Yale University has finally achieved the academic version of Nirvana, a state of perfect peace and enlightenment. A recent study found that the faculty had finally purged every Republican donor from its ranks. While 98 percent of the political donations went to Democrats, not a single professor could be found who gave to a single Republican candidate. The complete lock for Democrats is in a country that is split evenly between Republicans and Democrats.
The Yale Daily News reviewed more than 7,000 Federal Election Commission filings from 2025 listing Yale as the employer: “Of 1,099 filings that included ‘professor’ in their occupation, 97.6 percent of the donations went to Democrats, while the remaining 2.4 percent went to independent candidates or groups,” the student newspaper reported Jan. 14.”
The study reinforces the recent Buckley Institute report, which found that, of the 43 departments surveyed, 27 entire departments contained zero Republican professors.
Even if the study missed a couple of donations, the radical imbalance is a reflection of the lack of diversity at the school. It is not a perfect point of comparison. There can be a conservative or libertarian faculty member who does not make donations and does not register with any party.
Moreover, those of us who have criticized the lack of diversity have not argued for partisan criteria in faculty appointments. Rather, these are metrics that help show the lack of diversity. Many scholars prefer to dismiss these criticisms as speculative or unproven. However, the problem has long been obvious and these studies reinforce what critics have said for years.
One professor is quoted as acknowledging the apparent problem. Carlos Eire, a history and religious studies professor, said, “It’s true, there is very, very, very little intellectual diversity at Yale and at most institutions of higher learning when it comes to politics.” Professor Eire added,“Academics in the US, Canada and Europe have been leaning left for the past three or four generations. And this is something that shows no signs of being corrected or correcting itself anytime soon.”
He is correct.
I was asked by the president of a top-ranked university how he could reverse this problem. He was convinced that the lack of intellectual diversity was causing lasting harm to higher education. I told him that one thing is clear: you cannot rely on faculty members to restore diversity.
I was at a dinner not long ago with a Harvard Law Professor who told me and others that he could not be expected to vote for a faculty candidate with whom he disagreed. Two of us objected that we do that all the time to reinforce intellectual diversity. He was entirely unapologetic and unyielding that he would not vote for faculty candidates who embrace conservative views of the Constitution that he considers wrong.
Faculty members have privately acknowledged for years that they have largely eliminated conservatives and libertarians, but rationalize their records on not finding “intellectually promising” conservative candidates. If the imbalance involved race or gender, a court would crush arguments that the lack of diversity is some unintended consequence of the applicant pool.
University presidents must create enclaves of diversity outside these departments, through institutes and centers that faculty members do not control.
Take Harvard.
As I discuss in my book “The Indispensable Right,” Harvard is not just an academic echo chamber. It is a virtual academic sensory deprivation tank.
In a country with a majority of conservative and libertarian voters, fewer than 9 percent of the Harvard student body and less than 3 percent of the faculty members identify as conservative.
For years, Harvard faculty have brushed away complaints over its liberal orthodoxy, including purging conservative faculty. It has created one of the most hostile schools for free speech in the nation, ranking dead last among universities in annual studies by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).
Only a third of students at Harvard feel comfortable speaking on campus despite being overwhelmingly liberal at an overwhelmingly liberal institution. (The percentage is much higher for the small number of conservative students).
Some faculty are more honest than others.
Not long ago, I debated Professor Randall Kennedy at Harvard Law School about the lack of ideological diversity at the school. I respect Kennedy and I do not view him as anti-free speech or intolerant. Yet when I noted the statistics on the vanishing number of conservative students and faculty in comparison to the nation, Kennedy responded that Harvard “is an elite university” and does not have to “look like America.”
Of course, the problem is that Harvard does not even look like Massachusetts, which is nearly 30 percent Republican.
Yale, however, is now a perfect echo chamber where moderate, libertarian, and conservative students (if they can make it into the school) are left to self-censor and avoid backlash for their views.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the forthcoming “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
One of my daughter’s best friends went to Yale. That kid is a total leftist loon. There is no discussion possible. My daughter went to a different ivy. Not as bad as Yale but worse than when I went there.
The lefty crap looks like a tribal religion to me. It is so precarious intellectually that it cannot allow its future disciples any contact with conflicting thoughts.
Is idiocy solely a matter of native intelligence, intellectual potential? It would seem not. Even intelligent people can be stunted, likely permanently, if attacked at a young enough age.
Watching this crap hit the fan is disgusting.
“There is no discussion possible..” Maybe she did not want to talk to some old fart talking about his wasted years at yale.
For all your self touted smarts, you ain’t. You haven’t figured out kids. They’re move interested in politics than just slurping beer all semester.
For all your self touted smarts, you ain’t. You haven’t figured out kids. They’re move interested in politics than just slurping beer all semester.
Gaslighting
Gaslighting is the intended psychological manipulation by a low-IQ perpetrator targeting those they hope to victimize through intentionally misleading that person or group. This involves the perpetrator trivializing, lying, denying events, and other methods used in the hope their intended victims doubt their perceptions of reality, memories, and feel overly emotional or irrational.
The main five methods of gaslighting that may be used alone or in conjunction with others are: trivializing, countering, lying, blame shifting, and withholding.
There was no gaslighting in the response you attached gaslighting to.
Must be an AI hallucination writing that pop-psy dreck.
I’m sorry to bring up something speciously OT, but bear with me a second (to relate this to Yale)..
We will likely agree that Charlie Kirk and Renee Good represented opposite ends of a political spectrum, and both suffered tragic death as a consequence. I was not familiar with either prior to that, and I likely would not have aligned with either.
Yet, standing back and looking at this from the perspective of universities like Yale, I am comfortable with inductively inferring the following:
If a left-wing professor were engaging in some lecture that was politically objectionable, Charlie Kirk would have taken a classroom across the hall and invited students in to argue with him.
If a right-wing professor were engaging in some lecture that was politically objectionable, Renee Good would have stood in the back of the classroom blowing a whistle and banging on a drum to disrupt/prevent the speech and create chaos.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37875930/renee-good-blocks-ice-agents-fatal-minneapolis-shooting/
Lin,
A very interesting comparison.
Lin, geez. Talk about a non-sequitur. The two examples are not even close to similar.
Charlie Kirk is in no way equivalent to Renee Good. The only similarity is that both got shot and that has no relevance to your analogy of a similar philosophy at all.
Charlie Kirk having an opposing class to a left-leaning professor and Luke Beasley having an opposing class to a right-leaning professor is more accurate.
You’re better than that Lin. That was a cheap shot and a terrible attempt at an analogy.
Running out of senseless diatribes huh?
Can’t get anyone to comment on your BS, so you crawled out from under your rock with slash-n-burn tactics… go after other’s comments.
If the commenter won’t come to george, george goes after the commenters.
And the winner is … Anon. Kicked george’s butt with that one.
X says: Lin, geez. Talk about a non-sequitur. The two examples are not even close to similar.
Jeez… the Marxist parasite who uses Professor Turley’s blog as his own, uses projection to accuse others of similarly attempting non-sequitur’s. X, why don’t you publish your own blog to defend Democrat Marxism?
Why don’t you have articles by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?
https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active. There are several reasons for this:
(1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and
(2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also,
(3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site. This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
Lin:
It’s an interesting thought experiment. But let’s remember that Charlie Kirk started a website to post information about Professors whose opinions he didn’t agree with – something called the Professor Watchlist – which resulted in a number of these individuals receiving the all-too-familiar threats of death and rape. That was certainly not Kirk’s intent, but he did nothing to suppress that response at the same time – just kept adding more names to his list. That really doesn’t synch with the analogy you describe of a classroom run by Kirk that was welcoming of alternative ideas.
Thanks for your rebuttal.
(1) It is my understanding that Renee Good belonged to an ICEWatch movement to let everyone in the community know that ICE was there to cause trouble (whether ICE was right or not). I directly compare this with the Professor Watchlist. Indeed, I rate ICEWatch as worse because Professor Watchlist was putting people on ideological notice. Conversely, ICEWatch (and Renee’s own involvement–did you watch the video?—was physical obstruction and disruption, not merely putting people on notice via a website that tracks ICE movements.
(2) Are you saying that Renee Goode and following ICE around in her car to harass ICE did not inspire or contribute to hatred and death threats toward ICE officers? I think I have watched videos of some of that…
Thanks again.
Lin,
It was to my understanding Kirk’s Professor Watchlist was to let people know if they took that class, and let it be known they might be conservative/Republican, they might face a hostile professor who may or may not grade them on the content of their work but by their political affiliation.
UpstateFarmer,
There is already a website “RateMyProfessor” that covers that and much more. Charlie wanted a target list.
So far there hasn’t been any evidence of biased grading. The latest kerfluffle was an intentionally malformed paper that did not address the topic and did not even include the barest level of academic qualities. For example, it was a requirement to cite references. This means marking quoted or otherwise referenced information with a footnote identifier and creating a footnote at the end of the page or the end of the document. While there were references to the Bible, a Bible, there was no citation of which version or what passages were used. Therefore the paper was off topic and out of form. There was no need to judge agreement or disagreement with the position(s) in the paper; the contents were irrelevant to the assignment.
It’s like “Why did the math teacher give me a 0 on my poem about addition I submitted instead of homework problems and why did the math teach also circle all the words I spelled incorrectly. Must hate poetry.”
Renee Good was not obstructing ICE. It’s not a crime to follow them or signal their presence by using a loud whistle. ICE is not the police and obstructing traffic is not an ICE enforceable arresting action.
Clearly ICE is frustrated with the constant harassment and attention they’ve been getting and it doesn’t make their job easier. But the truth of the matter is they bring this attention onto themselves in the worst possible way. They constantly attack protesters for merely standing close by and yelling obscenities and honking their horns. All protected constitutional activities and their frustration stems from the fact that they can’t do much about it. They WANT to do something about it in the most violent ways possible and some times their frustration gets the better of them. They are human just like everyone else, but they are also poorly trained and vetted by the agency the were hired to do the job for. Former Proud Boys members, former fired cops accused of excessive force or abuses. All have been hired by ICE and CBP and they are contributing to their own problems and the public at large sees this.
ICE watch is about recording accountability issues on law enforcement known to abuse their authority and violate constitutional rights of others with impunity.
Kirk’s professor watch list was about blacklisting those who he disagreed with. Neither which is a crime. ICE watch is about accountability and observing constitutional violations and ICE using violence to justify it. Kirk’s professor watchlist is about painting professors as radical or leftist because he just disasters with their views. How is that even close to equivalent?
“Renee Good Belonged to ‘ICE Watch’ Group That Trained Activists to Interfere with Agents, Block Vehicles”
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/minnesota-ice-watch-group-renee-good-belonged-to-trained-activists-to-interfere-with-agents-block-vehicles/
Perhaps she did have training, but that isn’t what was happening when Ross put at least one bullet into her brain.
If ICE didn’t load up 20-30 at a time to grab individuals and didn’t wear desert camouflage in the middle of winter in an urban area and didn’t rent/operate a fleet of nearly identical vehicles in close convoys reminiscent of running armored vehicles outside of Kabul, they would not be so easily noticed.
On the other hand, it is likely that ICE is being flamboyantly performative to draw the maximum attention to themselves in the hopes that by creating such huge targets that someone with a rifle will pick off a pile of them and Trump can call in a low-level anti-personnel bombing run and actually level a city as was done in Gaza. He can then suspend voting in the midterms due to the national crisis.
Had she been following them around and harassing them Noem would have released body cam compilations of all the times Good had done so. Much like the bruise that Ross is claimed to have, I think nothing of the sort happened and so no videos or photographic evidence exists.
lin .. . with respect to education.
There is no ‘left-wing’ knowledge, there is no ‘right-wing’ knowledge. knowledge has no political bias. There is only knowledge .. . and further away from it.
*in any case, a bird requires both wings to fly 🙂
DG that is utter BS!
Knowledge is leaned and at institutions of learning it is supported by a more knowledgeable person known as an instructor. As evidenced in our very own history of the civil war, that knowledge is susceptible to bias and misinterpretations. In today’s world knowledge has been politicized by the product of the same beast, especially at Ivy League universities and in particular law schools. As we have seen on campus after campus, students have been indoctrinated to refuse any alternative opposing view and when presented with the logic and facts resort to juvenile disruptive responses. Lin hit the nail on the head.
Grasshopper
“knowledge is susceptible to bias and misinterpretations”
Only if knowledge can be anything at all that someone *thinks* they know and imparts to someone else. In other words, if demonstrably false information remains knowledge. I do not buy that definition, and never have. Certainly, information that has been passed down that seemed to be true at the time can later be proven to be mistaken, but to me, at that point, it ceases to be knowledge.
Charlie Kirk didn’t argue with anyone. He diverted the discussion from what the other person was saying onto a predefined path that Kirk had previously prepared. Often it was via asking “where in the Bible does it say that.” But note that Kirk never had a bible with him, so that he could not be forced to fact check himself. In addition this misdirection was often in response to a question that has nothing to do with the Bible and so the person posing a position or a question would be unlikely to bring a Bible with them.
What is fascinating are the number of conservatives offended by liberals quoting Charlie Kirk’s racist or misogynist beliefs; that it insults Charlie to use Charlie’s own words to explain why they don’t like what Charlie was doing to recruit/groom college students into the “Bible is the only guidance you ever should depend upon” cult.
Would you support a NAMBLA meeting at your local elementary school or would you go to blow whistles and shout the speaker down?
In any case, it is correct – conservatives tend not to shout or whistle. They go to the board of directors and have objectionable clubs shut down or banned from campus.
You are such a liar.
Here, from Emotional Intelligence Magazinem from a left wing author
https://www.ei-magazine.com/post/analyzing-charlie-kirk-s-approach-to-cross-party-communication
“I didn’t agree with everything Kirk said. Like all of us, he had his biases and moments of cockiness. But I also saw something else—something we’ve almost entirely lost in our political discourse: genuine willingness to engage with opposition and what appeared to be authentic care for the people he spoke with.”
“Watch footage of Kirk’s campus interactions. Notice how he responds to hostile questions. He doesn’t interrupt. He doesn’t shout. He doesn’t resort to personal attacks. He listens, processes, and responds.”
Promethean Action
Check it out on the internet. If you’re old enough to remember America the site is spot on with the analysis and what is happening. A new awakening for our country.
Jonathan, Where do you think Elihu Yale would stand on this issue today? (Conservative | Moderate | Liberal)
The present day question is:
Should a University be allow to evolve from its founding?
—
AI: Elihu Yale religion
Elihu Yale was a deeply religious Christian, specifically involved with Anglican traditions, though his early education is debated, with suggestions of conservative Anglican schooling. He supported Christian theology and history in his extensive book collection and donated books and textiles to the fledgling Yale College, a gift leading to the institution being named after him, highlighting the strong Protestant roots of the college itself.
Personal Faith: Yale’s letters and charitable choices demonstrate his deep religious commitment, focusing on Christian theology and history in his personal library.
Anglican Connections: His family’s leanings were conservative, favoring Anglican practices, and he married into a family with Anglican ties in India.
Donation to Yale: His significant gifts, including theological books, were instrumental in the college’s early development, aligning with the Puritan/Congregationalist origins of the New Haven colony.
Legacy at Yale: While Yale University began with Puritan roots, its namesake was a devout Anglican, reflecting the broader Protestant Christian foundation of the institution.
—
AI: Elihu Yale
(1649–1721) was a British-American merchant, colonial administrator, and philanthropist primarily remembered as the benefactor for whom Yale University is named.
Biography and Career
Early Life: Born in Boston, Massachusetts, he moved to London with his family at age three and never returned to America.
East India Company: In 1672, he arrived in Madras (now Chennai), India, as a clerk for the East India Company. He rose through the ranks to become the Governor of Fort St. George (1687–1692).
Fortune: He amassed a vast personal fortune through private trading in diamonds and other commodities. However, his career was marred by allegations of corruption and “self-aggrandizement,” leading to his removal from office and a forced fine.
Later Life: He returned to London in 1699, where he became a renowned art collector and philanthropist.
Connection to Yale University
In 1718, following a request from Cotton Mather, Yale donated a cargo of goods (including 417 books, textiles, and a portrait of King George I) to the Collegiate School of Connecticut. The sale of these goods raised approximately £800 (a significant sum at the time), which funded a new building. In recognition of this gift, the school was renamed Yale College.
Slavery Controversy:
Modern historical research, including the Yale & Slavery Research Project, has highlighted Yale’s direct involvement in the slave trade.
Administrative Role: As Governor of Madras, he oversaw the trafficking of hundreds of enslaved people through Fort St. George.
Portraits: Famous portraits of Yale, such as those held at the Yale Center for British Art, often depict him with an unnamed, collared enslaved child, symbolizing the wealth he derived from imperial globalization.
Personal Details:
Born: April 5, 1649, Boston, Massachusetts.
Died: July 8, 1721, London, England.
Burial: He is buried at St Giles’ Church in Wrexham, Wales.
Collections: At the time of his death, he owned more than 7,000 paintings and thousands of other luxury items, which were sold at landmark auctions.
—
AI: Who were Yale’s family members?
Elihu Yale’s family included prominent early American colonists, influential British aristocrats, and members of the East India Company.
Immediate Family:
Parents: His father, David Yale (1613–1690), was a wealthy merchant and attorney. His mother was Ursula Knight (died 1699).
Spouse: He married Catherine Elford Hynmers (1651–1728), a wealthy widow and daughter of merchant Walter Elford, in 1680 at Fort St. George, India.
Children (Legitimate): Yale and Catherine had four children:
David Yale (1684–1687): Died at age three and is buried in Chennai.
Katherine Yale (1685–1715): Married Dudley North, a Member of Parliament.
Anne Yale (1687–1734): Married Lord James Cavendish, son of the 1st Duke of Devonshire.
Ursula Yale (c. 1689–1721): Died unmarried.
Illegitimate Son: Yale had a son named Charles Yale (1690–1712) with his mistress, Hieronima da Paiva, a merchant widow in Madras.
Extended Family and Ancestry:
Grandparents: His paternal grandmother, Anne Lloyd, married Theophilus Eaton, the co-founder and first Governor of the New Haven Colony, after the death of her first husband (Elihu’s grandfather).
Siblings: He had several siblings, including Thomas Yale, who served as an ambassador to the King of Siam for the East India Company.
Adopted Heir: Having no surviving sons of his own, Yale sought an heir from his Connecticut relations and eventually chose his cousin’s son, David Yale of New Haven.
Ancestry: The family descended from the Lords of Yale in North Wales, specifically the estates of Plas-yn-Yale and Plas Grono near Wrexham.
—
This is Off Topic but if you read the comments on this post or any others of Prof. Turley you will find the relevance.
About 20 years ago I was standing in a bus station in Munich. Sporadically I would hear the sound of a light buzz resembling a mosquito. After hearing several repetitions of the buzzing I heard a slap. No more buzzing. A little while later the same pattern happened, the buzzing and then the slap. Finally the bus came and the noise stopped.
I have not yet found nor been able to create that ring tone, sadly.
Jersey Flip.
Change nothing but the team colors.
If 97.6% of Yale faculty political donations went to Republicans and conservatives, and 0% to Democrats, would this still be waved away as meaningless? Would we be told that liberal ideas simply “don’t interest students,” or that no one should question the hiring climate?
This isn’t about quotas or partisan balance. It’s about whether institutions that claim to exist for free inquiry and civic formation have become ideological monocultures.
Yale’s own student paper found that among professors, 97.6% of political donations went to Democrats and none to Republicans. Donations are an imperfect proxy, but an imbalance this extreme is at least a signal worth examining. When entire departments show no ideological dissent, disagreement becomes professionally risky.
A self-governing republic requires citizens trained to argue ideas, not avoid them. Universities that cannot tolerate sustained internal disagreement are not preparing students for civic life. They are preparing them for echo chambers.
A republic survives only if its institutions teach people how to disagree without silencing.
“The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department.” – Thomas Sowell
Exactly. Same point, different framing.
If the jerseys were flipped, this wouldn’t be shrugged off. It would trigger lawsuits, protests, pressure campaigns, defunding threats, deplatforming, and institutional investigations within weeks.
That asymmetry is the issue. When one ideological monopoly is treated as “normal” and the other as an existential crisis, the problem isn’t diversity. It’s power.
Liberals aren’t crying to teach at Liberty University.
What does party affiliation have to do with diversity of thought? Is there a requirement that there be an even number of Republicans in college or university faculty?
Diversity is not exclusive to party affiliation. You can have republicans who teach philosophy, mathematics, physics, biology, arts, etc. Are Republicans forbidden from teaching these subjects by the Republican Party?
What does party affiliation have to do with diversity of thought?
There is no diversity of thought where a faculty member or student will be attacked and destroyed if they disagree with the claim that little boys not only have the mental maturity to decide they want to be girls – but can actually become girls (with a bit of castration to help).
Or be attacked and destroyed if they say grown men should not be allowed to force women to subjugate themselves to having men who claim to be tranny competing against them in sports.
That is the poison of cultural Marxism in these schools. Continually defended by communists and Marxists like yourself.
Why don’t you have articles by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?
https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active. There are several reasons for this:
(1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and
(2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also,
(3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site. This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
“ There is no diversity of thought where a faculty member or student will be attacked and destroyed if they disagree with the claim that little boys not only have the mental maturity to decide they want to be girls – but can actually become girls (with a bit of castration to help).”
You mean being criticized for their argument? If you can’t defend your argument and whine about being “attacked” then you may have a poor argument. Diversity of thought doesn’t protect you from being criticized or challenged.
X tried this: You mean being criticized for their argument?
Violent Marxist Democrats attacking conservatives, Republicans, Jews, among the students or guest speakers is how X would prefer we accept as being “criticized for their arguments”.
These universities regularly losing in court while defending themselves and their racist/anti-Semitic student policies is merely criticism of the arguments the students they exclude would make if admitted. Maybe the judges in those courts aren’t as smart as X is, and don’t realize these universities are right and they are wrong… just as X tells us daily that Professor Turley is wrong, no matter the subject.
If X can’t defend his deflections, denials, and deceptions with facts, he goes straight to Saul Alinsky’s operations manual “Rules For Radicals” – change the meaning of the language.
But… could this attempted re-interpretation of the meaning of words be due to what X regularly uses as a defense? That those who disagree with him simply don’t understand his words because they lack reading comprehension.
Or perhaps we fail to agree with X because his daily copied and pasted screeds in defense of Democrat totalitarian and Marxism are incomprehensible?
X: why not create your own blog to push Democrat Marxism – rather than living and publishing as a parasite inside Professor Turley’s blog?
Why don’t you have articles by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?
https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active. There are several reasons for this:
(1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and
(2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also,
(3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site. This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
What are the percentages for Liberty University?
“A republic survives only if its institutions teach people how to disagree without silencing.”
It wasn’t Democrats scaling the walls of the Capitol building rather than using the stairs or the Postal System or telephone to try to contact their representatives.
Perhaps it is conservatives who need to learn to argue ideas rather than choosing violence.
Liberty is mission-defined; Yale claims pluralism.
Violence is wrong everywhere, but one riot doesn’t justify institutional monoculture.
Olly, Turley defines lack of diversity of thought because no Republicans are in faculty. Independents don’t count? You don’t think political science professors discuss conservative ideas or views in their classes? Because Turley never really discusses such things. He just throws out these unsubstantiated claims without no real facts to support them.
For example he talks about these “purges” but he never, not once, talks about who was purged or what discipline was axed or “purged”. His first instinct is to focus on political affiliation instead of which conservative ideas or views are being “purged” or denied by these schools.
Can you name a new or valid conservative view or idea that students would benefit from hearing or learning about?
I see a lot of complaining of leftist monopolies, but no arguments for why conservative ideas or views should be appealing to students who ultimately choose what is being taught at universities or colleges.
You keep saying diversity of thought exists, so I’m genuinely curious: can you name one conservative idea you believe deserves to be seriously defended and taught by faculty at these universities, rather than merely mentioned or dismissed?
Olly, I asked YOU if you can name any conservative ideas or views students may find interesting or appealing.
Can you name one at least?
The fact that you tried to turn around the question back to me shows you may not have a good example. I’m not the one complaining about conservative or Republican ideas or views not being given fair chance at these academic institutions.
Natural rights, limits on centralized power, free speech as truth-seeking, and civil society over bureaucracy.
Students do find these ideas interesting — they’re just rarely defended by faculty rather than framed or dismissed.
Your turn: name one conservative idea you believe deserves serious defense by faculty at these universities.
“ Natural rights, limits on centralized power, free speech as truth-seeking, and civil society over bureaucracy.
Students do find these ideas interesting — they’re just rarely defended by faculty rather than framed or dismissed.”
But they ARE discussed and brought up, right? Why should it be a professor’s requirement to defend these ideas or views? You don’t think they challenge students to defend them or support them? Does that require whether a professor is conservative or liberal? It’s the students who are tasked or expected to defend or support ideas, or even challenge them. That is heavily dependent on how brave or curious a student is. Professors challenge students all the time to question even their own ideas or views.
By the way which students find those ideas interesting? Does that mean they view them as important enough to demand more of it or more of a passing interest? If it was the former there would be more classes or discussion of said ideas, right?
“ Your turn: name one conservative idea you believe deserves serious defense by faculty at these universities.”
Defense? Don’t you mean a conservative idea that would be appealing or interesting? There’s a difference. Because I am arguing about the appeal or interest of conservative ideas, not defending their legitimacy or merit.
To me, personally, I don’t find conservatives ideas or views that appealing (no surprise). However, I do find the conservative idea of moderation in changes so societal norms rather than radical changes. Slow progression instead of outright regression as some conservatives would prefer is a more attractive and interesting conservative view in lieu of just progressing without considering consequences more thoroughly,
For example Trans rights. Do they deserve the same protections as everyone else. Of course, but do they deserve extra special consideration because they are a unique minority within the population, no. The idea that they don’t deserve even recognition of who they are is not appealing to a majority of students. It was the same issue when homosexuality and same-sex marriage was hotly debated. Now it’s barely an issue except to the most extreme fringe conservatives, the bigots and zealots.
You’ve shifted the standard.
First you questioned whether conservative ideas even exist or are interesting. I named several. Now you argue professors need only mention them and leave their defense to “brave” students. That concedes the problem. Intellectual diversity requires scholars who can seriously defend and argue ideas from the inside, not merely frame them for critique. Faculties set the boundaries long before students “choose” what to defend.
On trans rights, this is a category error. No one is denied unalienable rights based on identity. Trans individuals, like all people, are entitled to equal protection of life, liberty, and property. But equal rights do not require compelled validation or special recognition of subjective identity claims by others. Rights protect people from coercion; they do not obligate affirmation.
That distinction — between equal rights and compelled recognition — is exactly the kind of idea that should be openly defended and contested by faculty without moral intimidation or professional risk. When it isn’t, that’s monoculture, not education.
OLLY,
Great comment. I am actually following this conversation even reading X’s comments and the back and forth. You are clearly winning the argument.
Thank you Upstate! I’d add one foundational observation from years of study and debate: the single greatest root cause of the problems we’re facing is that we’ve abandoned the formation of citizens capable of self-government.
First principles in a constitutional republic are not just another set of debatable talking points. They are the precondition for meaningful debate. How government is administered, which policies are pursued, and which platforms prevail are all properly contested — but only within the framework that makes self-government possible.
Lincoln captured this perfectly in his Fragment on the Constitution and the Union: the Constitution is the “frame of silver” designed to protect the “apple of gold” — the principle that all men are created equal and possess unalienable rights. If the frame is bent to undermine the apple, or the apple is discarded in the name of expediency, the whole system collapses.
When universities stop forming citizens in that tradition, everything downstream — politics, policy, culture — begins to decay.
OLLY,
Good one!
Olly, that’s what I thought. You cannot come up with even one example. Thanks for proving my point.
That’s simply false. I already named several: natural rights, limits on centralized power, free speech as a truth-seeking principle, and civil society over bureaucracy.
Ignoring an answer doesn’t make it disappear. It just confirms the unwillingness to engage it.
If you want to dispute those ideas, do so. Pretending they were never offered isn’t an argument.
My apologies Olly, I saw your response down thread.
