Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Tulane Prof. blasts music to drown out Newt speech

Tulane Prof. blasts music to drown out Newt speech

Newt Gringrich appeared at Tulane University yesterday the day before the primary.  The overflow crowd necessitated that speakers be set up outside the lecture hall so those who could not get in could hear the speech.

When a professor complained, the volume was lowered, but that was not good enough for her, as she blasted music from her own office so that the overflow crowd could not hear Newt.

As reported by The Daily Caller (h/t conservativegram in the Tipline)

Former Speaker of the House Newt  Gingrich returned to his graduate alma mater Tulane University Friday  looking to scare up votes in advance of Saturday’s Republican Presidential  primary in Louisiana….

Tulane freshman Ambert Yeh told the Caller he was particularly impressed by  Gingrich’s pledge to meet and search for common ground with every Democratic  member of the Congress. That kind of pragmatism “appeals to our generation,” said Yeh.

But the overflow crowd outside wasn’t able to hear many such remarks by  Gingrich. As he began to speak, Led Zeppelin music began blaring from Blessey  Hall next door. Prof. [Karen] Johannesson admitted to The Daily Caller that the music  was her doing.

“That fatass. … I don’t care if he comes to talk, but I don’t think I should  have to listen.” As Gingrich emerged from the back of the Richardson Hall to  leave, Johannesson cried, “Boo! Go home!”

Great example of what is wrong on college campuses, where diversity does not include diversity of opinion, and where tolerance does not include room for conservative political views.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“I don’t care if he comes to talk, but I don’t think I should have to listen.”

Ah, but that is never enough to your average Collectivist piggy.

“Not listening” is something they are going to make sure you do, too. It IS for your own good, after all…

Excellent demonstration!

    Browndog in reply to Ragspierre. | March 24, 2012 at 11:00 am

    “I don’t care if he comes to talk, but I don’t think I should have to listen.”


    “I don’t care if he comes to talk, but I don’t think anyone should be allowed to listen.”

Prof. [Karen] Johannesson: “That fatass. … I don’t care if he comes to talk, but I don’t think I should have to listen.”

Of course you don’t, sweetie … and you’re entirely correct to act in an infantile manner to ensure that others can’t exercise their right to listen to him either. /s

typical liberal feminist bitch …

How ungrateful and mean spirited of this Professor!

Newt is an alumnus of the university where he received his doctorate and could probably out debate the woman. She sounds like a Ron Paul supporter with her comments.

Apparently, the First Amendment only matters for what she has to say.

I would have loved to have been in attendance to hear his speech.

She is a professor in the Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences. Such an emotional and unstable person should not be trusted as a source of scientifically objective environmental instruction or research.

    Ragspierre in reply to foxlets. | March 24, 2012 at 10:35 am

    OK, that (perhaps unintentionally) is the snark o’ da day…!!!


    wodiej in reply to foxlets. | March 24, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    Now we know the mentality from whence global warming came from. People who are worried about endangered beetles but not people losing their jobs, homes and families.

ShakesheadOften | March 24, 2012 at 10:29 am

This is how the left sees it now: “I disagree with what you say, and I will defend to your death my right to suppress it.”


tinkerthinker | March 24, 2012 at 10:51 am

I guess she didn’t have a set of earphones? No, she wanted to rain on the parade.

With so many examples of hypocritical, fascist, childish, and rude behavior by liberals, it certainly is tempting to explain it by questioning their intelligence, but that would be mean.

William A. Jacobson | March 24, 2012 at 11:10 am

Just so you know, I deleted a comment providing her contact information and suggesting complaints to the National Science Foundation about her grants. I think her conduct is fair for criticism, and I certainly can’t stop someone from looking her up on the internet, but the suggestion that people contact her or try to interfere in her grants is the type of conduct threatened against me by lefties, and is not appropriate, although I understand the sentiment given the threats against advertisers by Media Matters and others.

    Taxpayer1234 in reply to William A. Jacobson. | March 24, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    Good job, Professor. Holding her publicly accountable for her hypocrisy is sufficient. Potentially putting her in personal danger is beyond the pale.

    1. I looked her up but thought it was inappropriate to post contact info.

    2. IMO in a sane world she would receive a reprimand or other disciplinary action.

    3. I agree with Bill that it’s not right to complain to the NSF about her grants. However, IMHO it is defensible, especially for alumni, to complain to the Tulane administration, trustees and alumni about a faculty member’s interference with a university-sanctioned speech.

