Why the Internet Celebrated a Killer
Combine moral zealotry with increasingly blurred lines between political speech and violence long enough, and the outcome is predictable.
Combine moral zealotry with increasingly blurred lines between political speech and violence long enough, and the outcome is predictable.
Kirk Wolff set out to peacefully protest Trump's plan to take over Gaza. Then an administrator and a police officer drove by.
Conversations on campus free speech with Timothy Zick, Jennifer Ruth, and Michael Berube
A federal district court discusses how the First Amendment limits liability for "hostile environment harassment" based on "speech on matters of public concern" in universities (public or private). And the reasoning may extend to Title VII liability on workplaces as well.
The pandemic showed the weakness of the leadership class. [UPDATE: Inadvertently posted it under my byline, but it's of course Ilya Shapiro's post, as the byline now reflects. -EV]
My "lived experience" at Georgetown gave me a unique perspective on the higher-ed crisis.
"As a result of Plaintiffs' scattered pleading, any serious allegations of actionable discrimination are buried as needles within a haystack of distraction."
164 events or speakers were targeted, mostly over the Israel-Palestine conflict.
A new type of sore-loser law.
Your donations help us keep the culture of free speech alive.
the politicized class of professors is a serious political liability to any party that it supports."
The portion of college students who say it's OK to shout down campus speakers is rising, according to a new survey.
N.Y. law provides for some judicial review of private universities' actions, when a university fails to "adhere[] to its own published rules," thus rendering its "actions were arbitrary or capricious"; but that standard, the court holds, wasn't met here.
A university president provides a helpful explanation of the difference.
The Stony Brook sociologist discusses how progressives are having a hard time processing why more and more black and Latino voters are supporting Donald Trump.
So holds a federal court (correctly, I think), considering restrictions that were prompted by Texas Governor Abbott's General Order GA-44.
A new article from the Daedalus (Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences) Future of Free Speech Symposium.
"Michigan's D.E.I. expansion has coincided with an explosion in campus conflict over race and gender," notes The New York Times.
The case was brought by Turning Point USA over the University of New Mexico's decision to charge over $5K (originally planned to be over $10K).
The university caved to pressure to target pro-Palestine events.
New guidance makes explicit what should have been clear already: Standard 208 obligates law schools to embrace First Amendment principles.
As Israel-Hamas demonstrations continue in the new school year, the misunderstanding of free speech is fueling disruption and hypocrisy on campuses.
As long as academic institutions place social justice goals ahead of truth seeking and knowledge creation, they will lose the respect of the public and will not live up to their potential.
Prof. Allan Josephson (formerly of the University of Louisville medical school) claims his contract wasn't renewed because "he expressed his thoughts on treating childhood gender dysphoria during a panel discussion sponsored by a conservative think tank [the Heritage Foundation]."
Some of the hardest free speech issues arise when a university argues that restrictions are justified by its "educational mission."
The survey of over 50,000 students also found that 37 percent of students said it was "sometimes" or "always" acceptable to shout down a speaker, up from 31 percent last year.
One of the functions of the First Amendment is to create a kind of arms control agreement: With respect to censorship, all sides agree to lay down their arms.
For free speech on campus, Brandeis and Holmes should guide colleges and universities.
Conforming speech policies to the First Amendment would serve private universities well, legally and otherwise.
"[T]he very idea of an 'official' position of the university on a social, scientific, or political issue runs counter to our foundational ethos ...."
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10