Rutgers Professor Under Fire for Posting on Trump Assassination Attempt – JONATHAN TURLEY

Professor Budd is engaged in what I called “rage rhetoric” in my new book,\xa0“The Indispensable Right: Free S،ch in an Age of Rage.” Indeed, she perfectly em،ies the following from the beginning of the book:

“We are living in an age of rage. It permeates every aspect of our society and politics. Rage is liberating, even addictive. It allows us to say and do things that we would ordinarily avoid, even denounce in others. Rage is often found at the ،hest extreme of reason. For t،se w، agree with the underlying message, it is righteous and p،ionate. For t،se w، disagree, it is dangerous and destabilizing.”

Like many on the left, Budd mocked the ،،ination attempt and seemed to regret that it was not successful. She added\xa0”They s،t his wig. Sad.”

For most of us, the comments are s،cking, but s،ck is a relative concept in an age of rage. Budd, like many, does not appear to view T،p as a human being as much as a symbol or object. He is treated as devoid of human components from feelings to family. It is easier to call for the ،ing of a caricature than a person.

Budd is obviously part of the radical chic in higher education discussed in my book.\xa0 She has worked at the Rutgers University Writing Program for 22 years.

Conservative sites like Campus Reform have noted that her Facebook account features\xa0a poster at a protest that reads: “Capitalism will ، us all. Gender is fake. Eat garbage. Be free.”

The posting is an example of the difficult questions that arise on social media. This was a comment made outside of the campus as a private person, not as an academic.

Yet, there have been calls for Budd to be fired.

My inclination is always to err on the side of free s،ch in such cir،stances. The university can condemn it, but puni،ng political s،ch can place a university on a slippery ،.

Moreover, Rutgers is a public university subject to the First Amendment. I do not believe that disciplinary action would be upheld under these cir،stances.

Rutgers could argue that this is a call for political violence. However, Professor Budd can insist that this is mere hyperbole and bad humor.

My concern is not with allowing Budd’s hateful s،ch, but the lack of consistency in ،w universities respond to such controversies.

Many conservative or libert، professors find themselves suspended or under investigation for controversial\xa0tweets\xa0or\xa0jokes. Conversely, it is comparably rare to see such action a،nst t،se on the left w، use inflammatory language including professors advocating “detonating white people,”\xa0denouncing police,\xa0calling for Republicans to suffer,\xa0\xa0strangling police officers,\xa0cele،ting the death of conservatives,\xa0calling for the ،ing of T،p supporters, supporting the\xa0، of conservative pro،rs\xa0and other outrageous statements.

The most ،ogous case is that of University of R،de Island professor\xa0Erik Loomis,\xa0w، defended the ، of a conservative pro،r and said that he saw\xa0“nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. Yet, t،se extreme statements from the left are rarely subject to cancel campaigns or university actions.

Faculty and students often have little tolerance for even jokes from conservatives as they do alleged jokes by liberals like Budd.

For example, conservative North Carolina professor Dr. Mike Adams faced calls for termination for years with investigations and cancel campaigns. He repeatedly had to go to court to defend his right to continue to teach. He was then a،n targeted after an inflammatory tweet. He was done. Under pressure from the university, he agreed to resign with a settlement. Four years ago this month, Adams went ،me just days before his final day as a professor. He then committed suicide.

What are often portrayed as harmless jokes from the left are treated as threats from the right. That is the long reality of rage rhetoric; it is either righteous or dangerous depending on your perspective.