The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
American Bar Association Committee Proposes New Protections for "Free Expression of Ideas"
"A law school shall adopt, publish, and adhere to written policies that encourage and support the free expression of ideas" that "[p]rotect the rights of faculty, students, and staff to communicate ideas that may be controversial or unpopular," and "[p]roscribe disruptive conduct that hinders free expression by preventing or substantially interfering with ... classes, meetings, interviews, ceremonies, and public events."
An American Bar Association Strategic Review Committee Memorandum, released Thursday, suggests a proposed new Standard 208 in the ABA's Standards for law schools:
[a] A law school shall adopt, publish, and adhere to written policies that protect academic freedom. A law school's academic freedom policies shall:
[1] Apply to all full and part-time faculty, as well as to all others teaching law school courses;
[2] Apply to conducting research, publishing scholarship, engaging in law school governance, participating in law related public service activities, and exercising teaching responsibilities, including those related to client representation in clinical programs; and
[3] Afford due process, such as notice, hearing, and appeal rights, to assess any claim of a violation of the academic freedom policies.
[b] A law school shall adopt, publish, and adhere to written policies that encourage and support the free expression of ideas. A law school's free expression policies must:
[1] Protect the rights of faculty, students, and staff to communicate ideas that may be controversial or unpopular, including through robust debate, demonstrations, or protests; and
[2] Proscribe disruptive conduct that hinders free expression by preventing or substantially interfering with the carrying out of law school functions or approved activities, such as classes, meetings, interviews, ceremonies, and public events;
[c] Consistent with this Standard, a law school may:
[1] Restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, or that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests.
[2] Reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression.
[3] Adopt policies on academic freedom and freedom of expression that reflect the law school's mission, including a religious mission, so long as such policies are not in violation of the law and are clearly disclosed in writing to all faculty, students, and staff prior to their affiliation with the law school.
Interpretation 208-1
Standard 208 applies to both public and private law schools.
Interpretation 208-2
A law school may, when appropriate, differentiate among students, faculty, and staff in its policies on freedom of expression.
Interpretation 208-3
Standard 208(a) does not preclude a law school from identifying the courses that will be taught, requiring courses to cover particular content, or requiring faculty, students, or staff to clarify in appropriate circumstances that their views are not statements by or on behalf of the law school.
Interpretation 208-4
This Standard does not prevent a law school from applying disciplinary action for conduct identified in Standard 208(b)(2).
Interpretation 208-5
Subsection (c) recognizes that law schools may restrict speech consistent with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Interpretation 208-6
Effective legal education and the development of the law require the free, robust, and uninhibited sharing of ideas reflecting a wide range of viewpoints. Becoming an effective advocate or counselor requires learning how to conduct candid and civil discourse in respectful disagreement with others while advancing reasoned and evidence-based arguments. Concerns about civility and mutual respect, however, do not justify barring discussion of ideas because they are controversial or even offensive or disagreeable to some.
Note that the existing ABA Standard 405 briefly discusses academic freedom ("A law school shall have an established and announced policy with respect to academic freedom and tenure of which Appendix 1 herein is an example but is not obligatory"), but this proposal would elaborate on that, and would also add the material on freedom of expression. Thanks to James Creigh for the pointer.
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
Good!
"Concerns about civility and mutual respect, however, do not justify barring discussion of ideas because they are controversial or even offensive or disagreeable to some."
I still remember, and this was some time ago, that in the four sections of my law school that taught CrimLaw, only my section had a professor that taught "rape" (sexual assault) because the other professors wouldn't touch the subject with a 10' pole.
And this was in a decidedly more open era. Anyway, the students were able to handle the issue with maturity and it was incredibly helpful talking through different issues, even though people didn't always agree.
The way to learn civility and mutual respect is learning how to discuss difficult topics and to learn from different viewpoints.
What I don't see is a clear blanket protection for those who ethically represent reprehensible clients -- i.e. who "do it by the book, but mount a genuine and aggressive defense for said client. Particularly in clinical practice, etc.
The example that comes to mind nearly 40 years ago was the child burnt to death in the electric oven. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/10/29/Parents-burn-child-to-death-in-oven/1533467874000/ Truly reprehensible.
It's been 40 years and a lot of the facts I couldn't mention if I still remembered them but it was something about the judge not being happy with the first defense counsel and (a) talking a good, reputable defense attorney into taking the case and then (b) telling everyone that he'd talked him into it because he wanted this to be a fair trial. Hence the attorney's reputation wasn't trashed.
I compare that to now here lord help you if you defend Trump.
And Trump hasn't burnt any babies to death in electric ovens, yet...
I compare that to now here lord help you if you defend Trump . . . or try to prosecute him (see below).
"What I don’t see is a clear blanket protection for those who ethically represent reprehensible clients"
What sort of protection do you think law schools could provide to practicing attorneys, if it somehow made sense for them to be involved at all?
Looking forward to a new generation of lawyers who can speak freely like hoppy025 (from today's Monday thread).
"Rep. Gaetz introduced a resolution to rein in the despicable Tanya Chutkan. Hopefully, the rest of the House acts on it, as that piece of subhuman excrement has no business hearing any cases."
(and later after I replied that at least he didn’t call for Judge Chutkan to be shot)
"She shouldn’t be shot. But the 14th Amendment should be reinterpreted to allow sensible restrictions, including those that would allow for semi-literate simians to be deported to the jungles of Arica."
And both comments appear to meet the ABA standards.
Heaven & Hell
Pema Chodron, Comfortable With Uncertainty, pages 61-2
A big, burly samurai comes to a Zen Master and says, “Tell me the nature of heaven and hell.”
The Zen master looks him in the face and says, “Why should I tell a scruffy, disgusting, miserable slob like you? A worm like you, do you think I should tell you anything?”
Consumed by rage, the samurai draws his sword and raises it to cut off the master’s head.
The Zen master says, “That’s hell.”
Instantly, the samurai understands that he has just created his own hell—black and hot, filled with hatred, self-protection, anger, and resentment. He sees that he was so deep in hell that
he was ready to kill someone. Tears fill his eyes as he puts his palms together to bow in gratitude for this insight.
The Zen master says, “That’s heaven.”
The view of the warrior bodhisattva is not “Hell is bad and heaven is good” or “Get rid of hell and just seek heaven.” Instead, we encourage ourselves to develop an open heart and an open mind to heaven, to hell, to everything. Only with this kind of equanimity, can we realize that no matter what comes along, we’re always standing in the middle of a sacred space. Only with equanimity can we see that everything that comes into our circle has come to teach us what we need to know.
This is only for law schools, not lawyers. The ABA is not going to give up its desire to police attorney speech anytime soon, which is why they continue to push model rule of professional responsibility 8.4(g).
The record demonstrates vividly that you need not worry about any objections or censorship from the Volokh Conspiracy with respect to bigoted comments, either.
Let me guess. All comments EXCEPT yours are bigoted. Right???
There Kirkland goes again. This blog is the worst thing ever. Which is precisely why Kirkland is obsessed with commenting here constantly.
Some people are masochists. Don't judge.
I will deliver him to a place of positivity.
When did Gateway Pundit, Stormfront, and FreeRepublic close?
Restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, or that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests.
I can definitely see the bolded portion being abused so as to censor viewpoints disfavored by a law school.
Years ago, we didn't need all those words.
"A gentleman does not lie, cheat, or steal; nor tolerate among us those who do".
That was it. It worked well. Of course, at that time, we had gentlemen.
I didn't realize you grew up in a fictional work. That explains so much.
This is one of the better statements I've seen. Even Appendix 1 is carefully worded ("Tenure is ... a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability.").
[I notice that this website is now providing tracking data to TikTok.]
It’s a good set of rules as far as it goes, but what enforcement mechanism, if any, comes with it? It ought to at the very least give the victim standing to sue for both damages and injunctive relief both any boss or organization that fired, expelled, or disciplined him and any persons who urged that any of these things be done.
It is much too common in administrative law that injured parties’ interests are left to the will of some bureaucrat without any means of ensuring that he is on the side of the good guys. Every law should be written on the assumption that your enemies will be the ones chosen to administer it.
These are ABA standards, not statutes. So I'm not sure what you are hoping for in terms of an "enforcement mechanism" that would allow people to bring a lawsuit. Assume you don't know much about the law.
That said, law schools do care about ABA accreditation, so to the extent that these standards for law schools are adopted and promulgated, law schools will want to adopt their own standards to be compliant.
Sounds good, but it is all for naught if the university authorizes the DEI office to override policies and to fire people ignoring the rules.
A real solution requires that they defang much of the DEI office's and the administrative staff's authority. The administration must be the servants of the faculty, not their masters.
Interpretation 208-2
A law school may, when appropriate, differentiate among students, faculty, and staff in its policies on freedom of expression.
What does this mean? Does it just mean there can be different rules for students, faculty, and staff or that within each subgroup there can be different policies (so one set of rules for black students and one set for everybody else). The former I can see examples where it makes sense, the latter seems unworkable. Would be great if they provided some examples of appropriate distinctions.
Not mentioned in the OP, but I like that they're opening the door to a bookless law library. It's only a matter of time, legal research by hand is the pits.
Interpretation 604-1
The appropriate mixture of collection formats depends on the needs of the law library and the law school;
it need not entail a mixture that includes physical books.
Re: Trump prosecution, "WE ARE ALL EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW!"
EXCEPT HERE!
For those who just dabble in logic, the thing they have in common is using that when it benefits you politically, and throwing it out as a principle when it gets in the way.
I now await needle threading hemming and hawing...
There's no hemming and hawing.
Instead, just a banal observation. There may be different rules that apply to, for example, tenured faculty than apply to staff (regular employees of the law school). For example, there is certainly a need for more unfettered discourse around topics in an academic setting by a faculty member than there is by a random employee of the school in a work setting.
That this isn't immediately obvious may say something, but probably more about you.
Perhaps I misunderstood that they could have different rules for different classes of students.
No worries, and I apologize if I was being dismissive.
The purpose is not to create divisions within different classes, but just to acknowledge that there will necessarily be different rules that would apply for faculty, students, and staff. Staff will not have the same rules for publishing, researching, and academic freedom in general that faculty would.
As always, the devil is in the details, but this is only an acknowledgment that they can make these differentiations when appropriate - as would be in some cases.
This has been twisting my stomach all morning. Newfound support for free speech should be a good thing, right? Hold up, not so fast: over and over again, the two sides of the uniparty suddenly discover the merits of liberty whenever they are in decline. By several accounts wokeism has reached its peak. That may or may not be too good to be true, but if the ABA has suddenly decided free speech is good, the most likely explanation to me is that they are battening down the hatches for a period of decline. When such organizations praise liberty it is *not* a net benefit, because it is merely self-serving and, most importantly, temporary lipservice. This takes the wind out of the sails of true freedom movements (and this is seen as a secondary benefit by the uniparty).
I am also concerned about the synchronization of the wax and wane of various rights, privileges, and legal theories in our courts with the rise and fall of various ideologies, for the same reason. The timing of changes in the legal landscape provides a massive opportunity for subtle partisanship, which can be extremely difficult to expose and denounce. When one praises the rise of certain legal theories and then has to resort to a feeble "aw, shucks" when they're overturned, this plays right into the uniparty's game: one is adding more momentum to the cynical cycle than one takes away.
If you don't see the conspiracy, then you just haven't looked hard enough ... amirite?
If you look too closely, you may be blinded by the (((space lasers))).
…”falsely defame”…? Isn’t that phrase redundant?