Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Jonathan Turley rips Cornell Law faculty letter against me: “It is the antipathy of the intellectual foundations for higher education”

Jonathan Turley rips Cornell Law faculty letter against me: “It is the antipathy of the intellectual foundations for higher education”

“There is an enforced orthodoxy that is captured in the Cornell letter. These letters are successful in creating a chilling effect on academics who are intimidated by these threats.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HvswsAcZvc

As you know, there is an effort to get me fired from Cornell Law School because of my criticisms of the Black Lives Matters Movement, and failing firing, get me officially denounced by the law school.

It does not appear they will get me fired, but they did succeed in getting an official denunciation. See these posts for background:

I don’t know Jonathan Turley, the prominent liberal law professor at George Washington University. Of course I’ve seen him on television and in congressional testimony, where he sometimes takes a position not in line with liberal orthodoxy.

Turley wrote a column about my situation, focusing on the 21 Cornell clinical program members who signed a letter not naming me but clearly directed at me. As mentioned in my original post:

My clinical faculty colleagues, apparently in consultation with the Black Law Students Association, drafted and then published in the Cornell Sun on June 9 a letter denouncing “commentators, some of them attached to Ivy League Institutions, who are leading a smear campaign against Black Lives Matter.” While I am not mentioned by name, based on what I’ve seen BLSA and possibly others were told it was about me. The letter is absurd name-calling, distorting and even misquoting my writings, to the extent it purports to be about me. According to a document I’ve seen, the letter was shared with these students before it was published in the Cornell Sun.

None of the 21 signatories, some of whom I’d worked closely with for over a decade and who I considered friends, had the common decency to approach me with any concerns. Instead they ran to the Cornell Sun while virtue signaling to students behind the scenes that this was a denunciation of me. Such is the political environment we live in now at CLS.

I think this letter, in many ways, was an inflection point in how things are unfolding. Those faculty had a choice. Taking issue with my writing they could have expressed concern and voiced their views to me, and we could have talked it through. They could have facilitated a dialogue between me and the student group they were working with. They were not obligated to approach me before running to the student newspaper and sharing their letter internally at the law school, but that is what decent people would do regarding a colleague. Maybe it would have made a difference, maybe not, we’ll never know. Or they could take part in an attempt to damage me as part of a broader effort to take me down, which is the choice they made. That was their choice, I’m just dealing with the cards I was dealt.

Turley absolutely ripped the letter apart in a column that is being widely shared, Cornell Professors Declare “Informed Commentary” Criticizing The Protests As Racism. You should read it and share it if you agree.

Here are some excerpts, but please read the whole thing:

Yesterday, we discussed the effort to remove one of the country’s most distinguished economists from his position because Harald Uhlig, the senior editor of the Journal of Political Economy,  criticized Black Lives Matter and the Defund The Police movement.  Now, Cornell Law School professor William A. Jacobson is reportedly facing demands that he be fired because he wrote a blog about the Black Lives Matter movement.  Jacobson is the founder of the conservative website Legal Insurrection.  A letter by his colleagues is a chilling reminder of the rapid loss of free speech values on campuses around the United States.

Twenty-one colleagues at Cornell signed a June 9, a letter denouncing unnamed “commentators… attached to Ivy League Institutions” as calls were made to the Dean to have Jacobson fired.  The professors lashed out against academic commentators who criticize the looting as effectively racists….

The letter is signed by a huge number of clinicians (Professors Zohra Ahmed, Sandra Babcock, Briana Beltran, Celia Bigoness, John Blume, Elizabeth Brundige, Angela Cornell, Sujata Gibson, Mark H. Jackson, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer, Cortelyou Kenney, Sital Kalantry, Ian M. Kysel, Mallory J. Livingston, Delphine Lourtau, Beth Lyon, Estelle McKee, Keir Weyble, Carlton E. Williams, and Stephen Yale-Loehr).

Not a word about academic freedom or free of speech;  not a suggestion that critics of these protests could have anything other than racist motivations.  It is the antipathy of the intellectual foundations for higher education.  Rather than address the merits of arguments, you attack those with opposing views personally and viciously. That has become a standard approach to critics on our campuses.  Unless you agree with the actions of the movement, you are per se racist.  It is a mantra that is all too familiar historically: if you are not part of the resistance, you are reactionary….

… it suggests that the presence of conservative (which they seem to view as synonymous with racist) scholars have no place at such schools. That last point is unfortunately the view of many faculty at top schools which are overwhelmingly if not exclusively liberal.

The professors, of course, have every right to to denounce writers for what they believe are racist elements or messaging in their writings.  However, they specifically go after scholars who they believe defend “institutionalized racism and violence” and “express rage over the sporadic looting that has taken place.” That would encompass what they describe as seemingly “informed commentary” supporting institutions of a racist society. It is an all-too-familiar attack on campuses against speakers and academics. What is most striking for me is the inclusion of Professors Mark H. Jackson and Cortelyou Kenney, who teach in the Cornell First Amendment Clinic. They are in fact the Director and Associate Director of the First Amendment Clinic, which is presumably committed to the value of free speech even at private institutions. So these professors teach free speech and just signed a letter that people who question the BLM movement or denounce the looting are per se or at least presumptive racists.  It is reflection of how free speech is being redefined to exclude protections with those who hold opposing views.

Turley then concludes:

I am unfamiliar with Jacobson’s writings.  Once again, however, the merits of such arguments are immaterial. What is disturbing is the effort to silence Jacobson because he holds such opposing views.  This letter coincides with what Jacobson says is an effort to get him fired.  That would not be unexpected. Conservative and libertarian academics are increasingly being subject to discipline or harassed by their Administrations in the hope of getting them to leave faculties.  Moreover, many in the BLM movement use equally inflammatory language but are rarely called out by Administrators, students, or faculty.  Why cannot both views we treated as enriching the debate on a campus, allowing sharply different values to be heard in a pluralistic academic environment?

The message for other faculty by these Cornell clinicians is both clear and intimidating.  Disagree with the BLM movement or the protests and you will be labeled a racist.  Indeed, the letter ends on a menacing note: “And we will continue to expose and respond to racism masquerading as informed commentary.”  Thus, if you attempt “informed commentary” on the costs of looting and the need for great law enforcement, you are a per se racist….

