The real profanity at LSU? It's not the salty language of a law professor

The school's deplorable handling of rape and sexual abuse is the real obscenity

LSU students protest in front of the Football Operations Center in March 2021, demanding stiffer punishment for athletic executives who sat on sexual misconduct allegations. (Photo by JC Canicosa/Louisiana Illuminator)...

What are we to think about LSU’s effort to punish professors who cross Gov. Jeff Landry?

My December 2021 case was straightforward: I criticized Landry’s lies about COVID-19 vaccines, and he demanded that LSU punish me. It was an atrocious abuse of his powers as Louisiana attorney general, and LSU rightly ignored it.

The university did the same recently when LSU Law Professor Nick Bryner told his students to treat each other with kindness and respect. Bryner aimed those comments at Donald Trump supporters, who backed a candidate notorious for treating people with cruelty and disrespect. When Landry erupted over the professor’s remarks and demanded the school punish him, LSU declined.

Screeenshot of Jeff Landry’s X page

That’s because Bryner did nothing wrong. His words were in the spirit of the Golden Rule. That’s why Landry and his minions found it so disorienting. They’re unaccustomed to treating people this way.

The case of another LSU law professor, Ken Levy, is different.

On the first day of the spring semester, Levy used profanity when discussing Landry with his students and outed himself as a Trump detractor. Far worse, he may have made some of his students wonder if they could be disadvantaged by backing Trump.

We must, however, consider that Levy’s remarks were almost certainly made in jest. If you don’t believe me, listen to the recording at this link. You can detect levity not only in Levy’s tone but also in the students’ responses. They’re laughing at what he’s saying because he’s clearly joking.

Context matters when judging this incident. After listening to — versus reading — Levy’s words, I believe any fair-minded individual would view what he said in a different light.

But you might say, “No one should joke about such matters in a classroom setting.” And maybe you’re right.

However, context still matters when deciding how to address Levy’s alleged misconduct.

The consequences of saying something in jest should differ from saying something in all seriousness.

Other than assessing his tone of voice and the students' reactions, how might we tell the difference?

Well, we could look at Levy’s record. Are there students from earlier semesters who have taken his courses and have evidence — not just a vague feeling — that Levy punished them in some way for their political views?

If there is no evidence that Levy meant what he said — instead of making a poorly worded or vulgar joke — it appears that LSU has a weak case for removing him from his courses, especially after conducting no apparent investigation of his past conduct.

LSU did not follow its rules for adjudicating alleged misconduct by tenured faculty members and denied him due process.

Here’s another way context matters in this case: How seriously does LSU take allegations of abuse or mistreatment of students in other university settings?

If LSU acted out of a sincere desire to protect students, we would expect to see that in other situations where students are threatened or subjected to unfair treatment, harm, or possible injury.

The problem with saying your institution cares about the well-being of all its students is that this stated principle can be believed only if you apply it to other people in other situations, not just those who hurt Jeff Landry’s feelings.

For example, what if professors in other courses on LSU’s Baton Rouge and Shreveport campuses shared their conservative views with students in the classroom for years? (Some have.) And yet, what if LSU did nothing to address that while coming down hard on someone who criticizes Jeff Landry or Donald Trump?

If such a double standard existed, we would be justified in concluding that LSU doesn't care about professors sharing political views with students. Instead, we could say its leaders care, instead, about self-preservation and not hurting the governor's feelings.

What if a prominent professor routinely uses profanity in and out of the classroom, and his dean and other LSU officials do nothing about it? Maybe you’d conclude that, as long as he doesn't curse the governor, profanity in the classroom is not something LSU cares about.

Or, what if LSU was plagued by rape culture for a generation and did little to discourage it and an awful lot to encourage it? And, what if, when the whole stinking rot was exposed, the university gave a slap on the wrist to those who failed to protect students?

And, moreover, let's say we discovered that even today, there’s evidence that LSU doesn't take seriously its duty to protect students, that its Title IX office doesn’t investigate complaints about sexual abuse promptly, and that the office itself, as characterized by one office employee, is a hostile work environment, plagued by dysfunction and incompetence.

If these situations existed, you would be justified in concluding that LSU cares more about Jeff Landry’s feelings than it does about doing anything to stop rape and sexual abuse or political indoctrination on its campuses.

Let’s be honest. Here’s what’s happening: Landry and his appointees on the LSU Board of Supervisors are pressuring President William Tate, Provost Roy Haggerty, Law Center Dean Alena Allen, and others to punish Levy for hurting Landry’s feelings.

