We previously discussed how the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) elected an outspoken activist as its president. The selection of Todd Wolfson, a Rutgers University anthropologist, was viewed by many as the AAUP doubling down on support for academic activism and opposition to intellectual diversity. Now the leading AAUP publication, Academe, has run ‘Seven Theses Against Viewpoint Diversity.’ Written by Lisa Siraganian, the J. R. Herbert Boone Chair in Humanities and professor at Johns Hopkins University, the essay repeats the tired rationalizations of faculty members to excuse their purging of schools of dissenting and largely conservative or libertarian voices.
In my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss these arguments to justify the current levels of intolerance and orthodoxy in higher education. Siraganian’s essay is particularly transparent in the effort to dismiss opposing views without seriously addressing the range of objections to the current state of academia.
Siraganian focuses on the effort of the Trump Administration to force universities to restore greater diversity in faculty hiring and teaching. I opposed some of those efforts. While I agree with the need for such changes on faculties (and do not believe that faculty members like Siraganian will ever embrace diversity of thought), I do not like the government dictating such changes.
For liberals, it is impossible to deny the purging of faculties to create an academic echo chamber.
I discuss the intolerance in higher education and surveys showing that many departments no longer have a single Republican as faculty members replicate their own views and values.
That ideological echo chamber is hardly an enticement for many who are facing rising high tuition costs with relatively little hope of being taught by faculty with opposing views.
There are obviously many reasons why faculty may reject Trump specifically, but this poll also tracks more generally the self-identification and contributions of faculty.
A Georgetown study recently found that only nine percent of law school professors identify as conservative at the top 50 law schools — almost identical to the percentage of Trump voters found in the new poll.
There is little evidence that faculty members are interested in changing this culture or creating greater diversity at schools. In places like North Carolina State University a study found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans 20 to 1.
Not long ago, I had a debate at Harvard Law School with Professor Randall Kennedy on whether Harvard protects free speech and intellectual diversity.
Harvard has repeatedly found itself in a familiar spot on the annual ranking of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE): dead last among 251 universities and colleges.
Harvard has long dismissed calls for greater free speech protections or intellectual diversity. It shows.
The Harvard Crimson has documented how the school’s departments have virtually eliminated Republicans. In one study of multiple departments last year, they found that more than 75 percent of the faculty self-identified as “liberal” or “very liberal.”
Only 5 percent identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”
Consider that, according to Gallup, the U.S. population is roughly equally divided among conservatives (36%), moderates (35%), and liberals (26%).
So Harvard has three times the number of liberals as the nation at large, and less than three percent identify as “conservative’ rather than 35% nationally.
Among law school faculty who have donated more than $200 to a political party, a breathtaking 91 percent of the Harvard faculty gave to democrats.
The student body exhibits the same biased selection. Harvard Crimson previously found that only 7 percent of incoming students identified as conservative. For the vast majority of liberal faculty and students, Harvard amplifies rather than stifles their viewpoints.
This does not happen randomly. Indeed, if a business reduced the number of women or minorities to less than 5 percent, a court would likely find de facto discrimination.
Yet, Kennedy rejected the notion that the elite school should strive to “look more like America.”
It is not just that schools like Harvard “do not look like America,” it does not even look like liberal Massachusetts, which is almost 30 percent Republican.
Our students are being educated by faculty taken from the same liberal elite of just 26 percent of our nation. I have never argued for the hiring of Republicans or the imposition of a partisan quota. Rather, the surveys and self-identification of faculty are one of the few objective means to show how lopsided the ideological balance has become in our schools.
Some sites like Above the Law have supported the exclusion of conservative faculty. Senior Editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” by arguing that hiring a conservative law professor is akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism to teach at a university.
Unable to deny this ideological cleansing of departments, faculty are creating a rationalization for their ideological bias. They declare opposing views as “dangerous” or intellectually lazy.
Notably, Siraganian argues that intellectual diversity can only be defended on “instrumental” grounds. My book criticized “functionalist” or instrumental arguments as rejecting core free speech values based on natural or autonomous values. Adopting functionalist models allows for endless trade-offs in speech.
