Rowland Rupp, a student at Albany Law School of Union University, has created his own clinical opportunity by suing the school for racial and political discrimination. At issue is the allegedly biased and hostile lectures of Professor Anthony Farley. Rupp is suing under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other civil rights laws.In his lawsuit, Rupp alleges that Farley “intentionally deactivated the classroom’s audio recording system and abandoned course instruction, launching instead into a hostile political and racial monologue directed at white conservative students.” That included claims that the Founding Fathers were “worse than Hitler” and that conservatives “hate everyone – blacks, women, gays” and that they aim to “conserve slavery.”
Rupp alleges that Farley also singled him out over his personal appearance as an example of “what conservatives look like,” referring to them as “Daniel Boone.” The complaint also said that Farley harassed him on Facebook for his “Daniel Boone” clothing, a “Remember the Alamo” hat, and generally having an “incel/MAGA look.”
Rupp said that he told Farley after the class that, after enduring “approximately thirty minutes of this abuse,” he would leave the class and file a complaint with the law school.
After filing the complaint, Rupp alleges that the law school ignored it without calling witnesses or seeking evidence. Then, Farley himself reportedly filed a
“disciplinary complaint,” claiming that he was assaulted by Rupp and subjected to a “crazy and racist scene.” Rupp says that he merely “briefly placed his hand on Professor Farley’s shoulder in a non-threatening manner” in stating his intent to leave his class and file a complaint.
The complaint alleges that Farley has previously been the subject of such complaints.
These are starkly different accounts, and we will have to wait for a response from Professor Farley.
Regrettably, I routinely hear from law students about professors delivering anti-Republican or anti-conservative diatribes in classes. There is a sense of impunity at law schools, where professors enjoy ideological echo chambers that range from the left to the far left. With only 9 percent of law professors identifying as conservative, most faculties have practically no Republicans or conservatives left.
Despite begrudging acknowledgments of the lack of ideological diversity in higher education, there is no evidence of any real commitment from law schools or other departments to change the status quo.
The few remaining conservatives and libertarians know that they would not survive any political commentary in a class.
It is common to hear inflammatory language from professors advocating “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. One professor who declared that there is “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence as killing conservatives was actually promoted.
We have chronicled actual physical attacks by faculty members who later were lionized by fellow professors and students.
Conversely, there is no margin for error for conservative or libertarian faculty. Postings on social media outside of school are generally protected from liability. However, that has not stopped schools from targeting conservatives who say inappropriate or controversial things on social media. Conservative North Carolina professor Dr. Mike Adams faced calls for termination for years with investigations and cancel campaigns. He repeatedly had to appear in court to defend his right to continue teaching. He was targeted again after an inflammatory tweet. He was done. Under pressure from the university, he agreed to resign in exchange for a settlement. Four years ago this month, Adams went home just days before his final day as a professor. He then committed suicide.
This type of claim is notoriously difficult to establish. The question is whether it can survive threshold challenges to allow for discovery, including past complaints against Farley. The university recognizes that it has an advantage in such litigation, given the robust protections for academic freedom.
Wow, Turley’s always manages to land that one MAGA student who exhibits viewpoint intolerance of a professor’s views.
There are a lot of allegations and claims not independently verified. It’s more likely Rupp is manufacturing this outrage to retaliate against the professor’s alleged viewpoint Rupp found offensive. Snowflake perhaps?
Rupp, sure spared no time making all kinds of wild allegations which would explain the school’s muted reaction, a law school full of lawyers and those how can spot a frivolous complaint a mile away.
Of course Turley will take this opportunity of alleged wrongs and conservative hurt feelings to demonstrate once again how poor conservatives and libertarians are being “purged” from law schools or elite institutions of higher learning.
Turley’s always seems to call government intervention or “national education compacts” to address the lack of more conservative or libertarian faculty and “viewpoint” imbalances which ironically contradicts the very free speech principles he defends.
Turley does not understand that elite universities are not required to “look like America” demographically or politically, as their primary mission is academic excellence rather than proportional representation. He’s literally arguing for a conservative version of affirmative action without explicitly saying it.
Cconservative legal arguments are viewed by a majority of students and professors as “not serious” or as “constitutional kitsch” leading to lower hiring rates based on academic rigor rather than pure ideology.
Rupp faces his own problem when he assaulted the professor. Even if it was just laying his hand on his shoulder in a law school full of lawyers this will be justifiably an assault. It may be frivolous, but it would be just as frivolous as Rupp’s manufactured outrage over his inability to tolerate a different point of view. Oh the irony.
Oh oh its georegeeeee………. Oh, and, I’m thinking of a number between 1 and 5,625,547,855. What is it? The reason I ask, I read here that you can read minds.
A college student, and more likely the student’s parent(s), pays tuition to be taught the course material outlined in the course syllabus, not to be harangued with the course “professor’s views”. Is it not negligence (nonfeasance) if a professor chooses to take up class time discussing issues not outlined in the course syllabus and chooses to omit teaching the points outlined in the course syllabus? If an institution’s agent acts in bad faith, is not the institution liable as well, if not more so, especially if the institution knows, or should have known, the professor’s history of deviating from the course syllabus? Too bad, if this case does go to trial, that it can’t be televised nationally, or at least to all colleges and universities or, at least, to all law schools.