None of these LSU officials have the courage to defend Levy’s free speech rights publicly or to denounce the hypocrisy of a university that rewards and promotes individuals who covered up sexual abuse. If they did, it would probably cost them their jobs.

So, they just follow orders.

As they’ve shown us, they value their lucrative jobs far more than doing what’s right.

While LSU leaders are fixated on one professor’s joking, profane insult of the governor, the actual profanity at LSU is something none of them have the wherewithal to acknowledge: Their institution’s shameful history of tolerating rape and sexual abuse.

---

Does calling your member of Congress really help if he’s already in Trump’s pocket?

I wrote last time about the importance of calling and writing your members of Congress to show our opposition to Donald Trump’s destructive agenda. Some of you expressed the view that calling Sens. John Kennedy and Bill Cassidy is a waste of time because they are both clearly in Trump’s back pocket.

That they are wholly owned subsidiaries of Trump is true. That phone calls and letters can’t influence them is false.

Our outreach can still matter, but if we stop calling and writing them, they will 1) conclude that Trump has cowed us into submission; 2) have no need to worry about our views ever again; 3) believe that some of us actually support Trump, or else we would keep calling their offices.

There’s another reason to keep calling them: Not one of them should have a moment’s peace at work as long as they continue to support policies that weaken America.

In other words, don’t discount the possibility of hundreds of thousands of Louisiana voters eventually wearing them down. Will Cassidy or Kennedy abandon Trump? Not until it becomes in their best interest to do so. If that happens, it will only be because our voices are part of the equation.

To quote one of my favorite theologians, “Let us not grow weary in doing good, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not give up.” (St. Paul, Galatians 6:9)

In that spirit, I share a new post by Democratic strategist and Pod Save America host Dan Pfeiffer, “How to Channel Your Anger at Trump into Meaningful Action.” I recommend the whole thing, but here are a few key passages:

[I]n the last ten days, Democrats have gotten up off the mat. Trump and Elon Musk’s legally and constitutionally dubious attempt to tear down the federal government agency by agency reinvigorated the Democratic base. We can (and will) debate whether our party leaders have the chops to drive a compelling message about the dangers of Trump, but to their credit, they are out there fighting.

This is about more than what happens at the top. As my old boss [Barack Obama] used to say, “Change comes from the bottom up.” Anecdotally, it’s clear the Democratic grassroots are ready to fight. My friends, family, Message Box subscribers, and Pod Save America listeners are asking for specific ideas on how they can fight back.

There are no silver bullets that will make Trump disappear tomorrow. This fight will be long and challenging, but you are not powerless; and you do not need to wait for the upper echelons of the Democratic Party to get their sh-- together. . . .

Call Congress

Does calling Congress really work? Do they care?

Well, let’s delve into how a typical Congressional office works. Once a week — sometimes once a night — the staff sends around a report on the calls and emails received — their content and the sentiment of the messages. If there is a surge in calls about a topic, it is noticed by the staff and reported to a member. A bunch of calls won’t force a member to do something that they totally disagree with or runs counter to their political self-interest, but it doesn’t go unnoticed either.

So, if you are represented by a Republican who is blindly supporting Trump, call them and yell at them. If your Democratic member isn’t fighting hard enough against Trump — call them and let them know. Conversely, if your Democratic member is doing the right thing, call them and thank them — especially if they are looking down the barrel of a tough race. These ‘thank you’ calls may be the most impactful.

Make your voice heard. The main switchboard for Congress is (202) 224-3121 . . . .

Take the Messaging Into Your Hands

Trump and Musk’s demands for attention combined with the firepower of Fox News and an army of Right Wing digital influencers and media operations means that the Right dominates the information wars. They are setting the agenda, pushing misinformation, and drowning out Democratic messaging. The traditional media has been crippled by changes in technology and the economy and cowed by threats of retribution from Trump.

Democrats can build a counterweight with progressive outlets like Crooked Media, but the GOP has a massive headstart. Despite this, each and every one of us has agency. Research shows that influential messaging does not come from the media or political ads but from people we know and trust. That’s right. You are more persuasive to your friends and family about the dangers of Trump and the Republicans than some Democratic politicians or media figures. You can post on your social media platform, pop into the family group chat, or bring stuff up at dinner. . . .

There is a long road ahead of us and no easy answers. As time goes on, opportunities to resist will continue to pop up. Trump wants us to think all is lost. We are meant to give up and go along with whatever he wants, but this is the time to make our voices heard in any way possible.

---