Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

U. Miami Law Prof Daniel Ravicher says threatened with termination after pro-Trump tweets

U. Miami Law Prof Daniel Ravicher says threatened with termination after pro-Trump tweets

Ravicher asserts the Dean told him “if I didn’t retract my statements and apologize, at minimum my contract would not be renewed, and something could happen even sooner once he consults with central and [General Counsel]…. He also said [if] I were black, nothing I said would be controversial. It’s because I’m white and a man that this has become an issue.”

Daniel Ravicher is a star on the University of Miami Law School faculty. A full time lecturer, he currently is appointed under a 3-year term ending in June 2022.

Ravicher is Director of U. Miami Law’s Startup Practicum, which he helped launch:

Ravicher and the StartUp Practicum have received enormous media attention and promotion by the law school.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ravicher+miami+law&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS914US914&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQjpiOmIDtAhUBUzUKHQsBC-oQ_AUIDygB&biw=1536&bih=750&dpr=1.25

The law school repeatedly has praised Ravicher’s work, pointing out the positive impact he has had on student experience. Ravicher’s work with students also received national media attention.

The law school even referred to Ravicher as the ‘entrepreneur whisperer‘:

https://twitter.com/MiamiLawSchool/status/1007287848100384768

Ravicher even was featured on the law school podcast about the possible sale of TicTok.

In an all-to-familiar tale of 2020 ‘cancel culture,’ Ravicher found himself the target of students who objected to his pro-Trump and election tweets. We covered the story back on November 8, 2020, quoting reporting by the student-run The Miami Hurricane newspaper:

With the result of the presidential election between President Donald Trump and Democratic Nominee Joe Biden still not final, University of Miami School of Law professor Daniel Ravicher began tweeting his views on Twitter in support of Trump, which included accusing the Democrats of cheating by deliberately stopping votes.

Ravicher also expressed his opinion about cheating in the American election process: “Cheating in politics is as American as apple pie. If you’re good enough to get away with it you deserve to win. That’s how it always been and how it always will be.”

At UM, Ravicher is a lecturer in the law school and is the director of the Startup Practicum, which provides students with the opportunity to provide legal assistance to new business ventures.

At UM, Ravicher is a lecturer in the law school and is the director of the Startup Practicum, which provides students with the opportunity to provide legal assistance to new business ventures.

On Wednesday, Ravicher also discussed racial minorities and their party alignment….

As these tweets began to spread amongst undergraduate and law students, one Black undergraduate student who was considering remaining at UM for law school said that now it is completely out of the picture.

“Never did I ever imagine such disgusting rhetoric would come from a professor at UM Law,” said junior Charis Pitter, who hopes to serve as a lawyer for marginalized communities. “As a UM student, I’m disappointed, angry, but not surprised because the way the UM administration has handled hate speech during this election season shows their true colors. I came here because UM always preached diversity and acceptance, but I no longer feel like I’m at an institution that values me.”

Raven Bedford, a junior psychology major who is also Black, said having a professor perpetuating what she alleges as extremist views with racist undertones teaching students sets a dangerous precedent as she said she fears such views could wind up in the classroom.

“He seems extremely racist, radical and dangerous and, at the very least, he follows others on social media who most would consider unhinged and extremist in their views,” said Bedford. “This man’s tweets have violent and racist undertones. I can’t imagine those views don’t leak into the classroom when he teaches. As a Black student, I don’t feel or welcome on a campus where professors advocate for my dehumanization on Twitter, and I can only imagine how the Black students in his classes feel.”

Here are the tweets referenced in the Miami Hurricane story as having set off student anger:

https://twitter.com/danravicher/status/1323844003104804864

https://twitter.com/danravicher/status/1324416184930938881

https://twitter.com/danravicher/status/1323260297709260800

https://twitter.com/danravicher/status/1323886805616332800

https://twitter.com/danravicher/status/1324905721213952000

On November 6, Ravicher was denounced by the Dean of the law school, Tony Varona, who defended Ravicher’s academic freedom to make such statements while also declaring the statements contrary to law school values (sound familiar?)

In a follow up to the Dean’s message, a Vice Dean offered StartUp Law students the option of taking the course pass/fail because of the tweets, for those students who were “uncomfortable” and concerned with impartial grading. Ravicher strongly objected to such insinuations:

Also, at some point I’d appreciate understanding the process for how a decision is made that a professor has said
something that calls into question the integrity of their grading. I assume it’s a subjective decision by
administrators, all of whom are liberals/Democrats. If a Republican, Muslim, or Catholic student is offended by
things their professors say, and they report it, can they too be offered the pass/fail option, or does it have to be a
certain number of students? Or is it only if black students complain about racism that this is a potential resolution?
I’ve alleged that subjective standards are arbitrarily applied to conservatives, but I’d love to be disproven. Is there
any history of this practice being implemented against any other professor? …

Over 250 students have signed a Change.org Petition started by the U. Miami Law GOP student group supporting Ravicher:

As law students, we are taught about the Constitution and freedom of speech. Evidently, some speech is freer than others, as is perhaps the view held by some students at the University of Miami School of Law. Law students are reporting esteemed Professor Dan Ravicher to the law school administration, strictly on the basis of a political disagreement. Nobody’s political views should be used against them in a job, especially not an academic job. Diversity of thought is critical in an educational institution, which is said to be a melting pot of ideas. We must ensure that the University of Miami School of Law does not take action against Professor Ravicher strictly on the basis of his political views. Professor Ravicher is a voice for students on the law school campus who often feel voiceless. He is not only a well-respected attorney, but also a man of great character. This petition signifies support for both Professor Ravicher at Miami Law and diversity of thought in academia.