Vicente, a college course is not just about strictly adhering to a curriculum. A college or university is a place where different ideas and viewpoints are explored or expressed and that is not limited to students. Professors are always allowed to express or add their personal views on the subject of their course discussion. College students who are supposedly able to exercise critical thinking and reason can come up with their own conclusions based on what the ideas and views they have been exposed to, even in class. Rupp seemed to take offense by the professor’s alleged statements and this student was “subjected” to 30 min of allegedly being mocked or ridiculed by the professor without mention of why Rupp was singled out. We don’t know if Rupp made some comment derogatory or critical of the professor’s before being allegedly targeted because he is conservative.
It’s often the case some of these conservative students take immediate offense at being proven wrong or contradicted in class and instead of learning from it some choose to retaliate and manufacture allegations and file complaints. MAGA “karens” in a way. It has happened before and professor Turley has used these isolated incidents and magnify them as serious attacks on conservative views and positions by labeling the institution and its faculty as “radical leftists”. It’s silly and quite stupid.
Xlax, are a graduate of a failing school where teachers represent their own feelings and do not teach? You might get an A from such a teacher even though you learned nothing. That is probably why you are worthless.
S. Meyer, you obviously missed the point. Colleges and Universities is where you are exposed to different views and ideas, even by professor’s own viewpoints in the subject of their expertise. You seem to confuse “feelings” with viewpoints based on research and years of academic exercise. Which is why they are… professors in their chose subject.
Your vain and hollow insults are good examples of just how deep your ignorance goes. It says a lot about your inability to grasp the concept of a college or university education.
I got the point, Xlax. You like being stupid.
No you didn’t. You made an argument from ignorance and added insults to make you look like you know what you’re talking about.
Anyone reading what you write knows that what I said is true. You have hurt feelings. That is too bad. You are what you are.
Unfortunately for Farley’s law students, the bar exam tests one’s knowledge of the law, not one’s “feelings” about the law.
Professors can express their “different ideas and personal viewpoints” after the material in the course syllabus was completely covered. If one reads the comments of his students about this professor on “Rate My Professor”, a common thread among the reviewers is that this professor spent considerable, if not most, class time haranguing the Criminal Procedures class with personal views and ideology and, at then end of class, distributed a printed outline of points that should have been taught during class. This is academic negligence. If Farley wanted to discuss his personal views and political ideology with his students, he should have made himself available after class to do so.
Vicente,
“ Professors can express their “different ideas and personal viewpoints” after the material in the course syllabus was completely covered.’
What rule says professors cannot express their ideas and personal viewpoints before or during discussion of the material in course of syllabus?
It’s THEIR classroom and THEIR course. Right?
“ If one reads the comments of his students about this professor on “Rate My Professor”, a common thread among the reviewers is that this professor spent considerable, if not most, class time haranguing the Criminal Procedures class with personal views and ideology and, at then end of class, distributed a printed outline of points that should have been taught during class. This is academic negligence.”
Yeah if one reads only the negative or critical comments one would arrive at your conclusion, but that is not the case with the comments on “Rate my Professor”, right? Because there are also a large set of positive comments about the professor’s class. Which makes it clear that his class involves controversial topics that ARE going to upset or offend some students not used to discussing controversial subjects in a college setting. Right?
Professor Anthony Farley is a distinguished academic which Turley conveniently “forgot” to mention. Professor Farley specializes in Constitutional law, criminal procedure, and legal theory. Particularly critical race theory. Which is very likely the subject that was being discussed and Rudd got offended.
It is also likely that Rudd chose to use the Professor’s comments allegedly directed at Rudd to retaliate because he likely talked about aspects of critical race theory. Which was probably associated with the course’s subject at the time. It’s notable that Rudd didn’t say what they were discussing at the time he was being “targeted”.
Vincente,
Well said.
I am there, and paying for a Criminal Procedures class. I am not there to get forced to listen or indoctrinated on a totally unrelated, personal view and or ideology of the so-called professor or in this case, “hostile political and racial monologue directed at white conservative students.” Nor to get called out as an example of what the so-called professor calls a “Daniel Boone.”
As we have noted in the past, academia has a forced, captive audience in their classes. This is not presenting a differing viewpoint. It is forced indoctrination. And the students have to pay for it.
Upstatefarmer,
“I am not there to get forced to listen or indoctrinated on a totally unrelated, personal view and or ideology of the so-called professor or in this case, “hostile political and racial monologue directed at white conservative students.” Nor to get called out as an example of what the so-called professor calls a “Daniel Boone.”
Forced? Really? Rupp signed up for that class. Nobody forced him into that class. Captive audience, LOL! Seriously?
Professor Anthony Farley IS a professor of Constitutional law, criminal procedure, and legal theory. His class covers a lot.
Rupp raised his hand when Farley asked if anyone was a hunter. Given that many positive comments about the class describing Farley as humorous and enlightening seems to point out that he might, MIGHT have been joking with the rest of the class about Rupp’s hunting background. Rupp of course seems like he was just being a big ol’ snowflake and got all offended and embarrassed about the attention any students gets in a college class.
Turley’s point is that there are no conservative views or positions, or very few.
“Wow, Turley’s always manages to land that one MAGA student who exhibits viewpoint intolerance of a professor’s views”
Tolerance is not professors get to pi$$ all over everyone they want and anyone with different views has to quietly take it or fail.