X finds it completely repugnant to the cultural, economic and political Marxism that is the framework of his world that students would hear conservative thoughts. Conservative beliefs that have stood the test of time while his odious Marxism/communism has a record of 100% failure. There is nothing new in the racist, totalitarian belief system that X pushes for the Democrats – in particular the Marxist world view at these universities.
X won’t even begin attempting to explain what is wrong with conservative thoughts that he defends being purged from universities to make them better indoctrination/brainwashing facilities.
Self-sufficiency – versus falling for the lies of Marxist/communist Democrat politicians promising a lifetime of living off the taxpayer teat.
Free markets (what is left of them) which provide dynamic economic mobility – versus a belief that a student is permanently frozen in their current financial level.
Critical Black Racist Theory and anti-Semitism is NOT meritocracy – it is poison.
Getting hired (or not hired) on the basis of your skin color, whether or not you have a physical vagina or are other than heterosexual is not meritocracy.
This is X, a Marxist parasite using Professor Turley’s blog as his own.
Why don’t you have articles by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?
https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active. There are several reasons for this:
(1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and
(2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also,
(3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site. This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
Perhaps it is conservatives who need to learn to argue ideas rather than choosing violence.
Democrats will never learn that the Internet still hasn’t forgotten their 2020 Election Season Of Mostly Peaceful Rioting, Pillaging, Arson, Looting And Murder. Over 540 violent destructive Democrat riots across the USA in Democrat cities where it was safe to do so. And their current violent Democrat rage, assaulting police officers enforcing existing laws concerning criminal Illegal Aliens.
Nor J1 (not to be confused with J6). Not a three hour riot like J6 – a THREE DAY assault on the White House, attempting to breach Secret Service lines in hopes of entering the White House to murder Trump and his family.
Do Democrats and communists (but I repeat myself) actually understand the meaning of the word ‘violence’?
Oh wait… Nothing To See Here, Please Believe Democrats, Don’t Believe Your Lying Eyes™
Well said, Olly. Professor Randall Kennedy’ response that Harvard is “an elite university” pretty much sums up why none of them will ever accept opposing points of view. They are elite, and the rest of us aren’t. Greg
Very good point, Greg. Claims of being “elite” are often just marketing, used to justify extravagant tuition. A solid education can be had at many schools for far less. What students are really paying for is someone else’s definition of prestige.
Real elites don’t operate that way. The most elite military units don’t advertise themselves, issue manifestos, or lead with credentials. They don’t fear scrutiny. They just get the job done, quietly, and let the results speak for themselves.
If a university has to assert that it is elite in order to insulate itself from challenge or dissent, then it isn’t elite at all. It’s branding.
True excellence welcomes being tested. It doesn’t silence those who test it.
OLLY and Greg,
Great comments and points well made.
I am endlessly fascinated by the comments of this alleged “farmer”, who seems to be here furiously commenting all day every day.
I am particularly fascinated by the fawning, obsequious and sycophantic comments he makes, a classic example of which appears above.
Most of the time his postings are simply congratulatory comments, along the lines of “well said”, “great comment”, “thank you for that comment”, and “points well made”
This behavior is rather odd, like a little boy desperately making comments to try to prove that he really belongs to the “big boy club”. He seems to suffer from some type of inferiority complex, and his constant obsequious comments are an effort to seek affirmation that he really does belong here.
It is really rather pitiful
@Anonymous
You are atypical modern lib/communist – you have nothing of value to add to a conversation, so you attack the character of others. You don’t want a world that works for everyone, just for you, in your comfort, in the tiny confines of your tiny and fragile mind.
Pro tip: no amount of money such as you receive from posting here, and no amount of space insulated from the requirement of thinking about yourself and how you are yourself, is going to change that for you. You will always dislike yourself and by extension dislike others, even though you claim solidarity and altruism of spirit. You can’t be a part of the hive and think of others because that requires acknowledging differences, by default.
It’s truly a pity, and we will watch you burn out and fall to ashes because you couldn’t see basic human decency was actually the way forward. At some point just admit that your actual problem is that you hate yourself, and you honestly believe a potential friend would hate you just as much as you hate yourself. We can’t help you parse out why that is the case, but you’ve killed any chances of grace from others. Now you just get pity.
“ Very good point, Greg. Claims of being “elite” are often just marketing, used to justify extravagant tuition.”
So? It’s effective marketing. It lands a lot of their students at prestigious law firms, companies, organizations, etc.
It sounds more like jealousy than genuine criticism when it comes to Harvard. Is there an equivalent conservative school that can claim such a status and prestige?
Some people buy Ferraris because they are deemed exclusive vehicles. They are not practical or economical to own. But they sure deliver on performance and pedigree that is at the core of their reputation as desirable vehicles.
A Toyota Corolla does a much better job at being a vehicle than a Ferrari, but it still does not have the same aura of prestige. Harvard is like Ferrari. The conservative view is the name is more valuable than the education they provide but, it opens more doors than an education from a generic-name school.
Trump is a graduate of Wharton school of finance. A prestigious school that relies on its name for status. We all know Trump was a C average student at the school but it doesn’t matter. He’s a graduate of Wharton and that means he’s smart because he’s a Wharton graduate. The name is all that matters, what he learned there is worthless according to conservatives like Charlie Kirk.
That actually proves the point, not refutes it.
If “elite” primarily means brand value and network access, then we should be honest that we’re talking about credential signaling, not superior education or intellectual rigor. That may be effective marketing, but it’s not a defense of ideological insulation inside the institution.
A Ferrari analogy works only if the university admits it’s selling prestige, not truth-seeking. But Harvard, Yale, and others don’t market themselves as luxury brands. They market themselves as centers of free inquiry and academic excellence. Those claims carry obligations.
And this isn’t jealousy. A Corolla and a Ferrari are judged by performance on a track. Universities are judged by whether they educate students to think, argue, and challenge assumptions. When dissent is treated as disqualifying, the product is weaker, not stronger.
Prestige can open doors. But prestige without intellectual openness is just expensive conformity.
Olly,
“ A Ferrari analogy works only if the university admits it’s selling prestige, not truth-seeking. But Harvard, Yale, and others don’t market themselves as luxury brands. They market themselves as centers of free inquiry and academic excellence. Those claims carry obligations.”
They DO market themselves as luxury brands. They ARE centers of excellence and free inquiry. Yale, Columbia, Harvard, Stanford, all those schools market themselves as the best of the best. Because they are. That doesn’t mean they are perfect or truly deserving of the status they are in. How is that different than private schools like the Montesori, or Eaton schools? Hugely expensive and with those hefty tuitions the idea of a superior education comes with it. Right?
A lot of people conflate expensive with good. Schools pick the best of the best of the best as worthy of learning at their institutions. Right? Some may be overpriced educational expectations, but others truly have students who are literally above the rest and that adds to their prestige as a school.
“ A Corolla and a Ferrari are judged by performance on a track.”
No, everyone knows you cannot compare a Ferrari and a Corolla in track performance. But they can be compared with their basic function. Both can take you from point A to point B the exact same way. One is too impractical for the task, but it is still a better car. The other is more practical for the task, but still a better car. The Ferrari is exciting and commands respect. The Corolla just does its job admirably and reliably.
But one will always be more desired than the other and will give a bigger impression of success than the lowly reliable Corolla.
This hasn’t been treated as the core question, but it should be: what are these institutions supposed to prepare students for?
In a constitutional republic, the answer is clear. Our system rises or falls on the formation of citizens capable of self-government — people who can reason, argue, disagree, persuade, and accept outcomes without coercion.
Hillsdale is a useful counterexample. It doesn’t rely on elite branding or prestige signaling. It’s explicit about its principles, serious about argument, and unafraid of challenge. Its excellence comes from coherence and rigor, not insulation.
If universities train students to defer to credentials, authority, or ideological consensus rather than testing ideas in open contest, they may produce impressive résumés — but they fail at civic formation.
Prestige is secondary. A republic needs citizens who can govern themselves, not credentialed dependents.
Olly,
“ A republic survives only if its institutions teach people how to disagree without silencing.”
Apparently President Trump and his administration don’t share your view. They are constantly trying to silence those who disagree with them with threats of investigation, pulling funding, and demanding those who express disagreement be fired or removed.
Trump threatens Universities and colleges who don’t toe the line on his beliefs and disagree with his views with funding cuts until they acquiesce. Republicans seem to be perfectly fine with that and it seems strange that Turley is complaining about the lack of diversity of thought when the president openly threatens colleges and universities when they disagree or their students protest government policies.
X, you’re making concrete claims. Provide evidence.
Cite specific cases where protected academic speech was silenced by Trump administration action, upheld by courts, and resulted in lawful punishment for viewpoint alone. Not rhetoric. Not press releases. Actual findings.
More importantly, none of what you allege explains or rebuts the documented ideological homogeneity inside universities that exists regardless of who occupies the White House. Episodic political pressure is contestable. Entrenched institutional monoculture is not.
If you want to argue facts, cite them. Otherwise this is deflection, not rebuttal.
Olly, reporting on what The Trump administration does IS evidence. Schools being threatened with funding cuts because they are teaching or using things like DEI or allowing their students to express dissent against Israel are well known.
Did Trump not cut federal funding as a means for schools to end DEI or for not punishing students who protested against Israel? Yes. The evidence is readily available online. Limiting it to court documentation is disingenuous since the majority of the evidence is reporting and actual quoted threats by the president.
