A Troubling Escalation

The Detention of Mahmoud Khalil

The detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian graduate of Columbia University who helped lead Gaza solidarity protests, represents a deeply concerning escalation in the targeting of political speech.

According to advocates, DHS officers detained Khalil at his Columbia-owned apartment while his eight-months-pregnant wife watched. The agents claimed his student visa was revoked, then when presented with evidence of his green card status, bizarrely claimed that had been revoked too.

It's important to note that taking a position on this detention does not require taking a position on the Israel-Gaza conflict itself. This is fundamentally about the application of First Amendment principles to political disagreement—regardless of the content of that disagreement.

Whether one views the campus protests as motivated by hatred, misunderstanding, indifference, or some combination of these factors is beside the point when considering the constitutional implications. What matters is that this is clearly a political disagreement, and in America, we have established principles for how such disagreements are handled.

The First Amendment exists precisely to protect speech that authorities might find objectionable. It was not designed to protect popular speech, which needs no protection. Its purpose is to ensure that even unpopular, controversial, or uncomfortable viewpoints remain protected from government suppression.

You can feel it now, can't you? The gravity is pulling harder now. You will meet the ground.

This is what happens when coherence breaks down—when the principles that once governed our society are selectively applied or discarded altogether. When a green card holder can be detained for his political speech. When universities that should stand as bastions of free inquiry instead facilitate the targeting of dissent. When federal agencies claim powers that shift according to political expediency rather than law.

The Doctor of Logic and Coherence has a diagnosis, and it isn't pretty.

When you notice that threatening to deport students for their political views contradicts decades of First Amendment jurisprudence, that's not derangement—that's pattern recognition. When you observe that midnight detentions without clear legal basis create a chilling effect on campus speech, that's not partisan hysteria—that's cause-and-effect reasoning. When you point out that claiming to revoke immigration status without process transforms legal protections into arbitrary power, that's not emotional overreaction—that's definitional clarity.

The true derangement would be normalizing the abnormal. Accepting the unacceptable. Calling coherence “alarmism” and calling fundamental violations “standard procedure.”

There's a reason Logic and Coherence are the physicians of truth. They don't care about your political preferences. They don't bend to personality or power. They simply ask: Does this make sense? Does this hold together? Does this remain consistent across contexts?

Apply these questions to Khalil's detention, and the diagnosis becomes clear. The patient isn't those who express alarm at alarming developments. The patient is our collective capacity to distinguish between protecting national security and suppressing political dissent, between enforcing immigration law and weaponizing it against critics.

This isn't about partisanship. The same standards must apply regardless of who holds power. The same principles must govern our assessment of all enforcement actions, all targeting, all responses to protest. The moment we abandon this consistency, we abandon the possibility of meaningful constitutional governance altogether.

The Doctor of Logic and Coherence doesn't prescribe blind opposition or reflexive support. The prescription is simpler: Hold the line on meaning itself. Refuse the invitation to make exceptions for power. Maintain the stubborn insistence that two plus two still equals four, even when saying so gets you labeled as alarmist.

I don't suffer from political derangement. I suffer from an inability to pretend that incoherence is coherent, that selective enforcement is justice, that intimidation is security, that silence is freedom. If that's a syndrome, then perhaps we need more of it, not less.

Remember what's real. Hold the center. Push back the flood.

And know that you are not the one who's deranged.