The recent protests have served as a catalyst for the rising intolerance on our campus. There is an enforced orthodoxy that is captured in the Cornell letter.  These letters are successful in creating a chilling effect on academics who are intimidated by these threats.  To be labelled as a racist is devastating to an academic career and these professors know that.  Now, even “informed commentary” will be denounced as racist if a professor raises a dissenting view.  It is not just the death of free speech but our intellectual mission on university and college campuses.

This sentence by Turley echoes a point I have been making: “Moreover, many in the BLM movement use equally inflammatory language but are rarely called out by Administrators, students, or faculty.”

The law school, as an institution, picked sides and declared in a Dean’s Statement that my writings “do not reflect the values of Cornell Law School ….” I vigorously disagree with that, but was not given a chance to be heard on it, much less some process to contest it. As I mentioned in my appearance on the Laura Ingraham show, the Dean’s statement on behalf of the institution (as opposed to views he expresses in a personal capacity) should have been something along the lines of: “Though I vigorously disagree with Professor Jacobson’s views, those views are protected by academic freedom and no disciplinary action will be taken.” Period.

I don’t know where the spreading intolerance is heading, but when campuses around the country resume in-person instruction, I’m anticipating a prolonged struggle session.

Here are Turley’s tweets, if you want to share them on Twitter:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

PrincetonAl | June 13, 2020 at 9:17 am

Good luck Professor. And for everyone in your shoes. I support you. What they do is maybe working, because there are 19 who are afraid to speak up as a result.

But that’s the way communism tried to oppress. Make people afraid to speak. Then people start to feel alone because they don’t know if anyone else feels like they do.

Choose your words carefully, keep responding with facts, and use humor and a smile as often as you can. It’s the best revenge against the perpetually miserably outraged.

The rest of us support you. Remember, when they strike at you, it’s because you are effective.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to PrincetonAl. | June 13, 2020 at 1:47 pm

    Psalms 91:1

    “He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.”

      Jonathan Turley, Scholar, Professor, & patriotic American…..Has “anyone” thought about the “essence” of Black Lives Matter, in relationship, to the Horrendous number of Black Babies Aborted in this Country?….{ DO THOSE BLACK LIVES MATTER?}

      Is this gross Hypocrisy? { Yes!….Most certainly}…..Why don’t these lives matter? All Human Babies lives matter….DON’T THEY?”

      WHEN WILL THIS ISSUE, BE BROUGHT TO THE FOREFRONT, & DEALT WITH? *PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY*, TO SELF, GOD & COUNTRY…..

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to PrincetonAl. | June 13, 2020 at 1:53 pm

    Rolling Stone Editor’s Key Observation About the George Floyd Unrest Will …. Infuriate the Left

    https://www.weaselzippers.us/450398-rolling-stone-editors-key-observation-about-the-george-floyd-unrest-will-probably-infuriate-the-left/

    GatorGuy in reply to PrincetonAl. | June 13, 2020 at 1:59 pm

    Prof WAJ thus threatened, it seems, the unobstructed continuity of the CLS 21-parent-political (Dem-Left’s) party’s funneling of funds (needed to oppose PDJT in November), I needn’t point that out to anyone present.

    Getting so much flack means he’s right over the target, I agree.

    We’re with you, “all the way to Berlin, Captain”!

    The first objective, however, is the unconditional, peaceful retaking and renormalization of Seattle’s CH district. That would be a great victory, having been led initially by our Captain.

    But it’s possible the ideal object there is unreachable; force, therefore and unfortunately, must be used if the American rule of law is to be upheld.

    New CHAZs — instigated and occupied by BLM/Antifa, which, while probably already in the making, and remaining inspired and financially supported separately by the Ford & Rockefeller Foundations, other US corporate panderers, and Soros/Affiliated Orgs, and thus a wholly owned subsidiary and likely funds-transferring agency of the DNC — must not be encouraged, permitted, enabled to pop up elsewhere.

    In the end, we take comfort in knowing, as Michael said, “It’s nothing personal”; no, nothing like that at all. “It’s just business.”

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to GatorGuy. | June 13, 2020 at 2:10 pm

      Washington mayor and govenor are feeding those communists on the taxpayer dime.

      They are not in Nashville and here are the results.

      Leftist Students Chanting ‘Let Us Eat’ After They Get Locked In By Police While Trying To Create ‘Autonomous Zone’

      Weazil Zippers

      Add rats like Mattis to the equation.

Professors Jacobson and Turley, this is an all out assault on our Constitutional Republic. The democrats/leftists can’t use reason or logic. Their weapons are emotion and the charge of racism. It doesn’t matter if you do or don’t pick a side anymore, if you don’t kneel to them, you’re going to be labeled a racist and “cancelled.” If you do kneel, you’ll still be silenced and ridiculed by those you kneel to. They are engaged in a ‘heads we win, tails you lose’ strategy, except it’s much worse and more rabid than that. This is a real war for the soul of our country. We need everyone who believes in our Constitution in this fight.

Dan Bongino notes the right thinks the left are people with bad ideas, and the left thinks the right are bad people with ideas.

It appears both are equally wrong.

The left are bad people that no amount of reason or evidince will convince them there is any error, and they will even destroy one of their own if they aren’t sufficiently woke.

The right are people who are generally willing to use reason and evidence to discuss ideas and might agree to disagree but it would be an honest and reasonable disagreement.

They talk past each other. The left just screeches Bigot! and the right futiley speaks the foreign language of logic.

The right sometimes has a lacuna or two (Police, Military, Israel), and the left sometimes has a lucid moment (oh, wait! people are dying because of it). But generally they can’t communicate at all.

    GatorGuy in reply to tz. | June 13, 2020 at 2:57 pm

    Indeed, a critically valuable, often overlooked explanation for the big and basic cultural disagreements. Wars have erupted as a result.

    A perfect analogy is (still to this day, ecumenical achievements notwithstanding), collectively, the irreconcilable differences between the basic faith of the Catholic Church and that of the new, break-away Protestant Church in the early-16th-to-mid 17th-century. https://spiritualray.com/protestant-vs-catholic-why-is-there-conflict-between-them

    Even their own reformers, intellectual and spiritual giants such as Erasmus on the one side and Luther on the other, failed in their famous writings and celebrated debates to reach any working harmony on the meaning of their religious values, in particular, the all-important issue of salvation — Erasmus laying out the case for the reconciling effects of good works, Luther asserting uncompromisingly the indispensability of faith.