“There are a lot of allegations and claims not independently verified. It’s more likely Rupp is manufacturing this outrage to retaliate against the professor’s alleged viewpoint Rupp found offensive. Snowflake perhaps?”
Much of this was done in a classroom in front of dozens of people.
Should not be too hard to establsh what Farley said.
BTW you keep making assumptions about Rupp or his point of view.
But Rupp has not made expressesed anything beyond the requirement that Farley be disciplined for racism and political intolerance.
You are again engaging in mind reading.
Fire as an example goes after conduct like this all the time – Whether from the right or the left.
Fires has right leaning and left leaning legal staff – what they do not have is people who will not vigorously defend the first aemndment.
Colleged are bound to the first amendment by taking money and by the promises they make in their guides and handbooks.
Fire pretty much allways wins.
“Rupp, sure spared no time making all kinds of wild allegations which would explain the school’s muted reaction”
The law school could have trivially asked a few of the students in the class about the class.
This is not rocket science.
If I were to guess this was a “sting” – Rupp and others KNEW that Farley had a long history of conduct like this,
That likely means there are many videos of the incident.
Regardless, the college should have investigated – they did not, now they are being sued.
“a law school full of lawyers and those how can spot a frivolous complaint a mile away.”
The slaw school that has itself for its lawyers,. has a fool for a client.
“Of course Turley will take this opportunity of alleged wrongs and conservative hurt feelings to demonstrate once again how poor conservatives and libertarians are being “purged” from law schools or elite institutions of higher learning.”
This is not about hurt feelings, this is about the damge done to the school, students, society, by purging conservatives and libertarians.
Whether you like it or not the law is inherently CONSERVATIVE.
Conservatism is not an ideology.
The REQUIRED conservatism in the law is NOT views on specific issues – that is not the business of the law.
It is about following the rule of law.
Lawyers must take the law as it is.
If you do not like that – get elected to the legislature and change the law.
Conservatism requires that courts ASSUME that novel claims or applications of the law should be regarded with suspicion.
That ideology or any kind has no place in the court room.
Farley should not be ranting about ANY political ideology.
He should be teaching students that they must NOT bring their ideology into court.
“Turley’s always seems to call government intervention or “national education compacts” to address the lack of more conservative or libertarian faculty and “viewpoint” imbalances which ironically contradicts the very free speech principles he defends.”
Just defunde colleges and universities which discriminate on the basis of race or ideology.
Or just get government out of funding education.
Xlax – it is the claim that calling out intolerance is intolerant that is hypocracy – that is YOU.
“Turley does not understand that elite universities are not required to “look like America” demographically or politically, as their primary mission is academic excellence rather than proportional representation. He’s literally arguing for a conservative version of affirmative action without explicitly saying it.”
If colleges accept government funding they are bound to the first amendment.
If colleges promise freedom of speech as one of their values they are bound by contract to provide that to the students who chose to attend presuming that promise was true.
This does not appear to be a Fire case – but Fire wins these all the time.
A truly private college can do much as it pleases – though discriminating based on RACE and SEX would still be banned – and Rupp hasw alleged that Farley engaged in racial discrimination.
But even a truly private college would be obligated by the promises it makes in its handbooks and guidebooks.
“Conservative legal arguments are viewed by a majority of students and professors as “not serious” or as “constitutional kitsch” leading to lower hiring rates based on academic rigor rather than pure ideology.”
You are likely correct – which is perfectly withing th first amendment but will lead to the death of the law.
As noted above Law is by NATURE conservative “Stare Decisis” is just conservatism in a nutshell.
Conservativism is the FACT that “what is”, that has worked even if with problems, will 9 times out of 10 be superior to some “experts” better idea.
“Rupp faces his own problem when he assaulted the professor. Even if it was just laying his hand on his shoulder in a law school full of lawyers this will be justifiably an assault.”
Making intentional contact with a police officer without their permission is simple assault in MOST states.
It is NOT when the person is not a police officer. Making intentional contact with a person other than a police officer without there permission is SOMETIMES bad manners. it is not assault.
” It may be frivolous”
No it is just a false claim.
“but it would be just as frivolous as Rupp’s manufactured outrage over his inability to tolerate a different point of view.”
Rupp has not claimed a POV. What he has claimed is that Farley violated the first amendment and the law, engaged in ACTUAL racial and political discrimination, and that Farley taught at odds with the written principles of the collect and ttherefore breahed the colleges contract with the students.
You keep noting this is a private law school and is free to do as it wishes.
While not quite true, it is absolutely true that they can acceeded to Rupps demand and settle the lawsuit and fire Farely.
John Say,
“Tolerance is not professors get to pi$$ all over everyone they want and anyone with different views has to quietly take it or fail.”
You must be confusing a lecture with personal berating. Which is not what allegedly happened. Rudd was clearly triggered by the professor’s views and got all offended. Rudd’s intolerance of the professor’s views are Rudd’s problem. Not the professor’s. Remembered. Rupp is the one who signed up for the class.
“Much of this was done in a classroom in front of dozens of people.
Should not be too hard to establsh what Farley said.
BTW you keep making assumptions about Rupp or his point of view.
But Rupp has not made expressesed anything beyond the requirement that Farley be disciplined for racism and political intolerance.
You are again engaging in mind reading.”
Nope. It’s been well over a year since the incident and Rupp has not provided any witness account verifying his allegations. That’s strange. He seems to be the only one who got offended that day. Rupp has made it clear what his point of view is regarding Farley’s views in class. No mind reading required. Just basic reading comprehension.
“ If colleges accept government funding they are bound to the first amendment.
If colleges promise freedom of speech as one of their values they are bound by contract to provide that to the students who chose to attend presuming that promise was true“
No, if private colleges accept government funding they are not bound by the first amendment. Mere acceptance of government funding does not make a private college a state actor. This has already been determined by SCOTUS.
If colleges have a mission statement stating that freedom of speech as one of their values it is NOT a contract. Unless there IS an actual contract signed by both students and the college.
“ As noted above Law is by NATURE conservative “Stare Decisis” is just conservatism in a nutshell.
Conservativism is the FACT that “what is”, that has worked even if with problems, will 9 times out of 10 be superior to some “experts” better idea.“
ROFL! No. Slavery, child labor, and the denial of women’s suffrage were all “what is” for centuries. In those times, conservatives argued that changing these systems would lead to societal collapse. Your survivorship fallacy is not an argument.
An expert isn’t just someone with a “better idea”; they are often people who have studied the failures of the past. They take the “what is,” keep the parts that work, and fix the parts that are failing. To reject expertise in favor of tradition is to prefer accidental wisdom over intentional improvement.
“Making intentional contact with a police officer without their permission is simple assault in MOST states.
It is NOT when the person is not a police officer. Making intentional contact with a person other than a police officer without there permission is SOMETIMES bad manners. it is not assault”
Wrong again. Under both common law and modern state statutes, intentional physical contact without consent that is harmful or offensive is a crime and a tort known as battery, and in many states, this is merged into the definition of assault. Many jurisdictions define simple assault as the intentional application of force, however slight, to another person without their consent. The primary difference between touching a civilian and a police officer is the severity of the charge, not the legality of the act itself.
“What he has claimed is that Farley violated the first amendment and the law, engaged in ACTUAL racial and political discrimination,…”
Violated the first amendment? Huh? No Farley did no such thing. Rupp took offense about the professor’s claims and allegedly singling him out while omitting the fact that he chose to participate in the discussion when he raised his arm when asked if he was a hunter. Rupp is just being a snowflake.
. Rupp wearing a coonskin hat in a mad dog racists classroom sounds manufactured and Farley certainly hates Daniel Boone. Triggered him? Maybe and exposed him as unhinged.
This is a bizzarro world view of your idea of free speech principles. Maybe I am mistaken on what I read but are you saying since there are not more conservative views, or that they are not brought in because these so-called elite schools don’t need to look like America? The free speech principles mean to not allow other views?
The only way to stop this sort of behavior is to file a civil law suit and go after his personal finances.
Are you a lawyer?
Farley, and his course, are not very well thought of by his students. On the website “Rate My Professor”, his students rated the quality of his course at 2.8 out of 5. Only 17% stated they would take his course again. Out of 12 ratings, 5 rated him as “awful”. Realize that many students choose not to provide a poor rating of a professor for fear of academic retribution if they are required to take another class taught by that same professor.
Good one dude.
Or….it’s students who have had trouble passing his class and blame the difficulty on the professor rather than themselves can also be a factor.
According to rate my professor Anthony Farley gets a 3 out of 5. but what you’re not saying is the positive comments that also populate his reviews.
Anthony Paul Farley is the James Campbell Matthews Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence at Albany Law School, where he specializes in constitutional law, criminal procedure, and legal theory.
Supporters often describe him with tags like “Hilarious,” “Caring,” and “Respected”. Some students have called his lectures amazing and inspirational, noting that he genuinely cares about student success.
Critics frequently rate him poorly (1 out of 5), citing concerns about classroom environment and ideological focus. Which shows his critics are small in number compared to his supporters.
According to Rudd’s lawsuit Farley reportedly made sweeping generalizations about conservatives and white people, leading the student to drop the course.
So he got offended. A law student who wants to be a lawyer got offended at generalizations about white people and conservatives. Wow big time snowflake vibes.
According to multiple reports about this case Rudd is essentially a “classroom Karen” who got offended by the professor’s views.
Professor Anthony Farley’s publications and field of specific legal arguments are well known in the field of….critical race theory. THAT is why Rudd got offended. It seems either Rudd had no idea the professor was a critical race theory proponent or he found out during one of his lectures and got…offended. Which comes back to viewpoint intolerances on the part of Rudd. Turley is always complaining about the left being intolerant of different viewpoints. Specifically conservative or libertarian ones. Here we have a conservative student exhibiting intolerance of a liberal viewpoint, specifically critical race theory.
(1) “Professor Anthony Farley’s publications and field of specific legal arguments are well known in the field of….critical race theory. Which comes back to viewpoint intolerances on the part of Rudd.”
George, Critical Race Theory IS viewpoint intolerant. You are a naive fool to believe that his advocacy for CRT does not find home and comfort in his course material. DO you even get it? Are you that ignorant, X.
Geez, X, we thought you were better than that. We thought you were smarter than that.
We can just imagine what you would say if a professor had outspoken, published ties to anti-gay literature, and then identified a gay person in class, made him stand up in front of other students, and proceeded to lecture on the anomalies and weaknesses of the gay platform.
You pretend to have authoritative comments but your own naivety (BTW, a word you lately adopted on this blog to fling at other posters) exposes your own weaknesses. The basic premise of higher education is to stimulate exploration and critical thinking, not to advocate for a concluding platform or position. Don’t you get it, george?
Anonymous,
“Critical Race Theory IS viewpoint intolerant. You are a naive fool to believe that his advocacy for CRT does not find home and comfort in his course material.”
LOL! Critical race theory IS a viewpoint. His belief about CRT is one of his fields of study. We don’t know if any of it is part of his course material. That does not mean it cannot be brought up or discussed within the confines of his course material.
“We can just imagine what you would say if a professor had outspoken, published ties to anti-gay literature, and then identified a gay person in class, made him stand up in front of other students, and proceeded to lecture on the anomalies and weaknesses of the gay platform.”
Your bad attempt at comparison neglects one crucial point. Why would a gay student sign up for his class if your theoretical professor had a well known history of anti-LGBTQ views?
“The basic premise of higher education is to stimulate exploration and critical thinking, not to advocate for a concluding platform or position.”
A concluding platform? It’s a theory. Exploring a radical view or theory that may offend someone is the point of having them so your critical thinking skills can be challenged and sharpened. Did YOU get it?
Just when I did not think these far-leftists could not be anymore unhinged, they prove me wrong yet again.
And they think that kind of behavior is okay for a professor?
Ever look in the mirror and your comments?
I am neither a far-leftist, nor unhinged.
That’s what you say, others, not. You response is revealing too. Why is it that crazy people always deny they’re crazy. Dbl. check the mirror. But those comments tell us a different story.
What is so unhinged about my comments?
Read them in the dark and see.
So, you have no proof and cannot answer the question.
Maybe you should DF ANON!!
Hi Karen! Knickers in a twist again eh.
…” This type of class is notoriously difficult to establish. The question is whether it can survive … The university recognizes that it has an advantage”…
(Rowland Rupp) David vs. Goliath (The University)
What goes around, comes around … again, and again, and again …
[In the long-run Rupp would be better off walking away before it goes any further, He has already proven the premise to himself – and made a formal Statement of Grounds]
The professor’s insults, directed at Rupp personally, constitute “fighting words” — unprotected speech in New York State. Furthermore, his behavior, sabotaging the recording system, demonstrates his knowledge of, and intent to commit, unlawful conduct.
One thing for certain, the professor’s unmarked face is evidence he is very careful about where he is before cutting loose with his fighting words.
Are you a NY lawyer?
STFU
Anonymous, in posting your reply you cut off the part where you address the content of my comment.
Old School Fool,
Addressing the content of your comment is not the modus operandi of that particular anonymous. As Sam has pointed out in the past, this anonymous modus operandi is what Sam calls “drive by” comments which amount to nothing.
Modus ….. drive-by …. nothing. And yet you respond to each and every comment. So who’s crazy, you ,or old school?
I recognize the modus operandi you reference and understand the need that a certain type of dullard requires to sustain the self-delusion of intelligence. Depending on the context the malady can result in humor (see The Dude in The Big Lebowski) produce annoyance (see above), or suggest erectile dysfunction (only his doctor knows).
Old School Fool,
Great The Big Lebowski reference!!!
Old school fool, there is absolutely no evidence the Professor was insulting the student. The student alleges he was targeted, but it’s more likely the student was merely offended by the viewpoint the professor was expressing.
You’re clearly jumping to assumptions and speculation without direct evidence of the allegations reported by Rudd. Even Turley is cautious about calling the professor outright. At least he knows better than to accuse Farley without direct evidence.
First, this is not a court of law. Operating from an unsupported allegation is the only thing possible here (it is also the first step in any investigation). Second, you criticize me for reacting without evidence to the student’s allegations by offering a “more likely” interpretation — ALSO WITHOUT EVIDENCE!
You might want to be careful when accusing others of jumping — to assumptions or conclusions — by making sure your own feet remain in contact with the ground.
If one attempts to discuss leftist behavior without centering that discussion on leftist values, once makes a gross mistake.
Leftist values are envy, resentment, unequal treatment under the law, and violence. Democrat pretty philosophy is violent, murderous and impoverishing philosophy.
The likes of Anthony Farley and Andrew Weissman are what are grooming future attorneys for the practice of law. Epitomes of moral and ethical turpitude to the nines.
Trapper,
Professor Ilya Shapiro has warned about the miseducation of attorneys in his book, “Lawless, the Miseducation of America’s Elites.”
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/01/12/ilya-shapiro-guest-blogging-about-lawless-the-miseducation-of-americas-elites
It is clearly a danger to rational, civil government. Lately US District courts seem to have been taken over by Antifa.
To Ilya Shapiro-such revelation was the motivation for my comment.
Young, in the future, will we have two categories of lawyers, conservatives and progressives, where the progressives continuously lose because they don’t understand the law and struggle to argue cases effectively in a free environment?
You barely understand what you read.
S. Meyer, Possibly that will be the case. But it might be a little different. Instead of ‘conservative’ lawyers I might think of lawyers who are faithful to the ethics of the profession, those who, as judges, will rule according to established law even when the outcome is contrary to their political preferences.
It is likely more complex with advocates, but one hopes those lawyers who master the law and have the right of it will prevail but prevailing is more difficult when the judges themselves have been corrupted by critical legal theory.
I think I saw a hint of a bigger problem[s] in the judicial lynching of the police officers in the Floyd circus. I admired the way John Adams defended the British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre. Similarly I admired attorneys who have done their duty and faithfully defended criminals whom they loathed and likely feared. I am thinking now of a stone-faced woman defense lawyer standing beside the BTK killer while he told the court of the horrible things he had done as part of his disclosure to avoid the death penalty. I like to think that were I in her position I would do my best to save his life even though I would prefer to see him executed. I would want to lose but would fight with everything the law allows to win.
In the Floyd case private attorneys did not come forward to help with the defense. They came forth to help with the prosecution.
It was disgusting. Officer Chauvin had one heavily pressed, lone lawyer who, I think, did a good job when everything, governor, mayor, judge, media, mobs, and likely the jury, were set against him. And then local lawyers joined the mob and prosecution. The appellate courts were, in my opinion, also a disgrace.
The mob won.
And then we were told that justice was served.
“I think I saw a hint of a bigger problem[s] in the judicial lynching of the police officers in the Floyd circus. “
We both agreed then, and to this date, the error has not been corrected. We are seeing an ideological war, but we are also seeing the left all too willing to cross the boundaries of the law. That includes too many lawyers. When one fails to understand right from wrong, which we are seeing today, we have a problem. I support lawyers being the best advocates they can be as long as they follow the law. Today, I am not sure that will be true for many of those being trained in the present atmosphere.
S. Meyer– “I support lawyers being the best advocates they can be as long as they follow the law. Today, I am not sure that will be true for many of those being trained in the present atmosphere.”
We agree completely. Professor Shapiro’s warning about the dangers of Critical Legal Theory in law schools startled me even though I had some sense that the law schools were in trouble. Now I think they are becoming a menace; particularly in the Ivy League atmosphere with their oversized influence.
It has taken millenia of painful lessons and evolution of civilizations and legal systems to develop the system we inherited and now it is being discarded from within.
A sort of legal anarchy is seeping into its place.
Prominent and respected thinkers like Turley and Shapiro are sounding the alarm but I am not confident they will be enough. But thank God for them.
“A sort of legal anarchy is seeping into its place.”
That is true, but if we stay on course, they will become underperforming lawyers, and competition will make some realize their legal careers were stolen by their woke schools. Additionally, their education won’t help them as much as it should if they become businessmen or engage in other skills. Law school is where, without penalty, they can learn to engage on all sides of an issue, but that was denied to them.
If you remember the old trope about “a conservative is a liberal who got mugged”, it’s actually a truism … until something forceful and aggressive is done personally to most liberals, they’re not going to change their ways. Start doing forceful and aggressive things and you’ll start seeing a change in the weather.
. The hominids have a history of extinction as homo habilis, Neanderthal, homo erectus and so many others are no more. It’s tragic they find themselves as “professors” in law schools preaching the same extinction. Imagine that.
Never lettem see you sweat.
The racially based abuse towards this student is clearly a civil rights violation for both civil and federal courts and authorities. Professors don’t get a hall pass for “practicing “ discrimination in lieu of teaching the history of it or the promulgation of laws codifying against it.
You may ask yourself, “Why is our government a quagmire of disfunction full of this nonsense and civil corruption”?
The answer is because it is full of like minded ignorant DEI people such as this O ring alleged racist masquerading as a professor.
See Omar, Talib, Pressley, Crockett and AOC as example #1.
They teach because they are not sufficiently skilled, or sufficiently emotionally stable, to get and maintain a job in the real world. The “Squad” members you cite are likely in government because they are not even skilled enough to teach in college.
What ?????
Really ????
Turley has finally gone off the deep end, jumped the shark or whatever other aphorism you wish to use.
Turley explicitly states: “we will have to wait for a response from Professor Farley.”
He then renders judgment on these UNANSWERED ALLEGATIONS.
Unfortunately, in his zeal to agitate the MAGA mob, he completely fails to follow his own advice and “wait for a response from Professor Farley”.
He is acting as judge, jury and executioner before even hearing all the evidence.
Is this how he teaches his own students? Just take unanswered allegations and then render judgment. If so then he has no business teaching law. He should instead concentrate on his obviously more lucrative contracts with Fox and NY Post through Rupert Murdoch.
“He then renders judgment …” If you had a brain… its an opinion.
An “opinion” based on one sided, unanswered allegations is not an opinion worth paying any attention to.
You can call it an “opinion” if you wish, but that does not validate it any way.
It is completely worthless and should not be given any consideration whatsoever by any serious person.
The MAGA mob will be agitated by this worthless “opinion”, which is obviously Turley’s goal here.
And your comment was … what again? All inclusive, somehow.
You are not here by force. You choose to be here and at no cost. to you.
The truth sucks when you are forced to confront it, doesn’t it ????
When you have to resort to comments implying that I “don’t have to be here”, then that just reinforces my view that you are living in a closed bubble of MAGA madness where you are not interested in hearing both sides of any issue.
If your only response to this egregiously one sided posting by Turley is that I should just go away, then you are implicitly acknowledging that I am correct.
You don’t seem to offer any other rebuttal except to cover your ears and make noises to try to drown me out, like a little child trying to ignore his parents.
Bubble? I got the feeling this a little bit… So, closed bubble huh? That thing you call a brain? Unable to comprehend reality beyond you bubble?
As for covering ears, please by all means let it all out here and now. But a fair warning, the more you rant the crazier you appear here. So here we go…. let loose dude….. we’re all ears.
You are just reinforcing what I have already said about you.
You offer absolutely no rebuttal of what I have said about Turley’s ridiculous comments.
Instead you just resort to the typical MAGA responses of childish personal insults.
When you say, “the more you rant the crazier you appear HERE” you are simply agreeing with, and reinforcing what I am saying. The emphasis is on “HERE”. Any statements made “HERE” in this worthless blog that are in conflict with MAGA dogma are immediately deemed to be crazy, without ever trying to offer a cogent rebuttal, because no cogent rebuttal is possible.
THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT !!!!!
AND YOU KEEP REINFORCING IT !!!!
How does one one rebut crazy? Stop, stop, stop I can’t deal with … its making me crazy. Naaa… just kidding dude. Oh wait…. are you SCREAMING at us, those CAPS… hurts my feelings. Say you’re sorry…or else I won’t comment with you again.
BTW, are you naked?
You just keep reinforcing what I said.
As Jack Nicholson famously said in A Few Good Men, “You can’t handle the truth”.
Instead you resort to typical MAGA tactics of denial and insults with no substantive rebuttal.
Keep on reinforcing.
I’m sure you will.
It’s all you are capable of.
You are the one who has gone off the deep end. Jonathan Turley said nothing or did not judge Farley after he said to wait to hear from Farley. He then discussed how often he hears many stories like that and his concern for no diverse thought in these schools (meaning the absence of conservative ideas).
What is wrong with you ???
Turley outlines the one sided, unanswered allegations against Professor Farley.
He acknowledges that the allegations are unanswered with his statement, “we will have to wait for a response from Professor Farley.”
He then embarks on an expansive discussion of “regrettably” similar cases like this and faults the colleges and professors in these other cases.
However, Turley acknowledges that the allegations are unanswered, therefore he has absolutely no basis to say that THIS case is in any way “regrettably” similar to the other cases he discusses. He has made a preemptive judgment that this case is “regrettably” similar to other cases, before hearing all the facts and evidence.
He is just assuming that the allegations are well founded because it is “regrettably” similar to other cases.
This is not how the law works and he obviously has no business trying to teach law.
This has nothing to do with the law. This is about an alleged professor racially profiling a white student. Of course Turley is correct to show how this is not just one example when there are many others. He is not saying he is guilty, I’m afraid your judgement here is wrong.
So what is your two-sided answer about Turley. You are wrong here and just being obstinate and bigoted toward Jonathan Turley
Of course it makes sense to say this case, alleged or not, is similar to others. You jump to conclusions that are, as I said, wrong
The only ones jumping to conclusions here are you and Turley.
Turley cites the one sided, unanswered allegations from the student, then says this is “regrettably” similar to other cases that he is aware of, and discusses these cases expansively.
There is absolutely no basis for making the assumption that this case is “similar” to other cases in the absence of an answer from Prof. Farley.
What if the student is simply lying and Prof. Farley can prove it ?
What if the student has been failing the class and sees this as an opportunity for revenge ?
In that case all your assumptions are wrong.
I’m not claiming that this is what happened. I make no assumptions. I reserve judgment until I hear an answer from Prof. Farley. Until then, there is absolutely no reason to give any credence to the student’s claims.
I reserve judgment, and so should Turley.
Turley is trying to have it both ways by saying “we will have to wait for a response from Professor Farley”, and then disingenuously trying to imply that Prof. Farley is probably at fault by citing other cases that he claims are similar, in the absence of any evidence that this is so.
You reserve judgement? Have no opinion on anything that isn’t clear? I doubt that and making an accusation against Turley over nothing. Let me ask you this, were you one of those who thought a state like Colorado could remove a presidential nominee off the ballot? I assume you had no opinion until the Supreme Court decided it? You reserved judgement?? Silly talk
Wait, wait, wait.
At 1:39 you accused me of jumping to conclusions that are wrong.
Now you say that it is perfectly fine to have an opinion about things that aren’t clear.
Really ??????
Surely, having an opinion means to come to a conclusion.
On the one hand you criticize me for coming to a conclusion that you say is wrong, while simultaneously claiming that it is perfectly fine for you to have an opinion, and draw a conclusion, about things that aren’t clear.
You are just as duplicitous and disingenuous as Turley.
As John F. Kennedy famously said: “Too often we… enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought”
I would guess that 99.99 percent of students today have smartphones in their pockets. Record the class in which such alleged unlawful language is used, and the matter is halfway to settlement. Students do not have to endure insults and false charges of racism and other alleged crimes. Without evidence, it’s a he-said, she-said world, and nobody wins. Also, other students are potential witnesses and should be identified by the complainer. This would be a good practical example for a law student to get to know the value of evidence and witness statements in pressing civil and even criminal charges against someone. The turning off of the classroom audio system by the professor is not a good sign and will weigh against him if he doesn’t have a good excuse.
The school has already ignored Rupp. Next step, his lawyers will take a go at the school, seek a compromise. Rupp’s other allegation, sound etc., will prove useless… room cleaners accidently shut it off etc.. As for the media posts… um… that’s a hard nut crack… 1st A comes to mind. The best the kid can hope for is a lollipop from mgmt.