In another all-too-familiar move, numerous fellow faculty members issued a group denunciation of Ravicher in the student newspaper (with a separate Google doc gathering more signatures), defending their own right to criticize him, yet ignoring the chilling effect a collective pile-on has. The letter reads in part:

These public social media posts demonstrate, at the very least, an egregious lack of professional judgment. While Ravicher’s unprofessional behavior may be defended as a matter of academic freedom or free speech, academic and free speech norms do not insulate lawyers from critique. To the contrary, the principles of academic freedom and free speech compel us to speak out against Ravicher’s promotion of disinformation, invocation of violence, and racially derogatory commentary. We join the students, alumni, and practicing attorneys voicing concern that these statements potentially reflect deeper failings.

As of this writing, the signatories on the Google Doc are:

Anthony Alfieri, Professor of Law
Caroline Bettinger-Lopez, Professor of Law and Director, Human Rights Clinic
Michael Chiorazzi, Associate Dean for Information Resources, Librarian Professor, Dean’s Distinguished Director
Caroline Mala Corbin, Professor of Law & Dean’s Distinguished Scholar
Andrew B Dawson, Professor of Law & Judge A. Jay Cristol Chair in Bankruptcy Law
Andrew Elmore, Associate Professor of Law
Mary Anne Franks, Professor of Law & Dean’s Distinguished Scholar
Frances R. Hill, Professor of Law & Dean’s Distinguished Scholar for the Profession
Elizabeth M. Iglesias, Professor of Law
Osamudia James, Professor of Law & Dean’s Distinguished Scholar
Tamara Lave, Professor of Law
JoNel Newman, Professor of Law
Jessica Owley, Professor of Law
Kunal Parker, Professor of Law and Dean’s Distinguished Scholar
Bernard Perlmutter, Professor of Law
Ileana Porras, Senior Lecturer
Pablo Rueda-Saiz, Associate Professor of Law
Stephen J. Schnably, Professor of Law
Becky Sharpless, Professor of Law
Kele Stewart, Professor of Law
Irwin P. Stotzky, Professor of Law
Scott Sundby, Professor of Law & Dean’s Distinguished Scholar
Craig J. Trocino, Director, Miami Law Innocence Clinic
Teresa J. Verges, Director, Investor Rights Clinic and Lecturer in Law
Kira E. Willig, Adjunct Professor

I emailed each of them asking for comment, but received no substantive responses. (The only person who responded said she was very busy today, and I should refer questions to the Dean).

Ravicher did not back down to the pressure from students, the administration, and faculty:

https://twitter.com/danravicher/status/1325295033822670849

Earlier today Ravicher tweeted:

I’ve been fired because I refuse to censor my speech and apologize, in addition to satisfying other yet to be defined requirements. The only uncertainty is when my last day will be, either the end of my contract or sooner if the school can fabricate a performance related reason.

https://twitter.com/danravicher/status/1327231485989048320

In an email, Ravicher expanded on that “firing”:

The Dean and I spoke on Saturday and he said if I didn’t retract my statements and apologize, at minimum my contract would not be renewed, and something could happen even sooner once he consults with central and GC. I told him I would not retract any statement and that I do not apologize for them. He also said [if] I were black, nothing I said would be controversial. It’s because I’m white and a man that this has become an issue.

It’s not clear that Ravicher will be fired, though that is how he construes the communications. The Dean did not respond to my multiple emails seeking clarification and comment.

But the damage is done. The chilling effect of making an example of a professor with wrongthink and holding him out for scorn and public shaming has been set. Others will now remain silent to avoid that treatment. This case ‘passes’ the test for being considered cancel culture.

Ravicher indicated on Twitter that he may be on Laura Ingraham tonight. If so, we will add the video.

We will continue to follow this dispute.

UPDATE:

Ravicher appeared on the Laura Ingraham Show. *Someone* made a cameo appearance.

https://youtu.be/DZ_7PQOUKys?t=2087

(video also here)

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Acadamia embraces McCarthyism. Unintellectual slobs.

.
I guess that, even in a Red state, you can step onto a college campus and BOOM! all bets are off.

A complete perversion of the law based on skin color and the 1st amendment!

Notice howe white Christian conservative and Male are the only things you can discriminate against now.

Inconceivable! I had been assured that blacklisting had been called off because bipartisanship and healing and coming together and other junk like that….

    Once the ‘counter-revolutionary’ conservatives have been fired, hounded from office, divested of assets, bankrupted, blacklisted, imprisoned and executed there will indeed be bipartisanship and healing and coming together … of the factions in the socialist coalition as the spoils of that war will be allocated and distributed amongst the faithful.

There’s not much of America left, is there?

Yes, and Jews who hold unapproved opinions as well–as Daniel Radicher is and does.

LOL Academia.

Didn’t the dean’s comment hand him a very winnable lawsuit on sex and racial discrimination? See ya in court, bub.

If the U. Miami is a public university, the dean just committed an act of racism in his efforts to quash the speech of the professor. Sue their butts off!

    CapeBuffalo in reply to mishka. | November 13, 2020 at 8:22 pm

    UofM is private but they receive a lot of Federal and State money.

      I was hoping that Trump, in a second term, would have gone scorched earth on academia. They would get crushed if forced to adopt affordable tuition price levels and financially back their own student loans. Tying federal money to free speech mandates would be key as well.

I think the cleansing of the education system of lazy libs is the next hill after cleaning the awful election system run by corrupt liberals.

Prof. Ravisher: call this number, and you’ll become a millionaire:

Telephone: (404) 891-1402. Ask for L. Lin Wood.

He should have recorded his conversation

    JusticeDelivered in reply to gonzotx. | November 14, 2020 at 10:58 pm

    “Florida’s wiretapping law is a “two-party consent” law. Florida makes it a crime to intercept or record a “wire, oral, or electronic communication” in Florida, unless all parties to the communication consent.”

    Some states only require one party consent. So in this case, i would record, use the recording to produce detailed notes, and then get rid of the recording, forgetting that it ever existed.

      Another Voice in reply to JusticeDelivered. | November 15, 2020 at 9:07 am

      Does that apply for both outgoing and incoming calls if one of the parties is originating or receiving the call from a state with no such consent laws?

amatuerwrangler | November 13, 2020 at 9:44 pm

It is interesting that the outraged, threatened, marginalized folk did not bother to say just what it was he said that got them so upset. Were his numbers off? Were his assertions wrong? Did they have information that might make his projections wrong?

Is their idea of representing people in issues of law reduced to merely claiming some nebulous butt-hurt? What happened to listening to an argument and then presenting facts to counter what is asserted so that whoever is expected to make a decision has something to base it on? Or did I get misled somewhere back up the line?

The school supports the First Amendment… unless of course somebody says something they don’t like. Then it’s Burn The Witch time.

    The schools are full of maggots indoctrinating our young.

    Our only hope is the return of Boehner as Speaker of the House, Bush as president, with Bill Barr again as attorney general, and Mitt Romney as head of the GOP. What the hell: dig up McCain, and prop him in his old AZ senate seat. (He’d be just as useful as he was when he was alive.)

    /sarc

      JusticeDelivered in reply to TheFineReport.com. | November 14, 2020 at 11:04 pm

      Mitt Romney is cut from the same cloth as McCain, just not as smart.

        Romney’s pretty smart, he’s just totally removed from anything actual voters understand, think, know, feel, or experience. I’ve loooong recorded the travesty that is Romney, and one thing he is not is stupid. He’s smarmy, phony as hell, progressive, and completely devoid of any morals, ethics, or principles he won’t sell, trade, or barter on a dime, on a poll, or on a finger to the wind. But unintelligent? No.

And for every Daniel Ravicher, there are twenty more afraid to speak. And, because the leftists control academia, the media, and most of the government bureaucracy, the situation is likely to continue. Is there a good chance that Mr. Ravicher will win this particular battle? Yes. But the chilling effect is real, and it means that the new American Stasi are, so far, winning the war.

Oh, and I’d like to slap Laura Ingraham and her idiotic laughter. There is nothing funny about a man potentially losing his livelihood and reputation.

The Dean and I spoke […] He also said [if] I were black, nothing I said would be controversial. It’s because I’m white and a man that this has become an issue.

I hope he has this recorded, because that would make his firing or non-renewal racial discrimination. Even if they find some other pretext, this is an admission that it’s racial discrimination, so a court can force them to keep him despite whatever they find.

Even if he doesn’t have it recorded, he can still testify under oath that this is what the dean said, and see whether the dean has the gall to deny it under oath, in which case a jury can decide who’s lying.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Milhouse. | November 14, 2020 at 11:09 pm

    In this case, recording and admitting to it is not a good idea. Perhaps better to have a witness listen in?

      In that case he could simply state under oath what the dean told him, and only reveal the existence of the recording if the dean perjures himself by denying it.

JusticeDelivered | November 14, 2020 at 11:17 pm

Ravicher’s comments regarding blacks and Latinos are dead right. While I am very much against illegals, the truth is that overall Hispanics are better for America than blacks. Hispanics have a much better work ethic, and outperform blacks overall. Considering Hispanic work ethics, they are not going to be very sympathetic to black culture, and they most certainly will not support Affirmative BS.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend