Roxane Gay is the Gloria Steinem Endowed Chair in Media, Culture, and Feminist Studies at Rutgers University–New Brunswick. She currently serves as the artist-in-residence at Harvard Medical School and called this week for the “liberation” of accused assassin Luigi Mangione. Gay (the cousin of former Harvard University President Claudine Gay) is the latest example of the radical chic of higher education.
Professor Gay was on a panel on “fat liberation” at Harvard Medical School. In a video posted to X, Gay responds to a question about the health industry by declaring “Free Luigi, for one.” She added that “The health insurance industry is equal opportunity evil. They are terrible for thin people, for fat people, for white people, for black people … They just want to prioritize profit over bodies and health.”
It appears that it is not evil to murder UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024, leaving a widow and children without a husband and father.
It is unclear what an artist-in-residence entails or why Harvard Medical School considers this a priority, given the other pressing health care issues. It is reminiscent of the bizarre “activists-in-residence” at UCLA medical school.
She is not only someone whom Harvard wants to educate their doctors, but Rutgers also gave her a prestigious academic chair.
Another panelist author Da’Shaun Harrison reportedly used the panel to explain to medical students how “Fascism, is the very foundation of the Western society, the very foundation of the U.S., through the transatlantic slave trade and through colonialism.” Harrison added that “body fascism” is part of that evil foundation for Western society.
Gay is hardly unique.
Radical faculty members on the left are common across the country and many espouse the same hate-filled and violent rhetoric.
Professors have regularly advocated “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 making other outrageous statements. A San Diego University professor celebrated the death of an Israeli soldier who was eaten by a shark.
While you cannot be too radical on the left for many departments, even a moderate or center-right applicant will find it challenging to secure a teaching position today. An open conservative would be a nonstarter with many departments. Forty percent of faculty admit they would never vote for a Trump supporter, regardless of qualifications, publications, or accomplishments.
Instead, they hire and give chairs to extremists like Gay. Rutgers University, a public university, believes that a hate-spewing extremist is the ideal chair for its Media, Culture, and Feminist Studies department.
Likewise, Harvard Medical School, which charges roughly $122,000 for tuition and other costs, insists that Gay is an important part of its students’ education.
The scene perfectly embodies the state of higher education in America today.
“The scene perfectly embodies the state of higher education in America today.”
That is a lavish exaggeration. Yes, it’s outrageous that any college professor would line up behind political murder.
The outrageousness is why Prof. Turley chose it for today’s topic. He’s interested in showcasing the extremes of the left, and yes, they are ugly — almost beyond recognition as American.
But, they represent the fringe, not the typical.
This YouTube playlist ( a sociology class taught at Penn State) is a more accurate portrayal of what is going on in 2025-26 in our colleges.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4EEB1695C5576806
It completely dispels the dystopian narrative put forth by Prof. Turley. I mean, he teaches college classes, right? He interacts with law students every week. He should know he’s wildly exaggerating — to juice your rage.
Pbinca, EXATLY!!
Ooops….correction, EXACTLY!!
X can’t spell
Aw, I bet pbinca and georgie didn’t even notice that Professor Sam at Penn (in pbinca’s video) is propagandizing his students by telling them that “well, [he] doesn;t know about Immigration or Immigration law,” but that “we are all immigrants and it was immigrants who stole America’s land from the native americans,
I had to burst out laughing at both Prof Sam AND pb AND X.
pbinca, maybe Gay’s views are fringe. But Harvard Medical School isn’t some fringe school out in the hinterlands. It sits at or near the top of the influence chain in American medical education.
That’s what makes this worth discussing.
Turley isn’t claiming every professor in every classroom thinks like Roxane Gay. He’s pointing to what a major institution chose to put inside its own educational environment.
And pointing me to a perfectly reasonable sociology class at Penn State doesn’t prove what’s “typical” any more than this one example does.
The interesting question is what influential institutions are normalizing, rewarding and putting in front of students.
You can certainly argue with Turley about how widespread the problem is. But dismissing the example as fringe misses something important.
Roxane Gay may be fringe.
Harvard Medical School most certainly is not.
Olly, as I have posted previously is there any evidence this is being put in front of Harvard students? Any at all?
Is it entirely possible Gay CAN be supportive in a fan-sense-kind of way and still be a professional in her work?
I don’t condone what she said, but….does that really translate into what she actually teaches in class? We don’t know, but what we do know is professor Turley is insinuating a lot of things without evidence. That’s my opinion and it makes more sense because of how he structured the language and how he painted the story with unverifiable insinuations.
X, actually, yes. Harvard itself says Gay works closely with students throughout the academic year, including workshops and office hours.
Now, do I have evidence that she walks into those workshops and teaches Free Luigi? No, and I haven’t claimed that.
Could she keep her personal views separate from her work? Absolutely.
But Harvard selected her for a position that puts her directly in contact with students. Turley finds that institutional choice outrageous in light of what she publicly said. You can disagree with his conclusion, but that’s different from saying he’s twisting facts.
And there’s another evidentiary problem here. You’re criticizing Turley for making insinuations without evidence while insinuating that Turley structured the article to “juice rage” among partisan readers. What evidence do you have of that motive beyond your interpretation of how he wrote the article?
If we’re going to insist on evidence before drawing conclusions about Gay, that seems like a reasonable standard to apply before drawing conclusions about Turley too.
That’s the point Olly. Turley, a distinguished professor is making insinuations without evidence. Why would he be making them if he too has no evidence that Gay is including his views on Luigi as part of his class?
If Harvard hasn’t said anything or done anything don’t you think they are more knowledgeable about what she’s actually doing vs Turley’s insinuations?
Turley’s rhetoric is deliberately inflammatory and he is insinuating an entire group thinks the way Gay does and implies there’s something immoral without evidence.
You can see how some here already jumped to conclusions and judgements on nothing but the professor’s insinuations.
He’s making things out to be more than they really are just to stoke animosity towards “the left”.
Thank you OLLY. Harvard, a private university, of course, is not on the fringe of academic achievement or educational advancement. Neither is Rutgers, a public university. Two good examples of formerly premier institutions, one public, one private, continuing to diminish their reputations.
OLLY, thanks for pointing out obvious to the person who added so much irrelevance to Turley’s BLOG
“. . . maybe Gay’s views are fringe.”
No.
When you’re at Rutgers and Harvard, you’re not fringe. You’re the leading edge.
Yes, that was the point.
Then why didn’t you write that? You’re a fraud just like George X.
Obviously Turley knows perfectly well that he wildly exaggerating this view of a single professor as “perfectly embodying the state of higher education”
The real point is that he is doing this disingenuously and maliciously as part of an agenda to please his overlords at Fox and NY Post who pay him handsomely to put out this garbage.
He is also deliberately stoking the rage of his faithful MAGA followers here. The very rage that he so hypocritically condemns in others.
He also pays fast and loose with the claim that Harvard medical students pay $122,000 a year for tuition. In fact less than 30% pay full tuition. Everyone else gets some level of student aid depending on family income. Any student whose family income is less than $150,000 pays absolutely nothing in tuition. If the family income is below $100,000, then not only does Harvard waive tuition, they also pay all the students costs of housing, food, text books and medical insurance.
Turley is a huckster and a conman, just like Trump, and is a stranger to the truth.
Professor Turley is the only (ex) democrat that I trust.
@Anonymous–
“Professor Turley is the only (ex) democrat that I trust.”
Have a look at Alan Dershowitz, another distinguished professor of law (and staunch defender of our civil rights) who is also an ex-Democrat:
https://nypost.com/2026/09/30/opinion/why-i-left-the-democratic-party-and-why-california-voters-should-too/
Thank You Dr Zee. Always happy to grow my list of Ex-Democrats that I can like!
@Anonymous–
“He is also deliberately stoking the rage of his faithful MAGA followers here.”
“Turley is a huckster and a conman, just like Trump, and is a stranger to the truth.”
What pathetic nonsense!
Jonathan Turley is a distinguished professor of law, holding an endowed chair at a distinguished university. And this country may have never known a greater defender of our First Amendment rights, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. Were he actually the “huckster and…conman” that you accuse him of being, would he have been allowed to stay at George Washington University for fully 36 years? Hucksters and conmen tend to flit from position to position in order to stay one step ahead of those who are finding out the truth.
Yes, the Professor is currently talking about a fringe group, but they may not be quite so “fringe” in the very near future. Steadily increasing numbers of Gen Z (I think that I correctly speak of our youngest generation?) seem to be falling under the sway of the truly Looney Left, because they are being “educated” –and I use that term very loosely–by that very same Loony Left. IMHO, pretty soon the Looney Left may well be the governing class in our country, and then, God help us all.
Please note that I am DEFINITELY NOT part of the MAGA faithful, and please also note that, IMHO, it is YOU who are the huckster and con man, and a pathetic “stranger to the truth.”
NB: I don’t usually resort to name-calling, but I just can’t help myself in your case. You are, after all, the one who provided me the very words with which to do it.
Dr Zee. I completely agree.
They do not represent a fringe. The supposed mainstream faculty hire them (often dispensing with ordinary standards of accomplishment) , grant them tenure, refuse to sanction them in any way. Ditto the administration.
“. . . is a more accurate portrayal . . .”
How do you know that?
P.S. That course is a gigantic BS session. If you’re right about that course being a “more accurate portrayal,” then academia is more corrupt than JT’s portrayal of it.
P.P.S. Do you even know what “radical empathy” means? Or that it’s the foundation of that revolting course?
Well, we have the next installment of what the Harvard professor told Johnathan in their debate: “We don’t have to look like America”.
As I previously tried to post on the professor’s blog, unsuccessfully, no one deserves to die like UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson did in December of 2024. However, as the CEO thereof he may have contributed to his own killer’s mental illness. Furthermore, whether he’s the true assassin, or not, Luigi Mangione is in the age group of American males who, statistically, are more prone to commit violent crimes with firearms since the FDA approved the expanded use of added artificially cultured “free” (can cross the blood-brain barrier) brain damaging, mind altering monosodium glutamate (MSG), as an ‘alleged’ “flavor enhancer,” in 1980. Ultimately, bad governance on either side of the aisle can adversely impact parties on both sides. Charles G. Shaver/CGS
Just wow.
Please explain how you believe Mr. Thompson “may have contributed to his own killer’s mental illness.” Mangione wasn’t enrolled under Thompson’s company and was never denied care by Thompson’s company. United Healthcare had nothing to do with Mangione, so what is this contribution you allege?
Thanks for asking, anonhere, October 2, 2026 at 11:03 AM. Mr. Thompson may have been personally unaware of the ‘added MSG’ connection with gun violence but, as the CEO of a major ‘illnesscare’ insurer, he surely knew that something was/is drastically wrong with mainstream American medicine. I try to explain some of the tragic, long-term nature of the problem on the outdated “About” page of my ad-free video channel (https://odysee.com/@charlesgshaver:d?view=about). Again, Mr. Thompson did not deserve to die like that but neither did/do any young (minimally) Americans deserve to be be poisoned all of their lives with poorly researched brain damaging, mind altering toxic FDA approved food additives, for higher pseudo-food manufacturer’s profits; unintended consequences? CGS
Stop blaming private health insurance companies for the disaster created by Obama care. Deflection and diversion won’t steer us away from the true villain here.
Agreed, brianb1813 October 2, 2026 at 11:24 AM, Obamacare did nothing to address the underlying causes of so much then/now epidemic chronic illness in the US; only enriched the major providers of the very lucrative American ‘illness industry.’ For multiple reasons the US food supply is inherently unsafe and mainstream medicine is mostly ignorant of that fact. I’ve been trying to help remedy that for more than twenty years, so far failing miserably.
His murderer is not ‘mentally ill’ and did not have any business with Mr. Thompson’s company.
“artist-in-residence” at Harvard Medical School ? This sums up the disaster that is now “higher education” with Harvard and the other Ivies being at the top of the heap.
Let’s stop calling it “higher education.” The mindless, stupid, baseless junk that colleges & universities are “teaching” students these days should be burned & all references to this trash erased. No wonder college-educated young people today behave like idiots. They are!
“Free Luigi, for one.” She added that “The health insurance industry is equal opportunity evil. They are terrible for . . .” (Gay)
Suppose Gay’s assertion about the health insurance industry is true. Her Final Solution is to murder the industry’s executives. (Elsewhere, she openly endorses such murder vigilantism.) (Look it up yourself.)
So whose head is next on the Leftist chopping block? Auto and energy executives for the evil of “climate change.” Residential developers for the “evil” of charging rent. Media executives for the evil of social isolation (and for allowing Trump back on their platforms). Bank executives for the “evil” of redlining. Pharmaceutical executives for the “evil” of producing anti-depressants. And, of course, gun manufacturer executives for the “evil” of existing.
When your goal is a communist takeover of the entire economy, comply or be murdered is a powerful motivator.
Medical art used to be useful since it was used in illustrations in medical books, especially in anatomy. As photography and medical imagining such as CT and MRI became popular and so much more accurate, medical art waned. At this point in time I can see no useful need for medical artist in residence except to draw portraits and historical events in medicine that have escaped being photographed. As far as the opinion of the artist in residence, it has no useful meaning.
GEB, I wasn’t sure myself what an artist-in-residence at a medical school actually does, so I looked it up.
Harvard says the position isn’t really about producing medical illustrations. The artist-in-residence works with students through workshops, office hours and public conversations intended to bridge the arts and medicine. Harvard’s broader arts and humanities effort says it is intended to strengthen things like reflection, empathy, communication, professionalism and patient care.
Okay. Now we’re getting somewhere. Harvard has told us what it says it’s trying to accomplish and something about how it intends to accomplish it.
Now comes the question I keep asking: How do you know it’s working?
If Roxane Gay was selected to help advance those objectives, then how does her participation advance them? How does “Free Luigi,” referring to a man accused of murdering a healthcare executive, fit into an educational program intended to develop empathy, professionalism and better patient care?
Maybe Harvard has an answer.
But that’s exactly why I keep coming back to these basic questions. Don’t tell me I need to understand the inner workings of Harvard before I’m allowed to ask them. Tell me what you’re trying to accomplish, how you’re doing it, and how you know it’s working.
Then we can judge the program against the standards Harvard set for itself.
OLLY,
“. . . fit into an educational program intended to develop empathy, professionalism and better patient care?”
That is one thing I have noticed since going to school, a lot of words like, “community,” “diversification,” “inclusion,” and “empathy.”
It has been noted if you do not put the word “empathy” on a resume or the like, you wont get the job.
If you were going into the medical field that has direct interaction or care of patients, one would figure empathy was a given.
Olly,
The artist-in-residence actually works. To answer your questions there have been studies done on the issue. Here are a few to read through.
Study 1: “Formal Art Observation Training Improves Medical Students’ Visual Diagnostic Skills”
• Source: Journal of General Internal Medicine
• Methodology: A 9-week course titled “Training the Eye” was designed to improve diagnostic acumen through guided observation of fine art at a museum.
• Key Findings: Pre- and post-testing showed that the intervention group increased their mean observation scores by 5.41—a 38% improvement over the control group.
“ Participants demonstrated improved ability to make accurate observations and were more likely to incorporate fine arts concepts relevant to physical diagnosis (e.g., color and symmetry) into their written descriptions. These findings suggest a more sophisticated level of visual literacy achieved by course participants.”
Study 2: “Using Art Observation to Improve Medical Students’ Ophthalmology Skills”
• Source: Ophthalmology / American Academy of Ophthalmology
• Methodology: First-year medical students at the Perelman School of Medicine (University of Pennsylvania) were randomized into a control group or a group receiving formal art observation courses at the Philadelphia Museum of Art using an “Artful Thinking” framework. Both groups were tested on describing fine art, retinal pathology, and external eye diseases.
• Key Findings: Observational skills improved significantly across all categories, proving that studying fine art without a clinical component directly trains the eye to see actual physical medical symptoms better.
“ The assessments showed that overall observational skills improved significantly in the training group, and results were similar for each image category. In a follow-up questionnaire, the students trained in art observation stated that they were applying their new knowledge in clinically meaningful ways.”
Study 3: “Medical Humanities Coursework Is Associated with Greater Measured Empathy in Medical Students”
• Source: The American Journal of Medicine
• Methodology: Researchers evaluated changes in the Jefferson Scale of Empathy Student Version (JSE-S) over an academic year, comparing students who took elective medical humanities courses against those who did not.
• Key Findings: While empathy naturally tends to decline over the grueling course of medical school training, medical humanities courses acted as a barrier against this decline.
“ Medical humanities coursework correlated with superior empathy outcomes among the medical students. Of students not enrolled in humanities courses, 71% declined or failed to increase in JSE-S score over the academic year. Of those who took humanities coursework, 46% declined… The difference was statistically significant (P = .03).”
“Humanities have been proposed as an activity that might improve empathy… by fostering skills such as the interpretation of narratives and the ability to manage situations where there is no single correct answer.”
Olly, as you can see, this is why they do work and are taught as an additional tool for essentially improving their ‘bed manners’ and general idea that their patients are not just cases, but real people.
Turley is conflating a common meme to accuse this doctor of implying it’s ok to deem Luigi Mangione’s actions as acceptable. That’s not what this is about. Turley is twisting facts and painting this issue purely for his more partisan readers to latch on to and lash out or rage.
X, those studies are useful, and they answer part of my question. There is evidence that art and medical humanities can improve observation and empathy. Good. That’s exactly the kind of measurable evidence I’ve been asking for.
But they don’t answer the question about Roxane Gay or “Free Luigi.”
And I think you’re being unfair to Turley. He didn’t invent the statement or put words in Gay’s mouth. She said “Free Luigi” while discussing the healthcare industry. Mangione is accused of murdering a healthcare executive. Asking what that statement means and questioning its place at a medical school isn’t “twisting facts.” It’s responding to what she actually said.
If Harvard’s purpose is developing empathy and seeing people as human beings rather than cases, then the obvious question remains:
How does “Free Luigi” advance that purpose?
Olly, could it be that the “free Luigi” issue is just a personal view completely detached from her professional view?
Remember, it’s a meme shared widely by a lot of people. It may not even mean anything if it was just mindlessly shared it like so many people tend to do.
I mean really, ask yourself the question, is Gay really advocating for this, insisting on it? Or is it just a “following the trend of the day” kind of thing?
Put it this way. Just a few days ago there was a rally with Republican candidates where the crowd was shouting “Shoot them!!” When they were griping and critical of the things the left do. Why would a candidate not condemn such calls and gladly accept it? Why would that be a good look for a member of the GOP?
Harvard is not literally allowing Gay’s statement to be the defining characteristic of her entire view. They are smarter than that and they know as well as you should that these kinds of statements and meme sharing are so common and fleeting that they are what one measures their entire character on. Turley is insinuating a LOT of things without evidence.
BLABBER AWAY GSX GEORGE SVELAZ PAINT CHIPS.
GSX still hasn’t replied to the lie he made the other day. He told me to produce the lie, and then posted, “Still waiting, S. Meyer, letting you know I have not run away.” But he wasn’t waiting. I quoted his lie in my response. Since then, GSX has failed to reply, so I will take this opportunity to place that response in his earliest reply. today.
“what it is that is a lie.”
GSX writes: “The claim that “Iran never wanted a nuclear weapon” is not media nonsense—it is the consensus of the United States Intelligence Community. The specific information originates from the U.S. Annual Threat”
“Iran never wanted a nuclear weapon” is an outright lie you attribute to the United States Intelligence Community. That is a lie, and it is just one of a vast number. Run away again, GSX.
September 30, 2026 at 9:47 AM
https://jonathanturley.org/2026/09/29/justice-and-justice-investments-should-be-blind-the-alito-controversy-raises-persistent-problem-on-the-court/comment-page-1/#comment-2674951
Assassins are a specific type of killer. Mangione is a common murderer. There is a difference just as there is manslaughter.
As I pointed out elsewhere Death penalty has reasons. In some cases it’s neither punishment nor deterrent.
Gay using her free speech as sensationalism.
I would still regard this as a meaningless occupation with doubtful contribution to life. Physicians in training have better ways to spend their time. Or waste it, as the case may be.
GEB,
Just FYI, I am taking A&P1 now. The medical arts are alive and well based off my A&P text book and lab manual.
This one raises pretty simple questions for me.
Harvard Medical School is training doctors. Somewhere in that mission I would expect healing the sick, preserving life and doing no harm to rank fairly high.
Then the school brings in someone who says, Free Luigi, referring to a man accused of shooting a health insurance executive in the back.
Roxane Gay has every right to say it. That isn’t my issue. My question is why a medical school thinks this belongs in the education of future doctors? And this takes me right back to the discussion we’ve been having about universities.
What do you do?
How do you do it?
And how do you know it’s working?
Those aren’t ideological questions. They’re basic quality-management questions.
So what was Harvard Medical School trying to accomplish with this program? What was the intended educational outcome? And how does Harvard know that putting this particular message in front of medical students advances that outcome?
Maybe Harvard has good answers. I’d like to hear them.
Because if Harvard Medical School selects someone to help educate future doctors, and Free Luigi is part of what those students get, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask the most basic quality-control question of all:
How do you know this is working?
Since you never taught at a university, I see that you have no idea how clauses are constructed or how appointments are made. Or any idea why Harvard included such a course. A tip, ideology. Nothing more or less.
Anonymous, you’re confusing knowing what questions to ask with knowing Harvard’s answers.
I’ve done strategic planning for years with the military, nonprofits, the DoEd and universities. I’ve worked with organizations on building plans, executing them, developing processes, measuring results and determining whether what they’re doing is actually producing the outcome they intended.
I didn’t need to become an expert in every organization before I could ask the basic questions.
What are you trying to accomplish? How are you going about it? How do you know it’s working?
What I don’t know is Harvard’s answer. Neither, I suspect, do you.
You say it’s ideology. Maybe. But unless you were involved in Harvard’s decision, you’re guessing at their answer just as much as anyone else.
That’s why transparency matters. Harvard should answer for Harvard.
And this particular case makes the question even more obvious. This is a medical school. It teaches future physicians about healing, medical ethics and doing no harm. Harvard selected someone for a role at that medical school who publicly said Free Luigi about a man accused of murdering a healthcare executive.
So explain the connection. What does having Roxane Gay there contribute to Harvard Medical School’s mission? What educational outcome is Harvard seeking? How does it advance the formation of physicians? And how does Harvard know?
I don’t need to have taught at Harvard to ask those questions. I just need Harvard to answer them.
“What do you do?
How do you do it?
And how do you know it’s working?”
———————————–
Oh, It’s working alright. All you have do is look at the deteriorating standards and diminished reputations of educational institutions over the past ten years in particular. Of course it has been going on for much, much longer than that, and at a lot more institutions than colleges. This is not your father’s educational system.
“It’s working alright.”
Maybe. But I’d still like to measure it.
Give incoming freshmen a survey designed to measure things we supposedly want higher education to develop: critical thinking, intellectual curiosity, tolerance for disagreement, willingness to consider competing arguments, personal responsibility, civic agency, and confidence in their ability to think and act for themselves.
Establish the baseline.
Then give those same students the same survey when they graduate four years later. What changed? In what direction? By how much?
Now we’re not just arguing about whether higher education is “working.” We have some evidence of what happened to the students while they were there.
Then comes the really interesting question: Is that what the university intended to produce?
OLLY,
I think that is the kind of transparency they do not want.
It is like when my daughter was forced and had to pay for a DEI course the university mandated for graduation.
What did the mandatory class actually provide? What was it’s value added to her education.
Nothing.
I know if I were a medical student going to Harvard, I would question the value of having this person chair anything related to the medical field.
But than again, we have had people who did not like someone’s political viewpoints inflict harm and injury in a hospital setting.
It is like when my daughter was forced and had to pay for a DEI course the university mandated for graduation.
Great example Upstate. Did you or your daughter ask why this was a mandatory class for graduation?
OLLY,
Oh, that was back when DEI was all the rage and to ask that question would of likely gotten her thrown out of school, denied her degree, or if we take this Gay person as an example of illiberal leftism, they would of stoned my daughter to death.
In retrospect, would you have changed schools?
OLLY,
Had it been in her first semester, I would of advised her to look for another school.
However, it was her second to last semester. It was roll of the eyes, pay for it, get through it with the minimal effort and get out of there.
An example of how thin skinned some faculty are, Judge orders college to re-enroll expelled student who used Shrek meme to criticize board decisions
https://justthenews.com/nation/free-speech/judge-orders-college-re-enroll-student-banned-using-shrek-meme-criticize-board
Olly, the question you should be asking is if Gay is actually telling students or teaching them the acceptance of the idea the “free luigi” meme is acceptable.
Turley is only insinuating that Gay is promoting that but has no evidence it is being taught or discussed as part of the curriculum.
He’s insinuating a lot of things not in evidence.
Should your basic questions also include “is this really being taught in classes or is this only a personal view not associated with the school’s actual teachings?”
Come On Now!! Old Roxanne probably just wants to get in good graces with Luigi as she tries to get her name on the CONJUGAL VISIT waiting list for the prettiest prisoner in MDC Brooklyn. Even a feminist has NEEDS, right? Bah haha.
Have you seen a picture of her? 6-2, 240? I don’t think even Luigi is that crazy.
Jonathan, I have one minor bone to pick with your column. Your reference to an “Elite Academic Chair”. I am afraid that is an oxymoron, and analogous to referring to a “Prestigious Nobel Prize”. Both terms have become devoid of meaning.
Gloria Steinem Chair…what else would you expect out of a radicalized feminist?
