The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
University Presidential Testimony Fallout
I have a new piece at The Dispatch on the antisemitism hearing in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and the poor performance of the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard University, and MIT.
From the piece:
The presidents' bad hand in the hearings did not stem from a lack of hate speech regulations. Rather, it was due to the terrible track record that American universities have regarding principled free speech positions on campus. Harvard ranked dead last in the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression's (FIRE) annual campus free speech rankings, and Penn was just one slot above them. Universities all too often have a double standard when it comes to protecting free speech. It is all too apparent that, regardless of their written policies, many universities would not tolerate hateful speech directed toward other, more favored groups on campus. But they have faced more conflicting pressures when it comes to antisemitic speech and the October 7 attack on Israeli civilians. While legitimate time, place, and manner regulations on campus speech are strictly enforced against some, violations are frequently ignored when university officials think that the violators have their hearts in the right place.
As a result, appeals to principles of robust academic freedom and free speech principles from Gay, Kornbluth, and Magill ring hollow. If universities uphold double standards, then there is a strong incentive to make sure that your constituency is on the right side of the double standard. The political scientist Ted Lowi famously wrote of the "end of liberalism," in which classical commitments to neutral principles in constitutional governance had been replaced in the 20th century with an "interest-group liberalism" that simply implemented the results of bargains among competing political interests. In such a world, your interests would be unprotected if you did not have a seat at the table and sufficiently strong leverage in the negotiations.
To a worrisome degree, universities have embraced an interest-group liberalism model of governing. The diversity, equity, and inclusion apparatus is both an outcome and a reflection of that kind of internal spoils system. Jewish students and faculty are now insisting that their interests get a better piece of the pie, and universities know how to respond to such demands. Don't hate the player; hate the game.
Read the whole thing here. Behind a paywall, but if you don't subscribe to The Dispatch, you should!
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
Does anyone remember the case of Mimi Groves. Case in point.
I had to check Wikipedia. The cheerleader who said the Kirkland word to nobody in perticular, but on a video.
The Kirkland word?
Do you mean the vile racial slur that Prof. Eugene Volokh publishes every time he spies an opportunity to use that word with plausible deniability? The racial slur he publishes at his white, male blog roughly weekly (a remarkable and telling frequency)?
Only vile racists consider it to be a racial slur.
Please elaborate. Thank you.
So, the answer is more restrictions on campus speech?
'Cause that's what Stefanik and company seem to be agitating for.
Ken White, as usual, has a sober take on things https://popehat.substack.com/p/stop-demanding-dumb-answers-to-hard
Excellent link. Saves a lot of struggle by me to compose a result that would fall far short of the gem White provides.
"Congressperson, any advocacy of genocide which is illegal under federal law is also a violation of university policy."
"But federal law is inadequate!"
"Well, you better get around to fixing the federal law, then."
"But you didn't prosecute the 'from the river to the sea" people."
"Neither did the feds."
Hey Margrave - it looks like you are demanding dumb answers to hard questions.
Ah, it's Sarcy - no proof asked or given for his assertions, as usual.
In another thread, I cited the federal law against incitement to genocide, plus the Genocide treaty which calls for such acts to be punished, *plus* the U. S. reservation to the treaty that the treaty doesn't supersede the U. S. constitution (as interpreted by the U. S.).
Bottom line - I don't think "from the river to the sea" meets the Branenburg test of incitement to imminent lawless action.
The University Presidents, if they had political savvy (which, strangely for university presidents, they don't), would emphasize that they have the same standards as federal law, and that if Congress wants to tighten federal law (and think the Supreme Court will let them get away with it), they should tighten the definition of incitement.
A government branch shouldn't be pressuring private entities to go beyond Acts of Congress, and the First Amendment, to go after allegedly genocidal speech which the feds are letting alone.
He was sober that day?
White's fanboyism is one of the great modern mysteries.
If White published two or three racial slurs, Bob from Ohio would defend him just as unthinkingly as Bob from Ohio defends Prof. Volokh.
Huh? You published two or three or more racial slurs, and we don’t defend you.
You don't defend me concerning Prof. Volokh's repeated censorship? Are you as much a coward and hypocrite as he is?
I don't think they are necessarily advocating for that. More likely it's a perceived victim status of cancel culture, real or imagined, finally getting the other side's balls in a clamp and wrenching hard.
Perceived doing a ton of work here.
But even so, revenge is a bad predicate for policy.
Also on Substack journalist Jonathan Kats is looking for examples of people on campus calling for genocide against Jews. So far he has failed to find one.
https://theracket.news/p/whose-students-are-being-threatened
Now apply that methodology to "trans genocide" or "white supremacy" or any of your other marxist bugaboos and you Leftists should STFU about all of it because nobody is calling for those things. But this is the dishonest game you play, ultra narrow framing for actual evil you support and advocate; ultra broad framing for everything you oppose to toss the mundane in with purported evils.
You seriously understand the situation. The culture war's losers -- that's you and the other clingers -- do not get to tell better Americans (the culture war's victors) what to do.
Now try to be nicer, lest your betters decide to stop being so magnanimous toward bigoted, superstitious, obsolete right-wingers.
Still working on that inferiority complex, I see.
Here's a tip: "Shut up, you inferior" is not a logical argument. In fact, it reveals the utter weakness of your position.
Another tip:
The culture war is not quite over but has been settled. Better Americans have turned conservatives into culture war roadkill.
There is nothing wrong with celebrating the liberal-libertarian mainstream's beautiful victory over Republican racists, superstitious gay-bashers, conservative misogynists, Federalist Society xenophobes, right-wing Islamophobes, law-professing transphobes, chanting "Unite the Right" antisemites, half-educated gun nuts, gullible anti-abortion absolutists, disaffected law professors, disgraced insurrectionists, etc.
No, the answer is 'if you're not willing to enforce the rule consistently, then that shouldn't be a rule.'
They weren't willing to enforce their 'hate speech' rule consistently and they got called on it.
As gVOR08 pointed out, there don't seem to be any actual examples of inconsistency... it's always in the form of "could you imagine if they said the same thing about Blacks or gays" but it's like... not really... it wouldn't make sense.
Hypothetical double standards are hard to argue with.
I know you read the articles and the comments. The double-standards are not in the slightest hypothetical.
gVOR08's cited article is nonsense because it required explicit statements of genocide against Jews while holding interpretations of "genocide" in other controversies to a far lower standard.
Whatever the standard is, there at least needs to be intent. These students are not intending to advocate for genocide, for the most part, so therefore they aren't.
Kinda like how many people who fly the Confederate flag are intending to express regional pride, not racism.
I will piss on the grave of your bigoted conservative political aspirations, clinger.
That's how better Americans -- the culture war's winners -- get to roll.
You get to whine and whimper about it as much as you like, of course.
Until replacement.
Sure. Also like how trap-house kid wasn't intending to have a racist party.
You guys are being like the Black girls in traphousegate: presuming offense where none was intended, and then trying to cajole the administration into punishing your perceived enemies.
You were right when you called them snowflakes.
Huh? I agree that "From the river to the sea" usually isn't intended to call for genocide. Just pointing out that presuming offense where none was intended isn't something new.
Right. Just like "trap house." And just like "trap house," I don't think we should punish kids with no intent to offend. You seem to think we should punish Palestinian kids but not FedSoc kids.
"You seem to think we should punish Palestinian kids but not FedSoc kids."
No, I don't seem to think that at all. I didn't think the FedSoc kids should be punished, and I don't think the Palestinian kids should be punished for chanting "From the river to the sea."
But I see many folks here who were unwilling to be uncharitable about trap houses and confederate flags, suddenly wanting to adopt a charitable view of "From the river to the sea."
Who? Remember, there's a difference between punishing and ostracizing. You might be thinking of ostracizing people with Confederate flags. I can't imagine anyone on here wanting to punish them.
The trap house guys were punished.
And there have been a few incidents of people being required to remove confederate flags.
“ So, the answer is more restrictions on campus speech?”
If you’re not going to have free speech, why should Jews tolerate calls for their genocide?
Stefanik and co. are “making the enemy play by his own rules.” Remember that scene in the movie Patton where Patton says “Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!”
‘Cause that’s what Stefanik and company seem to be agitating for.
If it seems like that to you then you're not very bright. I don't know how much more obvious it could be that what was being called out was the hypocritical inconsistencies in the way campus speech (and other) codes are implemented. And yet that still somehow managed to fly a country mile over your and some others' heads.
Stefanik was quite clearly calling for banning speech.
Oh wait, is Transrael engaged in a controversial war? No? Then it's not really a comparable situation is it.
Powell's actions today provide evidence that maybe the protesters are right.
What in the world are you talking about?
Wall Street is controlled by Jews. Powell caved to these people and threw the working American man under the bus.
Here's an antisemite to whom Profs. Bernstein and Volokh will issue a FIRE-style pass.
Blustering, hypocritical cowards are among my favorite culture war casualties.
The universities could have FIRE-proof freedom of speech policies and it would still have been a PR uphill battle not to categorically answer Stefanik's question that calling for genocide of Jews violates their policies. Yes, the universities are guilty of bad, double-standard policies. But Stefanik is guilty of demagogic virtue signaling even though she won the PR battle.
That was my reaction to the video; neither Stefanik nor the college presidents comes off looking very good.
She had the three on the rack and just was intent on twisting harder. Don't feel bad for the three they are compensated at ~$1M+ per year. The torture goes with the territory.
It takes a highly motivated partisan perspective to figure Elise Stefanik looked any better than anyone else at that hearing.
Don Nico, I try looking at this from an executive mgmt perspective. If any CEO of a Fortune 50 company had testified that terribly and damaged the corporate reputation as they have, they'd be gone the next day. Ain't no doubt. Collectively,
The Three Elite Stoogesthey displayed appalling, terrible managerial and executive judgment. I still cannot believe it.Case in point. Why get catty and condescending and attempt to spar with a professional politician? AYFKM?! They knew going in what to expect. Yet, they lacked the executive judgment not to wallow in the mud with a politician. Their collective arrogance blew up in their faces.
Just on mgmt grounds, all of them should be dismissed. In the real world, there is a thing called accountability. It sucks.
Do you believe UCLA has erred by letting a racial slur-hurling professor stick around as long as it has? Even after management was required to rebuke the bigoted conduct?
At the risk of feeding a troll, you are begging the question.
The training and preparations of the law forms used by Harvard and Penn was pathetic. Those fellows get paid very big bucks to know the venue in which their clients are to perform. The firms need to be replaced. Gay is lucky that she kept her job despite plagiary charges.
It would have been easy for any of those women to say, “Calls for genocide which are intended to harass or intimidate another member or group of members of the university community are prohibited by our policy. Other than that, the university does not regulate speech.” If only it were true. Stefanik was prepared to shred them if they told a lie that blatant.
"Universities all too often have a double standard when it come to protecting free speech."
As do conservative academics (especially those at white, male, right-wing blogs) and separatist organizations such as FIRE, which issue unmerited, unprincipled passes to America's worst offenders (the censorship-shackled, dogma-enforcing, conservative-controlled, low-quality schools that flout academic freedom and teach nonsense.
Why? To flatter right-wing donors and disaffected Federalist Society fans.
This is partisan polemics, not principle, from conservative professors.
The aftermath of the hearing surfaced credible allegations (with documentation) of plagiarism. I thought plagiarism was grounds for dismissal in academia. Now we will see if Harvard will choose to be lead by a (n alleged?) plagiarist, or try to DIE-wash it away. Veritas, indeed.
MIT....I don't think it is 'over'. There does seem to be a desire for dialogue. I don't know if that desire matters enough.
I don't think the issue here is free speech. The issue to me is uneven (selective?) enforcement of policies. It is very visible, and people are reacting to that. Who can blame them?
Just think about it. If you're a Tribe parent contemplating plunking down 50K+ (or more) annually for your child to attend an Ivy, do you really want to worry if your kid will be spat upon, assaulted, insulted simply for wearing a kippah while walking across campus to class? Well we know at least three places now where that is a reality.
Maybe some good can come out of this horrendous
collective brainfart on national TVtestimony, but I doubt it. The country is in a race to the bottom.The country is continuing to progress, in large part by continuing to stomp your discredited, bigoted, ignorant, superstition-addled right-wing preferences into cultural irrelevance.
Why do you hate modern America, clinger?
1. Is it ok for pro-Palestinian protesters to call out pro-Israel protesters?
2. Is it ok for pro-Palestinian protesters to call out pro-Israel institutions like MISTI?
3. Is it ok for pro-Palestinian protesters to call out Israelis as being presumptively in support of Israel?
4. Is it ok for pro-Palestinian protesters to call out Jews as being presumptively in support of Israel?
I think the answers are yes, yes, no, no.
Part of the problem, of course, is that Israeli advocacy organizations like the ADL really kind of want Jews to be presumptively in support of Israel. They spend a lot of effort in order to bind Israel with Judaism. But I don't think that's enough to turn #4 from a no into a yes.
The ADL is not n "Israeli advocacy organization." (Hell, it's barely a Jewish advocacy organization anymore; it has basically remade itself into a generic "anti hate" organization that spends as much time fighting against racism or anti-transgender attitudes as it does about antisemitism. Not that there's something wrong with those positions, but there are other organizations for that. The ADL is supposed to be about antisemitism.)
The ADL is only anti-hate to the extent that it suits the Jews.
The Anti-Defamation League was bought out in 2020, and is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Southern Poverty Law Center. They joined forces in order to save money by having to maintain only one list of contributors and one database of haters.
The ADL is an Israeli advocacy organization by its own terms. From its website:
ADL supports the Jewish and democratic state of Israel.
What are you even talking about, have you lost your mind?
This fellow must have had a stroke with such rambling.
But that has not stopped his clear animosity toward Jews.
.
Dear Prof. Whittington,
In your opinion, which of our many universities "follow the general principles of the First Amendment"? I can't think of any.
If I am right, why, in your opinion, is it inappropriate to raise hell when universities, so solicitous of (certain) people's feelings and "safety," allow genocidal speech aimed at Jews? Shouldn't the people who run the universities have to answer for this? Why aren't you demanding the resignation of these people?!
Having observed this double-standard ("safety" for some, unpunished calls for genocide for others), I feel a different incentive. I now see these institutions as utterly, irredeemably evil. I want to shut them down if they're funded by the state, cut off any state funding for the other (private) ones. Aside from this, I'd let the private ones alone, to continue operating in any manner they see fit, however odious. Hopefully, word will get around, and decent people will start avoiding schools that maintain this sort of double-standard (just as decent people are likely to avoid a store with a "No blacks allowed" sign in its window).