Inside Georgetown's Faculty Hiring Process

On Wednesday we reported on an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by a Georgetown professor who reveals the University is engaging in systematic institutional discrimination against libertarians and conservatives.   

The problems with this are many, but particularly troubling is the effect, which results in a lack of intellectual diversity, something that ultimately hinders the search for truth and degrades the quality of scholarship and teaching.  This leads to Georgetown becoming nothing more than an echo chamber for liberal points of view, something which is already a severe problem, not just on the Hilltop, but university campuses across the nation. 

Even more problematic is the overwhelming dominance of liberals in positions of power and privilege in the faculty and administration.  This dominance has given some faculty members at Georgeotwn the sense they are free to sexually harass and bully those who think differently than them (something the University countenances when it refuses to speak out when such behavior occurs), and for employees of various administrative units to engage in attempts at silencing the speech of others.  That the victims of this abuse and attempts at suppressing speech are always libertarians and conservatives is telling and troubling for those who think Georgetown should protect and promote diversity of thought.

Here’s what Georgetown Professor John Hasnas has to say about the situation:

In the more than 20 years that I have been a professor at Georgetown University, I have been involved in many faculty searches. Every one begins with a strong exhortation from the administration to recruit more women and minority professors. We are explicitly reminded that every search is a diversity search. Administrators require submission of a plan to vigorously recruit applications from women and minority candidates.
Before we even begin our selection process, we must receive approval from the provost that our outreach efforts have been vigorous enough. The deans and deputy deans of each school reinforce the message that no expense should be spared to increase the genetic diversity of our faculty.
Yet, in my experience, no search committee has ever been instructed to increase political or ideological diversity. On the contrary, I have been involved in searches in which the chairman of the selection committee stated that no libertarian candidates would be considered. Or the description of the position was changed when the best resumes appeared to be coming from applicants with right-of-center viewpoints. Or in which candidates were dismissed because of their association with conservative or libertarian institutions.

In other words: the faculty and administration actively discriminates and takes steps to avoid hiring anyone who isn’t a liberal.  And it goes even farther by blackballing people who even if they're not libertarian or conservative, simply "appear" to be so based on past relationships with institutions or academics known to be libertarians or conservatives.

Remember, you read it here, and not The Hoya or The Voice, because those publications won’t cover stories that don’t advance the liberal or Social Justice Warrior narrative unless they absolutely can't be ignored.  

Here’s the rest:

I doubt that my experience is unusual. According to data compiled by the Higher Education Research Institute, only 12% of university faculty identify as politically right of center, and these are mainly professors in schools of engineering and other professional schools. Only 5% of professors in the humanities and social-science departments so identify.
A comprehensive study by James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School shows that in a country fairly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, only 13% of law professors identify as Republican. And a recent study by Jonathan Haidt of New York University showed that 96% of social psychologists identify as left of center, 3.7% as centrist/moderate and only 0.03% as right of center.
The advocates of diversity in higher education claim that learning requires the robust exchange of ideas, which is enhanced when students and faculty have the greatest possible variety of backgrounds. They argue that exposure to people from different backgrounds breaks down unfair stereotypes and promotes understanding of those who come from different circumstances than oneself.
It is also claimed that being in a diverse academic environment better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce, and that this preparation can only be developed through exposure to people of diverse cultures, ideas and viewpoints. And a diverse faculty provides students with role models who demonstrate that people from all backgrounds can achieve intellectual excellence and are worthy of respect.
These are good arguments. But surely the robust exchange of ideas is enhanced by exposure to and interaction with people who have diverse political and philosophical viewpoints, not only cultural or ethnic backgrounds. Actually engaging with those with whom one disagrees can break down stereotypes and promote understanding across ideological divides. And if students see faculty members who share their unpopular viewpoints, they may be more inspired to pursue intellectual excellence.
The relentless call to actively recruit women and minority candidates arises from the fear that if left to their own devices, predominantly white male faculties will identify merit with those who look and think like them, undervalue the contributions of those from different backgrounds, and perpetuate a white male stranglehold on the academy. Yet without an exhortation to pursue viewpoint diversity, this is exactly what happens.
Predominantly liberal faculties identify merit with positions that are consistent with theirs, see little value in conservative and libertarian scholarship, and perpetuate the left-wing stranglehold on the academy.
Having a diverse faculty is a genuine value for a university and its students. Indeed, it may be valuable enough to justify spending $50 million or $100 million to increase the percentage of women and minority professors. But if diversity is really such an important academic value, then why are universities making no effort to increase the political and ideological diversity of their faculties?

Professor Hasnas asks a good question: 

If diversity is so important, why don’t we attempt to foster intellectual diversity instead of simply diversity of skin color or sexual orientation or gender?  We are constantly told to "think outside the box" and that having diverse teams (in terms of identity group) is essential for the development of new ideas or to advance knowledge, and yet, when it comes to intellectual diversity, here we have evidence that Georgetown actively discriminates against scholars who don't share politically correct or left-wing views.

Here are some more questions: 

Doesn't the University have a responsibility to hire the best qualified applicants?

If we want to make Georgetown the best it can possibly be, doesn't that mean we should be hiring the best professors we can find when it comes to research and teaching, as opposed to simply hiring or promoting someone who is under-qualified and who is only there to check the diversity box so as to insulate bureaucrats in the administration and faculty from attacks by those in the identity group mafia?

If we use affirmative action for women, blacks, Latinos, gays, and various other identity groups in order to ensure their numbers representative of their numbers in the larger population, shouldn't we do the same for Evangelicals, libertarians, conservatives, Republicans, and those identity groups that make up what may be considered the philosophical and political right?  

And if intellectual diversity, the advancement of knowledge, and the search for truth are so important to a university's missions, shouldn't diversity of thought be more important than diversity of skin color or sexual orientation when it comes to recruitment?   

Finally, in your personal life, who do you want performing brain surgery on you or a family member if ever the need arises: the best qualified and most experienced doctor who can do the job right, or an under-qualified affirmative action hire?  Teaching courses isn’t brain surgery, but considering it costs $300,000 dollars to attend Georgetown, it’s not unreasonable to expect we only hire the best professors.   

