Anti-Semitic Speaker At Georgetown? Let's See Who's At The Bottom Of This. Black People!

Anti-Semitic Speaker At Georgetown? Let’s See Who’s At The Bottom Of This. Black People!

Anti-Semitic Speaker At Georgetown? Let’s See Who’s At The Bottom Of This. Black People!

(Photo by Matt McClain for The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Amy Wax’s spiritual institution, Georgetown Law (because Penn doesn’t really want anything to do with her) continues its tradition of inviting speakers that will put some segment of the student body in an uproar. The recent invitee is Mohammed El-Kurd, a Palestinian activist and writer who has said things which understandably would make part of a student body uneasy, like:
Israelis “harvest organs of the martyred”
[G]lorifying the Second Intifada (here’s the tweet with his own words)
Today marks 21 years since the start of the Second Intifada. Glory to those who resisted and sacrificed. Glory to the martyrs, the women and men whose makeshift weapons confronted artilleries, the children whose stones intimidated tanks. The struggle continues, until liberation.
– #FreeAhmadManasra (@m7mdkurd) September 28, 2021

Called it “psychotic” to call for Palestinians to be peaceful
Expressed his “hope” that “[E]very one of” the Israeli settlers “dies in the most torturous & slow ways,” and
“[T]hat they see their mothers suffering (not that these conscienceless pigs would care).”
I read the quotes and thought, “Hmm, I could see why pro-Israel students wouldn’t want him speaking on campus. Seems pretty inflammatory – could see why they wouldn’t want him speaking there. I wonder what the campus will do.” When pressed about the upcoming event, Dean Mitch Bailin gave this response:
“When we have a student organization that is intending to host a speaker, one of the first principles that we have is that there is a lot of latitude…We allow a huge amount of latitude even where speech is deeply offensive to some members of the community, some or even many. Those are things that we think are important to educational values, to promoting free speech, to promoting a free discussion of ideas, even if those ideas are deeply, deeply offensive.”
I think, “Hmm, cookie cutter institutional response about ‘free speech’ in a private forum. Crappy appeal to ‘latitude’ instead of taking responsibility for giving hate speech a platform? Can’t wait for the author to dig into him!”
Lo and behold, the article goes on to throw Black people under the bus:
Bailin himself attended the February student sit-in calling for Shapiro’s termination, assuring leaders of the school’s Black Law Students Association (BLSA) that he would “find [them] a space” to cry due to the emotional burden of Shapiro’s tweet…Georgetown Law should just be honest: It doesn’t care about “free speech,” or “justice and equality for all,” or any other principle for that matter. The leadership is terrified of a small but vocal minority of students, motivated by the raw desire for self-preservation, and – as a result – are satisfied to let school policy be dictated by a vindictive, infantile mob.
Wait, what?!
Did they really go that far out of their way to call GULC’s Black students a “vindictive, infantile mob” instead of just pointing to the GULC administration’s prior bad policy and admonishing them to do better? That’s literally the path of least resistance, just look at the dean’s response when pushed on inviting this speaker:
But at this morning’s meeting with Jewish students, the dean was more circumspect, arguing that the school has a history of hosting speakers who have been “at the edge” of the law school’s anti-discrimination policy. When pushed to cite specific examples, Bailin said: “The university has had speakers who have definitely said they find gay marriage, gay practice, gay individuals, completely immoral. We have had speakers who have said the same thing about trans people.”
The obvious response should have been, “Hey, you are making our point for us, Georgetown has a history of inviting bigots and inflammatory people to speak, maybe you should stop that?” not “Oh woe to our right-leaning scholars, only the Blacks’ and liberals’ opinions matter. :(” Talk about a damned victim mentality. And if you feel like I’m being harsh, please read the National Review article for yourself. Don’t be surprised to discover that its overall message is kinda similar to this one:
*Right-wing crying noises*
Jewish students should have a strong enough case on their own to argue for why someone should or should not speak at a campus event. Despite not knowing their LSAT scores, I am going to assume that they are smart and capable – they did get into GULC after all. It is infantilizing to assume that they need the help of some news source bashing Black people to get their points across.
Georgetown Law Dean Defends Hosting Antisemite, Citing Previous Speakers Who ‘Find Gay Marriage Immoral’ [National Review]
Anti-Semitic Speaker At Georgetown? Let's See Who's At The Bottom Of This. Black People!Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor MemelordTM in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s. He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who cannot swim, a published author on critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at and by tweet at @WritesForRent.


Leave your comment