Journal of Free Speech Law: "Different Strokes for Different Folks: Academic Freedom, Civility,

and Educational Diversity Among Private Colleges and Universities," by Prof. James Weinstein (Arizona State).

Just published as the final article in the "Non-Governmental Restrictions on Free Speech" symposium; here's the Abstract (the article is here):

Does academic freedom require institutions of higher learning, both public and private, to apply the First Amendment rules applicable to public forums to analogous places on campus, as several prominent commentators contend? On this view, to avoid violating academic freedom, every college and university in the United States must allow highly uncivil speech in these areas, such as "Fuck War!" or "God Hates Fags."

This Article argues that such an interpretation of the dictates of academic freedom would seriously undermine the diversity of educational experiences available to students, a feature of American higher education long recognized as one of its great strengths. The Article contends that a policy maintaining basic civility norms in campus open spaces, including in free speech areas, doesn't violate academic freedom if implemented by viewpoint-neutral rules enforced in an educationally-oriented, ideologically evenhanded manner.

Comments

[Jerry B.]

So Liberals get to call conservatives Nazis, but conservatives can't call liberals names.

[Archibald Tuttle]

The 34 page article is too long for my taste. EV's summary was too short. I asked ChatGPT for a 400 word abstract.

The article, "Different Strokes for Different Folks: Academic Freedom, Civility, and Educational Diversity among Private Colleges and Universities," written by Floyd Abrams and Ronald D. Rotunda, explores the role of academic freedom and civility in private colleges and universities.

The authors argue that private institutions should have the right to define their own values and goals and to create policies that reflect those values, even if those policies restrict certain forms of speech or expression.

The authors analyze several legal cases that have addressed the tension between academic freedom and institutional values, including cases involving campus speech codes, diversity policies, and religious institutions.

The authors also explore the concept of "educational diversity" as a justification for policies that restrict certain forms of expression, such as hate speech or harassment.

The authors argue that while academic freedom is a critical component of higher education, it is not an absolute right and must be balanced against other institutional values, such as civility and diversity.

The authors conclude that private institutions have the right to create policies that reflect their values and goals, even if those policies limit certain forms of expression, and that this diversity of approaches is a strength of the American higher education system.

I then asked if the article discusses viewpoint diversity.

While the article mentions "diversity of approaches" in the conclusion, it does not specifically address diversity of viewpoint. However, the authors do discuss the concept of "educational diversity" as a justification for policies that restrict certain forms of expression, which may include viewpoints that are considered harmful or offensive.

[Krayt]

“We like private universities having freedom to control their speech!”

And government wrenching their arm, threatening billions in congressional money unless they censor as Congress wants, which has gone from deeply affecting, pervasive harrassment to literally the opposite, "micro" this and that?

“That’s ok!”

“We like private companies having the right to their own speech!”

Even though you threatened section 230, threatening tens to hundreds of billions in stock value by wrecking their business model unless they censor the way you want?

“That’s ok!”

And Citizens United, where you deplored corporate speech and tore your shirts in despair at the future of democracy?

“Shut up!”, he explained.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you have any evidence of this happening to private universities?

[EscherEnigma]

Two cases I can think of is Bob Jones losing it's tax-exempt status, and that one about military recruiters.

But that's hardly "micro" anything.

[John F. Carr]

Do I get to define basic civility norms?

[WillisEschenbach]

So when kids go to college they should lose their Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech? Just what the hell does this clueless author think colleges are for?

No, good sir, we're not interested in the enforcement of your meaningless "basic civility norms". All that will do is lead to the authorities using vague rules to squash anyone that they disagree with.

Whatever someone can legally say off-campus, they should absolutely be allowed to say on-campus.

And the claim that censorship is perfectly fine if it is "implemented by viewpoint-neutral rules enforced in an educationally-oriented, ideologically evenhanded manner" is newspeak bafflegab designed to hide the fact that the author simply wants to censor ideas he doesn't like.

Sick. It is a tragedy that education has come to this.

w.