Is Rebecca Kukla Georgetown’s Donald Trump, Mentally Unstable, or Just a Terrible Human Being?

This is our last post on the Kukla matter. 

By the end of it the case will have been sufficiently made that when liberals on the faculty or in the administration bully and/or use sexually abusive language towards libertarians, conservatives, and religious people, neither the administration nor faculty says or does anything to combat it. 

We will have also proven that the Philosophy Department is nothing more than a left-wing echo chamber and unsafe anyone who thinks differently, which is why we think everyone should boycott it by not taking any courses other than those required to graduate.    

And near the end of this post we argue convincingly that no one who believes in treating others with dignity and respect should donate to Georgetown until someone in the administration is willing to unequivocally state that the vulgar and sexual derogatory language used by faculty members such as Rebecca Kukla IS NOT OKAY.  If you’re a libertarian, conservative, Catholic, or even a liberal who believes in treating all members of the University community fairly, equally, and with dignity and respect, then Georgetown doesn’t deserve your money until something is done.

There is more to comment on and we even thought of producing a quiz where you can guess which statements are Kukla’s and which are Trump’s, but in light of the new information we have regarding her mental status (see below), we’re going to give Rebecca Kukla the sort of break she and her friends wouldn’t give to a conservative professor engaged in similar behavior, and will let it go for now.  We reserve the right to comment in the future on this matter if new information comes to light. 



So the Kukla Klan Kontroversy keeps getting weirder. 

We’ve had a couple different people email us or comment on our blog bringing up Rebecca Kukla’s social media history in addition to her hypocritical comments policy during her tenure as guest blogger at the philosophical blog Leiter Reports, in which she states “I do not publish nasty or ad hominem comments,” except the record actually shows she actually does publish such comments when she’s the one making them. 

Professor Kukla has also come out to defend her departmental colleague, political ally, and close friend Mark Lance who has reportedly been bullying untenured professors and students.  She has also gone on the record with a list of people and groups she “hates” (her word, not ours).

None of this is surprising. 

One just has to review her recent history of verbal abuse and sexually harassing comments in relation to the Swinburne speech in order to tell something strange is going on, and that whatever it is, it’s not pretty.

But now it seems we’ve found the smoking gun for why Kukla is filled with so much hate for people who think differently than her.   Here she is suggesting she has mental problems. 

First, if Kukla does indeed have psychological issues (we’re not doctors so we don’t know for sure that she does), then we feel truly sorry for her.  Whether her alleged issues are from chemical imbalances of the brain which can be regulated through prescription drugs, or caused by too much time spent in leftist philosophical echo chambers like the Philosophy Department, we hope she gets the professional medical help she needs.* 

As a tenured professor Rebecca Kukla makes a six-figure income and receives other compensation, including comprehensive health insurance.  We encourage her to take advantage of the resources available to a privileged woman such as herself and visit with a mental health counselor.  We’re not joking about that, nor on our thoughts that someone in a position of authority should at the very least check in with Kukla and evaluate her state of mind in order to determine whether or not it safe at the present time for her to be around students or even allowed on campus.  

Consider the facts: only two weeks ago she sexually harassed Catholics and others with who she disagrees on Catholic Church teaching by calling them "douche tankards" and publicly inviting them to perform oral sex on her while using very profane terms.

On that same thread her significant other made an actual rape joke involving the practice of "fisting," which, incredibly, shockingly, and inappropriately, Rebecca Kukla jokes about too, an act which only serves to normalize rape culture and harm sexual assault victims.  

When it came time to apologize, she stubbornly refused, and like the “manic-delusional” or “paranoid feministic” she says is descriptive of her, she lashed out at others (including us) with false, hysterical, and what were clearly paranoid accusations of people attacking her even though all people did was soberly and dispassionately report on the comments she and her fellow “philosophers” made in response to a sober and dispassionate speech by Christian moral philosopher Richard Swinburne.

In addition, Kukla made a lame and pathetic attempt at justifying her reprehensible actions, which had they been made by a male student or conservative professor, would have resulted in the hammer coming down and formal administrative reprimand by the University, not to mention condemnatory statements by various administrators, from the Chair of the Philosophy Department on up to the Dean of the College and the President of the Georgetown, as well as the heads of Campus Ministry, and the various identity group mafia organizations: the Women’s Center, the LGBTQ Resource Center, CMEA, etc.

Because of Kukla’s failure to take responsibility for her actions or own her words, along with her decision to falsely accuse people of starting a harassment campaign, she has only fanned the flames of this controversy resulting in numerous other outlets continuing to report on this story, though not it should be noted, The Hoya

Even though this story has received national media attention, the editors and writers of The Hoya have chosen to maintain complete silence and keep everyone uniformed about it.  

Instead The Hoya has chosen to write stories about the opening of Planned Parenthood's national headquarters with its onsite abortion clinic, something which has nothing to do with Georgetown, the MPD release of footage regarding a recent police shooting, something which also has nothing to do with Georgetown, and the release of Apple's Series 2 iWatch, which, you guessed it, has nothing to do with Georgetown.

It's almost as if The Hoya doesn't want you to know what's happening at Georgetown.

We suspect it's because they consider themselves to be members of good standing in the Ku Kla Klan and want to protect Professor Kukla and other liberal professors from revelations exposing their abusive and sexually harassing rhetoric.  Clearly The Hoya (like the mainstream media) has a strict policy against reporting on bad behavior when the victims are members of the right and the perpetrators are liberals. 

For a sample of the reporting and commentary done by others, please see . . .

Here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here

It was the above sources (not us) which have unearthed additional evidence of Kukla’s possible instability and and unequivocal unsuitability when it comes to being a professor at a place like Georgetown where the mission statement and faculty handbook requires professors to treat others with dignity and respect.  One would not be wrong to say she has a long history of coming across as a terrible human being. 

Among the other data points:

Kukla wishing a university president she’s never met lies awake in bed at night hating himself because she hates him (her word again, not ours) and thinks everyone else should hate him too, just because she disagrees with his administrative policies.

