A Redneck Defense of Dean June Chu’s First Amendment Rights

Yale Dean June Chu’s right to free, if offensive, speech trumps hurt feelings — and rednecks are tough enough to handle an academic’s silly insults.

Dean June ChuOn behalf of all fellow rednecks / white trash, if you believe in the First Amendment, then you should be defending Yale’s Dean June Chu from the PC Police at Yale.  Prof. Stephen Davis, commander of Yale’s Special Snowflake Unit, is in epic meltdown over Prof. Chu’s private speech.

Prof. Chu (PhD, Social Psychology, UC Davis) is the Dean of Yale’s Pierson College.  In that position, she “is responsible for advising about 500 students and fostering “a familiar, comfortable living environment” in keeping with the university’s residential college system. ”  Ironically she was known for promoting ‘cultural sensitivity.’

Ahhhh, but now we learn that when she left the politically correct confines of the Yale campus each day, out came Ms. Hyde.  Free of restraint, Dean Chu had, for years, let loose her acid tongue on Yelp reviews.

Before continuing, let me issue a TRIGGER WARNING for any of you out there that might need it.  We are about to read Dean Chu’s Yelp reviews.  If your mind balks at indelicate utterances and disparaging remarks about, let’s call them deplorables, . . . well, sack up, Buttercup.  This from the NY Post:

June Chu [posted to Yelp a number of] . . . reviews, which had been circulating among students for several months, after the Yale Daily News published screenshots on Saturday.

“To put it quite simply: If you are white trash, this is the perfect night out for you!” Chu wrote in one review of a Japanese restaurant. “This establishment is definitely not authentic by any stretch of any imagination and perfect for those low class folks who believe this is a real night out. Over salted and greasy food. Side note: employees are Chinese, not Japanese.”

Other reviews by Chu, who identified herself as a Chinese-American on the website, focused on her prowess to evaluate a Japanese rice cake as an authentic critic.

“Remember: I am Asian,” Chu wrote. “I know mochi. These are not good and overpriced. They are ice cream mochi which are small in size and easily become freezer burned if not stored well … I guess if you were a white person who has clue what mochi is, this would be fine for you.”

In another review of a movie theater, Chu called the employees there “barely educated morons trying to manage snack orders for the obese” while trying to do simple math.

“Unfortunately it’s this or the Hanover Nugget but heaven forbid the Nugget get movies which pander to the masses,” Chu wrote. “You’ve got no choice and like a fool I remain in line with all the other idiots.”

Chu continued: “Be kind my ass. I pay for my ticket and decent customer service. Decent. I’m not asking for stellar. I’m asking for a bare minimum of competence.”

This was all too much for the “Head” of Pierson College, Professor Stephen Davis, last seen in public when he successfully agitated to drop the appellation of “Master” from his title and those of certain other Yale professors on the grounds that the term “master” was racist.  It is hard to believe that this historically ignorant bozo (Master, as in Headmaster of Hogwarts, is a British traditional title in academia from which Yale copied and has nothing to do with slavery in that context) is a Yale professor, let alone one in a leadership role.

First, Davis put Dean Chu on leave; then, when he found more examples of indelicate Yelp reviews, he went full drama queen.  This from a letter he sent to Pierson College students today, strongly implying that Dean Chu would be fired for her transgressions:

I am very aware that when I last wrote to you on Saturday morning, it was to ask you to partner with me in envisioning a way forward—to carve out space for grace—in the aftermath of Dean Chu’s email to the college apologizing for two Yelp reviews in which she had used inappropriate and unacceptable language pertaining to matters of class and race. . . .

Today I am grieving because I no longer can envision such a way forward. . . .

Whoa.  Today I am grieving????  Someone give the lady a box of tissues and sit her down on the couch before she has an accident.

Now, Prof. Chu is a piece of work.  But let’s face it, she is no better or worse than any other prog.  Hypocrisy and boundless arrogance are their defining characteristics.

When I ran the idea for this post past Ms. Bookworm, she pointed out that progressive professors have been churning out calumny for years against the same targets as Ms. Chu.  The only differences are that they write their screed in the language of academia, not the common tongue, and they publish it in journals, not on Yelp.

Just one example (perhaps the most recent — to which I will not link) involved a group of researchers who reasoned that fundamentalist Christians are dogmatic and inflexible and then, mirable dictu, found such people to be more likely to have suffered brain damage.  There are all sorts of problems with the study, some of which the authors acknowledge, but the most obvious is that being dogmatic and inflexible is not unique to fundamentalist Christians, whether or not that is even a fair description.

Indeed, it seems to me to more accurately describe the secular progressive left who would go so far as to do violence if you challenge their dogma.  Challenge a fundamentalist Christian and, if you are truly evil and disparaging, he might pray for your soul.

The foundational assumptions of the study are themselves the calumny.  This harkens back to the 60’s, when Ivy League psychologists were running tests starting from the assumption that conservative ideology was a form of mental illness.

In sum, Prof. Chu’s sin was not that she targeted white trash, it being open season for attacking white males in progressive academia today, particularly in places like Yale.  Her sin was that she openly attacked lower class whites in the common tongue, with no effort to make her calumny sound academic.

But that said, so what?  If your constitution is so delicate that you get the vapors when some idiot makes a disparaging remark, you need to be in therapy, not in college.  Dean June Chu has clearly been indelicate in her writing, but the closest she comes to a racist remark is to make a disparaging comment about “white trash” — in other words, a subgroup of whites that she disdains.

Now here’s the kicker.  Whether she is right or wrong, justified in her beliefs or not, the fact is that if we cannot talk in such non-PC terms, then we cannot address many of the race and class based problems this nation faces today.  There is a huge problem of cyclical crime, violence,, and lack of educational opportunities for lower class blacks.  Lower middle class whites – seemingly the white trash to which she refers – are suffering from their own problems, not the least of which are rising numbers of single parent homes and a huge rise in substance abuse.  And on and on.

Political correctness is being wielded by the progressive left to make sure that we don’t discuss those topics or that, if we do, then we do so solely within a progressive format in which their preferred narrative has predetermined the answers.

Ironically, it is this same stifling political correctness that is being used to attack Prof. Chu.   If we are to leave the hysterical Prof. Davis in charge of our ability to speak about uncomfortable topics that implicate race and class, then freedom of speech is dead.  That cannot be allowed.  Show your support for Dean June Chu.

  • amoose1959

    How serious are you about free speech? Would you let me spell out the word ni****er? Talk is cheap 🙂

    • Marooned Maroon

      What IS an EIGHT letter word beginning with “ni” and ending with “er” which contains four letters betwixt and between? P.S. Please, God, keep the http://tinyurl.com/libtards-talking.

    • Wolf Howling

      Do you mean the word “nigger,” amoose? It is a “fighting word” if you use it against blacks, and rightfully so. You have a right to use the word, but if someone starts swinging at you for doing so, the law will protect their actions.

      But what about the reverse, when blacks and prog whites trying to enforce political correctness label someone a “racist” for speaking honestly about any topic dealing with blacks, such as the incredibly high rate of violent crime. Now I am not a racist. I do not believe that blacks are in any way inferior to me as a function of their skin color. So if someone labels me a “racist” just because I have raised a topic they don’t want to talk about, I am offended to my core. I consider that, in its own way, as offensive as calling a black person a nigger. And I look forward to the day when being wrongfully slimed as a “racist” is likewise treated as “fighting words.”

    • ymarsakar

      A couple of years ago, some SJW fascists came here to lecture us about what righteous progressive socialism is.

      They didn’t take kindly to the response.

  • Brian

    The First Amendment has nothing to do with this. The First Amendment prohibits Congress (i.e., the federal government) from passing any law interfering with the people’s right to speak. It says nothing about private organizations. You have no such rights in an employment situation, especially a private employer like Yale University. You can talk about free speech, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment to the Constitution.

    If you read the Yelp reviews in their entirety, what comes across is an elitist snob, who looks down on those whom she considers lower than her on the intellectual/educational/accomplishments scale. While holding a job that allows her to interact/socialize with only those on her level. Why are we surprised?

    • Wolf Howling

      Brian, thank you for your comment. You raise a good point that I very much glossed over in my post, and I was very sloppy in titling the post by referring to the First Amendment. You are of course right that the First Amendment is not a legal defense against a decision by a private employer. And indeed, beyond the title of the post, you will note that nowhere in the body do I claim otherwise. My arguments in the post are equitable, not legal.

      My point in the post is that we should be raising our voices against political correctness governing virtually all college campuses today. That is true whether the ox being gored on grounds of political correctness is a conservative or, in this case, one of the progressive’s own.

      That said, your comment brings up an interesting point that I did not address. Yes, as you point out, the First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing laws interfering with speech. But it also protects individuals against any public agency that takes action against them for their speech.

      So is Yale truly a private employer? Yale, and all but a handful of private colleges, receive government funding in various forms each year, as well special tax treatment as a qualifying educational institution. At virtually every such institution, the majority of its students are there on federal student loans. Yale and other such colleges and universities are in reality quasi public institutions.

      Certainly aspects of the discrimination laws have been applied to such institutions on the grounds that they receive federal funding. I am not an expert in this area of the law, but it certainly seems that if Title IX and other federal laws apply to private educational institutions that take government funding, an argument that the right to freedom of expression should apply as well. I think there is a colorable legal argument to be made.

      • Mike Miller

        Almost every university and college receive some type of federal funding. That doesn’t preclude them from being a private institution. As such, when they place someone in a position to influence others that person should be responsible for their words and actions. We say we demand that of our politicians, but it’s hard to actually see that we do.
        I may complain about a business, but I don’t find it necessary to disparage the patrons. Why is Chu compelled to do so? Pretty obvious she’s a racist.

    • Iris Chang 張純如

      There are many other (elitists) who think the same just do not verbalize it. Perhaps precisely because of her belief in “free speech” she used an identifiable name. The others do not.

  • David Shimm

    Alinsky’s 4th rule: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

    In a decent world, people would not be at risk to lose their reputations and employment over their private opinions. However, if conservatives stand to be at that risk, then it should be a risk for progs as well.

    • Libby_CO

      Yes, this. Doubt Chu would appreciate “white trash” standing up for her freedom of speech any way.

      Warden at AoS did an excellent column on this: “How Losing My Political Values Helped Me Gain My Freedom”[pretty sure Book linked to it, too, but it’s worth mentioning again]

      There aren’t any rules anymore because the left only applies them one way. And in doing so, they’ve left what once was a civil compact between the two parties in smoldering ruins….

      Further, I no longer have any investment in any particular political values, save one: The rules created by the left will be applied to the left as equally and punitively as they have applied them to the right. And when they beg for mercy, I’ll begin to reconsider. Or maybe not. Because f#@! these people.”


    • Andrew Beckwith


      F them. War.

  • Matthew Newgarden

    With her reviews June Chu becomes trapped in Yale’s social justice warrior “kafkaesque” vortex.

    • Iris Chang 張純如

      Kafka, dark and bureaucratic …

  • kbiel

    I think you are mostly wrong. Every employer should have the right to fire or discipline any employee who damages the brand by association. I too abhor political correctness and the ensuing witch hunts. That does not change the fact that continuing to employ Dr. Chu without some form of punishment and/or repentance damages the Yale brand.

    I do agree that we who abhor the neo-Jacobins should not be calling for Dr. Chu’s firing. I also think it is fair and right for us to point out the hypocrisy should Yale treat her differently than they would transgressor with fewer leftists bona fides though not with the aim of having her fired.

    • Libby_CO

      I seem to recall a Yale professor leaving last year over a “controversial” letter to students about Halloween costumes. So, there is a precedent when it comes to cultural insensitivity expressed by Yale staff, and in that case, the Yale administrators sided with the hysterical students.

      • kbiel

        Yes. But would you rather they apply their rules fairly so that we are at the mercy of the cultural sensitivities of all groups, even white men; or would you rather, like me, prefer that Yale see the light and stop caving the to the perpetually butt-hurt? In other words, you are right to point out the hypocrisy but should your goal be to get Dr. Chu hounded out of employment or to reform Yale?

        • Libby_CO

          I’m at the point where I think it won’t stop until enough people on the Left are victims of this silliness. Like letting an addict hit rock bottom, it has to become so toxic at these institutions that it is no longer sustainable.

          • kbiel

            I don’t disagree. There should and will be repercussions for the monstrosity they have constructed. It will be natural consequences. As you sow, so shall you reap. They are already eating their own. We need not encourage them; just stand up to them and bring a mirror.

    • Iris Chang 張純如

      If so, Yale should have a rather detailed and explicit contract on what Dr. Chu can and cannot do in various places. A labor dispute should go in her favor theoretically – due to the lack of such explicit injunctions – but will not practically.

      • kbiel

        I don’t know; it may take that. There are always escape clauses for things like moral turpitude, but in many states one does not need such things. Something tells me that CT is not an “at will” employment state, so you may be right.

    • Faragon

      Some form pf punishment for what? Exercising the 1st Amendment?

  • MacG

    ” If you are white trash”

    I take that to mean to those of you who are white trash and since I am not I took no offense but her sentence structure is open to interpretation and a follow up question should be asked which only she can answer, “Are you in fact referring to a specific group within whitedom or do consider all whites, white trash?”

    This is an important distinction. If I viewed a certain race as racist then everything that someone from that race says is likely racist whether it is or not. I heard a TED talk about how scientifically there is no race but race is a social construct. So what is it that parents teach their kids or peers teach each other about ‘them’ which skews each and every interaction with another race? The scripture says we are not to bear false witness against out neighbor, we are not to speak in gossip, slander etc. What stories to we tell our impressionables, those who listen to us, which may keep the divide strong to our own detriment? We will do well when we hold individuals accountable for their sins and not their whole race.

    • davidk

      So, we who are white trash should be offended?

  • G6loq
    • MacG

      Wull…that hurts my feelings…what WILL they do now?

  • A minority of writers many arguments about political correctness but they will remain a minority. Unfortunately.

    Yapping about Yelping at Yale


  • FredAllen1941

    Punishmet should fit the crime…I see far greater sins with far less punishment at public institutions {especially police departments} all the time ……..she was wrong, there was plenty other ways for her to say what she had to say without denigrating race and class…it is just wrong and she should be made to write and present a research report on why it is wrong

    • Faragon

      What “crime?” She expressed her views in manner unseemly – to you. Maybe to Yale. That is not a crime. The 1st Amendment was designed to protect – specifically – speech that will offend many an ear. As davidk says about said Amendment: you either have it, or you don’t.

  • ymarsakar

    First they went after the X, now they are after the Asians… the real asians.

  • davidk

    We either have free speech–or we don’t.

    But an employer should the right to fire an employee for any or no reason.

  • Mike Miller

    I agree overall, but get back to me when EVERYBODY can be non-PC without fear of reprisal. If she were just some Julie Six-pack it would be one thing. But she shapes young minds and thoughts. Not exactly like reading Plato.