The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Ben Sasse on Speech and Protest at the University of Florida
The former Senator says "the adults are still in charge" in Gainesville
Ben Sasse, President of the University of Florida, has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal explaining his approach to speech and protest at UF. The op-ed articulates three principles that other universities may wish to follow.
First, universities must distinguish between speech and action. Speech is central to education. We're in the business of discovering knowledge and then passing it, both newly learned and time-tested, to the next generation. To do that, we need to foster an environment of free thought in which ideas can be picked apart and put back together, again and again. The heckler gets no veto. The best arguments deserve the best counterarguments.
To cherish the First Amendment rights of speech and assembly, we draw a hard line at unlawful action. Speech isn't violence. Silence isn't violence. Violence is violence. Just as we have an obligation to protect speech, we have an obligation to keep our students safe. Throwing fists, storming buildings, vandalizing property, spitting on cops and hijacking a university aren't speech.
Second, universities must say what they mean and then do what they say. Empty threats make everything worse. Any parent who has endured a 2-year-old's tantrum gets this. You can't say, "Don't make me come up there" if you aren't willing to walk up the stairs and enforce the rules. You don't make a threat until you've decided to follow through if necessary. . . .
Appeasing mobs emboldens agitators elsewhere. Moving classes online is a retreat that penalizes students and rewards protesters. Participating in live-streamed struggle sessions doesn't promote honest, good-faith discussion. Universities need to be strong defenders of the entire community, including students in the library on the eve of an exam, and stewards of our fundamental educational mission. . . .
Third, universities need to recommit themselves to real education. Rather than engage a wide range of ideas with curiosity and intellectual humility, many academic disciplines have capitulated to a dogmatic view of identity politics. Students are taught to divide the world into immutable categories of oppressors and oppressed, and to make sweeping judgements accordingly. With little regard for historical complexity, personal agency or individual dignity, much of what passes for sophisticated thought is quasireligious fanaticism.
One thing I learned from the article is that UF is imposing a three-year suspension on students who violate these policies, as in a three-year prohibition from campus. Writes Sasse: "We said it. We meant it. We enforced it. We wish we didn't have to, but the students weighed the costs, made their decisions, and will own the consequences as adults."
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
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
” With little regard for historical complexity, personal agency or individual dignity, much of what passes for sophisticated thought is quasireligious fanaticism.”
I would argue “quasireligious fascist fanaticism.”
Let’s recognize “fascism” for what it is — and isn’t — and that it has nothing to do with the right wing. Mussolini was an anti-Soviet socialist, Hitler was a “National Socialist.”
“One thing I learned from the article is that UF is imposing a three-year suspension on students who violate these policies, as in a three-year prohibition from campus.”
That really doesn’t mean anything anymore — the bigger question is does one have a right of return at the end of suspension or does one only have the right to apply for admission (with no guarantee of acceptance)?
The latter is a de-facto expulsion because an expelled student could always re-apply, and some institutions (e.g. UMass Amherst) have adopted the latter definition. In other words, even a semester suspension from UMass is a de-facto expulsion.
But not to worry, there are a lot of other institutions who would love to have these little darlings. Sasse is in a fairly solid position with a governor who will back him — it will be interesting to see his response to the inevitable faculty protests.
“many academic disciplines have capitulated to a dogmatic view of identity politics”
I credit Sasse for criticizing the DeSantis administration’s conduct with respect to higher education in Florida in this manner.
Excellent statement, worth of support: “Many academic disciplines have capitulated to a dogmatic view of identity politics. Students are taught to divide the world into immutable categories of oppressors and oppressed, and to make sweeping judgements accordingly. With little regard for historical complexity, personal agency or individual dignity, much of what passes for sophisticated thought is quasi-religious fanaticism.”
Perhaps (and only perhaps) not so excellent is “say what they mean and then do what they say,” particularly given that yesterday was the Kent State Massacre anniversary, in which the Governor pledged to “eradicate the problem” of students “worse than the ‘brownshirt’ and the Communist element and also the night-riders in the vigilantes…the worst type of people that we harbor in America” — and did. https://www.newsweek.com/my-god-theyre-killing-us-our-1970-coverage-kent-state-328108
And Victoria Snelgrove would be 41 years old, she was an Emerson College student who was shot to death (by the Boston Police) under almost identical circumstances, and with the Mayor (“Mumbles” Menino) and the Governor (Mitt Romney) making pretty much the same pledges.