The same is true for intellectual diversity. Intellectual diversity is not supported as a value in itself but only to the extent that it advances what faculty like Siraganian view as the truth or valid conclusions. Even if one were to confine support for intellectual diversity to its instrumental values, these advocates downplay the value of ideological diversity as key to any institution of higher education. She dismisses such claims, saying that “the pursuit of truth and the value of different opinions—do not work together seamlessly.”
The result, however, is the virtual jettisoning of real diversity. Higher education is currently “seamless” in running from the left to the far left.
I have spoken with various university presidents who privately admit that they want greater intellectual diversity but that departments refuse to make serious efforts to restore such balance. The AAUP and Siraganian are examples of why faculty members will not willingly diversify their ranks. They are now rationalizing their bias and intolerance through righteous rationalizations, claiming they are simply protecting students from harmful or subpar ideas.
Polling indicates that trust in higher education has hit a record low among the public. More importantly, numerous surveys consistently show that the intolerance of faculty members and the lack of diversity have chilled students, who are afraid to share their views in classrooms or on campuses.
Notably, many of these universities have overwhelmingly liberal faculties and student bodies; however, over 90 percent of students in some schools no longer feel comfortable speaking freely in classrooms. At Harvard, only a third of students feel comfortable speaking freely.
The current generation of faculty and administrators has destroyed higher education by destroying diversity of thought and free speech on our campuses. The effort of the AAUP and faculty like Siraganian to rationalize the basis for this intolerance is evidence of the hold of such bias. Faculty members would prefer to allow higher education to plunge to even lower levels of trust and applications than to allow for greater diversity in their departments.
Once again, we cannot rely on faculty members to restore balance. We will need to focus on donors (as well as public-funding legislative bodies) to withhold money from these departments. Universities will not allow for opposing or dissenting views unless they have little financial choice. In this sense, we need to focus on public universities as the best ground to fight for diversity of thought. These schools, directly subject to First Amendment protections, can offer an alternative to schools like Johns Hopkins and Harvard for those who want to learn in a more diverse environment.
More evidence that I was right to argue in my essay, “Honor Charlie: Ditch Existing Universities,” that most of our present institutions CANNOT be reformed. They must be ditched by the sane 60% of the nation. Ditched entirely. See my substack, Dissident Conservative.
Lisa Siraganian’s essay argues against the idea of “viewpoint diversity” in higher education, particularly as promoted by conservatives and the Trump administration’s Project 2025. She portrays the movement as intellectually inconsistent, politically motivated, and dangerous to academic freedom. From a Conservative Christian Constitutionalist standpoint, her piece reveals the entrenched elitism and ideological blindness of academia toward the principles of free inquiry, limited government, moral truth, and the First Amendment.
1. Viewpoint Diversity and the Constitutional Ideal of Free Speech
The article begins with disdain toward Harvard being asked to “audit for viewpoint diversity.” Siraganian treats this as an authoritarian intrusion. Yet, the Constitutionalist recognizes this request as a defense of the First Amendment’s core principle — the freedom of conscience and expression.
The Founders, such as Madison and Jefferson, believed that open debate was essential to preserving liberty.
When universities become echo chambers of one ideology, they cease to be laboratories of free thought and become instruments of state-approved orthodoxy.
Her hostility toward this audit shows that she views “academic freedom” as the freedom to exclude certain viewpoints — particularly Christian, conservative, or pro-American perspectives — which is the exact inversion of true liberty. The Constitution guarantees that no institution receiving federal funds should suppress lawful expression.
2. The False Dichotomy Between Truth and Diversity
Siraganian’s first thesis claims viewpoint diversity “opposes the pursuit of truth.” This argument is intellectually hollow and morally inverted.
From a Christian worldview, truth is absolute, rooted in God’s revelation, not in man’s academic consensus. Universities that deny divine truth already operate in error. “Viewpoint diversity” does not threaten truth — it creates the space where falsehood can be exposed by truth.
When she compares intellectual diversity to Mao’s “hundred flowers” campaign, she inadvertently admits her fear: true openness would dethrone ideological Marxism and moral relativism from the academy.
A Constitutionalist sees this as a confession that the modern university protects its state-sponsored dogma under the pretense of “truth.” But truth has nothing to fear from competition — only lies do.
