A law student at the University of Florida sparked a controversy when he received an academic commendation for a paper asserting that the Constitution was designed solely for the benefit of white people. This incident set off a ripple of chaos within the University’s environment. The contentious laureate, Preston Damsky, is known to harbor white supremacist and anti-Semitic sentiments.
During a course focused on ‘originalism’, a favored legal perspective among many conservatives which aims to decipher the Constitution based on its original context, Damsky crafted his disturbing thesis. His paper proposed that the Constitution’s ‘We the People’ passage was written with the sole interpretation of denoting white people. He extended his argument, suggesting that voting rights for nonwhites should be rescinded and advocating for aggressive border control measures against ‘criminal infiltrators’.
His view extended to the belief that any shift of power to a ‘nonwhite majority’ equated to a ‘serious crime’. Furthermore, he warned against the ‘demographic onslaught on their sovereignty’ which he believed white people were being subjected to.
As the semester concluded, the 29-year-old Damsky received the ‘book award’ signifying his status as the top student in the class. The class syllabus revealed that the capstone project had the most substantial influence on final grades. However, the conferment of this award ignited even more unrest within the law school corridors.
The law school’s interim dean, Merritt McAlister, stood in defense of the divisive decision early this year. She pointed to the protection of Damsky’s freedom of speech and argued against ‘viewpoint discrimination’ by teaching staff. McAlister invoked the principle of ‘institutional neutrality’ in an email correspondence with the law school community, a policy gaining traction among college administrations, essentially advising schools against voicing public opinions on controversial issues.
Events took an unexpected turn after McAlister’s defense when Damsky began sharing racist and anti-Semitic content on his newly opened social media account in February. Following an alarming post in which Damsky advocated for the ‘abolition of Jews by any means necessary’, the university took swift action, suspending him, banning him from school grounds, and augmenting police surveillance around the law school.
Now, Damsky is seeking to appeal this punitive action, which carries a potential outcome of expulsion. In an environment where the university hosts the highest number of Jewish undergraduate students nationally, according to Hillel International, and boasts a diverse student body—48% white, 22% Hispanic, 10% Asian, and 5% Black, the offensive posts incited both surprise and dread.
Upon interviewing, Damsky maintained he posed no real danger to anyone, asserting his affiliations to no particular group. While acknowledging the outcry he prompted, he emphasized that he felt victimized for merely sharing his ideas. The looming disciplinary action may lead to his eventual expulsion, a possibility he vowed to fiercely contest.
It emerged that Damsky’s ideology was not a recent development but had been shaped by his reading preferences. His radical beliefs were fueled significantly by the works of authors like Sam Francis, a white nationalist, and Richard Lynn, well-known for advocating white racial superiority and eugenics.
In the preceding fall, Damsky’s extreme views became common knowledge among the law school community when a draft paper from another class was circulated among students and faculty members. This paper, akin to the originalism seminar paper, put forth the argument that the Constitution was exclusively crafted for the benefit of white people.
Despite the controversy, some members of the school community supported the dean’s position. A university professor expressed his belief that discounting a well-reasoned paper on account of personal diametrically opposite beliefs could be interpreted as ‘academic misconduct’. He argued that personal prejudice should not interfere with objective academic evaluation.
However, not all agreed—several students expressed their disagreement with this stance. Still, none wanted to go on record with their criticism, fearing potential repercussions on their future career opportunities, since they would risk criticising their academic institution and the opinion of a presiding federal judge.
Ultimately, the incident pulled back the curtains on the controversy and tension simmering within academic freedom boundaries. It drives ongoing debate on the delicate balance between free speech, institutional neutrality, and the moral responsibility of any learning institution to uphold and promote equality and social justice. As the University of Florida attempts to restore calm within its law school following the turmoil, its student body, and faculty are left grappling with the implications of this incident.
The post Florida Law Student Sparks Controversy with Racialized Thesis appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
