Campus Free Speech

Introducing the Academic Freedom Alliance

A new group defending professorial speech is launched

|

Today the Academic Freedom Alliance goes public. I am honored to serve as the inaugural chair of the AFA's Academic Committee, and the founding members include some of my Volokh Conspiracy co-bloggers. The group boasts a broad and diverse coalition of over 200 academics from across the country who are committed to upholding the principles of free speech in academia. I am particularly pleased that we were able to pull together faculty from across the political spectrum who recognize a common threat to scholarly inquiry and robust debate on college campuses and who are willing to defend those principles whether individual professors are targeted from the left or the right, from forces on campus or off.

From the mission statement:

The Academic Freedom Alliance is an alliance of college and university faculty members who are dedicated to upholding the principle of academic freedom. This principle is central to the mission of our institutions for the pursuit of truth and knowledge. Our members from across the political spectrum recognize that an attack on academic freedom anywhere is an attack on academic freedom everywhere.

The AFA commits to two means of protecting academic freedom. First, our members will defend faculty members' freedom of thought and expression in their work as researchers and writers or in their lives as citizens, within established ethical and legal bounds; freedom to design courses and conduct classes using reasonable pedagogical judgment; and freedom from ideological tests, affirmations, and oaths.

Second, the AFA will aid in providing legal support to faculty whose academic freedom is threatened by institutions' or officials' violations of constitutional, statutory, contractual, or school-based rights.

The AFA seeks to counteract pressures on employers to take actions against employees whose views, statements, or teachings they may disapprove or dislike. We oppose such pressures from the government, college or university officials, and individuals or groups inside or outside colleges and universities. Recognizing the array of political viewpoints in a college or university that respects academic freedom, the AFA's defense of faculty members' academic freedom does not depend on viewpoint, nor does it endorse the content of what they express. What we defend is members' right of expression.

You can see more information about the AFA at its website. You can follow the AFA on Twitter at @AFA_Alliance.

NEXT: City Council Member’s Harassment Restraining Order Against Critics Reversed

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. I kinda like that part about using reasonable pederasty judgment to teach students.

      1. That legit made my smile. Bravo.

        1. You’re easily entertained.

      2. You do realize, don’t you, that no one cares what you think about any subject. Everyone who follows this blog knows that you believe it was acceptable for Soviet troops to rape women and children in Germany toward the end of World War II. That kind of evil, demented, and hateful thinking has forever marked you as someone to be despised and ignored. You should go away now.

        1. “no one cares what you think about any subject”

          You do. You responded to him.

  1. A quick review indicates membership (by invitation, naturally) and leadership seem slanted toward the clingerverse.

    Good luck, but until this group demonstrates that it addresses dogma-enforcing and nonsense-teaching conservative-controlled campuses as critically as it addresses strong liberal-libertarian mainstream institutions, I will expect it to be just another ‘affirmative action for stale, insular conservatism’ operation. A group more reflective of modern America — which might develop after self-selection concludes — would support more hope.

    1. Your word salad needs needs a good editor.

      1. Let’s see which this group pursues first — diversity statements on strong campuses, or loyalty oaths and ‘statements of faith’ on clinger campuses.

        I’ll wager a copy of Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate on that one.

        1. Your stream of consciousness lefty writing is incomprehensible to people who don’t know your shorthand.

        2. Any members from “clinger campuses,” Arthur?

          And why shouldn’t they go after diversity statements?

          1. The issue involves (1) attacking diversity statements while (2) giving statements of faith, loyalty oaths, and dogma tests the matador treatment.

            Carry on, clingers.

        3. But at least you have to be happy that the Georgia AG’s office characterized preaching the gospel on campus as “fighting words”, at least untill the new AG repudiated it, and then lost 8-1 in the Supreme Court today (Roberts dissenting).

      2. His word salad is made of rotten vegetables with a topping of rancid oil and moldy vinegar.

        1. Today’s conservatives don’t like it when their bigotry is mentioned.

          That is one of the great achievements of the liberal-libertarian American mainstream during my lifetime.

          Unlike their predecessors, today’s bigots prefer to hide behind euphemisms such as ‘traditional values,’ or ‘color-blind,’ or ‘conservative values,’ or ‘Republican,’ or ‘family values’
          . . . or even ‘often libertarian.’

          Until right-wingers ditch the racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and gay-bashing at the core of the current Republican-conservative coalition, clingers should expect their betters to continue to hold them to account for their bigotry.

          1. I think Don summarized all of your posts very succinctly.

          2. “Unlike their predecessors,”

            I dunno, Arthur. ISTM that there were plenty of people who strove to be color blind and didn’t like to be called racists back in the day, as well. I’m not sure what you think has changed.

            1. During my childhood, the bigotry was open, common, even casual.

              A black child was instructed to ‘find another way home’ from school by a racist who didn’t want her on ‘his’ sidewalk — and she did. Confederate flags were displayed routinely. Women were dragged into homes by sleeve or hair for beatings everyone could hear but no one stopped. The newspapers published “help wanted: women” advertisements, but women were not welcome at graduate schools. Jews were rarely called Jews; searing epithets were far more common. Gays were berated mercilessly and beaten in alleys — and that was by the police.

              The bigots wanted everyone to see how they acted, and to know how they thought, and to understand that the bigots’ way would be society’s way.

              That changed, however, as the liberal-libertarian alliance shaped enough American progress to make the bigots marginalized, guarded, and defensive. Sure, we have some vestigial bigots, but mostly they hide behind euphemisms (‘traditional values,’ ‘conservative values’) these days. They shield their genuine opinions until they are in what they perceive to be safe spaces, such as private homes, online message boards, militia gatherings, or Republican Committee meetings.

              Bigots striving not to be known as bigots, at least not in public. That is important progress.

    2. Kirkland, there still are over 4000 colleges and universities in the country, of which there *maybe* are 40 “conservative controlled” ones — I can only think of a dozen but I am being generous here (and trying to keep the math simple).

      Now 40/400=1/100=1% — or one out of one *hundred.*

      So he’d have to have a hundred professors before having even one of your leftist kooks as a member — but that’s assuming that all IHEs are the same size (and they aren’t). For example, UMass Amherst (long considered the most politically correct college in the country) is also the 5th largest residential college in the country with (all told) nearly 30,000 students — and I believe 1200 professors.

      By contrast, your mythical Bible-Thumper U would likely have 600 students — and 12 professors. Again, 12 is 1% of 1200.

      And 1% of 1% is what? Yep, a really small number.

      So even if they had a statistically valid representation that was reflective of modern American higher education, they wouldn’t have many lefties — much like members of the VFW weren’t being called before the HUAC in the 1950s…

      1. “Kirkland, there still are over 4000 colleges and universities in the country, of which there *maybe* are 40 “conservative controlled” ones — I can only think of a dozen but I am being generous here (and trying to keep the math simple).”

        Why does this blog consistently attract such dumb readers and offer such dumb statements?

        1. Kirkland, I’m being very generous when I concede 40 colleges, none of which are anywhere as biased as your average Ivory Gulag, but I digress.

          Take one religious college recently in the news — Gordon College. It has about 6% of the students that Wiemar in Amherst does — you can go way into the weeds as to how you count students, but it’s still 6%.

          And then there is WHY Gordon was recently in the news — a lesbian former assistant(?) professor is suing over not being promoted, alleging LBTQ discrimination. Which gets into the other aspect of this — your side has the support of the legal system while ours doesn’t, QED there is a greater need.

          As an aside, this case — based on the _Lady of Gallupe_ case, is likely to go to SCOTUS. See: https://commonwealthmagazine.org/courts/religious-school-faculty-not-exempt-from-anti-discrimination-laws/

          1. While I appreciate the effort Dr. Ed, you’re wasting your time using these things called “facts” and “reason” with Rev. Xer knows what Xer know, in Xer heart, and that’s all that matters.

            1. If you think anything Dr. Ed says is a fact without checking it you’re nuts.

              1. Likewise with you sugar. Don’t go out in the rain, you’ll melt.

          2. ” Kirkland, I’m being very generous when I concede 40 colleges, none of which are anywhere as biased as your average Ivory Gulag, ”

            I have identified more than 40 colleges, by name and more than once, that are controlled by conservatives and that suppress science and reason to flatter superstition and dogma.

