Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Dean at Princeton U. Claims Rittenhouse Trial Verdict Sets ‘Dangerous Precedent’

Dean at Princeton U. Claims Rittenhouse Trial Verdict Sets ‘Dangerous Precedent’

“My heart feels heavy as I write this.”

It’s probably a safe bet that there are lots of people in higher education who feel this way.

The College Fix reports:

Princeton dean condemns Rittenhouse verdict: ‘sets a dangerous precedent’

The dean of Princeton University’s School of Public and International Affairs sent an email to students and others that condemned the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict, saying it “sets a dangerous precedent.”

The email, with the subject line “Our Moral Duty (Sent on behalf of Dean Amaney Jamal),” was sent Saturday, the day after Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all charges after shooting three protesters during rioting in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last year.

The decision was made by a jury, but Jamal, in her email, called it a “ruling.”

“I fail to comprehend the idea of a minor vigilante carrying a semi-automatic rifle across state lines, killing two people, and being declared innocent by the U.S. justice system. Yesterday’s ruling sets a dangerous precedent,” the dean wrote in her email, sent to the entire Princeton School of Public and International Affairs listserv.

The message was first reported by Newsmax. Writing for Newsmax, Paul du Quenoy argues the dean (pictured) appears to be ignorant of Constitutional rights: “Is she aware that U.S. citizens do, in fact, have the right to keep and bear arms, and to defend themselves and others with deadly force in a plethora of circumstances, particularly when they are violently attacked?”

The dean’s email, a copy of which was provided to The College Fix by du Quenoy, stated in full:

Dear SPIA community,

Last August, Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed two protestors and wounded a third in Kenosha, Wisconsin. During his trial, he emotionally broke down on the stand, saying he was acting in self-defense. Today, he was acquitted of all six charges against him, including three of which were homicide related.

My heart feels heavy as I write this. As dean of a School of Public and International Affairs, I believe people have a right to assembly. I also believe that, during events like the protests following the shooting of Jacob Blake, it is the job of formal law enforcement bodies — not individual citizens —to ensure public safety. I fail to comprehend the idea of a minor vigilante carrying a semi-automatic rifle across state lines, killing two people, and being declared innocent by the U.S. justice system. Yesterday’s ruling sets a dangerous precedent.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The dean appears to have nearly all of the facts of the case wrong. But she’s following the popular leftist narrative so it’s okay. It’s concerning, though, that nowhere does she ask about either Kyle’s, or his attackers’, pronouns.

This dean is following the narrative and ignoring the facts

I fail to comprehend how this POS leftist puke is dean of anything?

empiricallyobvious | November 24, 2021 at 10:34 am

I took a look at this woman’s bio…are there actually any people left in positions of power at Ivy League schools who have America’s or Western Civilization’s interests at heart?
That she and her ilk are grooming the next generation of “policy experts” should frighten us all.

Sorry Dean Wormer, but fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.

VetHusbandFather | November 24, 2021 at 12:16 pm

Even if her comments were factually accurate, I find it troubling that this Dean is using her position to push such an overtly political agenda on her students. The fact that she is doing so while making objectively false statements should surely justify investigation by the university… but I won’t hold my breath.

I would have expected a Dean at the schoool of Public and International Affairs (1) to be conversant in the facts, (2) to understand how the US legal system works, and (3) to recognize the unreliability of mainstream press coverage.

I’d also expect her to refrain from broadcasting such an ill-conceived statement to her entire community, so as not to embarrass Princeton or subject it to defamation liability.

Even if he did bring a semi-auto rifle across state lines, it isn’t in general illegal to do that.

She gets the facts wrong.
She gets the law wrong.
I feel sorry for her table.

As Ben Franklin so astutely observed, “… it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.” This prof has a completely different perspective of the nature of justice. And, further, she apparently is unaware that citizens have not just a right, but (in my opinion) a duty to try to maintain social order. When people are setting fires, as was the case here, Rittenhouse was performing a positive social action in asking (telling?) them to stop. When they assaulted him, according to her twisted notion, he should have let them beat him, shoot him, and certainly do him considerable unjustified harm.
I’m really embarrassed that I sent my kids to college. Or perhaps I should have checked out colleges in other countries? There they might have received an education rather than an indoctrination.
I still remember my college years. We had actual debates about social issues. And while some profs had biases I disputed, they were not offended by my perspective. Indeed, they sometimes responded sarcastically, but they gave me repeated opportunities to present my view. And I wasn’t setting the college on fire. That wasn’t one of the rights I argued for.
This twit suggests that our education system is following our national production – down the toilet.

Her ignorance of the facts, and of the Constitution does not bring credit to Princeton University’s School of Public and International Affairs. For the school’s sake she needs to be ignominiously dismissed.

Princeton must be an interesting place. About a month ago, Prof. Dorian Abbott’s lecture got cancelled and he got disinvited to give a prestigious lecture at MIT. Princeton, the moment they heard about this, invited Abbott to give his lecture there. I attended the (virtual) lecture and found it interesting.

Reason for cancelling? Abbott had written in the past about the problems with DEI, thinking—correctly—that merit, fairness and equality make for more successful academic and life careers. That was unforgivable, so the hue and cry went up from a few students (and maybe faculty) and this year’s Carlson lecture was cancelled.

The people at Princeton spoke out clearly against MIT’s actions, as did one current MIT prof as part of the lecture intro, which was exclusively about exoplanets, and always was going to be just about them. He was being canceled not for what he was going to say, but for his beliefs entirely independent of his lecture subject matter.

I, as an appalled MIT alumnus, thanked the Princetonians for hosting him and sent a letter of apology to Abbott for the churlishness and cowardice of my alma mater.

Which raises the obvious question of how Princeton can have tow polar opposites in place: intelligent, thoughtful rationality at one end of the spectrum and emotional, ignorant irrationality at the other. Must be an interesting place, Princeton. At least there the thoughtful, rational people don’t seem to feel very threatened. At MIT, they plainly do now.