    4. Here was yet another piece of (indirect) evidence that makes me wonder about the objectivity of environmental science. It’s not just the climatologists.

    In a normal world, you could simply not sign up for her classes and the mechanism of supply and demand would eventually send her a message when she found herself unemployed. In our insane world, it seems that the smaller the group you use for your identity politics, the more likely you can find a grant to finance your worthless thoughts.

Midwest Rhino | March 24, 2012 at 11:10 am

The point is already made … but if she really only wanted to “not have to listen”, she could have cranked her tunes on her headphones, or gone out for a drink. She can’t bring herself to tell the truth … that she willfully decided to disrupt free speech that she disagreed with.

Lies emanating from denial, in support of fairy tales that thrive in the halls of academia. How nice that these “fascists” can thrive in the tenured halls of our state sponsored enclaves of “higher” learning. And to think, parents pay a high price to send their children through university gauntlets of diversity training and politically correct activism.

Turning up the stereo is as audacious as it gets for these brave souls. Just look at the prof’s that molded our president, stomping on our flag, preaching black theology … awesome. No wonder Dylan passes as an enlightened one … “everybody MUST get stoned”.

Remember — it is only diversity if everyone looks different and thinks the same!

By the way, she called him a fatass. I wonder what would have happened if a conservative called Michelle Obama a “fatass”.

There’s nothing here specific to academia. Liberals are rude everywhere.

Thing about Communists is that “Audi alteram partem”/”Hear the other side” is not in their lexicon. The only side worth listening to is theirs and you better grin and bear it cuz they’re ramming it down your throats.

Joan Of Argghh | March 24, 2012 at 11:36 am

Junior High Forevah!!

And her President flips everyone the bird as often as he can.

The inbred educational system loop allows the non-producers to stay 14 years old for their entire life.

As Kate at SDA often posts:   What’s The Opposite Of Diversity?


In this case, Tulane University.

They are rather thin-skinned in Tulane…

BurkeanBadger | March 24, 2012 at 12:03 pm

When I started reading this, I didn’t think it sounded terribly outrageous. Johannesson originally requested the volume be turned down but it was still apparently noisy (which I can believe). And yes, I can understand how irritating it is to have your work interrupted in the middle of a weekday by a political event, regardless of the political content. They tend to be noisy and raucous.

If a noisy political event occurred outside of my office on a weekday I would be annoyed regardless of the content. If I disagreed with much of the content, I would be even more irritated; the infantile side of me might be tempted to blast music on retaliation, just out of pure frustration. According to the article, Johannesson’s music only interfered with the overflow’s ability to hear; she didn’t interfere with Gingrich’s speech per se. An overflow of people should expect to not hear everything, even due to unintentional distractions.

In short, I was going to say we should keep this in perspective. Remove the political ideology here and consider this was a woman at work who was frustrated because her personal space was invaded. Maybe what she did was a little immature, but it’s not that outrageous; certainly not akin to a Media Matters style campaign to chill conservative speech…

…Then I got to the last sentence of the article. “That fatass”? Really lady? You voluntarily speak to the press about what you did and that’s the best you can come up with? She could have made any of the points out outlined above. Or she could have just said “I don’t agree with Gingrich and was expressing my disagreement”. But no, she had to resort to an ad hominem.


    Tamminator in reply to BurkeanBadger. | March 24, 2012 at 12:12 pm

    How about if she just shut her damn window and turned the music up inside of her office?
    Fatass problem solved!

      tsrblke in reply to Tamminator. | March 24, 2012 at 12:36 pm

      Or, headphones. She can keep her window open and still here her music.
      Stepping back from the political issue for a moment, college campuses are kinda a wierd place to work, some speech or even somewhere is always going on (again, stepping back from the political). The colleges subsist (in part) on the good (well, maybe just “the”) publicity from these events, so overflow is generally considered a “good thing.” (Additionally Colleges tend to bring in spare revenue from these things.)
      If you work near one of the buildings where big noisey events are common, I know it can get just a tad annoying after a while.
      That being send, we are more annoyed by things we don’t agree with, which is why it’s important to ensure we’re particarlly cautious about complaining about those.

    9thDistrictNeighbor in reply to BurkeanBadger. | March 24, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    “…she didn’t interfere with Gingrich’s speech per se.” Hmmm, where have I heard that recently? Oh yes, “This was not our program per se.”

    Perhaps she did not interfere with the speech per se, but I would posit that she interfered per accidens by creating an abatable nuisance….

    By using a flippant anatomical reference, she certainly caused innumerable Google image searches to clarify the status of her own tuchus.

    Hope Change in reply to BurkeanBadger. | March 24, 2012 at 2:39 pm

    “According to the article, Johannesson’s music only interfered with the overflow’s ability to hear; she didn’t interfere with Gingrich’s speech per se. An overflow of people should expect to not hear everything, even due to unintentional distractions.” [end BurkeanBadger]

    She intentionally interfered with Newt being heard by fellow citizens who had come on purpose to hear him. Political speech. Political speech! In the middle of an election!

    The same attitude leads to this:
“GOP, LEARN HOW TO FIGHT LIKE A GIRL” – Sarah Palin – Madison, Wisconsin- April 16, 2011 (Ann Althouse)

    [from a comment I left on March 19th, when the Wisconsin basketball tournament high school students supported Governor Walker in the state capitol building. I said, about this video:

    “You can hear the cheers and applause of the real TEA Party crowd, which was a large crowd, when Sarah says, for example, ‘This is real solidarity, this TEA Party.’

    The self-preening, self-righteous, assaultive, disrespectful behavior of the Left is seen here.

    They have succumbed to utopian fascism, which holds that in pursuit of socialism, it is permitted to deny other people THEIR rights.”]

    Is she self-preening? Arguably. Self-righteous? Clearly. Assaultive? Depends. Disrespectful? Indubitably. I don’t know if she has succumbed to utopian fascism, but she definitely thinks it was permitted to her to deny other people their right to freedom of speech.

    FREEDOM OF SPEECH includes being able to ENJOY that right, which means BEING ABLE TO HEAR.

    Her behavior was contemptible. And if someone did that to her, she would understand that perfectly.

StrangernFiction | March 24, 2012 at 1:04 pm

Ho hum, ‘rats are scum.

Henry Hawkins | March 24, 2012 at 2:38 pm

Anyone happen to hear which Led Zeppelin song this juvenile professor lady played to drown out Newt?

I hope, for irony’s sake, it was one of these:

Communication Breakdown
Living Loving Maid (She’s Just A Woman)
Your Time Is Gonna Come
What Is And What Should Never Be

Liberal motto: “free speech for me but not for thee.”

The irony is that her loud music, adding to the noise of the rally, may well have disturbed some of her own colleagues who were trying to work in the same building. This is the very thing she (allegedly) was complaining about in the first place. Did it not occur to her that her childish action might make the problem worse? Of course not.

Since the early 60’s I’ve listened to the left shriek about rights, rights, rights, and all those meanies who are supposedly depriving them of them. And more than any it was the right to free speech, which they said was the foundation upon which every other right was laid. And I think they had a point.

But with the coming of the Boomer leftists, we saw politics changed to the secular equivalent of holy war, as the liberals took on an ironclad belief in their own moral and spiritual superiority to go along with their long-held belief in their supposed extraordinary intellectual abilities, urbane culture and social breeding.*

But with the unveiling of the mainstream media as the de facto Ministry of Propaganda under King Neo, they no longer bother to pretend they think that free speech belongs to anyone but them. Everywhere we see naked attempts to shut conservatives up. The don’t even bother to hide it now. They can’t be shamed or humiliated with their hypocrisy because they clearly believe that might makes right, and power excuses all.

But if someone else dared to drown out an Iranian terrorist or a Black Muslim revolutionary, Professor Johannesson would be the first to shriek about her right to free speech.

I detest her and all her cynical, hypocritical kind.

* Arrogance and contempt for their rural and Southern fellows is indeed an ancient attitude of the American Eastern Liberal. Much of it goes back to the ages-old antipathy of the English (who settled New England generally) for the Scots and Irish (who were overwhelmingly Southern and Western settlers). Consequently a good argument can be made for the proposition that this insufferable arrogance of so many of the New England Yankees, and the widespread contempt in which the antebellum South was held by the North (attitudes which have their natural heir in today’s liberals), which was every bit as much the cause of civil war as the issue of expansion of slavery into border states. But this is for another time.

Their conception of diversity is the denigration of individual dignity. They claim there is a unique diversity featured in incidental features; but, there is no physical evidence to support their assertion.

It is easier to consolidate wealth and power through the exploitation of color of skin than content of character. Sound familiar? The common thread is ideology, or how faith is realized.

I really hope this woman is getting free contraception from her employer’s insurance. The idea that she might breed is abhorrent.

[…] your Tuition Money Buys: Tulane Prof. blasts music to drown out Newt speech Related: Steven Landsburg Professor: Sandra Fluke Position Deserves No Respect – Professor […]