    The point here is just as simple, and just as complicated, as you point out well. When Dem-Lefties “converse” with conservatives or a good number of Republicans, well, both might as well forget it and go home. The one’s words, phrases, concepts, and general view of what it means to be and to do right as an American are meaningless to the other; they simply pass by the other’s in one medium or another.

    American political dialogue is, for nearly all intents and purposes, dying, if not already dead. What’s lost is, in Buber’s term, the essential Between — the mutual, collaborative, good-faith reach for objectivity. Truth in that sense — a commonly held collection of stipulated facts and propositions from which to visualize in common and legislate — does not seem to exist any longer, it couldn’t be more any more tragic to say.

    (A shimmering flame, a constructive and productive spirit perhaps in a position “to leap to another” is found in the heart and legislative efforts of Sen Tim Scott. Watch and listen:
    https://video.foxnews.com/v/6163911342001#sp=show-clips

    (Tim Scott for Senate Majority Leader, 2024!)

      h2optrl in reply to GatorGuy. | June 15, 2020 at 2:41 pm

      Thank you for the link to Sen. Scott’s interview. His hope for “officers of character” and the other sound, reasonable points he made gives me hope that all is not lost and open dialogue can still be achieved.

    The left is a fascist movement.

    The “Right” is traditional Americanism, under the Consitution.

    You cannot meet fascists “half way”. This is what got us here.

JusticeDelivered | June 13, 2020 at 9:46 am

Look at how BLM operates, shouldn’t they be treated as a terrorist organization?

Yet again we see it. In The Coming of the Third Reich, historian Richard J. Evans explains how, in the early days of National Socialist Germany, Stormtroopers (Brownshirts) “organized campaigns against unwanted professors in the local newspapers [and] staged mass disruptions of their lectures.” To express dissent from Nazi positions became a matter of taking one’s life into one’s hands. The idea of people of opposing viewpoints airing their disagreements in a civil and mutually respectful manner was gone. One was a Nazi, or one was silent (and fearful).

Today’s fascists call themselves “anti-fascists,” and this BLM is just a variant. Just like the Nazis, they are totalitarian: they are determined not to allow their opponents to murmur the slightest whisper of dissent. Forcibly suppressing the speech of someone with whom one disagrees is a quintessentially fascist act.

These fascists will target you for destruction if you oppose any aspect of their plans for destruction of what is generally called Western Civilization. Such plans include for example Islam’s ongoing worldwide jihad against Jews and Christians; the all-out push to socialism/communism onto America of which BLM is simply a recently invented weapon to achieve that end.

“focusing on the 21 Cornell clinical program members ”
AKA, 21 cowards. Gone past “PC” is called communism.

The left is afraid of real dialogue because it can highlight the weakness of their views, and might get people to question the views and goals of the left.

The left fear free speech and look to suppress opinions that are not in line with their ideology. The left has replaced religion, to a degree, and replaced it with secular values. In a lot of ways its what the Islamic faith does, wrapping a political system within a religious dogma, and gives justification to silence your voicing opposing views.

They are totalitarians, as has been witnessed by the dictates of the leftist governors through this immoral shut down.

We have seen the destruction of many institutions due to leftist ideology, and theirs has become a scorched earth policy where nothing of value will stand in the wake of their unholy rage against all, with the claims it is being done for peace and utopian society. That it can never happen doesn’t matter.

No one is safe from the wrath of these left virtue signalling fools who are offended by everything, and end up standing for nothing. They have no principles. No morals. No desire to expand their minds and learn.

The left is an evil entity which is covering the globe at an alarming rate, and will lead to the destruction of humanity.

BLM is a cover organization for the Marxists. They incite violence. We have seen it. Same with Antifa. Both use terrorism and thuggish behavior to force others to capitulate to their demands and dictates, regardless of how much gets destroyed or how many lives are lost. They conflate everything to being systemic, even though evidence shows that to be a lie. Its whole purpose is to enlarge the division and build hatred.

    Blaise MacLean in reply to oldgoat36. | June 13, 2020 at 11:08 am

    Sir: You wrote: “The left is afraid of real dialogue because it can highlight the weakness of their views, and might get people to question the views and goals of the left.”

    While this is true, it goes beyond that. The left seeks to suppress “dialogue” due to their intellectual laziness and intellectual dishonesty. When someone raises an argument dissenting from their narrative, they are both unwilling and unable to mount any sort of defence…not necessarily because one does not exist, but because they are too lazy and dishonest to bother. It is easier to just yell and move on, comfortable, inside of their aura of moral virtue.

    Rgds
    BML

    GatorGuy in reply to oldgoat36. | June 13, 2020 at 3:03 pm

    Outstanding summary! IMHO.

    Just commented the same at Turley’s site. They fear that people might actually agree with a different view because it makes sense and is based on fact.

    The science is settled. The conversation shuts off if there is mention of a heresy. It’s more important to be woke.

    What will it take to eradicate cancel culture among people that have no sense of who they are and from where they came?

    “Weakens their views…”

    What an understatement. The fact these clowns are employed at our schools is the biggest scam after ‘barack hussein obama’ (or whoever he really is), ‘COVID18 shutdown’ and the ‘black lives matters’ movement.

    Soros has done brilliant work, and he has masterfully exploited the corruption of the GOP.

So! If you openly present an opposing view to BLM and their ilk, you are racist.

If you get angry at being falsely accused of being a racist (https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/06/12/michael-moore-im-begging-dems-dont-underestimate-white-male-trump-supporters-rage-emotion/), that further proves that you are not only a racist, but a violent terrorist.

If you remain silent and fail to voice your support of BLM etal, you are a racist.

If you aren’t angry by now….. when?

    This has really made me think about lots of things over the last day or so. Seems to be that your are being propelled into the national discussion really fast on this issue. If this is a concerted effort by academia in general to punish you for your role in the successful outcome of the Oberlin case for Gibson’s Bakery, it could backfire in a very big way.

    First, I doubt they expected that going after YOU would go national.

    Second, nationalizing your Cornell situation also nationalizes the Oberlin/Gibson issues.

    Third, there are possibly hundreds of other academics who have been attacked by their college/university administrations watching this closely and ready to join in the struggle.

    Fourth, there are so many levels to explore where the administration itself might have opened themselves up to lawsuits, wouldn’t it be possible to sue?

    Given there are so many victims of this nationwide “conspiracy”, wouldn’t it be possible to file a flurry, maybe hundreds, of lawsuits in a hurry? Couldn’t the DOJ be forced to step in and combine all of these into one class action suit?

    Seems to me that we are already seeing the beginning of a major legal fight that could threaten the existence of many of these well-endowed institutions. Time to go big. Make it clear to the world exactly what is going on here and what is at stake.

    These fascists might just have started a fight they’ll be sorry for. Jacobson vs Cornell could well become a historic case.

      maxmillion in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 13, 2020 at 12:58 pm

      Agree with all you say in spirit. But I’d say legal class actions are more complicated in this scenario than they might appear. Cornell is a private university, and not a governmental entity, which would invoke additional, and greater free speech rights. Not all law professors are equal in their free speech rights.

      For the professor, maybe there’s something in the NY state constitution that would help. Also, I’d go after these “colleagues” with a tortious interference with contract claim.

        ALL of these private universities receive substantial taxpayer grants and other funding. Difficult as it might be, we are facing an all-encompassing, globally organized and funded communist movement. These schools of “higher learning” have de facto cancelled themselves as the ivory towers erected by free society to defend freedom.

        There IS a way to do this. Complicated or not, they ALL receive enormous amounts of taxpayer money. Disqualifying them from that money would be a great start. Create an existential problem for the universities (aka Oberlin) and force the DOJ to step in since there is a major constitutional issue at stake and they are on the wrong side.

        We would be attacking their entire system at the same time, bogging them down in expensive legal fights while educating the general public to the danger. And that money could be transferred to the true ivory towers, maybe even creating new universities while at the same time laying the foundation for delegitimizing their very reasons for existence.

        Thinking small and being timid is how we got in this mess. It’s time to think big and grow some balls.

      snopercod in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 14, 2020 at 1:10 pm

      “wouldn’t it be possible to sue?” Unfortunately, being a conservative isn’t a “protected class” under the EEOC statutes. If the Professor could prove that they were harassing him due to his religion, that would be different.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 13, 2020 at 3:03 pm

    Words of wisdom from Sargon of Akkad:
    “Black Lives Matter do not have a monopoly on being against racism.”
    Carl Benjamen
    The Addad Daily 6/9/20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLS30MfJt00

    It’s like a Monty Python skit. Only not funny.

Today they are going after Howard Stern or is he in the “protected” class.
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/06/13/cancel-howard-stern-dems-blackface-skit-unearthed-loaded-with-disgusting-black-jokes-repeated-n-words-933799

Let’s see how this all plays out

express rage over the sporadic looting that has taken place

Sporadic? That’s not the adjective I’d use.

And lets not forget the “Silence=Violence” demand: there shall no innocent bystanders. Those who will not swear fealty to us (and not just once, but on a continuing basis) are our enemies.

Neutrality is not permitted: those who do not loudly and consistently declare their support must be assumed to be against us, and shall be treated accordingly.

    randian in reply to Albigensian. | June 13, 2020 at 11:55 am

    I’ve noticed recent attempts to force public oaths of fealty, followed by public denunciations of those who refuse.

      At one time the Left scorned “loyalty oaths”; now they demand them.

      OldProf2 in reply to randian. | June 13, 2020 at 2:11 pm

      Some California schools require a loyalty oath to “Diversity” and identity politics before you can even apply for a job. Applicants are rated on how enthusiastic they seem for left-wing politics.

      Some CA schools also require a yearly loyalty oath from each faculty member, telling how they have supported “diversity” and identity politics in the previous year.

      It reminds me of the way totalitarian governments rate their citizens on their enthusiastic support of the Party. It seems that even in CA, the requirement for partisan loyalty oaths would be illegal.

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to randian. | June 14, 2020 at 12:52 pm

      Where have I heard of that sort of thing before? Oh, yes. Loyalty oaths in the days of HUAC.

    Have you seen the Seinfeld episode where Kramer goes to an AIDS march but refuses to wear ‘the ribbon’? Someone has compiled a shortened version- a great parody of where we find ourselves today/fascism.
    Amusing, effective and should be shared!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RwTNvZu5OU&feature=emb_logo

When you get down to it, it’s really quite simple: They behave this way because they can’t win straight up. That is, they have a losing argument, so they can’t win the debate in the marketplace of ideas. Instead of finding a better argument, they seek to silence the winning argument.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to maxmillion. | June 13, 2020 at 1:41 pm

    They don’t need a better argument, they need a completely different and better idea.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to maxmillion. | June 13, 2020 at 2:05 pm

    Escentially, their position is that they can crap all over others, that everyone must put up with it, or they are going to destroy their lives.

    In other words, it is the same crap they got away with regarding George Zimmerman, Officer Wilson and many other people. Now they are applying the same tactics to many more people.

    Many publications which had comment sites have eliminated them and are using Twitter and Facebook. Both those companies actively promote what is going on by censoring those who oppose it.

It is a common conceit among university professors that they represent they highest and most noble of all humanity, the shining pinnacle to which all of human history has painfully struggled to reach.

The cold, hard truth is this: the universities are incubators of some of history’s worst crimes. Racism, genocide of racial or ethnic minorities, slavery, eugenics, socialism (national, international, and “democratic”), anti-Semitism – all of these either originated in universities and/or found enthusiastic support among the faculty. The current passionate embrace of rape, rioting, looting and murder committed In the name of Black Lives Matter recalls similar efforts in European universities to pave the way for the Third Reich. Hitler and the Nazis would never have achieved power had it not been for the universities’ sordid history of anti-Semitism and love of socialism that paved the way. Too often university professors turn out to be some of the most evil monsters in history.

I write this as someone with a quarter century of experience in teaching, most of it in higher education (mathematics and engineering). While I have found much that is noble and beneficial in education, I have also seen pure evil masquerading as intellectual inquiry. It is no exaggeration to say that every single genocide of the last few centuries found its origin in higher education. BLM is just the latest in a succession of genocidal ideologies that have found a haven in taxpayer-funded classrooms and libraries.

So take heart, Professor Jacobson! It would be much worse if the little quislings were praising you because it would mean they considered you an ally in their genocidal schemes. Wear their scorn and hate as a badge of honor, because it is.

Will it be possible to purge these destructive ideas from our society without purging the individuals who hold them?

    alaskabob in reply to Paul. | June 13, 2020 at 2:00 pm

    Demote or deport the survivors. We have reached a critical mass of people ill-taught or too inculcated to unlearn these basic truths about human nature. It’s been too soft a life and that which has been dearly purchased through history has been given away freely …. and thus has no value having not been earned. “Safety-ism” has replaced “freedom”. These people want a no-risk society with no inconvenience .

