The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Academic Freedom Podcast #14 on Controversial Public Speech
A conversation with David Rabban about the scope of protections for extramural and intramural speech
A new episode of The Academic Freedom Podcast from the Academic Freedom Alliance is now available. Subscribe through your favorite platform so you don't miss an episode.
In this episode I talk with David Rabban about controversial public speech by professors and the scope of protection that such speech should have and does have under common university policies. Whether such speech should be protected at all was a source of debate among those advancing academic freedom principles and protections in the United States in the early twentieth century, but the major policy statements of the American Association of University Professors included protections for political speech in the public arena by professors. David and I have both argued that the logic of protecting such speech is better understood in relation to free speech policies than academic freedom policies. My article on this is here.
Extramural speech remains a frequent point of contention on college campuses. The rise of social media has created many new opportunities for professors to say controversial things in public and for critics of professorial speech to organize themselves to put pressure on universities. The AFA has intervened in several extramural speech controversies, including those involving Amy Wax at the University of Pennsylvania, Ilya Shapiro at Georgetown University Law Center, Stephen Kershnar at SUNY-Fredonia, Allyn Walker at Old Dominion University, Robert Mann at Louisiana State University, Tom Smith at the University of San Diego, and Lynne Chandler Garcia at the Air Force Academy.
David Rabban is professor at the University of Texas Law School and an expert on the First Amendment and academic freedom. He previously served as the general counsel to the American Association of University Professors, and he now serves on the academic committee of the Academic Freedom Alliance.
The episode provides a deep dive into the history of extramural speech protections and controversies, the principles protecting such speech, and the related protections for faculty speech in university meetings. Listen to the whole thing here.
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
These woke treason indoctrination camps only have purview over their classes or over their places of employment. Speech outside of class or outside of any job is none of their business. It is a form of lawyer gotcha and of lawfare. A tort of Free Speech Retaliation should be recognized in statute. Because it is an intentional tort, exemplary damages are fully justified. To deter.
Because such retaliation is unAmerican, and in the service of the Chinese Commie Party, it should get zero tolerance from government. Rescind the tax exemption, all grants, all subsidies, all accreditations. Indoctrination or the tolerance of only one side is tax fraud. They promisesd the IRS to provide education. That fraud justifies seizures of all employer assets in civil forfeiture.
The Mayor of Madnessville everyone.
Hi, Queenie. Can you give me your address? I want to come over to take you out to lunch. You are my only friend here, and the only stupid enough to actually reply to me. I am so lonely. I want to come over.
" I am so lonely. I want to come over."
Won't dispute Count McCreepy on that.
Big Trump fan, this guy.
Queenie, tell us about your school. Is it really woke?
Queenie, how do you handle a conservative remark in your class?
Queenie, do you publically label any student making a conservative remark as mentally ill?
Putting aside the many private colleges, who is more likely, as an empirical matter, to violate constitutional rights, the police or college employees? Why do the respective sides tend to focus on one or the other? To what extent can the much reported on violations of each group be thought of to be 'common' or 'normal' for the professions and/or to what extent do these reported on violations support the idea that the professions (or systems they work in) are 'broken' and in need of (serious? drastic?) reform?
Protecting the public from criminals is a legitimate function of government. Running colleges & universities is not. We could eliminate half the constitutional violations you bemoan by shutting down all public colleges & universities.
It would be much more useful for politicians to try to ban non-controversial speech, but they aren't that evolved.
In this episode I talk with David Rabban about controversial public speech by professors and the scope of protection that such speech should have and does have under common university policies.
Just another example among zillions of the way the internet has encouraged conflation of publishing with, "speech." Confusion ensues.
When you use social media in public, you are not, "speaking." You are publishing, in the same sense that the author of an op-ed in a newspaper is publishing his contribution in that newspaper.
A reason the distinction matters for this discussion is that backward-looking points of comparison may misleadingly settle on examples based on actual speech—as in words offered in front of audiences, or other such oral utterances. That kind of actual speech typically proves ephemeral, achieves only limited reach in terms of audience size, and will only rarely create much enduring record.
In terms of impact on an employer university's reputation, that kind of oral utterance is not comparable to remarks published on the internet. The latter reach world-wide, can be accessed by millions, and leave an indelible public record. Influential consequences of that sort are more likely in the cases of published remarks by university professors than for many others.
Given the special concern that universities have long cherished regarding their professors' publications, it may behoove a university to treat social media publications as more akin to published scholarly work—upon the quality of which the reputation of the university utterly depends—than like causal conversation across a table at the local watering hole.
To insist that trained scholars know and observe in their own remarks the differences between speech and publishing does not really seem to add anything new in the way of constraint. It may, however, counter a tendency to heedlessly ease constraints which had formerly been commonplace.
Steven. You are saying a post about Trump should be considered a publication and get listed in the academic resume of an English prof? How is that not an abusive gotcha.
What about a post about a favorite recipe for a spicy meatball or a pic of the newest grandchild? If I post 10 times a day, I will have 3000 publications a year added to my resume. After 7 years, should my 20000 publications be considered in a decision for tenure?
Volokh posts about subjects of interest in this blog. Cite every post? Or, just refer to the blog in the academic resume?