Fired anti-Trump Yale professor loses lawsuit

According to Business Insider, a federal judge has ruled that Yale University was within its rights to fire a stridently anti-Trump professor. 

Professor says Trump supporters suffer from “mass psychosis”

Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Bandy Lee gained notoriety four years ago when she told Capitol Hill lawmakers that then President Donald Trump was on the verge of experiencing a mental breakdown.

In addition to going after the former president, Lee has also begun targeting his supporters. She tweeted early this year that they are suffering from “mass psychosis” and have a predilection toward violence.

In 2017, Lee wrote a book titled, “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President.”

“Trump is now the most powerful head of state in the world, and one of the most impulsive, arrogant, ignorant, disorganized, chaotic, nihilistic, self-contradictory, self-important, and self-serving,” she argued.

Yale official says Lee acted inappropriately as a psychiatrist

However, none of that went over well with Dr. John Krystal, who served as chair of Yale University’s Psychiatry Department.

The Blaze noted last week that Krystal sent a letter to Lee in 2020 admonishing her for placing a mental health diagnosis on Trump despite having never met him.

“I want to emphasize that you did not make these statements as a layperson offering a political judgment; you made them explicitly in your professional capacity as a psychiatrist and on the basis of your psychiatric knowledge and judgment,” Krystal pointed out.

“For that reason, the committee decided it was appropriate to consider how these statements reflected your ability to teach trainees,” he continued.

While Lee filed a lawsuit when Yale decided to let her go, Business Insider cited a report from The Hartford Courant which said that U.S. District Judge Sarah A.L. Merriam was unmoved by her arguments.

In her decision to dismiss Lee’s suit, Merriam wrote, “[Lee’s] vague assertion that some unspecified provision in the Faculty Handbook creates a right to ‘academic freedom’ is plainly insufficient to show that [the] defendant undertook a contractual commitment to guarantee plaintiff continued reappointment.”