Connect with us


Meet The Professors & Institutions Unabashedly Endorsing Antifa



Faceless, nameless, leaderless, these are some of the qualities that typically come to mind when discussing Antifa. But the vigilante men in black have documented supporters in academia.

Stanford professor David Palumbo-Liu and Purdue professor Bill Mullen started the Campus Antifascist Network to “stem the rise of fascism, whether proudly displayed in hateful exclusionary slogans and posters, or disguised as ‘free speech.'”

The Campus Antifascist Network lists endorsements from around 30 organizations and 50 individuals. If you scroll down, you’ll see a law professor, a few sociology professors, and several English professors. But disciplines such as science, technology, engineering, and math do not seem to be represented.

There are some pretty famous — or infamous — scholars on the list. There’s George Ciccariello-Maher, the “white genocide” Drexel University professor who said the Las Vegas massacre is what happens when white people don’t get what they want.

There’s Sujata Moori, the Middlebury College professor who teaches Playing Dead: Feminist Readings Of Crime Drama, a very useful class definitely worth your tuition money to learn how to apply “a feminist lens” to “explore the grammar of this genre in terms of race, class, gender, and sexuality.”

There’s also Johnny E. Williams, the Trinity College professor who called white people “inhuman a**holes” and said “let them f***ing die.” Williams shared an article describing how “a lesbian black woman helped take down the man who shot Steve Scalise.” The article suggests that  purported “victims of bigotry” should not help defend alleged “oppressors.”

Palumbo-Liu, one of the professors who founded Campus Antifascist Network, frames his vision for the group as one of “defense in various forms of those who are being threatened by fascists,” but who is a fascist and what constitutes a threat? It’s precisely this nebulous language that allows Antifa to justify responding to“hate speech” or some kind of “verbal violence” with actual, physical violence.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

School Spends $393,000 Defending Statue From Protesters



The University of North Carolina spent a total of $393,000 paying police to defend the Silent Sam statue and repairing it, reported The Daily Caller News Foundation.

UNC history PhD student Maya Little apparently mixed red ink with her own blood to protest this Confederate statue.

And it wasn’t just the students, either. Seventeen anonymous University of North Carolina professors wrote the school an ultimatum, saying they would tear the statue down themselves if it wasn’t removed by a certain date.

“We do not fear arrest,” said the brave…anonymous professors. “Indeed we welcome the opportunity to demonstrate the commitment that the Carolina faculty has to the wellbeing of its students and the principles that make this university great.”

Yeah, you know, principles like cultural Marxism, mob rule, might makes right. Now, the professors wrote that letter to UNC Chancellor Carol Folt, who finds herself in a bit of a pickle. You see, she would love to tear down the Silent Sam statue but believes a certain North Carolina law forbids her from doing so without legislative consent. UNC police said last August that they thought the Confederate statue’s fate would resemble that of the one in Durham, North Carolina.

And, of course, all felony charges were dropped against those Durham “activists.”

Continue Reading


Harvard Official Apologizes After Affordable Housing Insult



Theresa Lund, executive director of Harvard University’s Humanitarian Institute complained because her children were trying to sleep and the daughter of Alyson Laliberte, a neighboring mother, was apparently making too much noise, reported The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Lund asked whether Laliberte lived in Harvard housing, or an “affordable apartment.”

As long as it’s a public area, there’s really nothing Theresa can do. I think the layout here is probably Harvard housing off to one side, affordable apartments off to another with a common space in between that residents from both areas can use. And to be honest, Theresa, a couple dozen yards isn’t going to make much of a difference.

So after getting called racist by Alyson, the Harvard employee apologized Monday, saying her response was “inappropriate and wrong” and that “This clearly wasn’t my best moment, and I have work to do to more consistently be my best self.”

So if Alyson DID actually live in the cheaper housing, this seems like a case of coastal elites who virtue signal about how much they love the less fortunate to get their votes, but when it comes time to actually live with them? I mean, can you imagine if we actually took in all of those refugees and put a few of them in Theresa’s neighborhood? Something tells me she wouldn’t be too pleased.

But let’s take a step back and look at the bigger picture, which is: what the heck is going on with Harvard? Now, if you join a frat or sorority at the school, you will be prohibited from applying for prestigious scholarships and holding leadership positions on campus. The school also requires faculty and students to take an online sexual harassment module because, you know, teaching people how not to rape or make sexist jokes totally works. Looming over all of this, of course, is the possibility that Harvard is discriminating against Asian American applicants. Stay tuned when that lawsuit hits the court in October.

Continue Reading

Trinity Western University

Christian College Loses At Supreme Court



You might remember the case of Trinity Western University, a college that wanted to set up a law school, only to be told that its law graduates would not be accredited in certain provincial law societies. Why? Well, because these graduates dared to attend a school that banned its students from having sex outside of heterosexual marriage.

Now, courts in British Columbia and Nova Scotia sided with Trinity Western, saying it would violate students’ religious freedom to deny them licenses to practice law on this basis. But Ontario’s highest court sided with the law societies and the case went to the Supreme Court, which decided in a 7-2 vote that the law societies were correct, according to The Daily Caller News Foundation. The court’s majority opinion said:

“Limiting access to membership in the legal profession on the basis of personal characteristics, unrelated to merit, is inherently inimical to the integrity of the legal profession.”

But here’s the thing: the Supreme Court is ALSO limiting access to the legal profession by letting law societies deny licenses to students not based on how well they did in law school, but simply because they voluntarily attended a school that wanted them to have a traditionally Christian sex life.

Continue Reading


%d bloggers like this: