That’s the claim of conservatives like the author of this article who have come to the defense of the University of Chicago’s Rachel Fulton Brown, who’s been accused of indifference to racism.

For several years, Rachel Fulton Brown, an associate professor of medieval history at the University of Chicago, has been defamed by Dorothy Kim, a professor of English literature at Brandeis University, with such terms as “white supremacist,” “alt-right” and “racist.” Kim now continues to slur Fulton Brown in an article at Inside Higher Ed. Kim’s continued defamation, whose real purpose is to shut down the free speech of anyone who disagrees with her, underscores the necessity for professors, academic institutions and ordinary citizens to affirm Fulton Brown’s good scholarly reputation.

Kim’s opinion piece nicely illustrates the specious verbiage social justice warriors use to defame their opponents. Kim says in effect that because there are in our country of 325 million a handful of white supremacists who look back fondly to medieval Europe, medievalists must devote themselves to exorcising the demon of racism. Some stranger or strangers read what Fulton Brown had said on her blog about Kim’s defamatory remarks. That person (or persons) then sent Kim an unpleasant comment, which Kim now uses to indict Fulton Brown as part of an alt-right conspiracy. A principled argument that a scholarship restricted to “medievalists of color” is racist is transformed into what Kim calls “epistemic racial violence.” Kim wants to feel “safe,” so Fulton Brown must be forbidden from attending a workshop Kim organized for the International Congress of Medieval Studies. Love of academic freedom in Kim’s view is a deceptive “rhetoric.” “Alt-right” and “alt-medieval” apparently mean anyone who opposes her attempt to redefine medieval studies as a witch hunt.

What is at issue is that Fulton Brown loudly opposed turning medieval studies into a ritual castigation of racism and sexism, as so much of the rest of the humanities has become. She championed instead the traditional idea that it should seek out the truth about a time and place inhabited by the usual complement of saints and sinners. Kim retaliated by defaming Fulton Brown partly because she was unable to best her in argument, but partly because such defamation has proven an effective tactic both inside and outside the academy. To call Fulton Brown a “white supremacist,” “alt-right” or “racist” is to say she is so evil that she deserves to be shut up and, if at all possible, to lose her job. It is also a warning to everyone else in the profession -- everyone who does not have tenure at a relatively staunch institution such as the University of Chicago: Keep quiet or we’ll make sure you’re hounded out of the profession.

All Americans, but especially academic individuals and institutions, need to stand up to defend Fulton Brown’s good name. We can only defend academic freedom, and freedom of speech more broadly, if we affirm the good name of the slandered. Otherwise the Kims of academe will succeed in shutting up everyone who disagrees with them -- and ensure that no one who dissents will even dream of entering so shaming a profession. Shame is the handmaiden of fear.

Fulton Brown is not a racist. Fulton Brown is not a white supremacist. Fulton Brown is not “alt-right,” whatever that is. John K. Wilson, co-editor of the American Association of University Professors’ "Academe"blog, aptly notes that “Kim accuses Fulton Brown of ‘intimidation at speaking events’ but provides no evidence or any details of what this is, or how it constitutes harassment.” ...