Your point is????
It’s a good op-ed, but six months ago I would never have guessed we would need it. These are pretty basic principles and that other University presidents need this explained to them is shocking. It’s going to be summer break soon, universities should take the time to review their policies and commit to following them or change them to something they can follow and then follow them.
Public universities by necessity, and private universities by pragmatism, should also commit to viewpoint neutrality. Nazis get the same policy as Hamas supporters get the same policy as Israel supporters get the same policy as a fraternity pulling a prank get the same policy as “you should call your mom” protests get the same policy as falconry legalization advocates. Note that in Florida falconry is legal but you need a permit.
Serve on a President search sometime — Sasse is a former US Senator, not career administrator.
“Note that in Florida falconry is legal but you need a permit.”
What kind of falcon law is this?
If you thought college faculty and administrators didn’t need this spelled out in simple words and autistic detail then you haven’t been paying attention for the last decade or two that I know of.
Different schools and jurisdictions are going to try different things. And given the different specific facts on the ground, that’s hard to argue.
We all knew how Florida was going to roll, and that they’d make a populist statement about it. I didn’t expect they would roll with an ‘our way is the only correct way’ with DeSantis no longer angling for the Presidency, but so it goes.
And of course anyone looking can see the tone: “spitting on cops”…calling these encampments ‘agitators.’ And blaming ‘identity politics.’
This was my favorite though: ‘With little regard for historical complexity, personal agency or individual dignity.’ Florida, you instantiated a review process to smooth out our history into something more pleasing. And you passed laws to come directly against individual dignity, or historical complexity.
Florida has every right to do this, and we shall see how it’s school system suffers from yet again being used as a populist political football.
If you’re going to try to dunk on Florida’s education system, then at least learn the its/it’s distinction before you do so.
Of course, you could so little more than criticize a reasonable policy.
Again you only show that you support the disruption on campus and the disrespect of the vast majority of students who are serious about their studies.
Shame on you.
You don’t think the students expressing opposition to Israel’s indiscriminate killing in Gaza or Israel’s bigoted terrorism in the West Bank are serious students?
No!
Conservatives should stick with conservative schools. Dogma. Loyalty Oaths. Old-timey bigotry. Superstition. Respect for (certain) “traditional values.” Nonsense. Statements of Faith. Old-timey speech and conduct codes. More bigotry. Rejection of academic freedom to flatter ignorance.
Better schools should stop affirmative action for conservative students and faculty applicants. (Ivy schools would take a few students from desolate right-wing backwaters, for example, perhaps figuring educated conservative hayseeds would return to the sticks and improve them.) There is little value — and lots of disadvantage — to thumbing the scale to bring intolerance, ignorance, backwardness, and superstition to campus,
You continue on this very dumb ‘you can’t criticize unless you yourself have a blanket policy to advocate for.’
No. That’s wrong.
Blanket policies are not the way.
And saying that does not support anything other than good policymaking in the fact of a crisis.
Shame on you and your inability to deal with me not fitting into your shitty little ideological boxes, so you make accusations that are the opposite of what I’ve said.
Douche.
For all people may try to argue with him, I think you got to the crux of the problem (as you often do with him). His sentiments, and the ensuing “logic,” are rooted there.
He really kind of hates a lot of people, and abides by a few others. He’s very particular about who the state helps, and he believes all institutions should use similarly righteous calculations as the state. There are [types of] people who deserve more, and [types of] people who deserve less. He’s doing equity by settling the scores according to his preferenced/depreferenced peoples lists.
And when you get right down to it, he’s nasty too. He sees people, like “MAGAs,” as being sub-human and undeserving of normal respectful treatment. (Imagine that…like 70 million or more Americans are sub-human to him and undeserving of normal respect.)
Contempt in the heart turns out a nasty voice.
You are wrong about just about everything you write.
I don’t hate you or a lot of people. (I do find you disappointing)
I’m not particular in who the state should help – you are the one who has a chip on their shoulder about certain groups getting helped
I don’t think some groups deserve more and others deserve less; I don’t really think much in terms of deserves.
I definitely don’t think doing equity means settling scores.
I find MAGA as an ideology to be loathsome, but my social groups contain Trump voters – I’m not a politics are everything person.
You just wrote a whole bunch of absolutely incorrect fiction about what I think. What does that say about you?
Douche
someone who is more than a jerk, tends to think he’s top notch, does stuff that is pretty brainless, thinks he is so much better than he really is, and is normally pretty good at ticking people off in an immature way.
‘Contempt in the heart turns out a nasty voice.’
But not self-awareness, apparently.
“Thou shalt not” works and is fair — and is Constitutionally defensible.
More proof you never actually worked in student affairs of any IHE.
Bullshit.
Nonsense. I’m no expert, but I talk to deans pretty regularly.
Anyone who thinks it’s effective to treat young adults with ‘thou shalt not’ is bad at dealing with children.
Oh, really?
Care to cite the child development or student affairs theory behind your genius?
As an aside, “thou shalt not” includes “thou shalt not rape.”
I believe you would be in some trouble with your employer were you to publicly oppose that.
And as to deans — did you see what I wrote about the difference between Sasse and academic administrators, eg deans?
No, I was never in charge, couldn’t hold my nose well enough to be, but I had some fairly responsible positions. Fucking union wouldn’t let me keep the two best ones because I wasn’t in the barganing unit.
IOW, you got fired for being an idiot.
I wasn’t fired.
“Blanket policies are not the way.”
Sarc: Rules are only for punishing the people who are wrong.
That is not what I said, and you know it.
Just like with your crime in NYC, you have a story about me in your head that has no bearing on who I actually am, and but you’ll spend a lot of time railing against the imaginary Sarcastr0 on here.
Bullshyte.
It IS what you said, and you know it.
You remind me of the former UM administrator who reportedly would let expelled students back into UM if their parents made a “sizable” donation to the school. I heard the figure was $30,000.
Why that wasn’t illegal was beyond me.
It IS what you said, and you know it.
Do you often have a lot of luck telling people they are actually thinking the opposite of what they say?
Because you just made it up?
We know you hate DiSantis and clingers. But Sasse had nothing to do with the laws you misleadingly described.
Don Nico is right, you want to support your pro-Hamas friends so badly.
A certain set here keep telling me what I want and it’s not what I want.
Says a lot about them though.
As to your other criticism, treating the Florida education system as a unified enterprise doesn’t seem that out of line. Sasse knows what he’s part of.
Sasse is on the side at which he naturally belongs. He’s been a conservative bigot for decades. I think his score on gay-bashing in Congress, for example, was zero for a while. Pure-bred clinger.
You’ve been known to do a little of that too.
Now, I have to say its not at all clear your primary motivation is to support your pro Hamas friends, it’s just there are no enemies to the left. My guess it’s your usual concern: that Republicans are pouncing.
pro Hamas friends
The shitty politics of delegitimization are are absolutely more a thing on the right than the left.
But sure, keep speculating about what I really think. What a productive line to go down.
Nah, I think they are pretty common in both sides.
I mean for instance on the left calling teapartyers teabaggers. Or trying to make MAGA republicans a synonym for extremists, or the recent Christian Nationalist, or White Rural Rage tropes.
It’s very difficult to understand what you see in Trump. You must know that. That’s where these tropes come from.
(It’s not difficult for me to understand, but for most people on the left it is. You also do a terrible job of defending Trump. The way to defend Trump, to the left at least, is to take him less seriously than the left does, not more seriously.)
“It’s very difficult to understand what you see in Trump.”
Do I want a woke future, or not? Biden, or Trump?
I don’t think you want a woke future. I think you want a bigoted past.
Yeah I’m with the good reverend here. Preservation of historical bigotry is certainly a motivating factor for you, that much is clear.
Of course I do a terrible job defending Trump because there is not much he does I approve of:
1 picking judges.
2 illegal immigration policies (I disagree with him on legal immigration levels)
3 his tax bill lowering the corporate rate, and capping state and local tax deductions.
That’s about it.
I do agree with Biden on one issue:
1. Damn, that Kamala pick looked like it could have worked out better on paper.
Hey Chief,
You support a guy who admires dictators, hates anyone and anything who isn’t loyal exclusively to himself, is a racist, a misogynist, a criminal, and speaks using rhetoric last heard in the 1930s by a German with a ridiculous moustache.
