The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Yale Law School Dean's "Message to Our Alumni on Free Speech"
Just released today:
Dear members of our alumni community:
Yale Law School is dedicated to building a vibrant intellectual environment where ideas flourish. To foster free speech and engagement, we emphasize the core values of professionalism, integrity, and respect. These foundational values guide everything we do.
Over the last six months, we have taken a number of concrete steps to reaffirm our enduring commitment to the free and unfettered exchange of ideas. These actions are well known to our faculty, students, and staff, but I want to share some of them with you as well.
- Last March, the Law School made unequivocally clear that attempts to disrupt events on campus are unacceptable and violate the norms of the School, the profession, and our community.
- The faculty revised our disciplinary code and adopted a policy prohibiting surreptitious recordings that mirrors policies that the University of Chicago and other peer institutions have put in place to encourage the free expression of ideas.
- We developed an online resource outlining our free speech policies and redesigned Orientation to center around discussions of free expression and the importance of respectful engagement. Virtually every member of the faculty spoke to their students about these values on the first day of class.
- We replaced our digital listserv with what alumni fondly remember as "the Wall" to encourage students to take time to reflect and resolve their differences face-to-face.
- We welcomed a new Dean of Students who is focused on ensuring students learn to resolve disagreements among themselves whenever possible rather than reflexively looking to the institution to serve as a referee.
This important and ongoing work takes place against the backdrop of long-standing efforts to encourage the robust exchange of ideas that is essential to any academic community. In all of these efforts, our core model remains the same — we know that the best way for our students to learn is by engaging with their peers and faculty in small, iterative conversations within our community. While this work often is not visible to the wider world, the Law School is moving forward on its central commitments and we are focused on educating the next generation of lawyers and instilling them with the values so many of us hold dear. I'm grateful for your unfailing support and love of the School.
Of course, all depends on the implementation, but I thought I'd pass this along. I should also note that, while I disagree with the calls to boycott Yale Law School graduates because of the school's past lack of support of free speech, I have to acknowledge (as a practical matter, whatever one might think of the purely ethical questions) that those calls might have helped prompt this message—though one can only speculate—on that and might prompt Yale to adhere to these principles in the future.
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
“we know that the best way for our students to learn is by engaging with their peers and faculty in small, iterative conversations within our community”
I wonder what happens when they go out into their positions of influence, knowing how superior they are – will they be able to engage civilly with the plebes?
Will Yale graduates relate on terms of equal citizenship with the people who fix their leaky toilets, do maintenance on their Lexuses, and provide nanny services for their children?
Or is this an aristocratic ethos of mutual respect and backscratching among members of the ruling elite, putting aside their minor differences in favor of stomping on the clingers and rubes?
"Will Yale graduates relate on terms of equal citizenship with the people who fix their leaky toilets, do maintenance on their Lexuses..."
I got a feeling that when dealing with plumbers and auto repairmen for their luxury vehicles they're as much at their mercy as the rest of us, maybe more.
Heh. Truer words were never spoken. (Alas.)
"Yale Law School is dedicated to building a vibrant intellectual environment where ideas flourish."
Can a lawyer be sanctioned for lying in a press release?
Typically no, which is especially fortunate for such as Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz.
Would add Joe Biden but he shares with Louie Gohmert and non-lawyers such as BfO, the Costanzan property of believing in it when he says it.
Some philosophy you have there: if the liar believes the lie is true then no harm done?
Mr. Bumble: Wait -- isn't a lie, as opposed to an error, a deliberately false statement, as opposed to an honest mistake? If I'm right on this, then if a speaker believes the statement, then it's just not a lie in the first place. (It may still be harmful, but that's a separate matter from whether it's a lie.)
That's always been my feeling of how things should be, but it's new to me to hear a lawyer say so, and so plainly. Are you sure you don't want to leave some room for quibbling?!?
Wait, we haven't made this about procedure yet.
I think a lot of people would lump in with "lie" a belief that was reached through a deliberate process of thought or investigation, especially if that process was biased in various (typically partisan) ways.
That kind of extension seems overly subjective to me, so I wouldn't adopt it, but I think it is used somewhat widely.
You seem familiar with neither the Costanza Principle, nor semantics.
(Hint: Defend your statement implying there's no difference between not a lie if you believe it, and no harm done.)
I'll assume you didn't just lie in ascribing to me, a philosophy of which you have no evidence that I hold, because, although wrong, you really believed it when you wrote it.
"non-lawyers such as BfO"
Speaking of lies.
Thank you. I always appreciate a valid correction, honest or not (considering the topic, it seems unlikely you truly considered that a lie).
Please consider the statement edited to remove the inaccuracy.
Does a law degree have an expiration date?
Would you even hire Obama to defend you in traffic court?
I appreciate your lack of humble-bragging about your law degree. I don't recall ever seeing you state that before, undoubtedly because I quickly learned there's little value in your unusually predictable, repetitive logorrhea.
Then why bother to respond you pompous twit?
Folks, seriously? Can we just focus on the substance, rather than personally insulting one another?
I agree. I could do without all the insults. The insult to everybody's intelligence inherent in the above announcement from Yale is bad enough. They might as well have just said the beatings of conservative students would continue until morale improved.
I wouldn’t hire any well known lawyer to represent me in traffic court. I’d want someone who is familiar with the jurisdiction’s laws, procedures, and personalities.
Obama would be just as bad as any conservative legal superstar at that.
"We welcomed a new Dean of Students who is focused on ensuring students learn to resolve disagreements among themselves whenever possible rather than reflexively looking to the institution to serve as a referee."
To assure students do not look to the institution to serve as a referee, we have hired yet another high paid referee. (?)
And where’s the fun if you can’t use the power of government to sanction your opponent merely by quivering like a newborn doe at their speech?
And did anybody think of the suing lawyers? How the hell can you sue for one third of a huge amount if damages are tiny?
The statement would be unremarkable, even trite, for a regular undergraduate Dean of Students.
However, they get more credit because it's a law school. After all, the entire purpose of the profession is serving (or defending against) people who have failed to resolve their disagreements among themselves, and therefore need some institution to serve as a referee.
When you look at it that way, it's a Dean of Students essentially telling law students to not be lawyers all the time. Much appreciated!
Yeah, it sounds really great if you completely ignore the context, and don't really have any concern for the rights of the students to begin with.
Oh, of course the statement was issued under duress, the dean resented having to make it, and it's not fully sincere. Yale's experiencing a little bit of the forced apology stuff they've been inflicting on others.
Nevertheless, better than if they'd doubled down.
They essentially did double down, what with the part about prohibiting documenting what they do going forward.
A lawyer who cannot resolve disagreements with other lawyers without asking a judge to decide, is not going to be very successful lawyer.
It will be interesting to see, going forward, if the disciplinary code is enforced.
Now that conservatives seems somewhat satisfied with Yale's performance in this regard, perhaps conservatives such as the Volokh Conspirators can direction their attention away from strong, liberal-libertarian institutions for a moment and seek to improve the dozens of censorship-shackled, nonsense-teaching, science-suppressing, academic freedom-flouting, conservative-controlled schools.
Carry on, clingers. So far as nipping at the heels and ankles of strong, mainstream, liberal-libertarian academia could carry anyone from the fringe, anyway.
Your first sentence proves once again that you are a moron. No, no "conservative" with a clue is even "somewhat satisfied with Yale’s performance in this regard."
Sad to say, Eugene Volokh seems somewhat clueless, as he missed the really significant part of this announcement: "The faculty revised our disciplinary code and adopted a policy prohibiting surreptitious recordings..." Without his surreptitious recording of the Diversity functionaries coercing him the student abused in the "Trap Hose" scandal would have gotten nowhere. And killing the listserv is just an attempt to avoid recording evidence of what goes on going forward.
* "Trap House"
I see others below are not as oblivious as EV.
Wake me when they punish someone for disrupting a conservative speech, preferably without any “while this speech is against our values” claptrap.
Disruptions may be "unacceptable" on paper, but unless they start kicking students out or suspending them for a term or two, what's on paper is meaningless.
"Last March, the Law School made unequivocally clear that attempts to disrupt events on campus are unacceptable and violate the norms of the School, the profession, and our community."
Stop it, you guys, we really mean it this time.
"The faculty revised our disciplinary code and adopted a policy prohibiting surreptitious recordings that mirrors policies that the University of Chicago and other peer institutions have put in place to encourage the free expression of ideas."
They don't want anyone to be able to document it when they say horrible things or level threats. Why else would they object to anybody who was present for a conversation being able to prove what was said?
The principle reflects, of course, the original rationale behind executive privilege invoked by Donald Trump and other presidents.
One may judge for one’s self the degree to which former President Trump, like President/former President Nixon, may be stretching that reasoning beyond the traditional justifications.
Your attempt to deflect from Brett's observation is noted with disdain.
"The faculty revised our disciplinary code and adopted a policy prohibiting surreptitious recordings that mirrors policies that the University of Chicago and other peer institutions have put in place to encourage the free expression of ideas."
So they prohibited the means by which Trent Colbert was able to expose the administration's misconduct and they're claiming it's to encourage free speech? Talk about Chutzpa.
Huh. Yeah, this seems like, "here's what we're doing to make sure we don't get caught or exposed again."
Yeah, I can see professors not wanting everything in class recorded, although I hope it’s not for something they are intentionally hiding.
But any student should have the right to record disciplinary interactions with the university. Over and over again we’ve seen colleges deny basic fairness on the basis of the flimsiest accusations when they have a legal duty to provide basic due process. And then shamelessly lie about it, or worse be self righteously unaware of any obligation of providing a fair process.
Exactly. The paragraph mainly makes me wonder what the University of Chicago is trying to hide. (With UCB I expect it's the same as at Yale.)
Nothing in Yale's reported new rule forbids recording — just surreptitious recording.
Let's not forget, incidentally, that state laws (not in CT, but in some states) may prevent such recording even if the college allows it.
Besides the banning of secret recordings and demolition of the student listserv, a third dead giveaway that this is not a real walkback by Dean Gerken is the fact that the statement does not acknowledge any of the prior widely reported incidents that have caused concern (including Judge Ho's concerns) or even acknowledge the existence of any problems at all. (The mention of not disrupting events does not qualify because it is shorn of any specificity and pretends to scold everyone equally and in the abstract.)
Who is she kidding?
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/10/07/why-a-broad-view-of-academic-freedom-is-essential/?comments=true#comment-8506704
Ha, Ha. You think -"those calls might have helped prompt this message"
The two substantive items are
(a) they are going to punish students for recording administrators who tell them to shut up or they'll be punished, and
(b) they shut down the student listserv.
And they have the gall to call this their measures to enhance free speech! They don't have a very high opinion of the discernment of their alumni.
Should they?
There is nothing in this message or the "new" policy that invalidates Judge Ho's decision (plus 14 more judges) to refrain from hiring YLS grads as clerks.
Mr. Bumble observes that Judge Ho is still right about Yale.
I observe that Judge Ho is still a superstitious, torturer-appeasing, gay-bashing bigot and disaffected culture war casualty.
Which point is more important?
You are obviously incapable of saying anything the least bit important, so "the night is dark" leaps that low bar with ease.
I think most Americans consider racism, voter suppression, torture, misogyny, gay-bashing, xenophobia, and the other elements of the modern conservatism important, and that Republicans will continue to lose the culture war for that reason.
Carry on, clingers.
I am going to bet that one of the most important moves is "the Wall."
It is easy to somehow forget the human or humans on the other side of our messages when communicating electronically. Face-to-face communication encourages more empathy. It may not change our opinions, but it may encourage us to change the way we present those opinions.
You mean the TEARING DOWN of “the Wall.”
It's unimportant. Everyone involved will find other electronic avenues to bark and howl on
Should people believe a sales pitch?
How about a money back guarantee for students?
Do right-wingers believe that this stuff is going to incline strong, mainstream, liberal-libertarian law schools to emulate a bunch of bottom-scraping schools by hiring more conservative faculty members and admitting more fledgling Federalist Societeers?
I sense that the Volokh Conspiracy, Instapundit, Legal Insurrection and the like are pulling up the ladder -- making it much more difficult for additional conservatives (even those with glittering, partisan clerkship credentials) to be welcomed at better schools. You can always find a candidate who can teach contracts and mentor students without risking the problems associated with a strident bigot or a pitchfork-throwing culture war casualty.
What are you imbibing or ingesting that causes you to "sense" these things?
I'm not seeing where EV said anything about hiring that would cause these vapors in your head.
You figure law deans at legitimate, strong, mainstream law schools aren't getting tired of reading about and apologizing for their right-wing professors' antics?
How on earth can an all-party consent rule for recordings promote free speech? I would argue that it is a violation of free speech.
It makes it easier for the university to say, "so-and-so's account of the conversation is one-sided and misleading. What we *really* said was..."