Kukla defending the reported bullying of students and untenured professors within the Philosophy Department by her friend (and fellow radical leftist) Professor Mark Lance.

Kukla saying she hates (her word, not ours) religion, Israel, Republicans, and people who live in suburbs. 

Kukla likening President Reagan to a Nazi and saying he's guilty of a Gay Holocaust.

Kukla questioning why a “white dude” philosopher she thinks is “bat shit incompetent” is allowed to have a job and not be fired solely because she didn't like a paper he published in a prestigious academic journal on the universality of logic.

Kukla calling another professor a “monster” for doing the very same thing she does, which is inappropriately invite others to have sex her.

We suspect there is more.  Anyone reading is free to email us additional examples and we’ll update this post if they do.

As we said last week, it makes sense in light of all that’s happened recently for people to boycott the Philosophy Department.  Don’t take any courses other than those you need to fulfill requirements.  Email or talk to us and we’ll let you know who is worth taking and who isn’t; we don’t want to out a professor who will then be targeted by Ku Kla Klan members in the department, especially since we don’t know if they have tenure or not.

The fact is if you spend too much time in the department you risk being subject to sexual harassment and bullying.  We have proof of the former with Kukla’s public Facebook statements and allegations of the latter based on statements untenured faculty and students within the department have given to the Leiter Reports blog.

Why the administration has done nothing to ensure the Philosophy Department is a place of respectful discourse and free of harassment from professors in light of these revelations is both a mystery and inexcusable.  At the very least an investigation should be opened and Professors Kukla and Lance should be warned against retaliation and further bullying or engaging in additional sexually derogatory rhetoric towards others just because they don’t share their radical leftist politics.  Refusal to do so may be considered a violation of Title IX. 

And if you’re alumni, please reconsider donating to Georgetown.  That the University won’t even speak out against sexually abusive language and bullying by professors which specifically targets libertarians, conservatives, and religious students, is reason enough for anyone who cares about intellectual freedom and human dignity to stop sending in money. 

But of course there is more.

Not only has Georgetown started funding a pro-abortion club once again, but it also has made attempts to restrict the free speech rights of conservative organizations, such as the College Republicans, and it has foisted a two course “diversity” requirement on new students in order to indoctrinate everyone with leftist politics and better secure the jobs of liberal professors in grievance industry departments.

Even more troubling is a professor who has been teaching for over two decades has revealed in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that when it comes to hiring professors who are known conservatives or who have received funding from right-leaning organizations, Georgetown’s liberal faculty actively discriminates against them

According to the professor, this includes hiring committees stating at the outset of the faculty search that no one known to be a libertarian or conservative may be considered for the position, making last minute changes to the hiring criteria when the best qualified candidates to the original notice end up being non-liberals, and dismissing candidates from contention simply because they have known associations to libertarian or conservative institutions on their resumes.

When one considers the systemic institutional discrimination liberals in control of Georgetown’s faculty and administration display towards anyone on the right, it is incredibly stupid for alumni to reward the school with donations or for libertarian and conservative students to take courses in places like the philosophy department.    

*If Rebecca Kukla is joking about mental illness, then shame on her.  Millions of people around the world and many student and employees at Georgetown suffer from the problem and don't need people like Kukla making fun of them or engaging in comedy about what is actually a really serious issue.  If she is mentally ill we encourage her to get help.  If she's not, then she should apologize, ask for forgiveness, and stop making jokes about it.

Double Standards in Philosophy

Recently I was made aware of two cases of tenured male philosophy professors allegedly behaving badly and which resulted in a firing and a resignation (no doubt in lieu of firing). 

One engaged in the same exact thing Professor Kukla did, which is to say, engaging in what is widely considered to be sexual harassment by inviting without cause and outside the proper context for another person to have sex with you. 

The other did something far less bad: he merely reported on his blog about a graduate student teaching a course who was discriminating against a student who didn’t share her liberal views.

What’s interesting about the latter case is it happened at Marquette, a Catholic university like Georgetown, where the administration used its “Catholic identity” as justification for firing the professor. 

What’s interesting about the former is Professor Kukla commented on it in a blog post

Here she is:

In one sense, it is gratifying to see this issue get attention in the wake of McGinn's resignation. At the same time, I have found it frustrating watching people gleefully vilify and demonize him. Not because he wasn't creepy and way out of bounds, but because the kind of remarkably inappropriate 'banter' he engaged in and his complete tone-deafness to the power dynamics that structure the performative force of that banter happen ALL THE TIME in philosophy, as far as I can tell. Through his pompous and narcissistic attempts at self-defense, McGinn made himself an easy target for ridicule. I worry that this has allowed us to write him off as a moral monster, rather than reflecting on just how pervasive this kind of behavior is. In fact, I think that McGinn's clear belief that his inappropriate sexualized communication made him somehow a bold, hip, unconventional intellectual is implicitly shared by many men in the profession.

You know, one can take Kukla’s comments and in light of the current controversy, easily insert her name in place of McGinn’s.  And her statement would be equally true.

Let’s try it:

In one sense, it is gratifying to see this issue get attention in the wake of Kukla’s actions. At the same time, I have found it frustrating watching people gleefully vilify and demonize her. Not because she wasn't creepy and way out of bounds, but because the kind of remarkably inappropriate 'banter' she engaged in and her complete tone-deafness to the power dynamics that structure the performative force of that banter happen ALL THE TIME in philosophy, as far as I can tell. Through her pompous and narcissistic attempts at self-defense, Kukla made herself an easy target for ridicule. I worry that this has allowed us to write her off as a moral monster, rather than reflecting on just how pervasive this kind of behavior is. In fact, I think that Kukla's clear belief that her inappropriate sexualized communication made her somehow a bold, hip, unconventional intellectual is implicitly shared by many queer radical feminists in the profession.

