A University of Florida student won an academic honor after he argued in a school paper that the Constitution applies only to white people. The student also made statements against Jews.
The granting of the award set off months of turmoil on the law school campus.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/21/us/white-supremacist-university-of-florida-paper.html
I hadn’t heard of Nazi White Supremacist Preston Damsky, but having read this article and his University of Florida paper, it seems like Racist Nazi Preston Damsky has racist nazi white supremacist views which he masks and deflects from in his University of Florida paper in a typical lazy nazi racist white supremacist fashion. It’s shameful that the University of Florida supports this white supremacist racist nazi.
Florida
ah.
Preston Damsky is the name of the Nazi.
He is an anti American Nazi advocating for the summary murder of people who are not white.
Preston Damsky is the name of the Nazi.
Not surprised by the red run Deregulated Florida Oblast.
Ah okay. So only white people should pay taxes then, yeah?
“It’s just that — neutrality,” she added. “The government — in this case, our public university — stays out of picking sides, so that, through the marketplace of ideas, you can debate and arrive at truth for yourself and for the community.”
Some at the law school agree with her stance. In an interview, John F. Stinneford, a professor at the university, said that it would be “academic misconduct” for a law professor who opposed abortion to give a lower grade to a well-argued paper advocating abortion rights.
This makes sense to me as a principle, but the idea that the paper is genuinely making a good argument seems really questionable.
Among originalists, though, this interpretation [apparently that “We the People,” refers to white people, and therefore the constitution applies to them exclusively] has been widely rejected. Instead, conservatives have argued that much of the text of the Constitution “tilts toward liberty” for all, said Jonathan Gienapp, an associate professor of history and law at Stanford. They also note that the post-Civil War amendments guaranteeing rights to nonwhite people “washed away whatever racial taint” there was in the original document.
Sounds like not even other originalists take it seriously. On its face the idea seems really stupid, since the wording of that part of the constitution doesn’t involve race, and whiteness has always been a very loosely defined concept with a lot of ambiguity that wouldn’t be a natural fit for a legal principle. So maybe the paper is getting a high grade and an award is itself a display of personal bias.
through the marketplace of ideas
Some ideas need to be removed from the marketplace.
Ms. Chatman was struck, in part, by her own experiences at the school in contrast to Mr. Damsky’s award. She had proposed teaching a class during her time there called “Race, Entrepreneurship and Inequality.” But administrators at the law school changed the name to “Entrepreneurship,” she said, before listing it in the course catalog.
She attributed the change to Florida lawmakers’ crackdown on diversity-oriented language and themes in public education, a push that preceded the Trump administration’s broader war on progressive ideology.
Sounds like the college agrees, though maybe not about which ones
It is Florida after all
@chicken Even if that’s what the language could be proven to mean, it would be legally irrelevant. What was true in 1789 is not immutably binding on future generations. The entirely of US law is endlessly amendable. What the Framers may have intended in 1789 does not bind future Americans to their meaning and intent, where the law has been modified since. The Framers surely also rejected women’s suffrage, but so what?
The entirely of US law is endlessly amendable. What the Framers may have intended in 1789 does not bind future Americans to their meaning and intent, where the law has been modified since. The Framers surely also rejected women’s suffrage, but so what?
The constitution can be formally amended, as it has been to guarantee rights regardless of sex and race (which the author of the OP paper seems to discount for unknown reasons). I don’t really like the idea of it meaning whatever judges prefer it to mean though, since that leads to shit like the perpetually expanding authority of the office of the president, in a way that is hardly democratic. The meaning should come from something that doesn’t change, except when a democratic process makes an explicit choice to change it.
In practice afaik that sort of thing can be legally relevant: https://govfacts.org/explainer/original-intent-vs-textualism-how-judges-read-the-constitution/
Of fucking course it’s a Trump appointed judge who taught the class and gave out the reward.
Students need to riot until the reward is rescinded and, preferably, the Judge who taught the class is removed from the position. Make both of those motherfuckers terrified to show their faces on campus. Nazi pieces of shit.
Fuck the weak ass interim dean for trying to defend this on the grounds of “we have to remain neutral. He has the right to free speech”. Fuck that “we must tolerate the intolerant” bullshit.
Thankfully, good news, the student was exposed for espousing Nazi rhetoric on Twitter and was subsequently suspended and is barred from campus. He is trying to challenge the suspension which is putting him at risk of expulsion. I fucking hope they throw the book at this Nazi fuck.
I honestly think those people think that dissent is a sign that they are doing what’s right. That’s why they invented the term “social justice warrior,” when in most places that’s just how society works: by holding people accountable.
That’s why they invented the term “social justice warrior,
That term is out of date. They call them “woke mafia” now
They do need to keep inventing new bullshit terminology, don’t they?
I don’t really care what they think. If that’s the hill they want to die on, then let them fucking die.
The point of dissenting isn’t to convince them. It is to stand in their way and say “you’re gonna quit this bullshit or we are gonna fucking make you.”
Absolutely agree. Just saying that they get fired up by it, instead of (edit: no idea how it became “or” because I meant instead of) discouraged.
It might be smarter for us to use different methods.
The biggest offense to them is to be ignored. At least that’s what I’ve noticed.
“Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented”. —Elie Wiesel, Holocaust survivor and famous author
The issue with ignoring them is they, as well as those being targeted by the oppressive rhetoric, will take the silence as tacit approval. Those who espouse it will be encouraged to further push boundaries of what is tolerable while the victims will be made to feel unsafe existing in public.
This is the point of the “Nazi Bar” story where you kick people out at the first sign of it 'cause, if you don’t and just ignore them, they’ll soon begin to bring all their friends who espouse much worse rhetoric and, soon after that, suddenly you find yourself running the local Nazi Bar as they made everyone else feel unsafe and ran them off, which was their goal from the beginning.
I don’t want them to succeed in their goal.
Yes, it might be effective in getting a rise out of them sometimes to ignore them to their face, but I don’t care about them or their reaction. I care about the people around us who have to listen and be made to feel unsafe existing in the community and to let those people know that there are others in the community who will stand up for them and be willing to put themselves at risk for their sake; to know with confidence that, when push comes to shove, we will stand beside them.
Ima be honest & say I didn’t read the whole thing.
By ignore I meant to ignore their bullshit. It feels to me like too many people are drinking the koolaid & paying attention to their misdirections.
We need to ignore their bullshit, and just act in response to their “clandestine” actions. Like, I’m sure the Trump vs Musk fight from like a week ago was a misdirection, and it got too much traction.
That traction tells them that it’s effective to do that bullshit. We need to teach them otherwise.
Oh you mean the online topic shit the establishment keeps trying to force feed us. Yea, people need to stop biting that hook. It only legitimizes it like you said.
When I read “ignore their bullshit” I thought you meant taking the Enlightened Centrist™ stance of “turn the other cheek and let them tire out. Don’t start a scene cause it will disturb everyone” type nonsense, as if what they spout isn’t disturbing in itself.
Make both of those motherfuckers terrified to show their faces on campus. Nazi pieces of shit.
My grandfather died in 1999. He stormed the beaches of Normandy. He never told us in detail what he saw on those beaches. But he often pointed out little things that I took for granted. Little things like how we get to have ice cream if we want because we’re not in a police state.
Now, 5 year old me didn’t fully know what he meant sometimes, but I always got the sense it was important. As I grew into a teenager he pointed out the items on the shelf at a grocery store. He said “Look at all these cereals. You get your choice, and I get mine. I want raisin bran. What do you want?” At the time reeses puffs were new, and I wanted that. So he said “then you get what you want, I get what I want, and the only thing the cashier cares about is that I have enough cash to cover the bill. Nobody is supressing you, or controlling your life. Nobody is making your decisions for you. You’re free to fail, but it’s your own doing. THAT’S what I fought for on those beaches. For you. For your mom. For everybody in this country.”
I started crying because I was old enough to understand what he was saying. I was at that moment remembering how he lost his best friend that day. How he had to run past his recently fallen corpse and storm the beach. I was crying thinking about how hard he and everybody else that day fought with their lives to protect everybody else. I wasn’t even born until 1983. My mom wasn’t born until 1947. My grandpa fought so we didn’t have to. My grandfather fought to rid this planet of nazis.
If my grandfather were alive today, I know how he’d react. Silent. Gruff grunt. Angry face. Which I know doesn’t sound like much, but that’s his reaction when he can’t stand someone/something.
One time we came home, and there was a shoe sticking out from behind the recliner. He grunts, in that same silent manner, and says to me “Let me show ya somethin, kid!”
He pulls the shoe up, which still had this 20 year old druggie who was now being held upside down by his ankle. My 80 year old grandpa was holding with one hand a druggie and a beer in the other. Says to him “You want to steal from my house? grunt Let me show ya somethin.”
And proceeds to beat the shit out him.
That grunt, and especially if he said “let me show ya something!” meant your ass was in trouble.
If he saw the current world, and twitter, I have no doubt he’d go find musk, bring an army if he had to, and tell musk “Let me show ya something, ya little punk!”
Yeah. He’d absolutely gruff grunt at this shit.
I have some criticisms of how some of the points were made but none that are exactly relevant to the current topic. So, I’ll just say that I don’t fully agree with what is said here.
Nonetheless, the ending, main point is still in agreement.
In his capstone paper for the class, Mr. Damsky argued that the framers had intended for the phrase “We the People,” in the Constitution’s preamble, to refer exclusively to white people. From there, he argued for the…
I mean, it’s an honest start, but then goes on to ignore the progress of history that’s occured from that point. Doing so to push a “traditionalist” racist agenda.
I say these type of traditionalists aren’t really living their ideologies until they die at 25, in a cave with no electricity, from a disease that’s long since been cured.
We don’t need to be animals. No need to force these delusional souls to live in a cave.
Let them build their own houses. But yes no electricity for them.
After all, if they’re pinning for the 1820s they can have it all. Including the mercury enemas to treat every single illness.
But no slaves. Because the North kicked the traitorous South’s ass.
If only those framers provided a way to update the Constitution in case things change.
The constitution which Jefferson said should be rewritten each generation so it could keep up with the times.
@Davriellelouna I’ve seen this legal framework before. It’s called Originalism, and Originalism is voodoo bullshit. It’s basically, “Because Washington enslaved people, literally anything that doesn’t explicitly say otherwise must mean the same thing.” It’s pre-determined, self-fulfilling, completion-backwards legal forensics, and I say again, IT IS BULLSHIT.
How do I know? Not just on its own obvious terms, but because the very same people will say the opposite when it suits them. They lie.
“I’m not like an ax murderer or anything.” No, you’re worse. You might face consequences if you kill a couple of racial minorities in that manner. Instead, you’re going to try and kill or ruin the lives of all racial minorities in this country. My race, being white people, stole and murdered to get this land. That doesn’t make it ours. To pretend that it is, even worse, that it’s wrong for people to peacefully come here doing none of the things of our ancestors, is unbelievably wrong. The fact that are grown ass men that haven’t developed basic empathy or moral compasses, baffles me.
Trade offs, I suppose. I don’t think people should be beholden to what there ancestors did. You can’t change the past but you can make the future. Let’s be good ancestors.
Being white doesn’t make you racist.
I didn’t say that. But this man is proud of all the genocide and human rights infringements. That’s like a 9.5/10 on the racism scale. There’s standing by and doing nothing, as much of America (and the world) does. There’s trying to fight for equality. Then there’s making a conscious decision to fight for your group to be on the top. That last one is fucked up in every fight it’s involved in. The KKK, the NOI, JK Rowling, Neo-Nazis, the Heritage Foundation. Tgis guy went out of his way to purposefully try and hurt others, seemingly without remorse. It’s not being white that’s racist. It’s all the racism he’s actively doing.
Where is the paper?
If this is indeed a high quality legal paper then it’ll highlight the weaknesses in the legal foundation of us which enables such positions. If it legally possible, somebody will do it.
That’s not how the right views the education system.
Some view it as a source of leftist indoctrination, and this as a rare win for ‘their’ side, in a sea of socialist brainwashing and woke DEI genocidal messages.
Those individuals will in turn see it as a way to push ‘their’ ideological culture war messages.
Every lawyer I’ve ever interacted with has been a total piece of feces
I studied law in college. I interned in a high- powered legal defense office. I’ve met countless lawyers over the years. There are many, MANY wonderful lawyers out there working incredibly hard to better the world and protect disenfranchised people.
I only said I have never met a lawyer who is a good person. I’m glad you have
I know a public defender who’s pretty good.
Good for you. Anyone involved with family law in Georgia (the state in the US) seems to be garbage
The profession tends to select for sociopathy.
Sociopathy doesn’t exist, psychology does not know such diagnosis.
Edit: I guess y’all really want to continue spreading cool sounding words and staying ignorant.
I bet you’re a blast at parties.
Sometimes.
I spotted the lawyer!
Nah, my partner is a psychologist.
Same here, I’ve yet to meet someone who studied law or business administration who doesn’t have some weird energy about them.
The ones I’ve met have all been selfish and/or narcissistic
That I’ve interacted with? YES.
This is my experience. You’re a lawyer, aren’t you?
@PattyMcB No, I’m not. But I am a fucking grown up. And apparently, you’re not.
There’s a saying: If you meet an asshole, then you’ve met an asshole. If everyone you meet is an asshole, then YOU’RE the asshole.
A lot of people are assholes. A lot of lawyers are assholes. But not ALL lawyers are assholes. But it might seem that way, if you are.
Anyway, I don’t imagine you’ll ever have anything to say worth reading, so see ya. Hope your life gets better.
Yeah but if there Jewish suddenly we need to be considerate. Fucking racist pricks.
