The pattern is clear.

Georgetown University refuses to sanction Professor Christine Fair for one of the most egregiously vile and violent comments I’ve ever seen on Twitter, whereas Catholic University comes down hard on Dean Rainford for merely stating a rather mild truth critical of already-debunked “accuser” Julie Swetnick.

If I had to choose only one of the two disparate responses, I’d chose Georgetown’s, which at least comes down on the side of liberty, and then let the market decide if students wish to attend Prof. Fair’s (a more inappropriate name was never seen) classes.

Catholic University’s response, on the other hand is craven and anti-liberty. And it’s not a one-off. A similar event has occurred at USC, where tenured professor James Moore is in trouble for saying that 2+2=4.

Yes, for merely stating an obvious, non-abusive, inoffensive (except to SJWs) truth about accusers (otherwise known as “survivors” and “victims,” because even false accusers are to be regarded as victims, right?):

Nearly 100 students at the University of Southern California attended a rally at noon on Monday demanding a tenured professor be fired after he sent a reply-all email last Thursday to the student body noting that “accusers sometimes lie.”

“If the day comes you are accused of some crime or tort of which you are not guilty, and you find your peers automatically believing your accuser, I expect you find yourself a stronger proponent of due process than you are now,” emailed Professor James Moore.

The email — in response to a reply-all email that urged students to “Believe Survivors” on the day of Christine Ford’s testimony — triggered what one school admin said was “hundreds” of emails from concerned students and alumni since Thursday.

USC students Audrey Mechling and Joelle Montier then organized a Facebook rally against the engineering professor, entitled “Times Up for James Moore.”

These anti-free-speech zealots can rally all they want; that’s free speech, too. It’s intensely depressing that they can draw any sort of crowd at all, but that’s what decades of leftist control of schools has wrought. The bigger problem is the response of USC’s administration in the person of Dean Jack Knott, the dancing bear du jour:

“What [Professor Moore] sent was extremely inappropriate, hurtful, insensitive. We are going to try to do everything we can to try to create a better school, to educate the faculty,” said Dean Knott to the crowd.

He then announced that USC would take action.

“This is going to be a multi-pronged effort. We are going to have a faculty meeting later this week around implicit bias, sensitivity towards [sexual assault]….” he said.

Isn’t that special, Dean Knott. Maybe the crocodile will eat you last. Send whatever portion of your faculty still retaining the values of logic and truth to the re-education camps for the proper training in right-thinking. And by the way, what Professor Moore said was actually extremely appropriate. If it hurt some sensitive SJW creatures who would like to do away with the protections Western civilization has struggled to put in place against false accusations, well then, tough.

Moore’s apology was tepid, and his defense of himself robust:

It is never my intention to hurt anyone. My intention is to protect more students than we currently do from being punished for acts of misconduct they have not committed. Any of us might stand accused of any number of misdeeds, and each of us at that point will want to be treated fairly under due process.

In light of all of this, consider the widespread criticism President Trump has gotten for mocking Christine Ford in a speech he gave recently. I happen to think he should have refrained for strategic reasons because (as the article demonstrates) the wavering senators who are gumming up the works didn’t like it. What he said may have essentially been true, but I think it didn’t help achieve the goal at all, and gave Ford’s defenders and Kavanaugh’s enemies grist for their mill. It was also unnecessary; Ford’s veracity problems and memory lapses have already been pointed out, and he was preaching to the choir.

On the other hand, I’ve been wrong many times about Trump’s controversial tweets and statements and their effect. I think he was trying to highlight the inconsistencies in Ford’s story in a way that really sinks in for people. He knew that his statements would get wide coverage, of course, much wider than if he’d said the same thing in a more restrained way.

Who knows? I suspect that on the whole what Trump did was a bad idea. But I also think that Ford’s lack of truthfulness is coming more and more into focus, and it should be fair game for criticism. Is she a “victim” of something? Who knows? But the lies of accusers are not to be afforded some special kid glove treatment merely because the accusers choose to couch those lies in accusations of sexual abuse, and/or because they are women. And yet that’s the hill most of our universities have chosen to die on.