The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Academic Freedom Alliance Letter to Princeton University
Campus administratve unit crosses a line in campaign to shame a sitting member of the faculty
The Academic Freedom Alliance released a public letter to Princeton University calling on the university to reaffirm the academic freedom of classics professor Joshua Katz.
On July 8, 2020, Professor Joshua Katz published an opinion piece in an online journal reacting to the July 4th public letter signed by many members of the Princeton faculty. In that piece he criticized a student group that had operated on campus a few year earlier and hyperbolically characterized it as a "small local terrorist group." This piece generated a series of responses on campus, including the university's spokesman claim that Professor Katz would be investigated for potential disciplinary action as a result of his extramural speech. More recently, in a university-sponsored freshman orientation event Professor Katz was singled out for criticism by the Carl Fields Center for Equality and Cultural Understanding. On a website of the university and co-sponsored by myriad university administrative units including the Office of the Vice Provost of Institutional Equity and Diversity, Professor Katz is held out as an example of a professor making a racist statement and is shown being denounced by the university president, the Classics department, and the chairs of two academic units for engaging in racist speech.
The AFA has not adopted a position on whether institutional speech by universities on issues of public controversy is ever appropriate, but it is a deeply problematic practice for administrative units on campus to use their institutional resources and programming to engage in ongoing public shaming campaigns directed against individual members of the faculty. It is not clear what, if any, boundary there might be on university deans and vice presidents using their offices to vilify members of the faculty.
As we write in the letter:
It is hard to see the actions of the Carl Fields Center as anything other than ongoing retaliation for Professor Katz's speech. For university officials in their individual capacities to sharply criticize a professor for his speech is one thing. For the administration to memorialize criticism and to highlight it as the introduction of every student to the university campus is something else. We are not aware of any other example of a university systematically denouncing a sitting member of its own faculty in such a way. It is not an example that should be followed or repeated if universities are to remain vibrant centers of intellectual freedom.
The university climate would quickly become poisonous and intolerable if administrative units on campus made it a practice to hold up dissenting members of the faculty for ritual condemnation and if the precedent now being set were followed in the future. If the Office of the Vice President for Campus Life uses its administrative position on campus to organize official university programming for the purpose of heaping opprobrium on faculty for expressing disfavored personal political opinions, the risks of chilling speech on campus are severe. The university can hardly create a climate welcoming of heterodox opinions if it creates an administrative apparatus to target the heterodox and stamp them as campus pariahs.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Princeton has adopted the Chicago Principles. Any investigation violates its own written policies.
Letters. Mandamus the Non-Profit Office of the IRS to rescind the tax exemption for tax fraud. Princeton promised to provide education. It provided indoctrination.
Which is more effective in ending leftist rampages over Free Speech rights?
Free Speech retaliation should be prohibited by law. It should be made a legal tort, and not just an employment beef.
The lawyer believes words can persuade. Perhaps. Is money more persuasive than words? An ugly guy wants to have sex with a beautiful woman. Endless sweet talking? $500? You decide. Take money from these treason indoctrination camps. That may be more persuasive than letters.
"An ugly guy wants to have sex with a beautiful woman."
A problem Dave knows all too well I'm sure!
Hi, Queenie. What is your race? I need it for the letter of support for you to get the great job you deserve.
Creepy little schizo this one is. Big Trump fan too!
Queenie. The problem has been overcoming their addiction to me, and letting go.
"Carl Fields Center for Equality and Cultural Understanding"
"Office of the Vice Provost of Institutional Equity and Diversity"
Sure signs of bigotry and intolerance and an organization that opposes freedom.
It is not clear what, if any, boundary there might be on university deans and vice presidents using their offices to vilify members of the faculty.
Seems like the AFA is entering into the same event it accuses the deans and presidents of competing in. Even if the AFA is wise to admonish the deans and presidents, would it also be wise to limit similarly the speech of the students?
Looks like Behar's multiple personalities are debating themselves again here!
As to the OP, the professor made a statement and then the Center made one critical of him. Free speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism.
AFA criticizes speech that criticizes speech.
So far so good.
The one thing is I don't like this phrasing that makes it look like they're criticizing something more than speech: It is hard to see the actions of the Carl Fields Center as anything other than ongoing retaliation for Professor Katz's speech.
Did you link through and look at Katz’s letter? It’s a reasonable nothingburger. “I disagree with their letter and here’s why”.
The self-described advocates for diversity don’t want there to actually be any, at least as it relates to opinion. So they suppress it hard. I guess persuading people on the merits of their position is just too damn hard.
I think it's legit to argue that this is bad speech. Legal, but bad.
I think that's where I'm leaning myself.
But if this criticism counts as suppression, they're doing a pretty bad job of it, seems like.
I think getting melodramatic undercuts the message.
It's implied in the post, quite correctly, that institutional criticism of faculty can count as suppression. That sounds right to me.
That's what these advocates say.
I think that'd be a tricky legal case to make if the conduct is purely speech.
And here, there does not seem to be any actual suppression of speech so...
They're not making a legal case. It's the Academic Freedom Alliance, not the First Amendment Alliance.
They're making an argument that this type of institutional action creates an environment that is bad for free academic inquiry, and that perhaps institutional boundaries should be created to prevent this type of institutional speech.
But if they're not making a legal case, than what counts as suppression becomes merely rhetoric.
They're making an argument well beyond 'this is bad for academic inquiry.' Hence their use of that rhetoric, and calling speech 'conduct.'
If a private business treated one of their employees like Princeton is treating this guy - harassment this extensive - they’d be exposed to a massive hostile work environment lawsuit and would probably lose their ass in court.
But it’s ok if it’s in academia and he’s an apostate to the wrong dogma?
Not my area of law, but there isn't a protected class here so I'm not sure that works.
That's not how it works. Contrary to what many believe, there is no free standing cause of action for "hostile working environment." The claim has to be racial (or sex, or religious, etc.) discrimination; a hostile working environment is just a way that that discrimination manifests itself.
"But if they're not making a legal case, than what counts as suppression becomes merely rhetoric."
Why? There are other forms of dialogue than legal argument and mere rhetoric.
Not that use legal terms. You're either making a legal argument or trading off the authoritative-sounding terms.
What terms are they using that are exclusively legal?
It is hard to see the actions of the Carl Fields Center as anything other than ongoing retaliation for Professor Katz's speech.
That's absolutely invoking legality.
I think the rest of the statement is fine. Strident, but that's what you'd expect from advocates.
"That's absolutely invoking legality."
Because you say so?
"...and calling speech 'conduct.'"
Some of the conduct is an investigation that could result in disciplinary action. That's certainly not pure speech.
If an investigation is actually forthcoming, then say that. But this letter carefully does not say that.
Again, I have no problem with criticizing this speech. But I think there is some work being done to try and imply it's not speech.
"This piece generated a series of responses on campus, including the university’s spokesman claim that Professor Katz would be investigated for potential disciplinary action as a result of his extramural speech..."
Read it again.
As I said, 'If an investigation is actually forthcoming, then say that. But this letter carefully does not say that.'
Area Sarcastr0 yells at clouds. And the chilling effects doctrine. And proceeds to insist that the First Amendment protects saying "It's a nice shop you have here, it would be a shame if something happened to it."
The AFA has no way of knowing whether an investigation is forthcoming or not, other than by relying on the university's comment. And they're not saying anything isn't speech, but not all of the conduct at issue here is speech.
So a tenured Classics professor can criticize his institution and colleagues but if a department criticizes him in return that's 'suppression?'
It can be. As the article suggests, perhaps the boundry isn't fleshed out, but there certainly is one.
It 'can' be? Yeah, and if wishes were fishes then beggars can eat. Here all we've had is a professor criticizing his colleagues and institution and some people and departments at the institution criticizing him back.
yes, and the AFA is arguing that this particular criticism is likely to suppress speech, and explaining why that's bad for academic inquiry. so what?
"He spoke a no-no. You students shouldn't even dream of something similar, if you know what'a good for you."
I think we're there now. And the "woke" folk (in news & entertainment media, the Democratic Party, the corporate world) are trying to extend that climate nationwide. God help us...
Don't worry, Ed Grinberg -- the Federalist Society, the Volokh Conspiracy, the Republican Party, and others will continue to advocate for right-wing bigotry and conservative backwardness, raging against the forces of science, reason, modernity, inclusiveness, and progress. They likely will continue to slow American progress, although the clingers seem powerless to stop or reverse the tide that delivers victory to the liberal-libertarian mainstream in the American culture war.
You forgot to add: "Besides, Liberty University and Ave Maria are worse than Princeton."
Maybe he's figured out that some of these schools are pushing the boundaries of being able to credibly say that.
I'm libertarian, and am joyous about the backseating of certain attitudes.
But the speech suppression by the "correct side" nonetheless disturbs me.
The problem was suppression, not who did it, or why. Ultimately it's all to protect one's power, a sad but well-established historical reason.
Interesting contrasting this to the recent Supreme Court decision on how a formal censure in response to a council member's speech isn't a First Amendment violation and the Court's general observation that the answer to speech you don't like is more speech.
'member when the Republicans silenced fellow senators, refusing to let them say bad things about another senator on the floor of the senate, per the senate rules?
Except the senator was being discussed for approval to an appointment by the president, so the senate was denied the ability to discuss him?
Ahh, good times in censorship by today's whiners.