    Yes: overwhelm them with tough love, as if they were bad children. If they break the law, the get a time out: in prison. If they behave, they get the benefits of our society.

Zinovy Roark | June 13, 2020 at 12:23 pm

The left always barks “we need serious discussion”; however, when the discussion does begin they censor what is inconvenient to ‘their’ religious ideology. The market place of ideas cannot be censored; speech must be libertarian in context otherwise any society will be locked in a continuous status quo stagnation. Progressivism is a proponent of censorship in order to protect its phony virtue signaling and is therefore locked into its own dogmas which are becoming stagnant and obsolete for our times.

Our societal decay is a result of 120 years of searching for utopia rather than the forest of Walden (Thoreau). As in Professor Jacobson’s situation, the very discussions we need to break the trend are now to be censored? In the irony of ‘progressivism’ it has become an inflexible dogma. Legitimate change requires flexibility. How flexible is progressive dogma? How can chaos be avoided when change is heaped upon change in an open-ended string of non-grounded premises? What is the alternative to institutional censorship? Return to the original purpose of the university: Open societal critique and civil rational explication of human dilemmas.

” …that in every society ‘progress originates in criticism and discontent,’ for the critic is the one who discovers the existence of needs, and by being critical he is the one who demands some kind of change.”
– A. A. Mroczek in Kierunki

The so-called American Progressive university is now the equivalent of the censors of communist Poland, the infamous official Main Office for Control of Press, Publications and Public Performances (GUKPPiW, Polish acronym). The easiest way for a tyrant not to address criticism or embarrassing facts is to censor, deny, or shut down the conversation with phony moral purity. When the university can’t handle objective critique its fires or censures its staff? Progressives using regressive tactics?

Progressives are not progressive; their solution to life’s understanding is ‘utopian utilitarianism.’ In continuous angst, the progressive/utopian/utilitarian is in constant flux and change searching for Huxley’s island of Pala. Some have found this counterfeit isle in the American university. They will smear and demean to defend it with the same fervor and hate that they critique others having. They have no moral high ground.

American censorship is approaching the oppression of speech and expression that Central Europe experienced under communism. Family letters received back in America with sentences razor-bladed out from personal correspondence; obituaries with faith and religious expressions removed; etc.. The censors did have some practical common sense in not using scissors: they used razor blades. America, you ARE quickly approaching that type of tyranny.

Figuratively, what Cornell and other universities like it are doing is “razoring” open dialog.

    “what Cornell and other universities like it are doing is “razoring” open dialog…”

    Make it simpler, and just follow the money. If Prof. Jacobson gets fired, it makes way for a leftist freak to be on the payroll and do soros+gang’s bidding. Yes, bezos and gates: we know you’re in there with him.

    GatorGuy in reply to Zinovy Roark. | June 13, 2020 at 11:53 pm

    Finally, an experienced pilot from 303 Squadron is joining us — someone who has seen the enemy maneuver, fought it, and won!

    Are we a great country, or what?

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/marcuse.jpg

“Our current political moment comes straight from Marxist theoretician Herbert Marcuse — using the identity of the oppressed to achieve the political economy of the intellectuals.

Race is the means. Socialism is the ends.”

Blaise MacLean | June 13, 2020 at 1:24 pm

Sirs:

I read Professor Turley’s article and one thing that struck me hard was that two First Amendment Clinic lawyers were among the signatories of the Faculty letter. That the Director of the Clinic (M. Jackson) and Associate Director of the Clinic (C. Kenney) would attach their names publicly to such a document raises issues as to what commitment they actually have to free expression and what it is they are passing on to their students.

I couldn’t find any academic writing by Prof. Jackson (on the Hein online data base) but he has clearly postured himself as a free speech/free press advocate. When he was corporate counsel for Dow Jones, his client’s editor was quoted as saying about him ““Mark is absolutely passionate about the role of the press, press freedom and freedom of information.” And Mr. Jackson says about himself that, after the client he is representing “My second client is always the First Amendment.” https://www.superlawyers.com/new-york-metro/article/mark-h-jacksons-second-client-is-the-first-amendment/ebe4c903-1ab6-4866-ad3e-d9c1c995ae68.html. It is noteworthy that in undergrad he campaigned for gun control, so the Second Amendment may carry less sway with him.

Ms. Kenney seems also to be well aware of the issues at stake in free expression. As Editor in Chief of the Dartmouth College Undergraduate Law Journal she led off Volume 3 with an article (by M. Herman) that advanced the view that hate speech regulation was unconstitutional (perhaps she has since been “re-educated” on this by Prof. S. Schiffer of the Clinic’s Steering Committee). What was striking about this article is that it led off with this quote from Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas: “Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.” She herself has written that restrictions on viewing representations of certain pre-occurring though unpalatable events may violate the First Amendment. So, she is well versed (as she should be) in the importance and breadth of freedom of expression.

Yet they both signed the letter.

Does this mean that the commitment to the First Amendment of Cornell’s First Amendment Legal Clinic is “A Mile Wide but An Inch Deep”?

I am not sure. I think there are two alternative answers. One is that they really don’t believe in the values that underlay free speech in general and the First Amendment in particular. They are content to espouse ideas that make them feel comfortable especially at faculty garden parties. But when a real issue, that may be unfashionable among their academic party going peers rears its head, they signal their virtue, jettison the principle overboard immediately and so remain in their comfort zone. The other alternative is that they are petrified about standing up to the mob (it is reassuring that signatures of members of the Clinic’s steering committee do not appear on the letter) and, considering discretion to be the better part of valour, signed.

Regardless, it is clear that the current “cancel culture”, and the totalitarian methods that are at its foundation, rely upon cowardice as well as intellectual dishonesty and intellectual laziness in the media, the judiciary and the academy in order to prevail. And though we may look at the extorted confessions of the Chinese Cultural Revolution as historical anomalies, I am not sure how far away from that we are.

Rgds

BML

    Zinovy Roark in reply to Blaise MacLean. | June 13, 2020 at 1:47 pm

    “I read Professor Turley’s article and one thing that struck me hard was that two First Amendment Clinic lawyers were among the signatories of the Faculty letter. That the Director of the Clinic (M. Jackson) and Associate Director of the Clinic (C. Kenney) would attach their names publicly to such a document raises issues as to what commitment they actually have to free expression and what it is they are passing on to their students.”

