Jonathan Turley:
College campuses last week seemed more like centers of political reeducation rather than real learning as various academics have been forced into public apologies over references to the recent controversial decisions of grand juries in Missouri and New York.
Consider the bizarre case of University of CAlifornia at Los Angeles law professorRobert Goldstein who based an essay question on his final on Michael Brown’s stepfather, Louis Head, chanting, “Burn this b—- down!” after the grand jury decision. The angry mob proceeded to loot and burn various businesses in the town. With somecalling for Head to be prosecuted, this was a ready-made question for exploring the limits of the First Amendment in a real-life situation. However, Goldstein was immediately attacked by commentators like Elie Mystal of the blog Above the Law for being “racially insensitive and divisive.” Mystal falsely stated that Goldstein’s question asked students to “advocate in favor of extremist racists in Ferguson.”
Goldstein actually apologized and told his students that he “clearly underestimated and misjudged the impact of this question.” He proceeded to throw out the question in what seemed a cringing compliance with a new taboo subject.
The apologies continued at Smith College after President Kathleen McCartney publicly joined protesters in what she called “a shared fury . . . . [as] we raise our voices in protest.” McCartney declared “all lives matter,” but was immediately denounced for being too inclusive by not saying “black lives matter.” Smith sophomore, Cecelia Lim,complained that McCartney was “invalidating the experience of black lives.” McCartney asked forgiveness and promised not to stray from the expected language. (Ironically, the next weekend, a protest leader was heard rallying the crowd with the same inclusive message of all lives matter.)
At the University of Iowa, visiting professor Serhat Tanyolacar also protested wrongly with a striking statue of a Klu Klux Klan member composed of newspaper clippings on racial tension and violence. It was a striking piece of artistic and political speech designed to “facilitate a dialogue.” Within hours, university officials declared the art to be “deeply offensive” and ordered its removal. It effectively declared the art, which is protesting intolerance, to be itself a form of hate speech. Tanyolacar issued a formal apology and a university official who had promoted the art also apologized for his “own privilege and culture bias” that blinded him to the feelings of African Americans.
