A professor’s annoyance at seeing a conservative logo in the wild is just one more reason for conservatives’ reluctance to express their views on campus.

Kevin Kruse, a history professor at Princeton University, shared the following post on Bluesky this week:

I’m at the Princeton Columbia MBB game, sitting next to one Columbia fan with a National Review hat and in front of another wearing a gold and white Trump 47 hat. 

I may need bail money later. 

A subpar lawyer might attempt to construe these comments as threats or incitement. Even though I’ve previously described Kruse’s (now defunct) Twitter as “so far left that it makes Vox look conservative,” I don’t think he seriously contemplated committing politically motivated violence. Why? Well, his social media content regularly has a haughty satirical flair. Of course, whether you find him funny is a different matter. To be honest, the only thing I find funny about this particular post is that Kruse is distressed — or triggered, to borrow a favorite word of the progressives — upon merely seeing right-wing merchandise. I don’t have a psychology degree, but I’ll offer an assessment: A person who is provoked by the hat from a major publication or a presidential campaign is emotionally fragile and pathetic.

It would be convenient to dismiss this Bluesky post as brainless content unworthy of scrutiny. But even after putting aside the mild quasi-threat, there are reasons to be concerned by the post: Kruse is a professor. Imagine if the person wearing the National Review merchandise had been a Princeton student in his class. In fact, there have been plenty of Princeton undergraduates who published in National Review: Matthew Wilson, Myles McKnight, Benjamin Woodard, Akhil Rajasekar, Adam Hoffman, and yours truly. If Kruse is annoyed when simply encountering a conservative logo in the wild, then I have difficulty believing that he can fairly grade an essay that sets forth a conservative-leaning argument. And what if, God forbid, that essay was submitted by a student whose name is in National Review’s pages? The horror!

Let’s entertain another hypothetical. Imagine if a conservative professor shared the following on social media: 

I’m at the Princeton Columbia MBB game, sitting next to one Columbia fan with a CNN hat and in front of another wearing a gold and white Harris-Walz hat. 

I may need bail money later. 

Hmm. Surely, there would be outrage. People would readily argue that such a professor maintains hostile views toward ideological opponents, and that this raises serious questions about his ability to properly execute teaching responsibilities, particularly presenting lecture material fairly and grading papers that offer dissenting opinions fairly. I’m sure progressives — especially students — would set forth more accusations: The hypothetical professor is creating an unsafe, exclusive, intolerant environment. 

Quite frankly, I don’t know of a conservative professor who has posted (or would post) something of the sort — and that observation tracks with the data showing that right-wing faculty members are more likely to self-censor. Indeed, Kruse’s Bluesky content reflects his personality and political affiliations, but it is also a product of our culture; Kruse’s confidence to brazenly joke about political violence on social media is a natural result of the protection that institutions (like Princeton) provide when confronted with a left-wing individual whose conduct is objectionable.

Does Kruse have any reason to believe that a university would rigorously investigate him and enforce consequences for wrongdoing? No, because he’s already been excused for serious matters. Not too long ago, historian Phil Magness brought forth detailed allegations to Princeton University that Kruse had instances of plagiarism in his doctoral dissertation and books. Princeton mysteriously “overlooked” Magness’s email for months, then began “reviewing” the allegations after Magness published an article presenting the evidence against Kruse. Cornell University, where Kruse completed his Ph.D., similarly launched an investigation. 

Eventually, Kruse was cleared. Princeton dismissed the alleged plagiarism as “careless cutting and pasting” — despite the school’s guidelines on acknowledgments, paraphrases, and quotes. A Cornell dean stated that Kruse’s “citation errors were made without intent to plagiarize from these scholars’ works,” and further added that “this element of ‘intent’ is a key criterion for evaluating alleged plagiarism under Cornell University’s Code of Academic Integrity.” Weirdly, when that dean’s comments were reported, it was stated on an official Cornell website that “whether intentional or unintentional, plagiarism is a serious violation of Cornell’s Code of Academic Integrity.” Kruse, I believe, would argue that these investigations and their findings prove that he is not guilty of plagiarism. But I would disagree; I think universities operate kangaroo courts that ignore policies whenever the defendant holds acceptable opinions. 

Honestly, I don’t have a problem with Kruse himself. I do, however, have an issue with the obvious double standards applied at universities on the basis of political ideology — be it with respect to speech or scholarship. But I guess I should thank Kruse, since he’s contributed to an ever-growing database of reasons for why conservatives report being more uncomfortable speaking on campus, a trend that has been found at Princeton itself. 

(A final note: Jeff Blehar wants to “find the dude wearing the NR hat and offer him a free yearly subscription, just for angering this man.” So, if you’re that person, email Jeff.)