3. The Christian Understanding of Truth and Reason
Christian thinkers from Augustine to Calvin to C.S. Lewis affirmed that truth stands independently of human opinion. Viewpoint diversity, properly understood, honors this by allowing competing claims to be tested by evidence and reason.
Siraganian’s reliance on Stanley Fish — who claimed that “truth is local” — reveals the relativism at the heart of her worldview.
But as Christ said, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32).
The idea that truth changes from one “local” context to another destroys the very basis of scholarship and morality.
For the Christian and the constitutionalist alike, truth is objective and discoverable. Diversity of thought helps refine our understanding of it — not replace it.
4. Accusations of Partisanship: Projection, Not Proof
In her third thesis, Siraganian accuses viewpoint diversity of being a partisan ploy to increase conservative representation. This is projection.
Universities today are overwhelmingly dominated by left-wing faculty — by some surveys, a 10-to-1 ratio in humanities departments.
The claim that “the majority are moderates” is not supported by honest observation of campus life, where conservative speech is routinely shouted down, Christian groups are denied recognition, and “safe spaces” exclude anyone who dissents from progressive orthodoxy.
For conservatives, “viewpoint diversity” is not a quota system — it’s a call for fairness, accountability, and intellectual honesty.
A true republic depends on pluralism under the rule of law, not enforced uniformity of thought.
5. Academic Freedom and Its Perverted Redefinition
Siraganian cites Louis Menand to argue that academic freedom includes the “freedom to exclude.” This perversion of academic freedom is precisely why universities are in moral and intellectual decline.
Academic freedom was never meant to protect ideological monopolies; it was meant to shield the search for truth from political coercion.
From a Christian-constitutionalist view:
Academic freedom should serve truth, not protect error.
Scholars are stewards of truth, not priests of ideology.
The freedom to exclude others based on belief is the beginning of tyranny — and contrary to both the spirit of the Gospel and the First Amendment.
When conservative or Christian professors are denied tenure for their beliefs, it is not “disciplinary rigor” — it is discrimination.
6. Misuse of “Bad Faith” and “Authoritarianism”
The author accuses conservatives of “bad faith,” comparing American efforts for intellectual balance to Viktor Orbán’s Hungary.
This comparison is absurd. The Trump administration’s Project 2025, whatever one thinks of it, seeks to restore local control, moral accountability, and intellectual honesty in publicly funded institutions — not to nationalize or censor them.
If anything, the authoritarianism lies with the progressive academic class that silences Christian speech, punishes dissent, and imposes ideological loyalty tests through DEI bureaucracies.
7. The Hypocrisy of the “Diversity” Establishment
Siraganian’s final thesis reveals the ultimate contradiction: she condemns conservatives for using “diversity language,” while admitting that universities worship diversity as a moral good.
This exposes her hypocrisy. The left demands diversity of skin color, gender identity, and sexual orientation, but rejects diversity of thought, faith, and political conviction.
To the Conservative Christian Constitutionalist, this is moral relativism masquerading as virtue.
True diversity recognizes the Imago Dei — the image of God — in every person, and thus welcomes free expression grounded in conscience and reason.
8. The Moral Core of the Issue
At its root, this debate is not about “diversity” but about truth and moral authority.
Siraganian and her ideological allies reject any transcendent moral order. They believe that academia itself defines truth.
But as America’s Founders affirmed, and as the Christian faith declares, truth and rights come from God — not from the state or the university.
When an institution claims to be the final arbiter of truth, it becomes an idol. The call for viewpoint diversity is not an attack on truth; it’s an act of repentance against intellectual idolatry.
9. The Conservative Christian Constitutional Vision
A healthy republic requires:
Freedom of conscience (the right to believe and speak without fear),
Moral accountability (truth rooted in divine law),
Limited government (no federal department dictating ideology),
Equal access to reasoned debate (no exclusion of dissenting voices).
Viewpoint diversity is therefore not an “attack on academia” but a restoration of its moral purpose — to seek truth under God, guided by reason and humility.
Conclusion
Lisa Siraganian’s essay is a polished defense of intellectual elitism disguised as scholarship. It exposes the modern university’s fear of scrutiny, its hostility to the Christian worldview, and its denial of objective truth.
From a Conservative Christian Constitutionalist standpoint:
Her argument collapses under its own contradictions.
Her vision of academic freedom is actually freedom from accountability to truth.
Her dismissal of “viewpoint diversity” confirms that the academy has become the very monoculture of thought it denies.
In the end, “viewpoint diversity” is not the enemy of truth — it is the oxygen that keeps truth alive in a free society under God.
PDJT has nothing to do with Project 2025.
Amen! Well Said!
The concept missing from this column is “power”. The left has power in academia, virtually a monopoly on power, and will rationalize to no end to maintain it.
After seeing Siraganian’s face, it’s apparent she embraced the left’s “brutalism” design fully.
Prof. Turley states, ‘Unable to deny this ideological cleansing of departments, faculty are creating a rationalization for their ideological bias. They declare opposing views as “dangerous” or intellectually lazy.’ What these departments and faculty fail to realize is that it would be that intellectual diversity, that would make them more intellectually “rigorous”, however, it is they, themselves who have become “intellectually lazy” as they refuse to debate or sharpen their own understanding. I wonder how many of them, were they to debate those of other viewpoints would find that their own viewpoints are resting on intellectual quicksand, and would have to change, and that is the main reason (I think) they refuse to be intellectually challenged.
The Leftist academic guild claims that it is “simply protecting students from harmful or subpar ideas.”
Suppose you’re teaching an ethics course, and are now covering the section titled “determinism.” You use phrenology as an example. That is clearly a “harmful or subpar” idea.
And it is your professional responsibility to teach that idea objectively. You job is not to propagandize students with whatever you regard as beneficial or above-par ideas. An *educational* institution is not a church or a bully pulpit.
So let me get this straight. The very people that created the whole concept of diversity, equity and inclusion actually oppose diversity and inclusion of views they don’t like?
Exactly. They do the opposite of what they preach. Their champions (politicians) are the new class of millionaire communists.
They’re all nuts.
The good news is, the whole concept of diversity, equity, and inclusion enjoys no legal basis in the Constitution.
Now all Americans have to do is get the memo to the Supreme Court.
Technically, those who oppose Diversity and Inclusion are the ones begging to be Included to make the system more Diverse.
Practically, the Marketplace of Ideas is subject to the same pressures as any other market and, for the most part, conservatism doesn’t do well in the academic sales environment. If there is a huge pent-up demand for conservative teaching then there should be ample opportunity to create conservative colleges and universities and they should be very successful. The largest, Liberty University, accepts about 99% of all applicants. Either they are very lucky with the applicants or their threshold is very low or it’s because it has online classes and accepts a large drop-out rate because they don’t need to scale the teaching staff to match the student enrollment.
Honestly, the conservative ideas aren’t very diverse anyway. They seem to mainly revolve around topics like “Why do I have to pay taxes for services I don’t use” and “Why would I help people when no one helped me (pick out which color Mustang my parents bought me for high school graduation)?” Some of it is traceable to the Puritan ethic, but without the Puritan notion of self control. At some point, the constant repetition of “Me, me, me” that is the core of conservatism is mind numbing.
And it is so weird. Conservatives like to say “Lincoln freed the slaves.” Well, the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves held in the Confederacy, during the war, when the Confederates were in no mood to follow it; and it excluded the slaves in towns and ports that the Union had captured – it didn’t free those slaves who were forced to work for the Union.
Mainly it was an economic gimmick to try to pull the labor out from the enemy side, not a moral imperative because freedom was so important. So weak was the Proclamation that it was months after the war ended that Texas finally got around to mentioning to their slaves that they were free. And to prove just how morally wrong it was, the slave holders got paid compensation for the loss of the slave-labor work-camp humans that they had been exploiting, in exchange for not continuing terrorist tactics. At least not so much. The slaves got nothing.
So I take it from your worthless diatribe you went to one of these “elite” universities. And conservatives don’t need new thinking because our thinking is based on Christian thought and proof. Truth doesn’t change no matter how much the godless left rails against it
‘The current generation of faculty and administrators has destroyed higher education by destroying diversity of thought and free speech on our campuses.’
They have. A modern degree is very expensive toilet paper. Prospective employers should bear this in mind.
Verifying you are human. This may take a few days.
If conservative faculty are being purged, or not hired because of their political views, then where are these people ????