Have you seen her? She should change her name from Claudine to Butch. It would appear more fitting.
As far as Luigi, mandatory death sentence, first degree premeditated murder.
How disgusting that the state university of NJ (and before that public Purdue) employ someone like this. But … hey … a seemingly wealthy family complete with private school and privilege, into Yale and a degree, Haitian, fat, checks the boxes, etc.
If someone correctly said that institutions of higher education like Harvard “just want to prioritize profit over students and education” and thereby justified the assassination of professors and other academics, people like Roxane Gay would be shocked and outraged. But when it’s something the Fascist left finds abhorrent, like a healthcare company that operates for profit while providing vital goods and services, they justify extreme violence.
“Fat liberation panel?” Sounds very boring to me. In fact, the mental machinations that university faculty put themselves through are probably boring enough to lull everyone into a coma. No wonder they come up with crazy ideas like freeing Mangione. They have to spice things up just to maintain consciousness.
As of June 30, 2025, Harvard’s endowment was valued at $56.9 billion.
One wonders about academic incest in terms of liberal versus conservative and how such a state could evolve? Look no further than Roxane Gay, the “artist-in-residence at Harvard Medical School” and “the cousin of former Harvard University President Claudine Gay”, You remember Claudine, the world renowned academic plagiarist and wobbly bigot who remains on the faculty of Harvard despite a demonstrated lack of academic virtue? Harvard, a university that not only failed to check out Claudine’s plagiarized work but hired Claudine and then made her President, also hired her cousin as an artist in residence at their medical school? Shocking? Not for Harvard.
Keep it simple. In the last analysis it is really not academic incest, it is about the attractive forces between incompetents and academic frauds who capitalize of bigotry and hate, finding a home in the weak-kneed world of academia. And with those kind of forces at work, is anyone really surprised that Harvard would find itself before the SCOTUS involving cases of discrimination?
Claudine doesn’t have to plagiarize any more. She can just pop the chosen paragraph into AI and ask for a rewrite. Voila, poof, presto, it becomes original.
Maybe she is a second cousin to X….
No longer can we say the academic left lives in its own bubble. In fact, they live in a black hole with a different physics altogether. They hire only those likely to be sucked within. They support the most bizarre, extreme views, and they are internally protected. This cannot be sustainable. They really produce little that is new; most of their work could be AI-generated in minutes. Even now, many younger people are rejecting college as a pathway to a better life. It seems the colleges are out of phase with the new generation.
@gdonaldallen
This is where I’m at too. The left’s ideas are so bizarre they beggar not just belief, but sanity, at this point. It is absolutely like watching insane clowns imitate regular humans. We still need educated people, so it is tragic that schools like Harvard are now just a punchline, and they are.
Who cares what a Rutgers Professors Calls for? They are morons with no political power. You want political power, run for office and see if you can win or most people reject you lunacy. Otherwise your calls mean nothing,
@Anonymous–
“Who cares what a Rutgers Professors [sic] Calls for?”
Well, I guess that I have to care what a Rutgers Professor–and others of his/her ilk–calls for, and so should you.
These “morons” may not have any political power, but they are “educating”–if, indeed, one can even call it that–the next generation, some of whom WILL attain political power, and most of whom will vote in future elections.
So while these morons may not have any political power just now, the Loony Left may eventually become the governing class and the ruination of this country.
So yes, you DAMNED WELL SHOULD CARE what a Rutgers professor–and his/her like-minded university faculty members across the country–calls for. The future of this nation is at stake.
The current academic appointments of the “Gay” cousins is really a disservice to those among us who categorize and in that way distinguish themselves by the supposed identifiable representative color of their epidermis. These two women are intellectually challenged. Because of that their opinions are of no value to our society other than to identify them as idiots.
Intellectually challenged? So you think brains is a prerequisite to hold a professorial job? In business too? You’ve learned nothing in life.
It’s not what you know it’s who you blow. Ask Monica…
The good professor again mischaracterizes the state of academic indoctrination on campuses across the nation as “higher education.” The term “education” no longer has any meaningful relevance where the “privilege” of being indoctrinated costs more than $125K annually.
I would say I’m shocked, but not anymore.
Makes no sense.
I may question where my doctors have been educated from now on. What does an artist-in-residence do? And how much is she paid? And itis okay to shoot someone in the back?
That’s funny, that is the last thing John Spinkellenk said…
How I miss Old Sparky!