    There can be no legitimate support for the 1st Amendment if there is any hint of ‘cowardice’ in supporting its principle. There is no middle ground concerning 1st Amendment free speech. Either we freely express ourselves, civily of course, or we remain silent or censored.

    snopercod in reply to Blaise MacLean. | June 13, 2020 at 2:36 pm

    Thanks for doing that research. All the signatories need to be exposed.

    Bluebird in reply to Blaise MacLean. | June 13, 2020 at 5:50 pm

    For some insight into what Cornell Law students are taught, I refer you to a statement made to me by a newly minted Cornell Law School graduate: “Oh, the Founders! What did they know? They were still using blunderbusses!”

    BLM: follow the money, from soros, down to obama, down to pelosi, down to kerry, down to clinton, down to biden, down to down to down to down to…

    After 8 years of obama-clinton, America has become a mafia. The entire system government, news, education, military (yes, them too) etc. has become one big racket. Both the democrat party and the GOP are in it. (The GOP is the weaker of the ‘families’, but they serve a purpose to the other ‘familes’ in the swamp/left/islamic axis.)

    Like in any mafia, the left wants more territory, and they made their big move.

    Donald Trump, on the other hand, is like the Sheriff in “High Noon”: uncorruptable, left to face the bad guys on his own. (He does have us.)

    How Turley can’t see the forest for the trees is stunning. Or maybe he profited from the ‘mafia’, and he’s been trotted out to temper public opinion against them.

    All institutions are suspect, and all faces of those institutions are suspect: they wouldn’t be those ‘faces’ if they weren’t at the top of the heap.

    Professor William Jacobson, on the other hand, is like the whistleblower in “Silkwood”, only smarter. The fact he started LegalInsurrection.com and sustained will not only save him, but it will help elevate him to the top.

There is no institutionalized racism. In fact racism has been de-institutionalized, have been removed from governmental law and approval decades ago. Each of the signatories to the letter knows this, just as each knows, or should know, that the BLM raison d’etre is a falsification, as are the facts spewed by the group, if the same actually exist. I say that because the name is registered to a fellow in Florida that has no relation to the supposed 3 women who claim origination and control of the group, and donations to the group are re-routed to the Democratic Party, and Biden in particular. BLM is a chimera.
What these professors actual want is the law school to be a Democratic Party institution without the flaw of a conservative interrupting the politicization legal teaching.
Imagine going to law school and not once hearing the name of the President of the USA in the classroom, but learning applied law and procedure instead. The way I did.

LukeHandCool | June 13, 2020 at 2:11 pm

I’d say you’re in very good company, Professor J. I’ve long admired Professor Turley, even though I disagree with some of his stances.

I’d love to see you and Professor Turley team up and publicly debate two professors (or any other profession) on the other side of the issue.

I watched Jordan Perterson and Stephen Fry take on and clobber Michael Eric Dyson and Michelle Goldberg.

For those who’d like to watch it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST6kj9OEYf0

Let’s have a long overdue public debate over this.

Respect to Turley, for having the courage to state the obvious. One wonders why he still identifies as a Dhimmi-crat, given that he acknowledges the Left’s ceaseless, infantile and bullying totalitarian antics. Perhaps he feels a need to keep up appearances. He’s issued so many reprimands to his fellow Dhimmi-crats, regarding their brazenly lawless behavior over the past four years, I’ve lost track of the number.

    randian in reply to guyjones. | June 13, 2020 at 3:22 pm

    Tim Pool does the same thing Turley is doing: calling himself a Democrat while calling out the craziness, when the craziness is an obvious consequence of the left’s politics.

      guyjones in reply to randian. | June 13, 2020 at 4:52 pm

      I guess we can throw Alan Dershowitz in the same category, too. Maybe these guys figure they can influence the Party’s direction more effectively, from the inside? Although, they are all increasingly voices crying out in the wilderness. That’s the only thing I can figure is motivating them to identify as Dhimmi-crats.

        Valerie in reply to guyjones. | June 13, 2020 at 7:31 pm

        I was a Democrat, too, and so was Donald J. Trump.

        To me, DJT’s policies are very, very familiar, because they are what Dems have been promising their voters all my life.

        In 2016 I thought DJT was a demagogue, and that the media’s over-the-top weirdness was acting to his advantage.

        Yesterday, I heard what passes for a normal person describe one of the San Diego protests (which was and stayed peaceful) in glowing terms, except that somebody had carried an American flag to the protest, and she said “I don’t know what that’s about.”

        I didn’t even challenge it. Since when is it wrong to take a US flag to a protest?

        The Democrats and the remnant of their voters are lemmings that have gone off a cliff.

          FOAF in reply to Valerie. | June 14, 2020 at 5:55 pm

          Trump’s two signature issues, immigration and trade, were the positions of the industrial labor unions that were the backbone of the Democrat party for decades. They didn’t like illegal immigration because it meant cheap labor undercutting American workers. And they were skeptical of “free trade” because they saw good American jobs leaving the country.

          A major component of the Dems’ descent into radicalism is the shift in their base from industrial labor unions to public employee unions. The industrial unions were New Deal welfare statists but they were patriotic and still had a stake in the free enterprise system. The self-interest of the PE unions is the more government the better and there is nothing stopping them from going socialist or even full-on communist.

LukeHandCool | June 13, 2020 at 2:23 pm

If you can just watch a minute, watch Stephen Fry’s takedown of the pompous race huckster Dyson in the first few seconds of his closing statement.

For those unfamiliar with Fry, he’s a British comedian, actor, and writer. He’s also a gay liberal. But the old fashioned type of liberal like Professor Turley. Here’s the beginning of his closing statement:

https://youtu.be/ST6kj9OEYf0?t=6030

The saddest thing for you, Prof Jacobson, in this sorry affair must be that colleagues whom you thought were friends secretly colluded behind your back to get you fired or ostracized. But,they have been outed and are now being publicly shamed. You have taken the correct response, which is to go on the offense. You have called for a debate at the Cornell law school. In my opinion, the debate should be about the right of Cornell faculty to express dissenting opinions without fearing personal and professional retaliation, i.e., the free exchange of ideas which is supposed to be the core mission of universities.

