We recently discussed how Yale faculty reached academic nirvana after years of purging departments of conservatives and Republicans. The university finally showed zero political donations to Republicans. Now Princeton can claim that it has succeeded in a similar cleansing, according to a new study by Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS). The study shows that 98% of political donations went to Democrats or Democrat-affiliated groups and 0% went to Republicans or affiliated groups.
Political contributions are one measure that helps gauge the degree of ideological orthodoxy and intolerance in higher education. While some academics simply do not make contributions and may still hold conservative views, the study still offers another insight into the political preferences of those who do make such contributions. The study does not mean that we can assume that the number of academics with conservative or libertarian values is zero. (There are obvious outliers such as Robby George). However, few would dispute that it reaffirms the extreme imbalance of ideological views at this and other universities.
Professors often express shock at the thought that there would be any political or ideological litmus test for hiring. I have also opposed such measures. However, the hypocrisy is crushing. Today’s faculty are responsible for a near-complete ideological purging of their ranks. They have created a hostile environment for anyone with conservative or libertarian viewpoints, including students who rarely have the opportunity to hear from a professor from a center-right perspective at most schools.
Most recently, forty percent of college faculty admitted that they would vote against any Trump supporter seeking an academic position regardless of their scholarship or teaching ability. Keep in mind that this is only the professors willing to admit to such bias.
Some are more open than others.
I had dinner with a Harvard Law Professor, who expressed disbelief that I expected him to vote for any faculty applicants who held views 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.
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.
I wrote about the rise of this new McCarthyism on the left seven years ago.
Recently, I discussed the example of Fordham University School of Law professor John Pfaff, who called for “repercussions” for professors who do not “recant” their view that the 14th Amendment does not protect birthright citizenship.
Not long ago, I debated Professor Randall Kennedy at Harvard Law School about the school’s lack of ideological diversity. I respect Kennedy, and I do not view him as anti-free speech or intolerant. Yet when I noted the statistics on the vanishing number of conservative students and faculty in comparison to the nation, Kennedy responded that Harvard “is an elite university” and does not have to “look like America.”
Of course, the problem is that Harvard does not even look like Massachusetts, which is nearly 30 percent Republican.
At schools like Yale and Princeton, they have achieved near 100% for Democrats (with only a couple of percent going for independent or socialist causes). Yet, if you ask faculty about the purging of their ranks, they will often shrug and say that they just cannot find a conservative or libertarian who is intellectually worthy of an appointment to their schools. It was the same absurd rationalization that was once used to justify not hiring minorities or women.
I just had a debate with a William & Mary law professor who admitted there is no other rational explanation for the virtual absence of conservatives and libertarians than systemic bias. Indeed, if a company were to go to court to say that there was nothing intentional in a virtual absence of minority employees, it would be laughed out of court.
Of course, nothing is laughable about the state of higher education. This generation of administrators and faculty are destroying our educational institutions because they cannot set aside their political bias and intolerance for the benefit of their schools. Higher education has reached record lows in public trust. Yet, these professors and deans are insulated from such public opinion. They are often financially insulated from the economic impact of such isolation. In higher education, the echo chamber works to their personal benefit, increasing their opportunities for writing and conferences. They also do not face opposing views of their scholarship or viewpoints.
Recently, I participated in a debate with the President of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). He doubled down on his call for universities to pursue more political agendas and activism. AAUP later broke its long-standing apolitical tradition and endorsed Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan.
This is why I have advised university presidents who want to restore intellectual diversity that they cannot rely on faculty members. With enough donor and faculty pressure, deans may add a single conservative, but they have shown they are unwilling to make real changes to the academic echo chamber they have created.
In the same way, I have encouraged state legislatures to tie further public subsidies to real and substantial changes in creating intellectual diversity among faculty.
If we are to protect these bastions of free speech, legislatures will need to play a more active role in addressing the exclusion of both faculty candidates and speakers on public campuses. Too many faculty members still take the view that citizens are a captive audience expected to keep funding their departments, while excluding conservative or dissenting views held by many, if not most, citizens in a given state.
If faculty members want to maintain echo chambers for their own viewpoints, they should seek private donors to sustain such intolerance and orthodoxy.
Legislatures can demand evidence that schools maintain intellectually diverse faculty when determining the level of continued support from citizens. Otherwise, it is ridiculous to expect the public to subsidize their ideological echo chambers of faculty.
For schools like Princeton, donors clearly do not want or expect intellectual diversity. They keep donating to a school that has systematically purged its ranks and now runs from the left to the far left.
As these surveys confirm what we already know about the intellectual intolerance of today’s faculty and administrators, they can at least spare us the performative denials. They should embrace their bias and dogmatism. Own it. This is what they have built through years of ideological agendas and intolerance.
After all, how many academic institutions can claim true perfection? Princeton is effectively a closed shop for Republicans. “Rah rah rah Tiger, tiger, tiger / Sis, sis, sis / Boom, boom, boom, ah! / Princeton! Princeton! Princeton!”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Stop funding these indoctrination centers…….Remember 1984…..
As a general rule, Republicans support the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Democrats support the Communist Manifesto.
The communist American welfare state is anti-American and unconstitutional.
Universities are communist.
Universities are toxic.
Universities are direct and mortal enemies of the American thesis of freedom and self-reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Americans, and America.
Yale et al. are the enemies of America.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
Not to worry—soon there will be no America.
Just as the communist universities have planned.
Trump’s government currently holds equity or quasi-equity stakes in approximately 30 private companies. That is literally a defining tenant of communism. Trump/Vance are communists.
So let’s hear no more prattle about “diversity” and “inclusion.” The only big tents may contain Marxists and Stalinists with a dollop of Hitler reserved for anti-jewish hatred of Israel.
Wonderful topic. Brilliant discussion. Like children trading baseball cards. If some of our brilliant, well educated, savvy, sophisticated movers and shakers had any wisdom at all, they would be clamoring about the progression of WW3 and what we must do next. Time is running out. China and Russia feeding Iran with intelligence as more of our enemies are aligning with the religious terrorists who have captivated our indifference as they prepare for glory and the eagerly awaiting virgins.
Gold, the DJIA, inflation, our debt, immigration, violence, ICE–all have a place. The imminent total destruction of mankind and this small blue orb, takes precedence.
Intellectual diversity in academia is never fully appreciated until it no longer exists. The generations before, during, and since WW2 have only to witness from history what the oppression of it ultimately meant for German and Russian people. Those academics who consistently fail to welcome and invite freedom of opinion are foremost among the many foot soldiers totalitarians rely upon to foster their ideologies.
No more money from the feds except for scientific studies. No donations from Republicans or Jews. See how that works. Money talks.
@Manny
Agreed, but clearly that solves nothing. We are going to have to do better before college is even a thought for kids.
This study is completely bogus.
The study identified 808 Princeton faculty in 34 departments. But Princeton has more than 950 faculty. The other 140 or so faculty are employed in what Princeton describes as Interdisciplinary Centers or Institutes. These are not classified as “departments” in the Princeton system, but the faculty are all involved in active teaching. The study excluded these Centers and Institutes.
So right off the bat the study excluded 15% of the faculty.
The actual number of donors was only 101. So of the 808 faculty identified, only 13% made any political donations at all, of any kind, to any party.
The study identified donors from the FEC data where the donor must state their occupation and employer. But only cumulative donations of greater than $200 are reportable. Anyone who donated less than $200 cannot be identified. So it is entirely possible that the other 707 faculty who are not identified in the study simply donated less than $200, and may have donated to Republicans.
And of those 101 donors, 29 were from the School of Public and International Affairs, which has less than 500 students out of a student body of more than 9,000. So only 6% of the students at Princeton were taught by 30% of the donors.
So to summarize, the study excluded 15% of faculty.
Only 13% of faculty made any political donations at all, and on average the donations were just over $300.
30% of the 101 donors, or 29 individual donors, were from one school, the School of Public and International Affairs, which has less than 500 students.
The other 72 donors were spread across the rest of the faculty of 950.
The study could not identify anyone who donated less than $200, and given that the average donation to Democrats was only $300, it is entirely possible that many more of the 707 faculty who did not make donations of more than $200 to trigger the FEC reporting requirement actually made smaller donations to Republicans.
The only valid conclusion from this study is that Democrat donors are more likely to donate more than $200 compared to Republicans.
Any extrapolation beyond that to claim that the entire faculty are Democrats is completely absurd.
Absolutely right! You should never trust any poll, even when it samples 85% of a population.
You are right. You shouldn’t if that 85% is not representative of the group!
It didn’t sample 85% of the population. It didn’t even sample the population at all in the real sense of poll sampling by actually asking the individuals themselves how they donated.
They simply took the names of Princeton faculty and matched them to the Federal Election Commission database which records the names, occupations and employers of all political donations greater than $200. If someone donates less than $200, they do not appear in the database.
They found that out of the 818 faculty at Princeton, only 101 of them, or 13%, actually made a political donation greater than $200, and and all of those were to Democrats.
If any of them had donated less than $200 to any party, then the study was unable to identify them. Therefore many of the faculty could have donated to the Republicans with donations of less than $200 and would not have been identified.
Therefore, the only valid conclusions of the study are that of the 101 Princeton faculty who made donations greater than $200, all of them were Democrats. The study says absolutely nothing about donations of less than $200. The study says absolutely nothing about the political inclinations of the OTHER 717 faculty who did not make donations greater than $200. The other 717 may not have made any donations at all, or made small donations to Republicans, but you cannot then say that their failure to donate more than $200 to Republicans means that they must be Democrats. There is no way of knowing this from the study, and that would be a ridiculous conclusion
The people who commissioned the study and Turley are trying to say that there are no Republicans on the faculty at Princeton because the 717 faculty who do not appear in the FEC database MUST be Democrats because they failed to donate more than $200 to Republicans.
That is a laughably absurd interpretation.
X- Turley said no such thing.
Turley said, “The university finally showed zero political donations to Republicans.”
Turley said, “The study shows that 98% of political donations went to Democrats or Democrat-affiliated groups and 0% went to Republicans or affiliated groups.”
Your last paragraph is such a whopper* that you should be thrown off this blog, and this comes after you pretended that Turley made up these figures, and you were corrected.
* your last paragraph:
“The people who commissioned the study and Turley are trying to say that there are no Republicans on the faculty at Princeton because the 717 faculty who do not appear in the FEC database MUST be Democrats because they failed to donate more than $200 to Republicans.
For one who constantly complains about ‘reading comprehension,” go to the head of the class.
What Turley said is incomplete and a deliberate attempt at deception.
He simply said that 98% of donations went to Democrats.
He failed to say that those donations came from only 101 of the 818 faculty.
He failed to say that it only included the donations greater than $200 that are the only ones that appear in the FEC database.
The study says absolutely nothing about the other 717 faculty, who are 87 % of the faculty, and who did not make donations to ANY party greater than $200. The study simply documents that 101 out of 818 faculty made donations greater than $200 to Democrats.
That’s it. Nothing more can be concluded.
It simply documents that 13% of the faculty are Democrats. It says absolutely nothing about the other 87% of the faculty.
It is deliberately deceptive to try to say that anyone who did not make a donation of greater than $200 to Republicans MUST be a Democrat.
OMG George/X you are truly hopeless.
Go back and read Turley;s first paragraph.
THEN read the actual report which explains it all. (Go to bottom of page, which says, “PRINCETON DATA-A DEEPER DIVE.”
https://princetoniansforfreespeech.org/blogs/news/does-viewpoint-diversity-exist-among-princetons-faculty-by-one-important-measure-the-answer-is-no
YOU are the clown who keeps twisting what Turley said- or did NOT say. What are you, fifth-grader?
Every piece of information I gave came directly from the report.
You seem to be incapable of understanding what it actually says and means. You obviously did not read the article that you cite. If you did you would have noticed the disclaimer where it says in bold “This is not a sample; it is all the contributions of Princeton faculty reported to the FEC.”
It is not ALL the contributions made by ALL the faculty.
It is NOT a documentation of the political views of all the faculty.
