Academic Freedom in Florida

Some cause for concern

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has been hammering away on higher education in Florida. He clearly sees this as a winning electoral issue as he prepares himself for the Republican presidential primary, and he is no doubt right that there is a lot of conservative anger out there (some (much?) of it justified) about the state of American higher education.

The way he has approached the issue is cause for alarm, however, for those who care about academic freedom. I have a new piece over in The Dispatch on the various moves to date in Florida.

From the piece:

DeSantis has adopted a machine gun approach to conservative complaints about higher education, spraying bullets everywhere in the hopes that some might hit the target, without worrying too much about collateral damage. Given the rush of activity, mixed motives, and heated rhetoric, it is also not surprising that his critics have not always been too careful about distinguishing between genuine threats to academic freedom and mere policy disagreements. Nonetheless, the risk to free inquiry at Florida state universities under DeSantis is a real one.

Read the whole thing here.

Also I'm on the latest episode of The Remnant with Jonah Goldberg talking about Hamline, Florida, and the general state of free inquiry in higher education.

Check it out.

Also some notable recent pieces on Florida that are not by me.

Cathy Young at the Bulwark

Don Moynihan at his substack

Daniel Golden at ProPublica

Emma Pettit at the Chronicle of Higher Education has been doing excellent reporting on developments in Florida

Comments

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Looks like this guy missed the most recent "here's what we don't talk about" meetings of the Volokh Conspirators.

Go easy on him, Prof. Volokh.

(Front and Center offers good video and sound, but seems unreliable when asserting that Springsteen and Bon Jovi have been Jukes. Springsteen wrote that, though.)

[David Nieporent]

Troll, troll, troll.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You seem to resent the people who have kicked your ass in the culture war and are improving America at the expense of your preferences.

[Leo Marvin]

On what issues has DMN's ass been kicked in the culture wars? Are you under the impression he's a cultural conservative?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

His comments indicate he is a conservative. Not a Trump conservative, but a conservative. Maybe a Volokh conservative (movement conservative, claiming to be libertarian).

[Leo Marvin]

His comments seem libertarian to me. From a liberal POV that looks conservative on economic issues, and from a conservative POV it looks liberal on social issues. Since the culture war is about social issues, I'm still not seeing where you think the culture war has kicked his ass.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He seems roughly as libertarian as I am.

[Brett Bellmore]

That "liberal on social issues, conservative on economic issues" formulation really breaks down when you look at things on an issue by issue basis.

For instance, gun control is a social issue, and on that one conservatives tend to be much more liberty oriented than 'liberals'. Possibly because it's a long recognized liberty they're conserving.

[Nige]

Yes, conserving regular mass shootings.

[bernard11]

Nice to see some attention paid DeSantis' threats to higher (and K-12) education.

These are a vastly more serious attack on freedom of expression and academic freedom than the Hamline sideshow.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

The wokies are much more of a threat in *all* colleges and universities than one single governor.

[bernard11]

No they're not.

It's a small but loud minority that is heavily publicized by the right, but does not have great effect.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

They generate more noise and cancel more culture than one governor. If you hadn't noticed, one governor is a minority of 2%; wokies are in almost all colleges.

[Nige]

It’s the right that generates the noise, magnifying them out of all proportion as an ‘enemy within’ and an existential threat, because they need threats to keep themselves mad and scared, and to as pretexts for exercising nasty abuses of power like this, but not real threats, they’re too scary to acknowledge.

[gallinalg85]

The left is an existential threat that needs to be eradicated from this Earth.

[Nige]

You're an existential threat that needs to go beddy-byes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

DeSantis is trying to SAVE education.

[Nige]

By killing it.

[Randal]

And Trump is trying to save democracy, and McCarthy is trying to save the DOJ. We know what "save" means to the GOP: scuttle.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Academic freedom NEVER meant that the taxpayer was forced to subsidize it - taxpayers have the right to specify the curriculum.

[bernard11]

Which says nothing about academic freedom on campus.

And how do we know the taxpayers want DeSantis to make the curriculum decisions?

Anyway, if the taxpayers say, "We don't want anybody talking about X," that is plainly a restriction on the faculty, and on free expression at the university.

[Bob from Ohio]

"And how do we know the taxpayers want DeSantis to make the curriculum decisions? "

I think this is how we know:

Popular vote 4,614,210
Percentage 59.4%

[Randal]

There are a thousand ways to justify the sorts of censorship that you desire. “The taxpayers want it” is certainly one. Biden should take a page out of your book and use it to justify the misinformation board.

[Bob from Ohio]

Sure, go ahead.

[bernard11]

Nope.

That he won the election doesn't give him monarchical powers, and doesn't mean the voters were saying they approved of anything he might do.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"That he won the election doesn’t give him monarchical powers, and doesn’t mean the voters were saying they approved of anything he might do."

No, but it gives him some power to control the things that the government does. And says.

[bernard11]

Yes, and he is abusing that power.

[TwelveInchPianist]

How so?

[bernard11]

By imposing his political views on school curricula.

[TwelveInchPianist]

How's that abuse? Why should teachers be able to impose their political views on school curricula without someone accountable to the electorate being able to reign them in if they step out of line?

[Randal]

It depends on whether you think schools should be government propaganda indoctrination centers or not. Of course they can be. But that sounds pretty soviet to me. A free country ought to have freedom of thought and speech in schools, free from political influence.

"Reigning in teachers who step out of line..." how 1984 of you.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It depends on whether you think schools should be government propaganda indoctrination centers or not."

Wow. Some heavy question-begging going on there.