    GatorGuy in reply to Guahan. | June 14, 2020 at 1:33 am

    Referencing what Puhiawa said above (on June 13, 2020 at 1:32 PM),

    “What these professors actual want is the law school to be a Democratic Party institution without the flaw of a conservative interrupting the politicization legal teaching” and finding it sound; if it is, I wonder if those appointed by a committee of “The 21” to contend against Professor WAJ in a Public Forum Debate would have the cajones to substitute good, sound, and appealing forensic arguments in their cause’s behalf for the treacherous degeneracy they’ve displayed toward the Professor WAJ, CLS, the Constitution generally and the First Amendment specifically.

    My gut tells me, they wouldn’t even be interested in such a real test of free-speech jurisprudence and who’s on the right side of this issue at law — or at least w/r/t the faculty rules and other codes of conduct at CLS, considered for the most part to be a functioning operation of a larger, private institution, CU.

    But the even sadder, far more tragic part of this scenario, I feel — and can readily imagine, and only hope that, in the end, it doesn’t come to pass — is that the thus-far uninvolved, other CLS students, in bumping into the long-lingering, suspended molecules of unreasoning disdain for any free speech that dissents from what they see as right and necessary for the just society — having been spat out, as it were, on June 9, 2020, from the mouths of members of the consortium of prejudicial, politically corrupt minority student associations in their written endorsement of the 21 recent CLS graduates against what they feel to be institution-threatening conduct — the largely full body, then, of CLS students will want to support the said 21 by staging the usual scream-fest hysteria of feeling unsafe and threatened by, say, just the thought of WAJ ascending to the dais and make his case — resulting in no debate, having just shut it down, as predicted.

    If realized, this awful scenario will have marked the time and date in American history when, at the cancellation event of a previously scheduled debate, at a renown American law school, no less, the First Amendment, already moribund, officially experienced its first death rattle. Its imminent death, therefore, would then be anticipated.

    I hope I am completely wrong, obviously, and that a task-committee of the 21 will be formed, a debate against Professor WAJ scheduled soon, and no significant-enough, event-cancelling student uprising will transpire — allowing the debate to go on, its winning outcome being, of course, a generally agreed foregone conclusion.

    That’s actually a very long shot indeed since it’s a “home game,” ie, played on CLS’s (the de facto opponent’s) court; however, a loss by the professor is not a forgone conclusion, for even more amazing events have occurred in this, one of theoretically many alternate universes. The truth, in support of the professor’s CLS-protected right as a faculty member to his freedom of speech, may yet shine again, and maybe soon.

      GatorGuy in reply to GatorGuy. | June 14, 2020 at 1:48 am

      My apologies, corrections are needed, re my below-posted paragraph (today at 1:33 AM), 3rd line:

      “If realized, this awful scenario will have marked the time and date in American history when, at the cancellation event of a previously scheduled debate, at a renown American law school, no less, the First Amendment, already moribund, officially experienced its first death rattle. Its imminent death, therefore, would then be anticipated.”

      Please substitute: 1) renowned for “renown”; and
      2) academic freedom for “the First Amendment”

The saddest thing for you, Prof Jacobson, in this sorry affair must be that colleagues whom you thought were friends secretly colluded behind your back to get you fired or ostracized. But,they have been outed and are now being publicly shamed. You have taken the correct response, which is to go on the offense. You have called for a debate at the Cornell law school. In my opinion, the debate should be about the right of Cornell faculty to express dissenting opinions without fearing personal and professional retaliation, i.e., the free exchange of ideas which is supposed to be the core mission of universities.

    Bluebird in reply to Guahan. | June 13, 2020 at 7:20 pm

    It looks to me like the signatories of the letter faced certain “cancellation” if they didn’t sign. A quick review of their bios reveals that 9 of the 21 were involved in migrant advocacy, 5 worked in death penalty defense, and the remaining 7 were almost equally divided among LBGT or women’s rights, anything leftist or white supremacy is the enemy, and corporate law.

Either we cancel the ‘cancel culture’ or all of our rights will be smoke and mirrors.

I’m stunned. STUNNED. There was no effort to fire you earlier.

There is no place immune from this. You might think, “The armed forces.” Think again.

Hang tough. Because we shall all hang together. Or else we shall all hang apart.

I’m curious. Who would have it any different way? I wouldn’t. Not at the tail end of my life. I think the angels smile.

Just remember when they run out of cards, they play the race card. It’s not personal.

The analogy to the French revolution is apt. Scared people would rat out their friends and neighbors to the Mob. By doing that, they hoped to avoid the guillotine themselves.

That’s exactly what these pseudo-colleagues are trying to do. But the Mob always came back for the cowards, and the Mob will eventually go after these cowards as well. I’m impressed that Jacobson has been able to survive as long as he has in that backstabbing environment. His courage is a remarkable contrast to their cowardice.

I can’t understand how the school can allow people who don’t respect free speech to teach courses on the First Amendment. That is a problem that the Dean should address, but that’s not going to happen. The Dean is also scared to death of the Mob.

For all his brains, for all his education, for all his experience and for all his ideas:

Turley was wrong all along.

Jacobson was right.

Amazing, isn’t it?

    Ok, I know this is late in the conversation, but hasn’t it occurred to ANYONE on this website of intellectuals that maybe Turley meant “antithesis” instead of “antipathy”? I know he’s a brilliant lawyer and all, but the sentence as constructed literally makes no sense to me.

Speaking of the obama legacy:

Obama May Have Sent Iran $33 BILLION in Cash, Gold Payments:
https://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-administration-billion-cash/2016/09/08/id/747373/

Right or left, black, white, yellow of green, this is the most dangerous time in the recent history of the republic. The fascists are at the doorstep. They should not be confused with anything else but what they are…FASCISTS. Here is the what BLMs demands are. I will let you decide.

BLM policy positions (see below) of their own words
So they by the very definition of number 4 are communists. They want money (2) , political power that outweighs their actual numbers in number 6 (note this is different than protection under the law – it says I am more important than you). Fight them tooth and nail, man.

The six platform demands are:

1. End the war on black people.

2. Reparations for past and continuing harms.

3. Divestment from the institutions that criminalize, cage and harm black people; and investment in the education, health and safety of black people.

4. Economic justice for all and a reconstruction of the economy to ensure our communities have collective ownership, not merely access.

5. Community control of the laws, institutions and policies that most impact us.

6. Independent black political power and black self-determination in all areas of society.

    1. The war on black people is being perpetrated by black people (obama, shaprton, jackson, waters, etc) as well as the democrat party.

    2. Reparations work both ways. Will the population of blacks who are criminals pay other blacks (and other races) reparations for their crimes?