It is NOT a random statistical sample of Princeton faculty. It is not a poll of individual faculty. It is simply the documentation of those Princeton faculty who made political donations greater than $200 and were mandatorily reported to the FEC. Only 101 of 818 faculty made such donations, and 98% went to Democrats. There is no record of the other 717 faculty, or 83%, ever making a political donation of any kind to any party. The study says absolutely nothing about the 83% of faculty who did not make political donations.
The bottom line is that the study simply documents that 101 faculty, or 13%, made reportable donations greater than $200 to Democrats.
The study simply shows that 98% of the reportable donations went to Democrats, NOT that 98% of the faculty are Democrats.
You cannot say that 98% of the faculty are Democrats and there are no Republicans, because only 13% of the faculty made donations.
The other 83% of the faculty made no reportable donations to any party. This study of donations says nothing about the about the political allegiances of 83% of the faculty. The other 83% could all be Democrats, or they could all be Republicans, but the way this study was done says absolutely nothing about them.
All this study shows is that 13% of Princeton faculty donated to Democrats. Nothing more.
The study is completely bogus and Turley is being deliberately deceptive.
It is no better than Turley’s repeated reliance on the shoddy and sensational tabloid journalism of the Daily Mail for his supposed “facts” about legal cases in the United Kingdom to fuel his rage about non-existent rage, and the supposed onslaught on free speech. For a tenured professor, his diligence and care is appalling. If he is going to put his name to this garbage, he really ought not to leave it to an intern…
@Anonymi
You are routinely ignored, thank the Gods. This is a rare exception. Nobody cares. Go blow.
The study which Turley cites actually names source and contact data. Look it up, clown
https://princetoniansforfreespeech.org/blogs/pfs-in-the-news/new-study-finds-98-of-princeton-faculty-political-contributions-went-to-democrats
I did look it up. That is where I got the information.
The link you posted is the news story, not the data. The very last sentence in your link has a link to the actual study data. That is where I got the information.
You obviously didn’t bother to read it.
Everything I said comes from the published data.
Clown, the point being made is that you can carry your beef and contact the entity directly. There’s even a phone number and name. Instead, you come here to harp.
it is YOU who is substituting your opinion, WITHOUT EVIDENCE OR CONFLICTING DATA, to undermine the study.
Why don’t you go interview the “15%” that you say were “excluded” and see if that doesn;t sharpen your focus.
Let us know how that comes out after you take your “15%” data to the party or entity that published the study. Now I am more than 15% convinced that you are
cont’d
that you are X
The only way this will change is at the local level. The parents must demand a quality education from the teachers and administration. Then deal with the local school boards to make sure that they adhere to basic educational practices instead of social ideologies.
If the voters and donors disagree with the way the system is teaching and they act upon that belief, then and only then will it change. The professors, teachers and administrators are a small percentage of the population that have an overwhelming effect on the students. The voters have to act and if that fails then move the students to schools or create schools that will achieve a balanced approach and education.
Princeton sounds positively Maoist. That institution is not alone.
On the plus side, replacing intellectual merit with ideological conformity will ultimately degrade those defective institutions. It can’t happen quickly enough.
The trajectory is horrible. If/when the Left takes majorities in DC all hell will break loose. About half the country will not accept the insanity.
Ammo up.
I’d like to see what a Venn diagram would reveal about university faculties purged and campus student “safe spaces”. With this thought: explain to me why university means first dig a foxhole against ideas.
Trump picked a war with academia. Universities lost massive federal funding and research grants. Why would we expect professors to vote against their own self-interest?
Massive? How massive?
Just to pick one example – 1/4 of all NIH funding. If you are a scientist whose research relies on NIH grants, would you vote for the party that cuts your funding by that much? Of course not.
And thats the actual cut. Way more was threatened. Universities are required to plan in advance so they must anticipate a lack of funding even if Trump TACOs.
Total lie. Still pending at appellate level. AND, what the administration proposed was SCREENING and redistribution. AH, you didn;t like that research funds for gender identity, LGBTQ, and climate change might suffer scrutiny.
Also, forum shopping in California https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/scientists-challenge-us-nih-grant-225302622.html
Universities skimmed research grants to fund the rest of their operations, and the older and wealthier the university, the bigger the skim.
But nobody criticized Harvard for using kids’ cancer funds to support the DEI office. It was all categorized as “overhead”: toilet paper, electricity, that sort of thing.
Research grant spending is tightly controlled and cannot be skimmed.
Where did they all go? They weren’t put against a wall or handed to the hangman. Where did the conservative and Republican faculty end up going? And where did the conservative and Republican students shift their dollars, in the fashion of the free market, when those faculty members were no longer there to support the student world view?
What did the parents of those students do? Did they find alternative institutions where the faculty had re-trenched?
It’s not a massacre if there aren’t bodies and it’s not a purge if they quit education entirely. The free market says that if there is a demand someone will fill it. Drug dealers accept they could be shot or killed or arrested and imprisoned; if they can meet a demand, so can a conservative or Republican professor under less dire circumstances.
If there is such a large availability of conservative and Republican educators there should be a conservative and Republican higher education facility open and ready to welcome those who demand that as their primary requirement.
Perhaps conservative and Republican educators and students have no bootstraps of their own.
-But it’s not just academia!
Students leave the classroom and come home to NBC and ABC frightening everyone about the price of gas at $4.59 a gallon —-never once even breathing that gas was over $5.00 a gallon during the BIden administration-with no “war” going on- and nearly three years after the pandemic struck. -That notwithstanding that the average income level was $8,000-9,000 LOWER than today.
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/2022/06/09/gas-prices-have-more-than-doubled-since-bidens-first-day-in-office/
(Biden also left the reserve/reservoirs substantially low for Trump:
“Before the drawdown, the SPR held about 727 million barrels–[despite plenty of time to replenish]. By the end of 2024, inventories had recovered only to roughly 394 million barrels, well below pre-release levels. Claims that the reserve suffered operational damage are also supported by recent evidence. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said in a March 2026 interview that damage sustained during the 2022 drawdown left the government operating from only three of its four storage cavern groups.”)
https://news.meaww.com/fact-check-did-biden-wreck-the-strategic-petroleum-reserve-and-is-trump-fixing-it
And of course, Media wants to warn everyone about Trump’s $5,000 check to Americans after rising costs have hurt many of them. Media fails to mention that Biden promised everyone $2,000 if they voted for Democrats in Georgia….(why do you think he mentioned Georgia?)
(See, e.g., “Joe Biden promises Americans an ‘immediate” single $2000 relief check if they elect Ossoff and Warnock’ at c-span.org)
(I cannot post more than two links, sorry.)
So let’s talk about raising our kids with the critical thinking they will need to discern MEDIA’s manipulative and selective facts- from the actual whole stories.
That’s what makes good citizens.
Lin,
Great comment!
All the more reason to frequent Independent media like The Free Press.
The chattering monkey has awoken.
You?
@lin
Excellent, and absolutely nails the problem. An awful lot of people that voted for Trump, even, thought somehow we could magically reverse 2020-2024 over night. It’ll take years, certainly more than one election cycle; the damage done by the dems was incalculable, unprecedented, and very much intentional (i.e. – it was SUPPOSED to be nigh impossible to fix). We do not have to go down the same road as the countries the UN has a socialist stranglehold on, but it means waking up and doing better right now, today, and holding the line.
Won’t be easy, but that challenge pales in comparison to trying to undo getting mired in a communist state. We are fortunate enough to have a system that interrupted all that, and it is why the talk of dismantling said system by these actors is stronger than ever. Make no mistake: a totalitarian state is what the modern left wants, 100%, and we cannot hand it to them through reticence or indifference, even in such seemingly personal matters as education and the preparation for same.
James,
Good point.
I can recall some of us noting it would take years if not a decade to fix the mess the Biden admin left us.
lin: “gas was over $5.00 a gallon during the Biden administration-with no “war” going on ”
No war except the one in Ukraine.
Income is higher because the top 10% saw their incomes rise by 20-30% and everyone else saw 1%.
Biden was dealing with COVID stimulus checks to boost an ailing economy; Trump is claiming that the economy is booming and is adding inflation to it while demanding that the Federal Reserve Banks hand out cash for free. The economy is already over stimulated, which is why the Fed is raising the base interest rate in an effort to slow inflation.
Handing out checks as America went back to work, but before supply chains went back to normal, created via demand-pull, the highest inflation in 40 years. Inflation we are still dealing with.
The money was for was to pay for rent, not to buy products; to make up for unemployment so employees would not go homeless.
However capitalists didn’t use the funds to defray fixed expenses and retain workers.
Biden’s flaw was thinking American oligarchs would not just take the money and run. Most famously many top Republican leaders refused to pay back the funds that did not go to those needs.
oh gawwwwdddd.
try again.
nonny, ^^^^defending Biden’s gas prices, says “No war except the one in Ukraine.”
Notice what happened BEFORE the war in Ukraine— mapping the rise up to the week BEFORE the war in Ukraine,
“In reality, gasoline prices increased 48% from [Biden’s] Inauguration Day 2021 to the week Before Russia invaded Ukraine, and diesel prices increased 49%. The national gasoline price in 2021 averaged $3 a gallon. Gasoline prices today are now averaging above $5, nearly 20 years ‘ahead of schedule.’”
https://www.heritage.org/climate/commentary/bidens-radical-anti-fossil-fuel-energy-policy-costs-americans-dearly
Also, BIDEN IS THE ONE WHO LINKED COVID RELIEF CHECKS WITH “IF YOU VOTE FOR OSSOFF AND WARNOCK”
multiple reports on this
Heritage dot org? As biased as possible as source as any could find.
Anyway – Trump started the relief checks. President Donald Trump signed the historic CARES Act in March 2020, which authorized the first round of $1,200 economic impact relief checks during the COVID-19 pandemic. It even included his name on them.
Heritage cited the U.S. Energy Administration, and included a link so you could look it up yourself. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPMR_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W
Clown. You must be Georgie.
“Biden tells Georgia voters that $2,000 stimulus checks will never arrive if Republicans win Senate runoffs”
https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-georgia-senate-runoff-2000-stimulus-checks-immediately-2021-1?op=1
@Anonymous
In CA, gas has been close to $8/gallon for some time, for regular gasoline. Spare us. You are an idiot. An idiot that likely lives with their parents. The day you actually pay for something yourself is the day you can join in the conversation. The phone or laptop you are typing your idiocy on was likely not paid for by you, nor whatever environment you are in, typing, even if it’s a Starbuck’s. You embarrass yourself in ways we could never hope to. By all means, keep talking.
The national average prices were over $5/gal under Biden for less than 2 weeks.
The national average price was above $4/gal for 25 consecutive weeks under Biden. Trump has already matched that. As of mid-September, prices have remained above $4/gal for 25 consecutive weeks, with no signs of any relief.
Biden’s relief check and Trump’s “dividend” are both inflationary and stupid. But, suggesting that they are equivalent is also ridiculous. One is entirely self-imposed. Starting a war – AFTER, mind you, running on isolationism. The other was in the middle of a public health crisis.
In sum, your above post is either intentionally manipulative (just like the media), or you may be a victim of the same failure to educate children on understanding the “whole” story. In what way is providing a link to a snapshot of June 2022 the whole story?
^^^from X/GSX, can we tell?
“Biden tells Georgia voters that $2,000 stimulus checks will never arrive if Republicans win Senate runoffs”
https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-georgia-senate-runoff-2000-stimulus-checks-immediately-2021-1?op=1
“Joe Biden Says $2000 Checks Hinge on Ossoff and Warnock Wins.”
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/06/13/us/gas-prices-promo-1655142694024/gas-prices-promo-1655142694024-videoSixteenByNineJumbo1600.png
Obama Jan 2009-end of 2016
Trump Jan 2017-end of 2020
Biden Jan 2021-end of 2024
Harvard chose as its head chaplain an atheist who authored a book titled “Good Without God”. Ivy League presidents testified before Congress that violent mobs who take over their campuses and call for the extermination of Jews … Do not violate Ivy League Codes Of Conduct. Penn hired Joe Biden as a professor, and Penn’s President was appointed Ambassador to Germany. China funds students and research in the Ivy League. Columbia held racially segregated graduation ceremonies. Cornell has a student who feels comfortable enough there to announce that he’d never work for a Jew. Princeton removed the requirement that classics majors be reasonably proficient in Greek or Latin because it considers the requirement too demanding for the students it now admits. At Brown, students never are graded with a D or an F. Harvard had to restructure its grading policy because too many students were getting graded with an A. Get the picture?
Stephen B. Benisch, Esq.,
That is quite the picture you paint. Did not know you were such an artist. Well done!
Its also delusional. Interesting that you find delusion to your liking.
Point out where Stephen B. Benisch, Esq., is wrong or delusional.
You cannot.
“Ivy League presidents testified before Congress that violent mobs who take over their campuses and call for the extermination of Jews… Do not violate Ivy League Codes Of Conduct.”
This never happened.
Cornell:
The Facts About the CeremoniesAdditional, Not Separate:
The smaller identity-based gatherings (such as for Black, Asian, Latinx, Native, LGBTQ+, and low-income/first-generation students) are held in addition to the main, university-wide commencement and class day ceremonies.
Voluntary Participation: Every student is invited and welcome to attend the main commencement, and participation in any of the smaller multicultural celebrations is completely optional.
Student and Alumni Roots: Most of these specific celebratory events were originally developed and organized in tandem with student groups and alumni
Stephen B. Benisch, Esq. – if you aren’t an attorney you should not make that representation. If you are an attorney, you are likely a terrible one.
Anonymous,
Are you really and truly okay with “voluntary participation” in “additional” graduation ceremonies that are based on skin color?
Are you against free association of people for whatever reason? There doesn’t seem to be any forcible exclusion and the inclusion is based on heritage. What skin color are LGPTQ+ people?
Anonymous,
Are you really and truly okay with “voluntary participation” in “additional” graduation ceremonies for students with black skin color that are arranged and paid for by the college administration? Are you really and truly okay with “safe spaces” from which students with white skin color are excluded by the college administration? Are you really and truly okay with the college administration sitting on its hands while violent mobs interfere with Jewish students ability to fully enjoying their rights and privileges as students?
Rep. Elise Stefanik specifically asked each president whether calling for the genocide of Jews violated their university’s rules.
Harvard President Claudine Gay: said it depended on the context and whether the speech crossed into conduct such as bullying, harassment, or intimidation.
Penn President Liz Magill: likewise said it was context-dependent, particularly whether it was directed, severe, or pervasive.
MIT President Sally Kornbluth: said a public statement by itself was different from targeted conduct, and that harassment would depend on whether it was pervasive and severe.
Upstate New Yorkers will miss Elise Stefanik. We regret that she is not the Republican nominee for Governor. We can only hope that she will replace Schumer as a senator in 2028.
This is where the entire nation will find itself if this ideology is allowed to continue.
I find not much difference between the utter censorship and virulent means employed by islam to control its hordes and annihilate their “infidels around them” and the approach of the screaming hordes of progressives who will not tolerate an opposing idea and will go to extreme limits to censor and control those “infidels” around them.
Both are a mind cult of easily led ignorant and vulnerable followers, blinkered to any alternative concepts and willing to accept that mind control in order to stay connected to the horde around them – coerced by ideology that trucks no question of the truth of their ideology.
Those at the top of these ideologies are willingly using their hordes of followers to achieve and maintain control – whether it be a town council, school board, or faculty department. Control and censorship is their goal as that is what is needed to keep the blinkered blinded to alternate concepts and truths.
Great propaganda, and if I may add pretty f+ing sick. The Nazis would have loved you. Now the local MAGAots do.
Folks, here’s a another example of MAGA sickness
Does the buck stop or was it begun by soviet communists or Islam? Today they may be colluding? Imo the masses are tools being used.
OT but related to education, Blue States With Strong Teachers’ Unions Are Terrible At Literacy Reforms
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/blue-states-strong-teachers-unions-have-weak-literacy-reforms
Got any original thoughts to share instead of links?