If teachers are using public schools to spew social justice propaganda, and gender ideology propaganda, the electorate is well within its rights to make them knock it off and get back to reading, writing, and arithmetic.

"“Reigning in teachers who step out of line…” how 1984 of you."

I missed the part of 1984 where elected officials were reigning in public employees. If that happened, the book would be quite different.

[Randal]

If teachers are using public schools to spew social justice propaganda, and gender ideology propaganda, the electorate is well within its rights to make them knock it off and get back to reading, writing, and arithmetic.

That's obviously a viewpoint. My position from the beginning has simply been, it's the anti-free-speech position. It's fine for you to be anti-free-speech, but I feel like you get bent up about far lesser free-speech issues such as Hamline, depending on the partisan slant. Which just makes you a hack.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"My position from the beginning has simply been, it’s the anti-free-speech position."

In the same sense that it's an anti-free speech position to insist that the teacher teach algebra during Algebra class and not Shakespeare.

Which is, not at all, because the teacher is a government employee being paid to deliver the content that the government demands, for government purposes.

"I feel like you get bent up about far lesser free-speech issues such as Hamline, depending on the partisan slant. Which just makes you a hack."

I haven't taken a "Free Speech" position at Hamline. As I said, I would be fine with with the school firing a professor for not showing the painting due to religious objections to others viewing it. Would you have a problem with that?

[Nige]

So his supporters support censorship. Still censorship.

[Sarcastr0]

Academic freedom has been funded by the taxpayers for quite a while.

We kind of made a big deal about it back in the Cold War, ('Communism versus Academic Freedom') as a contrast with the Soviets (discouraged us from pulling the trigger on academic purges ourselves). So yes, there was quite a while when taxpayers were meant to subsidize it.

Bottom line 0 the governor may have the authority, but that doesn't mean this partisan nonsense is taxpayer approved. Or a good idea for Florida or the country.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Bottom line 0 the governor may have the authority, but that doesn’t mean this partisan nonsense is taxpayer approved. Or a good idea for Florida or the country."

You're free to think it's bad. Other people are free to think it's good.

And you're free to convince the people of Florida to elect someone who won't do that sort of thing.

[Nige]

We're also free to notice who, when confronted with actual censorship and threats to academic freedom that aren't some random student's complaint being mishandled by university administrations, prefer to wash their hands like Pontius Pilate.

[bernard11]

Exactly.

All the screaming from the right when something like Hamline happens is total insincere bullshit. You don't care one whit about academic freedom.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Of course not. I care about quality education. If a teacher were using her academic freedom to refuse to show an important piece of art because some students had religious objections to other students viewing it, I would have a problem with that too. Not you?

[Randal]

Sure I’d have a problem with it, but not on free-speech grounds. I’d also have a problem with a teacher who unbuttoned her blouse and proceeded to lightly caress her own supple breasts in class, but not on free-speech grounds. You seem to be extremely confused about what the topic even is.

If you have a problem with what happened at Hamline because the professor’s free speech and academic freedom were violated, then what DeSantis is doing is somewhere between a thousand and a million times worse.

But you don’t.

You don’t care one whit about academic freedom.

Of course not.

Ok that’s good to know. a) Sad, but b) we’ll see if you even stick to that sad position in the future, or if, even worse, it’s just some throwaway rhetoric in the service of trolling. I have my strong suspicions.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Sure I’d have a problem with it, but not on free-speech grounds. I’d also have a problem with a teacher who unbuttoned her blouse and proceeded to lightly caress her own supple breasts in class, but not on free-speech grounds. You seem to be extremely confused about what the topic even is."

You're the one who seems to be confused. Why would you have a problem with the teacher declining to show the picture based on religious objections to others viewing it, if you believe that she has the academic freedom to decide whether to show the painting for not?

I think what happened at Hamline was a problem because it seems clear to me that the correct educational decision is to show the painting. The teacher's academic freedom has nothing to do with it.

[Randal]

Correct. I would be upset about your hypothetical for the same reason as you. Upset by a de minimis amount, since lots of teachers make sub-optimal educational decisions every day. I'm not sure how much anger I can muster about simple bad teaching. This is why you hire good teachers. There's really nothing particularly interesting about this "basic teacher competency" offshoot that you've discovered.

The reason everyone else is upset about Hamline is because of academic freedom and free speech. Ok so now you know!

[Dr. Ed 2]

DeSantis is what happens when public education expresses open contempt for half the country.

[Randal]

Good one! Blame the left for Republican censorship. "You made us do it!"

[Nige]

For all its faults and weaknesses, you're not going to get academic freedom any other way.

[mulched]

Criticizing DeSantis and appearing with Jonah Goldberg in the same week? What a coincidence!

[Longtobefree]

Bullshit.

[Ed Grinberg]

I like what Gov. DeSantis is doing. If the government is going to provide post-secondary education, it should control what’s being taught. (If the majority of Florida taxpayers don’t want Critical Race Theory taught in Florida public colleges & universities, that’s the end of it.)
Of course, I’d get rid of public colleges & universities altogether.

[Krychek_2]

So if the taxpayers in some benighted place want their children taught that the moon is made of green cheese, you think that settles the issue?

Here's the central problem with the DeSantis position: A forest looks very different to a logger, a poet, a biologist, and a child who is lost. All of those perspectives are valid, even though it's the same forest. DeSantis essentially wants *his* perspective taught and all the others excluded. That's not the way education is supposed to work.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Your hypothetical extreme danger is far less likely than the actual real damage being done right now by wokies.

[Krychek_2]

I agree with some of woke and disagree with other parts of it, but the real damage that's being done is the precedent that people can mandate that anything that goes against their prejudices can't be taught.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

That's exactly what CRT, 1619, and all the rest of that woke crap are all about -- stifling others. Who invented cancel culture? Who routinely shouts down speakers they disagree with?

[Krychek_2]

I'm not in favor of shouting down speakers but at least the people doing it aren't doing so as an arm of the state.

And no, that's not what CRT and 1619 are all about. Neither CRT nor 1619 calls for other viewpoints to be suppressed.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

The hell they don't!

[Nige]

CRT is an elective course offered in some law schools.

[Randal]

Oh my god A Ass, you just made the classic "government can be trusted to censor as long as they're censoring the things I want them to" argument. Have you guys learned nothing from history? What dumbAsses.

[David Nieporent]

I may not agree with DeSantis substantively, but I continue to insist people are getting this wrong. Public school (from K-college) courses are government speech. Academic freedom may apply as a contractual matter, but as a constitutional matter the government can control the content of courses down to the semicolon, if it wants.

[Krychek_2]

To a point. The government cannot speak in ways that violate other constitutional provisions. If, for example, the curriculum openly advocated for Baptist or Methodist theology, I think that would still violate the First Amendment, government speech or not. I suspect teaching eugenics as fact would probably violate the Fourteenth Amendment. I'd be interested to hear your contrary argument if you have one.

[Brett Bellmore]

“I suspect teaching eugenics as fact would probably violate the Fourteenth Amendment.”

I’m not seeing how. “Eugenics” is just the notion that humans are as subject as any other species to being selectively bred for improvement. You basically have to be a science denier to think that isn’t, as an intellectual proposition, true.

Now, implementing eugenics is absurdly fraught. It would certainly be possible to implement it in a way that didn’t violate anyone’s rights; Paying people who you thought had bad genetics to agree to be sterilized, subsidizing parenthood for people you thought had good genetics. Eventually, voluntary germ line genetic engineering. As long as it was all voluntary, where’s the 14th amendment problem? Did the Repository for Germinal Choice violate the 14th amendment?

But, sure, that’s not the way eugenics has typically been implemented by its most notorious proponents. And maybe you’re treating the way it was implemented by particular historical actors as part of “eugenics”?

But it isn’t. The NAZIs implemented eugenics in a stupid and horrifying way, but they were fairly horrifying in the way they implemented civil engineering, too. I mean, they were just horrifying, that doesn’t mean everything they did in a horrifying manner was inherently evil.

Eventually, when we get really good at genetics, and can do germ line engineering at low risk, with good results, I expect eugenics to make a come back. I mean, what diabetic wouldn’t spend a few thousand bucks for a guarantee their kids wouldn’t have diabetes?

And that would be “eugenics”, wouldn’t it?

So, details: Which part of teaching eugenics violates the 14th amendment? Teaching the heritability of traits? Or that genetic illnesses are bad? Maybe teaching that bad outcomes should be avoided?

[Krychek_2]

I doubt there are many people who would dispute that selective breeding could be applied to humans in the same way it is applied to plants and livestock. But that completely misses the point. It's precisely because we are not livestock that human eugenics is inappropriate. That, plus its racist underpinnings. Other than that, I guess it's OK.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Inappropriate" DNE "violates 14th amendment".

[Krychek_2]

No, but racist underpinnings do.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think that, in principle, eugenics is separable from the racist motivations may real world eugenicists had for adopting it. So you'd have to demonstrate the particular instance in question actually was racist.

[Nige]

One would hope that a proper education on that subject would deal with the fact that the ethics of 'breeding humans for desirable traits' are monstrous.

You're mixing up genetic engineering with eugenics. It'll be great when we can safely edit diseases from people's genes, but it's not going to be via selective breeding of humans.

[David Nieporent]

If, for example, the curriculum openly advocated for Baptist or Methodist theology, I think that would still violate the First Amendment, government speech or not.

Yes. In fact, it would violate the 1A precisely because it is government speech, and the government isn't allowed to proselytize. But it would violate the Establishment Clause, not the free speech clause.

I suspect teaching eugenics as fact would probably violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Even if I read your statement as applying specifically to race-based eugenics, I don't think the 14A prohibits government advocacy of that. It would of course be entirely noxious, but I don't see where the unconstitutionality lies. (Practicing eugenics, of course, would be a different story.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

"To a point. The government cannot speak in ways that violate other constitutional provisions. If, for example, the curriculum openly advocated for Baptist or Methodist theology, I think that would still violate the First Amendment, government speech or not."

Ironically, if you buy the notion that teacher or professor speech is the protected personal viewpoint of the teacher, there's no reason the teacher couldn't openly advocate for Baptist or Methodist theology, or young earth creationism, and we couldn't do anything about it.

[Randal]

Academic freedom may apply as a contractual matter, but as a constitutional matter the government can control the content of courses down to the semicolon, if it wants.

For sure, "there's a legal loophole" is another oft-used justification for censorship.

For all the self-proclaimed free-speech enthusiasts here, the initial question is about principle: should the government censor college professors? If your answer to that is yes, you're not the free-speech enthusiast you think you are.

Once you realize that government shouldn't be censoring college professors, then the question becomes, is it happening anyway, and if so, what can we do to stop it?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"For all the self-proclaimed free-speech enthusiasts here, the initial question is about principle: should the government censor college professors?"

At a public university? Of course. If the government is paying a college professor to teach algebra, and he teaches Shakespeare instead, he should be fired.

But of course what level of government gets to decide the content of public university courses has nothing to do with free speech or censorship, it's a policy choice based on what produces the outcome that pleases the electorate.

[shawn_dude]

There is more speech going on in classrooms other than the specific course material. Open discussions on things in sociology or history courses, for example or professors trying to select current event topics to demonstrate something within the curriculum has relevance. If a professor has a picture of their spouse or children on their office desk or a selection of books on the bookshelf--that's also speech.

Based on current news regarding the African American AP course, it looks like teaching about Bayard Rustin in a history class less related to Dr Martin Luther King Jr. could be problematic.

[Sarcastr0]

it’s a policy choice

Way to quit the debate.

Yes, we are arguing about policy.

Now that you're clear on that, do a better job rationalizing this crack down on wrongthink in the classroom.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Now that you’re clear on that, do a better job rationalizing this crack down on wrongthink in the classroom."

Lol. Easy, I don't want my government spreading wrongthink in public school classrooms.

As opposed to them punishing wrongthink by individuals. Refraining from punishing wrongthink by individuals is not a policy choice, because free speech and thought is a fundament right.

[Nige]

Teaching the wrong subject in class isn't wrongthink.

[bernard11]

If the government is paying a college professor to teach algebra, and he teaches Shakespeare instead, he should be fired.

Pretty ridiculous example.

Suppose the professor is paid to teach American history, and discusses aspects the governor would prefer be ignored, or interprets events in ways the governor disagrees with. Should he be fired?

[David Nieporent]

Suppose the professor is paid to teach American history, and discusses aspects the governor would prefer be ignored, or interprets events in ways the governor disagrees with. Should he be fired?

Well, you tell me: What if he teaches that Dred Scott was a good decision, that the Confederate secession was legal and justified, and that the 19th amendment should never have been adopted because women are too emotional to be entrusted with the vote?

(Assume he does so in a scholarly way, rather than in a BravoCharlieDelta trolling sort of way.)

[bernard11]

Well, we've seen the latter two ideas, especially the business about secession, supported here, so there are those hold them.

Regardless, that would be the university's business, most likely at the department level, not the governor's. And the focus should be on whether he supported those views with solid facts and logic. Just throwing them out there is lousy teaching.

Suppose that, rather than simply announcing these opinions, he proposed to discuss the issues in class, possibly taking the unpopular side to stimulate discussion. Should he be disciplined?

[David Nieporent]

Regardless, that would be the university’s business, most likely at the department level, not the governor’s.

A public university is not a free-floating institution; it's an arm of the government, just like the DMV. Everything about the university is ultimately the governor's, and/or legislature's, business.

Suppose that, rather than simply announcing these opinions, he proposed to discuss the issues in class, possibly taking the unpopular side to stimulate discussion. Should he be disciplined?

No, he should not be disciplined for discussing these issues in class. (Spoiler alert: he would in fact be disciplined for discussing these issues in class.) But I was talking about taking an actual position in favor of them (yes, backed up), not merely discussing them or playing devil's advocate.

[bernard11]

Don't be an idiot.

Of course it's censorship. It's the use of government power to restrict viewpoints that may be presented.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? It's the government choosing what it wants to say, and what it doesn't want to say.

[bernard11]

It's the government choosing what teachers say, which is quite a different thing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Nope. Public school teachers are the government. That's why, for example, they can't engage in religious proselytization while teaching.

[Randal]

No it's not. You also can't have clearly non-government groups come into public schools and force-feed the children religion. It's because they're a captive audience and religion is special, not because of the identity of the speaker or the source of their paycheck.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The test is whether or not the government appears to endorse religion.

[Randal]

Nope. Kennedy rejected the endorsement test in favor of a coercion test.

Either way, it has nothing to do with your original claim that it's because "public school teachers are the government."

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Either way, it has nothing to do with your original claim that it’s because “public school teachers are the government.”"

Sigh. From Kennedy:

"In addition to being private citizens, teachers and coaches are also government employees paid in part to speak on the government’s behalf and convey its intended messages.
...
The first step involves a threshold inquiry into the nature of the speech at issue. If a public employee speaks “pursuant to [his or her] official duties,” this Court has said the Free Speech Clause generally will not shield the individual from an employer’s control and discipline because that kind of speech is—for constitutional purposes at least—the government’s own speech."

[Randal]

Exactly. They decided that Kennedy's being a government employee was not a determinative factor. Thanks for the assist.

(Also, the second paragraph you quoted was about free speech, not free exercise or establishment, just FYI. Kennedy made both claims.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Exactly. They decided that Kennedy’s being a government employee was not a determinative factor. "

Because his statements were not made within the course of his employment. You get that you're discussing speech made in the course of the employee's employment, right?

[Randal]

Of course... as far as the free speech analysis goes. But your attempted pivot into free exercise has failed. Sniff, sniff, sob. I weep for you.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But your attempted pivot into free exercise has failed. Sniff, sniff, sob. I weep for you."

Lol you should weep for yourself. I said nothing about free exercise. I pointed out that public school teachers can't teach religion in their professional capacity because of the establishment clause, because they speak for the government. And that's correct.

[Randal]

True. I do weep for myself, mixing up exercise and establishment.

But I’m surprised that, through your own tears, you’re doubling down. It’ll only lead to more. (Emphasis mine.)

Public school teachers can’t teach religion in their professional capacity because of the establishment clause, because they speak for the government. And that’s correct.

You mean incorrect, of course. As I already explained to you, but will again, it’s not because they speak for the government. It’s because there’s a risk of indoctrination.

Where there is no such risk, it’s no problem for public school teachers to teach religion. My public high school had a bible study class. But because it was an elective, not required, it was fine. No one pretended it was somehow religiously neutral or something. It was obviously Christian content. That's even how it was pitched. But it was transparent and optional, hence no risk of indoctrination.

[David Nieporent]

For sure, “there’s a legal loophole” is another oft-used justification for censorship.

No, you miss my point: it's a category error to call it censorship. Assume the government hires someone to put out messaging relating to the covid vaccine. What if the person wants to create anti-vax propaganda about the covid vaccine. Would it be "censorship" for the government to tell that person that he's being paid for a pro-vaccination campaign, and that he's not allowed to say anti-vax things instead? (Answer: no, it wouldn't. When the government pays someone to speak, it's government speech, not private speech, and the government has the right to control the content of it.)

As for "should": with respect to public college professors — it would of course be censorship if the government was telling private university professors what they couldn't say — presumably there's a range of acceptable teaching and stuff outside that range. No, I don't want a professor to be told he can't teach about the civil rights movement — but I also don't want to be told that if a professor wants to teach that Hitler was right that nothing can be done because it would be censorship.

[bernard11]

I think the difference is in the nature of the speech and the qualifications of the speaker. Sure, the press spokesperson or publicist needs to send out th appropriate message.

But when it comes to teaching we are talking about professionals with subject matter expertise. It's not that it should be uncontrolled, it's that it need to be treated as a professional matter.

[Randal]

Now you're using the even lamer "it's not censorship when the government does it" justification for censorship. Of course you can define censorship away by categorizing whatever speech you don't like as government speech. It's very easy to do. Remember the fairness doctrine? That was rooted in the idea that speech over government-leased airwaves could be considered government speech. The government built the Internet. The government subsidizes most private universities and lots of research. The government grants copyrights. Any speech you want to go away, you can find a way to justify government control of, if you're so inclined.

I accept the idea of government speech as a concept, but I don't think it's defined, in principle, by who's paying. In the way our capitalist society has played out, there's often a correlation there, but don't let that cloud your judgement about whether particular speech should be government-controlled in a liberal society that values free speech.

It's grim to see so many of you, even the "libertarians," so easily throw in with the idea that every word a college professor says becomes government speech just because government is subsidizing education. That position isn't compelled by any principle that I can see, other than a desire for government censorship of higher education. Again, a free-speech advocate would argue that college professors are not engaging in government speech, even at public universities.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Remember the fairness doctrine? That was rooted in the idea that speech over government-leased airwaves could be considered government speech."

No it wasn't. You made that up.

"It’s grim to see so many of you, even the “libertarians,” so easily throw in with the idea that every word a college professor says becomes government speech just because government is subsidizing education."

No one is saying that. It's government speech because it's being done by a government employee inside a government facility at the direction of the government for government purposes.

[Randal]

“Throughout his opinion [upholding the Fairness Doctrine], Justice White argued that radio frequencies (and by extension television stations) should be used to educate the public…” thus justifying censorship of "unfair" broadcasters.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I see that you don't understand the government speech doctrine. Government speech means that the government gets to express its own viewpoint. Nobody was arguing in Red Lion was arguing that the viewpoints being expressed were the government's viewpoints.

[Randal]

Fair enough. I'll revise that paragraph to stick to "government-controlled speech" throughout, as in:

Now you’re using the even lamer “it’s not censorship when the government does it” justification for censorship. Of course you can define censorship away by categorizing whatever speech you don’t like as government-controlled speech. It’s very easy to do. Remember the fairness doctrine? That was rooted in the idea that speech over government-leased airwaves could be considered government-controlled speech. The government built the Internet. The government subsidizes most private universities and lots of research. The government grants copyrights. Any speech you want to go away, you can find a way to justify government control of, if you’re so inclined.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I’ll revise that paragraph to stick to “government-controlled speech” throughout..."

And your "government-controlled speech" doctrine certainly would be anti-free speech, if there were such a doctrine.

But fortunately there isn't, and we're discussing the government speech doctrine, you know, then one that permits the government to insist that its employees teach math during math class.

[Randal]

As Sarcastr0 (I think) also observed, you're stubbornly missing the point. Of course you can argue that particular speech is government speech (or, government-controlled speech). That's an argument you can make. It's an anti-free-speech argument.

In this case, not only is it an anti-free-speech position, it's normatively wrong. The Supreme Court declined to find public college professors' speech to be government speech, and DeSantis's edicts have been held unconstitutional in federal court on the grounds that public college professors' speech is not government speech.

So you're arguing for a change in the law to reduce free-speech protection from where they are today. Which is fine, just don't pretend to be a free-speech advocate.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"In this case, not only is it an anti-free-speech position, it’s normatively wrong. The Supreme Court declined to find public college professors’ speech to be government speech, and DeSantis’s edicts have been held unconstitutional in federal court on the grounds that public college professors’ speech is not government speech."

Well, we'll see how the DeSantis case shakes out, and if hire courts can carve out a principled exception for academic speech that allows schools to insist that math teacher teach math, etc. I doubt that they can.

[Randal]

... You may wonder, from a practical / legal point of view, how could government speech be defined, if not by money? One much better test is the usual "reasonable listener" attribution test: do normal people generally think the speech is coming from the government? This was the test used for custom license plates for example. It's better than the source-of-funds test because it allows for both a) cases where the government speech isn't being paid for and b) cases where the government is paying for the speech without regard to content, such as arts subsidizes.

I think it's very clear that a reasonable listener would not consider a public university professor's lecture to be government speech. Nobody thinks that a public university education is that different in character from a private school education.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You think a reasonable listener believes that the math teacher is lecturing about algebra because he wants to lecture about algebra, and not because the government is paying him to lecture about algebra?

[Randal]

In a university setting? Absolutely. Did you even go to college?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Your claiming that a reasonable listener believes that the math teacher at a public school is free to teach Shakespeare if he wants?

Wow.

[Randal]

I totally had math teachers who taught Shakespeare (or the equivalent). Teachers can be very creative and engaging when they’re allowed to be.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I totally had math teachers who taught Shakespeare (or the equivalent)."

Huh. I wonder what your logic teachers taught.

Were you pissed? I mean, most people take math classes to learn math.

[Randal]

Pissed? No. The professor still taught math, just with Shakespeare thrown in.

The whole point of academic freedom, which you don’t seem to understand, is that it’s a tool for the professor. Letting teachers teach the way they want to makes them better teachers.

The premise is, at least in the context of higher education, professors are the experts. Often they’re the primary source! They know best, and if they want to teach algebra through Shakespeare, there must be a good reason. By the same token, any outside attempt to influence professors’ lessons or research is presumptively illegitimate. That’s academic freedom.

Professors can be let go for being bad teachers without violating their academic freedom. You seem really concerned about that, but it’s not a problem. Unions make it hard to let bad teachers go, but academic freedom doesn’t.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Letting teachers teach the way they want to makes them better teachers."

What you don't seem to get is that you are making a factual claim, subject to evidence and testing. If the electorate rejects this claim and decides that, say, math teachers are teaching too much Shakespeare and not enough math, they are free to place constraints on the teachers.

[Randal]

Well yeah. You can reject academic freedom if you want. It just means you're an authoritarian ass. That's all.

[bernard11]

Does it affect your analysis that, for K-12, students are coerced into not just listening to government speech, but also acting as if they believe it?

[David Nieporent]

Is that directed to me? Can't follow the nesting. If so: it strengthens my analysis.

Setting aside libertarian fantasies about abolishing public schools, if the government is going to coerce kids into listening to this teacher (and, as you say, acting as if they believe him/her), then the government has the right to decide what the teacher can teach them.

[bernard11]

Yes. Directed at you.

A further question:

Whether we call something "censorship" or not, is it only offensive to freedom if it violates the 1A?

If so, what's all the hubbub about Hamline?

[Ed Grinberg]

You don't have "freedom" to teach whatever you want on my dime!

[bernard11]

It's not a question of "whatever someone wants." It;s a question of whether we allow professionals to do their job or let the governor micromanage things for political advantage.

Look. At the K-12 level we have school boards - usually elected - as well as professional educators - supervisors, principals, and so on - charged with running the schools. I would much rather let them do that than let the governor or the legislature do it.

Conservatives are supposed to be big on decentralized government. Again, they abandon this as soon as it produces results they don't like.

[gallinalg85]

Bernard's idea of "allowing professionals to do their job" involves teaching kindergarteners about the virtues of having unprotected gay anal sex.

[Nige]

DeSantis canlt even define what wokism is, you all just use it as a red rag to wave aroud.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Yes, these dumbasses genuinely want schools (including public schools) that flatter the silliest thinking of the least among us, whether it involves claims that the moon is made of green cheese, that storks deliver babies, that creationism invalidates the theory of evolution, that Robert E. Lee deserves a day of commemoration, that Earth is a few thousand years old, that racism is illusory, that global warming is a hoax, that Trump won the 2020 election, that the Bible is a nonfiction work, that superstition trumps science, that the Confederacy's cause was just, that immigrants are conducting an invasion, that homosexuals should be scorned (because an illusory man in the sky says so), or that some points of botany and biology can be explained by an ark carrying pairs of animals during a flood.

These people deserve scorn and rejection.

[bernard11]

If the government is going to provide post-secondary education, it should control what’s being taught.

It absolutely should not. Should some creationist idiot who manages to get himself elected control what is taught in biology classes? Or, more likely, should some neo-Confederate control the American history curriculum.

Of course not. Why do you imagine that taxpayers want politicians controlling the universities? For all the ant-government rhetoric on the right, you guys sure are eager to have the government, in the form of a governor you like, impose his ideas on state universities.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Creationists are a fine contrast. Anyone who believes the earth is only 6000 years old has harmed no one else, and harmed himself only if he wants to be a biologist or some other narrow field. Makes no difference to mathematicians, fire fighters, or politicians, almost no careers depend on knowing or even caring how old the earth is.

But contrast that to the intelligent design philosophy of socialists. Their whole philosophy is founded on a lie, and when they get political power, they directly ruin lives of everyone in their country.

[Nige]

'the intelligent design philosophy of socialists.'

I've never encountered a single socialist or liberal or moderate or intelligent conservative who subscribes to intelligent design.

[bernard11]

the intelligent design philosophy of socialists

This is meaningless unless you define what you mean by "socialists."

There is a huge gap between European-style social democracy and Soviet style Communist totalitarianism. Too often RW'ers try to lump both under "socialism" to suggest that anything similar to the first is equivalent to adopting the second.

Suppose a teacher wants to discuss the virtues of a national health insurance system, for example. Is it OK for the governor to prohibit it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It absolutely should not. Should some creationist idiot who manages to get himself elected control what is taught in biology classes?"

No, and some creationist idiot or gender ideology nutbag who gets appointed a professor shouldn't be able to control what gets taught in biology class either.

Academic freedom in public schools is a policy choice, contingent on whether or not the public feels that schools are producing good results. If the public feels that schools are teaching a bunch of bull shit, they're going to take the professor's freedom away.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"For all the ant-government rhetoric on the right, you guys sure are eager to have the government, in the form of a governor you like, impose his ideas on state universities."

Huh? It's either the government in the form of an elected governor, or the government in the form of professors and administrators. Voters get to decide based on what they think gets better results.

[Ruqt]

The article had nothing to do with the law nor the Volokh Conspiracy's promulgation of legal knowledge. It is better suited to the daily (purposely misleading) front page hit pieces in the Florida press.

[Tallman]

+1. From a lawblog, I'd expect analysis of why the "way he has approached the issue is cause for alarm," complete with quotes from the actual statututory text (vs. from a journalist).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What bothers you is that this article interferes with the Volokh Conspiracy's promulgation of backwardness, bigotry, right-wing partisanship, and superstition. It probably bothers many of the other Conspirators, too.

[Snorkle]

Must be hard our there for a Republican academic. Ironically, the liberal professors they love to whine about are the only ones defending their academic freedom.

Here's hoping you manage to wise up before the GQP gets all the way to struggle sessions. (And pretend that isn't where this is heading at your peril...)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These dumbasses don't have a chance to prevail at the marketplace of ideas. These right-wing antics are the spasms of a dying movement . . . or maybe we have reached the "lamentations of their women" stage of the culture war, and Ron DeSantis, Donald Trump, and Eugene Volokh are the conservatives' lamenters.

[Bob from Ohio]

"(some (much?) of it justified)"

All

[Social Justice is neither]

There are the parts leftists lie about or make up to reeee over, those aren't very justified.

[Longtobefree]

Wait until he passes a law demanding all businesses that require a college degree specify exactly why a degree is required, and what specific degree is needed.
If any old degree will do, then it is not really a job requirement.
Think of the employment boost when only real degrees with real connections to the job are required.
Lots of whining from the elites, but lots of jobs for actual workers; you know, the guys in the plant that actually make something.

[apedad]

Conservatives:

Govt should not regulate businesses. . . until the govt should regulate businesses.

[Nige]

I can only see that specific approach to the problem generating even more stupid bullshit for job applicants to wade through, not less. 'Please match your degree qualifications to our government mandated degree requirement outline herewith provided in a handy hundred-page PDF, please print and sign and return by close of business.'

[Longtobefree]

I think I have found the issue: it's at the end -
KEITH E. WHITTINGTON is William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics at Princeton University.

Since there is no legal opinion offered, just an editorial that Governors should not care how tax dollars are spent, I'll give this a pass.
DeSantis isn't saying that bullshit can't be taught, just that Florida taxpayers aren't going to pay for it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

DeSantis adores devoting public funds to the teaching of pure childish nonsense (creationism, for example, or the broader Bible as nonfiction), but can't abide coursework that might offend the bigoted whites who constitute the Republican Party's increasingly old, poorly educated, downscale base.

This is how you lose a culture war in modern America, folks.

Thank goodness.

[damikesc]

The Dispatch? Gee, this deep-thinking piece is such a shocker.

You demand everybody pay for the bullshit done on campus? Then you have to deal with what your fucking bosses want.

Go private and forego ALL government funds, including student loans, if you really believe in the nonsense you peddle.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

there is a lot of conservative anger out there (some (much?) of it justified) about the state of American higher education

Conservatives dislike modern education much as criminals dislike police and cancer dislikes chemotherapy. Education is an antidote to backwardness, superstition, and bigotry.

[Jonathan Affleck]

How about academic freedom at Stanford?
Protected Identity Harm report filed as screenshot of student reading ‘Mein Kampf’ circulates

While reading a book is not a matter of the 1st Amendment, it is a matter of academic freedom.

Stanford's white racist Zionist anti-Jews don't want the Stanford community to read Mein Kampf because the community might realize that this guy Hitler sounds a lot like a depraved and evil Zionist anti-Jew if one makes the obvious substitutions and exchanges the Jewish people (in Zionism) for the Aryan race (in Hitlerism) and Palestinians (in Zionism) for Jews (in Hitlerism).

What does anti-Jew signify?

An anti-Jew is to a Jew as anti-matter is to matter.

International law, US federal criminal law, and Jewish law all tell us that a Zionist anti-Jew is a heinous criminal, who deserves unrelenting hatred, scorn, and loathing from the entire human race.

Zionist anti-Jews and their atrocious despicable supporters are the vilest antisemites on the planet.

Zionism murders Judaism by transforming Judaism into a program of genocide.

The viciously genocidal Zionist movement was antisemitic in its beginnings and remains antisemitic to this day.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Whittington may be the lone Conspirator who won't censor himself when speaking the truth likely forfeits any chance at a judicial nomination from a hard-right Republican.

You have joined the free beer list, Prof. Whittington.

[David Nieporent]

Since he's not a lawyer, he never had a chance at a judicial nomination, dumbass.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Is that a requirement for a federal judicial nominee? It certainly isn't in the Constitution.

[David Nieporent]

No, but it's a real world requirement. It's hard to conceive of any situation in which a president would nominate someone who had never practiced law of any sort (not even law professorizing), let alone someone who had never been to law school.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I was aware of that, which makes it a reason he could be willing to address DeSantis' censorship, while Prof. Volokh and the others are not. Or maybe the cowardice and hypocrisy are enough to hold their tongues, without the fear of offending the Federalist Society.

[Ben_]

We’ve all learned from Democrats that unintended consequences can be ignored. Caring about the intended result is the only thing that matters.

But here’s a bunch of links to FUD from professional complainers and concern trolls isn’t much of post, really.

[Bob from Ohio]

Not a single attempt to state Florida's position. Rufo as written about it I'm sure.

[Nige]

'Gonna somehow vaguely blame Democrats for the obvious fuck-up we're deliberately generating.'

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, this is likely within the governor's authority.

No, the people of Florida don't want us to quit teaching AP African American history.

No, this is not a good idea.

Yes, those that say this is good because it's revenge against liberals who want worse are justifying authoritarianism as well as any Good German.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I don't think it's good because it's revenge against liberals who want worse. Even if the liberals actually do want worse.

To some extent it's good because to some extent he's stopping educational malpractice. I don't know that everything he's doing can be so defended, though.

I don't think it's remotely a constitutional issue, because classroom teaching at a public school is government speech, which the government can, within broad limits, dictate the content of.

I do think the left has no moral authority on this topic, given what they've been up to at many universities. As amply recounted in these pages.

[Randal]

You guys keep saying it's government speech as if that's settled. To the extent the Supreme Court has weighed in, public university professor's speech is not government speech. Granted, they've barely weight in. Still, it's why DeSantis's orders have been blocked in federal court.

Let's hope the current Supreme Court isn't so politically minded as to let DeSantis get away with his censorship agenda by sacrificing its normally-robust free speech principles.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

???
Governors are not absolute monarchs.

Wokies have far more presence in the media and daily life than governors, and they are nationwide.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Yes, and if you had actual reading comprehension, you would have seen that I explicitly mentioned that, and you would have addressed the different impacts.

Religious creationist: almost none.
Political creationist: everybody.

[Bob from Ohio]

“1619” is just historical Lysenkoism

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Its proponents do. But you know that.

[damikesc]

For courses?

Yeah, they can.

They are, after all, paying for it.

They can say "We will not teach math" and no laws were violated.

[David Nieporent]

Then you get into forum analysis.

[damikesc]

"They could say “the taxpayers don’t want to pay for so and so to speak at this college, so that event is canceled?” Facilities and stuff costs money too."

You're right, they absolutely could do that. Your point?

They do not because it is wildly unpopular. Not allowing CRT in classrooms? Much, much, much, much less unpopular.

[Krychek_2]

You know, it's a little rich for someone who wants to suppress CRT and 1619 to complain that CRT and 1619 are suppressing viewpoints.

[Sarcastr0]

No, *we don't know that*.

The right keeps yelling, but get super fuzzy about the extent and the specifics.

Just general bad people wanting to take your freedoms. Which means we'd better do so first.

The song of the authoritarian. Quit singing it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“Just general bad people wanting to take your freedoms. Which means we’d better do so first.”

Whose “freedoms” is DeSantos trying to take away? The notion that public officials have "freedoms" outside the control of the voters is the more authoritarian position.

[Sarcastr0]

The notion that public officials have “freedoms” outside the control of the voters is the more authoritarian position.

You keep switching between the extent of legal authority and where academic freedom fits as a good policy.

It's been weeks. At this point I have to assume it's on purpose, and you don't actually care about the principles here, just owning the libs.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You keep switching between the extent of legal authority and where academic freedom fits as a good policy."

Huh? Sometimes I talk about the extent of legal authority, sometimes I talk about where academic freedom fits as good policy.

They're different things. Please do try and keep up.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

No laws were violated, but do you think that would be a good policy? Prof. Whittington didn't write that DeSantis was breaking a law, but promulgating bad policy.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bob knows he is a doomed culture war loser. So he seethes about all of this damned progress, mutters bitterly, and lashes out half-heartedly for sport, hoping he might antagonize his betters now and again.

[Leo Marvin]

It shouldn't be unconstitutional to teach communism, should it?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, no, the problem IS with communism, it always ends up run by horrifying people. There are no real world counter-examples above the size of a small group embedded in a larger, non communist society. Those, freedom of exit keep in check.

Now, if eugenics racks up the same track record, maybe you could eventually say the same of it.

[Leo Marvin]

"intelligent design philosophy of socialists."

Phil Johnson, the father of Intelligent Design, was one of my law school professors. The notion that he was a socialist is one of the more absurd things I've seen in a while.

[shawn_dude]

Because teaching stuff that is contrary to the scientific method is totally not harmful to STEMM majors.

[shawn_dude]

It wasn't the liberal faculty members at New College that replaced their leadership with far-right ideologs in order to forcibly push the school to the political right. DeSantis isn't a monarch but he has more than enough power to remake a public university to his political preferences.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"DeSantis isn’t a monarch but he has more than enough power to remake a public university to his political preferences."

Sure, cuz the public elected him to direct public institutions.

[Nige]

ABOUT communism. That people come away with hugely negative impressions is unavoidable, if you're doing it accurately and fairly. Bit like slavery in the US.

[Brett Bellmore]

Slavery anywhere, I should think. It's still going on in some parts of the world, remember.

[Nige]

It's how we all get cheap phones and chocolate.

[damikesc]

It is a sound policy, yes.

I'd oppose it if the KKK decided to teach Critical White Theory. I am opposed to publicly funding of racism.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Well, I meant your example of "we will not teach math." I understand what you and others are saying, and that what is taught at a public school is government speech, but I think in general it would be terrible policy for political actors in government to be constantly dictating such things. For one thing do we really want our curriculum to be changing every time a new governor is elected? For another, I think your opinion about racism is good, but as a group we can't even decide what is racist and what isn't.

[Nige]

“1619” is a point of view they want to suppress.

[Nige]

Horrible people running things is not an historical outlier, especially after violent upheavals. Breeding humans for desireable traits is intrinsically objectionable.