Georgetown President Calls Limbaugh ‘Misogynistic, Vitriolic’

Georgetown President Calls Limbaugh ‘Misogynistic, Vitriolic’

Georgetown President Calls Limbaugh ‘Misogynistic, Vitriolic’

Georgetown University President John J. DeGioia has written a letter to the university community worthy of being shared.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

The president of Georgetown University, John J. DeGioia, has written a letter (see below) to the university community that condemns Rush Limbaugh for his sick, hateful and altogether disturbing comments about Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke. There is an argument that says, “When you pay attention to Limbaugh, you give him just what he wants.” On one level, this is true. He’s a hacky carnival barker whose made millions by trading on racism, sexism and homophobia—and our attendant outrage. But Limbaugh crossed a line this week. He called a private citizen a “slut” because she testified to Congress about a friend who lost an ovary. He rose on top of his reinforced bully pulpit and invited violence and harassment on someone for daring to answer an invitation to speak before members of Congress. This could be his “Don Imus moment.” But that will depend on our level of commitment to get this bigot off of our airwaves and into his basement where he can join Glenn Beck in virtual anonymity. Here is a link to his sponsors.

Also, given the role that Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich’s loud and proud Catholicism has played in the Republican primary race, every candidate should be asked if they agree with President DeGioia and join him in his condemnation of Limbaugh’s misogyny. I can’t wait for to hear both of Mitt Romney’s answers. Without further ado, below is the text of President DeGioia’s letter.

In recent days, a law student of Georgetown, Sandra Fluke, offered her testimony regarding the proposed regulations by the Department of Health and Human Services before a group of members of Congress. She was respectful, sincere, and spoke with conviction. She provided a model of civil discourse. This expression of conscience was in the tradition of the deepest values we share as a people. One need not agree with her substantive position to support her right to respectful free expression. And yet, some of those who disagreed with her position – including Rush Limbaugh and commentators throughout the blogosphere and in various other media channels – responded with behavior that can only be described as misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of the position of our student.

In our vibrant and diverse society, there always are important differences that need to be debated, with strong and legitimate beliefs held on all sides of challenging issues. The greatest contribution of the American project is the recognition that together, we can rely on civil discourse to engage the tensions that characterize these difficult issues, and work towards resolutions that balance deeply held and different perspectives. We have learned through painful experience that we must respect one another and we acknowledge that the best way to confront our differences is through constructive public debate. At times, the exercise of one person’s freedom may conflict with another’s. As Americans, we accept that the only answer to our differences is further engagement.

In an earlier time, St. Augustine captured the sense of what is required in civil discourse: “Let us, on both sides, lay aside all arrogance. Let us not, on either side, claim that we have already discovered the truth. Let us seek it together as something which is known to neither of us. For then only may we seek it, lovingly and tranquilly, if there be no bold presumption that it is already discovered and possessed.”

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x