MORON ANON doesn’t have any original thoughts.
Correlation does not mean causation.
The most shocking thing to me is that any attention is given to a professor’s political leanings (putting aside extreme ideologies like communism, socialism and other such ideologies which deny the foundations of our independent judicial system). The best professor I had in law school taught civil procedure. We knew he had a very active litigation practice before “retiring” to teach but none of us knew or could tell which side of the docket he practiced on. Only after I graduated did I learn that he had been a very successful plaintiffs’ lawyer, primarily in personal injury cases. He knew that advocacy for one side or the other would shortchange us. I also am shocked that to my knowledge, none of the elite law schools’ professors have come out publicly and strongly against the Democrat Socialists of America’s platform to make Supreme Court justices appointed by and answerable to the House of Representatives (after doing away with the Senate). If we had not been blessed with an independent Supreme Court it could be argued that civil rights and other critical changes in our society would have been a long time coming, if ever. An independent Supreme Court is our best protection against the tyranny of the majority.
This is the result of affirmative action. AA was a mistake. It’s been corrected I’ve heard. It produced an overall dumbing down but won’t continue forever unless the truly intelligent are interested in government and law instead of economics. It’s a generation blip most likely.
Censor?
Censored
^^^ Pack the court effort. These colleges now want to reinstitute admission standards. They need a different army?
The plan is there. It’s apparent imo.
Professor Turley,
Did you read the survey? Always ready a poll’s methodology!
Issue #1 – Only 818 faculty members surveyed, not the full 950+
Issue #2 – Only donations of $200+ are reported. Over 40% of political donations are typically under that threshold.
Issue #3 – Only federal contributions to candidates were measured. The poll apparently doesn’t think states and localities hold elections too.
Issue #4 – Only direct contributions to candidates were measured. PACs account for roughly 10% – 23% of direct funding for candidates.
Issue #5 – The poll has clear errors. For example, it says 2 donations went to Independents. Then, in the table that examines donations by department, it only shows 1 independent donation. The raw numbers don’t tie up. Poor execution.
Issue #6 – Fundamentally this is a measure of donations, not of private beliefs. The poll notes this and also says that previous voter registration surveys of Princeton found that there are faculty members who are registered as Republicans.
I am sure there are more, but please read the methodology before you write your screed.
+100
X reappeared after 9:21 as “Anonymous.”
Read? Republicans have no time for that.
Professor Turley talks a LOT about purging of conservatives and libertarians and a lack of “academic diversity” based on political contributions and party affiliation. He proposes legislative intervention and using state funds to diversify academic ideology. He’s calling for bringing back DEI. Ironically it’s those “purged” conservatives who used legislation to eliminate DEI, the very thing Turley wants for implementing a more ‘balanced’ academia. He’s quite a hypocrite.
Here’s a better question, does Turley contribute to republicans or democrats. We all know he’s not a Republican. But he freely admits his family is more Democrat. He’s always coy about his political affiliation.
Perhaps Princeton lack of political contributions to the Republican party is their free speech way of letting everyone know Republicans are not doing anything to merit a contribution. Trump is wrecking the economy, is in a losing war with Iran, gas prices are skyrocketing, republicans have done absolutely nothing and just recessed because the speaker wanted to avoid a vote. Mitch McConnell is a vegetable who has no idea where he is.
There’s no “purging”. Republicans, conservatives and libertarians are always bashing academics and higher education. Why would they want to join schools they don’t believe are worthy?
X: “He’s calling for bringing back DEI.” C’mon X, you know better than to start a discussion with a straw man premise. Asking for universities (which should foster dialectics) to avoid being silos of one political persuasion, is not asking to bring back the toxic ideology that DEI stands for.
Ah ha, its George. Got a point somewhere in there? Or just brain farts?
One way to look at the political outlook of teachers is to look at student voting, since students reflect the biases of their teachers. In 1928, students overwhelmingly supported Hoover over Smith. New York Times, October 29, 1928, “College Straw Vote Gives Hoover Lead”.
Compared to today, were American colleges more or less serious academic institutions in the 1920s. I think we know the answer.