Excellent comment
JJC,
Knowing and seeing how the university administration treated this incident, would any of the other students come forward and give testimony?
Would? How is that relevant according to the Turley’s opinion, if others witnessed it?
Just replace the word conservative with the word Jew. Kill the Jew. Kill the Jew’s children.
Detonate the Jew. Celebrate the death of the Jew!
All of this coming from the people who exclaim STOP THE HATE!!
In fact, teachers joined the Nazi Party in greater numbers than any other profession. In the classroom and in the Hitler Youth, instruction aimed to produce race-conscious, obedient, self-sacrificing Germans who would be willing to die for Führer and Fatherland.
This self righteous professor simply should be proud of following the example set forth by the Jew hating educators in Germany.
They stopped teaching history so people would forget. Have you?
Did you actually think that comment through?
What didn’t Tit think through? Did the statement hit you personally?
Hit? Na, I ducked. But I think it got Tit.
Um… now that’s a cute moniker. Tit. Can I use it?
When you ducked, you probably hit your head on the toilet. You can buy a nipple for a baby bottle inexpensively. I hope it satisfies you and your problems.
TiT,
Well, for how many years have the far-leftists called Trump Hitler, and his supporters Nazis? How many of them have actually called for violence against Trump, to include two actual assassination attempts, or his supporters or conservatives in general? The good professor provides a list to start from.
A sec dude. Called for violence you say. Seems to me you and many others have done your share of calling for violence against libs here.
Gotta ask, are you stupid or sumptin?
Show us all an example of me or others calling for violence. I will only resort to violence if forced to in self-defense. I have noted here on the good professor’s blog many times that a civil war must be avoided at all costs. I have lamented that it does seem the far-leftists, by their words and actions, do seem to be pushing for a civil war. At times it seems inevitable. Other times it seems far fetched. I would prefer these things to be handled like grown adults and not children protesting about law and order whom resort to violence.
If anyone is proving their intelligence, it is you.
“Sumptin.” Learn that in public education? Or Harvard?
Rupp should sue Farley and the School for defamation and the amount should be obscene… it can then be referred to the present DOJ that has absolutely no appetite to tolerate this type of discriminatory behavior and strip the school of any federal assistance it receives. Farley should be immediately placed on probation or be fired unless the school wishes to sustain irreparable harm through its association with bias and blatant defamation at the core of this complaint.
Come On Man – the Brotha’s (and Sista’s) always know a racist when they see one. They have supernatural powers to see behind the eyes and evidently all racists are masquerading as everyday white folk walking around minding their own business and leading normal lives! That is a huge red flag – seeming normal and grounded. Whew, good thing Farley is blessed with these powers and is vigilant in finding hate everywhere it hides.
Security, help this crazy out of the building please.
Dear Mr. Turley, I am sure this student will receive no help from the school as this does not fit the liberal narrative: “Conservatives hate anyone and everyone.” This hatred on the Left is nothing new. I congratulate this young man for being so incredibly brave in pointing out another example of the left’s hate and intolerance.
Congratulate? Will you also help pay his lawyer? Now that would be true conservative. Thanks, I already did.
JT the free speech idiot…Free speech for me but not for thee.
“Stephen Colbert Says CBS Banned Him From Interviewing Democrat Amid FCC Threats”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/stephen-colbert-cbs-talarico_n_69940243e4b018d152361971
I believe professor Turley over anything Colbert claims.
Check out what happened. They allow right wing radio to interview one candidate. They are changing the rules for TV Talk shows. Why?
Leftwing fascists are the least tolerant people in America. They are racist and sexist while pretending to be against both. Education is the center of fascist power, like Nuremberg was for their Nazi forebears.
Your name equates well as being intolerant, racist, sexist like your current and Nazi forbearers.
Wow… the lack of self awareness is astounding.
Astounding you say? For you at least. Brain the size of an 8 ball.
Ohhhh nooooo!
Mommmy…
I agree 100%
Remember that video trump posted to his X Account? The one that portrayed the Obamas as apes?
And remember all the angst from those on the left calling the post racist?
Give me a break.
We all know that black people are just monkeys dressed up in human clothes.
Just because you tell the “truth” doesn’t make you a racist. or does it?
This is why I love the commenters here. They’re the best America has to offer us all.
if you were expecting to attract upvotes here with your feigned racism, attempting to fool others into joining in your opinion so that you could point at the upvotes later in order to show how racist this blog is, you be dumb. really dumb.
Just pointing out the obvious.
You mean pointing out you’re oblivious…
Just saying 🤡
another example why all federal aid to colleges(including Student Loan Back), cities, states, non-profits SHOULD BE ENDED
Also Outlaw Public Unions
Taxpayer are funding Democrats who HATE America
Defund them!
Nice idea, but will never happen. The federal education budget is not fully mandated by law in the sense that Congress must automatically spend a set amount each year. Instead, federal education funding is primarily discretionary, meaning Congress must act annually through the appropriations process to provide spending authority for most programs.
While some education programs are funded through mandatory spending—such as certain provisions under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or the Pell Grant program—these are tied to eligibility criteria and formulas established by law, and actual funding levels are still determined by annual appropriations. For example, IDEA authorizes federal contributions to special education, but Congress historically has appropriated only a fraction (10–20%) of the 40% authorized, leaving states and districts to cover the shortfall.