According to media reports and other sources circulating widely on the internet, a disturbing and deeply revealing incident has taken place at the University of Florida Levin College of Law.

A student has allegedly submitted a final paper in a constitutional law class arguing that the U.S. Constitution applies only to white people and Jews—and that nonwhite people should be “abolished by any means necessary.”

The professor for that course? A federal judge appointed by Donald Trump and currently serving as adjunct faculty at UF Law.

According to these same reports, The judge awarded the paper the highest grade in the class and gave the student the school’s Book Award, a prestigious honor for academic excellence.

When questioned about this decision, the University of Florida reportedly defended it as an exercise of “free speech.”

Meanwhile, students peacefully protesting the genocide in Gaza are being surveilled, suspended, doxxed, expelled, and even arrested across Florida and the nation. In some cases, National Guard troops have been deployed to intimidate and remove them from campus grounds.

This is not just hypocrisy.

This is a dangerous asymmetry of power, revealing a system in which unequal free speech protects hate and punishes justice.

Welcome to the United States in 2025.

The Florida Two-Step: Silence the Protester, Reward Supremacist Rhetoric

Across Florida’s public universities, student protesters advocating for Palestinian human rights have been labeled “antisemites,” forcibly removed from encampments, and threatened with expulsion. Governor Ron DeSantis has personally pushed for the arrest of students participating in these peaceful demonstrations. Entire campus groups have been banned.

But in a law school classroom—one of the most powerful professional pipelines in the country—a student can allegedly advocate for racial elimination and receive honors and academic validation.

That’s not just a double standard. That’s a message.

A message that says:

If you protest injustice, you’re a problem.

If you advocate injustice—so long as it’s dressed up in legal theory—you’re gifted.

This isn’t neutrality.

It’s institutional complicity wrapped in supremacist ideology.

The Book Award Is Not Neutral

The Book Award is not some abstract classroom recognition. It is an institutional endorsement. It is public. It goes on résumés. It sends a signal to employers, judges, and law firms that this student represents the best legal thinking at the University of Florida.

So when the Judge allegedly awarded that honor to a student allegedly calling for the removal of nonwhite people from the protections of the Constitution, he wasn’t just tolerating fascist rhetoric—he was elevating it.

In legal education, honors like this have weight. They create opportunity. They open doors. What we incentivize in classrooms eventually governs courtrooms.

And when what’s allegedly being incentivized is racial eliminationist theory, the system isn’t broken—it’s doing exactly what it was designed to do.

Trump’s America: The 2025 Agenda Is Here

Let’s not pretend this is just one rogue incident.

Donald Trump has almost half implemented the dangerous blueprint known as Project 2025 in just a few months, a sweeping agenda to consolidate power, dismantle institutions, and criminalize dissent.

Under this plan, the Trump administration is:

-Gutting the U.S. Department of Education

-Eliminating DEI initiatives across universities Installing loyalists at the helm of public colleges

-Launching loyalty purges of federal employees—including educators

-Targeting and defunding institutions that support academic freedom

In this environment, it’s no accident that a judge appointed by Trump is rewarding racialized rhetoric in a law school classroom. It’s not a glitch. It’s a feature.

The 2025 agenda isn’t just about silencing students. It’s about replacing them with a new generation of legally trained ideologues—people who will weaponize the Constitution not to expand rights, but to restrict them to the already powerful.

A Constitution for Who?

Let’s not sugarcoat it: The law student didn’t invent these ideas.

The belief that the Constitution was designed only for white men has deep historical roots. Black people were written out. Indigenous nations were ignored. Women were property. Immigrants were excluded. And the U.S. legal system has often been used as a tool to preserve these exclusions.

The student, according to the reports, simply reframed that old injustice in modern legal language—and was rewarded for it.

This is not about “academic freedom.”

It’s about the institutional laundering of historically racialized rhetoric through elite credentials. The kind of rhetoric you read in Mein Kampf.

So when a Trump-aligned judge gives that ideology an A+ and a Book Award, he’s actually attacking academic freedom by giving credence to the next chapter of authoritarianism by abolishing the first amendment for all.

Who Really Has Free Speech?

So let’s drop the illusion.

If free speech only protects the powerful, it’s not freedom—it’s permission.

If chanting “Free Palestine” gets you banned from campus, but allegedly calling for the “abolition” of people of color gets you a trophy, we don’t have free speech in 2025.

We have selective speech—a constitutional cosplay where the rules only apply to the powerful.

We cannot allow hate speech to be treated as academic brilliance while protest speech is criminalized as “extremism.”

That’s not justice. That’s not education. That’s not democracy.

Free speech must belong to all of us—or it belongs to none of us.

Because when the First Amendment becomes a weapon used to shield fascism and silence the Constitution, we are not protecting liberty—we are burying it.

We See the Warning—and We Will Not Be Silent

This moment is not just an academic scandal. It’s a test of whether we still believe in justice at all.

Education is becoming a site of ideological warfare.

Classrooms are being converted into echo chambers for unchallenged hate speech rather than debate.

And judges, professors, and institutions are choosing sides.

Let us be clear:

We don’t want less free speech.

We want all of it.

For everyone.

Because the Constitution doesn’t need to be rewritten to include us.

It needs to be reclaimed from those who would narrow its reach to the few.

So we will keep protesting.

We will keep writing.

We will keep resisting.

Because justice is not a paper.

It’s not a prize.

It’s not a privilege.

It’s a practice.

And we’re not giving it up.