Trump Is Explicitly Targeting Legal Residents Based on the Opinions They Express
The rationale for deporting Mahmoud Khalil is chillingly vague and broad.
The rationale for deporting Mahmoud Khalil is chillingly vague and broad.
The government's stated justification for deporting him is so unconvincing that it must not be allowed to stand.
The Seventh Circuit so held yesterday; the case also involved other controversial statements besides the expurgated slur.
Just eight colleges had official neutrality policies before the attack. By the end of 2024, it was almost 150.
Plus: Ukraine attacks Russia with drones, Newsom's revisionist history, and more...
It's both unjust and unconstitutional.
Several months ago, Reason interviewed Mahmoud Khalil at a protest encampment. Now he’s sitting in ICE detention.
The law school's dean rejected the letter, arguing the First Amendment "guarantees that the government cannot direct what Georgetown and its faculty teach and how to teach it."
No? Then how can government refuse to hire Georgetown alumni, so long as Georgetown "teach[es] and promote[s] DEI"?
Texas A&M's Board of Regents voted to ban drag shows on the grounds that they objectify women and violate state and federal policies against promoting "gender ideology."
The department insists its directive will not suppress First Amendment rights.
Justice Thomas dissents from the Court's refusal to resolve a clear circuit split.
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.
Reason is an independent, audience-supported media organization. Your investment helps us reach millions of people every month.
Yes, I’ll invest in Reason’s growth! No thanksEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour donation supports the journalism that questions big-government promises and exposes failed ideas.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks