The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Humans Are Not Smart Enough to Have Ideas That Lie Beyond Challenge and Debate"
From Eleventh Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus's concurrence in Speech First, Inc. v. Cartwright:
I join fully in Judge Newsom's opinion for this Court. The University of Central Florida's discriminatory-harassment policy almost surely violates the First Amendment. It is grievously overbroad, and it is a content- and viewpoint-based restraint on free speech.
I write separately to underscore the grave peril posed by a policy that effectively polices adherence to intellectual dogma. History provides us with ample warning of those times and places when colleges and universities have stopped pursuing truth and have instead turned themselves into cathedrals for the worship of certain dogma.
By depriving itself of academic institutions that pursue truth over any other concern, a society risks falling into the abyss of ignorance. Humans are not smart enough to have ideas that lie beyond challenge and debate. A discriminatory-harassment policy that assumes the most popular idea or the idea that least "interferes with, limits, deprives, or alters the terms or conditions of education" is the correct one is plainly at odds with the First Amendment and our notion of free speech.
It is in a university setting, perhaps above all others, that our foundational ideas must be subject to examination and re-examination. The process is not necessarily gentle or even cordial, but it cannot be cut off because sometimes it is unpleasant or provocative or exasperating. "Education should not be intended to make people comfortable, it is meant to make them think. Universities should be expected to provide the conditions within which hard thought, and therefore strong disagreement, independent judgment, and the questioning of stubborn assumptions, can flourish in an environment of the greatest freedom." Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression, Univ. of Chicago (2015) (quoting President Hanna Holborn Gray).
The University's discriminatory-harassment policy touches on every conceivable topic that may come up on a college campus. Religion, political affiliation, ethnicity, national origin, age, gender identity or expression, and genetic information are just a select few targeted by the policy. The specter of punishment for expressing unorthodox views on these topics stifles rigorous intellectual debate. And the harm is not limited to professors and students while they are on campus. Our future civic and scientific leaders surely will take these values with them after graduation.
A university that has placed its highest premium on the protection of feelings or safe intellectual space has abandoned its core mission. The protection of feelings or the creation of safe space rightly might be the foremost goal in some settings, like at a family dinner, but it is not right for a university. Its unambiguous mission must remain the pursuit of truth. John Stuart Mill put it best in his classic work, On Liberty:
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error.
A university that turns itself into an asylum from controversy has ceased to be a university; it has just become an asylum.
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
Masterfully written.
Does this Republican judge have the self-awareness to recognize that he just eviscerated the nation's entire inventory of hundreds of conservative-controlled -- and censorship-shackled, dogma-enforcing, nonsense-teaching, science-suppressing, speech code-imposing, fourth-tier (or worse) -- colleges and universities, and with it every other religious school in the United States?
More likely, this stale old clinger sent at least one of his children to just such an "asylum" for ignorance, superstition, and old-timey bigotry.
Carry on, clingers. So far as anyone can go devoid of self-awareness and reason, anyway.
The ultimate role of the University is not whether one particular viewpoint, whether it be on the Left or Right, is give an advantage, rather it is to foster all viewpoints the unimpeded expression and open exchange in free debate.
Arthur-
Judge Marcus, while appointed by Reagan to the DC, was appointed by Clinton to the COA.
He is a fair and moderate jurist from the "old school" (do the job correctly and to the best of your ability without regard to the parties or the partisan valence, and in the most minimal way possible). While no judge is perfect, I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
If you have an issue before the 11th COA, you'd probably want him on the panel. He just moved to senior status.
I'm pretty sure that this Republican judge knows enough about the law to recognize that the first amendment is only aimed at state action and does not bind "conservative-controlled -- and censorship-shackled, dogma-enforcing, nonsense-teaching, science-suppressing, speech code-imposing, fourth-tier (or worse) -- colleges and universities," or "religious school[s]" any more than it binds Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram.
This is BS.
"By depriving itself of academic institutions that pursue truth over any other concern..."
Academic institutions in the USA do not 'pursue truth over any other concern'. They openly pursue power and wealth -- but if anyone challenges them they pretend to exist solely for pure intellect.
That's the point. They are supposed to be "institutions that pursue truth over any other concern". As a society, we grant them special status and privileges because that mission is so important. If/when we allow them to abandon that mission, we "risk[] falling into the abyss of ignorance".
Anti-intellectualism on the right has become just assumed.
Y'all hate schools. And the media. And entertainment. And big business. And tech.
Don't know why we should listen to your takes on society; you hate everything about it so much.
I say: shut down public colleges / universities (because they are not a proper function of government); let private ones pursue whatever they want.
Federal law prohibits discrimination at schools, and the college made an attempt to tailor this policy to match the case-law definition of discrimination. But apparently free speech is now more important then anti-discrimination. We are seeing a disturbing trend of civil rights of the community being trampled by the rights of individuals. Same thing with SCOTUS now saying the government must fund LGBT discrimination and must fund religious schools.
Groups don't have rights, individuals have rights that they sometimes exercise in concert.
Speech is not discrimination.
I honestly can't tell if this is a parody. (I mean, I can tell that it isn't, but only because of the name of the poster — an example of how knowing the identity of a speaker can actually be useful.)
...I think this is defining civil rights as a collectively held community right?
Which, I don't get that logic.
Free speech is indeed more important than anti-discrimination. The latter gets nowhere without the former, and is often ground underheel without it, as in Russia, currently trumpeting anti-discrimination of ethnic Russians in Ukraine, we're kicking out the Nazis, and no opinions against it legally allowed.
Clearly your belief censorship in favor of anti-discrimination has some real world problems in practice.
If only we had thousands of years and hundreds of examples to teach us. Nevermind. Each generation re-does the stupid.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/04/21/challenge-to-univ-of-central-floridas-bias-related-incidents-policy-can-go-forward/?comments=true#comment-9458937
I write separately to underscore the grave peril posed by a policy that effectively polices adherence to intellectual dogma.
I await the learned judge's righteous attack on the legal standards which put in grave peril the nation's private businesses of all kinds.
That's why Twitter, Facebook, etc. should have been recognized as state actors in how they censor conservative viewpoints: bowing to Congressional pressure like that made them vulnerable to similar pressure from other governments, and undermines their already shaky reputations with the public.