SouthernWorldwide.com – Jonathan Turley, a prominent legal scholar and vocal critic of higher education’s intellectual climate, finds himself in an uncomfortable position this week, compelled to defend individuals whose views he has previously opposed.
Turley recently wrote a column questioning the prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey for his social media posts, despite being a long-time critic of Comey’s actions. Now, he is tasked with defending Morton Schapiro, former president of Northwestern University, who was removed as the commencement speaker for Georgetown Law School.
Turley admits he has criticized Schapiro for years, viewing him as a significant contributor to the decline of intellectual diversity in universities. However, he emphasizes that a genuine belief in free speech necessitates defending it even for those whose opinions are abhorrent.
The irony is stark: Comey, who spearheaded an investigation against President Donald Trump based on what Turley describes as a baseless “Russian collusion” narrative manufactured by the Clinton campaign, is now complaining about legal tactics. Schapiro, on the other hand, is an even less sympathetic figure in a “cancel campaign.”
During his tenure at Northwestern, Schapiro was perceived by many, including Turley, as pandering to the left and showing little regard for free speech on campus. Schapiro himself had previously denounced “absolute” free speech principles and suggested that certain offensive speech should be treated as an assault.
Under Schapiro’s leadership, a wide range of speech was deemed “microaggressive” or unacceptable in the name of harmony and inclusion. He was criticized for failing to curb viewpoint intolerance at Northwestern and for the perceived purging of conservative and Republican faculty members.
Now, the very forces Schapiro may have enabled have turned on him.
GEORGETOWN LAW STUDENTS SUCCEED IN GETTING PRO-ISRAEL COMMENCEMENT SPEAKER TO DROP OUT
Schapiro was chosen as the commencement speaker for Georgetown Law School, but his selection immediately ignited a backlash. As a Jewish academic, Schapiro is considered pro-Israel. He was quickly labeled a “Zionist” and deemed an offensive choice by students and faculty alike.
A petition was circulated, urging the administration to remove Schapiro. The petition stated that Schapiro is not a lawyer, has no affiliation with Georgetown, and holds “controversial, Zionist, and harmful opinions.”
Turley points out the double standard, noting that previous commencement speakers, such as Henry Louis Gates Jr., were also non-lawyers with no connection to Georgetown, yet faced no protests. This occurred just last year.
HARVARD’S LEFT-LEANING HISTORY OF COMMENCEMENT SPEAKERS AMID DEBATE ABOUT LACK OF VIEWPOINT DIVERSITY
Commencements have become a predictable showcase for liberal and Democratic speakers. After many universities have seemingly eliminated conservative faculty, commencement ceremonies are often seen as the final stage of ideological indoctrination for students.
This year’s speakers include prominent figures like Nancy Pelosi at Notre Dame de Namur University, Jamie Raskin at American University and Goucher College, and James Talarico at Paul Quinn College. The selection of these speakers and their messages are described as unsubtle. Pelosi, for instance, reportedly criticized the GOP and Trump, while Talarico delivered what was essentially a campaign speech against billionaires.
Schapiro aligns with the narrow ideological spectrum of permissible liberal speakers, but with one critical difference: his support for Israel.
ANTISEMITIC ‘VENOM’ INFECTING CAMPUSES GETS WORSE AS UNIVERSITIES PLAY ‘ROPE-A-DOPE’ WITH TRUMP ADMIN: EXPERT
Consequently, Schapiro was unceremoniously removed and replaced by a Georgetown law professor who has previously opposed investigations into antisemitism on campuses.
In response, Schapiro sent a gracious email to campus leaders. He stated that he had presided over 28 commencements and that these ceremonies are about celebrating graduates and their supporters. He expressed his disappointment but also his desire not to let his presence overshadow the festivities, wishing the graduates well.
Turley commends Schapiro’s response as gracious and mature, especially in the face of what he describes as an adolescent and irrational campaign. However, he laments that this response is a product of the same “cringing-concession policies” he had previously criticized Schapiro for enabling at Northwestern.
During Schapiro’s tenure, Northwestern was accused of abandoning academic integrity and control to student mobs. Turley cites an example of a Sociology class taught by Professor Beth Redbird, which examined “inequality in American society with an emphasis on race, class and gender.” Redbird had invited both an undocumented person and a spokesperson for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to speak.
This was intended to be a balanced discussion, exposing students to different viewpoints. However, various student groups organized protests to prevent students from hearing the ICE representative. The university’s administration, according to Turley, assisted the protesters.
As protesters chanted “F— ICE” outside the hall, the Dean of Students reportedly allowed them into the class if they promised not to disrupt it. The university allegedly only asked them to refrain from profanities and told Professor Redbird that the protesters had agreed to sit quietly.
I’M A CONSERVATIVE STUDENT AND THE NO. 1 QUESTION I GET IS: ‘HOW DO I SURVIVE LEFTIST PROFESSORS?’
Unsurprisingly, the students immediately disrupted the class, forcing the ICE official to be removed and Professor Redbird to cancel her session. Turley highlights that what was most disturbing was not just Northwestern’s passivity but also a sense of entitlement among students that prevented others from speaking.
One student, April Navarro, rejected the idea that faculty should be allowed to invite speakers like the ICE representative for a “good, nice conversation.” She argued that such conversations legitimize ICE’s violence and make Northwestern complicit.
Now, it is Schapiro himself facing the consequences of what is commonly referred to as “cancel culture.”
In his book, “Rage and the Republic,” Turley writes about how academic and political figures often ignore history while pandering to radical groups. He suggests that Democratic leaders, like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, believe they can regain power by leveraging a “rage wave.” However, they overlook the historical pattern of revolutions ultimately “devouring their own,” where today’s revolutionaries become tomorrow’s reactionaries.
Baca juga di sini: American women have been misled about motherhood, and it's time for a change.
Schapiro, Turley concludes, is merely the latest casualty of viewpoint intolerance in higher education. His detractors can even use Schapiro’s own past statements against him, dismissing objections as reducing free speech to mere “slogans or free speech at all costs.” It appears that Schapiro himself has now become one of the prohibitive costs to be avoided within the academic echo chamber.
