Penn State has been under scrutiny over its internal ‘Strategic Plan Update’ which contains sweeping anti-racism agendas, including a commitment to “recruit, retain, teach and research according to antiracist principles’ and adopt an ‘antiracist critical pedagogy.” The plan to expand employment opportunities for underrepresented candidates has prompted objections over its possible unconstitutionality in light of Supreme Court precedent. However, a tape is now circulating that raises concerns about the use of its mandatory REPL course, which stands for “Race and the Equal Protection of the Laws.”
The REPL course is described in Penn State publications:
“REPL, a required course for all first-year Penn State Dickinson Law students, invokes critical theory and critical pedagogy, aiming to transform how students see their place and role in an imperfect and still-evolving democracy. The class began in fall 2020, months after the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis prompted the Penn State Dickinson Law faculty to pass two unanimous resolutions. The first condemned violence against people of color. The second adopted an antiracist approach to legal education, leading to the creation of REPL.”
Penn State Dickinson Law Dean and Donald J. Farage Professor of Law Danielle M. Conway has stated:
“Through REPL, many law students are being exposed for the first time to the structure that supports the nation’s constitutional democracy. REPL allows us to teach that through the lens of enslavement and racism, systemic challenges that have existed since the beginning of our society. We use critical pedagogy to analyze how a governing system founded on a pledge of democratic ideals produces systemic inequity when legal, social, economic, and civil obstacles limit liberty for those othered in society.”
Aaron Sibarium of the Free Beacon posted the secret audio tape from one of the classes. I have repeatedly reached out to Penn State for a response or a statement on the authenticity of the tape. The school has not replied.
The tape purportedly captures the words of Associate Dean Jeffrey Dodge and Professor Emily Spottswood. Also featured is Shaakirrah Sanders, who was described as “the first associate Dean of anti-racism and critical pedagogy in the country.”
Dean Dodge is allegedly shown saying that “We are taking action to disrupt and dismantle systems that racialize, subordinate, and oppress. We … want to acknowledge the reality of systemic racism … as a foundation for this course.”
Professor Spottswood explains to the students that this is “not elective” and not an option because this is the only way to be a lawyer. She explains that, to be a lawyer, you must combat racism as laid out in REPL.
They also hear from Georgetown University Law Professor Paul Butler, who tells them that the existential threat remains “white supremacy … and patriarchy” and the need to “eradicate” them.
Critics have objected that the lectures sound more like indoctrination than education. Rather than allowing students to elect to take such a course, the law school requires them to complete the course as a condition for graduation.
It is common (and commendable) for incoming law students to be addressed about our profession’s commitment to fighting discrimination in all forms. I have given such speeches to incoming students. Many of us also incorporate material that explores discrimination in legal doctrine and practice into our classes.
What is different is that this is a mandatory course that tells students that they must accept certain antiracism precepts to be lawyers. This course appears similar to many offered as electives at other law schools. However, at Penn State it is mandatory.
While hopefully everyone opposes discrimination and oppression, many students (and lawyers) may not agree with the sweeping statements about the dominance or hold of white supremacy or patriarchy over our legal system.
This does not mean that combating prejudice should not be a priority or emphasized in law school. Rather, the REPL course has been criticized as an example of the activist and orthodox culture in higher education.
Here is the article with the audiotape.
Having moved from PA in 2000, I didn’t know PSU needed an up-and-running law school and Dickinson needed fundraising. Now this! A law school website that touts an “anti-racist” education, has jibberish about its “Anti Racist Development Institute” and promises hands on/individualized attention.
As someone who earned JD from Duquesne University and passed the PA bar exam that same year, 1969, I am appalled and disgusted by the misuse of taxpayer$$ to support such a “law” school. How will this kind of instruction – that probably permeates the entire curriculum – prepare students to pass a bar exam? or find a job in the “real world”? Perhaps the former if PA bar examiners tailor a new kind of bar exam so candidates can self-identify as DEI sycophants and get an automatic passing grade! Perhaps the latter because they will find some kind of social or racial justice organization that does not require legal knowledge! The fact that this law school’s website needs to brag about the “attention” offered to students is an admission that such students don’t belong in law school; a person is either prepared for law school or is not; spoon feeding them with attention will not prepare them for classroom work, the bar exam or the real world . In the 1960s, those who were not prepared (or not interested or not incentivized) flunked out.
SHAME on PSU and on Dickinson!
I definitely have a problem with the teaching of racist principles and the advocacy of racist systems intended to prolong or expand social inequality.
But achieving that goal seems to always require not teaching about racist principles and not teaching about racist systems. There is no objective definition to such categorizations. If one cannot even define the thing that what is not allowed to teach “about”, it a priori produces a Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Thought conflict that seriously violates the 1st Amendment. And then there’s the problem that the same policy may also be promoting racism itself as an antidote to social equality.
There is no way to thread this needle.
Audi the course
“We are taking action to disrupt and dismantle systems that racialize, subordinate, and oppress. We … want to acknowledge the reality of systemic racism … as a foundation for this course.”
So says someone of a political ideology and political party in bed with Islamic theocracies. How’s it working for gays, women, Jews, and Christians under such governance? Still amazed at Queers for Palestine.
Are you saying you’re a jewish gay woman?
Critical Bloc Theory #HateLovesAbortion
The Texan fellow left. He made an excellent decision. That’s the good news. Always run from such.
What a horrible life seeing everything as enslavement and racist it must truly be. Good choice, tex.
Move away from this garbage. For leaders like Xi Xian 2+2 is always 4. Other nations are no longer watching the idiocy in congress with the little gender issues leading to utter incompetence. Xi will drive his tanks over your little gender queen potties and not look back.
Get yourselves together 🇺🇸 or just get in line for a Chinese hand out. You’ll be hungry an hour later.
This is communist re-education camp material. That’s how evil it is. I was subjected to this when I worked for a large tech company. I’ve already written about it before, but it was despicable. You had to agree to their extremist whacko opinions or nobody could go to lunch. You had to agree that your grandmother engaged in the most disgusting sexual acts. There was no room for discussion, no room for disagreement. These people are literally satanic.
Which tech company?
So now that you are asking.
Where did you work at?
I posted earlier today from my phone, which sometimes causes the comment to be randomly tagged to another comment. So I’ll repost, with additions:
Entries from the DEI dictionary:
Anti-racism means racism
Saving democracy means preventing people from voting for the candidate of their choice
Gender affirming care means sexually mutilating children
Progressive means reversing actual progress
Reproductive health means killing a fetus so you don’t reproduce
Antifascist means fascist
VIolence means opinions I disagree with
I think I’ll continue collecting these and putting them down on paper, and so I’m open to further suggestions.
Gun safety means banning guns that look scary to people who have never touched a gun.
Voter suppression means proving you are a lawfully registered voter
Birthright citizenship means allowing wealthy pregnant foreigners to give birth on American soil to obtain American citizenship, then go back to their home country to raise the child in their culture, but use their wealth to influence American policy and elections.
Climate crisis means – well nothing, really. It’s just a meaningless slogan meant to fear monger. As I’ve pointed out many times, based on EPA data the average American is breathing the cleanest air he’s ever inhaled in his life, and US CO2 emissions not only peaked almost 20 years ago, but as the economy continues to evolve CO2 emissions will likely NEVER reach those levels again. Oh, and farmers produce near record grain yields almost every year during the so called “climate crisis”.
With the Democrat Left it’s language perversion and sophistry all the way down. 100% of the time.
Thank you. Also “social justice” means socialism.
As for CO2, most climate alarmists don’t even know that it only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. That’s 4/10,000ths or 1/2,500
Sure, because there’s nothing at all insane about what they are saying in relation to the present. Some people’s ability to recreate their own mental prisons through their own myopic thinking will always be fascinating; all. I hear is crazy noise from them at this point.
The rest of us will keep moving on and forward, thanks. Enjoy the dustbin you are headed for, Penn State. There is no saving these institutions, and what they are engaged in is NOT sustainable – it simply isn’t.
AI Overview
Jimmy Carter’s most notable remarks regarding white and ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods occurred during the 1976 presidential campaign. Responding to questions about Northern ethnic communities, Carter stated:”I have nothing against a community that’s made up of people who are Polish or Czechoslovakian or French-Canadian, or blacks who are trying to maintain the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods. This is a natural inclination on the part of people. “He added that he would not use federal force to disrupt the “ethnic character” of such neighborhoods, arguing that government efforts to intentionally mix races in these areas can create “disharmony” and “hatred.”
If the failure to complete this class prevents a student from graduating, then there can be no debate that this is blatantly in violation of the DOJ’s Title VI interpretation and Penn State should be punished harshly to set an example.
Societies must adapt to the consequences of freedom, or they will impose dictatorship upon themselves.
Jonathan Turley’s outcry over Penn State Dickinson Law’s “Race and the Equal Protection of the Laws” course is a masterclass in manufactured outrage, relying on the convenient omission of ABA Standard 303(c) to frame compliance as rogue indoctrination. By dishonestly conflating foundational legal education with ideological grooming, Turley ignores that the curriculum is anchored in the 14th Amendment and approved by standard accrediting bodies. This critique is not honest legal commentary, but a willful, calculated distortion of pedagogy designed to fuel cultural war for an uncritical audience.
You took my talking point when you should have followed your script provided by our employer, Media Matters.
Stop taking my assigned talking points or Im going to sick Gigi on you
Ideological Indoctrination: Opponents argue that words like “bias” and “racism” in the mandate are not used neutrally. They contend the rule forces law schools to adopt a specific, politically progressive framework (such as Critical Race Theory) rather than focusing on objective legal doctrine.
Academic Freedom: Critics assert that a national accrediting body should not dictate what professors must teach or what viewpoints students must encounter. They argue it infringes upon the independence of individual universities.
Administrative Burden: Some argue that adding mandatory diversity workshops and orientation modules takes away valuable time and resources from foundational legal subjects, like contracts, torts, and constitutional law, which are critical for passing the bar exam.
Oh please. Turley is ever so non assertive about…most topics. He lays out the scenario and then lets the commentary chew on it. I’m ok with that.
Turley, as always, offers a hugely misleading narrative and a massive omission of facts.
The American Bar Association (ABA), which accredits all major U.S. law schools, instituted Standard 303(c). This standard explicitly requires law schools to provide education to students on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism.
Far from being a rogue institutional choice, Penn State’s Unified Student Academic Handbook notes that courses addressing these subjects are integrated to fulfill official ABA Standard 303 graduation mandates. Law schools nationwide have adapted their first-year or upper-level requirements to satisfy these professional accreditation rules.
Of course Turley loves to peddle racism to the MAGA crowd which has demonstrated a complete lack of reading comprehension and blind belief.
Law school courses regularly introduce foundational theories—such as Originalism, Law and Economics, or Critical Legal Studies—to analyze how legal systems evolve. Introducing a framework is not the same as demanding personal adherence to it.
As a law professor Turley should know thus. But his need to be disingenuous to meet his Fox News contract to bash democrats at least once a day seems to be like a natural convulsion. Of course he “forgot” to mention that according to the official Penn State Required Course Catalog, the curriculum explicitly prompts students to “Help create a space where we can all have constructive, respectful conversations about difficult issues” and “Listen to and truly understand other students who have different experiences and perspectives”. The course evaluates a student’s mastery of legal history, constitutional jurisprudence (like the Fourteenth Amendment), and systemic analysis, rather than enforcing a political purity test.
Law students are trained to engage with aggressive legal arguments and high-level academic rhetoric. Presenting these viewpoints does not mean students are graded on agreeing with them, but rather on their ability to analyze, critique, and understand them as legal actors.
Turley also forgot to tell us that by Penn State Dickinson Law’s Publications, REPL changes themes annually to match core legal topics, focusing heavily on voting rights, immigration, national security, and criminal justice. It frequently brings in balanced panels of federal jurists, including U.S. District Court judges, to speak directly to the students.
The class is deeply anchored in traditional constitutional law, particularly the historical development and enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Rebranding an exploration of civil rights law as purely “activist” ignores the fundamental legal doctrines being taught.
Turley sure loves stoking the rage and then complain about it and blame it on Democrats.
I see that yesterday, “X” was on a big pseudo ego roll, criticizing and correcting fellow commenters for not knowing what a fallacy was, or what a red herring was, or what a straw man was, or what a principle was. He told Sam that the statistics were wrong, and he told Wise old Lawyer that Wise’s “comparison” failed. X then inserted his “Hilarious! ROFL! ROLF! LOL! insults as well.
We should just fire Turley and retain our leader X/George/Gigi/Natasha as our new leader, who knows everything there is to know about anything. X/George can lead us to the promised land! X/George reigns supreme!
Pseudo ego? To be fair, nobody was able to refute “x”. Because he/she was not wrong.
What?!? I did!! IT is wrong you knucklehead
“X” replied to you, camoflauging as “anonymous” at 4:04. He gives himself away, the little rodent.
Everyone knows X knows ALL about what a fallacy was, or what a red herring was, or what a straw man was.
It’s his stock in trade
Hey X
george as always, offers a hugely misleading narrative and a massive omission of facts.
You can’t even get the facts right on Prez Trumps new 747-8.
LOL. You think what PSU Law is doing is what 303(c) says…lol. JFC.
That’s like teaching driving trucks into christmas festivals is drivers education.
Graham, enjoyed your 3 year old rectum this morning?
“The American Bar Association (ABA) [. . .] instituted Standard 303(c).”
Per usual, you are attempting to deceive people (and smear JT).
There is nothing in that Standard that requires a school to proselytize students with the collectivist myth that America is systemically racist or to peddle DEI and feminist propaganda, which is what Penn State is doing. It is the *content* of Penn State’s course that is tribalistic, racist garbage.
Ultimately, there is only one way to teach anti-racism: promote individualism.
How about AI + VR.
Check out the SIFI film “Lawnmower Man”. I’m in your head Jake scene. Roll it.
Combating racism and telling the truth about the US is not an “ideology”, it is basic humanity. A concept MAGAs do not understand.
Sally, By all means tell the truth about racism in the country.
Begin by pointing out that black people are the most racist ethnic group in the nation [maybe in the world] and never stop banging on about it.
They are so addicted to ‘racism’ that most racist acts against blacks are faked while those by blacks against whites, Asians and Hispanics are all too common and often authenticated with video.
Also note that this group has the highest criminal rate in the country leading to things like this:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/05/walgreens-closing-chicago-location-due-massive-theft-local
I understand completely enacting laws against property damage, bodily injury, and so on.
I don’t understand in the least why people may not hold opinions and preferences on any and all subjects.
Affirmative action for women, as but one example, is antithetical, illicit, and unconstitutional.
“Free stuff” and “free status”—welfare and affirmative action—hold no position in a meritocracy of freedom.
Charity and goodness come from church, which is separated.
Bias is not part of the Constitution, ignoring the parts referencing reprehensible slavery.
If private property may not be denied, only its owner may “claim and exercise” dominion.
Next you’ll be legislating against speciesism, and Americans won’t have any dinner—surf or turf.
Sally, For real and disgusting prejudice look at the rise of anti-semitism infecting our society like a form of mental and spiritual Ebola.
Bill Maher is a leftist with whom I generally disagree but in this talk about anti-semitism he is brilliant:
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2026/05/16/maher-all-28-dem-prospects-give-permission-to-actual-antisemites-to-bash-israel-when-theres-frothing-anxiousness-to-wipe-out-jews/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHOJCbRJu28 The above in video plus.
S. Meyer– Thanks.
Sally, Do you support equal rights?
“Equal rights” is not a thing. The Constitution never mentioned unequal rights. Slavery has been legislated out of existence in the U.S. You are promoting nonsense. But then, that’s all you’ve got, right? Ya know, women are capable of 25 – 30 babies.
Sure sally. Tell us how the lib/dems have done all they could to keep Blacks down. KKK, Jim Crow, On and on!
“We have to exterminate white people off of the face of the planet.”
@ 1:15
Yep. Genocide…pretty funny isn’t it. I’m wondering if they’ll eat them.
Is it racist if white people are tasty? The other other white meat.
Turley:
“combating prejudice ”
What about postjudice? Must one deny evidence? Even Jesse Jackson said that when he heard footsteps behind him on a darkened street he was relieved to see that the person behind him was white.
Labeling as “prejudice” every thought or comment about the obvious and serious problems in the black community makes it impossible to even speak of them much less try to solve them
For every course on ‘white supremacy’ require one on black racism and lawlessness. Just to be fair..
As for Penn, branding their law graduates like this would be like making a movie with Helen of Troy played by a black actress. Who would be stupid enough to do that?
Now do a movie with MLK played by a white, crippled transgender with Tourett’s…check lots of boxes. Maybe get an Oscar, maybe a Pulitzer and maybe a Nobel Peace Prize thrown in…all debased trinkets. Or maybe get more riots, the left’s go-to argument for almost everything.
“Teach Through the Lens of Collectivism and Authoritarianism” – FIFT
THEFT more like it…
I find it ironic that a law school would anchor the rationale for their anti-racism sermon to new students on the death of George Floyd. One would think that an institution of higher learning would do a bit more research on the subject. I watched most (not all) of the first trial and I don’t recall the prosecution charging Derick Chauvin with being a racist. He certainly was charged and convicted of murder. None of testimony that I saw or heard supported a motivation of racism. Instead the prosecution focused on the poor policing techniques of Chauvin. Furthermore, the BLM wanted us to believe that the death of George Floyd was part of a systematic killing of unarmed black men in the custody of police. It turns out that in the year prior to Floyd’s death (2019), a grand total of 13 unarmed black men died in police custody nationwide – that is 13 too many but numerically this is not an obvious indication of systemic racism in our criminal justice system that the good professors at Penn State claim to see.
While I have read fairy tales to my children for entertainment, I will acknowledge that some of the tales contain life lessons. But I would suggest that there is a danger in grounding life lessons in myth, however appealing such as the myth of St. George Floyd. Instead I would suggest that the university ground its lesson on discrimination in the justice system, not with charges of systemic whatever, but with real examples such as from Bryan Stevenson’s work with the Equal Justice Initiative overturning excessive and unfair sentencing or exonerating innocent death row prisoners. He works through the criminal justice system to right specific wrongs.
“an institution of higher learning”
That is pretty much an oxymoron today…
Pavlov had his dog, Turley has Enigma. Ring the race bell and watch the blog links appear.
What has Prof. Turley said that is wrong?
Nothing. Why do you ask?