Georgetown University's provost's distinguished associate professor in the Security Studies Program at its Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Christine Fair, is at it again, standing out.

Here's her latest tweet regarding the Senate hearings of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, since deleted:

So far, so typical – just another crazy lefty non-full professor popping off?  She certainly has a violent orientation, rather like the Muslim societies she purports to be an expert on on her Georgetown bio page, where, curiously, she is listed as Carol C. Fair.  I do not know if that was a recent change in a bid to avoid Google keywords or some secretary's typo or what.  But notice the Islamic flavor of that sort of fantasy described in the tweet.  And notice how she doesn't seem to ever get into any trouble for it.  She's not your ordinary crazy left-wing loony professor.

Now, usually, the loony-left professors we see at this game are wretchedly marginal in the university world, total losers from the womyn's studies programs and other zero-value academic programs of political correctness, and usually, they get forced into resigning after their stupidities get out.  Think Melissa Click at Mizzou, or George Ciccariello-Maher at Drexel University, or Michael Isaacson at John Jay University.  We usually don't see this kind of wild raving lunacy from the distinguished professors, although they are just as left-wing.

But Fair is a special case.  It turns out she's engaged in numerous crazy stunts, and Georgetown University, that bastion of self-declared "civility," just keeps on letting her keep on – almost like a protection racket, eh, Jesuits?

Here is a small, far from comprehensive rundown of her other instances of demonstrating...Georgetown values:

*In December 2016, she had a month-long meltdown against a Muslim colleague who voted for President Trump, harassing her colleague with epithets such as "clueless dolt," "fame mongering clown show," and "wretch," arguing that her vote helped normalize Nazis.  The Daily Caller report notes that it was loaded with four-letter intensifiers.  The Muslim colleague complained that it was harassment.

*In January 2017, she published a blog titled "S--- Men Say" that MRCTV reported was a platform for doxxing political opponents, with 80 instances counted.  MRCTV also reports that she went to great ends to get them publicized, using Google, Tumblr, and Twitter as platforms.

*In January 2018, she was caught in a Frankfurt airport berating the German police as Nazis, again, with considerable use of four-letter-word intensifiers.

*In October 2018, she launched a barrage of angry tweets at GOP senators, calling them "fragile snowflakes" and hollering about "white male privilege," describing weird fantasies of their "manboobs' going cancerous, as if cancer were something one jokes about.  She was unrepentant and has declared, even in some sort of piece, that "my profanity is sacred."

Then there was this latest castration tweet, revealing a vile and violent mind.

Despite this, she has an elevated position and much lauded papers and books.  Yet on the teaching front, she's got only execrable reviews on RateMyProfessors due to her intolerance and bias:

Caution: RateMyProfessors lists her incorrectly as a professor of women's studies, so there may be something off.  But these aren't recent reviews, and it's probably notable that there are only a few of them, suggesting that she might have a rather light workload, despite her long list of classes taught.

A friend whose child goes to Georgetown sent this email today, suggesting that the pattern is consistent, despite Fair's claims to impartiality:

I had a class with this woman.  Knowledgeable about South Asia, but totally crazy (and we only got 1% of what was in her twitter feed).  I think I wrote in my end of class eval something like "get rid of her before you have a lawsuit on your hands."

What value she might have to Georgetown with a temperament like this is quite a mystery.  But Georgetown keeps defending her.

Not so amazingly, these aren't the only tangles she has had.  She's obviously been running around Islamic societies for her South Asia terrorism research, and she's made plenty of them mad, too, if you Google the Indian and Pakistani press.

More significant, she's gotten into fights with some of the left, most notably Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept, who has questioned her scholarship advocating the efficacy of indiscriminate drone attacks over in Pakistan, research President Obama apparently embraced as part of his drone strategy and kill lists.  It's a topic that hasn't been talked about much by the right, given our lack of sympathy for terrorists and the societies that breed them, but Greenwald and colleagues have found it a bad idea, with killings of around 90% of civilians instead of combatants.  And quite notably, according to Salon, she clashed sharply with President Trump's former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, in 2015 over that same issue of drones.

Kill 'em all – it seems to be her philosophy, and it's spilled into her tweets, because Georgetown is strangely coddling her.

She also has CIA contractor ties, according to this report in Salon (which would mean a security clearance for an apparently unstable person); has taken grants for research of more than $300,000 from the Obama administration; and has a weird habit of hiding behind the right in her drone advocacy.

In her bio, she claims to have written for "The National Review" (sic), although there is no evidence I could find that she ever did.  In her bio's list of four op-eds, she lists only their titles and not their actual publications.  My own Google search shows that she wrote three for the Asian Wall Street Journal and one for the Washington Post.  That's kind of a funny thing to want to hide.

Georgetown is famous for serving as a landing pad for Obama administration operatives (Joe Biden's former national security adviser, Colin Kahl, is one example, at least until he got a better offer from Susan Rice's Stanford), and it seems obvious that maybe this is what has gone on.  It certainly would explain why they seem to be protecting her, allowing her to pop off on insane things, again and again, and engage in all manner of bad internet behavior without consequence.

Are they doing this because they expect her to be the next national security adviser, deciding matters of life and death, in an Elizabeth Warren administration?  Sure seems like it.  Because things don't add up with this crazy professor who seems to be increasingly emboldened the more Georgetown lets her get away with it.

Image credit: New America via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.