preppy People that are just down right Mean & Rude. It’s just something that They learned and wanted to be recognized for. Some learn it to ‘over-come’ the accident of their birth. Others learn it because it enhances their lives.
It’s that about a Person that makes them socially-redeeming to Society, regardless of their proclivity.
Bottom line is that it is important to abide by Good Manners if you truly want to be successful in life.
Jonathan here strikes me as a pretty classy Guy, even though He hails from Chicagoland and is a Bears fan. His post are exemplary, with a good command of the english language on par with William F. Buckley Jr., and the missives remain socially-redeeming.
I’ve got your “Good Taste” right here (pulling down pants zipper). For good measure, after perusing your comment, my conclusion is that you are a fvcking idiot.
I don’t conclude he lacked good manners. He did blank-out most of the words, which I think was a courtesy. But by referring to the use of those words on the part of a bad guy, I’m not seeing how he breached a social convention. His question clearly portrayed the person using them as the bad guy. Furthermore – and this is important to understand – in applying the law so much rides on the exact details of the case. If he had phrased it in a generalized manner, the legal points he was trying to get the students to see might have been obscured. They could answer on their exams, “It depends on the exact words used; if the words were ____ and ___, then Legal Principle A would apply, but if they were ___ and ___, Legal Principle B would apply.” He may have been trying to give clarity so as to avoid that type of confusion.
Additionally, one thing about law school is that the teaching is necessarily somewhat gritty to prepare students for the next 40 years of what they will actually deal with. They study all sorts of terrible situations and how the law should apply to those situations. This was pretty mild compared to the cases I and my fellow students dealt with during my time in law school. An analogy can be made to medical school: the students must face gritty and terrible injuries and diseases in order to train for what they will face.
Bottom line: I agree that good manners are important, but this example, with the words being almost 100% blanked out (as indicated by the “[sic]” Professor Turley used) – on its face it doesn’t strike me as bad manners in a law school setting. Even if I thought it might be bad manners, to reach that conclusion I believe it would be necessary to let the professor give an explanation of why he decided to phrase the question that way.
Re: oldmanfromkansas
I follow your thought along (and liked your Medical School analogy), I don’t know Kilborn personally, but even if his chosen speech was used to instill efficacy into the situational Exam Question, it is a Civil Procedures course, not a Civil Rights or Employment Law course. The Teacher Student relationship commands respect in both directions.
(“… Furthermore – and this is important to understand – in applying the law so much rides on the exact details of the case …”)
Classroom decorum may be suspended on a case-by-case basis but at-least it be held in a manner that achieves the objective.
How did the Test Question apply to Civil Procedures in this Exam?
Re: Civil Procedures (Googled ~ AI Overview)
Civil procedure encompasses the rules and regulations courts follow when adjudicating civil lawsuits, distinct from criminal proceedings, and governs how a lawsuit is commenced, what pleadings are allowed, and the process for trials and judgments.
If Kilborn’s aim was to have the Students explain the ‘step and rules’ of the Women’s case as it wound through the Administrative Law maze or through the Appellate System,
then Exam Question need not contain the derogatory expletives contained within the pretext. Kilborn could have found a suitable prose that would have maintained the Teacher Student relationship. He failed.
–
oldmanfromkansas: My reply is late, however I noticed a subsequent comment by:
Karen S says: ~ March 19, 2025 at 5:20 PM
” I’m curious if most rap music causes momentous distraction to those same students? It’s rare to find a song in that genre that doesn’t use both of those words, repeatedly. Yet they were traumatized by encountering that language on an exam in law school, that outlined a particular case? ”
(Karen’s Correct) If Kilborn was merely attempting to be ‘Contemporary’ in the parlance of our time, He should have still reasoned that the ‘Purpose of His being there’ was to advance the Students education and uplift their’ ‘BEING’. Students that come through these Law School(s) are assumed to be ‘refined’ by the sheer fact that they are holding the Sheep Skin. You and I fully understand that the reality is different and some Moot Case legal examples may press the envelope to prepare the Student for actual practice, however the Institution is held to delivering a ‘quality product’. And Institutions today are somehow lagging in said delivery of that Quality (e.g.: Diploma Mills)
Last Note: I do not think you would have found that Exam Question posed on the Bar Exam today.
Wait Wait one more: Want to Make America Great Again – Learn to use Good Manners.
# Just do what Harvard does! All racial slurs are about whitey. The hillbilly inbred are actually used racial slurs by professors in lectures! The children LOVE it! They’ve learned to hate whitey and Christians.
