BUZZ
‘They exploit norms of collegiality and presumptions of integrity to advance trash‘
Law professors who support limits on birthright citizenship should be shunned in academia, according to a Fordham University scholar.
“There MUST be repercussions for the lawprofs who advanced such untenable arguments. Their behavior is — and I mean this literally, not dehumanizingly — parasitic,” John Pfaff (pictured) wrote in a since-deleted post on BlueSky.
“They exploit norms of collegiality and presumptions of integrity to advance trash. Which undermines the work of ALL of us,” he said. He later wrote, “I stand by the idea, but I should have phrased it better. Academic freedom is the right to say what you want, without INSTITUTIONAL repercussions (generally). But it’s not the right to speak w NO repercussions.”
The post drew criticism from Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor for first highlighted the comments.
Writing on his own website, Turley argued:
[The 14th Amendment and citizeship] has long been a debate that divided legal experts. Given the purging of our law schools of conservative scholars, the rejection of birthright citizenship is not a popular view in higher education. However, some of us stressed when the decision came down that there were good-faith arguments on both sides and defended conservative justices like Justice Amy Coney Barrett for voting with the liberal justices in rejecting the claim.
That tolerance, however, is intolerable for professors like Pfaff. After the decision, Professor Pfaff went on BlueSky to vent against anyone who dared to voice a dissenting view in academia, calling such faculty “parasites” that have to be effectively stomped out of higher education.
The intolerance to opposing viewpoints extends throughout academia, Turley said.
“His rationale for punishing opposing viewpoints is an insight into the arguments used against intellectual diversity and institutional neutrality in higher education,” the esteemed law professor wrote.
Pfaff also took aim at Ilan Wurman, who supports limiting birthright citizenship. Wurman teaches at the University of Minnesota.
Ah yes, time to push for that traditional tool of academic thought and freedom—the recantation! pic.twitter.com/yFlBlsjaW7
— Ilan Wurman (@ilan_wurman) July 1, 2026
Pfaff wrote on Bluesky:
If there are no costs to that — and only the upside to fancy dinners funded by antidemocratic oligarchs and the ‘nonpartisan institutions’ they have endowed — then we can only reward this behavior. Everyone involved in this canard should be frozen out of academic life until they recant.
Academics cannot simultaneously complain about the inability for facts and reality to drive policy while simultaneously refusing to confront the fabulists in our midst. Wurman et al do not just demean originalism or history. They demean ALL of us, by making ALL of us less credible.
Similar opinions are apparently shared by Michael Kreis, a law professor at Georgia State University.
“I’m mad about today. I’m mad that justices can’t do the bare minimum to uphold the Constitution,” he wrote, even though a majority of justices ruled in favor of birthright citizenship.
“I’m mad that the law and our history, which I have dedicated so much of my life to, is an inconvenience than an inheritance to many. I’m mad that the academy, which I love, rewards and enables it.”
MORE: Fire professors who oppose ‘gender-affirming care’ for minors, Harvard faculty chair says
