Image 01 Image 03

Rutgers Law Student Govt. Demands Student Groups Promote Critical Race Theory or Lose Funding

Rutgers Law Student Govt. Demands Student Groups Promote Critical Race Theory or Lose Funding

“The Rutgers student government is holding student group funding hostage until students commit to a particular ideology”

Rutgers Law School’s student government told student groups they could lose their funding if they refuse to promote Critical Race Theory.

This looks like a form of political extortion. How else could it be interpreted?

Free speech advocates at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education have taken an interest in this case.

From the FIRE Newsdesk:

Rutgers Law student government to student groups: Promote critical race theory or lose funding

Need more funding for your club at Rutgers Law School? The Rutgers’ Student Bar Association can help — but only if you put on your critical race theory lenses first.

Today, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education called on Rutgers University, home of the largest public law school in the Northeast, to rescind an SBA requirement that forces student groups to host certain ideological events in order to be eligible for student fee funding.

“The Rutgers student government is holding student group funding hostage until students commit to a particular ideology,” said FIRE Program Officer Zach Greenberg. “Students shouldn’t be forced to choose between their club’s funding and their own convictions.”

The SBA of Rutgers’ Camden campus added a section to its constitution entitled “Student Organizations Fostering Diversity and Inclusion” on Nov. 20, mandating that any group that wishes to receive more than $250 in university funding must “plan at least one (1) event that addresses their chosen topics through the lens of Critical Race Theory, diversity and inclusion, or cultural competency.” Last fall, 19 of 22 student groups requested more than $250.

This puts student clubs in a bind: Should they request the funding they need, even though it would require planning an event — such as hosting a speaker, outing, or mixer — that may be at odds with or unrelated to the group’s own views?

This is the second time this month that Rutgers has been in the spotlight over racial issues.

On May 4th, we highlighted a story from the New York Times about black students at Rutgers Law who were offended when a student used a racial slur while citing a 1993 legal case:

Debate Erupts at N.J. Law School After White Student Quotes Racial Slur

The controversy over the use of a racial slur that has embroiled a public law school in New Jersey began with a student quoting from case law during a professor’s virtual office hours.

The first-year student at Rutgers Law School in Newark, who is white, repeated a line from a 1993 legal opinion, including the epithet, when discussing a case.

What followed has jolted the state institution, unleashing a polarizing debate over the constitutional right to free speech on campus and the power of a hateful word at a moment of intense national introspection over race, equity and systemic bias.

The tension comes at a time of heightened sensitivity to offensive words on college and law school campuses, where recent uses of slurs by professors during lessons have resulted in discipline and dismissal.

In early April, in response to the incident, a group of Black first-year students at Rutgers Law began circulating a petition calling for the creation of a policy on racial slurs and formal, public apologies from the student and the professor, Vera Bergelson.

“At the height of a ‘racial reckoning,’ a responsible adult should know not to use a racial slur regardless of its use in a 1993 opinion,” states the petition, which has been signed by law school students and campus organizations across the country.

“We vehemently condemn the use of the N-word by the student and the acquiescence of its usage,” the petition says.

Featured image via YouTube.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


While bias is intrinsic, prejudice is progressive. Critical Racists’ Theory presumes diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgments).

Time to take away their federal funding.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to wendybar. | May 18, 2021 at 2:21 pm

    It’s time to end any and all federal funding of colleges. I include government-backed student loans as well.

Rutgers is a entirely Woke university.

A professor from this school put out horribly misleading stats that the agenda-driven mainstream media blasted out for weeks.

The stats said that Blacks are 2.5x more likely to be killed by police than their population numbers would indicate to be killed by police.

> It never mentioned the fact that Blacks have nearly 5x more interactions with police than their population — likely because Blacks commit 5x more violent crimes than would be expected based on their population (see DOJ statistics).

Also, the excess in violent crime is not due to poverty. Adjusted for income, Blacks commit orders of magnitude more violent crimes than any other race.

>> Most of the victims of Black violent crimes are Blacks.

Major Media are not dumb. they have people on staff who know statistics. They clearly pushed the Rutgers stats to support race-baiters like BLM. Stats are easy to manipulate and they make propaganda appear to be rational.

See the biased and misleading study stats here

    n.n in reply to Ben Kent. | May 18, 2021 at 2:59 pm

    Interesting, 2.5 times more likely to be involved with police use of fatal force, while they are more than 2.5 times more likely to be engaged in criminal activity involving fatal use of force. Why the disparate outcomes?

    Diversity, inequity, and exclusion. Baby Lives Matter.

I would totally outflank these people and TEACH IT…. and by teach it, I’d teach the truth about what an evil pile of Mao’ist/Stalin’ist garbage it is.

Are you compliant? Check.

I seem to remember that compelled speech is prohibited by the ruling in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943). These folks should get back to teaching the law and not screwing around with ignorance.

    Idonttweet in reply to lhw. | May 18, 2021 at 1:11 pm

    Public university, right? You’d think that they would already know that as a law school.

      Ben Kent in reply to Idonttweet. | May 18, 2021 at 2:40 pm


      Why would ANYONE hire one of the dimwits from this University – especially anyone from its law school ? ?

How juvenile. This student government is a bunch of prissy popular high-school students, Do they also tell the other students which tables they can sit at, during lunch.?

Afirmative action students use their clout to maintain control, eliminate as many white students as possible in order to reach their goal of gaining even more control.

    n.n in reply to UserP. | May 18, 2021 at 3:07 pm

    Diversity [dogma] including affirmative discrimination. Affirmative action would address and reconcile the individual (e.g. tastes and talents), family, community, jurisdictional (e.g. Atlanta’s “every child left behind”), and philosophical (e.g. Critical Racists’ Theory) foundations of disparate outcomes.

“And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”

Promote Marxism or lose funding. This is Comrade Biden’s Amerika.

Why do student governments exist at all?

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Danny. | May 19, 2021 at 2:32 am

    In all of my school years I never bothered with voting in student elections.

stevewhitemd | May 18, 2021 at 5:49 pm

So the law student groups are supposed to sell their souls for … … … $250??

Good golly, you could pass the hat at the dining hall and come up with that kind of money.

The affected student groups should up the ante: tell the law student gov’t “no thanks, we’ll fund this ourselves” and force the gov’t to escalate. Which, of course, they’ll do.

The fact that this is coming from law students makes me wonder what the woke law professors are teaching them–and where are the adults that run Rutgers? Embarassing.

These are mandatory student fees that are collected by the University for the students’ mutual benefit and education. They are telling law students that they must pay money to organizations to conduct events to promote Critical Race Theory — even if the law students paying the fees and the organizations conducting the programs do not believe in CRT.