The conservatives, especially the MAGA wing, are certainly not shy about voicing their grievances, if the regulars on this blog are to go by..
Turley would have us believe that conservatives are being purged or rejected for faculty positions by the thousands, and yet these mysterious people are apparently going silently into the night never to be heard from again.
Where are these people???
Why are they not complaining???
Why are they not running to Fox and the other conservative outlets to complain ???
Why are they not suing for reinstatement ????
Perhaps the answer is that these people do not exist except in the addled minds of MAGA.
Perhaps this is just a convenient ploy to keep the MAGA mob agitated and for Turley to sell more books.
They simple do not want to become the next Target(s)
Out of sight, Out of Mind (and Crosshairs – R.I.P. Charlie Kirk)
Anonymous: thank you. MAGA exaggeration about the alleged alienation of “conservatives” on university faculty is just like the outrageous hyperbole over the ceasefire and return of 20 live hostages–both of which are good things, but the situation needs to be put into perspective. There have been at least two previous cease fires–that didn’t hold, BTW, and over 170 hostages were freed under Biden. Whether this ceasefire holds remains to be seen. A “ceasefire” is NOT a peace agreement–someone should explain this to Trump. A “ceasefire” only means that Israel has agreed to stop bombing for awhile–a peace agreement means that Israel agrees to never bomb Palestine again–it hasn’t agreed to that. Israel has bombed Gaza back to the Stone Age and killed over 60,000 Palestinian civilians. There is no place left for people to live. It also has refused to allow in food, water or medical supplies that have been sitting on trucks outside the border while people starve–which are human rights violations. Nevertheless, Trump made his usual grandiose over-the-top claims about the dawn of some new era in the Middle East, all thanks to him, as if Egypt, NATO, France and other countries didn’t play a substantial role, and as if both sides weren’t ready to agree to a cease fire and return of hostages whether Trump was involved or not. Trump lies and exaggerates so much, no one can believe anything he says. He is demanding his Nobel Peace Prize and lied about this year’s winner saying he really deserved it instead of her–all she did was “dedicate” it to him–she didn’t say he deserved it more–more hyperbole and outright lies driven by Trump’s pathetic ego. What’s it been–3 or 4 days of a ceasefire? The really hard work is yet to come, and there’s the rub. Like all people, the Palestinian people want self-rule. They want Israel to get out of the West Bank, and they don’t want Israel involved running their government. They want their country rebuilt. Israel wants to be in control, and Netanyahu wants to avoid the criminal prosecution that has been on hold by trying to be some kind of tough guy. Starving women and children isn’t the stuff of a “tough guy”. This is the hard stuff–and that’s why there isn’t some “new era in the Middle East” right now–just a ceasefire and return of 20 hostages along with the remains of the deceased.
OMG! MAYbe it IS true that giggles and georgie are the same person! CAN TWO DIFFERENT BEINGS SPIN SUCH IGNORANT TALES?
Dated October 2025:
“7. Bottom line for someone asking “how many hostages were released by the Biden administration?”
Based solely on the provided reporting, the accurate public statement is that the Biden administration secured at least one high-profile American release (Edan Alexander) and was involved in diplomatic activity connected to hostage negotiations, while other releases occurred that are reported but not consistently credited to U.S. actions in the supplied sources [1] [2] [3]
https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/biden-administration-gaza-hostage-release-fbb934
Israel has bombed Gaza back to the Stone Age and killed over 60,000 Palestinian civilians.
Hey! That reminds us of the first day when it became a war between armed sides, instead of one sided hajji Arab butchery of babies and unarmed civilians on Oct 7th! You assured us that Israel bombed a hospital and killed 570 Arab/”Palestinian” civilians! I remember you serving as a Hamas spokesman that day! Here’s the headline you provided:
Israel-Palestine war: Israel bombs Gaza hospital killing at least 500
News | Israel’s genocide in Gaza
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-palestine-war-gaza-army-bombs-hospital-killing
You never did come back to apologize to everybody here when we learned a day later that the Hamas terrorists you serve as a spokesman for screwed up with one of their terrorist rockets and hit their own hospital, not the Israeli civilians they fired that terrorist rocket at.
You hoped people not paying attention would still blame Israel for your Hamas terrorist friends killing Gaza civilians.
