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.
Any serious discussion of free speech has to pose the question “How important is civility?”
The way you answer has differing consequences. If incivility is tolerated, then we know negative emotions get charged up quickly, making calm, relaxed, creative deliberation impossible. This leads to taking sides (a dichotomization trap), where the solution has to be either A or B — with nothing in between. What begins as a problem needing to be solved descends into warring camps. Incivility may satisfy a short-term primal urge, but it very much works against collaborative problem-solving. So, the question becomes: what is the fate of a society at each others’ throats who cannot solve complex problems? The answer is self-evident.
This theme is avoided because it’s not altogether clear where civility ends and incivility begins. Not just that, but who decides? And how to handle incivility when it threatens to derail problem solving atmospherics?
Before the internet and social media, we had a system (that operated invisibly). Mature, responsible humans filled key roles as print editors and TV/radio producers. The system was highly decentralized, with hundreds of thousands of such info-curators exercising independent judgment as to right vs. wrong. When you think back to all the incredible reforms Americans achieved between 1965 and 2005, everything from curtailing drunk driving, pedophilia and unsafe products to opening the professions to previously excluded groups. The public square in retrospect was a well-oiled machine.
That all changed at the hands of Zuckerburg, Dorsey and their VC enablers. I don’t think their motives were evil (e.g., techie vainglory, making money), but in hindsight, they tinkered with an information system they didn’t understand. It turned out to be reckless social experimentation to “remove the intermediaries” and eviscerate the role they played in upholding standards of authenticity and civility in the public square. The new system is brimming over with freedom, but denuded of responsibility and accountability.
This, it becomes kid’s play nowadays to derail any proposed problem-solution by injecting emotionalism via incivility.
There could be a return path to civility. But, it means first understanding how the pre-internet system worked, and why it worked so much better than what we have now.
N****** are such a loathsome race
Avoiding the Term “Genocide”: Internal documents showed that the Clinton administration went to great lengths to avoid labeling the massacres as “genocide” to circumvent the political pressure to intervene.
UN officials at the time, argue the U.S. did not just fail to intervene but actively discouraged international action.
CLINTON, THE BAD JOKE, WHO DESTROYED, SINGLE-HANDEDLY, THE MORAL FOUNDATION OF THE FORMER GREATEST NATION ON EARTH
Note-woke cannot address what he did. They must hate Trump, instead of focusing on the greatest traitor in history.
In a 1998 visit to Rwanda, Clinton claimed that the international community did not act quickly enough.
You did nothing, ever. You prevented intervention. YOU ARE A DISGUSTING CRIMINAL AND MUST BE TRIED.
The narrative of reconciliation in post-genocide Rwanda, which the Clinton Foundation has supported, is a “lie” that masks continued human rights issues, according to observers like the Black Agenda Report.
THIS IS MORE THAN A STAIN ON OUR HISTORY. WE OWE RWANDA AMENDS
Do you any of you thread commenters have provable facts and citations?
Of course not !!!!
This is a magical wonderland of MAGA cult fantasy and delusional thinking that is completely and utterly untethered from any semblance of reality.
What does the Rwanda genocide have to do with MAGA? A democrat was president then, Clinton and screwed-it up. responsible for the death of over a millions people.
Hey anon, you SF, you are “completely and utterly untethered from any semblance of reality.”
It is not the actual events of Rwanda incidents, you idiot.
It is the bizarre, twisted, irrational and delusional THINKING and INTERPRETATION of these events in the MAGA cult that is completely and utterly untethered from reality.
The simple fact that you confuse the actual events with the irrational MAGA thinking about those events is just further evidence of your profound mental illness.