Image 01 Image 03

Students Petition to Have Clarence Thomas Removed as Lecturer at George Washington U. Law School

Students Petition to Have Clarence Thomas Removed as Lecturer at George Washington U. Law School

“Make your voice heard and help us kick Clarence Thomas out of Foggy Bottom”

Is this some of that ‘systemic racism’ we’re always hearing about from progressives in higher education?

Campus Reform reports:

Students want to remove Clarence Thomas from law school teaching position

George Washington University (GWU) students are retaliating against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas by circulating a petition to repeal his employment at the institution’s law school (GW Law).

The petition is in response to Thomas’s decision last Friday in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the landmark abortion cases Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Friday’s ruling determined there is no constitutional right to abortion. Instead, abortion can be regulated by each individual state.

Yet, the petition, authored by a user named John Kay, reads:

Thomas, who is a Professorial Lecturer in Law at GW Law, joined the conservative 6-3 majority opinion. However, the conservative justice came under fire for his concurring decision in which he implored the court to “reconsider” cases ruled using substantive due process.

The petition alleges that Thomas creates an “unsafe” environment for students at the GW campus as well as for students at “thousands of campuses across the country.”

“Make your voice heard and help us kick Clarence Thomas out of Foggy Bottom,” Kay states on the petition, which is just short of 2,900 signatures at the time of publication.

The GWU College Republicans were quick to condemn the petition.

“One of the principal assets of our school is learning from figures across the ideological spectrum,” the College Republicans told Campus Reform in a statement.

“While many students at GW are displeased with his rulings on particular cases, the free exchange of ideas and opinions should be valued – not discouraged – at an institution of higher learning like ours,” the statement continued. “Removing Justice Thomas from the university will do the greatest disservice to those most fervently propagating this petition.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Because why would you want to hear from one of the most influential men on the planet?

    henrybowman in reply to irv. | June 28, 2022 at 3:10 pm

    When you could instead hear from a “Professional Lecturer in Law” that nobody but his momma has ever heard of?

    Dimsdale in reply to irv. | June 29, 2022 at 11:20 am

    Snowflakes gotta snowflake.

    They can’t counter the argument, so they attempt to bury it.

henrybowman | June 28, 2022 at 3:11 pm

“The petition alleges that Thomas creates an “unsafe” environment for students at the GW campus”

It’s time some of these snowflakes learned with an “unsafe environment” is really like.

Is my brain malfunctioning or is this sentence logically incorrect?
“…and remove the ability for people to practice safe sex without fear of pregnancy,”

    Milhouse in reply to Phil. | June 28, 2022 at 11:22 pm

    It’s your brain. The sentence is coherent. Contraception allows people to practice safe sex, without fear of pregnancy. If Griswold were to be overturned, and a state were then to ban contraceptives including condoms, then people would have to have unsafe sex and risk pregnancy.

    Of course that’s a huge “if”. Even if Griswold were overturned, it’s unlikely that any state would take advantage; I don’t know of anyone who even wants to ban contraception.

      Dimsdale in reply to Milhouse. | June 29, 2022 at 11:24 am

      If they were practicing safe sex, why would we need abortions? No way the numbers account for the tiny failure rate, which can further be reduced by redundancy.

      Now if you interpret this as meaning that abortion is used trivially as a way of post conception contraception (which well over 90% of it is), then I guess that would count as “safe sex.”

Frankly Justice Thomas is wasted on the idiots at George Washington University

The GW Republicans rep doesn’t even dare come out and say he/she supports Thomas, just that we need to hear from various sides of things. Obviously this is a bad look for GW Law, but does it matter? Can the place be helped regardless of whether Justice Thomas has a position there?

I stopped reading at “people with wombs.”

texansamurai | June 29, 2022 at 9:15 am

so typical of the nanny state, aa admissions, entitled, participation trophy, micro-aggression, “equitable grading / evaluation” bunch

they cannot fault his decisions/opinions on a rational/adult/responsible basis–and these are “law students”–pathetic–instead they must resort to lies (scotus decision “outlaws abortion”) , threats (kavanaugh) and personal attacks (“uncle clarence’)

assuming the republic survives another hundred years, justice thomas will be remembered as a competent, thoughtful and faithful jurist

and no one will remember these obnoxious snowflakes at all or give the remotest damn about their self-indulgent tantrums

Steven Brizel | June 30, 2022 at 8:50 am

Here is another example of campus radicalism Thank God it is not my alma mater

As an employer I can think of no better list to peruse for the final hiring decision on a G.W. Grad. Thanks for making my job easier in keeping the rot out of my company.