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.
Ah ha! The fake lawyers have shown up. Please, you fakes, shut up.
Says ANON who has to post nonsense 50 times per day!! AH HA!!
@Guarantee It
Yes, it likely will. But – such is the hubris and ignorance of these twits filing the suits, though, and the new ‘attorneys’ that take their cases. In the future, hey will be the ones pulling the strings if we do not correct course. so while your comment is salient and true, it does not address what we are facing. The judiciary and legal system are just as subject to generational dysfunction as anything else, and we all have to live in that future. Choose as judicially as the judges you place your faith in, because as citizens, that is what it boils down, to. Stop thinking ‘the system’ is something embedded in concrete and it will magically self-correct. That is entirely up to us, and if we don’t, we can blame ourselves for our own screwing. And this sis right now, not sometime off in the distance.
James,
Does anyone really believe Farley is really going to present any evidence? He disabled the class audio system to prevent audio evidence from recording the session. The school ignored Rupp’s complaint, would not call for witnesses or seeking evidence. They will likely obstruct, deny and dismiss any allegations. We have seen this movie over and over at other colleges and universities.
Ah ha! The fake lawyers have shown up. Please, you fakes, shut up.
FAKE DF ANON STFU!
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.
The allegations are regrettably similar to other allegations. Should turley wait until all appeals are exhausted in a case to discuss a new item? As Joe would say, “C’mon man”.
David
No, Turley just has to wait to hear ALL THE EVIDENCE before disingenuously trying to IMPLY that Prof Farley is PROBABLY at fault because this case has some similarities to other cases that he is aware of. I believe it is standard practice in courts of law to hear the evidence from BOTH SIDES before rendering a verdict.
Turley explicitly stated, “we will have to wait for a response from Professor Farley.”, but nevertheless he still tries to IMPLY guilt on the part of Farley, because the case is “regrettably” similar to other cases.
At this point all we have is evidence from the student. Nothing from the professor.
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.
Turley is trying to make a case for guilt by implication before all the evidence is heard, which is unacceptable from an officer of the court.
Facebook posts?
“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.”
Speaking of evidence: Where’s yours?
Or are you just spit balling hypotheticals without any foundation?
Sam
What is wrong with you????
Are you capable of reading and comprehending????
I am not trying to make a case one way or the other about this incident.
Asking me for my “evidence” is absolutely stupid and absurd.
All I am doing is pointing out what Turley has explicitly acknowledged by saying, “we will have to wait for a response from Professor Farley.”
As Turley plainly states we have only heard from the student, nothing from the professor. And yet Turley and you jump to conclusion that the professor is at fault simply because this case “regrettably” sounds like other cases. That is no basis to come to any kind of rational conclusion.
I am not trying to say that the student is lying. I am just pointing out that until we hear from the professor, that possibility has to be considered. Turley is supposedly an attorney. He should know better than anyone to not try to imply a conclusion before hearing all the evidence.
You on the other hand, appear to be perfectly happy to take the student’s word at face value in the complete absence of any evidence from the professor.
You are perfectly happy to assume that the professor is guilty as charged without hearing his side of the story.
@Anonymous
And you are paid to counter it. Who is the more honest, those for whom it resonates or those that are paid to disrupt that honest discourse? You are pathetic. We all know you are pathetic. Voting trends and polls prove you are pathetic to most of us, even on the lefta. Go back to your parents’ basement and eat your Hot Pockets. The grownups are talking.
James
Do you have anything substantive or cogent to say about this matter ??
The fact that your only response is to hurl insults suggests otherwise, and that you are implicitly acknowledging that I am right.
So true. I’m going right over to the Joke Biden blog with hope of seeing the video of the word saladic, illegal alien Alhysteria O’crazio Corkhead’s treatise on global relations, war, and peace.
excellent.
I am from the former USSR. I’ve been here for over 30 years. I never knew that I would see Americans are electing socialists.
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.
Go ahead try to succede. Real America will come for youse again.
“Go ahead try to succede. Real America will come for youse, again.”
Is that supposed to be English? You must of went to Harvard.
Not in this world. As so many groups of hominids are extinct, Caucasian will be extinct.
Do you feel lucky?
@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.
ok boomer
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.
Yes, that sums up the game’s final strategy. In a few hundred years the name United States will not exist. It’s like Atlantis lost in mythology.
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.
. Sort of a me too of law students movement? Rupp has evidence but the others will just accuse and collect? 😏.
Adaptation is in order and as it drags on perhaps another country is advisable.
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?
Mossad subsumed Saudi Arabian terrorists, loaded the Twin Towers’ elevator shafts with demolition, and caused a modern Pearl Harbor that led to the deployment of the United States military in the Middle East, where the world now awaits the concluding campaign against Iran.
Mossad took only a quarter century to “fundamentally transform” the Middle East to Israel’s liking.
A package wrapped up nice and tidy, ready for delivery.
. Mr
Farley is DEI CRT and incompetent in reality. Beating up people he hates feels good. It’s common.
. Daniel Boone wearing a coonskin hat? Mr. Rupp might be some kind of ridiculous person. Guess Farley couldn’t maintain decorum.
I’m biased now. There’s just so much screeching by the likes of Crockett and Cortez that can be endured.
Dirty Harry, no, I don’t feel lucky.
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
John Say,
“We have seen many similar documented instances right here.
So not so crazy”.
Crazy is just different point of view. Right? What YOU deem as crazy maybe a rational point of view to another. What seems to be the problem is Rudd has an intolerance for a different point of view and took offense.
Much of the lawsuit’s complaint seems to show Rudd as some MAGA blowhard, offended at the idea of whatever was discussed that day. He was either triggered or got offended by what was being expressed. Even in the lawsuit it is pointed out that faulty have warned conservative students about Farley’s controversial views.
This seems to be a case of Rudd, a likely MAGA follower getting offended by a view that clearly he disagreed with.
“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.”
True, but this happened on January of last year. By now Rupp should have had examples of witnesses backing up his claims. Obviously he has not given any witness accounts in his lawsuit. There might be some if this goes all the way to trail. So far there aren’t any witness testimonies joining the lawsuit.
“It’s obvious some conservative students are exaggerating or hyperbolizing”
Why ? Because you were there and know ?”
Because it’s obvious some of them are making claims that are not consistent with the positive comments which are in the majority. Students can be surprised by the content of a class and be offended or find it inflammatory especially those who have not experienced college classes involving controversial subjects. The comments mirror those made by right wing nuts often associated with MAGA.
“ Further if this occurred once – it has likely occurred many times.“. Now who is speculating and reading minds? Facts matter, right? Let’s not speculate and wait for the facts to be brought up in court.
“The only evidence of viewpoint intolerance is that of Farley.”
Why, he’s the professor teaching the class. Rudd is the one offended by the content and clearly not tolerating the professor’s viewpoint. Don’t try to blame the professor for Rudd’s lack of tolerance and exposure to a radical point of view. HE signed up for the course.
“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.”
Contract? Rudd signed up for the class not knowing fully what he was getting into. He got exposed to a radical point of view and got offended. It’s literally the point of going to a college. To be exposed to radical points of view and decide if you agree or disagree with them. Which means he could have exercised his right to disagree. But he threw a fit and went all Karen on Farley because he got picked on AFTER raising his hand and participating in the class.
Russ is not telling the whole story and Turley is being cautious and holding off on accusing Farley of wrong doing.
“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”
Albany law school is a private school. Under U.S. law, private schools are generally not considered state actors solely because they receive public funds.
In the landmark case Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, the Supreme Court ruled that a private school is more like a private contractor than a state official. Even if a school is funded and regulated by the state, it remains a private entity unless it performs a “traditionally exclusive state function”. Because funding alone does not specifically delegate a state function it does not mean the private school is a state actor. The government does not dictate faculty admissions of private schools. Right? So getting any level of funding does not automatically make any private school a state actor.
Albany is private? It must receive some grant money or title VI doesn’t apply?
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