Campus Free Speech

University of Colorado Does the Right Thing

|

I more often note when universities behave badly—or threaten to behave badly—by sanctioning members of the campus community for expressing unpopular opinions. Unfortunately, there are many such episodes to highlight. It is also worth recognizing universities when they behave well.

Professor John Eastman of Chapman University Law School wrote a much-discussed op-ed in Newsweek questioning whether Kamala Harris is a natural-born citizen and thus eligible to be president or vice president. The op-ed applies Eastman's longstanding views about citizenship under the Constitution, which he has more often discussed in the context of children born on American soil but whose parents are undocumented aliens.

I think Eastman's constitutional arguments on this topic are generally wrong, and that he is wrong about the specific application to Harris. Many scholars think he is wrong, and they have explained why. But that is how scholarly debate works. Professors will sometimes be wrong, and they are allowed to be wrong. They are allowed be wrong even on politically controversial topics that people outside of academia care about. When they are wrong, they should be rebutted or ignored. There are extreme cases when academics might be so wrong about a matter within their professional competence that it calls into question their professional fitness to hold an academic position, but Eastman is nowhere near that line.

But as is often the case, some think that open discussion of competing points of view in the public sphere is not good enough. Professor Eastman is a "visiting scholar in conservative thought and policy" at the University of Colorado at Boulder. These positions were created in order to increase the intellectual diversity of the university and expose the campus to some conservative scholars. In light of Eastman's op-ed about Harris, some demanded that Eastman's position at Colorado be rescinded.

To his credit, the chancellor at the University of Colorado at Boulder has firmly rejected that demand.

Academic freedom includes the rights and responsibilities afforded to faculty members to create and disseminate knowledge and seek truth as the individual understands it, subject to the standards of their disciplines and the rational methods by which truth is established. Even legal scholars who reject Professor Eastman's constitutional arguments recognize his theories are debatable.

If I would deny Professor Eastman these rights, it would weaken our ability to defend our entire faculty's pursuit and dissemination of scholarship without fear of censorship or retaliation, even when it offends the sensibilities of others and makes people uncomfortable. However, I do encourage all of us—our visiting scholars included—to remember that while we as faculty have the privilege of academic freedom, that privilege comes with significant collective and individual responsibilities.

As with many such statements, the chancellor's recognition of the faculty member's right to free speech comes couched in a discussion of how problematic the faculty member's speech was in this particular case. That would not generally be my preference for how such statements should be written. But the bottom line is that Colorado has stood up for academic freedom, and in today's world that is no small thing.

Eastman's home institution of Chapman University is also coming under pressure to do something about their high-profile law professor. Fortunately, the Chapman president has also emphasized that Eastman enjoys the same freedom of speech that protects every other member of the faculty there. The activists at Chapman appear to already be pivoting away from the demand that Eastman be fired and toward new demands that no one like Eastman ever be hired again and that political orthodoxy be preserved with each new hire going forward. A reminder that academic freedom is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for maintaining a robust intellectual climate.

NEXT: A $5,764 Small Claims Judgment Leads to ...

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Send in the clowns…oh wait they are already here…

    1. You were first in line.

  2. Generally, I’ve found that John Eastman’s views regarding the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment are extremely well-supported by the historical record, as well as the earliest SCOTUS opinions to address the topic. I’ve read opposing viewpoints with great interest, but thus far they are quite unpersuasive.

    On the other hand, John Eastman’s views regarding the natural born citizen clause of Article II Section 1, including the Newsweek article’s application to Kamala Harris, are much less well-supported, from what I’ve read. On this topic, Eastman’s views are quite unpersuasive compared to the opposing viewpoints, such as stated by Eugene Volokh.

    /End Tangent

    Good on the University; sad that supporting academic freedom is now a laudable exception.

    1. So you think it makes sense for Nikki Haley to be eligible while her slightly older sister is ineligible simply because one was born in a Canadian hospital and one was born in a hospital in South Carolina?? Sorry, why say NBC if they really mean not naturalized??

      1. I don’t know what “makes sense” as a rule for presidential eligibility, but as far as the original meaning of the Constitution:

        There is some support for Eastman’s idea that NBC means someone born to citizen parents on US soil. But on the whole, it seems to me that “natural born citizen” simply meant someone who is a citizen at birth. “Natural born” seems to be borrowed from English common law, while the term “citizen” on the other hand was wholly foreign to English common law.

