To Melanie and Jimmy, With Love

TO: Dean Melanie Wilson, University of Tennessee College of Law

CC: Jimmy Cheek, Chancellor, University of Tennessee

Dean Wilson:

I read this week with some concern of your proposed “investigation” into a tweet made by Professor Glenn Reynolds regarding the riots in Charlotte. That tweet is below.


Professor Reynolds never advocated murder. He certainly didn’t condone aiming for people blocking the roads on I-277 and pulling innocent bystanders out of cars. If anyone were to take the situation into context, it was an advocation for self defense from a man who remembers Reginald Denny, a truck driver, dragged from his vehicle during the Rodney King riots in LA and horrendously beaten. Professor Reynolds has since acknowledged he could’ve worded one of his tweets better, and offered examples that would have provided a better grasp of his message.

This tweet and subsequent clarification wasn’t enough for those who believe in the current ideology that words can hurt and harm. Twitter suspended Professor Reynolds’ “@instapundit” account until he deleted the above tweet.  USA Today suspended his biweekly column for a month.  Worst of all, you decided to “investigate” him with the support of Chancellor Jimmy Cheek, a member of UT’s staff with his own set of special problems.  An excerpt of your statement is below.

“I am aware of the remarks made last night on Twitter by Professor Glenn Reynolds …Professor Reynolds’s comments do not reflect my views and opinions, nor do they reflect the values of the college and university.

University administrators, college faculty, and I are investigating this matter.

My colleagues and I in the university’s leadership support…all forms of free speech, but we do not support violence or language that encourages violence.

Professor Reynolds has built a significant platform to discuss his viewpoints, but his remarks on Twitter are an irresponsible use of his platform.” (my emphasis)

Yes, Professor Reynolds has built a significant platform through his Instapundit blog and Twitter account to discuss his viewpoints.  It is also his own, and not one endorsed by the University of Tennessee College of Law, paid for by the College of Law, or even given attention by the College of Law until recently, when the Professor said three words that hurt someone’s feelings enough to get his Twitter account briefly suspended.  Since his acts of contrition weren’t enough for you and the rest of the university, you decided to “investigate” him.

I’ve attempted to contact you personally to determine the nature of this “investigation.”  Your assistant informs me you’ve received a tremendous amount of contact from concerned parties interested in what course of action you plan to pursue.  She also tells me that you’re personally responding to each and every party who calls, and as of yesterday you were “overwhelmed” with the amount of contact.

You should be “overwhelmed.”  You should also be ashamed of yourself for casting your lot with the outrage mob calling for Professor Reynolds’ head.  It’s an irresponsible act unbecoming a dean of a law school, an institution ostensibly designed to bring competent attorneys into the world instead of shielding them from nasty bad words that make them feel “unsafe.”  This should be the biggest black mark on your career as Dean of the College of Law, as you’ve now shown only those who toe the leftist, regressive viewpoints are tolerated as educators at your institution.

Dean Wilson, you’re dangerously close to embarrassing yourself and the University with your witch hunt against Professor Reynolds.  Smarter folk than I entertain thoughts this could open the College of Law up for litigation.  The University’s already spent quite a sum settling a spurious Title IX lawsuit with former students, and I doubt very seriously those holding the purse strings want to settle another, especially one regarding a nationally respected, tenured professor.

The game is up.  You’re done.  You have one option, and one option only.  Cease any and all “investigation” into Professor Reynolds for his tweet and blogging outside the University of Tennessee College of Law, and apologize to him publicly. If you do not, statistics prove the results will be disastrous for Rocky Top’s vaunted law school.

Consider the case of the University of Missouri, or “Mizzou,” who chose to side with protesters and silence dissenting viewpoints.  Enrollment and donations plummeted so quickly the college had to close one of its dorms.  If that’s not enough, think of the backlash at DePaul University, where the chancellor resigned and the school’s Facebook rating plummeted to one star after silencing conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopolous’s scheduled campus talk.  Those are two examples of many where academics attempted to stifle someone or ruin a life over a tweet or blog post.

The same could happen to the University of Tennessee College of Law.  I’m not saying I personally plan to wage war with the school.  I have better things to do with my time than go after an institution encouraging courses on animal husbandry law instead of teaching students the subjects necessary to pass the Bar Exam.  Just don’t be surprised when the backlash hits. Consider this a warning of what’s to come.

Best Regards,


Banning Glenn: Silencing Law on Social Media (Update x2)

Glenn Reynolds wears many hats.  He’s a professor at the University of Tennessee School of Law.  He blogs at a site called “Instapundit.” He’s a columnist for USA Today.  As of this morning, it appears Glenn gets to add one more bullet point to his already impressive resume.  He’s banned from Twitter.

What justification does Twitter have for placing a law professor in the ranks of those once deemed internet trolls, “monsters,” and purveyors of “hate speech?”  Did he send his followers to harass a celebrity on the social media platform?  Did he make a direct threat to someone?  It was none of these, actually.  Glenn’s egregious sin was expressing an opinion on self-defense in regards to the violence occurring in Charlotte.

At 8:51 PM last night Glenn retweeted this tweet from WBTV News in Charlotte, North Carolina regarding the violent protests in the wake of another police shooting.  It encouraged those on Twitter to avoid I-277 as protesters were surrounding vehicles.  At least one news report from the news station’s website confirmed protesters were throwing rocks at vehicles on that section of the interstate.  Glenn’s response was simple.


That tweet was enough for someone at Twitter, most likely a member of their Trust and Safety Council, to throw the “suspend” lever on Glenn’s account.  A glance at Twitter’s Rules could justify Glenn’s ban from the site on the basis of either “Violent Threats (direct or indirect)” or “Hateful Conduct.”  The former prevents you from making threats of violence or promoting violence, the latter adds in “directly [attacking]” people based on their race, sexual orientation, nationality, and a whole host of other factors by which most choose to express their current victimhood.

On face value, though, Glenn did none of these things.  It appears as if he expressed his opinion on what those caught in the mobs of protesters should do if they found their car surrounded.  It may not be the most palatable opinion for some, but it’s not threatening anyone specifically or directly attacking them.  Glenn’s three word tweet apparently summarized his views on self-defense if someone found themselves caught in a situation like that on I-277.  Those three words were enough, though.  No more justification needed.  Throw the switch and ban him.

The ban, in less than twelve hours, has strangely amplified Glenn’s voice more than before.  #RunThemDown and #FreeInstapundit are both now trending on Twitter.  More people are talking about the violence in Charlotte and what they would do if needed to defend themselves and loved ones.   It’s almost as if a certain “Dangerous Faggot’s” remarks on how attempts to silence someone just makes that voice louder universally applies.

The downside to all this is Twitter’s image continues to worsen at a time when they need some positive uptick for their social media platform.  Banning anti-feminist Robert Stacy McCain almost immediately after Jack founded his “Trust and Safety Council” started serious whispers about the “Free Speech Wing of the Free Speech Party” only caring for ideas with which they agreed.  The ban of Milo Yiannopolous led credence to claims Twitter didn’t care for conservative voices.  Now with the ban of Glenn Reynolds, Twitter’s new image is they can and will ban whoever they like, whenever they like, for whatever words hurt someone’s feelings at any given moment.

And yes, there will be people who reiterate the numerous tropes and fallacies surrounding free speech.  They will also point out Twitter is a private company, free to censor and ban those they wish with absolute impunity.  These are the people Twitter will come for next.  As soon as the latest wrongthink echoes from their account in 140 characters or less, that person will find themselves wondering how it all happened.  Here’s a hint: it happened because you did nothing, you refused to raise your voice when others were silenced, and you were complicit with every aspect of the censorship of those voices you didn’t like and deletion of the nasty bad words that hurt your feelings.

Another scary aspect of this is Glenn’s status as a law professor and USA Today columnist.  A Twitter ban for Glenn signals his views on the law as less important than someone like Mary Anne Franks or Danielle Citron.  It chills the concepts of teaching the law as it stands, in a fashion that some might find uncomfortable, “triggering,” or lacking safety.  It also actively encourages stupidity, and promoting the cardinal sin of making people dumber when they encounter a legal professional.

The gig is up for Twitter, and they know it.  Now that we’re past justifying suspensions and bans on the basis of “promoting hate speech,” and Twitter is perfectly ready to censor academics with truly intelligent voices in their field, this realm of the information superhighway where people interact more on a daily basis with each other loses a bit more credibility.  If Glenn’s ideas were horrid, let them be exposed and ridiculed as such.  They weren’t, though.  This ban wasn’t even close to justifiable.  It’s silencing a much needed voice.

If you’re interested in learning more about what “free speech” truly looks like in America today, check out “Silenced: Our War On Free Speech.

UPDATE: Glenn’s account was reinstated after he deleted the offensive tweet pictured above.  He’s also posted his view of the situation on the Instapundit blog, which deserves a full read.  I quote one portion of it here to show my initial analysis was a little more on point than I expected.

I’ve always been a supporter of free speech and peaceful protest. I fully support people protesting police actions, and I’ve been writing in support of greater accountability for police for years.

But riots aren’t peaceful protest. And blocking interstates and trapping people in their cars is not peaceful protest — it’s threatening and dangerous, especially against the background of people rioting, cops being injured, civilian-on-civilian shootings, and so on. I wouldn’t actually aim for people blocking the road, but I wouldn’t stop because I’d fear for my safety, as I think any reasonable person would.

“Run them down” perhaps didn’t capture this fully, but it’s Twitter, where character limits stand in the way of nuance.

UPDATE x2: Apparently even Glenn’s nuances aren’t enough for the University of Tennessee School of Law. Now, with the full support of Chancellor Jimmy Cheek, there’s an “investigation” into Glenn’s nasty, hurtful words.

“I am aware of the remarks made last night on Twitter by Professor Glenn Reynolds and of the serious and legitimate concerns expressed by members of the UT Law family and the University of Tennessee community, as well as concerned citizens across the country. Professor Reynolds’s comments do not reflect my views and opinions, nor do they reflect the values of the college and university.

University administrators, college faculty, and I are investigating this matter.

The university is committed to academic freedom, freedom of speech, and diverse viewpoints, all of which are important for an institution of higher education and the free exchange of ideas. My colleagues and I in the university’s leadership support peaceful civil disobedience and all forms of free speech, but we do not support violence or language that encourages violence.

Professor Reynolds has built a significant platform to discuss his viewpoints, but his remarks on Twitter are an irresponsible use of his platform. (emphasis added)