Rebecca Kukla has been called the Donald Trump of Georgetown.  She is for all intents and purposes the McGlinn of Georgetown, too.  Except unlike McGlinn, Kukla still has her job and the administration has remained silent, and our University’s various institutions allegedly dedicated to fair and equal treatment, creating an environment free of sexual harassment, and destroying rape culture, have all chosen to remain quiet and not speak up in this instance. 

It’s almost as if liberals have a policy of not calling out sexual harassment and rape culture, or simply being cool with it, so long as the perpetrators are on the left and the victims are on the right. 

It truly is amazing what you can get away with when you’re a liberal. 

Boycott the Philosophy Department. 

Why You Should Boycott the Philosophy Department

A week ago we issued our first report on the Kukla Klan Kontroversy.  Since then the story has continued to gain attention, from pieces in major national media, (one of which quotes extensively from TGA), to a great deal of chatter on Facebook, lots of which appear on Professor Kukla’s own page where she gives the lamest possible justification for why she told Christians and others she disagrees with to “suck my giant queer cock.”  

Incidentally, her statement is made on the very same thread where her boyfriend made a joke about raping people (Quote: “Fist those guys!”).  A source within the philosophy department informed us of that little piece of information.

Since that time, we’ve suggested Professor Kukla apologize and that if she chose not to walk back her comments because she was too embarrassed or ashamed or recalcitrant, then we would appreciate an official statement from Professor Blattner, Chair of the Philosophy Department, reaffirming his department’s commitment to what is said in the Faculty Handbook about the importance of treating others with respect.  We also called upon him to endorse the University’s polices against sexually demeaning rhetoric, which for all intents and purposes is no different from sexual harassment, which is prohibited at Georgetown because it leads to a hostile workplace, psychologically harms people, and contributes to rape culture.

A few hours after our email Professor Kukla posted a mealy-mouthed and weak justification for her actions on Facebook in which she also took a moment to lie about us, saying we were attacking and harassing her when all we did was report on her comments and post a screenshot of her words.  She also deleted the offensive comments.  We’re quite sure she did the latter because she knows they constitute sexual harassment which is inappropriate and beneath what is expected of a University employee.

Professor Blattner chose not to make a statement, though as a sign of leadership we think he should have (and still should), if only to reaffirm that the philosophy department is committed to respectful and responsible discourse and verbal abuse towards those with different opinions is unacceptable at Georgetown. 

That he decided not to do so is unfortunate and indicates the philosophy department here is not dedicated to being a place free from sexual harassment for those who are not liberal or radical leftists.  After all, if Professor Blattner, (and Dean of the College Chester Gillis, and Georgetown President John DeGioia, who have also remained silent), thinks it’s okay for one of his professors to tell others to “suck [her] giant queer cock,” then it gives permission for his other professors to use similar language in the future. 

It is for this reason we cannot recommend anyone but submissives, cuckservatives, College Dems, people who when they graduate Georgetown want to spend the rest of their lives poor, or the most die-hard leftists, take courses within the philosophy department, much less choose philosophy as a major.  Sure, there is the requirement to take two courses to graduate, but aside from these, anyone with half a brain won’t don’t take any additional and will boycott the program.

Let the department be what it obviously wants to be: a haven for radical leftists and feminists who feel not just free, but actually empowered, to sexually harass religious people and anyone else who holds libertarian or conservative opinions.  Let the department become even more of an echo chamber for their views.

Clearly, Professors Blattner and Kukla want the philosophy department to be a liberal ghetto which is unwelcome to anyone who is not ideologically-aligned with their own thinking. 

So let’s give them what they want . . .   

Take only the courses necessary to meet graduation requirements.   And then boycott the philosophy department.  Do you have extra room in your schedule and are you interested in one of the bridge classes?  Don’t bother.  Get a syllabus and just do the readings on your own.  Then go online or to the library and read what other commentators say about it.  Discuss it with others or join the Philodemic on Thursdays in Healy or the Tocqueville Forum reading group on Fridays in ICC for open-minded people who won’t insult you for thinking differently.  Who knows, you might even see one of us there. ;)  And unless you want to be a barista your whole life, don’t even bother choosing philosophy as a major.  You’ll be unhappy and unemployable.

Let the classes have nothing but leftist voices in them.  If you’re not a leftist, don’t bother speaking up.  It's not safe for you anyways.  Keep your head down, otherwise you might be verbally abused by Professor Kukla and her friends.  We suspect you will have your grades marked down for holding heterodox opinions too.  People like Kukla are the sorts who don’t think what you have to say should be allowed and they will insult and punish you for having the wrong opinions.  So don’t let them.  Just let each class consist of liberals repeating the same things to each other.  Help it be the echo chamber they desire.  If you need to fulfill a course participation requirement by making comments, then just say something anodyne.  Don’t actually contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

In other news, we think it’s worth mention that in addition to contacting various administrators we also asked professors and PhD students in the philosophy department their thoughts.  To their credit, no one was willing to defend her words.  Not.  A.  Single. One.  Though there was one, who obviously angry at our reporting, told us to “go fuck yourselves.”   We could name him, but since we have a policy not to name names unless they first appear in national media or The Hoya or The Voice, we’re going to let it slide.

One professor emailed in to tell us Kukla’s comments were covered under the concept of academic freedom, which doesn’t make sense for anyone with a grade school understanding of academic freedom.  We discuss the concept here on our "Arguments & Ideas" page, and are at a loss as to how a professor can justify sexually harassing people or making bigoted statements as being protected under academic freedom. 

For the record, the concept of academic freedom has everything to do with research and teaching and absolutely nothing (nothing!) to do with telling other people to give you blow jobs.  Calling out Kukla, or even formally reprimanding her by telling her to be less of a jerk next time, is not a violation of academic freedom.  By that logic, a professor can drop racial epithets and call black people the n-word or call women the c-word, and that would be covered, and therefore, allowed at Georgetown.  We don’t believe that and are pretty sure this professor doesn’t either and is just being hypocritical because Kukla is his friend.

But perhaps a social experiment is in order to test the hypothesis? 

If it’s no problem, according to Professor Blattner and Professor Kukla, for professors at Georgetown to invite others to give them blow jobs just for disagreeing with them, is it also cool for students to inquire of philosophy professors whether they would like to do something similar when the professor disagrees with them about some topic?  Should someone should try it and go up to one of the professors in the philosophy department and invite them to start performing blow jobs?  Would academic freedom policies allow that? 

Our guess is no, which is why no one should try it.  There’s no point in lowering yourself to the likes of Kukla and others who engage in such hate speech and sexually demeaning language towards others.  Along with being wrong for doing so, you would be punished severely.  GUPD would probably be called on you.  Fact is, we just have to deal with the reality that in the philosophy department one standard concerning hate speech exists for radical queer feminist liberals like Professor Kukla, and another for everyone else. 

At any rate, Johnny 3 Tears isn’t going to like editing all this, so we’ll end with Kukla’s justification for telling people to give her blow jobs.

Here it is: 


For a great analysis of Kukla’s statement, one which shows how hypocritical and hollow and false it is, visit Rod Dreher’s blog.  Then go to Rightly Considered, the blog which broke the story, for additional examples of Kukla behaving badly.  It’s actually quite a good read because it also discusses the argument that her comments were private when they weren’t and the problem with Christianophobes like Kukla.    

Here’s a taste:

Whether or not our leftist opponents want to admit it, Christianophobia is a real phenomenon, especially in academia. We can apply the above reasoning to the actual case: just as black or female or Muslim students and academics have a right to know whether their professors or colleagues are racists or sexists or Islamophobes, so Christian students and academics have a right to know whether their professors or colleagues are Christianophobes or hostile to (the expression of) their religious views. We see nothing whatever wrong with publicly exposing the hate and bigotry of people who are in positions of power. And some of the comments from both private and public fora that we published are Christianophobic and hateful, a fact that Cogburn disgracefully failed to mention. He’s happy to publicly admonish us for exposing hate but doesn’t publicly admonish any of the haters. Note the title of his post, “A plea to the authors of Rightly Considered to be a little kinder…” This is truly rich. Cogburn means to stir us to put our hearts in the right place so that it oozes graciousness and lovingkindness. We appreciate his concern. Our question is: why was he MIA when Stanley was writing “Fuck those assholes” and Rebecca Kukla was telling us to “suck [her] giant queer cock”? Why no mothering lecture for them? Because they are his friends, or on his side. More hypocrisy, double standards, and nepotism from the left.

To be frank, Cogburn’s response is odd. For our part, we reported the vile and hateful things philosophers were saying about traditional Christians. We did not respond to them in kind. However, in Cogburn’s mind, we need to be lectured on “kindness,” not those who told us to perform oral sex on their queer genitalia. This sort of hateful, vindictive, borderline psychotic behavior is par for the course for leftists. Consider this screenshot from Rebecca Kukla’s public Facebook post.

To quote Rightly Considered again:

Here, Kukla revels in the hope that President Newman follows social media so that he can see that “no one likes [him].” She continues, presumably speaking for “the guild,” saying that “We just think you are disgusting and incompetent and hope that you lie awake at night in bed feeling inadequate and hating yourself as much as we hate you.” This is because Newman expressed views Kukla disagreed with. Perhaps Cogburn and Barnes ought to spend more time cleaning up their own backyard.

You know, when you put together the calls for people to suck her non-existent cock whenever they disagree with her, the hypocrisy and obvious untruths she spills in her comments trying to excuse her actions, the fact her boyfriend makes a rape joke that she later participates in, and the hate she shows for a University president she's never met but whose policies she doesn't like, it's almost as if Kukla is unstable and has some emotional problems.  Either that or she's a damaged human being and extremely unhappy.

Or perhaps she's just the Donald Trump of Georgetown.

Yeah, we sure did pick a real winner in hiring old Rebecca.  Good thing she’s charged with molding young minds and edits our school's prestigious ethics journal.  Hopefully she becomes Chair of the Philosophy Department soon, and eventually Dean of the College.  

One day, if we're lucky enough, she might even be made President of Georgetown.   

UPDATE #1: Many wonderful people are asking what they can do to help.  The only thing I can think of right now is, please signal boost this article by reposting it.  The last thing I or anyone at GU wants is for less right-wingers to get wind of the whole thing.  Who knows, they might even stop donating.  Thanks and love to all of you xoxo.

UPDATE #2: It has been suggested to us that Professor Kukla was an affirmative action hire and isn't at Georgetown because of the quality of her scholarship or teaching ability.  We do not know the veracity of this claim, but considering the lack of professionalism she shows and the difficulties she has with controlling her emotions, and because she clearly lacks the temperament to be teaching students (since some will undoubtedly think differently than her on things), we suspect the claim is not inaccurate.  Which is yet another reason to only hire the best people.  When you hire professors just because they can check the diversity box, then you degrade the quality of scholarship and teaching and lower the prestige of the institution, not to mention having to constantly clean up after them.  SAD!

An Open Letter to the Philosophy Department

Editor’s Note: The following was written at our request by a friend regarding the recent statements by Professor Rebecca Kukla, which we report on here and here.  For more on the Kukla Controversy, you can view the original post breaking the story, as well as The American Conservative’s commentary (here, here, and here), as well as First Things journal’s thoughts, in addition to The Washington Times article, and The Daily Caller piece. The speech that started the reaction is here and a poem making light of the matter has even been written.



By Sophia

I haven’t taken any philosophy courses other than the ones I took freshman and sophomore year.  My major doesn’t require it but I honestly didn’t feel they were very interesting and I feel we wasted a lot of time discussing unimportant issues that only the professor seemed to be interested in.  So I can’t speak as to the climate within the department, or whether those students majoring in philosophy and who disagree with professors like Kukla are subject to unfair and/or insulting treatment.  I didn’t experience any discrimination in class for my conservative views, but that doesn’t mean others haven’t, and to be honest conservative versus liberal issues aren’t really much discussed in my courses in general.

