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.
Diversity (i.e. class-disordered ideologies) and sociopolitical DEIst polices. #HateLovesAbortion
This Case will be dismissed upon the first Summary Judgement made by the University.
Not summary judgment, which would come after discovery. More likely on a motion to dismiss, which would prevent the plaintiff from obtaining the documents that Prof. Turley references. If the student survives a motion to dismiss, he may get enough evidence to survive summary judgment.
Early Childhood, Elementary, Middle, High and Postsecondary education is the US educational hierarchy. Reading that sentence you’d assume Postsecondary would have the cream of the crop of educator’s not some wacked out despot spewing utter nonsense to a captured audience of his contempt. Now if you read the first sentence again it’s a Tyrannical Yoke which has been placed around the neck of the American educational system. I came across a political cartoon I had saved of Uncle Sam with a glass in his hand speaking to Andrew Johnson about the Fourteenth Amendment saying “Now, ANDY, take it right down. More you Look at it; worse you’ll Like it.” Isn’t that what the Leftists are saying, take our horse-manure and like it, NOT!
Turley certainly knows his audience here.
He rings the bell and all you MAGA morons come running, slobbering and salivating, just like Pavlov’s dogs.
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.
Look who’s calling the kettle black. You seem to be answering the dinner bell just as quickly if not quicker.
They were taught well by their professors and 21st century parents. 🙄 The victim sheet has got to stop. And yes, universities are the worst enablers. This is no longer about basic education, let alone enlightenment.
What do we do with these brainwashed children for whom basic, shared, humanity is a foreign concept, in spite of what they think that might be (and of course they are wholly unaware that someone else paid for them to have the privilege, be it parents or tax payers), going forward? We are 10 – 15 years away from finding out, and it likely will not be fun. We are *so* not out of the woods yet, not even close, and every single election is a slender thread.
I went to one of the handful of law schools in America where the majority of the faculty was conservative. Many professors had been educated in both law and economics. The thinking was rigorous, everyone’s rights were respected, and ad hominem attacks on anyone, liberal or conservative, were not tolerated. The important thing was to address the ideas put forward in a logically disciplined way, not the messenger and not labels. I was fortunate not to have attended a law school where the type of behavior described above ever occurred or would ever have been allowed.
Thumbs up!
What law school was that? It seems you did not graduate based on your flawed logic on this blog.
The American Founders designed a republic of laws—laws to be obeyed, not bent. They fixed the nation’s boundaries, ordained a written Constitution as supreme law, and enacted Naturalization Acts to define the body politic. Territory, charter, and citizenry: the Nation, the Constitution, and the People. Those were the structural limits within which the American experiment was meant to operate.
In this view, that legal order did not collapse through amendment or lawful revision, but through force. Secession—nowhere prohibited in the constitutional text—stood as a lawful political remedy reserved to sovereign states. It was the constitutional safety valve of the federal system. When that mechanism was denied and suppressed by the kinetic force of Abraham Lincoln, the foundational premise of voluntary union was extinguished. The Union was preserved territorially, but the constitutional architecture that made it legitimate was, in this telling, irreversibly broken.
Thus the charge: modern America is less an organic continuation than a stitched creation—assembled under compulsion rather than covenant. Like Humpty Dumpty after the fall, once the original constitutional equilibrium was shattered, no exertion of power could truly restore it.
America awaits the day it is once again placed squarely on the original Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
Couldn’t put Humpty together again.
@oldman
My wife graduated from CUNY, and even in her time, not THAT long ago, it was not this. When she did some other post-graduate work later on (maybe around 2015 or 2016) it was becoming very difficult to ignore. We are talking ten years, and a whole lot of things you are likely well aware of follow that timeline.
just a decade, but that is all it has taken for the modern left to create a legitimate infestation from what were just seeds they had previously cast into the soil of our shared culture.
James – even when I was in college in the late 1970s I could sense the seeds of the insanity that we have now in academia. Among the students, almost everyone was liberal, and conservative students were an exotic curiosity. (I did not have a pronounced liberal or conservative leaning at the time, and my main focus was gaining marketable skills.) I did have a small handful of conservative professors who were very well spoken and persuasive. At that time, the main issue for students was South Africa’s apartheid system. I remember being a little turned off, though, by an incident with regard to a speech by the president of the university. The left-wing activists made a deal with him that if they could speak before him and express their objections to South Africa’s government, they would not disrupt his speech (which had nothing to do with South Africa). So they got their turn, but then when he spoke they disrupted his speech. OTOH, Phillis Schlafly, who was an alum, came back to speak at one point. I believe this was during her opposition to the ERA. The crowd was hostile but, to their credit, they let her speak without interrupting her.
If that were true then you’d know correct usage such as , I went to a conservative law school in the United States. Pffft. In America 😂.
Ever hear of the term, ‘ arrogant twit? 🙂 Tiresome pontification.
I checked the NYS Office of Court Administration to confirm that Farley is, in fact, admitted to the New York bar. He is. It appears that the plaintiff’s father is a member of firm that has seven offices across New York State. I intend to follow this case. It will shine a light on Albany Law School – that’s for sure. Perhaps the firm will also consider filing a disciplinary complaint against Farley.
Hear, hear!
@Catherine
His father? Get outta here. 🙄 And people think nepotism isn’t a factor in any of this, even after Fauci’s daughter was found to be monitoring content on the former Twitter during the pandemic. At this point I wonder if people even know what aristocracy or dynasties are, or what they imply, or worse, if they even care.
One would think the Epstein reveals, even of a non-sexual nature, would shine a light. It’s like reasoning with a log. Those of us that know better, unfortunately, cannot relent anytime soon.
Oh. So the Rudd went to daddy with his lawsuit because he got offended. Wow. Talk about privileged brat.
OT
“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?”
“If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”
– Thomas Jefferson, 1781
_____________________________
20 million illegal aliens were thrown all of a sudden into America under Biden.
“A discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
___________________________________________________________________
“The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
– Alexander Hamilton
. You’re supposedly in the UNITED STATES. At least know that much.
More simply stated: leftists are evil. Full stop.
Farley is black. Explains it all.
Rudd is?
.Farley is DEI and Albany Law went to the dogs. They’re enjoying payback for black face.
Sorry to hear about the harassment and suicide. Yes, institutions harass without mercy in such cases. Yes, sue I suppose unless there’s fear they’ll murder, too.
It’s winding up.
Before anyone states this is over before it begins should stop and take a breath. If this is as is described about the professor in question and he attacks conservative students constantly, I would be very cautious about this going with a win for the professor and school. There will be other students that went through this and they will come out at some point. The history shows that when an issue hits a certain point, others show up to testify. If nothing else, that will cause the school agita and ultimately money.
Of course this may be nothing more than a teaching lesson with a thin skinned student and the case needs to run its course.
Either way, I suspect the school ends up with egg on its face.
This rhetoric is DANGEROUS and STUPID. Whatever happened to following the law and that justice is blind. If they don’t already, these stupid fools are going to have a lot of blood on their hands, and very soon, if this keeps up.
I attended law school and graduate law school quite a while ago. In the five years I studied law never did any profesor I encountered dureing thise five years ever express his or her own political opinions or suggest that students adhere to his or her legal or philosophical beliefs. The law school I attended for my basic law degree was at a state university. My graduate law study was at a private institution. Each of these universities conducted law classes to introduce students to the various areas of law, explain the law in each of these areas with the suggestion of personal research to expand the understanding in each area. Never was there any suggestion that “this, or that was the appropriate way to think.” I cannot understand why an experience such as mine cannot be a “map” for law professors to follow in their instructions. Who cares what the professor’s personal political opinions are??
The fault lies with the law school Deans and administrators that allow these professors to inject their personal ideology into what should clearly be objective teaching of course material. “Academic freedom” does not, or certainly should not, protect a course professor, or the university, from claims of bait and switch liability.
Vicente,
“ The fault lies with the law school Deans and administrators that allow these professors to inject their personal ideology into what should clearly be objective teaching of course material.”
You have no idea what the subjects material was when Rudd was in attendance. There is absolutely no hard rule or school policies that are mentioned that require Professor Farley is not allowed to inject personal ideology. You have no idea if it is even a personal ideology. He’s written publications and legal theories in the field of critical race theory and he specializes in constitutional law, criminal procedure, aaaaand….legal theory.
“ Academic freedom” does not, or certainly should not, protect a course professor, or the university, from claims of bait and switch liability.”
Nothing alludes this case is about a “bait and switch”. Academic freedom also means professors are free to express their views onto students and students are free to arrive at any conclusion they want. They are not required to adhere or accept any of his views. But exposing students to controversial views and ideas IS part of the college and university experience. Right? If you don’t like the class, views, or ideas being express can drop the class. It’s an option students are free to exercise anytime. Nobody is forced to sit and listen to things one finds offensive. Rudd could have gotten up and left the class. Right?
This is a white Christian nightmare. Did twin towers really happen?
Rupp makes some crazy allegations but he carries the burden of proof on his claims. I doubt he will have many witnesses or hard evidence of what he claims is true. Only through discovery, if the case gets that far, will we know.
Here is a post from a former student regarding this lawsuit, it sure shines a bright light on common complaints by MAGA aligned lawyers/students of the school,
“ Albany Law School deletes alumni comments and posts, but the truth will prevail. The school has become a hate-filled institution, with professors who openly hate America, hate Jews, and embrace radical leftist ideology.
This is not the Albany Law School we attended. There must be accountability. Dean Cinnamon Carlarne and the Board of Trustees have shown moral cowardice by allowing a professor to celebrate the mass rapes, beheadings, and kidnappings carried out by Hamas on October 7 — and to continue doubling down since then.
They preach the importance of free speech but immediately delete comments on their social media sites – why? Are they afraid of an open discussion and accountability?”
A private school like Albany law school can delete comments and posts all day long if they want to. The irony is that free speech can be limited or censored by private parties or entities. Crazy huh?
It’s obvious some conservative students are exaggerating or hyperbolizing what happens at the school because of..viewpoint intolerance. Ooof, there goes that irony again.
“Rupp makes some crazy allegations “
Xlax, how do you know the allegations are crazy? You make such statements and then prove them with erroneous facts and logic.
No need to read further. You are worthless.
“how do you know the allegations are crazy…” If anyone knows crazy its crazy george, No insult intended, just pointing out the facts. And your history of crazy on this blog.
S. Meyer,
“Xlax, how do you know the allegations are crazy?”
Is it not funny that we have a known history of the “crazy” coming from far leftist professors? The good professor even provides a partial list, to which I am sure there are many more, of “crazy” behavior to include actual physical violence. The good professor has provided many examples of colleges and universities purging conservatives and favoring illiberal leftists. It is not his fault they display “crazy” behavior on a near regular basis. And yet we are expected to believe it is the conservative who “crazy?” Someone has a credibility problem and it is not conservatives.
S. Meyer, how do you know they were not?
You can’t address my statements because they get too complicated for your capacity to understand. That is why you resort to insults. It’s easier for you to just insult than get into a serious discussion.
Rudd’s claims have not been corroborated by any witnesses. Which makes it likely he is exaggerating or hyperbolizing what happened. It’s obvious he got offended. But being offended is not a crime of reason to file a complaint if he can’t handle a different point of view. According to Turley Rudd is viewpoint intolerant.
“Rupp makes some crazy allegations”
We have seen many similar documented instances right here.
So not so crazy
“he carries the burden of proof on his claims. ”
“I doubt he will have many witnesses or hard evidence of what he claims is true.”
He said that much of this took place during a class there will be a classfull of witnesses
Both Farley and Rupp can have students testify.
“Only through discovery, if the case gets that far, will we know.”
It is likely that Rupp has enough prediscovery to get to a trial – again much of this happened in a classroom
“Here is a post from a former student regarding this lawsuit”
So an alum notes that the alumni are aware their alma mater has become a cesspool of left wing vipers opposed to free speech and you think that is evidence against Rupp ?
“A private school like Albany law school can delete comments and posts all day long if they want to. The irony is that free speech can be limited or censored by private parties or entities. Crazy huh?”
A college or university that accepts government funds is stuck with the first amendment.
Separately the committments that colleges and universities make in their guides annd student handbooks are considered binding.
If you promise free speech to prospective students – you must deliver.
If you have a public speech code – you must follow it.
“It’s obvious some conservative students are exaggerating or hyperbolizing”
Why ? Because you were there and know ?
If Rupp is lying there should be consequences.
If Farley did what Rupp claims he should be fired.
Isn’t that easy to understand ?
So rather than ranting and speculating and mind reading lets wait for facts.
Again – alot of this occured in a class – there should be many witnesses.
Further if this occurred once – it has likely occurred many times.
Anyone can have a bad day, if this is actually a one off – then it should be let slide.
But do you honestly beleive that is the case ?
The only evidence of viewpoint intolerance is that of Farley.
Expecting an institution that included viewpoint tolerance as one of the values it claims to incoming students,
to live up to that contract is not intolerance or hypocracy.
Again logic and critical thinking are not your forte.
I will be happy to get rid of all government educational funding, and they thaat pesky 1st amendment no longer is an issue for pure private actors.
But accepting government funding makes you atleast a limited government actor and binds you to the first amendment
Trust in the justice system rests entirely upon the belief and, hopefully, evidence that justice is impartial, nondenominattional, and nonpartisan, in short, honest.
Trust in the justice system, and not a small amount of fear of enforcement, is the wall between peace and violent chaos.
That wall is becoming dangerously weak and when it truly fails things will get very ugly.
Professor Farley sounds like a true POS.
It’s likely that the crime victims of MOST civil liberties abuses over the past 30 years are government employees/contractors working in our federal security and intelligence agencies and especially their non-government family members.
The Virginia ACLU has jurisdiction over many of these security/intelligence agencies, but there is almost no mention by the Virginia ACLU when government employees and their families are on the receiving end of these government abuses.
In other words, intel family members – that never joined any agency- can be destroyed for life without committing any crime. Never allowed oversight by any judge or jury.
This is a systematic problem not a human problem. This is not meant to disparage our brave intel community.
Maybe we need an ACLU type group to investigate the biggest civil liberties violations in at least 30 years?
Years from now as this lay in the past, Rowland Rupp will realize that ‘It’s time to walk away’:
You Can’t Fix Stupid
Re: “ you can’t fix stupid” Not only that, there is no vaccine to prevent it. Even if there were, those who require it would refuse it. The fault, dear Brutus, lies in the fact that stupid is moulding the minds of those whom all to often rise to positions of influence, even to the rudders of the ships of state,
A much bigger