The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Academic Freedom Alliance Statement on Campus Protests Regarding Events in Israel and Gaza
Released yesterday:
Since the attack on civilians in Israel on October 7, 2023, American college campuses have been the scene of political rallies, protests, and political statements coming from differing perspectives. The Academic Freedom Alliance takes no position on the politics of the Middle East or attempts to adjudicate competing claims. The AFA does, however, have a substantial interest in how the discussion of those events is conducted and regulated on American college campuses. Universities are now under extraordinary pressure to police the speech and beliefs of members of the campus community. It is essential that universities resist the pressure to do so.
Separate from the merits of any particular controversy, there are several well-established principles that should guide universities in responding to individual controversies. Universities should reaffirm and recommit themselves to principles that help preserve American institutions of higher education as vibrant homes of free inquiry.
Professors must enjoy the liberty to discuss and even promote controversial ideas and to present controversial materials to students in their classes. Professors have an obligation, however, not to take advantage of their captive audience of students by introducing ideas or materials that are not germane to the subject matter of their class. Likewise, professors have a responsibility not to exploit their privileged position to attempt to indoctrinate students or to subject them to political or ideological litmus tests or pressures in their classroom assignments. Nor do professors have a right to compromise the education of their students by conducting their classes in a manner designed simply to advance their favored political causes. Universities must resist calls to censor what is taught in classrooms, but they must also ensure that classes are used for proper educational purposes.
Professors, like other members of the campus community, should enjoy the freedom to speak and act as citizens. When speaking in public in their personal capacity, professors may give voice to controversial and even extreme political and social opinions that others might find offensive or disturbing. When professors at American universities speak in public in a manner that is lawful under the First Amendment, universities should stand behind their right to express such views.*
Universities should insist that professors, as well as other members of the campus community, adhere to content-neutral regulations regarding the time, place, and manner of public speech on campus, but universities must strive to apply those rules in an even-handed and consistent manner regardless of the substantive views of those expressing themselves. Universities should refrain from punishing members of the faculty simply because some think their private political speech is intemperate, uncivil, dishonest, or disrespectful. Professors should be judged and held accountable for their professional speech and conduct, not for their political views.
Professors have no more right than other members of the campus community to disrupt the proper functioning of the university and its activities, and professors, like other members of the campus community, have a right to conduct their activities without improper disruption by others. Universities must take steps to ensure that campus protests do not interfere with the conduct of classes or hinder academic and educational activities on campus.
Members of the campus community have the right to engage in vigorous political debate and even to articulate extreme political views, but they have no right to try to intimidate or menace other members of the community, violate university policies or state and federal laws, or interfere with the education or lawful activities of other members of the campus community.
Any violations of university policies should be expeditiously investigated and university rules protecting the integrity of its mission should be stringently enforced. Violations of the law, irrespective of their motivation, should be referred to appropriate law enforcement agencies. Any member of the campus community who chooses to violate laws or the [university's] own rules and policies should expect to be held accountable for the full consequences of their actions.
The university should enforce its policies guaranteeing that the campus serves as a genuine educational and scholarly institution. It is the responsibility of university leaders to ensure that the teaching and research missions of their institutions are not sacrificed on the altar of politics.
The university should serve as a neutral and peaceful forum for robust political and social debate. Universities will be distrusted and ultimately weakened if they are perceived to be inconsistent in their adherence to their own stated principles, understood to be willing to sacrifice their own scholarly mission to political causes, or thought unwilling to secure the physical safety of their community members and the integrity of their operations.
Today American universities are being tested. It is essential that they pass the test by rededicating themselves to their core scholarly missions and acting consistently and in good faith on the principles that preserve free inquiry and open debate.
*We do not here address the special case of religiously-affiliated universities whose contracts with faculty expressly include provisions requiring them to adhere to or not seek to undermine teachings of the sponsoring tradition of faith.
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
Somewhat related, another brutal takedown of the BBC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDIupxVmnLo
Nice.
Indeed!
Remember those chuckles when mainstream America has had its fill of subsidizing Israel's immoral, superstition-addled, right-wing belligerence.
Hey, maybe you guys will get the chance to travel to Israel and help it try to operate without American skirts to hide behind! How many of you will turn out to be all-talk blowhards?
Yeah, don't those Jews know that their job is to lie down and let themselves be slaughtered! The nerve of them defending themselves.
RAK -- right up there with the liars and defamers of the world. Maybe the BBC has a job for you?
Not only should Jews defend themselves, but others should help them defend themselves.
Within reason, of course.
Insofar as their betters permit.
"Remember those chuckles when mainstream America has had its fill of subsidizing Israel’s immoral, superstition-addled, right-wing belligerence."
At which point Hamas, Hezbollah, and the like will take over the region, and conditions for the Palestinian civilians will become worse?
This is the result that antisemites like Arthur seem to favor.
The Palestinians are just a convenient stick to beat Israel with. When they are oppressed by other Arabs, no one gives a damn. Certainly not RAK and his ilk.
Hamas and Hezbollah would be terrible -- worse that the immoral, violent, superstition-addled, right-wing belligerents currently being voted into office by Israelis.
America should support none of those groups.
"Israel’s immoral, superstition-addled, right-wing belligerence..."
In your view, Israel's response to the horrific, October 7th barbarous massacre of civilians of all ages residing within its borders was an expression of "immoral, superstition-addled, right-wing belligerence"? Really? In your view, was Hamas' aggression other than 110% immoral and superstition-addled Islamic expression?
Has anyone ever labeled you an antisemite? You don't think the label pertains to you?
He merely thinks the massacre of October 7th was moral, rationally-sound, left-wing belligerence.
I was referring to longstanding problems involving Israeli
conduct -- settlements, dispossession, the lurch toward wingnuttery, annexation, occupation, phosphorus weaponry, conservative corruption, and the like -- rather than the response to Hamas' attack.
I hope this clarifies my position in a manner even a bigoted clinger can apprehend.
Kirkland, maybe people like you just start disappearing into the night. No great loss....
Delusional, blustering clingers en route to replacement are among my favorite culture war casualties. . . and the target audience of a white, male, right-wing blog with a vanishing academic veneer.
+1. But the BBC is becoming beyond parody at this point.
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/11/03/nate-silvers-free-speech-is-in-trouble/?comments=true#comment-10303111
Two words: Compelled Speech.
With the exceptions of Hillsdale and Grove City Colleges, the American taxpayer is paying for all of the speech on college campi today -- there are only a couple dozen private colleges that could survive without the Federal largess (and a lot more that won't even with it).
So does the taxpayer have the right to stipulate what speech he/she/it is willing to pay for? That's the argument in Florida -- why should a middle/right country (which the US is) subsidize gulags of Leftism?
And then a lot of Team Hamas aren't even Americans. That's the point that several US Senators are raising -- if you come to this country as a guest and then support terrorist groups, you should be sent home.
Do taxpayers usually have control over the details of enterprises they fund? Not usually. Do taxpayers, as such, have any say over the color of the Army's dress uniform, or its choice of sidearm? Do taxpayers, as such, have any say over which computer models the National Weather Service uses to predict weather patterns? Do taxpayers, as such, have any say over the policies of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, or even whether there ought to be an Antitrust Division? Do taxpayers, as such, have any say over whether Chemistry Departments should teach phlogiston chemistry or Biology Departments should teach young earth creationism?
As Democrats would say, justifying casting off regulatory lawmaking, “The Constitution is satisfied because we can pick up the phone and call.”
So, too, The People with their representatives are just a call away. Or a mass whine in public.
Presumably if a uniform were widely mocked, the government would listen.
All powers exercised by officials are done so at the ultimate sufferance of The People.
Just who do you think a representative is representing?
"Presumably if a uniform were widely mocked, the government would listen."
It was, and the Army listened -- twice.
Many say that the WWII dress uniform was the best one ever -- except that so many were made (and sold post-war as surplus) that garbagemen were wearing them and hence the Army went to polyester which became inexorably linked to Vietnam. So they went to computer-generated cammo for the war we never fought with the Soviets, and now: https://www.army.mil/article/214014/throwback_to_wwii_army_greens_uniform_aims_to_instill_pride_in_todays_generation
They're going back to the WWII uniform. The government does listen...
"Do taxpayers usually have control over the details of enterprises they fund? "
The taxpayers elected Bill Clinton in 1992 with a mandate for a 'Peace Dividend." Amongst other things, Clinton eliminated a lot of Army Reserve units which is why Bush & Obama had to rely so much on the states National Guard during the Iraq & Afghanistan wars.
It was stupid because reality was that the reserve units didn't actually cost that much money, particularly when you realize that much of what they did often wound up becoming covering for the vacation time of members of the active units. In the late '90s, I remember a senior officer explaining to me how we wouldn't be able to fight another Gulf War with our dramatically reduced forces -- but the taxpayers elected Clinton & Co who did that.
And that's how we wound up with Guard units called up multiple times for multiple tours and that was never intended to happen.
(Slight on topic about govt speech)
Massachusetts town approves permit to fly Palestinian flag on public flagpole
Under the new policy, the use of the flagpole is limited to statements of governmental speech and no other culture-related flags will be permitted to fly there, which goes along with a U.S. Supreme Court decision in Shurtleff v. Boston.
"According to the decision in the Shurtleff case, the Town may not prohibit a flag to be flown based on its content, its meaning or its message," (Town Manager Melissa) Rodrigues wrote. "This limitation on the Select Board’s discretion indicates that denial of a resident’s flag application under the prior policy places the Town in jeopardy of legal action."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/massachusetts-town-approves-permit-fly-palestinian-flag-public-flagpole
Before everyone gets their panties all wadded up, the town had previously approved flying the Israeli flag and was constitutionally bound to approve this request.
Tell the rest of the story -- the application was submitted the day before the policy changed.
You mean "on college campis," naturally. Also, it's "US Senatores," silly-buns.
While universities should not censor speech, they have a right to establish and propagate codes of conduct as a condition of enrollment or employment. In which case, they have an obligation to enforce codes of conduct in a content neutral fashion.
Speech is not conduct. That's a weasel's trick to try to get around the First Amendment.
"But harrassment is conduc..." No, it's still speech. Admit it's a speech ban in a limited domain Congress can yank money from.
Do you understand that trespass is conduct? Or violent confrontation? Or marching into a classroom and disrupting a lecture. All conduct.
You just want chaos.
Your rights end when they trample on mine and when they violate our contractual relation.
The taxpayers, through their duly elected representatives, also have the right to specify what is -- and is not -- taught.
The statement contains wonderful words. If the Alliance for Academic Freedom matches these wonderful words with wonderful actions, all is good; however, the Alliance has not yet exhibited a record in which its actions comport with its lofty words.
Government misinformation, government weasel-words, and governmental unaccountability are not new: traditionally, we rely on the third estate to collect and disseminate fact to citizen consumers, including university faculty and students. Censorship -- or rather an unwillingness to ruffle feathers -- abounds and the information vacuum created thereby exacerbates the difficulties associated with discussion of sensitive topics.
It was only after intense probing by Australian press that Israel (twice) downwardly revised the count of Israelis killed during the 7-October insurrection and upwardly revised the count of insurrectionists killed by Israeli ununiformed militia (euphemistically called "settlers") and uniformed military. Likewise, it was only after international press inquiry that video shot in late September emerged showing preparations, including poorly-worded morale rallies, for an Israeli strike against Gaza. Where was and is the American press?
Unrelated: The Biden Administration yesterday waived sanctions, allowing Iran to move an additional $10B into its accounts. Even if Congress fully funds the President's request for funding of Israeli expeditionary warfare, Iran will this year receive an influx of funds greater than that of Israel. [That's actually wise foreign policy, so I'm surprised to see it.]
A lame statement, on the whole. Not wrong, just lame.
The Academic Freedom Alliance is apparently indifferent to students' academic freedom, which is encompassed by this statement only through charitable reading.
If you look at this organization's mission statement, it exists to advocate for the academic freedom of educators. ("[P]rotecting the rights of faculty members at colleges and universities to speak, instruct, and publish without fear of sanction or punishment.") It doesn't discuss student freedom because that isn't its organizational purpose. You might as well say it's indifferent to the rights of disabled veterans to get appropriate medical care or new mothers to take pregnancy leave, as it doesn't discuss those things either.
Well, okay, except that students' academic freedom is closely associated with professors' academic freedom, in a way that veteran healthcare and maternity leave is not.
Not seeing how it is closely associated. Professors have always dramatically more speech protections than students have had.
Like most right-wing partisans masquerading as principled and legitimate mainstreamers, these conservatives issue a pass to conservative-controlled campuses soaked in superstition. Their "principles" flutter lamely with the partisan breeze.
Carry on, culture war casualties.
MIT judged a pro-Palestinian protest violative of its rules in various ways, and when the protesters refused to disperse as directed by the school, the administration determined that serious disciplinary action was warranted. But the administration did not want to take any action that might cause the protesters to get in trouble with immigration authorities on account of visa violations. So for the time being, MIT is not suspending the foreign nationals. I think it is fundamentally wrong that the punishments to be handed out are being tempered on account of anyone's immigration status. What do others think?
Punishments should take into account potential consequential effects that might make the punishment less or more harsh than intended.
So should persisting in behavior after being warned of the consequences. Punishment after that should only consider whether the forewarned violators had fair notice.
You left off any limiting factor.
Why not the death penalty, so long as there's notice?
There's a TNG episode about that.
No new goal posts. You implicitly assumed the punishment was otherwise reasonable in your original comment.
I did not.
Which one? The Wesley Crusher 'Prime Directive' one?
That's actualy a good consequence. This country would be a better place if there were fewer anti-semites and apologists for genocide.
Just the kind of anti-speech stuff I want a professor to say.
Of course it is.
America improves when Republican racists and misogynists, conservative gay-bashers (especially the superstitious bigots) and xenophobes, right-wing Islamophobes and antisemites, and other conservative bigots are replaced in the natural course as they die off.
They should have sent the students, floating face-down, downriver for Harvard to deal with....
Where are all of the ass-kissing Volokh defenders who contend I am lying when I catalog comments such as this one.
And what happened to the “civility standard” a disingenuous right-wing law professor claimed he was enforcing when he was repeatedly censoring liberals and libertarians at this hypocritical blog?
Carry on, clingers.
Dr. Ed 2, ladies and gentlemen, accessing his inner Timothy McVeigh, in real time. For all to see.
No cable bill necessary.
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/11/13/monday-open-thread-26/?comments=true#comment-10315750
"*We do not here address the special case of religiously-affiliated universities whose contracts with faculty expressly include provisions requiring them to adhere to or not seek to undermine teachings of the sponsoring tradition of faith."
Those aren't the only institutions which expect faculty to uphold certain faith-based doctrines.
I support academic freedom and free speech absolutely. But, a question for a magazine called Reason: what to do about academic stupidity? Do we have to accept the hiring of a professor teaching nonsense or propaganda?