1. KABOOM! Just when I thought 1) Georgetown could not embarrass this alum more thoroughly and 2) my head had been immunized from exploding comes the astounding news that Georgetown University has hired former FBI agent Peter Strzok as an adjunct professor. Strzok is now listed on the university’s staff page and he mentioned the Walsh School of Foreign Service on his Twitter profile. An alumnus, he will be teaching a “Counterintelligence and National Security” in the fall semester.
While engaged in an adulterous affair with then FBI lawyer Lisa Page in 2016, Strzok exchanged suspicious anti- Trump messages that called into question the legitimacy and fairness of the Mueller investigation. The FBI fired Strzok in 2018 for undermining public confidence in the non-partisanship of the bureau and federal law enforcement.
Stay classy, Georgetown! I already have my law school diploma facing the wall; I guess I can coat it with some kind of noxious substance…
2. The villains here is the professor. This is no time to be a weenie. Actually, there is never a good time to be a weenie. A professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law used “nigger” (referred to in infantile fashion by the law school’s announcement as “the n-word,” since “poopy badspeak” hasn’t caught on yet) in the context of discussing an offensive language case. But of course a student or six reported him, because they could, and it is an easy way for young progressive cowards to justify puffing up their pigeon chests because they get to cause trouble for someone who did absolutely nothing wrong.
The adjunct professor has not been identified, but in an email from law school administrators, including Law Dean Amy Wildermuth, it was announced that the professor has resigned.
“The instructor apologized and expressed his deep regret to the class, and informed the class at 1 p.m. today that he was resigning immediately from teaching at Pitt Law,” the announcement said in part. “We condemn the use of this word, and we believe that saying this word and words like it, even in an academic context, is deeply hurtful,” the note concluded.
Words are not hurtful. Meanings are hurtful, when they are intentional. This is virtue-signaling and language policing of the most indefensible sort. The professor, whoever he is, had an obligation to the school, the culture, his profession, common sense and himself to fight, not surrender.
3. Can someone explain to me why Pressley Pritchard lost her job for being a sexy firefighter but Samantha Sepulveda, who doubles as a lingerie model while serving as a police officer in New York, has faced no such discrimination? I was checking on the status of Prichard’s lawsuit for wrongful termination (nothing new to report) when I stumbled upon the case of Sepulveda, seen here:
She said in one profile,
“I’ve been under the microscope since I started,” she admitted. Her photos “celebrate a woman’s body,” she said. “I don’t think they’re offensive. “If people find them offensive, close your eyes!”
4. Oh, great: now they are coming for “The Eyes of Texas Are Upon You.” The Washington Post uncritically reports that over the summer, some University of Texas football players requested that the song be replaced by “a new song without racist undertones,” but the university president it would continue to be used at football games and other events.
Jay Hartzell, the interim president, outlined steps UT would take to “recruit, attract, retain and support Black students,” but said in a statement that he preferred to “acknowledge and teach about all aspects of the origins of ‘The Eyes of Texas’ as we continue to sing it moving forward with a redefined vision that unites our community.”
Wait, why does the song have “racist undertones”? Here are the lyrics, sung to the tune of “I’ve Been Working On the Railroad”:
The Eyes of Texas are upon you
All the livelong day
The Eyes of Texas are upon you
You cannot get away
Do not think you can escape them
At night or early in the morn
The Eyes of Texas are upon you/
Til Gabriel blows his horn.
What’s racist about that? There’s nothing about race in the lyrics. Oh! The Post informed us that the song was frequently performed by musicians in blackface decades ago! So the standard is now that a song becomes racist not because of the song, but because of who performed it a hundred years ago or more? By that standard, we might as well ban any song written before 1990, just to be on the safe side. Frank Sinatra snubbed Sammy Davis Jr., his black freind and fellow performer, after he married May Britt, a white woman. By the “racist performer’ standard, I’d say that eliminates all of the so-called “Great American Songbook,” and every major ballad of the Forties and Fifties.
On a side note, Ann Althouse indulged her annoying pedantic linguistic streak to conclude that the song was creepy because “it speaks of surveillance and endless oppressive work…Eyes that you cannot escape.”
Oh, take a pill, professor. The song means that Texans should make Texas proud, that’s all. It is neither oppressive nor racist.