The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Yes, the Last 10 Years Really Have Been Worse for Free Speech" (Focusing on Universities)
An interesting and, I think, sound analysis by Greg Lukianoff (FIRE), responding to ACLU National Legal Director (and Georgetown law professor) David Cole's review of Lukianoff & Rikki Schlott's The Canceling of the American Mind in the New York Review of Books. An excerpt:
[A]fter 9/11 only about three professors lost their jobs for speech related to the attacks or the subsequent wars, and all three were fired for reasons that extended well beyond protected speech. Meanwhile, since the dawn of Cancel Culture in 2014 there have been more than 1,000 professor cancelation attempts, with two-thirds resulting in some form of sanction and one-fifth resulting in termination ….
It's also important to note that the problem will only get worse as older faculty, who are generally far better on free speech, begin to retire in large numbers. In our 2022 survey of faculty, we saw that the younger the faculty were, the more acceptable they found anti-speech activity ….
What about students, though? Using data from UCLA's Higher Education Research Institute, Jean Twenge has shown that support for censoring extreme speakers on campus has spiked in recent years: "While only 1 out of 4 students wanted to ban extreme speakers during the 1970s and 1980s, the majority wanted to do so in 2019." …
There's much more at the link.
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
So, in the future we can expect repeal of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd (nobody cares) amendments. Maybe the 9th and 10th also. 4-7 may rest on shaky grounds.
I'm nearly 80. I'm glad I won't be around to witness much of what's to come. It sounds grim.
No need to repeal them. Social pressure in an angry, punitive culture will be sufficient.
Oh. And silence.
While only 1 out of 4 students wanted to ban extreme speakers during the 1970s and 1980s, the majority wanted to do so in 2019.
I think this has lot to do with what “extreme speakers” tends to be a euphemism for over time. These days, it means people that FedSoc is inviting to campus for the explicit purpose of saying a bunch of racist, homophobic, and/or misogynist things… not because they’re educational for anyone to hear but just to bait and own the libs.
I don’t think the libs should take the bait. But I also suspect that such a survey would’ve come out the same way in the ’70s or ’80s if there had been fringe campus groups at the time trying to use the free speech codes of Universities to essentially troll campuses with bad-faith speaker invitations.
What you think seems far more likely to be connected to what you want to believe than with the change in ground truth.
People said many extreme things on campus in the 60s and 70s.
People said many extreme things on campus in the 60s and 70s.
What sorts of things are you thinking of? My guess is they aren’t things that were intended to troll the vast majority of students.
There’s something fishy about this line of argument in that universities can and do ban extreme speakers from campus all the time. There’s no way a university would allow SJP to bring a Hamas speaker to campus, for example. No administrator would allow a pedophilia advocate or a cannibal to come and speak.
So the question has no real normative value. If it did it would be near 100%. Really it’s just a barometer of how much, at any given time, students feel like they’re being abused by — and would like to crack down on — bad-faith actors like FedSoc.
What are some of the things being said now that you think are more extreme than what was allowed on campus back then? Most of the right-wingers getting cancelled now are saying things that would have been absolutely ordinary 20 years ago, often much more pedestrian than "marriage should be a union between one man and one woman" or "the Defense of Marriage Act is valid law".
Your accusation of bad faith is nothing more than sad projection.
I don't think it's more extreme, that's my point. I think it's trolling. Own-the-libs is the favorite pastime of the right these days, I'm sure you've noticed. That's where the accusation of bad faith comes from.
Like I said, I wish the progressive snowflakes wouldn't take the bait. I'm not letting them off the hook.
You implicitly agreed with the snowflakes when you said FedSoc was only inviting speakers to campus "for the explicit purpose of saying a bunch of racist, homophobic, and/or misogynist things" and to troll the left. That's notably less true than observing that the left invites DEI speakers to campus for the explicit purpose of brainwashing and gaslighting the student body.
You happily join the snowflakes in defining racism, homophobia and misogyny down to a frivolously low threshold, and you come across as a snowflake yourself when your examples of objectionable groups are Hamas, pedophiles, cannibals and the Federalist Society -- doubly so when the only distinction you draw between them is that you reserve the label of "troll" and X-phobe for members of the Federalist Society.
I don't group FedSoc with pedophiles, nor do I think their speakers should be banned, even if they are invited in bad faith. I wish the other students would just ignore them.
The fledgling bigots of the Federalist Society campus chapters have rights, too.
Randal is doing a pretty standard motte-and-bailey routine, where he starts out claiming that the Federalist Society is deliberately inviting racists to speak on campus, and when challenged retreats to the entirely defensible claim that the Federalist Society welcomes controversy,
.
One of the greatest achievements of the liberal-libertarian mainstream during my lifetime has been making old-timey, disgusting bigotry -- racism, gay-bashing, misogyny, transphobia, hatred of immigrants, white nationalism, Islamophobia, white supremacy, antisemitism, Christian nationalism, etc. -- far less popular and acceptable in modern America, especially among educated, modern, successful people and communities. The bigots are on the defensive and on the run, causing many clingers to pine for the "good old days" of decades ago, when bigots still had the upper hand in America.
Conservatives dislike this because bigots are still a core element of the Republican electoral coalition.
I'd start with Mario Savio and the free speech movement at Berkeley. There were people literally on soap box spouting just about any position you'd care to describe, including denouncing the whoremonger, Robert Kennedy, walking around campus "dressed" as a giant penis, and on the very mild side was Krishna consciousness.
Yes, but Don -- the people in the '60s & '70s were on the LEFT.
That was OK. Now they are on the right -- that's not.
You are an extreme commenter trying to bait others into pointless diatribes . . . oh crap, I fell for it !
"These days, it means people that FedSoc is inviting to campus for the explicit purpose of saying a bunch of racist, homophobic, and/or misogynist things"
The basic problem with saying this, is for some time now, "racist, homophobic, and/or misogynist things" means nothing more than "stuff I disagree with". Just like "NAZI" has come to mean, "somebody I'd like to punch".
So, censorship is OK because you're only censoring the people you want to censor. That's all you're saying.
So, censorship is OK because you’re only censoring the people you want to censor.
No, I said the libs shouldn't take the bait here, i.e. no censoring.
I'm just explaining what the survey numbers mean. They mean FedSoc are annoying jerks that annoy a lot of students into threatening them on surveys.
"I’m just explaining what the survey numbers mean."
OK, so the survey numbers mean that the respondents think censorship is OK because they’re only censoring the people they want to censor.
For someone so quick to accuse others of trolling, you've managed to present an excellent example of it. Perhaps you should study up on the psychological principle of projection and question whether your wild assertions about your opponents' motivations are rooted in fact.
Lol to criticizing my "wild assertions about my opponents' motivations." I learned it from watching you [Rossami], I learned it from watching you!
Do "racist, homophobic, and/or misogynist things" take in more territory than in the past? Isn't part of the problem here ever-expanding definitions of unpopular speech? And be honest here, "extremist" speech is usually a euphemism for "unpopular" speech.
Boil that pretty statement down to it's core and it winds up being "Shame that woman got raped, but she provoked the rapist by dressing like a trollop."
It appears to me that most of the attacks on free speech have come from the Left.
Correct.
Uh huh. What attacks on free speech do you see coming from the left?
Remember the First Amendment protects you from government censorship. It doesn't protect you from people telling you how stupid you are. Actually, it protects the person telling you how stupid you are from government censorship.
The right has passed a bunch of laws infringing on free speech. Can you point to anything remotely comparable coming from the left?
Tell us you didn't read the article without using those exact words.
You yourself were complaining about "snowflakes" up-thread. They demand censorship. See https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/07/opinion/campus-speech-cancel-culture.html or https://www.foxnews.com/media/yale-student-newspapers-censorship-hamas-rape-her-column-part-wider-campus-problem .
Wow, thanks for so vividly illustrating my point. I couldn’t have found two better case studies proving how little of a threat the left poses to the First Amendment than an essay by a voluntarily closeted college conservative and a deep dive into a student newspaper’s flawed fact-checking process that led to an embarrassing mistake, later corrected.
The right is passing laws banning books and topics, and you're worried about a private student newspaper's fact-checking practices? Laughable. I'm laughing.
Yet more proof that you didn’t read the article. Why do you hate reading?
I'm not sure what makes you think I didn't read the article. I read the article. I'm critiquing the article, indirectly.
This is why I know you didn't read the article, at least not well enough to understand it:
Dude agrees with me.
Given the ideological bent of campus administrators, the major censorship threats from the right actually come from Republican legislatures.
He goes on to point out that Republicans haven't been targetting universities all that much -- yet -- but rather K-12 is bearing the initial brunt.
What do you think the qualifier "from the right" is doing in that sentence? Why are you ignoring the whole section about the "Stop WOKE Act" and the California Community College DEI policy?
That excerpt is from the section about the Stop WOKE Act.
Randal -- the majority of higher ed is PUBLIC where it *is* government censorship.
You are the audience the Volokh Conspiracy desires . . . and the reason Prof. Volokh will no longer be part of a mainstream law faculty soon enough . . . with more clinger departures from legitimate, mainstream academia to follow.
Tell me that you aren't a parody of a Leftist, Artie.
If I were a parody, Prof. Volokh would censor or ban me.
In fact, he did ban Artie. For making fun of conservatives a bit too deftly for Prof. Volokh's taste. So Artie isn't here anymore.
I am Arthur. I have been censored by Prof. Volokh, repeatedly, but I have not been banned. Yet.
Roger, you want to deport American Citizen Prof. Somin for his speech.
You’re on the right.
Maybe you’re not one to evaluate this, on account of not really being into free speech at all.
It might appear like that to you, but that’s not what the data says if you follow the link that OP and the authors he’s quoting shared.
All time (since they started tracking, natch):
Cancellations from the left: 615
Cancellations from the right: 529
Unclear/irrelevant: 90
Seems to me that while the left is slightly ahead on cancellations overall, it’s certainly not by much.
In 2023:
Cancellations from the left: 20
Cancellations from the right: 46
Unclear/irrelevant: 3
In 2022:
Cancellations from the left: 73
Cancellations from the right: 71
Unclear/irrelevant: 8
Is this the same political categorization that calls FedSoc white supremacist Nazis, while giving Angela Davis and all the other Marxists a free pass?
Pardon me for not having a lot of faith in your source.
His source is the OP, chief. It’s FIRE itself.
lol.
A fairly typical “cancellation attempt” “from the right”: “Journalist Andy Ngo contacted the university regarding Ross’ alleged ties to the Rose City Antifa.” Another “cancellation attempt” “from the right” demanded “Vague investigation”. I’m sure Ross and Chebrolu are shaking.
Also, apparently Jewish complaints are apparently 100% from the right — they make up something like half of the recent “cancellation attempt” entries. A good example: leaders of the National Communication Association, a scholarly organization, decided to cancel a speech at one of their conferences; this counts as “from the right” because the leaders objected to calling deaths in Gaza “genocide”. The same professor was later “cancelled” again, by her university omitting a hyperlink in a complimentary blurb about a film she produced. I think that tells us a lot more about FIRE’s data collection practices than about actual statistics of events like this.
Sure, three university professors were also on the list after their infamous testimony in front of campus, but that was because their universities were breaking the law and they were horrible hypocrites about it. One of them was defending by her institution until her widespread plagiarism was revealed. It’s not because they engaged in controversial research or teaching.
Or take this example: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/scholars-under-fire#home/targeting-incident-details/6580ce86f843ba00278c6771/
It’s “from the right” because it’s pro-Israel, and a “cancellation attempt” because the state representative Twitted “I had a constructive conversation with Ramapo College’s President & they are investigating the matter.”
That state representative is a New Jersey Democrat, hardly what most people would call “from the right”.
Another cancellation “from the right” involved a researcher getting fired by Oak Ridge National Laboratory because she engaged in personal protest at a conference the government paid her to attend, getting booted from the conference for misconduct: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/scholars-under-fire#home/targeting-incident-details/64ac2d3958754d0028aac619/ (her co-disruptor has his own cancellation entry for getting kicked out of that conference, also tagged as “from the right”)
There’s no indication that case was actually pushed by anyone from the right, it’s just the federal government enforcing viewpoint-neutral laws and policy against using federal money to push private political perspectives.
All of them are lame and stupid, whether right or left. You don't need to keep pointing it out.
My point is that the database itself is lame and stupid. A visiting professor at New College didn’t get renewed. He was cancelled! (Are all visiting professors cancelled if they don’t get a new contract?) Chris Rufo twitted about the guy while the guy was still a professor. A second cancellation attempt!
Between having inconsistent thresholds for what counts as a cancellation attempts, blaming “the right” for cancellation attempts by Democrats and nonpartisan organizations, and duplicating entries, it’s foolish to cite counts like Jonathansingletary did.
FIRE claims that the database includes “targeting incidents” over constitutionally protected speech, for example, but the ORNL examples I mentioned earlier were based on clearly unprotected activities. Likewise the university presidents: if your school accepts federal money, it’s not legal to allow or protect a hostile educational environment.
That's what I just said. They're all lame and stupid. FIRE just wanted a big number to sensationalize with.
.
Speaking of focus . . . how much attention do these clingers devote to the worst of the worst schools with respect to free speech -- the censorship-shackled, dogma-enforcing, strenuously viewpoint-discriminating, employment-discriminating, nonsense-teaching, speech code-imposing, conduct code-enforcing, loyalty oath-collecting, science-suppressing, fourth-tier (or worse) conservative-controlled campuses?
Why discuss the Wheaton incident, or focus on the Florida developments, when you can take cheap shots at our strongest schools in an effort to score misleading partisan points in the service of right-wing ignorance, bigotry, backwardness, and childish superstition?
Carry on, clingers. So far as your stale, ugly thinking and low character could carry anyone in modern America, that is.
The bygone days of yesteryear which Lukianoff remembers (imagines?; how old is Lukainoff?) so fondly, were also different legally.
First, government initiated attacks on disfavored political views were not much policed legally in the 1950s, and were widely emulated throughout private enterprise. McCarthyism has no present counterpart. Lukianoff's commentary suggests he is tone deaf to that difference.
Second, media and media law have been transformed in a way that encourages more-destructive content to circulate more-freely than previously. Media now can be gratuitously weaponized on a massive scale, because almost nothing even gets read prior to publication. Prior to circa 2000 the law of free expression had less need to grapple with today's challenges. Private editors were generally loathe to publish damaging but non-defamatory content if it was also devoid of any show of good-faith public engagement. That took pressure off the law, which enabled a legally more-relaxed regime to function more effectively than it would have if private editors were not giving it de facto protection. That is not today's situation, with private editors mostly not even present.
Lukianoff seems to suppose there has been some mysterious deterioration in commitment to expressive freedom. He would be wiser to ask what else changed. One answer is that media are notably different now, and when they go unedited, media now are more threatening than before.
There is something else which stands out in Lukianoff's supposition that he defends expressive freedom even-handedly. He fairly openly sides with movement conservatives. They are the parties he supposes are legitimately aggrieved—but he seems to discount as pernicious similarly extreme leftist views. There is something questionable about denouncing extremism on the left, but doing it mostly in defense of extremism on the right.
He fairly openly sides with movement conservatives.
Yeah, I thought the attempt to blame the left for right-wing censorship was pretty awkward and revealing…
punishments faced by professors [that] initially start on the right — oftentimes in conservative media — [] are almost always carried out by administrators who are themselves on the left
Really? If the IRS agent is a conservative can we blame high taxes on Republicans? It’s nutty.
As I documented above, the far more common case is the right getting blamed for actions by the left, or for evidently non-partisan actions.
Yes, you are. The IRS agent doesn’t make the rules or decide how to apply the IRS’s policies.
Extremism on the left, as evidenced by cancellation attempts: support for Hamas's attack on October 7.
Extremism on the right, from the same source: passing out Jeremy's Chocolates on campus.
It's morally monstrous to pretend the "extremism" is equivalent, Lathrop.
"Morally monstrous" ought to be progressives' registered trademark.
Professor Volokh, thanks for keeping a focus on free speech in America. It matters a lot. Hope to hear about the transition to Stanford.
You forgot to put "Stanford" in scare quotes.
Is Stanford scared at the prospect of Professor Volokh arriving?