At the Catholic University of America, William Rainford, Dean of the Catholic School of Social Service, had the audacity to point out the logical flaws of Julie Swetnick's testimony against Brett Kavanaugh. An obviously orchestrated collective snit-fit has ensued, with cries for his firing. CUA President John Garvey joined in the braying, sniffing that Rainford "demonstrated a lack of sensitivity to the victim". Do we see the problem here? It has yet to be proven that Swetnick is a victim of Kavanaugh. In fact, she may not be a victim at all. The act of taking an assertion to be proven and acting as though it were settled fact is the logical fallacy of "begging the question". Rainford is being hung to dry because he isn't mindlessly glomming onto the politically correct assumption. So "insensitive" of him!
Speaking of "insensitive", let's now take a look at nearby Georgetown University. There we have C. Christine Fair, an associate professor, tweeted that "white Republican men should die" and their corpses should be castrated and fed to swine. Georgetown is taking an indifferent stance to the screed. What would they be saying if Fair was saying that about black Democrats? I'd be willing to bet they'd be sounding an awful like John Garvey. By the way - when you look at the article, click on the link to the tweets. The people replying are giving her a much-needed verbal spanking.
So there you have it. On one hand, a professor can question the veracity of a testimony and draw the wrath of the administration on his head. On the other hand, another professor across town can call for the murder of Republicans and she gets a free pass. Of course they both receive federal funding; that's a big part of the picture.