But I can speak as to what it is like for someone to use against me the very words Professor Kukla used against conservatives who disagree with her (they’re disrespectful and disgusting so I won’t repeat them).  On two occasions I have been told graphically by boys to do to them what Kukla said conservatives should do to her.  One was someone I knew who was angry at me for something, and no, we weren’t dating and in bed or being intimate.  He also called me a bitch during the exchange.  He later apologized.  The other occurred off campus and was from an older stranger when I was walking late at night.  It was said in jest by someone obviously intoxicated, but it still made me feel threatened and unsafe.  I moved more quickly and looked back to make sure I wasn’t being followed.  I was glad to finally get home and lock the door but didn’t stop thinking about it and being creeped out until I fell asleep that night.  Occasionally I remember it.

Both times made me feel weak.  Not powerless, never powerless, because I know there are things I can always do, such as scream if anything bad happens, but vulnerable nonetheless.  It reminded me of my relative weakness compared to men and I didn’t like the feeling.  There are some things we shouldn’t say to people even if we disagree them because it crosses a line and sometimes you can’t go back.  Sexually degrading comments meet that criteria.

That one of the professors of my school uses sexually demeaning language to refer to her ideological or philosophical opponents is a little more shocking to me than some dumbass who is drunk or a Georgetown kid telling me to do what Professor Kukla has been telling others.  I’ve never heard of a professor using such language and wouldn’t believe it if proof didn’t exist.

I don’t care about an apology though I would appreciate some acknowledgement from someone in a position of authority saying Kukla’s words are not okay. 

But to be honest, I’m not that surprised no one is saying anything.  I’ve been the victim of various insults as a result of my (“right-wing”) politics on campus and when I’ve brought them up to administrators or student leaders I’ve been dismissed or ignored.  I know others who have been insulted for thinking similarly.  Another student I know had the door of her dorm room defaced with the very same sexual organ Professor Kukla says conservatives should suck along with writing telling her something similar.   It wasn’t just a random act because there was a Democrat political message added and she's a known Republican, though she's since graduated.

I don’t think we have a rape culture at Georgetown or very many issues with sexual harassment, but I think we can all agree that statements like Professor Kukla’s contribute to those types of problems.  I do think we have a discussion problem where we can’t say what we think without being shamed or insulted and socially stigmatized.  Some people like to say The Georgetown Academy contributes to that, but I see them as a reaction to the overwhelming dominance of liberals here and the obvious attempts that have been made to silence speech or force liberal views on everyone. 

And like Burr has said, I see a double standard in how we’re treated, and I know I’m not the only one who experiences this.  A conservative professor or student making the same exact statement Kukla did, whether online or not, would be formally disciplined and made to apologize.  I think the fact is Professors Kukla operates from a position of privilege and knows she can get away with saying and doing things others can’t because she’s a radical queer feminist, so she takes advantage of this by verbally abusing others who disagree with her, knowing she’ll get away with it and be backed up by her department and the administration.  I would not want to be one of her students.

Last month the Mr. Georgetown contest had a controversy when the GU Pride candidate performed a spoken word poem that led to some upset people and an official apology.  I wasn’t there but I’ve discussed it with others who were there and who said nothing was racist about it, and in fact, it was a show of sympathy for African Americans and the discrimination they often face.  My freshmen year there were protests because of a cartoon someone drew which obviously wasn’t racist but was spun by various groups as being violently racist, and there were protests and a town hall meeting in which the student (who I knew) apologized and broke down and teared up in front of everyone.  He’s a sweet guy and actually a liberal and didn’t deserve the shaming. 

I think it’s all pretty stupid and one reason why maybe these flare-ups didn’t occur to conservatives is that at Georgetown we know better than to speak up and often keep quiet because when we speak our views we’re outnumbered and attacked or insulted.  Or they write anonymously, like The Academy, or me now, which is not something I thought I would ever do.  

But I just want to graduate and get a good job and enjoy my last two years with minimal drama.  So while I do support Trump, I’m not going to be like my friends who support Hillary and do much to campaign for him.  My close friends and I can debate without hating each other, because we’ve known each other since NSO.  But I suspect a professor might lower my grade or people would talk about me or I would be stigmatized somehow.    

Most of all I don’t want to deal with the insults.

So my final message is that someone in a position of power should say something.  The problems we have at Georgetown mirror the rest of society and it’ll all break down if one group is continually insulted and oppressed for their views while the other group gets to do and say anything.  If we want this to be a great community then we need to treat people equally and with fairness and respect.

The Kukla Klan Kontroversy

Triggered because of the headline? 

Then you should blame Professor Kukla.  Her hateful comments started it all. 

We’re making the analogy to the KKK for a very simple reason.  The KKK is filled with intolerant, racist bigots.  The Kukla Klan, (i.e. those defending Kukla for her creepy and somewhat rapey sexually derogatory remarks towards those she disagrees with regarding Catholic moral teaching), is also filled with intolerant people, though they happen to be "progressive" left-wing anti-Catholic bigots. 

They’re two sides of the same coin. 

Note: We didn't come up with the Kukla Klan thing ourselves.  It's first discussed on Rod Dreher's blog here and to be clear he refers to them as the "Kukla Clan," not Kukla Klan, which is our own innovation.

Someone even contributed a poem.  

We're guessing the term “Kukla Klan” will soon be an internet meme to refer to a "mob of politically correct academics." 



On Friday we posted the story of Georgetown’s very own Rebecca Kukla who last week stated on Facebook that those who disagree with her about things should suck her “giant queer cock.”

Here’s the full exchange:

It was later pointed out to us that the fisting comments may be considered rape jokes.

Professor Kukla participated further in the exchange regarding the act of fisting . . . 


Kukla’s comments were directed at Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne (and his defenders) who during a speech at a recent conference for the Society for Christian Philosophers basically restated Catholic moral teaching on the subject of homosexuality.  His comments weren’t anything new or different from what one would see or hear if they simply sat down and read or started speaking to someone who had studied the Bible.  And Swinburne’s speech was not hateful or insulting or said in anger.  One might say they were both “sober” and “dispassionate.”

You can read his whole speech here.

