The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"This Will Not End Well": FIRE on Penn President's Backtracking on Free Speech
"Conservatives like Rep. Elise Stefanik should ask themselves: Do you honestly believe this [proposed new rule against "calls for genocide"] won't be weaponized to ban an Israeli cabinet official from speaking at Penn? An Israeli Defense Force soldier?"
Another excellent statement by FIRE, yesterday:
[Wednesday], University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill signaled that one of our nation's most prestigious institutions is willing to abandon its commitment to freedom of expression.
"For decades, under multiple Penn presidents and consistent with most universities, Penn's policies have been guided by the Constitution and the law," explained Magill in a video posted to X. But now, she continued, the university "must initiate a serious and careful look at our policies," a process to start "immediately."
This is a deeply troubling, profoundly counterproductive response to yesterday's congressional hearing on "Holding Campus Leaders Accountable and Confronting Antisemitism." Were Penn to retreat from the robust protection of expressive rights, university administrators would make inevitably political decisions about who may speak and what may be said on campus. Such a result would undoubtedly compromise the knowledge-generating process free expression enables and for which universities exist.
To be clear: Universities will not enforce a rule against "calls for genocide" in the way elected officials calling for President Magill's resignation think they will. Dissenting and unpopular speech — whether pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, conservative or liberal — will be silenced.
Conservatives like Rep. Elise Stefanik should ask themselves: Do you honestly believe this rule won't be weaponized to ban an Israeli cabinet official from speaking at Penn? An Israeli Defense Force soldier?
The power to censor always invites abuse and never stays cabined.
FIRE was founded in the wake of the infamous 1993 "Water Buffalo" incident at Penn. In that case, Israeli-born Jewish student Eden Jacobowitz was charged with harassment for shouting "Shut up, you water buffalo" at a group of rowdy sorority students outside his dorm room window. The sorority students were black, and the argument was that "water buffalo" was a racial epithet.
But it was not. Jacobowitz, who speaks Hebrew, explained that water buffalo is a rough English translation of "behema," a Hebrew slang term for a loud, rowdy person. The story captured headlines, and Penn was widely condemned for its persecution of Jacobowitz.
FIRE co-founder Alan Charles Kors, a history professor at Penn, helped advise Jacobowitz. The charges were eventually dropped and the story would go on to serve as the opening chapter of "The Shadow University: The Betrayal Of Liberty On America's Campuses" — the book that launched FIRE.
Over the years, Kors and FIRE helped Penn get past the water buffalo debacle. The school reformed all of its speech codes and was one of the first universities to earn FIRE's highest, "green light" rating for speech-protective policies.
But in recent years, Penn has backtracked. It's no longer a green light school. It adopted new harassment policies that are ripe for abuse. And what free speech and academic freedom protections remain, it doesn't consistently follow.
Now President Magill suggests an institutional willingness to abandon free expression altogether.
This will not end well. Vesting administrators like Magill with more power to police speech will result in more Jacobowitzes. The intended targets for these codes will not be the actual casualties — and Penn students, faculty, alumni, and donors will come to regret the day they ever entrusted campus bureaucrats with the power to police speech on campus.
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
FIRE will simply not call out the elephant in the room: the dispicable hiring practices of places like Penn that favor ideological progressives. The best way to cultivate a culture of free speech is to actively and intentionally seek out a diversity of perspectives while eliminating DEI (the Inquisition arm of the Secular Progressive Church). Without this, the "rules" are effectively meaningless, since the power dynamic plus the passive enforcement of progressive norms will eliminate voices before they are even present to speak.
So the university heads should tell Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), to fuck off?
Well, the views of ambitious Dictators need representation on campus too!
.
That seems to be FIRE's message, but FIRE is unlikely to deliver that message directly because that would displease the right-wing donors FIRE strives to flatter.
They could have a, you know, universal and consistently-applied policy.
They do not have that.
Yup, if they had actual courage.
What none of the three were able to distinguish was protests that threat opponents ideology versus protests that threaten opponents existential security.
Instead they are reduced to "It depends."
Apedad, Hillsdale & Grove City Colleges have.
So, DEI for ConservativeProfessors, but just call it something else?
I think what he's saying is that he wants a quota system for the GOP, but no quotas for anyone else.
But only a quota system in academics. There cannot, and shall never be, a quota system to ensure more Democrats are police officers, or CEOs, or as a requirement for military rank. Or anything, for that matter.
Because reasons.
If Sarc were here (and ideologically consistent), he'd berate you for attempted mind reading.
He's welcome to say that he wants ideological hiring in other professions.
....I am not going to hold my breath. For some reason, this seems very much a particular issue.
But sure, it's an issue of consistency. I tend to believe that there is a lot of self-sorting that goes into different professions. I don't believe in ideological demands in any of the professions, and find it remarkable when people demand it.
It just would appear that some people find these demands unexceptional when it is in their interest.
They (Democrats) are fully permitted to do all of those.
Heck, CEO's have more than a few Democrats on them.
Never seen a political breakdown of the beliefs of police so feel free to present one.
Being Democrat has zero negative repurcussions on military advancement. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.
Conservatives cannot get hired as professors. If ANY group had a similar skew in their representation in any field, it would be proof (not just evidence, proof) of systemic racism/sexism.
loki13:
I agree with you that quotas are a bad idea. But I do think you might be missing a problem when it comes to faculty selection though. I had largely the same views as you a while back.
Since then, my now ex-girlfriend went through a Ph.D. program (starting in one, before transferring to another). And she felt that faculty were trying to create ideological clones of themselves out of the students they were advising. That was not a right versus left problem (everyone in her department was on the left, as far as I know), but ideological intolerance towards other left-wing ideologies.
To the extent that professors are using their position to impose their ideology upon graduate students, I think that is a sort of abuse of power. And can we really trust such professors to not allow ideology to become a factor when it comes to faculty recruiting?
I think this issue is more complicated than it would at first appear. Faculty need to have a commitment to developing the ability to see merit outside of people who share their opinions or ideology. But what if they don't?
By criticizing quotas (and you may be right to do so), you are criticizing one possible attempt at a solution. But what about the underlying problem?
One thing we can do is ignore the problem. But I think if faculty positions are seen as ideological prizes by the public, they will be less supportive of funding universities. Which is an awful consequence. Not primarily for faculty, but for society.
Eh, I think that this topic is complicated. And like any complicated issue, it does not resolve easily to "derp" answers.
Start with the obvious- people will self-select into professions. I've previously stated that there are perfectly normal reasons that, for example, two similar people with similar intellects and ability might choose different paths- one toward business, and one toward academia. There are many reasons for this, but one of them is that some people value money (and markets) more, and the other values pure academics. These beliefs will often map, roughly, onto a constellation of other beliefs.
More importantly, universities often will have a concentration of certain opinions. There is a reason, for example, that people refer to the "Chicago School of Economics." Was U. Chicago required to hire an equal number of Marxists?
Then there gets to the uncomfortable issue of what constitutes ideology. Is "flat earth" an ideology that must be represented? Why or why not?
If you are saying that Universities should have, um, programs ... you know, some kind of ... what's the word for it ... maybe a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion program ... to teach faculty to be more aware of their biases, in order to try and include more ... what's the word for it ... diverse viewpoints .... because ... gosh ... I know this is on the tip of my tongue ... oh yeah, they might have systemic issues, then sure! Why not. Whatever, man.
But it's weird that there's this type of special pleading that doesn't seem to exist in other professions. Don't you think?
I admit, I am impressed with what FIRE is doing.
Defending the principle of the First Amendment is easy, when you use it to defend the speech you agree with. It’s even easier when you use it to attack people you don’t agree with.
But to its credit, FIRE is stepping up to defend deeply unpopular speech. Good for them.
Agreed.
Yeah, I've had my issues with them acting overly partisan in the past (like 2016ish), but this is badass.
The issue I have with the university heads yesterday was their hypocrisy. Permit free speech, which means that right-wing speakers, and "Zionist", i.e. Jewish, speakers don't get cancelled and that the easily-offended should harden the fuck up ( (c) Chopper Reed) or if you are going to impose anti-free speech codes - not my preference - don't selectively enforce them the way that the universities seem to.
Bingo
Pretty sure that we have a winner for the new maxim of Constitutional law-
The best remedy to combat the suppression of free speech ... is more suppression of free speech!
Brilliant!
Bingo!
The remedy to double standards is to let the lefty shits do whatever they want, while everybody else must abide by the rules!
Read the companion article published just before this one. It recognizes and directly addresses your concern.
It doesn't really because until there are consequences for the double standard it will persist as the standard. That is all FIRE is effectively demanding, a return to double standards for them to skim some cash off of regardless of the lives it ruins.
No.
But bad laws/policies never go away if everybody is not subject to them.
Um, that's not new. In many fora, if the government is suppressing some viewpoints, they can cure it by suppressing all viewpoints.
Ironic that the University heads are suddenly all in favor of free speech and the Republicans want restrictions.
The real insult wasn't so much the substance of the answers at the hearing, but their outright dismissiveness. How hard would it have been for them to say: we hate the message, the university is 100% opposed to the message, but we allow free speech - even speech that we find totally egregious and offensive.
Of course, the problem with that message is that over the last couple decades (or longer), none of these universities actually have a track record of allowing (what they consider) egregious and offensive speech. To suddenly start waiving the 'free speech protects antisemitic calls for genocide' banner is pure chutzpah (and does that mean their also guilty of cultural appropriation?)
And I agree with FIRE - the universities are going to use this as an excuse to crack down even harder on speech that they don't like.
.
Not the conservative-controlled campuses to which FIRE issues a cowardly pass with respect to censorship, flouting of academic freedom, old-timey conduct and speech codes, loyalty oaths, statements of faith, enforcement of silly dogma, etc. Right-wing schools need no excuse to avoid FIRE's criticism.
I think that this should be said-
I have previously criticized FIRE for having an overly-expansive view of First Amendment rights at private schools. Especially in contrast to their (relative) silence at similar private schools with explicit religious or conservative approaches.
That said, the perfect is the enemy of the good. FIRE has repeatedly shown that they will defend the principle of free speech regardless of the political valence. I might not necessarily agree with the distinctions that they have drawn with some private schools (I would exclude them completely), but I think that they have shown that they are against viewpoint discrimination, regardless of the viewpoint.
So...they are what the ACLU LARP's?
"Not the conservative-controlled campuses to which FIRE issues a cowardly pass..."
You keep saying this, Arthur, but where's your evidence that FIRE issues any "passes", cowardly or otherwise? Are we supposed to take in on faith?
Sounds like superstitious nonsense.
In fairness, FIRE says that religious colleges can be religious as long as they advertise themselves as such.
The evidence is found at FIRE’s website.
How do these right-wing law professors find so many ignorant, bigoted, disingenuous followers?
I think this is the problem here. The presidents would have been better off emphasizing that free speech means that even terrible and hateful things, wrongful things, can be said. Perhaps they might have distinguished between calls to wipe out the foreign country Israel and calls to kill Jewish students or American Jews, emphasizing that they will act vigorously on threats to their students but absent an actual threat, opinions about foreign policy, however wrongful, are open to be said. Instead, they ended up coming across as saying that they themselves don’t have an opinion on whether calls for genoicide are wrongful or not. That’s not a First Amendment/free speech is a bedrock of academia defense. That’s a “well we ourselves sometimes agree with it” defense.
The two are very different.
It is easy to be tolerant when you are not existentially threatened. The way protests have played out, there are plenty of de facto existential threats. That out to be again codes of conduct.
The 3 presidents comments rang strong with moral equivalency pof on campus demonstrations.
Is that the claimed reason for or justification of right-wingers’ strident, broad intolerance?
Republicans do not want less free speech.
They want EQUAL speech.
That does not exist on campuses.
Until it does, everybody should be forced to live under the asinine rules these universities instituted.
Importing from a different but maybe not so dissimilar set of political memes: I think the proper goal for republicans should be phrased as equality of opportunity for speech. It's the democratic party that usually strives for straight equality.
Does anyone honestly believe that "an Israeli cabinet official or Israeli Defense Force soldier" could speak at Penn?
No one would invite them.
As Prof. Volokh has pointed out for years, colleges are going to have a tough time with free speech unless they curb their harassment policies.
Unless they want to explain why calling for the genocide of Jews is permitted, but sexually themed jokes are not.
For example. Do any of you really believe a demonstration with chants, "Send the N-words back to Africa would be tolerated."
You're allowed to lie in your response.
You don't have to go that far, Don -- the Tiki Torch Parade comes to mind, and wasn't.
The Tiki Torch "Parade" (wow, Dr. Ed is great with the euphemisms ... did they have a marching band?) ... also chanted, "Jews will not replace us."
So that is probably the correct analogy.
No need to hold back on the racial slurs here. The proprietor lives for them.