Now you’re back again as one of the Democrats’ New Hitler Youth Movement members (almost certainly from one of the universities who have almost completely purged conservatives), returning to give us more civilian casualty figures from the Arab terrorists in Hamas (the ones who cosplay as being “Palestinians”, although there never was such a country, a culture, etc).
They’ve confirmed for you that this time, as their Hamas spokesman, you’re to announce that the Israelis killed 60,000 civilians in their response to the Hamas/”Palestinian” butchery of Oct 7th.
Not a single one of the dead were one of the Hamas terrorists, according to this New Hitler Youth Hamas spokesman!
Not a single one of the dead civilians was killed by one of Hamas’ terrorists for crimes like attempting to get food brought to Gaza by Israel!
Not a single one of the dead civilians died of lack of food and/or water because Hamas terrorists took it all for themselves (have yet to see a picture of a skinny Arab Hamas terrorist)
Yes, if you want to get the straight goods on Hamas, casualty figures, how evil the Jews are – and of course Trump – there’s nobody better to get your information from than one of the university Bolshevik Birthing Boyz whose Furry friends said they look sexy dressed up in their New Hitler Youth Movement costume and their terrorist-signalling Yassar Arafat keffiyeh scarf.
You DO know that your intersectional Hajji Arab friends in Hamas will one way airmail you Tranny Furries from the top of a high rise to the concrete below, as soon as you’re no longer of any value as a Marxist Useful Idiot, don’t you?
Having the same genocidal hatred of Jews isn’t going to save you from what the Quran says they’re supposed to do with you once they get their hands on you.
You are bound by common sense and the rule of law. Gigi is bound by a straitjacket, a locked door, and armed guards.
It sounds like you’ve never been to the Mideast. Israel fought a seven front war and destroyed the bulk of the Iranian military apparatus. They are 8 million and the Iranians are 90 million. Then, the President had the fortitude to bomb Iran (thank you Beach Boys for that).
Biden pulled our troops prematurely out of Afghanistan in a disgraceful show of weakness.
Iran and all its proxies were the bullies in the neighborhood. The Arabs dislike them and the Arab nation in the region despise them. Until they were weakened, nothing could have moved forward. That is why there is a unique consensus among these nations. Iran is diminished for now. I’ve been there. Wonderful people who are controlled by thugs.
You are correct that there will never be true peace because the Jewish nation has returned to their ancestral homeland. There is a widespread, irrational hatred for the Jews.
Hamas are bloodthirsty thugs. They are cowards. They hide behind women and children. They are not men. They are evil. Now, their sugar daddy has been weakened and the Arab nations are tired of them. They are bad for business. They’ll do so damage on their way out. They have terrorized the Gazans for years.
The Clintons at least admitted that the circumstances of this agreement are extraordinary for our time. They had the guts to call balls and strikes instead of being sore losers.
Yesterday was extraordinary and the road ahead is rugged. As JFK said in his Rice University speech, “We chose to go to the moon and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”
It’s already falling apart–Israel claims that all of the dead have not been returned, it has sent drones into Gaza that have killed several Palestinians, and it has closed off one portal of entry for food and medicine and limited others.
Do you imagine that conservative scholars who are passed over for hiring or tenure and promotion are ever told that they were passed over because of their politics? They might suspect it but would never be able to prove it.
If conservative faculty are being purged, or not hired because of their political views, then where are these people?
You claim you can’t see them? Never heard of it before? Terribly narrow tunnel vision for the Bolshevik Birthing Boyz, riding around in the Marxist Democrat Borg!
Here; let me help you down there in the Borg, cuddling up with your Furry Tranny friends. Let’s see if you can get you past your “Nothing To See Here, Please Believe Me, Don’t Believe Your Lying Eyes™”:
POLL: Less than 3% of surveyed Harvard faculty identify as conservative
https://www.campusreform.org/article/poll-less-3-surveyed-harvard-faculty-identify-conservative/23358
Need some additional links to help you with the emotional problems you have with conservatives, separate from those stemming from your gender dysphoria?
How about an example of a university professor of child psychiatry, purged because he disagreed with surgically and chemically castrating young boys like yourself who believe they were Tranny? Well here you go!
Child Psychiatrist Professor Who Criticized Gender Therapy Receives $1.6 Million From University After Firing
https://www.foxnews.com/media/child-psychiatrist-who-criticized-gender-therapy-receives-1-6-million-from-university-after-firing
The University of Louisville has paid nearly $1.6 million to settle a lawsuit brought by a former professor who was fired for criticizing transgender treatments for children experiencing gender dysphoria. Dr. Allan Josephson worked for nearly 15 years as chief of the University of Louisville’s Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology. During his tenure, Josephson was able to turn around the struggling division and received perfect scores in his 2014-2016 annual reviews.
Here’s a thought, confused little Marxist: this professor of child psychology might be able to squeeze in an appointment to treat you… and maybe even a few of your Furry friends!
Even if you’ve gone the surgical and chemical route to make yourself more appealing to other Furries, he still might help you with what little remains of your mind.
But silencing stand-up comedians and political activists is the bees knees.
Here is a question that Professor Lisa S. should be asked, and forced to answer with a yes or no:
“You’ve been rushed by ambulance to a hospital in need of multiple surgeries, having been involved in a serious car accident. You’re awake enough that the best surgical doctor in the country will be your surgeon and you ask who he voted for in the 2024 election. He says ‘Trump.’ You ask if there’s a left-learning doctor available and are told yes, but she’s not highly skilled in the surgery you need and she’s at least an hour or two away.”
What does Lisa do?
She puts her left foot in.
She takes her left foot out
She puts her left foot in, and then she shakes it all about.
Depends upon the depth of her distrust of Trump voters. If it’s all consuming she’d rather die than allow the Trump voter to touch her.
“…that Professor Lisa S. should be asked, and forced to answer with a yes or no: ..”
– that should be compelled to answer yes or no as a Hostile Witness :
Anybody blind enough to believe the lies of Trump or cynical enough to want health care taken away from millions of Americans so that the ultra-wealthy can have bigger tax breaks probably isn’t “the best surgical doctor in the country”–they are NOT altruistic or patriotic. The two things are incompatible for obvious reasons.
Originally, Anonymous said that he and the rest of Biden’s Marxist Furry Tranny men were actually menstruating women.
No, I take that back: first he said that if Obamacare got passed, American families were going to save $2,500 in medical costs each year and everybody would have health care. Not to mention assuring us that if we liked our doctor we could keep them; if we liked our health care plan, we could keep that as well. Both Obama and he promised us that!
But he’s changing his story! Now he’s doubled down to say that millions of criminal Illegal Alien Guest Biden Voters are actually Americans! Americans who will lose their health care they’re legally entitled to if they’re deported back to Guatamala, Communist China, etc.
Which Democrat was it who recently continued to claim that Biden’s 20 million Illegal Aliens weren’t getting health care? Oh, never mind:
Blue states put the brakes on health care for illegal aliens
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/09/medicaid-for-undocumented-immigrants-democrats-00095949
Map Shows Democrat States Rolling Back Health Care Benefits for Illegal Aliens
https://www.newsweek.com/illegal-immigrants-healthcare-democrats-newsom-walz-2088484
Worry not, little Bolshevik Birthing Boy, once we get your Illegal Aliens deported, there should be more than sufficient funds available to provide you with Tranny health care.
I’m a politician who gets power by being elected to office., why in Hell’s name would I give up the votes of million s of people by screwing them over on their health care in exchange for the votes of a handful of people who spend almost every waking hour thinking about what to name their second yacht or what the interior colors of their newest private jet should be?
What you are saying makes no sense.
The liberal mind is very simple, mostly animal-like in it’s processing.
The anger and violence comes from their ego’s inability to accept their limited cognition.
any reason must be dismissed egotistically, as they cannot be wrong!
Their ego tells them they are ‘intuitively’ correct when reality is not cooperating.
Ego is just a theory.
It’s a feeling. It is based on rational evidence of harm.
This article shows is that radical leftist, so-called professors of higher education are nothing more than simple minded cultists. Their ideology is so weak that they know any contrary speech or ideas would crushed it almost immediately.
However, your article has conflicting statements, Mr. Turley. You, State you disagree with some of Trump’s methods to bring back free speech on College campuses. However, Later in the article, you say that defunding schools is the way to bring about change. Isn’t that exactly what President Trump is doing?
The reality is colleges are no longer useful education Institutions. They have become Indoctrination facilities, that push ideology that has an overwhelming history of Enslaving the people to government Elite.
It’s pretty much an Oxymoron to say that colleges are institution of higher learning.
Maybe they need to re-name Brown University to Pink University. They already have a Brown Bear as their mascot, so instead of Ursa Arctos, they can get some big, fat hairy gay dude to substitute in.
About one in three Brown University freshmen say they are gay, bisexual, transgender, or one of the other numerous options, according to a recent survey by the student newspaper.
The numbers are somewhat similar to a survey two years ago, also by the Brown Daily Herald, which found 40 percent of the student body identified as LGBTQ.
The survey garnered 733 responses, which is about half of the class of 2029.
Eric Kaufmann, a professor of political science at the University of Buckingham, said the percentages are close to 30 percent across the entire student data set, with some schools seeing 40-50 percent LGBT identification.
Kaufmann attributed this to “female bisexuality” – a figure that has nearly doubled since the 2010s.
He previously has conducted research on trends in LGBT identification.
The social scientist says it seems the increase is linked to mental illness and social pressure.
“As the share of female bisexuals has soared, the number of them having same-sex relationships has gone down. That tells you something: it’s more of an identity than a behavior,” Kaufmann wrote in an email to The Fix.
“And the rate is not higher among university students than non-college young people,” he said.
“So this is only – in my view – partly connected to woke ideology and politics.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/1-3-brown-u-freshmen-are-lgbt-survey
Stoopid comment, as usual.
Well, at least I did not venture into pan-sexualism! Because that stuff is really gross! Can you imagine, having roommates, and going to fry up some bacon and eggs, and wondering if you need to sterilize the skillet first, or maybe just throw it away, and buy a new one??? Ewww! Gross!
Post after post. Though I’m grateful a light is being shone on it, what will it take for people to realize even the smallest state university has been captured to some extent? They have. Stop sending your kids and wasting your money. Nothing useful is going to come out of that transaction. The shock and disbelief are becoming tiresome. Where the heck have you all been for the past at least twenty years when it might have mattered? Oh, that’s right – calling the rest of us crazy. I no longer have any sympathy for these types of posts, this has been going very much long enough for people to have noticed long before now.
Yes, our colleges, all of them, are a joke.
When enterprises are private, they are responsive to their customers, and the correct and appropriate outcome is obtained.
When accurately enforced, the Constitution causes most, if not all, endeavors and activity to be done by free enterprises in the free markets of the private sector.
The public sector is the unrestrained, biased, and irrational “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
James,
You are not wrong. So-called higher education has a captive audience. They use the use of DEI requirements to force their ideology on students. Same goes for GenEd requirements. My own daughter was forced to take a DEI class for graduation. It is not something she wanted to pay for, but was forced. Many GenEd requirements have nothing to do with what students want for their degree. But they are forced to take them as a requirement. Those GenEd courses add nothing to their end state degree. But they have to pay for them. And the illiberal left has their captive audience.
I would, respectfully, disagree with you on one point concerning all colleges being a joke. This one, is one that is bucking the leftist woke mind hive, https://www.uaustin.org/
Much deeper than that. Jewish students shouldn’t be at Harvard because it’s dangerous. It’s truly dangerous.
There’ll be no peace for Israel. Thanks for the 2000 prisoners and Rashida Talib’s brother in law is a released prisoner.
The colleges funnel money to the enemies of the United States. The reason tuition is extreme. Students should pay peanuts for JC ed or State ed. These aren’t research institutes.
I searched the JCs for a basic class in watercolor. None.
Professor Turley gripes a LOT about the lack of conservative faculty or Republicans in institutions of higher education. That brings up an interesting question. Professot Turley identifies as a Democrat. If he’s so worried or concerned about the lack of conservative representation in higher education institutions why doesn’t he swich parties? Obviously his views are clearly conservative and aligned with Trump the majority of the time.
The Professor could test his theory that conservatives and/or libertarian faculty are purged from academia by switching to a clear Republican and promote more conservative views to his students.
Because he’s also contributing to the lack of conservative faculty by remaining a Democrat. Is his teaching liberal? Conservative?