    3. Divestment from the institutions that criminalize, cage and harm black people: this means cutting off the democrat party, the congressional black caucus, Xinn, the ny times, hollywood, higher education, etc..

    4. Economic justice for all and a reconstruction of the economy: rioters and looters – and their FUNDERS – must pay society back for their crimes.

    5. Community control of the laws, institutions and policies that most impact us: it’s called city government.

    6. Independent black political power and black self-determination in all areas of society: sounds good. As a result, whites will have such areas, as well as Asians, as well as Hispanics. Being blacks are only 13 percent of the population, they’ll be enslaved again.

    randian in reply to jcatl. | June 14, 2020 at 3:35 pm

    3 & 5: We want to steal, rape, and murder with impunity.
    6: Separatists, are you? Then let the flow of dollars cease.

    A_Cornell_Alumnus in reply to jcatl. | June 14, 2020 at 6:15 pm

    ” Independent black political power and black self-determination in all areas of society.”

    Don’t the white separatists and white nationalists want the same thing for themselves??? This seems to make BLM just as racist as the white supremacists.

Professor Turley is worth reading on a regular basis. I may not agree with him and his conclusions but his arguments are usually well made. The problem so many fail to read anyone who disagrees but makes good arguments. It is important to recognize good authors and consider their work when forming your opinions.

    He makes good arguments for bad ideas.

    Turley is like a guy making a great argument the earth is flat, after decades of evidence to the contrary: at the end of the day he is kinda dumb despite being able to do well on exams.

    Blaise MacLean in reply to freddy33. | June 14, 2020 at 5:08 pm

    I am with you on Turley. I read his posts regularly. I find myself agreeing very frequently…or let’s say he agrees with me. When I disagree, unlike the cancel culture, I like to understand his reasons. Sometimes he focuses on different facts, or sometimes he just has different opinion. I remember when that was okay. I think he sometimes writes carefully and treads softly, which I get. And I am happy to see someone self identifying as “liberal” writing in defence of free expression.

Speaking of sewage spills:

hillary clinton lost her appeal! – She now has to testifity at Judicial Watch’s deposition! —

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/06/hillary_clinton_lost_her_appeal_order_stands_testify_on_private_server_and_benghazi_emails.html

Seize the endowments.

Libertas_7_4_1776 | June 14, 2020 at 2:27 pm

Open letter to Cornell Mr. Jacobson is an honorable and accomplished man who thinks equitably about all things. Unfortunately this cannot be said about elements of your student body and faculty. Their provocative disparagement of Mr. Jacobson is without merit, substance, or reason. The bullies have had their day but surely not their way. You still have a chance to do the right thing, otherwise I believe Mr. Jacobson could become a cause celebre.

Internal spellcheck insists antithesis not antipathy but not quibbling

A_Cornell_Alumnus | June 14, 2020 at 6:13 pm

“The letter is signed by a huge number of clinicians (Professors Zohra Ahmed, Sandra Babcock, Briana Beltran, Celia Bigoness, John Blume, Elizabeth Brundige, Angela Cornell, Sujata Gibson, Mark H. Jackson, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Jaclyn Kelley-Widmer, Cortelyou Kenney, Sital Kalantry, Ian M. Kysel, Mallory J. Livingston, Delphine Lourtau, Beth Lyon, Estelle McKee, Keir Weyble, Carlton E. Williams, and Stephen Yale-Loehr).”

Their letter says in part, “commentators, some of them attached to Ivy League Institutions, who are leading a smear campaign against Black Lives Matter.” No; denouncing BLM for promoting hatred of Israel, to the extent of blood libeling Israel as an apartheid state that practices genocide, and also for blatant racism in its “Statement of Principles” that would be right at home with the Ku Klux Klan if “Black” was replaced with “White,” is telling the truth.

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/ “We see ourselves as part of the global Black family, and we are aware of the different ways we are impacted or privileged as Black people who exist in different parts of the world.” Part of the global Black family, like white nationalists are part of the global White family??? Part of a global Black family as opposed to part of the American family that includes people of all races and ethnic origins??? This meets the textbook definition of RACISM, and every bit as bad as the racist filth that comes from white nationalists.

Here’s a wonderful piece about BLM by Coleman Hughes. Do spread it around. It’s an antidote to leftist lies.

https://www.city-journal.org/reflections-on-race-riots-and-police

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | June 14, 2020 at 9:38 pm

enny
@bennyjohnson
·

Over the last 3 months the Left has show us who they really are:

– Lock you in your house
– Let thousands of criminals riot

– Illegal to open your business
– Legal to loot your business

– You cant pray in church
– Antifa can burn your church

– Fund violent mob
– Defund police

Professor, wishing you the best of luck, good fortune, fortitude and strength to survive this onslaught.

Clearly, these twenty-one signatories should be stripped of academic tenure and denied access to tenure for an additional ten years for the utter inability to understand the meaning of academic freedom and the underlying responsibilities.

    henrybowman in reply to Neo. | June 15, 2020 at 4:14 pm

    In a world where academic administrations are part of the problem rather than part of the solution, don’t waste your time.

So, you can’t be fired for being gay, while you can be fired for being . . . .

Once upon a time, law school faculty used incidents of trial by fury as teaching moments. Now, they are participating. How unAmerican of them.

I went to a college and law school both of which subscribe to the theory “high above Cayuga’s waters there’s an awful smell….Some say it’s Cayuga’s waters, I say it’s Cornell.” Same as it ever was. We stand with you, Professor.

“None of the 21 signatories, some of whom I’d worked closely with for over a decade and who I considered friends …”

Friends. That right there is a mistake. Never trust a leftist.

Congratulations, Professor Jacobson. You have hit a nerve. Please continue fighting as long as you can. Don’t let them push you out the way they did Robert Oscar Lopez. As a conservative adjunct–who can never speak out because I’d be instantly fired–it is crucial to know that the benefits of tenure can be used for the good.

Dear Professor Jacobson:
I have for I dunno, at least a couple years really enjoyed your examination of the current issues.
You weren’t supposed to wind up actually being one of them though…

My many thanks for your fine work.

This kind of extortion must be stopped. BLM is continuing Obama’s goal of destroying this nation, and it will ultimately result in true harm to citizen. Businesses are kow towing to BLM, a quasi-Marxist org., for fear of being called racist. If people considered the charge, and were smart AND HONEST enough to know that those kinds of charges are baseless, used only as intended by the Obama team and BLM, they should be laughed off.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend