Prof. Glenn Harlan Reynolds (Tennessee) on Speech at Universities

From his Instapundit Substack post:

So the shocking pro-genocide/pro-Palestinian marches at top Ivy League schools have put their administrations into a pretty pickle.  They want to escape responsibility for student speech, but their efforts to plead "free speech" ring hollow, when they've been eagerly policing student—and faculty—speech for years….

But as much as I enjoy seeing these people stew in the juices of their hypocrisy—and believe me, enjoy it I do—it is nonetheless true … that free speech principles, and the First Amendment where it applies, prevent things like a selective ban on anti-semitism, or on "advocacy of genocide" or whatever.

The proposals by various critics to regulate campus speech in response are a bad idea, though there is one upside: The strong support for campus free speech that used to exist was basically developed as a tool to protect leftists on campus from populist or conservative retribution. Perhaps this will have a similar effect.

He goes on to offer a substantial, varied, and ambitious list of proposed remedies.

Comments

[Don Nico]

I think that our president tried to be neutral and permit demonstrations until violence was threatened. Still, she has offered a weak defence of our many Jewish students and faculty who do feel physically threatened and who do organize support group sessions on a very regular basis.
When I see a Confederate flag hanging in a dorm window on my campus, I'll believe that the campus crisis has been an opportunity for persona growth for the administration.

[Krayt]

I think the point of mockification comes from the sense of defending violent speech until it becomes imminent to being realized is a thing of free speech advocates, and Supreme Courts, not weak-kneed presidents of universities who do not defend that concept in any other scenario, joyously leaping to crush students who say far less nasty things, about far fewer people.

And that’s all about dollars. This entire meme support industry formed to give imagined moral justification to behaviors that try to fend off an administration cutting money to the U.

One of the perks to writing law is people will begin to imagine, if it’s a law, it must be moral, and will commence to writing out the imagined morality in their own minds. "We're gonna lose money, ergo what we would lose money for is immoral and we shouldn't do it."

[apedad]

He goes on to offer a substantial, varied, and ambitious list of proposed remedies WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH FREE SPEECH ISSUES.

FTFY

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

As has been said, free speech issues are a symptom, not the cause. His recommendations are aimed at the root problem.

AND SHOUTING YOUR OPINION DOESN'T TURN IT INTO TRUTH ANY MORE THAN SHOUTING AT A FOREIGNERS HELPS THEM UNDERSTAND YOU.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

His recommendations are partisan, blindered, polemical rubbish from a bitter, disaffected culture war casualty.

[SimonP]

Jesus Christ, Eugene. What the fuck is wrong with you?

I wasn’t going to bother with some Tennessee professor’s Instapundit substack, not when the excerpt you offered was so juvenile. But since apedad pointed out that nothing he said had anything to do with “free speech,” I felt obliged, at least, to look.

So: Well, first of all, he clearly doesn’t understand what “critical race theory" is. He is calling for eliminating an entire academic discipline and tying it, wrongly, to DEI initiatives. This is not a serious, “substantial,” or informed position. It’s nuts, and I am surprised that a cheerleader of academic freedom (at least when it comes to anti-LGBT issues) would just pass it along like it’s worth noting.

Another proposal – using some kind of Title VI or Title VII liability hook to force universities to protect students from “bullying” and “harassment” – runs directly contrary to a lot of your own writing on these issues. And it’s incoherent on its face! He doesn’t want university bureaucracies to police student harassment… he wants plaintiffs’ lawyers to… but obviously the way you reduce exposure to such lawsuits would be to… create bureaucracies to police student harassment. Right? How is that proposal even supposed to work?

A lot of this other grousing is just bizarre, old man-yelling-at-cloud nonsense. Reynolds figures that you can do something about anti-semitism by… reducing minority admissions, doing something about grade inflation, and expecting students to work a year or two before getting a degree. What nonsense is this? This is just more conservative professor gobbledy-gook. A stricter grading method in liberal arts classes is going to result in… what, exactly?

This is a load of crap, Eugene. You need to stop reading this shit.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

This is a load of crap, SimonP. You need to stop writing this shit.

[SimonP]

Going for the pwn but with nothing on the substance. Love the intellectual challenge of this place.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Pretty low bar.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The intellectual level of this blog is a pretty low bar.

Which is precisely how the operators seem to like it. Those who preferred better have largely checked out.

[neurodoc]

But Reverend, you have stuck around for years, haven't you. So what are we to infer from that continued presence and participation of yours? It is puzzling, since you so infrequently, and then so ineffectively, engage with the substance of OPs and the comments of others. (Lately, you seem to be animated by antisemitism, that is your own, while decrying the bigotry you impute to others, particularly the VC conspirators.) Not too many years ago, your game was notably stronger, leaving us to wonder if you are declining intellectually in your sensesence.

[Peter Gerdes]

I don't think merely calling it nuts is a compelling argument. Is it proposing a relatively major change. Certainly. Is it what I'd support, no it's not, but that's not really a reason why it's a bad proposal.

[SimonP]

I don’t think merely calling it nuts is a compelling argument.

Good thing I said more than that!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Not really, although you did manage to misquote the article, changing "bullying and assault" to "'bullying' and 'harassment'" so that you could lie about the article running counter to Prof. V's writings on the subject.

[SimonP]

I'm sorry, I must have missed the post where Eugene came out in favor of punishing "bullying" on campus. In fact, as I seem to recall, he came out quite clearly in favor of a campus preacher who sought to bully a trans student.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Lying again, I see. Wow.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm sorry, why do you think that's a lie? Seems quite plausible to me.

You could ask for a link to the article, before you come in like some Internet asshole.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"before you come in like some Internet asshole."

Don't worry Sarcastro, I would never intrude on your turf.

He's referring to this.

It's about a preacher being sanctioned for disagreeing with a student about his gender.

Now, SimonP is free to characterize the behavior at issue as "bullying", but Prof V certainly didn't, and SimonP knows damn well that that's not the behavior Reynolds is talking about when he suggests making universities liable for "bullying and assault". So yes, claiming Reynold's article is contradicted by what Volokh wrote is a lie.

And I notice that you're tut-tutting me for correctly pointing out that SimonP is lying, with nary a comment about the "Jesus Christ, Eugene. What the fuck is wrong with you?" post. Sadly typical.

[SimonP]

TwIP, you've chosen to focus only on one misstatement in my original comment - substituting "harassment" for "assault" - so I see no reason why the rest of us can't be similarly selective in how we respond to you.

Eugene has written frequently about anti-bullying statutes and codes, apart from the campus preacher who chose to express his "disagreement" with a student about their gender by abusing access to a university's public forum. Eugene may prefer not to characterize the speech in question as "bullying," just because that's not rhetorically useful to him, but it generally is bullying.

[Josh R]

Perhaps "bullying" is too vague a term to be categorically denied First Amendment protection?

[Sarcastr0]

Seems like 'Lying again, I see. Wow.' was not really called for, if your explanation when pushed back upon has this length.

You're being pedantic, IMO, but you wrote substantive thing. I knew you could do it!

[Don Nico]

"Seems quite plausible to me."
Plausible? we are talking about a alleged statement of fact.
Do you have real evidence?
Yes or no.
In one word.
Instead you fling an insult, "internet asshole."
You really can do better than that. (WHich is also why I get on your case so often)

[Sarcastr0]

Yes or no. This isn't Law and Order, Don.

My point, which is quite clear above, is that coming in and immediately calling that assertion a lie is uncalled behavior.

Also uncalled for is this attempt to do a cross examination. So lame!

[Don Nico]

That is pathetic. Like a school boy, you whine, "This isn't Law and Order."
You are afraid to answer clearly. Instead you resort to you usual bullshit tactic of sidestep and insult.
What is lame is you refusal to be honest. You seldom are.

[Don Nico]

Simon,
What is the reason that you feel so compelled to defend physical confrontation and bullying of Jews on a nearly continuing basis over the past two months?
Don't give me some whataboutism.
What have you got against Jews?

[neurodoc]

If I may, let me jump inhere to protest that what is being treated by many, including Profs Volokh and Reynolds as “free speech” or “academic freedom” issues is not that at all. Rather, it is harassment, bullying, and actual threatening of individuals within these communities (e.g., MIT, which know something of) through doxxing and other conduct that ought not be tolerated.

Eugene prefers to minimize or not acknowledge serious conduct issues, preferring to treat them as “speech” so as to give maximal legal and moral cover in keeping with his own free speech absolutism. (He has let me know that he thinks it best to let the more offensive antisemitic expressions of some who visit the VC to give their ugly sentiments voice, because by doing so Jews are alerted to the antisemitism that is part of the greater environment around them?! Personally, I don’t know many Jews who appreciate EV’s approach to antisemitism, but that is his explanation for the VC’s willingness to host it when it shows up on its boards.)

What the presidents of MIT, Harvard, and Penn had to say when being inquisited the other day was fundamentally dishonest, and shameful, because they refused to acknowledge the realities of what their Jewish and Israeli communities have been experiencing over the past couple of months while these schools have done so little to protect them against the likes of the Coalition Against Apartheid and their radical pro-Palestinian allies, who they invite on to the MIT campus as trespassers. And notwithstanding clear breaches of the schools rules and defiance of orders to cease, desist, and leave the premises in the face of threatened suspension or expulsion, lawbreakers know the Institute will wimp because it is afraid of them. (The school has said it won’t suspend anyone in the States on student or work visas lest they be subject to deportation?!)

CONDUCT violations, which the presidents say would cause them to take action, but which hasn’t! What a salubrious effect if these 3 presidents were forced to resign!

[Sarcastr0]

they refused to acknowledge the realities of what their Jewish and Israeli communities have been experiencing over the past couple of months

That, of course, wasn't the question. By design, so people like you could get up in arms and Stefanik could grandstand.

[Don Nico]

Wow,
you really jump to defend the indefensible. It was the performance of the ivy trio that was shameful. What you call grandstanding was putting hypocrisy in its place. Let's be clear. Gay and Mcgall lied. They have never been free speech advocates except when it comes to bullying and terrorizing Jews.
I don't buy their story and I don't buy your feeble defence

[Sarcastr0]

No, 'it depends' is the right answer to the question. It was planned like that.
"Anti-semitic rhetoric, when it crosses into conduct that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation, that is actionable conduct and we do take action."
Never mind that, you say - give me blood and scalps and higher education persecuting me! Never mind the context or specifics. Never, every mind the specifics.

I mean, read you comment right here. It's emotion, vibes, righteousness and attacks. No substance, no engagement, no reasoning.

You're paving a path to authoritarianism, and you're too angry and righteous to care.

[Don Nico]

Their answers were wooden props for their lawyers.
You just cannot stand that hypocrisy was unmasked.
Call it a show, call it grandstanding, call it anything you want, except for the honest truth. It was cowardice masked in legalistic script written by a law firm that failed in its job.

[Don Nico]

"You're paving a path to authoritarianism". Moe of your leftwing conspiracy theory.
You really are not worth engaging with because you are fundamentally dishonest.

[neurodoc]

Have you talked to Jews and Israelis at MIT. Very unlikely. I have, and therefore am able to say with confidence that you are FOS.

Doxxing amounts to "conduct" in my eyes, not "speech," and there has been doxxing, along with threats of physical violence against those who have resisted the Coalition Against Apartheid, which after years of dormancy has revived to take up the cause of Hamas and the Palestinians after October 7. President Kornbluth was not specifically questioned about that conduct though surely she and the school would not allow it, except they have allowed it. They have simply capitulated to the protestors, "tempering" the prescribed, and appropriate disciplinary actions against those who have interrupted classes in progress, refused to disperse when ordered to do so and otherwise grossly misbehaved. Kornbluth has been unwilling to do so. And now because the The Amigos' testimony was so poorly received, they are backpedaling.

But go ahead and make up your own facts.

[Don Nico]

neurodoc,
I am not sure whom you are responding to.
But I have indeed talked to Jews and Israelis at MIT. I find find that the level of their fear is real.
S_0 cannot let himself believe that it is real. He can live in his illusions

[SimonP]

What is the reason that you feel so compelled to defend physical confrontation and bullying of Jews on a nearly continuing basis over the past two months?

I have never, in fact, done this. So that was easy.

[Peter Gerdes]

I agree that we don't want new speech codes. The problem is that why would the university left support nuetral free speech rules if they face no incentive to do so. As private institutions you can't sue them into applying nuetral rules and if the only consequences for not doing so are their presidents having a rough PR day then I don't see much pressure to change.

[Don Nico]

We are not talking about speech codes, as neurodoc notes. We are talking about conduct.

As for the lame excuse that student don't mean genocide, the pro-Hamas bully are going to do squat. They'll go back to their "safe spaces." Instead they are yelll to urge Hamas to do what Hamas means when it says "from the River to the Sea", that is to kill Jews, all of them.

[mydisplayname]

From the Reynolds essay, "The real problems are layers of corruption that have built up at the university level. And while they’re worse at the elite institutions, the corruption extends farther."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

The real problems are layers of corruption that have built up at the university level. And while they’re worse at the elite institutions, the corruption extends farther.

If, as this suggests, Prof. Reynolds devoted a section of his contribution to Liberty, Regent, Wheaton, Hillsdale, Franciscan, Brigham Young, and other conservative-controlled campuses, good for him!

[Dr. Ed 2]

EXACTLY!!!

[Longtobefree]

So now "never again!" has become "Sure, again. And right now!".

[Drewski]

"The strong support for campus free speech that used to exist was basically developed as a tool to protect leftists on campus from populist or conservative retribution."

Support was developed? By mysterious, unnamed "leftist" forces? This man is insane.