^^^^ Good manners, anon? You must be kidding. I’ll tell the next racist it just needs better manners…smh
#74. Ya, Hamas could profit from that good manners speech, mam.
#74. Kilborn used the censored version on the test- n word b word versions. I presume it was an actual case of a woman quitting her job?
It’s of public interest. The Black law student discussing the offense with Kilborn did so for 4 hours and then misconstrued another comment by Kilborn and reported it.
It was far cheaper to.punish kilborn than pay out by offended students in a civil case.
The appeal went well for Kilborn. Could kilborn have changed the slur to “hillbilly” and “mama June” or “wetback” and “illegal aliens “? I suppose but the public interest and the actual case weighed more heavily for Kilborn.
Reality is people use profanity. It hurts.
^^ #74. It really all goes back to little BB and her desire to be included in BLM doesn’t it? Time out, no drawing, intimidation, compelled thoughts…oh no, no, our institution doesn’t support those cocoon little people. We support only you and civil lawsuits are censorship, long lived lawsuits filing and more filing… millions and millions.
The woman in the test question quit her job? Yes, no one will work there eventually. Get another job and move
out . File a notarized complaint in appropriate places. Keep a copy in Switzerland.
#74. The whole test question is needed, Professor Turley.
Yes, yes, ALWAYS get away from racial slurs . The job isn’t worth it but some need to eat and stay. Racial slurs are very very dangerous. The most dangerous are those you never hear.
Hillbilly, mama June, wetbacks, etc are very dangerous. They seek revenge.
Opinion! Irrelevant and immaterial.
________________________________________
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,….
_______________________________________________________________________
No level of government or public organization shall abridge the freedom of speech; in the case of private property, only the owner may “claim and exercise” dominion.
This was a law school – the left claims that such racist language is prevalent in the real world and needs to be stamped out in the real world.
If that is the case than law school students need to be prepared to have to deal with language like this in their jobs as lawyers.
My wife is a public defender – many of her clients are sex offenders. Pretty much all of them are from the dregs of society. The language in question is tame compared to what she encounters everyday.
The law is no place for snowflakes.
Law school is to prepare you for the real world.
This was a civil procedures exam. I would guess the question was addressing workplace discrimination lawsuits.
#74. I’d like to read the whole test question, too.
On Tuesday, the U.S. president took to his truth Social platform to announce to the world an agreement with Putin, “… we agreed to an immediate Ceasefire on all Energy and Infrastructure, with an understanding that we will be working quickly to have a Complete Ceasefire and, ultimately, an END to this very horrible War between Russia and Ukraine.”
Less than an hour later, Putin’s invading military launched an assault on power grid in Slovyansk combined with a fresh and massive air attack on civilian targets in Ukraine that resulted in crippling a hospital in the Ukrainian city of Sumy.
Putin played Trump like a fiddle, offering him platitudes and the mirage of a small concession, which Trump rushed to announce to the world as a great diplomatic breakthrough.
Now Trump looks like a sucker, a man easily fooled by promises.
You didn’t provide a link to support the insinuation that the attack occurred after the agreed-to cease fire went into effect.
And you’re so giddy about it because people are dying but you get a talking point so to you it’s worth it. Your glee comes through your words. You sick, depraved person.
“All we are saying, is give [WAR] a chance.”
– John Lennon
https://nypost.com/2025/03/19/world-news/russia-and-ukraine-report-air-attacks-after-putin-trump-call/
ATS – while you are not a credible source, if as you claim Putin “played” Trump – then he is playing with fire – and probably knows it.
One of the reasons that the US is negotiating this peace deal – is that Ukraine has no power to negotiate – they can either give Putin what he wants or keep dying and slowly lose their country.
What little leverage Ukraine has is primarily because of the US.
All the carrots and all the sticks come from the US.
I would separately quote I beleive it is General Kellog – “Putin does not play games, Putin does not bluff”
It is because Bush, Obama, and Biden did not grasp that that Putin has repeatedly invaded other countries to fullfill his promises to respond if the US or NATO did something that Russi felt was a threat.
Putin did not invade a neighbor while Trump was president – because Trump took Putin at his word and Putin took Trump at his.
If there is to be a peace deal – that will be the basis for it.
According to “Radio Free Europe” you are wrong: “The US, EU, and other allies have spent over $287 billion in total on supporting Ukraine since just before Russia launched its full-scale invasion in 2022, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy think tank.
The United States is the single largest donor to Ukraine, having provided over $122 billion in financial, humanitarian, and military assistance.
EU member states, and the European Commission, combined have spent around the same amount — $121.87 billion — as the United States between January 2022 and December 2024.
But these figures change when assistance to refugees is included.
The EU has spent an additional $131 billion to support Ukrainian refugees, according to the Kiel Institute. Some 4.4 million Ukrainian refugees currently reside in the EU, according to the United Nations.
That would put the total EU assistance to Ukraine, including refugees forced to flee the country, at over $251 billion.
This estimate is based on refugee costs from the OECD’s International Migration Outlook report that was published in October 2022. Many EU countries have since reduced financial support to Ukrainian refugees.
A significant proportion of Ukrainian refugees in the EU work and contribute to state budgets. In Poland, the employment rate among Ukrainian refugees is estimated to be around 65 percent.”
So, no –“all the carrots and sticks ” do NOT come from the US. And, please stop repeating the Trump campaign lie, repeated by MAGA media, that Joe Biden’s “weakness” is somehow responsible for Russia attacking Ukraine and that it would not have happened if the orange moron’s cheating worked in 2020. That lie is all part of the phony Trump persona that he’s some kind of master dealmaker who is feared and respected–that’s not true either here or abroad–the rest of the world sees Trump for the bloviating, blustering lying narcissist he is. Putin believed that Trump had so alienated our EU and NATO allies that an effective resistance could not be mounted–he was dead wrong. Because Biden is so well-respected abroad, he pulled together our allies to impose sanctions against Russia and NATO is now stronger than ever before, with Finland and Sweden joining.
Trump took away most of the things Biden put in place to put pressure on Russia–like taking away weapons and intel assistance from Ukraine (which were later reinstated), but he backed off of the sanctions that were hobbling Russia. These things were working. Putin is playing Trump because as ex-KGB, he knows an idiot when he sees one.
“[THE USURPATION AND EXTREME AND EGREGIOUS, PARTIAL AND POLITICAL ACTS OF JUDGES ARE PROTECTED.]”
– CHEAP JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS
I really don’t understand why anyone is burdening themselves with this level of debt anymore when this is what they are getting for their trouble, at a time when more and more employers are aware of the dissonance and unlikely to take certain graduates on.
I’m happy for the victory, but this will not change without further marginalization or radicalism and insanity at all levels. This means employers, too. We have to show in no uncertain terms that ‘degrees’ from these institutions were just very expensive pieces of meaningless paper. Demand excellence employers, and invest in those who have the potential for it, not these whiny children.
I would take a state college or even a community college over an Ivy League in a heartbeat today, and even that comes with a great many caveats. It’s broken, top to the very bottom.
Many of the employers that value radicalized law school grads with dubious critical thinking skills are the NGOs and other organizations (eg, Legal Services) funded with taxpayer dollars, which are now under scrutiny for possible paring back or elimination. You can guess why they are hating on Musk.
@oldman
No disagreement here; we are dealing in opposition to freedom with an un-elected globalist regime. They are not going to simply relent, and their tendrils have been allowed to wrap around much here since 2008.
Thank God we are the only country on earth with our protections. I am anxious for all of the activist judges’ interference to go to SCOTUS and be slapped down once and for all, thus setting federal precedent. The modern left has no idea the can of worms they have opened, or how it will further diminish them in a truly free country.
It’s absurd to be having this conversation past 1776, but here we are, with the modern left still espousing discrimination, segregation, and basically every other losing issue that has plagued them since the days of Napoleon right on through the civil rights or 2008 recession eras.
Why would anyone apply, or choose to attend if accepted, the UIC Law School if the law school administrators there cannot correctly interpret case law or the U.S. Constitution?
You’d be better off at U of Chicago Law or its east coast branch office, George Mason a/k/a Antonin Scalia Law School in Arlington, VA. The faculties at those law schools, unlike most others, are not left-wing lunatics and you will get a better legal education.
If you’re a VA resident the latter is particularly recommended as you will get deeply discounted tuition rates (it is a state school).
@Vincente
Honestly, some of these fools still believe in the name recognition, particularly the wealthy from overseas.
The aristocracy isn’t going to suddenly stop thinking it is elevated. It’s why I frequently say, ‘Robespierre 2.0′. They honestly think the are inherently better, and you should just recognize it by the letters on the form or the money they paid. 🤷🏻♂️ It is unfortunately, not any deeper than that.
We are dealing with mental midgets in academia in 2025, all the way around, top to bottom. I do not have kids in college, but if I did, I would admit that fact with embarrassment, so little are modern grads’ contributions to anything whatsoever but their own, personal indulgences.