The stifling intolerance and lack of intellectual diversity are a crushing reality in higher education today. There are few remaining conservatives or libertarians on law school faculties, which have been purged of dissenting voices through a biased hiring and promotion system. Despite years of complaints and declining public trust in higher education, faculty members continue to reinforce bias and orthodoxy in our schools. There is no better example than Fordham University School of Law professor John Pfaff, who recently called for “repercussions” for professors who do not “recant” their view that birthright citizenship is not protected by the 14th Amendment.
In Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment protects birthright citizenship, a view rejected by four justices, including Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who would have struck down the underlying executive order on other grounds.
This has long been a debate that divided legal experts. Given the purging of our law schools of conservative scholars, the rejection of birthright citizenship is not a popular view in higher education. However, some of us stressed when the decision came down that there were good-faith arguments on both sides and defended conservative justices like Justice Amy Coney Barrett for voting with the liberal justices in rejecting the claim.
That tolerance, however, is intolerable for professors like Pfaff. After the decision, Professor Pfaff went on BlueSky to vent against anyone who dared to voice a dissenting view in academia, calling such faculty “parasites” that have to be effectively stomped out of higher education. In his post, Pfaff declared:
“There MUST be repercussions for the lawprofs who advanced such untenable arguments. Their behavior is — and I mean this literally, not dehumanizingly — parasitic.
They exploit norms of collegiality and presumptions of integrity to advance trash. Which undermines the work of ALL of us.”
His rationale for punishing opposing viewpoints is an insight into the arguments used against intellectual diversity and institutional neutrality in higher education.
I recently returned from a debate with the President of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) who opposed institutional neutrality principles. I also previously debated Professor Randall Kennedy at Harvard Law School on the lack of intellectual diversity at Harvard.
I had a dinner with another Harvard Law Professor who expressed disbelief that I expected him to vote for any faculty applicants who held views that he considered wrong. When I noted that I regularly vote for faculty candidates who hold opposing views, he just shrugged and said that, if he rejects their views, he cannot vote for those views to be taught to students.
Many faculty members have rejected free speech and intellectual diversity arguments to restore greater balance in our universities. In my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss these arguments to justify the current levels of intolerance and orthodoxy in higher education.
We previously discussed how two Arizona State University professors — Richard Amesbury and Catherine O’Donnell — wrote that free speech concerns yield too much to the “right wing” and that free speech should not be given the protection currently afforded by universities and colleges. Indeed, they argue that free speech may be harming higher education by fostering “unworthy” ideas.
Amesbury teaches religious studies and O’Donnell teaches history at ASU. They wrote an article titled “Dear Administrators: Enough with the Free Speech Rhetoric! It Concedes Too Much to the Right-Wing Agenda.”
Their view of “unworthy ideas” is used by many to justify the overwhelmingly liberal makeup of our faculties and is reflected in Pfaff’s claim that such opposing views, even from a tiny minority of professors, undermined the work of all professors.
Some sites, such as Above the Law, have supported the exclusion of conservative faculty. Senior Editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” by arguing that hiring a conservative law professor is akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism to teach at a university.
Pfaff expressly lashed out at Professor Ilan Wurman (whose scholarship was cited by Justice Thomas in his dissent) as an example of the type of professor who needs to be punished for expressing opposing viewpoints:
“If there are no costs to that — and only the upside to fancy dinners funded by antidemocratic oligarchs and the ‘nonpartisan institutions’ they have endowed — then we can only reward this behavior. Everyone involved in this canard should be frozen out of academic life until they recant.
Academics cannot simultaneously complain about the inability for facts and reality to drive policy while simultaneously refusing to confront the fabulists in our midst. Wurman et al do not just demean originalism or history. They demean ALL of us, by making ALL of us less credible.”
Professor Wurman responded, “Ah yes, time to push for that traditional tool of academic thought and freedom—the recantation!”
Pfaff was responding to an unhinged posting from Georgia State University Professor Anthony Michael Kreis, who has also shown some of the same intolerance for opposing views in academia. (Notably, Kreis was made an Associate Dean for Faculty Research & Development by his school). While not calling for compelled recantation, he also denounced those who disagree with his views. In his BlueSky posting, Kreis wrote:
“I’m mad about today. I’m mad that justices can’t do the bare minimum to uphold the Constitution. I’m mad that the law and our history, which I have dedicated so much of my life to, is an inconvenience than an inheritance to many. I’m mad that the academy, which I love, rewards and enables it.” (emphasis added).
I will remind you that the Court ruled in favor of birthright citizenship, but Kreis appears upset that there are dissenting views on the Court and there are academics who “enable” such dissenting views. Kreis also has denounced Professor Randy Barnett (a leading constitutional scholar who wrote an opinion piece with Wurman) as engaging in shameful “hackery” that is “not scholarly.”
These are the voices of a perpetually angry and intellectually intolerant of academia.
The views and anger of Pfaff and Kries are clearly shared by many in higher education, though I would like to think that most academics still recoil from this type of raw intolerance.
Indeed, after backlash over his comments, Pfaff made a half-hearted effort to address the critics but seemed to make it worse after acknowledging that perhaps he was “too blunt”:
“I stand by the idea, but I should have phrased it better. Academic freedom is the right to say what you want, without INSTITUTIONAL repercussions (generally). But it’s not the right to speak w NO repercussions.”
He then appeared to take an implied swipe again at Wurman for having been cited by the justices:
“Ideally, bad work is self-sanctioning: it gets ignored,” he continued. “That, though, is not what happened here. An idea [with] no prior historical support gained enough traction after an aggressive post-EO campaign to nearly sway a SCOTUS majority. That sets a dangerous precedent.”
So academic freedom is nice, but there still have to be repercussions, and those voicing dissenting views are setting “a dangerous precedent.”
These exchanges give outsiders a chilling insight into the rationalization of many in higher education to maintain orthodoxy. Many others would not voice such views openly, but their hiring records demonstrate a similar intolerance of opposing views.
Error has no rights. 2 + 2 = 7. For centuries, those who held such positions were burned at the stake until Vatican II, which reversed the position. The reasoning is that facts have no rights, they are held only by a child of God.
Maybe law faculties should vote to torture those who do not recant until they do. Or die.
We have not progressed very far.
And, parents continue to send their vulnerable children to these schools. They are the ones who should be ashamed.
Trump: Totally Unhinged
I watched Trump’s speech on CBS. They aired about 15 minutes. By then Trump had claimed ‘so many’ conspiracies, he was debasing the presidency.
So finally CBS cut to their analysts. Which was the only responsible thing to do. Trump had said enough for one night. It was a horror show!
The most disengenous of cynics kept grousing at the camera with a seemingly endless series of claims. Most had been debunked long ago.
Trump was the deranged New York hustler conning out of towners. No wonder Trump was convicted by New York juries.
New Yorkers are wise to frauds like Trump. That’s why Trump left New York. Everyone’s ‘on to him’ back there. Trump is on the level of a 3 Card Monte guy.
If you’re a president, warning the country elections are threatened, you better sound sincere. You can’t just grouse at the camera in a lifeless monotone.
That’s what made it look like a horror show. The total lack of sincerity! Trump can’t bother to be earnest. It’s too much trouble for him.
Which explains why Trump lost to Jean Carroll. How she won such an improbable case; unsure when the rape occurred.
Carroll bet a jury would hate Donald Trump. And we saw why last night. It was a total embarrassment for the United States.
Take your meds!!
CBS did not show the start of the speech. They only showed what they wanted to. Pre-arranged attack on Trump. CBS told many lies as usual!
ANON is a total embarrassment!!
We get it- you hate Trump. This article has nothing to do with Trump. Stop trying to pound a square peg into every round hole.
The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed Congress overwhelmingly on August 7, 1964. The House of Representatives voted unanimously at 416 to 0, and the Senate passed it 88 to 2, giving President Lyndon B. Johnson broad authority to use military force in Southeast Asia.
It is always wise to trust our leaders with military operations. LBJ just suckered the U.S. government and its citizens to kill 57,000 young American boys and girls. Vietnam was a small, poor, agrarian land, unable to last a month against the greatest nation on earth.
Iran’s growing drone capabilities may pose an immediate and significant threat to the United States, with California emerging as a potential target for a large-scale aerial attack, according to a leading U.S. military intelligence expert, the New York Post reports. The United States, he cautions, remains inadequately prepared to counter such a sophisticated assault.
The good news being that our military is asleep even as Trumps checks the facts. Could be too late.
Japan did not launch a massive, secret, hidden attack on Pearl Harbor.
First of all, it’s hard to take seriously the opinion of someone whose official portrait is taken showing his white undershirt. Secondly, the only ‘trash’ we see being advanced here is John Pfaff’s lack of respect for the opinion of others and his Intolerance and Narrow-mindedness, seeing things in Black and White when indeed there are Many Shades of Grey in this Matter of Birthright Citizenship… Pfaff, and also those dissenting Justices, really need to take some time and fully examine this issue of Birthright Citizenship in order to apply this Amendment more flexibly to the Realities surrounding the USA in the WORLD to-day… Tourist Births were Never on the Horizon for the Founding Fathers, etc. Thank You, Prof. Turley for your ELOQUENT EXPOSÉ of Pfaff’s folly.
Why did fundamentalists criticize 2 Live Crew and pornography?
Because they wanted these things silenced, banned, and censored.
False. Nobody ever said they wanted them censored.
You, OTOH, are projecting. You make stupid false claims because you want all critics of your cultish dogma censored.
For I tell you if a man looks upon a woman to lust after her, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart
I’ll agree to this as soon as he agrees to punish every lawyer and academic who argued the wrong side on 2nd amendment cases.
but like some locals to me said over DEI when I pointed out the the Supreme Court had ruled that DEI is racist and their response was “we hold to a higher standard”
I am writing this before the Trump lie fest that is expected to happen tonight. Here are a few things to keep in mind : Trump is so obsessed with the fact that he lost in 2020 that he reportedly can’t sleep at night (not that he ever did). He has surrounded himself with way-out-there election deniers and conspiracy theorists because, reportedly, even many of the bootlickers in his current administration just won’t stand behind “facts” manufactured out of whole cloth.
He may disclose classified information that was never verified and/or information that couldn’t be verified. Our intelligence gathering casts a wide net, and just because someone calls in a report or makes a statement to our intelligence gathering people does not mean that the claim is true, especially if there is no credible evidence to support it. But, Trump is desperate, so he likely may present what he claims are “facts” that have not or could not be verified and which likely are not true. That ego is the most important thing.
Never forget that Trump was in office up to noon on January 20, 2021. His administration was in charge of investigating whether there was election interference —and none was found. Chris Krebs, Trump’s head of cybersecurity, told Trump that 2020 was the most-secure election in American history. Trump fired him. Bill Barr called Trump’s accusations of a “stolen election “ BS, so he left, too. There were dozens of investigations, recounts, audits and over 60 lawsuits that failed for lack of evidence.
Do not forget that all polls predicted Trump would lose, that our country was in shambles, schools, businesses, restaurants closed down, no leisure travel, and new daily records of COVID deaths and infections. Unemployment was high. People had to work from home and kids had to attend school remotely. Trump just doesn’t get it—he did a lousy job and that’s why he lost.
The MAGAs will believe whatever swill Trump spouts, but they are in the distinct minority. I’m not going to waste my time listening to the fantasies of a man with emotional problems. Neither should you.
Gigi, I never read your silly screeds. You do not live on earth, but in some alternate universe. I do enjoy scanning for “MAGA” and laugh out loud. So, thanks for the laugh.
Get some help, please.
Trump drops election integrity bombshells, urges passage of SAVE America Act
“The documents reportedly reveal that there was a concerted and conscientious effort by the IC not to tell the president (Trump at the time), Congress or the American people.”
https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/trump-details-fresh-foreign-interference-findings-validating-many-his-2020
Declassified documents show ‘shadow government’ in action to suppress China threat to elections
“Newly released records detail how intelligence officials allegedly worked to conceal the extent of Chinese interference in the 2020 election.”
https://justthenews.com/government/security/declassified-documents-show-shadow-government-action-suppress-china-threat
Yes Gigi! Ignore the evidence! Keep your head in the sand! Just like Democrats need useful idiots like you!
HAHAHAAHAHHAA!!
Why do the alleged free speech advocates here prefer that Pfaff not express himself just like how Stalin and Hitler preferred that people not express themselves?
Why is the left-wing hive mind unable to understand what criticism is? Why does that hive mind object to anyone criticizing left-wing loonies, and make stupid, ridiculous comparisons between legitimate criticism and Stalin/Hitler? Why is the leftist hive mind so blindingly stupid?
I don’t see how it is out of bounds to accept birthright citizenship broadly, but also state that the right has an exception excluding those who are in the country illegally. The first amendment has exceptions for fraud and true threats. The 2nd amendment does not allow for weapons of mass destruction. The fourth amendment has exceptions for exigent circumstances. The fifth has an exception for excited utterances. And so on…
Why would birthright citizenship not have an exception for someone in the country illegally?
That’s a great argument. Hopefully it will ultimately be endorsed by Scotus.
Yes, when Congress passes Citizenship Inheritance with broad public approval, and legislates an orderly change process over a few years time. This plan must include:
• a fraud-proof, fast system for verifying parental US Citizenship at the time of an infant’s birth (this system must be created, and making it fraud-proof is a non-trivial challenge)
• for babies born on US territory NOT ELIGIBLE for US Citizenship by Inheritance, a means of assigning them their correct Nationality on their birth certificate (no stateless babies)
• a Visiting Neonate Temporary Visa is immediately issued after verifying and documenting a non-US Citizen birth, enabling the infant to legally depart the country with parents, and enter their home nation with documentation
The timeline for orderly change should include time for judicial review, and 18-24 time for state and local agencies to adapt systems and procedures. We can have this orderly change, but it requires reformers to take responsibility for a lot of details. Dozens of other countries have gone through this change process, so it’s not reinventing the wheel. Learn from others who paved the pathway.
*. It’s an odd time when citizenship for illegally present receive disguised punishment by being condemned to citizenship. In the words of Christ, they know not what they do.
Hoping a great writer is writing about these troubled times and the tactics used to accomplish the destruction of western civilization. Gad Saad and Douglas Murray have been quite vocal about it.
Trump’s Phony Election Concerns
Despite his stated concern about the security of U.S. elections, Mr. Trump during his second term has overseen significant cuts to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, including to its election work. That agency had been a lead federal partner for states on election security efforts since the 2016 election, working with them to share cybersecurity best practices and intelligence about foreign intentions around elections.
But Mr. Trump developed disdain for the agency — and the government’s election security work generally — after its director at the time, Chris Krebs, validated the integrity of the 2020 election, which prompted the president to fire Mr. Krebs. Mr. Trump has continued to try to punish his former CISA director, signing a memo last year ordering his administration to investigate Mr. Krebs.
Other federal agencies have also downsized their election security work. And earlier this month, Mr. Trump forced out the three remaining members of the Election Assistance Commission, an independent, bipartisan commission that supports states in administering their elections. In recent years, much of the small commission’s work also focused on cybersecurity support to states.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/07/16/us/trump-news?smid=nytcore-android-share
………………………………………………
Trump’s primary goal is to cast as much doubt as possible regarding the integrity of the midterm elections. The idea is that unless Congress approves the SAVE act (which it may not), the midterms results will be ‘tainted’. That way Trump can say the midterms were ‘rigged’ and Democrats didn’t really win all the seats they’re likely to win.
YAWN . . . zzzzzzz
See that “yawn” above? Estovir learned that trick at a weekend boot camp run by Turning Point USA. Yawns were emphasized as an ‘effective means of countering liberal propaganda’.
That’s right, I’m Estovir. I’m under your bed and in your closet. Be afraid of me, be very afraid. I’ll even be in your bathroom when you get up in the middle of the night to relieve yourself.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
I am delighted to report the latest stock price of SpaceX.
At the close of the after-hours market at 8:00pm SPCX was at $127, down 44% from its all time high.
Musk’s net worth now stands at $831 billion. He has lost $619 billion in a little over a month and is on track to very soon see his net worth cut in half.
We should also note that Ortex and S3 Partners are reporting that 49% of the publicly available shares have been sold short, up from 31% yesterday.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer fellow.
Musk is a scamming huckster.
The market is telling us what most of us already knew.
Don’t just take my word for it.
Listen to the market. It is always right.
.
Musk accomplishes more in 60 seconds than you could in 5,000 lifetimes, moron.
Should send you to Mars with no return! ANON MORON!
When Musk supported Dems, his Teslas were saving the planet, his Star Link was doing wonders for Ukraine, SpaceX was fantastic in advancing rocket technology, his Boring Company was making tunneling advances.
Now that he no longer supports the Dems, his Teslas aren’t saving the planet – in fact they deserve to be destroyed and Tesla dealerships deserve to be firebombed – and his Start Link is not helping in Ukraine. There are no SpaceX rocket advances and his Boring Company is not making tunneling advances.
This is how the mentally-deranged lunatic liberal hive mind works, and it’s on full display here.
Why are you dragging politics into this.
I did not express a personal view. I simply report the way that the markets view Musk.
The markets understand that Musk is a scamming huckster, and are treating him accordingly.
Are you saying that the capital markets, where the most fervent and committed capitalists like me are to be found, are in reality “mentally-deranged lunatic liberals”.
“committed capitalists like me”?? ANON SHOULD BE committed to an insane asylum!
You are the one who stated that Musk has accomplished literally nothing by labeling him a “scamming huckster.” Given that Musk, with all his accomplishments, is the exact opposite of that, you displayed to the whole world that you are a psychotic lunatic who has no connection to reality.
Your psychotic break just happened to coincide with Musk being red-pilled and no longer supporting the destructive left wing commies. I was drawing a rational inference that the two events are connected. No doubt you’ll mumble some garbage about correlation not being causation, but the fact remains that it is the most likely explanation for your sudden and severe mental illness.
I am simply reporting how the markets are reacting to Musk.
Here are the facts:
SPCX stock is underwater by $8 from its IPO offering, and down 44% from its all time high 1 month ago.
49% of the available public shares have been sold short. This is an astounding vote of no confidence in Musk. A short interest of 10% is considered high, 49% is astronomical, and means the Wall St heavy hitters are betting strongly AGAINST Musk.
Musk’s net worth has been cut almost in half, because Wall St. is betting against him.
You can indulge whatever fantasies you like, but the markets are doing the talking, not me.
Listen to the markets.
They are always right.
TESLA(MUSK majority stock owner) stock around $400 THAT IS NOT DOWN MUCH!! MORON ANON!! Why is that MORON ANON???
Musk is not the majority stockholder of Tesla.
He is a minority stockholder. He holds 13% of the equity, and 20% of the voting power.
He in no way controls Tesla. Other people control Tesla.
That is why Tesla has not been punished by the markets, because he does not and can not control Tesla.
Musk owns a 42% of the shares in Spacex, and he has devised a scheme with his IPO such that he retains 85% of the voting power. This is the essence of the scam he has perpetrated. The publicly floated shares and the other currently locked up shares held by insiders and employees carry only one tenth of the voting power of his shares. He can control the company with a minority of the outstanding shares. The IPO has been devised in such a way that he can have total control of the company even when his equity drops.
This is the scam he has perpetrated, and the markets do not like it.
That is why SpaceX stock is being punished.
The markets do not like the scam he has perpetrated.
It is the markets talking to you, not me.
I am simply reporting the facts.
Most in one person!! Market likes Tesla!! Maybe SpaceX was priced to high my the company that led the IPO.– NOT BY MUSK! Musk won’t sell any shares for years!!
How is Musk worth 1 Trillion if not one of the highest shareholders?? DF ANON
Musk remains Tesla’s largest individual shareholder!!!! DF ANON!! Market loves Tesla!! If you are so smart did you short SpaceX at $225? $200? 175???? Didn’t think so!! FULL OF HOT AIR ANON!!!!!
Musk “in no way controls Tesla. Other people control Tesla.”
Do you not know that he is the CEO of Tesla? Do you know what CEO means? Do you know that CEO plus largest shareholder (by far) means control of a company?
Or did you just feel like evading those facts so that you can kneecap your betters?
Most people who invest in SpaceX hold onto their stock for at least a year for tax reasons. They are not worrying about momentary changes in stock price but looking out into the more distant future. You are showing small-mindedness by thinking you are making some major point based on day by day price changes. Your motivation for posting these silly comments is either complete stupidity and ignorance, or envy – which is the fundamental emotion underlying the socialist mindset.
There are no momentary changes in the stock price.
The stock price has spiraled straight down from a high of $225 to $127 at the close of the after hours market. The overnight market has it at $126 as we speak. It has almost been cut in half from the high. Musk’s net worth has almost been cut in half.
This is a death spiral, not momentary fluctuations in price.
The Wall St heavy hitters have sold short 49% of the public shares. This is a HUGE vote of no confidence in Musk and the scam he has perpetrated with this IPO.
Morningstar, the most respected independent financial analysis company says that the fair value of SPCX is $63.
It has a long way to fall.
It is the markets talking to you, not me.
The markets are always right, listen to them.
And the overnight market now has SPCX trading at $125.
This is a death spiral.
This is the time of night when the demons and jackals come out and wail like banshees because Trump lives in their heads rent-free.
Don’t which of the many Anonymousses you are, but that’s great!
Thanks Mary. That was me, Proud Maga.
What happens when fact-checkers are liars and falsely tell you that facts are not true?