In case you missed it, via Rafi in the comments: 

“The performative shit is done,” says she, performatively.

Or, Hysterical Woman Is Hysterical:

Hate speech… makes one wish one was dead or worse had never been born, the ultimate existential black hole. Hate speech is a speech act that can harm the central nervous system, it can result in PTSD, and when used by police and jailers to humiliate prisoners hate speech is psychological torture, a civil rights and human rights violation. In short, hate speech is an act of violence. 

So writes Nancy Scheper-Hughes, an anthropology lecturer at Berkeley. She’s referring, of course, to the recent visit by Ben Shapiro. Though quite why Mr Shapiro should be mentioned alongside psychological torture and the violation of human rights remains unclear, and Dr Scheper-Hughes takes care not to offer even a single direct quotation by way of evidence. Instead, we’re treated to some inventive ventriloquism, to the extent that readers are expected to believe that Shapiro has somewhere referred to black people, all of them, as “criminally inclined, drug addicted, homicidal losers.” Those familiar with Mr Shapiro’s actual output may find this a little bizarre. Almost as bizarre as the claim that Shapiro is not only “racist, sexist” and “misogynist,” but also “very dangerous” and a “physical threat” to students.  

Perhaps Dr Scheper-Hughes has some thoughts on whether publicly and hyperbolically defaming people – accusing them of racism and misogyny, and of being a physical menace to students, for instance – also constitutes “violence” and a cause of post-traumatic stress disorder.  

Further to comments in this thread here, regarding Dr Michael Isaacson, an adjunct professor who specialises in “anti-capitalist economic theories,” further details have emerged regarding the loud and relentless buzzing noise inside his head:

The Daily Caller was alerted… to a host of tweets by Isaacson that were only just brought to light Wednesday. The tweets, some of which were deleted following coverage of Isaacson in the media, call not only for Antifa protests, but for killing the police.

“What’s even the point,” asks Dr Isaacson, “of a cop that isn’t dead?” Titillating thoughts of police officers being murdered, including future officers among his own students, and violence generally, are a recurring theme in said gentleman’s Twitter feed, with many variations. Including, rather succinctly, “Dead cops are good.” You see, hinting coyly about burning down police stations “with an accelerant” is what the modern educator does. Oh, and apparently, if students can “overthrow capitalism,” and if certain people are killed, this will “stop war.”

And remember, these aren’t the ravings of a delinquent, simple-minded teenager. These are the ravings of a grown man employed to impart knowledge at CUNY’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

Further to the last item here, and various rumblings in the comments, here’s Nanette Asimov on The Screeching Left versus Ben Shapiro (and anyone who wants to engage him in debating ideas): 

For many protesters, the specifics of what the opposition says is not the point. “It doesn’t matter what the guy’s going to say,” said Michael Heaney, a professor at the University of Michigan who studies the sociology of protest movements. “He could talk about the joys of apple-picking. What matters is that the counter-movement is trying to use the energy of the (event) to grow. This is an opportunity for them — and they are likely to seize upon it.”

And hence the conceit that any disagreement is an act of “violence,” to be repaid in kind, violently. For the hyperventilated protestors, it’s all about them and their psychodrama. Because it always is. And so we see self-styled ‘progressives’, the self-imagined woke, calling a Jewish man “Nazi scum” and a “fascist xenophobe” because he opposes racism and thuggery, and wants to have conversations in which students consider issues of basic humanity.

See also, Charles Murray, Heather Mac Donald, Janice Fiamengo, etc., etc. 

Speaking of sociology and its clown school connotations:

I will gladly sow gender confusion in kids. It’s my duty to.

So says Colin Cremin, a sociology lecturer who uses the workplace – and his colleagues and students – in order to indulge his transvestite kink:  

While I’m delighted to contribute to the breaking down of hetero-fascist biases, this was not the principal reason I started dressing to work as a woman. No doubt to the disappointment of colleagues in sociology, I never suffered from being born into the wrong gender… I dress as a woman because I like wearing women’s clothes. I like the look of the westernised feminine aesthetic. I like the feel of the silky fabrics on my body. I like the process of selecting outfits, matching up jewellery and shoes and putting on makeup.

And apparently all that fetishistic cosplay really needs an audience, preferably an involuntary one, during office hours. How terribly selfless.

Update, via the comments: