Surely this is a First Amendment case? A Senator of the President's party complains, and the Government-funded university leaps to punish the wrong speech, which hasn't been shown in court to contravene any law.
It is really crazy how authoritarian the US has become, and so quickly.
Was anyone jailed, fined, or punished by the government?
People often cite the “First Amendment” without remembering what it actually covers. It protects individuals from government censorship—not from workplace or institutional decisions about professional conduct in a classroom.
The university did not take this action directly in response to the issue, it took it in response to a call from a US senator regarding a law restricting freedom of speech. Such calls do not have a “no thanks” option. This is the normal way power is exerted, actually executing a punishment is the exception.
Your definition of freedom of speech is wrong per both US and international law. It is a freedom, the issue is the restriction of it, not just any punishment unjustly inflicted.
Apparently, this was done to promote "intellectual diversity"! I wonder if she would have been in compliance with the "intellectual diversity" law if she had also presented the perspective of the MAGA crowd on why they believe MAGA isn't about racism or white supremacy? I do feel one needs to be quite careful when using current political labels, and taking sides on it in an academic discourse, because the long-term consequences of the politics behind it (positive or negative) on society remains to be seen - as it is current, one doesn't know how it will impact society, and in some ways, you may end making a biased judgement call of it that may never pan out.
That would have been a nuanced conversation with some breadth (albeit skewed right) given that JD Vance was recently warned by a right wing source about the recent even more right wing Groyper takeover of the GOP.
JD Vance Received a Dire Warning About the Groyper Takeover of the GOP From a Strange Source (November, 2025)
“After these last three days in Washington, I am more convinced than I have ever been that we are moving towards some kind of totalitarianism — or at best, authoritarianism,” said Dreher.
The claim that more than a third of young GOP staffers are at least sympathetic to Fuentes isn’t entirely shocking. Recent years have seen numerous indications that this new brand of neo-Nazism and white nationalism has increasingly taken hold in the right-wing establishment.
and
what’s notable about Dreher’s post isn’t the idea that Groypers are ascendant in the MAGA era. The remarkable thing here is the fact this message to Vance came from fairly far out on the right.
Dreher is perhaps most famous for his 2018 book — The Benedict Option — in which he pitched the idea that conservative Christians should form their own separatist communities due to their concerns about modern, secular values and the increasing acceptance of the LGBTQ community.
In a 2022 essay where Dreher discussed the fact his father had been a Klansman, he described himself as a “race liberal” while also asserting “black people and white people really were very different in terms of culture,” including what he called a “sexual code” among African-Americans that includes teenage motherhood and absentee fathers.
In the very essay where he decried the rising tide of Groyperism in D.C., Dreher repeatedly empathized with the roots of these young extremists’ anger and declared that, while anti-Semitism is misguided, Europe has been overwhelmed by a “Muslim mob.”
And personally, as someone who isn't American, I honestly don't see much difference between the Republicans and Democrats, apart from how they do their political propaganda. While they do try to portray themselves as different to the public, both of them are ideologically right-leaning, and even have similar spectrum of politicians as members - from conservatives to progressive. But when it comes to policies, they all have the same ideas and just bicker on how to implement it. A good and recent example of it is how the Democrats recently "caved in" on the healthcare issue with the Republicans (there was no "caving in" - many Democrats do support the Trump administration policies on healthcare). Or how the core Democrat party remains wary of Zohran Mamdani and didn't even support him.
This generation of Republicans are opposed to liberal democracy. Democrats are not.
There are other real differences, but given the enormity of that one, why bother?
Dems didn't support Mamdani because he's a liability outside large, progressive cities.
the Dems didn't support Mamdani because they cannot support Capital and Labour at the same time -- and at the end of the day, the Democrats support Capital, loud polemics from AOC or Bernie Sanders notwithstanding
> Dems didn't support Mamdani because he's a liability outside large, progressive cities.
I'm not arguing with your summation of the realpolitik the way the Dem establishment sees it, but this worry of theirs needs to die in a fire. Turmp has shown that people are willing to vote for abjectly terrible, extremist, even outright anti-American candidates as long as they stand and fight for something. The Democrats' strategy of continually compromising to middle of the road milquetoast candidates that vaguely gesture at mild bargaining reforms is a losing one with voters. (of course part of the incentive to do this is their corporate sponsors, but they need to get over this addiction to easy money if they want to win elections)
The US electoral system was essentially doomed to iteratively spiral into two blocs, neither of which significantly represent a sizable chunk of the US population.
It's the unfortunate emergent behaviour of a system set up hundreds of years ago by founders opposed to Kings, little kings, and dominant Party politics.
Had they the means to model iterative dynamic systems and the time to do so, they might have chosen better, instead Franklin noted that it was "good enough for now" (then) and that without attention and upkeep would slide into despotism.
My own great grandparents went with a Washminster system, a hybrid of UK and US governance, with elections that evolved to avoid First Past the Post as a nod toward greater choice and keeping the bastards honest (a once popular minority party slogan here).
as an American I will note you are breathtakingly incorrect about there not being policy differences between Republicans and Democrats, and the "cave in" over the government shutdown is strictly one of tactics, not ideology.
> many Democrats do support the Trump administration policies on healthcare
citation needed
> Or how the core Democrat party
The phrase "the Democrat party" is a well known right wing slur against the Democratic party; this term is used exclusively by right wing activists and party members and you'd only see it by reading lots of right wing sources.
Surely this is a First Amendment case? A Senator of the President's party complains, and the Government-funded university leaps to punish the wrong speech, which hasn't been shown in court to contravene any law.
It is really crazy how authoritarian the US has become, and so quickly.
How is this a First Amendment issue?
Was anyone jailed, fined, or punished by the government?
People often cite the “First Amendment” without remembering what it actually covers. It protects individuals from government censorship—not from workplace or institutional decisions about professional conduct in a classroom.
The university did not take this action directly in response to the issue, it took it in response to a call from a US senator regarding a law restricting freedom of speech. Such calls do not have a “no thanks” option. This is the normal way power is exerted, actually executing a punishment is the exception.
Your definition of freedom of speech is wrong per both US and international law. It is a freedom, the issue is the restriction of it, not just any punishment unjustly inflicted.
Apparently, this was done to promote "intellectual diversity"! I wonder if she would have been in compliance with the "intellectual diversity" law if she had also presented the perspective of the MAGA crowd on why they believe MAGA isn't about racism or white supremacy? I do feel one needs to be quite careful when using current political labels, and taking sides on it in an academic discourse, because the long-term consequences of the politics behind it (positive or negative) on society remains to be seen - as it is current, one doesn't know how it will impact society, and in some ways, you may end making a biased judgement call of it that may never pan out.
That would have been a nuanced conversation with some breadth (albeit skewed right) given that JD Vance was recently warned by a right wing source about the recent even more right wing Groyper takeover of the GOP.
JD Vance Received a Dire Warning About the Groyper Takeover of the GOP From a Strange Source (November, 2025)
and ~ https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/jd-vance-received-a-dire-...So much for those that claimed MAGA lacked diversity, disagreement about the angle of salute has scale akin to that of Lilliput and Blefuscu.
And personally, as someone who isn't American, I honestly don't see much difference between the Republicans and Democrats, apart from how they do their political propaganda. While they do try to portray themselves as different to the public, both of them are ideologically right-leaning, and even have similar spectrum of politicians as members - from conservatives to progressive. But when it comes to policies, they all have the same ideas and just bicker on how to implement it. A good and recent example of it is how the Democrats recently "caved in" on the healthcare issue with the Republicans (there was no "caving in" - many Democrats do support the Trump administration policies on healthcare). Or how the core Democrat party remains wary of Zohran Mamdani and didn't even support him.
This generation of Republicans are opposed to liberal democracy. Democrats are not. There are other real differences, but given the enormity of that one, why bother?
Dems didn't support Mamdani because he's a liability outside large, progressive cities.
the Dems didn't support Mamdani because they cannot support Capital and Labour at the same time -- and at the end of the day, the Democrats support Capital, loud polemics from AOC or Bernie Sanders notwithstanding
> Dems didn't support Mamdani because he's a liability outside large, progressive cities.
I'm not arguing with your summation of the realpolitik the way the Dem establishment sees it, but this worry of theirs needs to die in a fire. Turmp has shown that people are willing to vote for abjectly terrible, extremist, even outright anti-American candidates as long as they stand and fight for something. The Democrats' strategy of continually compromising to middle of the road milquetoast candidates that vaguely gesture at mild bargaining reforms is a losing one with voters. (of course part of the incentive to do this is their corporate sponsors, but they need to get over this addiction to easy money if they want to win elections)
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling%27s_law
The US electoral system was essentially doomed to iteratively spiral into two blocs, neither of which significantly represent a sizable chunk of the US population.
It's the unfortunate emergent behaviour of a system set up hundreds of years ago by founders opposed to Kings, little kings, and dominant Party politics.
Had they the means to model iterative dynamic systems and the time to do so, they might have chosen better, instead Franklin noted that it was "good enough for now" (then) and that without attention and upkeep would slide into despotism.
My own great grandparents went with a Washminster system, a hybrid of UK and US governance, with elections that evolved to avoid First Past the Post as a nod toward greater choice and keeping the bastards honest (a once popular minority party slogan here).
Don't Hate the Player, Hate the Game Rules?
as an American I will note you are breathtakingly incorrect about there not being policy differences between Republicans and Democrats, and the "cave in" over the government shutdown is strictly one of tactics, not ideology.
> many Democrats do support the Trump administration policies on healthcare
citation needed
> Or how the core Democrat party
The phrase "the Democrat party" is a well known right wing slur against the Democratic party; this term is used exclusively by right wing activists and party members and you'd only see it by reading lots of right wing sources.
We have had a uniparty in the UK two for the last few decades. At least dating back to Blair becoming leader of the labour party in 1994.
https://archive.is/pyug5
well at least we are talking about it now
> the complaint against Ms. Adams, filed under a new state law adopted last year that requires intellectual diversity
> At least one student in the classroom was uncomfortable, and I’m sure there are more,” he said.
—-
I’m sorry but intellectual diversity requires debate. Debate can be uncomfortable.