Yes, it’s Rittenhouse again.
The case has proven to be a revealing test on integrity, civic literacy and whether bias has led to stupidity for much of the nation, including its institutions. And much of the nation has flunked.
Take Princeton...please. Its woke dean, Amaney Jamal, sent out an email to the campus on November 20 (I’ve been telling you I’m behind!) about the Rittenhouse verdict.
“Last August, Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed two protestors and wounded a third in Kenosha, Wisconsin. During his trial, he emotionally broke down on the stand, saying he was acting in self-defense. Today, he was acquitted of all six charges against him, including three of which were homicide related,” the email began.
Wrong, Tiger-Breath, as Johnny Carson might have said! First, there is little evidence those shot were “protesters.” They were all convicted felons, and what was going on wasn’t a protest, but rioting. Law-breakers like riots. Second, Rittenhouse’s emotional display on the stand isn’t why he was found not guilty by reason of self defense. The evidence is what acquitted him, and the applicable laws.
Then the Dean added that Rittenhouse was a “minor vigilante carrying a semi-automatic rifle across state lines, killing two people,” and stated that she “fail[s] to comprehend how he could be “declared innocent by the U.S. justice system.”
Ugh. The dean of a college, any college, should not be an advocate for Facts Don’t Matter. How many times have Ethics Alarms readers been reminded that the teen did NOT carry a weapon across state lines? It’s not a difficult fact to check. And anyone who cannot comprehend how Rittenhouse was found innocent hasn’t examined the case, its evidence and how it was presented in trial. Someone who hasn’t checked the facts and analysis of the trial should not be opining on the trial, especially the head of an institution of higher learning. She might as well have written that she fails to comprehend why Columbus didn’t sail over the edge of the world. If you don’t know what you are talking about, shut up. Any college should teach its students that.
Then the Dean shifted into virtue-signaling, CRT-enabling blather:
“What we do know without a doubt is there are racial inequities in nearly every strand of the American fabric. Today’s verdict employs me to ask you — our current and future public servants — to investigate our policies and practices within the justice system and beyond. How can we use evidence-based research in pursuit of the public good? What role do we play, and what obligation do we have to serve?”
The case was not about racial inequities, nor was race at issue in the trial. If she is making the standard argument that a black Rittenhouse would have been convicted on the same facts, I say, “Objection, your Honor! Calls for speculation!” There’s nothing wrong with her exhortations, except their context. Rittenhouse’s acquittal was just; the verdict is irrelevant to her entreaty. (And what definition of “employ” is she using?)
To their credit, Princeton students Abigail Anthony and Myles McKnight sent a well-aimed response to the Dean, saying in part,
“We were nominated and elected by peers to serve as Undergraduate Representatives on the Department of Politics Undergraduate Committee, and we feel obligated to convey the concern and disappointment expressed by our fellow students with regard to your statement in response to the Rittenhouse verdict…There is a sizeable cohort of your students who agree with the Rittenhouse verdict; they think––as we do––that the jury executed its fact-finding mission faithfully and thoroughly, and that the facts of the case were applied to produce an outcome in accordance with what the law (not the moral judgment of a dean) requires.
That opinion has been echoed by many serious legal commentators. Issuing such a one-sided and misleading statement in your capacity as Dean, we fear, sends a message to students that the institution (qua you) has taken a position on the matter (the “right” position), and runs the risk of chilling serious intellectual discussion on important public issues. In sum, we found your statement to be factually and pedagogically erroneous.”
Anthony and McKnight also noted the Dean’s “factual inaccuracies, misconstrual, and virtue signaling.” Bravo. Maybe Princeton students receive some useful education after all. If they do, however, it is in spite of ideological indoctrinators like Jamal. It is not the proper role of the Dean to make pronouncements about national events, policies, trials, elections or other controversies. This was a serious abuse of position and authority.
She should be reprimanded and disciplined. (As a female dean “of color,” she won’t be, of course.)
I’d fire her for cause.
Source: Campus Reform