But because thinking differently than Social Justice Warriors like Professor Kukla is considered a thought crime and therefore worthy of both ridicule and severe punishment in many academic circles, a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth commenced, resulting in numerous attacks by people like Kukla and her fellow radical left-wing philosophers. 

These insults took the forms of swearing and other verbal abuse, in addition to what can only be termed sexual harassment, such as Kukla’s invitation for those who either defend or agree with Professor Swinburne to perform oral sex on her.  One individual, right before Professor Kukla made her offensive comments, even suggested, albeit jokingly (if such things should ever be considered jokes), that rape would be an appropriate response in order to punish the people Professor Kukla hates.  

As an afterthought we looked to see if Kukla had “liked” that comment as some of her colleagues did, but the person whose Facebook page it is has since deleted his account.  We’ve emailed her for clarification but she has not yet responded to our request.  

In addition to teaching in the philosophy department, Kukla is a Senior Researcher at Georgetown’s Kennedy Institute of Ethics (that’s right, ethics), and Editor-in-Chief of the Kennedy Institute’s philosophical journal on . . . wait for it . . . ethics

The story was first reported on the philosophical blog “Rightly Considered,” which is written by a bunch of conservative-leaning philosophy professors and PhD students who for understandable reasons have decided, like us, to remain anonymous.  But we first heard of it from Rod Dreher who blogs over at The American Conservative and who covers the matter here and here (and now here where he name-checks and quotes extensively from TGA).  Others have since picked up the story and featured the controversy on their blogs, and both The Washington Times and the religious and philosophical journal First Things have covered the story

This past weekend we contacted Professor Kukla and Professor William Blattner, who is Chair of the Philosophy Department.  We suggested Kukla do the honorable thing and apologize and that if she did so we would put up a final blog post consisting of nothing but her apology.  We said too that we would then consider the matter closed and not address it any further. 

It seemed like a good way to end this affair.  After all, why shouldn’t Kukla apologize?  Her words are clearly a form of sexually demeaning and abusive rhetoric (i.e. sexual harassment) directed toward those with traditional religious views (i.e. Catholics and social conservatives).

As we mentioned last week, if a conservative (or hell, even liberal) male professor in the philosophy department told a group of people to suck his cock, just like Kukla did to Christians and Catholics and social conservatives, wouldn’t he then be forced to apologize no matter the circumstances? 

We all know he would, in addition to being subject to some form of discipline, along with receiving condemnatory statements from Professor Blattner and others in the University administration, on up to the University President. 

And we think such a response would be entirely justified because making sexually harassing comments IS NOT OKAY and abusive behavior such as Kukla’s should not be permitted within the Georgetown community, no matter who you are or whatever happens to be your gender or sexual orientation.  

So wouldn’t it be appropriate, in the interest of fairness, equality, and respect for others, and keeping in tradition with Georgetown’s mission and its Catholic and Jesuit heritage, for the University to make a formal statement that it disavows Kukla’s sexually demeaning rhetoric? 

It’s worth noting that today The Hoya reports someone wrote “KKK” and drew a Nazi sign in a bathroom in the Medical Center (note to GUPD: here are your suspects).  GUPD has opened an investigation and Executive Dean of the School of Medicine Edward B. Healton made an appropriate and forceful public statement about it, saying “This hateful action will not be tolerated . . . [w]e are a community that is welcoming to all people and that values understanding, dignity, inclusion and respect.”

Georgetown Director for Jewish Life Rabbi Rachel Gartner also commented. 

Both Dean Healton and Rabbi Gartner did the right thing in speaking out against such hate speech.  It is a shame no one except us is willing to do so when similar hate speech targets Catholics or conservatives.

Now if some moron scrawling on the walls of a bathroom elicits such condemnation, shouldn’t an actual, live human being who is a Georgetown employee and is sexually harassing people on the internet, receive similar censure?

Apparently the University disagrees. 

Despite our requests for comment from the Office of the President, the Dean of the College, the Chair of the Philosophy Department, the Rector of the Jesuit Community, and Professor Kukla, we have been ignored.

This is a shame, because it suggests sexually demeaning rhetoric and verbal abuse is acceptable at Georgetown, so long as those engaged in such behavior are left-wing feminist professors and their victims are Catholics and conservatives.  


We’ll have more tomorrow.  Stay tuned . . . 

We invite you to follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Georgetown Professor Rebecca Kukla’s Message to Catholics: “Suck My Giant Queer Cock!”

Seriously.  She said it.  We don’t make things like this up folks. 

Just like last year when SFS Professor Abdullah Al-Arian compared Jews to ISIS terrorists (ironic considering Abudullah is the son of an actual terrorist enabler, Sami Al-Arian, who the Department of Justice prosecuted and later deported for aiding and abetting terrorism), or when Sociology Professor (could it be any other department?) Michael Eric Dyson stated Obama was the second coming of Jesus Christ, we enjoy letting the words of our professors speak for themselves.  

We do so again today and mark a historic (we assume) moment in the history of TGA, because we suspect never before have the words “Giant Queer Cock” appeared in this august institution’s pages.

For background, there was a Society for Christian Philosophers conference recently where one speaker committed perhaps the gravest of all academic sins: repeating Church teaching on the subject of homosexuality.  It was too much for some people, and in the aftermath the (in)tolerant left-wing liberals who make up most of academia freaked out.  They complained and demanded an apology.  Then they started attacking the conference speaker and his supporters on Facebook.  And it wasn’t respectful disagreement either, but involved a lot of swear words and insults, and recommendations that non-LGBTQ folks start performing oral sex on LGBTQ folks.

The latter suggestion was courtesy of Georgetown’s own Rebecca Kukla who during the resulting pile-on said of Catholics and Christians:

“Those douche tankards can suck my giant queer cock.”  

Full story breaking the news is here, but we heard it from The American Conservative’s Rod Dreher who blogs about it here and here and informs us of the Georgetown angle, which includes a screenshot . . .  

From Dreher:

Kukla not only teaches philosophy at Georgetown, a putatively Catholic university, but is also editor in chief of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal and Public Affairs Quarterly. She is the senior researcher at Georgetown’s Kennedy Institute of Ethics, which, according to its website, believes that “a morally complex world needs practically engaged ethics.” The Kennedy Institute of Ethics wants you to know that is “the best of Georgetown in its commitment to conversation for the common good.” Which I guess is why its senior researcher wants Richard Swinburne’s defenders to suck her giant queer cock.

Though we’ve been dark since last semester and because of the heat others have taken on various TGA-inspired efforts, such as reviving Utraque Unum (sssh! . . . don't tell Billy, he might get upset) or starting new right-leaning campus publications (not us, but friends), or getting a Chicken Madness sandwich elected to GUSA (success!), we thought we would poke our heads out when this story came to light.

The reason is because we know The Hoya likely won’t cover it since it doesn’t promote the liberal narrative and there is no conservative to bash and trash.

We also bring it up because we suspect the Georgetown administration probably won’t do anything either since the intolerant hater in question is on the left side of the culture wars, and we all know universities like Georgetown are supposed to provide people like “xir” safe spaces and sanctuary while keeping out and maintaining hostility towards those on the right.

This sad affair is just another reminder that when it comes to the Oppression Olympics, you can more or less do anything, no matter how rude or inappropriate, so long as your target is someone considered more “privileged,” which is not defined as actual privilege, but simply having the wrong skin color, sex, sexual orientation, or religion, which at least in this case, means being white, male, heterosexual, and Christian. 

Now, if the shoe were on the other foot and it was a Christian straight male employee telling, say, a queer anti-Catholic female to go ahead and suck his big giant cock, well, we have no doubt President Jack DeGioia would immediately make a formal statement condemning the man; the head of Campus Ministry would send everyone a letter firmly stating “THIS IS NOT WHO WE ARE!”; CSE and CAPS would mobilize and offer “support” to any students traumatized by the whole incident; the Philosophy department and Kennedy Institute of Ethics would open a joint investigation looking into the matter; GU Pride members would rally in Red Square and accuse publications like TGA of creating a hateful climate in which hate crimes occur even when they don't; GUSA would pass a condemnatory resolution and hold a moment of silence; both The Hoya and The Voice would write editorials calling for the professor to be suspended if not removed from campus; and ultimately, after a few University-sponsored symposiums and teach-ins and a lot of public hand-wringing, there would be a reallocation of funds, perhaps in the form of new identity group mafia programs or yet another administrator, because tuition isn’t high enough already.  

Oh yeah, and the administration would fire the employee.

But since the shoe is not on the other foot, and Rebecca Kukla happens to be female, apparently identifies as queer, and is a proud and vocal radical leftist, she will be protected and probably get a pay raise and teaching award.  Any tenured faculty member or old, enervated Jesuit in Wolfington Hall who speaks out against her will be quickly swatted down or taken aside and told to keep quiet.  Those closeted conservatives on the faculty already know to keep their mouths shut until they get tenure lest they be outed as non-liberal and discriminated against.

Anyways, we have some questions for the Philosophy department and the Kennedy Institute . . .

Georgetown’s mission statement reliably informs us the University is “Catholic and Jesuit,” and “was founded on the principle that serious and sustained discourse among people of different faiths, cultures, and beliefs promotes intellectual, ethical and spiritual understanding.” 

And in the Faculty Handbook under the section on “Professorial Conduct,” under the subheading “Religious Tolerance,” it says “[f]aculty members have a responsibility to respect the religious beliefs and practices of all members of the Georgetown community, and to recognize and respect that Georgetown University is a Jesuit university that is committed therefore to Catholic principles and religious values.”

At the same time, under the subheading “Private Speech and Action” the Faculty Handbook says “. . . a Faculty member may be held accountable by the University for his or her private acts only as they substantially affect teaching, research or University service.” 

So . . .

Question #1:  Does Professor Kukla publicly telling her colleagues, students, and anyone else who agrees with Church teaching on homosexuality that they should “suck my giant queer cock” comply with Georgetown’s mission statement and standards of professional conduct?  In other words, do her actions contribute to respectful and sustained discourse on matters of religion within the Georgetown community?

Question #2:  We suspect someone telling another person out of the blue and outside the proper context to perform oral sex on them could be considered sexual harassment or threatening behavior, particularly if it is said in anger and in a way meant to dehumanize the person to whom the words are being directed.  If some faculty or students are traumatized by Professor Kukla’s demeaning sexual language and henceforth feel unsafe in her class or unsafe around her when she's on campus, or if they feel they’ll be treated unfairly and subject to further sexually derogatory insults simply for being faithful Catholics and expressing their views, does that substantially affect her ability to teach all members of the Georgetown community, treat them equally, and perform the University service for which she is paid handsomely?

Question #3:  If Professor Kukla were a heterosexual conservative Catholic male telling a queer liberal anti-Catholic female to suck his actual cock, and was not, as it is in this case, a queer liberal anti-Catholic female telling a heterosexual conservative Catholic male to suck her non-existent cock, simply because of a disagreement over Church teaching on homosexuality, would Georgetown remain silent as it is currently doing?  

Question #4:  What steps, if any, will Georgetown take to address this matter to ensure a safe, non-threatening environment for students and faculty, one which doesn't allow for University employees to use sexually derogatory language towards others just because someone follows the teachings of the Catholic Church, of which Georgetown is a member?

For comment we’ve reached out to Professor Kukla (email her), who works in the Philosophy department under Chair William Blattner (email him), who himself works for the Dean of the College, Chester Gillis (email him).  Kukla is also the senior researcher at Georgetown’s Kennedy Institute of Ethics, which is headed up by Maggie Little (email her), and ultimately she answers to Georgetown President Jack DeGioia (email him).  Father Joseph Lingan, S.J. is the Rector of the Jesuit Community (email him), and plays a role in maintaining Georgetown's Catholic identity, as does Archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Donald Wuerl (email him) who provides Church oversight for Georgetown University.

We’ve emailed Professor Kukla and everyone else in the above paragraph and asked them for a response.   You can too!  Just click on the links.

We’ll update this post if Professor Kukla or anyone else responds.