            If clingers do not learn to perform basic research, how are they to learn anything?

            1. Quick research indicates America has more than 1,000 “faith-oriented” colleges and universities . . . I do not know how many of them are fourth-tier (or unranked), nonsense-teaching, dogma-enforcing, science- and reason-suppressing, censorship-shackled goober factories controlled by conservatives, but I would wager at least a couple of hundred qualify as clinger operations.

              1. It might surprise you Kirkland, but a lot of these purported “faith oriented” IHEs aren’t what you think they are.

                Even Baylor, which is on my list of 12, now permits out-of-the-closet LBGTQ students, which actually surprised me.

                Although as to a “nonsense-teaching, dogma-enforcing, science- and reason-suppressing, censorship-shackled goober factory”, may I suggest you look at UMass Amherst?

              2. faith-oriented conservative

          3. ‘your side has the support of the legal system while ours doesn’t,’

            Was all that court packing for nothing?

            1. There was no “court packing.”
              Please use terms correctly.

              1. Sorry. ‘Ourtcay ackingpay.’

                1. That was just stupid rather than funny.
                  The correct answer was “court stacking.”
                  You go home with no money, but thanks for playing Jeopardy

        2. Because it is invested by a couple of bigots with a brain crippled by ill-will. Carry-on clown

        3. “Why does this blog consistently attract such dumb readers and offer such dumb statements?”

          Indeed … please tell us.

  2. “This principle is central to the mission of our institutions for the pursuit of truth. . . .”

    The truth?!?

    THE truth?!?

    So there’s only one Truth?

    The real world would like a word with you guys.

    1. Everything wrong with leftism at its core in one silly comment. It’s not about truth, eh, it’s about power.

      Yes, there is only one truth. An objective truth, that we can’t always admittedly know. A triangle always has three sides. That’s TRUTH.

      Now, let’s say there was a disagreement in society about how many frogs are in Florida right now? There is indeed an objective answer, even if we can’t measure it. The danger, eh, is when some people proclaim a surety of opinion when it’s not there.

      The real world would like a word with apedad’s fallacious arguments.

      1. There *is* disagreement about man-made global warming.

        So much so that its advocates aren’t even calling it global warming anymore — now it’s “climate change”, but I digress…

        1. But only in the culture war sense of disagreeing with it because them lefties thing one thing so you’ve got to think another.

    2. Yes, there is only one truth. In any circumstance where you think you’ve identified more than one truth, you’re either dealing with opinion, or haven’t sufficiently narrowed down what you’re talking about.

      1. I can name multiple truths:

        1: Radiation (e.g. Nuke Power Plants) can be deadly.
        2: More people died in Ted Kennedy’s car than from nuclear power.

        BOTH of those statements are true….

        1. That’s not what he means by there not being a single “truth”.

      2. Brett, even in classical physics, what you say here is just wrong.

    3. You added the “the”.

    4. ““This principle is central to the mission of our institutions for the pursuit of truth. . . .”

      The truth?!?

      THE truth?!?”

      You can’t handle the truth.

    5. ‘“This principle is central to the mission of our institutions for the pursuit of truth. . . .” <<<—- the truth?

      The truth?!?

      THE truth?!?

      So there’s only one Truth?

      The real world would like a word with you guys.’

      Are you smarter than a 5th grader? No, no you are not.

    6. I wrote a comment under a different article expressing the contrary view – truth is of paramount importance in a world filled with propaganda and disinformation, and some of the guys writing mocking responses here wrote mocking responses there, too.

      1. “truth is of paramount importance in a world filled with propaganda and disinformation…”

        People mocked you for saying that truth was of paramount importance, or people mocked you for some proposed method of distinguishing between truth and disinformation?

        1. The mere suggestion that truth was of any importance seemed to set people off for some reason.

          1. The reason being that they are members of a cult of un-truth.

      2. As the “truth” is only approximated in most if not all human endeavors, I’d rewrite your statement to say that “accuracy and completeness plus a description of the limits thereof” are of paramount importance etc.

  3. “freedom to design courses and conduct classes”

    This is where I differ from you — if your university says you are to teach a course in Constitutional Law, academic freedom doesn’t permit you to turn around and teach a course in Subrogation Law, as much as you may happen to love the issue.

    Likewise, academic freedom doesn’t permit you to exclusively teach the 1619 curriculum in the place of the existing one. State legislatures have the right to specify the curriculum that will be taught in public universities — that’s *their* academic freedom…

    1. The irony of the Academic Freedom Alliance, (defenders of free speech!) being on twitter shouldn’t be lost on anybody either.

      1. You seem disaffected, mad_kalak.

        Which is good.

        1. Honestly, tis a hard thing to have your illusions dispelled. Alas, I’m a realist, and have made my peace with it. The fervent knowism of fakers and leftists such as yourself despite it all, well, reality just gets in the way for me and I can’t get there that wild-eyed.

          1. Maybe just ditch the bigotry and backwardness and see how that goes in modern, educated America?

            1. The biggest bigot on this board is telling me to not be a bigot. And making it out like *he’s* the smart one. Oh, that’s rich. I needed a laugh today. Thanks Rev!

              You don’t even know what illusions I am speaking about either.

    2. State legislatures have the right to specify the curriculum that will be taught in public universities — that’s *their* academic freedom…

      Legislatures shouldn’t be in the business of specifying the content of university courses. Period.

      1. As funders they absolutely should. Period.

        1. No more than donors to a private university should.

          No creationism in biology class, thanks.

          1. Yes, we need more people willing to say that if you have a Y chromosome that you are not, and never will be, a woman.

            What was that about biology again?

            1. “Yes, we need more people willing to say that if you have a Y chromosome that you are not, and never will be, a woman.

              What was that about biology again?”

              No gender theory in biology class, please?

            2. If you think colleges are going on about gender fluidity in biology class, then you are obviously, A. misinformed by your chosen right wing information bubble, and B. very old or not college educated.

          2. Donors don’t own the school. The state does and as representatives of the people, legislators should represent the public interest.

            1. And the public interest is in having good universities, not in teaching idiocies because that’s what some legislators want.

              1. While my doctoral research dealt with K-12, one of the interesting things I found was that one state (possibly Missouri) went so far as to not only specify that specific things had to be taught in the state universities/colleges, but also that if they weren’t, those responsible for that (i.e. deans, dept chairs, etc) would not be permitted to be employed by any of the state’s universities/colleges for the next five years.

                Notwithstanding tenure and everything else, the legislature demanded that such faculty be summarily fired.

                I don’t know if this has ever been enforced – or challenged – as it was outside the scope of my research, and I’m not sure it was in Missouri, but I actually did find a state law saying this. And was quite surprised at the time, but that was a decade ago and I can see more state legislatures going that way.

                I also remember another state legislature, memory is Wisconsin, who stomped on their Student Affairs folks in a very public way — it made the national news, at least the _Chronicle of HE_.

                And I remember the affected STUAF people talking about it at an ACPA conference, admitting that other than trying to prevent the “conservative” legislators from knowing what they were doing on campus, there wasn’t anything they could do about it.

                And then wasn’t there an incident a couple years ago where then-LT Governor Newsom threatened to withhold some U-Cal funds because of issues in the President’s Office?

                State legislatures *do* have power over state institutions…

                1. Assuming any of this is true, only the MO example has anything to do with course content, and it smells a lot like bullshit to me.

                2. “And then wasn’t there an incident a couple years ago where then-LT Governor Newsom threatened to withhold some U-Cal funds because of issues in the President’s Office?”

                  Ed, the UC Office of the President has been corrupt for decades. They deserved punishment. Examples provided on request.

              2. “teaching idiocies ”

                That is already occurring without any legislator involvement.

              3. Does idiocy include teaching the wisdom of administering drugs to prepubescent children to address ‘gender fluidity’? Because that is about as dumb and venal as it gets.

          3. “No creationism in biology class, thanks.”

            Should legislatures be able to keep creationism out of biology class?

            1. Yes, we need more people willing to say that if you have a Y chromosome that you are not, and never will be, a woman.

              What was that about biology again?

              We should let biologists teach biology. Not you or TiP.

              Should legislatures be able to keep creationism out of biology class?

              No. But universities should do so. A professor who taught it should be reassigned, and probably shouldn’t have been hired in the first place.

              1. “No. But universities should do so. A professor who taught it should be reassigned, and probably shouldn’t have been hired in the first place.”

                So if a university decides that it’s going to teach creationism in biology class, a state legislature is powerless to prevent it?

                1. It could be enough of a scandal to be raised in the legislature as a concern.

                2. So if a university decides that it’s going to teach creationism in biology class, a state legislature is powerless to prevent it?

                  First, it’s not the university’s decision. It’s the faculty member’s, or maybe the department’s.

                  Second, yeah. For the same reason we don’t want government censorship of the press. Not because in this instance it’s a bad idea but because giving the legislature the power is dangerous, so it’s better to put up with some BS.

                  Third, I imagine the reaction of students, their parents, other faculty, accreditation committees, etc. would be quite drastic. There would also be blowback from medical and graduate schools, prospective employers of biology graduates, etc.

                  I don’t know how much power the legislature has to cut off funding narrowly.

            2. “Should legislatures be able to keep creationism out of biology class?”

              Accreditation agencies should keep creationism out of science classrooms — and, if America continues to progress, they will.

              People should be entitled to teach, believe, enroll, and study as they wish. But superstition-based instruction should be no part of an accredited institution respected by modern, mainstream America.

          4. I disagree bernard.
            You’re well aware that the legislatures control the membership of the Regents (Governors, etc) of state universities. As such they do control content in the broadest sense to assure that the public interest is maintained. If they say, that your land grant university will have a school of agriculture, the university should and will have a school of agriculture

      2. Then they shouldn’t be in the business of funding them, either.

        That’s what a lot of people fail to understand — institutions are not entitled to public funds so they can use them in a way which the public finds reprehensible. Same thing with private institutions, donors have every right to insist that their donations go towards the purposes for which they are donating, and not other things. (I believe there was a successful suit over that a few years back with someone (GMU?) acting on behalf of the deceased donor.)

        You want to teach that AmeriKKKa Sucks? Fine — do it with your own money, not mine.

        1. Well said. I would’ve stopped at “[legislatures] shouldn’t be in the business of funding [universities].” (It is not a proper function of government.)

          1. Well, if Ed Grinberg thinks it’s not a proper function of government, I guess that settles it.

            Why exactly, shouldn’t legislatures be in the business of funding state universities? In fact, I’d say the state university system is one of this country’s greatest assets. It should be strengthened.

            1. Unfortunately, bernard, state university systems have been systematically weakened over the past few decades by constant reductions in state support.

              1. “constant reductions in state support.”

                They see the feds guaranteeing student loans so as to make them more and more available. So, naturally they re-direct college funding.

                Another foreseeable negative result of the federal student loan program. Like increasing money going into the system without controlling costs.

                1. Bob,
                  Federal support of student loans is at best a minor cause of reductions in state funding. The U California system gets only 10% of its support from Feds. The Cal State system relies on lower salaries and the willingness of many talented people to accept associate appointments to teach for low pay.

                  1. I think you’re misunderstanding Bob from Ohio’s claim, which is I take to be that widely-available student loans make it easier for students of all economic circumstances to attend private schools, thereby reducing the need for states to maintain public ones to increase access.

                    (I express no opinion on the accuracy of this claim.)

                    1. Perhaps he meant that, but I’d say that the experience in California,Michigan and many other states says otherwise.
                      Even if it were true that is weak justification to disembowel some of the world’s top universities

          2. Education-disdaining, anti-government cranks are among my favorite culture war casualties.

  4. Very nice, but the post and website are entirely vacuous. What is it the organization is actually going to do, besides accept tax-deductible donations?

    1. I give it 5 years, tops, before it’s captured by leftists. They will be defending the academic freedom of communist professors, but the one guy who says something like “trans-women aren’t women” and is fired for it will the left on his own.

      Why do we need this organization, when we already have FIRE, who is unafraid to take on tough cases.

      1. FIRE cowers silently when confronted by censorship on conservative campus, applying a double standard wide enough to push a hundred censorship-shackled campuses through.

        Other than that, though . . . great comment!

        1. “FIRE cowers silently when confronted by censorship on conservative campus, applying a double standard wide enough to push a hundred censorship-shackled campuses through.”

          Evidence of a double standard? Or should we just accept it on faith? You’re not very good at this reason thing, are you, Arthur?

          1. FIRE, expressly at its website and practically in practice, provides an undeserved pass to censorship-shackled religious schools. That flatters the right-wing donors on which FIRE depends but shatters FIRE’s credibility as anything more than a paltry partisan voice nipping lamely at the ankles of America’s better educational institutions.

            1. “FIRE, expressly at its website and practically in practice, provides an undeserved pass to censorship-shackled religious schools.”

              I’ve looked at their website quite a bit, and I haven’t seen the “pass” you refer to.

              And I notice there’s no link in your comment. More stuff I’m supposed to take on faith?

              1. Here is your link, clinger. (That’s an attempted defense of FIRE’s viewpoint-driven, partisan policy and practice, which is to provide a pass to the clingerverse’s low-quality, censorship-ridden schools.)

                This point has been discussed plenty at this blog, to a point at which your feigned ignorance of FIRE’s shortcomings is pathetic.

                FIRE was hatched at the State Policy Network and has been funded by the Bradley-Koch-Scaife alliance. That probably explains, to some degree, its hands-off approach to censorship at schools favored by rich right-wing nuts.

                1. “Here is your link, clinger.”

                  That’s not a link to FIRE’s website, Arthur. It’s a link to an almost ten year old article.

                  You referred to something that FIRE expressly claimed on its website.

                  You keep insisting that something exists when it doesn’t and repeatedly waffle when asked for evidence.

                  Where were you educated, Liberty University?

                  1. That was a link to a lengthy, relevant statement by FIRE’s leader, you bigoted clinger. This site permits but a single link. Here is an article from FIRE’s website that illuminates FIRE’s right-wing hypocrisy with respect to censorship on conservative-controlled campuses.

                    A quotation from the FIRE website: ““FIRE believes that free speech is not only a moral imperative, but also an essential element of a college education. However, private universities are just that—private associations—and as such, they possess their own right to free association, which allows them to prioritize other values above the right to free speech if they wish to do so.”

                    If a college’s stated respect for free expression is tempered by a documented religious dodge, FIRE hands that institution a pass and spares it a standard ranking. If a college’s stated respect for free expression is tempered by a documented respect for diversity, though, FIRE ignores the diversity interest and proceeds toward a standard ranking. (If a college disregards the terms of its accreditation to promote superstition-based censorship, however, FIRE ignores the accreditation-related claims.) FIRE’s policy: Heads the clingers win, tails the non-clingers lose.

                    This appears to please the conservative racists, Republican misogynists, right-wing xenophobes, and religious right gay-bashers whose funding FIRE courts and receives. It also disqualifies FIRE as anything other than a partisan, misleading, principle-deprived observer of American academia.

                    1. If a college’s stated respect for free expression is tempered by a documented religious dodge, FIRE hands that institution a pass and spares it a standard ranking. If a college’s stated respect for free expression is tempered by a documented respect for diversity, though, FIRE ignores the diversity interest and proceeds toward a standard ranking.

                      That’s right, but it’s also wrong. You’re wrong because the distinction FIRE explicitly draws isn’t an ideological one between religion and diversity, but a contracts-rights one between schools that promise unbridled speech and those that notify students going in that their right to express themselves will be constrained by a signature dogma. Now, the former schools happen to be mostly secular, and the latter mostly religious, but FIRE’s distinction is clearly announced and they apply it consistently. That means religious schools which promise free expression get the same treatment as secular ones.

                      That would be fine if FIRE was perceived as an advocate for all manner of student rights (e.g., Is the education worth what I’m paying for it? Is the dorm food up to snuff?). The problem is, and where you’re right in spirit if not in letter, that FIRE lives on the impression that their mission begins and ends with speech, while they rely on a contract theory to justify going after a bunch of mostly secular schools, whistle past the mostly religious ones, and all the while allow the world to continue thinking they’re all about the speech.

                      So that’s unfortunate, and I wish they’d confront it honestly. But it’s also wrong to claim the work they do enforcing the First Amendment at public schools and defending free expression at even a limited set of private ones isn’t important and valuable.

                    2. I disagree, Leo.

                      FIRE respects a religious school’s stated devotion to superstitious dogma as a limitation of freedom of expression but does not respect a school’s similarly expressed devotion to inclusiveness, social justice, diversity, or other limitations of freedom of expression.

                      That sifting is plainly partisan. FIRE flatters the right-wingers who fund it by nipping at the ankles of strong, mainstream institutions while disregarding worse censorship at conservative-controlled schools. Its misleading bashing of better schools is a calculated effort to promote right-wing nuttery.

      2. It is already captured by a leftist, Whittington.

  5. Looking forward to seeing this go nowhere

  6. The slightest viewpoint criticism should be reported to the Non-Profit Office of the IRS. The tax exemption should be cancelled. It is to support education. Education requires presentation of all sides of a subject. If any side is suppressed, indoctrination is taking place. Indoctrination should not be subsidized by the taxpayer.

    Then sue the college for discrimination. File complaints with the Civil Rights Office of the Education Department.

  7. Out of curiosity, is the AAUP no longer considered a defender of academic freedom? I’m wondering why a new group was thought to be needed.

    1. Yeah, I was going to ask that. What’s the story, did the AAUP get woke or something?

  8. The emergence of this organization indicates Heterodox Academy is a recognized failure.

    Try, try again, clingers!

  9. The only way to bring back academic freedom and fix America is to remove the voting rights of women and non-whites. Since that won’t happen, because these mental inferiors will never vote to remove their own voting rights, it won’t happen until after a collapse.

    1. Not gonna happen, not without a hard reset, or without the left starting an actual race war. To many people work with black coworkers (the talented 10th) that are fine. Tyrone in accounts receivable is a fine fellow.

      You’d be better off arguing for a legit meritocracy. There are still enough people who believe in White European values that a crypto-ethnonationalist movement can be sustained if its platform is couched in non-racial terms. Promoting things like “decency” and “meritocracy” and “traditionalism” etc.

      Over time, a society that promotes and enforces these values through a balance of incentive and punishment will become naturally repellent to grifters. That’s why they tried to paint Trump, a civ nat, into a white supremacist. In a way, the screeching leftists are correct when they label behaviors like “showing up to work on time” as being fundamentally White.

      1. That’s basically what I said, not without a hard reset or a race war, both of which I would welcome.

        The problem with “Tyrone” in accounts receivable is that if you actually sit down with him, he harbors tons of racial grievances and likely hates white America, as a whole, which is why they always support the thugs like George Floyd, Michael Brown and so forth. I want nothing to do with these people.

        Meritocracy and “traditionalism” only appeals to white men, as they are the only ones who can make it without help. You can couch it in whatever terms you want, but in the final analysis, democracy is a racial headcount.

        1. Whenever I want to see what racists, misogynists, gay-bashers, and xenophobes are thinking, I head toward the Volokh Conspiracy!

          The Conspirators’ deans must be so proud.

          1. Yep, folks like you come out of the woodwork all the time. Subject to constant mocking, condemnation, and endlessly shown that his thinking is akin to childishness. Yet she persisted. Congrats.

            1. Mad_kalak, you are explicitly racist in your expressed views. You don’t have a leg to stand on.

              1. Mad_kalak is a right-wing bigot. Not so strident or unrelenting a bigot as TwelveInchPianist, for example (at least so far as I recall), but a bigot nonetheless. And a core element of the Volokh Conspiracy’s following.

      2. You do realize that this full throated welcome of racism means that anyone that values “decency” rejects you, yes? “Decent” people aren’t racist sexist assholes.