        Who is a citizen at birth? First, of course, all those included in Sec. 1 of the 14th amendment. That clause was considered by its drafter, Senator Howard, to be “simply declaratory” of the current statutory law — which was the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Accordingly, it states that certain persons “are citizens” and not that they “are hereby declared to be” citizens. But there were concerns about the constitutionality and permanence of the 1866 CRA, hence the need for a “simply declaratory” constitutional amendment.

        And what did the 1866 CRA say? It said, “… all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” [Emphasis added]. Accordingly, Senator Howard further explained, “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” (Note that the added “[or]” above is extremely contentious among open borders proponents, but nonetheless clarifying in the context of the entire debate).

        Of course, this flies in the face of the current mainstream view of today, which is that the 14th amendment actually mandates that virtually every person born on US soil is a citizen. One thing you might ask is, if the drafter of the 14th amendment is to believed when he stated, in his own words, that the 14th amendment was “simply declaratory” of the current law, then why didn’t he just use the exact same language as the 1866 CRA? Well, if you read the ratification debates, it seems the new language “subject to the jurisdiction” was considered to be more precise and clear. For example, Senator Doolittle argued that “excluding Indians not taxed” should be added. This was roundly rejected because, as Howard explained, Indian tribes were considered “quasi foreign nations” and “subject to the jurisdiction” excluded all those subject to any foreign power – even a quasi foreign power. Senator Trumbull also remarked that “not taxed” was a “very indefinite expression.”

        Second, a citizen at birth also includes anyone who the US considers to be a citizen automatically at birth. “Natural born” seems to mean bestowed automatically by circumstances of birth. Currently, the US counts almost anyone born on US soil as an automatic citizen. But as explained above, that is not a mandate of the 14th amendment, but instead appears to be a bureaucratic practice that became entrenched some time in the 1960s.

        1. NBC has nothing to do with American soil because Americans like Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams lived overseas for long periods of time and their offspring such as George Washington Adams would have been ineligible to become president. I am not sure how that asinine notion about being born on American soil as an aspect of NBC ever started but clearly nobody thought JQA’s son was ineligible and if they did maybe that’s why he committed suicide because his father named him after the first president knowing he could never be president as an extremely cruel joke. That said the fact scholars believed place of birth was fundamental to NBC is evidence there is more to being an NBC than just not being a naturalized citizen…and the example of Nikki Haley’s sister being ineligible while Nikki Haley is eligible means that citizenship of parents is most likely what qualifies one to be a NBC and thus eligible to be president.

          1. Birth on US soil is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition of being a natural born citizen.

            However, if Congress legislates that anyone born on US soil is automatically a citizen, then I think they are thereby natural born citizens (and I don’t know that Congress has legislated that).

            1. For many years many scholars and people involved in presidential politics believed in order to qualify as a NBC one had to be born on American soil. So a big Reagan backer that owned an influential New Hampshire newspaper simply refused to cover George Romney’s campaign in 1968 because he was born in Mexico. And in 2008 when McCain was about to wrap up the Republican nomination the NYTimes quoted a constitutional scholar saying McCain might not qualify as a NBC due to being born in Panama. And then in 2015 future president Don John Trump said Cruz may be ineligible due to being born in Canada. So it was a widely held belief that being born on American soil was necessary to be a NBC.

              1. ” it was a widely held belief that being born on American soil was necessary to be a NBC.”

                So what? At one point, it was a widely held belief that Donald Trump was capable of being President. Faith doesn’t make things true.

          2. I agree completely with your interpretation of ‘natural born citizen’ but not your emhasis that it has nothing to do with soil.

            The fact is that from the very beginning of American colonial history, Americans became different from Europeans precisely because all the Europeans here were immigrant settlers. Not just US either – everywhere in the ‘New World’.

            What Europeans brought with them from Europe was two very different notions of ‘rights’ which have morphed into ‘citizen’ – jus soli (rights derived from the soil) and jus sanguini (rights derived from parents). The former was a common law notion. The latter a civil/canon law notion because it requires formal recognition of parentage (usually via church establishment). Europe picked on or the other. The New World tried to combine the two.

            The real reason it became a problem in the US was – like everything else – slavery. Early on, a ‘natural born slave’ was a jus sanguinis legal notion. If your mother’s a slave , you’re a slave – if your mother’s free, you’re free. Combine that with legal miscegeny – and a shit-ton of bastardy/rape – and you have a whole bunch of legal rules that are based on complete arbitrariness because the father owns the land and yet some of his children are chattel property and the others inherit the chattel property. And if the black children aren’t chattel property, then they are deemed ‘citizens’ and are forced in many southern jurisdictions to be exiled unless the local legislature specifically approved their residence (without rights),

            Before 1830, the South more or less accepted the older jus soli and jus sanguinis notion as just something that didn’t work work well in slavery but slavery was viewed as the core problem. After 1830, the south hugely rationalzed and justified slavery in legal terms – including by polluting the jus sanguinis notion. By Dred Scott, southern lawyers had successfully spread that manure around the entire legal canon – and did their Orwellian history rewrite too. Reversing that decision – in an environment where slavery was has been eliminated – and trying to restore the pre-1830 notions of jus soli and jus sanguinis – was the point of the 14th. But it still had to use some post-1830 terminology because that’s the stuff that had gotten embedded

      2. So you think it makes sense for Nikki Haley to be eligible while her slightly older sister is ineligible simply because one was born in a Canadian hospital and one was born in a hospital in South Carolina??

        Yes.

        Sorry, why say NBC if they really mean not naturalized??

        Why say not naturalized if they really mean NBC? Why say dog if they really mean canine? Why say wet if they really mean not dry?

        1. It’s so unfair that Ted Bundy was eligible to be president but Nikki Haley isn’t…I think the Framers were racist. 😉

          1. Cheer up. Ted Bundy is currently ineligible to be President.

  3. Off-Topic, from the Lynch v Clarke case that Whittington discusses in his above-linked Twitter posts:

    “This state is a member of a confederation of states, having a common federal executive head, and for many purposes affecting the general interest and convenience of all the states, a national legislature and judiciary. Our internal affairs and government, are almost exclusively reserved to the control of the people of the states. Amongst ourselves, we are twenty-six sovereign and independent states, confederated under a compact or constitution, for limited and prescribed objects of government.”

    If only that were still true today . . .

    1. You wanna live in the 19th century, so bad, turn off your computer.

  4. If former Michigan governor Granholm is ineligible then so should people like Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal. So Americans with two foreigner parents are obviously not NBC because if they are then the NBC is meaningless. So how can Nikki Haley be eligible to be president while her slightly older sister is ineligible simply because she spent birth to 1 years old in Canada??

    1. Because you don’t understand the meaning of any of the words you’re using?

  5. To me the question is not whether academic freedom protects the right to be wrong, or offensive, or both. Hopefully the answer to all of those is yes.

    More difficult is the extent to which it protects the right to say things that are stupid, absurd and/or demonstrably untrue, and to persist in those statements even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.

    Eastman’s arguments are both absurd and stupid. They are absurd, because they are grossly overinclusive. Using his logic, there is no way to distinguish between children born in the US of legal (but unnaturalized) parents and those born to illegal immigrants – none of them would be citizens absent independent naturalization. Moreover, their children, grandchildren etc. would be not citizens either, absent naturalization or independent grounds for birthright citizenship. If his argument were correct, then there are millions upon millions of people of all races, creeds and colors in this country that think they are citizens, and that are treated by the US govt as citizens, but that are in fact not citizens. Absurd.

    His argument is also stupid, because even if he were right as a theoretical matter, there is no way that the US government will all of a sudden say, “Whoops, the system we have been operating under for the past 230ish years is totally borked. Sorry ’bout that, but now everybody has to reapply for citizenship.”

    It reminds me of the old Eddie Murphy skit about the Emancipation Proclamation never having been signed, except that one was intended as comedy. And if a professor showed it in class, he would probably get fired, but that is a discussion for another day.

    1. Eastman’s arguments may be wrong. Rather a few scholars who have studied this issue in great detail, however, do not believe that his arguments are either absurd or stupid even while believing that he is factually wrong.

      While I am no great believer in deference to authority merely because someone has credentials, you might want to consider in this case what they all know that you apparently do not. You might, for example, consider that your description of Eastman’s view of citizenship is a strawman – more a parody than an actual representation of his views.

      1. I can’t say I have read all his scholarship on the matter, but I did read the linked written testimony that he submitted to Congress. At the very end, he mentions that the courts should take a narrow reading of Wong Kim Ark as applying only to the children of legal immigrants, but he never explains why this would be consistent with his position that “being a person subject to the complete and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States (i.e., not
        owing allegiance to another sovereign) was the constitutional mandate” for birthright citizenship. Only a separate Act of Congress could make children of such persons citizens.

        1. Query—why are Governor Granholm and Nikki Haley’s sister ineligible to become president??

          1. Because they aren’t natural born citizens. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

            1. Nope, because their parents aren’t American citizens. NBC has a meaning and obviously it doesn’t mean George Washington Adams was ineligible to be president. Sorry, Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio aren’t NBC and thus are ineligible to be president…so sadz. 🙁

              1. You are entitled to any wacky beliefs you want to hold, but beliefs untethered to anything other than your whim do not represent the actual law. Natural born citizen means citizen at birth. Haley, Jindal, and Rubio were, because they were born in the U.S. Adams was also a citizen at birth, because his parents were citizens and his father had lived in the U.S., and the Nationalization Act of 1790 thus made him a citizen had birth. Granholm and Haley’s sister were not natural born citizens because they satisfied neither of the possible requirements.

                1. You believe Ted Bundy is eligible but Nikki Haley’s sister isn’t because she is a woman of color—you are a RACIST!!

                  1. If the premise were true, the conclusion would be valid.

              2. “NBC has a meaning”

                Sure does. It means people who were citizens at birth. There are several different ways one can be a US citizen at birth, some statutory and the one big Constitutional way that covers most of us who aren’t naturalized immigrants.

          2. “Query—why are Governor Granholm and Nikki Haley’s sister ineligible to become president??”

            Answer: Because neither received more than 270 electoral college votes.

            1. That fails as both humor and pedantry, and any combination of the two. That’s obviously not what “ineligible” refers to, but if it were, it would be wrong, since one need not receive more than 270 electoral college votes to become president.

              1. Neither one is in the line of Presidential succession, and the current President is alive. The next President will get the job due to receiving votes in the electoral college.

  6. Call me cynical, but this was not a victory. Not with this:

    However, I do encourage all of us—our visiting scholars included—to remember that while we as faculty have the privilege of academic freedom, that privilege comes with significant collective and individual responsibilities.

    1. It’s not exactly unusual for Republicans to whine about not receiving rights without responsibilities.

  7. Inviting Eastman was a substantial mistake but bouncing him would have been equally wrong.

    1. That sentence speaks volumes.

  8. “These positions were created in order to increase the intellectual diversity of the university and expose the campus to some conservative scholars.”

    Do they have their own drinking fountains, too?

    1. “Conservative scholars”

      Seems similar to “conservative-controlled, tier-one educational institutions.” They might as well call it the “unicorn at the fringe” chair.

      1. These people already have their own schools, why can’t they stick with their own kind?

        /sarc

        1. These people don’t value scholarship. Why don’t the scholars give them more respect?

      2. Kirkland, Jerry Fallwell, Jr. has resigned from Liberty University.

        Name one leader of one of your purported “tier-one” institutions who has (or would) do likewise. I can go down a list of them who had to be bought off to leave, and a bunch more who ignored scandals far worse than his, but name one who resigned (outright) for the good of the institution.

        Just one.

        I’ll wait….

        1. While I wouldn’t call Westfield State a “tier one” institution, the saga of Evan S. Dobelle comes to mind.

          https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass_roundup/2013/11/evan-dobelle-resignation.html

        2. Are you asking why the moral standards for leaders in tier-one institutions are different from those at Liberty University?

          Are you saying that leaders at tier-one universities never resign due to scandals?

          Because those are both very silly contentions.

          1. Name one who has resigned.

            1. There was this assistant football coach at Penn State who left because of scandal. Not sure if it was a resignation or termination. If it was a resignation, that’s one.

    2. Members of the Conspiracy, among others, have argued for affirmative action to ensure more ideological diversity on campuses.

      Do you think that’s bigoted?

      1. “Members of the Conspiracy, among others, have argued for affirmative action to ensure more ideological diversity on campuses.”

        Then go hassle *them,* I didn’t say it.

        1. My question is whether you think making such efforts is basically Jim Crow for conservatives, as you intimated in your 4:39 pm post.

          I don’t think that’s an unreasonable view, but if you won’t allow affirmative action, absent some other plan, ideological disparities are only going to increase (particularly given the increasing hostility to academia on the right).

          1. I was indulging my customary amusement of trolling the rev.

            Like the organization FIRE, I’m OK with political discrimination by private colleges which would *not* be OK in the racial context. The key is to be open about the political discrimination, not sandbag people with it while pretending to be politically neutral. Whereas being open about *racial* discrimination is no excuse.

            1. Not going to go at it with you about racial AA but I’m fine with ideological AA as well.

              Though like with racial AA, a good policy realizes this is just a stop-gap and works on the structural issues.

              1. I’m saying that if a college wants to give preference to staff who share its politico-religious views, go for it, just alert applicants and don’t make them waste their time under the pretext it’s ideologically/religiously neutral.

                Or for that matter, if they deliberately seek out staff who *oppose* their views, then go for it, I guess, but they ought to have more self-confidence than that.

                Or they could say they don’t have any official doctrine to enforce…and that they have a bridge in Brooklyn they want to sell.

                1. Like the authors of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, I’d make allowance exceptions for politico-religious discrimination but not make exceptions for racial discrimination.

                  I see that you disagree with that law’s provisions on race, but of course, all the Great and the Good agree with you, so it’s fine, I guess.

                  1. No, Eddy. I differ from many on this blog in that I’m humble enough to realize I may be wrong on some stuff. I you notice my comments often push back against bad arguments more than bad policies.

                    I think reasonable people can differ on many things, including AA.

                    That doesn’t stop the people that don’t like AA from calling me racist.

                    These days the main policy I get morally het up about is voting rights. Though bringing up AA does bring out some amazingly bigoted arguments pretty quick around here (Bell Curve, etc.)

                    1. “I think reasonable people can differ on many things, including AA.”

                      OK, I’ll keep that in mind when dealing with reasonable people. Maybe you’re a member of that select club, certainly when compared to someone like the good Reverend.

                      But when dealing with *unreasonable* people – the types who somehow sense racism all around them and throw out accusations like confetti at a wedding – I’m going to contest every inch of ground with them and not let them retreat to an “I’m not racist” safe space.

                    2. Incidentally, wasn’t Woody Wilson a reasonable person? Yet he believed in racial discrimination – for pure and good motives of course.

                    3. Judging the morality of historical figures is tricky.

                      I am not a proponent judging past people purely by current morals, but neither do I think eschewing presentism lets folks completely off the hook. Participating in America’s slavery system was awful no matter how accepted it was.

                      So how it ends up is usually a moral condemnation for folks like the Founders, but a weaker one than would be.

                      Except that ole Woody wasn’t just a man of his time, he was extraordinarily racist even for back then. So I have no trouble noting that and condemning him pretty strongly.

                    4. But there were so *many* defenders of Jim Crow, reasonable people with degrees and table manners. Smart people. Surely you would agree, as a precondition of debating any of these people, to acknowledge their purity of motive and the freedom from racism?

                      There was James F. Byrnes, Supreme Court Justice, Secretary of State, and segregationist.

                      There was FDR, who segregated American citizens in camps based on their race.

                      Shouldn’t they have the right to close off debate on segregation by getting on their high horses – “are you calling me a racist?”

                    5. Freedom from racism? Hell no.

                      As I said, racism was accepted then, but that doesn’t make it acceptable when looked at from now.
                      Though I don’t condemn past racists to the extent I do people who are racist in TYOL 2020.

                    6. Why was Jim Crow categorically wrong?

                      Because racial discrimination is categorically wrong, no matter how many goodfeels are experienced by the practitioners as they contemplate their own wonderful, reasonable motives.

                    7. No, Eddy, that’s dumb semantics.

                      Jim Crow was wrong because it had both the intent and effect of making black people second class citizens, and because it was enforced with terror tactics.

                      I’m not going to get pulled into an argument about AA on this thread; it’s well-trod ground and there will be another thread no doubt.

                    8. I said it was categorically wrong. The enforcement was icing on the racist cake. Of course, you still have to show that modern racial preferences don’t designate second-class citizens, and that such preferences are in no danger of being enforced by terror tactics.

                    9. “I’m not going to get pulled into an argument about AA on this thread”

                      You weren’t pulled into anything; you challenged me about affirmative action for conservatives and drew what looked very much like parallels with racial affirmative action. Maybe you weren’t trying to draw such parallels in which case I apologize for the misunderstanding.

                    10. “But when dealing with *unreasonable* people – the types who somehow sense racism all around them and throw out accusations like confetti at a wedding – I’m going to contest every inch of ground with them”

                      If you don’t like it when lots of people call you racist then stop doing racist things and saying racist things until they stop.

                2. I don’t know enough about how academic hiring works, but the current state of affairs is excellent evidence that nonpartisan procedures can yield a partisan bias.

              2. “Though like with racial AA, a good policy realizes this is just a stop-gap and works on the structural issues.”

                And strangely, work on the “structural issues,” like Penelope’s knitting, never seems to get finished.

                1. I mean, we spent a very long time screwing them up, makes sense it’d take more than a moment to fix things.

                  But I was talking about ideological AA – there need to be additional measures to understand and subsequently deal with the ideological asymmetry than just that. Do you disagree?

                  1. Disagree with what, now?

                    Since this is a blog not a courtroom, I want to exercise my privilege of expressing myself in my own way, and if I’m confused about a question, I’ll simply wait until the questioner is clearer before answering.

                    Cut back on the student loan scam, let schools compete with different approaches, see which approaches work.

                    1. I don’t think student loans are what’s behind academia being liberal. Plus that’s a non-starter politically.

                      If there’s an ideological bias, it’s not some conspiracy among academics to become extra liberal – it’s something structural. Maybe unconscious bias, maybe something in the application process that turns off conservatives, maybe something makes academia unappealing to conservatives. These should be looked at with the goal of eventually not needing AA. Though as you noted above, that eventually may be some time away.

                      I know some on the right insist that there’s actually a secret plot to shut conservatives out of academic jobs. Not a lot of proof, just the usual appeals to incredulity. But if that is going on, I don’t think anything short of Congressional investigation and subsequent action would solve it.

                    2. “I don’t think student loans are what’s behind academia being liberal.”

                      I must have expressed myself unclearly, because that wasn’t the point I was trying to make. I was suggesting that different schools should try out different things, and if the best practices include recruiting more conservatives, OK, if not, not. The student loan reference means that the bubble might pop at some point and force serious restructuring. Then who knows even if current debate would still be relevant?

                    3. You’re not going to change a system by allowing people the opportunity to do so, without some top-down regulation or at least some sort of incentive system.

                      Student loans are def. a bubble, no question.

                    4. ” I was suggesting that different schools should try out different things, and if the best practices include recruiting more conservatives, OK, if not, not.”

                      Conservatives tend not to value academia very much. There’s only so many slots in the College of Business Administration for them to fill.

                    5. ” let schools compete with different approaches”

                      They do. Private, for-profit schools grub for every student they can sign up. The big public land-grant universities are research institutions first, and provide education as a side business.

                    6. ” maybe something makes academia unappealing to conservatives.”

                      It involves thinking. A thousand years ago, that wasn’t true. You just had to know what Aristotle thought about the question you were just asked, and whatever Aristotle said was considered the academically-correct answer. Because Aristotle was not Jesus, the Christians didn’t respect the academics very much. That hasn’t changed, even as the academics reluctantly let go of Aristotle and started doing original work.

  9. ” Professor Eastman is a “visiting scholar in conservative thought and policy” at the University of Colorado at Boulder. These positions were created in order to increase the intellectual diversity of the university and expose the campus to some conservative scholars. In light of Eastman’s op-ed about Harris, some demanded that Eastman’s position at Colorado be rescinded.”

    Creating diversity at the university is apparently OK with conservatives, when it results in creation of positions like “visiting scholar in conservative thought and policy”. But when they produce substandard work, that’s not justification to remove them.
    Meh. There’s no Pac-12 football this year, so the University of Colorado at Boulder can be safely ignored.

    1. Even if Eastman’s argument is reasonable within academic journals, it was completely inappropriate to present these fringe, contrived arguments in a publication targeting the general public. This is comparable to a biomedical researcher using Newsweek to push his ‘breakthrough’ cure for cancer that has not been replicated and has no plausible mechanism…but publishing in Newsweek will sure draw new investors (dupes) to his company!

      1. The problem there is the likelihood of confusion in the general population that the visiting scholar is speaking for the university.

  10. Academic freedom is a joke. All that matters is that you can find some rich guy to pay your salary (Claremont Inst, Henry Salvatori chair). As long as your arguments stroke their egos and advance their interests, you’ll keep your job.

    1. Having a rich and powerful sponsor is one way to fund scholarship. That’s how it was done in the Dark Ages, and had a lot to do with keeping them Dark.

  11. However, if Congress legislates that anyone born on US soil is automatically a citizen, then I think they are thereby natural born citizens (and I don’t know that Congress has legislated that).
    playground equipment

Please to post comments