Mahmoud Khalil was arrested and threatened with deportation because he organized a protest and negotiated with school administrators to peacefully settle the protests. Raymeza Ozturk was arrested and threatened with deportation because she co-wrote and op-ed critical of Israeli policies and threatened the school with funding cuts if the didn’t crack down on criticisms of Israel.
Documented ideological homogeneity? It’s a claim without documentation. Turley is harping about the lack of Republican donors from Yale. How is that evidence of ideological homogeneity? Yale is a private school. They can have all the ideological purity they want.
DEI, as currently conceived and practiced, is antithetical to the core purpose of higher education in a constitutional republic. Rooted in critical theory, it replaces individual rights with group identity, reasoned argument with power analysis, and equal protection with equity enforced by coercion. That framework is incompatible with a natural-rights–based system whose legitimacy depends on citizens reasoning as individuals capable of self-government.
Universities exist to cultivate truth-seeking, intellectual rigor, and the habits necessary for civic self-rule. An ideology that treats dissent as harm and disagreement as oppression undermines that mission. No president, regardless of party, has a duty to endorse or protect an ideology that corrodes the constitutional foundations he or she is sworn to uphold.
And as private institutions, Yale and other private universities are free to adopt whatever ideological frameworks they choose. But they should not expect public funding as an entitlement if their institutional philosophies openly conflict with, or actively undermine, the governing educational philosophy of the executive branch. Public funds exist to advance public purposes. When private universities reject the natural-rights framework that undergirds our constitutional order, the executive has both the authority and the obligation to reconsider whether taxpayer dollars should subsidize that mission.
Freedom of association cuts both ways: universities may choose their ideology, and the public may choose not to fund it.
OLLY, arguing with this fool is pointless; he has reversed the definitions of right and wrong.
SM, I used to ignore his comments as well. Eventually I decided to reengage; not because I expected persuasion, but because first principles were being steadily displaced.
I’ve been following Professor Turley’s blog for over a dozen years, and one lesson has become clear to me over that time: those genuinely concerned about the direction of the country need to become far more acquainted with the requirements of U.S. citizenship the Framers had in mind. Without that foundation, debates quickly devolve into slogans, factionalism, or contrarianism untethered from principle.
That realization ultimately led me to put the last 18 years of study and reflection into a book I published last month, Awakening a Forgotten Republic. The core thesis is simple: America’s constitutional republic rises or falls on the formation of citizens capable of self-government.
That’s why I engage. Not to win arguments, but to keep that foundational frame in view for anyone still willing to reason from it.
OLLY, congrats on your book. I like to support writers whom I have met, so I buy a lot of books. Most, I do not read, but I am going to read your book on Kindle. I prefer books, but my eyes no longer permit that luxury. I like what you say on the net and the type of discussions you promote, so even though iit may never be popular. I am sure I will like it.
Like it or not, I say bravo. It is a feat to complete a book, something I never did and never will do.
I have no doubt that Turley knows full well that Trump is an anti-free speech authoritarian who has made great progress in abusing systems built on norms to abuse his power and assert control over universities, industry, the DOJ and military. But he also knows his readership enjoys Trump’s behavior – and let’s face it – those books aren’t going to sell themselves. So instead of being honest with his followers, he just feeds them the scraps of red meat he knows they will enjoy, and spins the facts just enough to keep them on the hook. It really is the most ultimate form of disrespect he can show them, however. Turley doesn’t trust his followers to hear the objective truth on topics.
That’s an assertion about motives, not an argument about facts.
If Trump abuses power, say where, how, and with evidence. But speculating that Turley is lying to sell books avoids the substance entirely. Disagree with his analysis if you like, but dismissing it as “red meat” is not refutation — it’s deflection.
The data he cites on ideological homogeneity in universities comes from student papers and independent studies, not campaign talking points. Either challenge the evidence or the reasoning. Attacking the author’s supposed psychology is not “objective truth.” It’s a dodge.
Olly,
“ The data he cites on ideological homogeneity in universities comes from student papers and independent studies, not campaign talking points.”
I thought you didn’t see student media or reporting as legitimate documentation of facts. What are these specific studies? You’re not doing any better than those you accuse of lacking evidence.
Yale Daily News analyzed primary FEC data; independent studies examined faculty composition. If the data is wrong, show how — dismissing sources isn’t an argument.
Yale needs a new motto instead of lights a nd truth in Hebrew which no one knows because it’s not a requirement for admission.
Meantime in the rest of the United States, Universities in the South and Midwest are bursting at the seams as they accept students all the time who used to go to those Northeastern Universities. Those students are following their parent as they leave the old crustaceans of the northeast and travel to Florida, Georgia, South and North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas, as well as Indiana, Ohio, Iowa, etc. Businesses are moving our way and bringing their employees with them. There are boom times all across the land. Seems low taxes and welcoming attitudes towards business seem to go along with divergent and varying points of view and politics. Strange is it not.
Why don’t you support you comments with provable facts.
You also have a habit of plagiarizing.
It would seem, then, that there are plenty of conservative campuses; there is no need for Yale to join them.
The clamor for Yale to accept more close-minded conservatives is borne of jealousy because Yale is a far better school. I cannot imagine that conservatives are so concerned that Yale should fundamentally change except those conservatives wish to capture the aura that Yale has without earning the aura that Yale has.
“ I cannot imagine that conservatives are so concerned that Yale should fundamentally change except those conservatives wish to capture the aura that Yale has without earning the aura that Yale has.”
That’s a great point.
Why aren’t these “purged” conservative faculty or professors creating their own University or College and aspire to be the Yale of conservative schools?
“Why aren’t these “purged” conservative faculty or professors creating their own University or College and aspire to be the Yale of conservative schools?”
Probably for the same reason, George, that you are not creating your own blog while aspiring to be the Jonathan Turley of blog sites?
Lin,
HA!
Lin, you still haven’t learned the concept of an opposing view? Really? I thought you would understand by now. I guess I was wrong.
Turley’s blog is exactly why I post here. Because I can post my opposing view anytime, even if it’s all the time. So what if I object or criticize nearly everything Professor Turley writes about? I don’t agree with nearly everything he says, but there have been times I do agree with what he says. It’s rare, but it shouldn’t be unusual because when I do agree with what he says, nearly everyone else …disagrees.
I’m sure you would agree that an echo chamber is not an engaging forum. Having an opposing view or constant legitimate criticism brings about lively discussion, or more often as it happens here, just insults and put-downs because some people just don’t know how to form a good rebuttal or argument.
Great reply Lin!!
“It would seem, then, that there are plenty of conservative campuses; there is no need for Yale to join them. ”
It would seem that X’s lie that there are plenty of conservative campuses is the lie that made it around the world before the truth was able to get it’s shoes on.
But then, X also regularly posts as “Anonymous”, so perhaps he will be along within minutes to agree with himself.
Turley, unfortunately, often portrays the intellectual highjacking of academia as a fairly recent phenomenon. Carlos Eire gets it right that Gramaci’s “long march through the institutions” began three or four generations ago.
FDR’s invention of the regulatory welfare state is probably the best marker for the beginning. As I’ve said many times, we now know with certainty from the Venona decrypts that FDR’s administration was filled with Soviet spies. It is not an exaggeration to say that there were easily 400-500 Soviet spies that were part of his administration who were members of numerous spy rings.
Many, if not most, had academic pedigrees from American elite academic institutions. Some of those spies, like Harry Dexter White, Alger Hiss, and Lauchlin Currie held positions high enough in FDR’s administration that they helped craft policy. These were not schlubs passing confidential info to their Soviet paymasters. They could, and did, not only influence policy but crafted it. Soviet spy White effectively founded the IMF and was the chief negotiator at Breton Woods. The IMF sitll exists and the global currency regime that came out of Breton Woods remains in place today. The United Nation was Hiss’s project. He was the nominal Secretary General during its conceptual phase. Those two globalist institutions still remain funded by taxpayers and play a role in governing world affairs to this day.
Makes one wonder who actually won the Cold War, no?
William F. Buckley fired the warning flare in 1951 when he wrote “God and Man at Yale” and subsequently founded “National Review”. The highjacking was already well underway at that point, and despite his best efforts, it has only gotten worse.
Great comment, now please create a name so we will know when you are adding to the discussion and that you aren’t one of the usual “Anonymous” goons.
Too bad you lack the brains to post such a comment. And you’re welcome.
Boom
Burn ointment aisle 9
Too bad you lack the brains to post such a comment. And you’re welcome.
It’s too early in the morning for the Democrat movie theater to be having a matinee showing of the Democrat Commie Clown Show.
Projection:
Channeling one’s actions onto others typically refers to the psychological concept of projection, where a deeply emotionally disturbed individual unconsciously or deliberately attributes their own thoughts, feelings, and anti-social or criminal behaviors onto someone else.
This is an internal defense mechanism which allows mentally ill people to avoid confronting their own behavior and guilt by seeing it instead as as the thoughts and actions of another person who they despise and hate.
‘ It’s true, there is very, very, very little intellectual diversity at Yale and at most institutions of higher learning when it comes to politics.” Professor Eire added,“Academics in the US, Canada and Europe have been leaning left for the past three or four generations. And this is something that shows no signs of being corrected or correcting itself anytime soon.”
Academics have always been left leaning. They are more open to exploring and discussing radical ideas and views. The key word here is “politics”. Turley is essentially complaining about the lack of political diversity instead of real ideological diversity.
This is not because Republicans, conservatives, or libertarians are being “purged” from these schools. That is complete hogwash. It’s really self inflicted by Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians. Because these are the same folks who are constantly bashing institutions of higher learning and calling College and University education worthless or a waste of time. These are the same people who are bashing PhD’s, academics because they are more educated than those who are doing the bashing and denigrating. But at the same time they are complaining about the lack of diversity and inclusion of THEIR views and ideas at the institutions that they despise.
What professor Turley should be doing is asking those “purged” faculty who are rarely named or pointed out what their ideas or views are why they left or why they are not organizing to create their own University or College? Shouldn’t there be a “purged” conservative or Republican group calling out these schools or colleges? Where are these faculty Turley seems so worried about? I have not seen any names or academic disciplines that have been “purged” that the Professor talks about. It’s more likely a poor reason to complain about the lack of diversity from those who have been bashing the idea of diversity and inclusion. Turley is essentially being woke about the lack of Republican or conservative viewpoints.
Excuse me, you just posted the same stupid stuff in your two comments this morning.
Is this guy soft or what?
Just emphasizing a point two different ways. Nothing wrong with that.
So you’re the type of troll, who screams insanities the loudest and the most often , means you’re smarter?
No, I’m the type who offers a different point of view, contributing to the diversity of thought on this blog. I would have thought you would be smart enough to recognize something that is ironically the point Turley is trying to make.
You diverse? Hysterical is more like it. This, “you would be smart enough to recognize something that is ironically the point Turley is trying …” We do, and you fail.
Getting testy this morning eh George? The responses getting through.
ROFL! Testy? Nope. You seem unable to make an argument or recognize the irony. That is the point and you still fail to see it.
What do you have to offer besides insults and projection? Surely you can offer more than that.
X’s Delusions Of Adequacy, with his daily assurances he’s smart enough to be right every day – while Professor Turley is always wrong with his inferior intellect. If there were a prize for baseless self praise, X would be laughingly named the winner.
Where his version of “a different point of view” consists of nothing but denying, deflecting, defending, and lying. He’s essentially a kindergarten level literary cancer on this blog – benign, because what he posts is so feeble it does not spread throughout those who read here.
350 remaining days in 2006 of abject personal failure met with being jeered and mocked, X/Anonymous/George/Svelez… 350 can you make it a perfect record?
You keep proving my point. You have nothing or offer. All you can muster are insults and petty whining.
Come on, man. You can do way better than that, can you?
Oh oh george is pissed this morning.
You keep proving my point. You have nothing or offer. All you can muster are insults and petty whining.
Oooohhhh… X once again claims success! His belief he has achieved bare adequacy is running high today! You’ve gotten paragraphs of rebuttal from me X, today as in other days. And rebuttal when you post as Anonymous.
Just as you got paragraphs of rebuttal back when you were George. And before that, when you were Svelez. Aside from what I post here related to the day’s blog that has nothing to do with your odious, racist Democrat totalitarian presence.
Your writing style, your lies, your daily insults directed towards your host here… your lies, denying, deflecting and defending Democrat totalitarianism and communism are your trademark and your brand. You saw this post – but couldn’t bring yourself to rebut my other posts which provided specifics?
This is just one more of your feeble lies – not unlike your childish claim that those who don’t agree with your incomprehensible Marxist theories and lies lack reading comprehension.
And while you never miss a day of devoting a few lines to insulting and whining about your host here, Professor Turley, you now shed Karen tears of rage that you get replied to in exactly the same tone that you set.
You are a Cheap Fake American, X/Anonymous/George. 350 Days left in 2006 for your continuing abject personal failure here…
Can you match last year’s record of going 365 days straight of pathetic failure?
X testy?
Are you kidding, we all know X has no testes…just mountains of propaganda BS.
X says Just emphasizing a point two different ways. Nothing wrong with that.
Just more deflections, denial and defense for the virulent Marxism at these universities. Why the refusal to build your own website and blog for your fellow Marxists, instead of being a parasite embedded in Professor Turley’s?
https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm”
Why don’t you have works by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active. There are several reasons for this:
(1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and
(2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also,
(3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site. This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
You are the exact kind of person who would have claimed there weren’t any black students at University because they are too uneducated to succeed and no worthwhile candidates applied. You are a bigoted racist, but about Conservative ideology instead of race. There is no help for you.
“Hi, I am Mr. X and I haven’t read the column yet but I am here to disagree with it no matter what it says, no matter how dumb I sound and no matter how many people ignore me.”
I know I didn’t read X’s comment and I am sure many others didn’t either.
We’ve been ignoring your garbage for a while … its just filled with insults. You must be the adult in the room then?
Hullbobby, you read my comment. It’s obvious. Otherwise you wouldn’t be whining about it.
I’m here to provide a different point of view. Turley is a big fan of diversity of thought as evidenced by the current subject. I of course disagree with this argument and therefore I am providing the reason and logic of my point of view.
You, on the other hand, what have you offered besides pithy complaints about my differing point of view? Why don’t you provide a defense or argument supporting Turley’s?
Make the case for conservative ideas or views at universities or colleges. Don’t just whine about leftists being leftists. Show us why YOU think conservative or Republican ideas should be interesting to students at these universities and colleges.
I’ve said students don’t find conservative ideas or views appealing or interesting because they have already experienced or seen them in action outside of academia. Universities and Colleges offer students opportunities to explore more than what they have already seen and experienced when it comes to conservative or Republican ideas.
So…what would make a conservative view or idea interesting to a student? You have any argument supporting good conservative ideas?
“I’m here to provide a different point of view. ”
Lies and denying, deflecting and defending are not a ‘different point of view’. Over years and different usernames, there has never been a single day where you agreed with your host Professor Turley. Professor Turley is always wrong. And you, of course, are always right.
You are the whining Democrat Karen Of A Thousand Faces.
HullBobby,
I generally dont. Not worth reading. Just scroll past.
USF
I just read the numerous rebuttals, they’re more accurate.
Eight Ball,
Yep!
One only has to listen to a fool once to determine they are a fool. No reason to further engage with said fool again. Waste of one’s time.
X –
As usually you’re regurgitating disproven liberal propaganda. Professors today even admit they do not allow conservative professors to get tenure, or worse, will not even consider putting them on staff. This is blatant and has nothing to do with “self-inflicted wounds”. Conservative were very late to the party to realize that liberals were cleansing these institutions of diversity of thought or any semblance of critical thinking.
The few conservative professors I had in undergrad and grad school openly admitted they hid their political leanings until after they were tenured. “Just kept my head down for the first few years,” was a phrase I heard more than once. I think all agree that “academia is about exploring ideas.” But how do you only explore ideas from a single angle? Even in these hyper liberal echo chambers, liberals attack each other with stupid litmus tests. Whatever the “new” thing is in leftist POLITICAL ideology becomes a must with these intelligent elite. How is that possible if this isn’t about politics?
It of course is only about politics and power. It has ZERO to do with the exploration of ideas of critical thinking/analysis.
That is the problem, and I think JT did a solid job of addressing it that way in a short article.
For further analysis I think he wrote a book. He doesn’t mention it often, but I might have heard a rumor…
Anonymous,
“ As usually you’re regurgitating disproven liberal propaganda. Professors today even admit they do not allow conservative professors to get tenure, or worse, will not even consider putting them on staff.“
Disproven? Got any proof? What professors have admitted they do not allow conservative professors to get tenure, or worse will not even consider putting them on staff?
Any specific citation for that?
“ Conservative were very late to the party to realize that liberals were cleansing these institutions of diversity of thought or any semblance of critical thinking.”
Late to the party? You mean while they were busy bashing these institutions and blaming society’s ills on the same institutions Turley claims are “Purging” conservatives?
“ Even in these hyper liberal echo chambers, liberals attack each other with stupid litmus tests. Whatever the “new” thing is in leftist POLITICAL ideology becomes a must with these intelligent elite. How is that possible if this isn’t about politics?”
Attack? Litmus tests? You mean rational debates and criticism? That’s the normal part of academia, of course you wouldn’t understand because you’re already have a vehement animosity towards things you don’t understand.
You seem to think everything in academia is political. No wonder you’re so confused and upset.
“ It of course is only about politics and power. It has ZERO to do with the exploration of ideas of critical thinking/analysis.”
I take it’s been a while since you have been to a university or any sort of academic environment.
Those conservative professors you mention seem more cowardly than intellectually capable. If they chose to “keep their heads down” until they got tenure does that mean they suddenly express entirely different views and ideas once they got tenure? Or were they ignored by the rest of the faculty because they didn’t care about their ideas or views? Perhaps students didn’t care. What were these professors of yours teaching? You didn’t mention that. Math, physics, political science, biology, arts, what?
“ That is the problem, and I think JT did a solid job of addressing it that way in a short article.”
All he did was whine about the lack of Republican donors at Yale and conflate that with some “purge” that he never explains in depth or who exactly has been purged. His article sounded more like a manufactured issue to attack the fact that Universities and Colleges have always been historically left leaning and there is a reason for that. Because prior to Universities and Colleges there were religious institutions that emphasized religious beliefs and morals more than critical thinking.
When the Renaissance came about it started the decline of dominance of religious institutions as sources of higher learning where questioning of doctrine or belief was considered heretical and punishable by torture or death. Being able to question and explore things forbidden by religious instruction and doctrine is the basis of today’s academic culture. That is why conservative ideas and views are not appealing or favorable with the majority of students. That is why I ask the question, what new conservative ideas or views have been brought forth for students to explore? Can you name a few, or even one?
X says Turley is essentially complaining about the lack of political diversity instead of real ideological diversity.
That’s your second version of BBBUUUTTTT…. MUH TURLEY!!!!! this morning. Followed by paragraphs of non-intellectual excuses and hogwash.
i>The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.
— Winston Churchill
Republicans need to learn how to divide, conquer and fight like Dems. The moral high ground isn’t working.
The problem is they don’t have a high ground. They are constantly attacking Diversity Equality and Inclusion while whining about the lack of diversity, equality, and inclusion of THEIR points of view.
Turley could have used DEI as reason to include more Republicans and conservatives in University faculties. But Republicans and conservatives are vehemently anti-DEI.
You’re cut-n-pasting your comments again today, rehashing them. Got anything original?
Cut and pasting? Nope. How about you? You got anything better than your usual whining? Why don’t you post something… original?
Now that’s original.
Jack and Hill went up the hill
to fetch an indictment order
Jack fell out a sleazy lout
Now Hill heads for the border!
Now that’s original!
george
You got anything better than your usual whining?
_____________________________________
OMG george, do you ever look in the mirror?
We’ve been asking you that question for a long time and it still it hasn’t sunk in.
DEI
You are talking about our Newest Supreme court (person) who has no idea what a women is!.
Yeah that type of DEI hire.
And you have no idea what a liberal is. Look in the mirror again.
Dustoff, strangely at Universities and Colleges students can explore the meaning of “what a woman is” more thoroughly. But Republicans and conservatives are anti-DEI for the same reason most of them are. They have no idea what DEI is. In universities and colleges students explore in depth what DEI actually is. But, you prefer to revel in your own ignorance and bash those who seek to understand it more thoroughly than you.
It’s almost as if you are afraid to understand and get a different perspective because it’s scary to have a more nuanced or open view.
X says: Dustoff, strangely at Universities and Colleges students can explore the meaning of “what a woman is” more thoroughly.
X just opened the window to allow all of us to see him make the kill shot that will cement his position among Democrat intellectuals: X… DEFINE WHAT A WOMAN IS?
Waiting… don’t be afraid!
Xray: you are wrongly conflating government use of DEI – to favor some over merit – with diversity of thought in an academic institution. The former is toxic, the latter is the very essence of higher learning.
X –
You use the phrase DEI and you obviously have no idea what it means.
DEI is repacked affirmative action (reverse racism) that promises equality of OUTCOME not of opportunity.
No one who isn’t a looney liberal is demanding reverse racism or a guaranteed outcome. People want a level playing field and an opportunity. You know, a meritocracy. DEI is the OPPOSITE of a meritocracy. DEI is significantly closer to a kleptocracy, except it is done in the open and anyone who points out the failed corruption is labeled a racist!
It is astonishing that despite failure after failure of DEI implementation, people continue to point to it as if it’s a success. Critical thinking is obviously not a thing on the left.
The problem is you have a perfect record of never coming up with a persuasive argument to win others over to the cultural Marxism you defend. While whining that Republicans won’t accept your DEI beliefs that little boys can become girls simply by being castrated, that women must willingly subjugate themselves to men who claim to be women, and the remainder of your cultural rot.
https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm”
Why don’t you have works by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active. There are several reasons for this:
(1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and
(2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also,
(3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site. This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
350 days left in 2026 for daily cringe-worthy personal failure from X.
X says They are constantly attacking Diversity Equality and Inclusion while whining about the lack of diversity, equality, and inclusion of THEIR points of view.
There is no “high ground” to the “DEI” Democrat Marxism and racism that is part and parcel of this violent Democrat Marxism/communism that X daily defends, deflects, denies and lies about.
– There is no high ground on hiring faculty or admitting students on the basis of their skin color, rather than meritocracy.
– There is no high ground or “Inclusion” in discriminating against Jewish students during admission. Discrimination is not “Inclusion”.
-There is no high ground in men like X compelling women to allow themselves to be subjugated to biological males competing against them in sports because they claim to be tranny.
That’s a short rebuttal to your claim, X. Now tell everybody that it is nothing but insults like those you throw at your host here every single day.
Thank you for admitting you don’t know what DEI is.
Billy
Just get them to line up and have Trump declare the insurrection act with the offer of full amnesty, it will take care of itself.
GOP wake up!
End Federal Aid to colleges(including student loans, cities, states, non-profits
Outlaw public unions the political army of the democrats!
Then you would be without a job.
If you were employed by an org that was explicitly political, would you make a reportable contribution to the other side? Even if you are theoretically protected by “tenure”, that doesn’t protect research funding, lab space and the like.Ironically, the only place where explicit political discrimination is at all illegal is in federal government employment (Hatch Act).
Diversity of thought, the freedom to express one’s views without fear of retaliation provides the guardrails necessary for a civil, peaceful and secure society. When the institutions of power, knowledge and influence become dominated by a single party, anything can be rationalized for the sake of political purity and the accretion of power including violence as we are witnessing now. The easily influenced become cannon fodder in a battle for complete control. We are in decline and our future is in jeopardy as the unthinkable becomes commonplace.
Sounds like Yale.
Just look at what is being debated at the Supreme Court!
And what might that be?
Sounds like Germany 1930s.
“ Moreover, those of us who have criticized the lack of diversity have not argued for partisan criteria. Rather, these are metrics that help show the lack of diversity.”
But you ARE using partisan criteria to complain about lack of diversity because you keep implying that there has to be some equal balance of Democrat vs Republican or Independent in higher education faculties.
There ARE wholly conservative schools around the country and we don’t see the Professor complaining about the lack of more liberal or Democratic faculty at those institutions. Brigham Young, Liberty University, and others have plenty of conservatives and Republicans in their staffing but not enough liberals and Democrats, right? Should these schools be more diverse in their representation?
This is not a “lack of diversity” issue. It’s a student demand issue. Students are NOT interested in conservative ideas or views. If they were there would be more ‘Republican’ or conservative faculty. Professor Turley himself is a life long Democrat, why doesn’t he register as a Republican and start the trend he longs for? There is no lack of diversity in schools regarding faculty. It’s a lack of interest by students and they are not attracted to conservative ideals and views. It’s just that simple. Younger people are not naturally conservative. Some may come from strictly conservative upbringings and therefore are not interested in what they already know. To them a different point of view that is more interesting and attractive and NEW to them is a liberal point of view and subjects often seen as taboo in conservative households. If conservative views and ideals are more interesting they do have choices of wholly conservative schools, christian schools, Mormon schools, etc. They exist.
So what if Yale has no republican donors? Is the Professor jealous or claiming it’s unfair that the most elite schools do not prescribe to diversity of party affiliation or philosophy? It’s important to remember that it is Republicans and conservatives who despise higher education, the elite and the “experts” they spend time demonizing and denigrating. Yet Turley doesn’t seen to understand why there are not more Republicans or conservatives in university or college faculties. Because they are generally opposed to the idea of higher education. How ironic.
Sounds like George’s pet poodle is doing the commenting this morning.
Come on Frenchy
Poodle bite
Come on Frenchie
Poodle chews it
Not a spec of cereal left
Republicans are generally opposed to higher education??? Sounds like at least one radical poster has no idea what he/she/it is talking about. Too many of these radical purists at Yale is Turley’s point.
Who is always basing higher education? Republicans, conservatives. Who cares if Yale has zero Republican donors? Is there a law or state statute requiring school staff donate equally among parties?
Turley is complaining about schools where there are more left leaning faculty than right leaning faculty because those on the right are being “purged” which is pure BS.
Turley considers himself a Libertarian who comes from a Democrat leaning family. How is it he hasn’t been “purged” from his school? He seems to be doing fine. Why doesn’t he start an organization representing these “purged” faculty? That is the biggest take from all this, he never mentions who these “purged” faculty are or if they even exist.
Will you be making sense anytime soon?
Perhaps a Conservatives idea of higher education is much different than what these Leftist ideologues see as higher education. One mans perception of social engineering and indoctrination is another man’s higher education.
What they call “higher-education” the rest of us call indoctrination. Why pay good money to get told what to think?
X/Anonymous/George/Svelez… what’s your purpose for coming here each day to post BS and be mocked and jeered because it’s crap. Hoping to establish a Marxist outpost here?
The problem is you have a perfect record of never coming up with a persuasive argument to win others over to the cultural Marxism you defend. While whining that Republicans won’t accept your DEI beliefs that little boys can become girls simply being castrated, that women must willingly subjugate themselves to men who claim to be women, and the remainder of your cultural rot.
Why don’t you have works by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?
https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active. There are several reasons for this:
(1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and
(2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also,
(3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site. This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
350 days left in 2026 for daily cringe-worthy personal failure from X.
Waltrthompson,
Republicans are not opposed to higher education. Why would anyone spend their money not for education but indoctrination? As the good professor has noted in the past, these colleges and universities have “captive audiences,” to indoctrinate as they see fit. My own daughter was forced to take and pay for a DEI class as part of a graduation requirement. She certainly did not want to, but she was forced to. A number of colleges have similar mandates. I just looked up a local community college for a Associate in Applied Science Degree in Civil Engineering. In the second semester, there is a DEI/SJ requirement.
What is the point of the article? Professor Turley is complaining about the lack of diversity in higher education? Perhaps he forgot that the Trump administration made sure “diversity” is a dirty word among Republicans and conservatives.
Since when is party affiliation a reason to claim lack of diversity? There is on law or statue requiring higher education to be politically diverse. Remember Trump’s administration is AGAINST forced diversity. But here we are Professor Turley implying it should be forced in some way because it’s unfair that an equal number of Republican staff are not present at universities. That’s a pretty stupid view. Perhaps he should focus on the merits of the staff instead of political affiliation.
I’ve made this point many times and I will continue to do so because it IS relevant. Republicans don’t seem to have the ideas or views that students find interesting or appealing. If the Professor wants more Republicans, conservatives, or libertarians in college or university faculty then THEY should make their case by expressing their ideas and views to the students. They need to convince students their ideas have merit or are interesting enough to demand schools have them. But they are not doing that. Instead they are whining and complaining that it is “not fair” that they are not being included in faculty, griping about lack of…diversity which is hilarious because their own views and ideas are seen as anti-diversity and anti-inclusion. How Professor Turley doesn’t see it is quite frankly hilariously stupid. Perhaps he’s irony impaired on this issue. Turley is essentially having a DEI issue regarding the lack of Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians at higher education institutions.
Maybe re-read the article. Do you hear yourself? He said diversity of thought…
Maybe you should read for comprehension. Diversity of thought is still diversity. Transgender studies, DEI, women’s studies, critical race theory, etc. all are diversity of thought yet Republicans and conservatives have been attacking them and removing them from schools. And Turley is complaining about the lack of conservative and Republican points of view in higher education. Yeah, really weird, right? Maybe they should take a good look at their own rhetoric first before complaining about the lack of diversity of thought in higher education. I hear the Trump administration likes to pull funding from schools who have diversity of thought they don’t like. Crazy stuff eh?
“Maybe you should read for comprehension.” …. maybe you should write for comprehension?
“Transgender studies, DEI, women’s studies, critical race theory, etc. all are diversity of thought”
Just call it “the Democrat Marxist/communist political platform “. The platform based on cultural Marxism and critical communist theory converted into black racist theory.
X making a pitch in defense of Marxism in all it’s destructive forms. Predictable. A communist parasite who won’t create his own blog, but uses Professor Turley’s instead.
Why don’t you have articles by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?
https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active. There are several reasons for this:
(1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and
(2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also,
(3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site. This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
“What is the point of the article? “. What is the point of your criticism?
“Republicans don’t seem to have the ideas or views that students find interesting or appealing.”
You summed up your comments here: “is quite frankly hilariously stupid.”
“Republicans don’t seem to have the ideas or views that students find interesting or appealing.”
Which is why Charlie Kirk was invited to appear at MANY campuses and could fill campus arenas with students who wanted to hear him speak.
So they killed him.
Um …. who is “they”?
Crazy libs.
You know, the ones who only like what they say is free speech.
You make no sense.
DustOff,
“You know, the ones who only like what they say is free speech.”
And they are the ones who call for censorship of any speech they deem as “hate speech.”
Um … who are “you”?
Charlie Kirk spent a lot time denigrating the concept of a college degree and the value of a college education.
He didn’t “debate” students. He just argued with inexperienced students instead of debating with real academics. He tried that in Oxford and he was humiliated.
He was “invited” to appear at these universities and colleges to run a spectator sport of humiliating or talking down to college students. He wasn’t providing new or interesting conservative ideas or views. His ‘visits’ did not improve or gain more interest in conservative ideas or views. If they did there would be more calls to have them at the schools he visited. It’s hard to do that when this view is college is a waste of time and money.
Still lying george
Trump administration made sure “diversity” is a dirty word among Republicans and conservatives.
_____________________________
You feel it’s OK to attack Jews on college campus.
Is that your idea of (diversity)
I’d guess X is a true bloviator.
You’re on a roll walt.
“Republicans don’t seem to have the ideas or views that students find interesting or appealing.”
Earth to X: your “diversity” candidate, The Brown Vagina DEI Hire, LOST THE LAST ELECTION. A rational mind would recognize the winner had ideas and views that were far more appealing.
“How Professor Turley doesn’t see it is quite frankly hilariously stupid.”
1. Every day of the year, Professor Turley is always stupid and wrong.
2. Every day of the year I, your magnificent explainer, X, am always brilliant and right.
How’s that for diversity of thought from this blog’s parasite, X/Anonymous/George/Svelez?
What is Mr. Turley’s view on the media malpractice unfolding in Minnesota? Has the press crossed a line, or does he still see their actions as protected by the First Amendment? How long will he shield these practices under the 1A? At what point does accountability outweigh protection? Could his position change if the spread of misinformation continues and more lives are taken?
“What is Mr. Turley’s view on the media malpractice”.
We’re discussing the lack of conservatives at Yale today.
We already knew this was inevitable! What is unforeseen is the blatant media malpractice occurring and cnn as of 2025 has a new name, adjudicated fake news!
Wrong thread buddy. Got anything else?
J. Turley, as Carlos Eire said in your piece, diversity of political persuasion has been absent for decades in academia. BUT, as a new visitor to this webpage, I must inform you that it is also absent HERE. Do you read these comments, do you notice the trolls? Free speech or harassment against differences of opinion? Even the president gives the finger….
If I done agree must be a troll. Well if necessary I’m here to troll you. They bring their own demise thru the free market. It works. I and an adjunct. It really sucks these days. Academies isn’t that. It’s baby sitting.
Stop lying. “Diversity of political persuasion” is NOT absent from this blog’s comment section.
He’s not lying, he’s just too stupid to recognize it. Like dustoff.
Its just a bunch of wacky trolls. And nursing home patients.
Can we finish early today? They have a hot new Furry Tranny performing down at the Student Union building – maybe we can talk her into a threesome!
Hey meathead, no one is forcing you to read the comments. Whew, there’s always one in every crowd, a troll that is.
michael molovinsky says: “Free speech or harassment against differences of opinion?”
While you’re desperately scrambling to join X on the high ground of diversity of opinion… share with everybody what you feel is wrong with Professor Turley’s column today?
You aren’t being trolled when people point out your criticisms all flow one way – inevitably to be criticism of whatever the Trump administration is doing or to support what Democrats are doing in opposition.
You aren’t being trolled when commenters easily pick apart your mendacious posting because they are as childish as X’s BullSchiff.
And all while claiming to be a conservative who analyzed that Clinton’s demands for prohibiting and confiscating firearms was “pragmatic gun control that honors the Second Amendment”.
You need to build a better false flag war canoe to fly your flag from to replace the one you borrowed from Princess Fauxahontas Warren.
Mr. Troll, Since you’re such an expert on my archives, perhaps you can remind me of the date for this supposed Clinton gun control? I support the 2nd, and the only proposal I ever supported was the Kelly/Gifford.
Professors shouldn’t be hired for diversity, including political orientation. There are conservative schools, such as Liberty University and others.
With trolls such as yourself, I can appreciate why so few, if any, commenters use their real name.
michael molovinsky says Mr. Troll, Since you’re such an expert on my archives, perhaps you can remind me of the date for this supposed Clinton gun control? I support the 2nd, and the only proposal I ever supported was the Kelly/Gifford.
Dear Cheap Fake American 2nd Amendment supporter: you already destroyed the facade you attempted to build here of being a Second Amendment supporter with your above confession to advocating in favor of the Kelly/Gifford gun control fascism. Just a reminder of what you support in that bill as both an alleged conservative and Second Amendment supporter:
Arizona Senator Mark Kelly and his colleagues reintroduced the Gas-Operated Semi-Automatic Firearms Exclusion (GOSAFE) Act, commonsense legislation to protect communities from gun violence while safeguarding Americans’ constitutional right to own a firearm.
Ah! Those commie Democrat code words: “commonsense” and “reasonable”! Who could possibly be opposed to anything they’re assured is “commonsense and reasonable”???? Well, read on Mikey!
The GOSAFE Act would:
– Regulate the sale, transfer, and manufacture of gas-operated semi-automatic firearms:
– Establishing a list of prohibited firearms;
– Limit high-capacity ammunition devices.
– Preventing unlawful modifications of permissible firearms;
– Mandating that future gas-operated designs are approved before manufacture;
– Preventing unlawful firearm self-assembly and manufacturing; and
– Prohibiting machinegun conversion devices.
– Outlaw conversion devices.
Oh… and the date for your posting regarding Clinton’s campaign for gun control? Your search engine works for me – how come not for you?
29 July 2016 “The Audacity Of Hope”:
Hillary delivered the best speech of her life, but no less would have sufficed… She was most successful when addressing the subject of weapons. She built a case that she might have a better demeanor to be Commander In Chief than Trump. Her approach to gun control was pragmatic; Honor the second amendment, but refine the background checks.
There you go Mikey… you just got your Cheap Fake American ass chewed by a “Troll” that took the time to read the verbal excrement that passes through that extra anus in the middle of your face.
I don’t mind opposing opinions based on fact Mikey. But I despise posing liars who attempt to give their posts gravity by claiming they’re somebody they are not, possessing values that they do not have.
There is no greater cesspool of intolerance than academia. Once leftwing fascists take over, they root out all dissent, as they did in Germany during the 1930s, the Soviet Union during the 1920s, and China during the 1950s.
To the degree that most educators are liberal, and to the degree that they engage in more indoctrination than education, the situation is self-perpetuating.
Maybe, just maybe, there are more conservs. at Yale than meets the eye. Maybe they’re donating to democrats so they won’t become targets when in fact they support conservatives. I wonder what the average donation is? That would gauge the degree of their liberalism. The fake liberals donate over $100 donors to avoid suspicion and really are conservatives, while the $10 donors are real liberals.
Nice one.
In the US, Canada, France, German, UK, Poland, Romania, Hungary etc… So it’s really nothing new.
Instead there are emasculated “Trans Democrats” of the Bush “New World Order” school of thought
LOL.. now that’s funny
If dustoff thinks something is funny, its because he says so.
No you fool, because it was. To bad you don’t get it.
Just another sour puss lib.