        1. At this point, anyone who doesn’t recognize the realities of race and intelligence is an enemy of the West.

    2. Plenty of women and minorities 50 miles from the coasts voted to save America in 2020. The horrible judgement of their peers comes from location not from biology.

      1. What percentage of non-whites vote for Republicans ever? 20%?

          1. Your mistake is thinking that vote counts, particularly in GA in 2020, are worth anything.

            1. This is your brain on republican propaganda.

    3. Blooooooooody hell.

      1. Hilarious. Mad_kalak pretends to be a libertarian, then comes out with straight storm front material. Then gets indignant and calls the Rev a bigot. Can’t make this stuff up.

        1. I’m the one who posted that you moron.

          1. And he agreed, Nazi.

            1. One man’s bigot is another man’s freedom fighter.

              1. Especially if the other man is a nazi.

  10. The Academic Freedom Alliance’s commitment to diversity is easy to see: It found a black conservative and randomly placed a picture of him on its “about” page!

    1. Artie, your racist is showing.

      1. If clingers don’t keep their gloves up, the culture war is going to become even more a rout.

        1. Looks like RAK is about to climax on his hobby horse.

    2. Why on earth would any right-thinking black professor need the protection of academic freedom? The only black professors who whine about academic freedom are Uncle Toms and Oreos.

      /sarc

    3. Ah, he’s black, so he must be there for diversity!

      More evidence that woke and racist is the same thing.

      1. There are pictures of precisely two persons on that page.

        The group’s leader.

        And a black guy, depicted for no apparent reason.

        Other than . . . well, you know.

  11. Eventually all cultural Commies must be purged to save our freedom. Zero tolerance for cultural Commies.

    1. That’s basically right. We can’t vote our way out of this. The only way America will exist in any recognizable form in 50 years is if we have a collapse followed by a cleansing.

  12. If this group is interested in a writ of mandamus forcing the IRS to enforce the educational purpose of the tax exemption, let me know. The slightest viewpoint discrimination should result in the instantaneous cancellation of the tax exempt status.

    Stop tax subsidies of the Hate America, Ivy, treason indoctrinatin camps.

  13. How does this group differ from FIRE? Should the members just join FIRE and bring legal firepower to that group? How does it differ from NAS? These groups should merge, and become 10 times more aggressive, with both legal action and direct action.

    https://www.thefire.org/

    1. This group is focused mostly on professors and FIRE focuses mostly on student’s rights issues.

  14. What happened to all the other groups that were supposed to be doing this? NAS? F.I.R.E? Why yet another splinter group?

    1. First, most of those groups are established failures.

      Second, there is always a chance to wring one more sweet donation from right-wing donors who just can’t abide all of this damned progress, inclusiveness, and modernity.

    2. They should combine, and bring the fight to the enemy, as a bigger more powerful entity with lawfare and warfare wings.

  15. https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/08/politics/supreme-court-free-speech-college-religion-case-chike-uzuegbunam/index.html

    “”When confronted with legal challenges to unconstitutional or illegal policies, governments often respond by changing those policies, and then contend that the cases are moot,” Lisa Blatt, a lawyer for the ACLU, told the justices in court papers.”

    Fuck this stupid Jewish bitch. Where was she when NYC dropped its unconstitutional gun transport law and got the SCOTUS case “mooted?”

    1. These are your peeps, Conspirators.

      Remember that the next time you get to wondering why your faculty colleagues tend to choose another table.

      1. Have you ever thought about wearing deodorant?

        1. Try this one.

          As the clingerverse fades and this blog falters against the liberal-libertarian mainstream’s culture war victory, I may buy this blog’s name at bankruptcy auction to write about music and beer.

          (Should I keep the censorship policies, or choose free speech?)

  16. I’m curious why Glenn Loury doesn’t seem to be a member.

    1. A few other equally obvious ones are missing, too.

      Maybe some personal issues related to the (seemingly unidentified) person issuing invitations?

  17. Why duplicate the efforts of the National Association of Scholars?

  18. You are fighting for a good cause, and have some heavy hitters signed on as well. Good luck with the fight!

Please to post comments