You’re part of America’s Nazi party, fuckhead. Not a single one of you has anything approaching a moral compass. You are absolutely extremists, and you’re all a threat to our nation’s security and way of governance.
After what Hamas did on 10/7/23, you’re complaining that they (and their supporters) are being “delegitimized”?! Really?!
Yes, that’s right, I was defending Hamas. That is what that comment was about.
Good reading, chief!
Sarcastr0, you can literally be shown video of them chanting antisemitic chants and calling for murder, and you blow it off. Own that.
Just like the BLM/Antifa riots, which had dozens dead and billions in property damage, and you didn’t even want to call them riots!
You linked a video of 13 people shot so you could mostly see the tops of their heads and some flags.
No, that says nothing about the protesters generally. Just like with summer 2020 the riots were riots and the protests were protests.
And no, noting that does not mean I support Hamas. Don’t be a fucking asshole.
Yes, Sasse knows what he is part of — it’s called “progress.”
There is an amazing shift in enrollment right now — of good applicants — and it’s not just Jewish applicants.
No there isn’t. Paying attention to the talent pool is something I do. You just write down your wishes.
The only long-term churn in enrollment from K-20 is in postdocs, and it has nothing to do with politics.
You will get a reality check in the Fall of 2026 if not sooner.
I don’t know where the hell you are, but everyone I know is stressing “enrollment management” right now. It’s why tuition discounting was already at 47% before Covid and my guess is a lot higher now.
And Florida has been doing good things with education for at least 20-30 years now. It’s not just the current governor, some of the credit goes to the people before him — they have replaced Massachusetts as the state to watch in K-12.
You got any link for that 47% number? I’m skeptical of it for a number of reasons.
It was all over the Chronicle of Higher Ed and Inside Higher Ed — newspapers of the trade — Before Covid. Go through the back issues circa 2019.
Actually I was wrong — the rate is now 53.9% for freshmen
and 48% for everyone on average.
I didn’t realize it would be THIS easy to find this.
And yes, I know it is 2021 — do your own research….
“The average discount rate for first-time undergraduates reached 53.9 percent — an all-time high — during the 2020-21 academic year, according to NACUBO’s preliminary estimates released Wednesday.”
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/05/20/private-colleges-cut-539-tuition-sticker-price-freshmen-average
The study defines the tuition discount rate for first-time undergraduates as the total institutional grant aid awarded to first-time, full-time undergraduates
Private colleges often advertise high sticker prices compared to public institutions. To enroll students who are unable or unwilling to pay those high prices, colleges employ tuition discounting strategies that subsidize a fraction of the sticker price through financial aid grants.
Thanks for the source.
One thing it clarified is that this is about more financial aid.
Another thing is that the enrollment rate is not really correlated with anything other than our birth rate. The number of young Americans is declining.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/4398533-college-enrollment-could-take-a-big-hit-in-2025-heres-why/
It’s not because of liberalism, Ed. It’s also pretty manageable, at least at the grad level.
Pro-Hamas vs. pro-superstitious genocide it is!
It will be settled by which was stupid enough to align with the losing side of the American culture war.
“Different schools and jurisdictions are going to try different things.”
Some of them tried calling the cops on demonstrators who wouldn’t leave, but the local pols wouldn’t allow the cops to come.
And that’s going to get ugly.
The issue at UCLA was the dumb c*nts blocking the gate,
which is why I consider the kid who attacked a freedom fighter.
Women doing stunts like that I WANT to see physically injured.
If you are going to assault people like a man, don’t expect to be able to hide behind the “but I am a girl.” No, that’s transphobic — whack.
Women doing stunts like that I WANT to see physically injured.
This is because you’re a piece of shit. It’s also another way I can tell you’ve never actually worked with students. No one would let you near them, on accounta you being a fucking psycho.
Really?
I’ve even had keys to their rooms, i.e. master keys.
How else are you going to mop their floors?
Has Ben Sasse ever renounced the old-timey bigotry that marked his formative years — and, unfortunately, beyond — as a movement conservative?
Is there any reason to believe that bigotry (with right-wing partisanship) does not motivate his views and conduct today?
Would he have taken the same position with protesters arguing for “traditional values,” or in support of Israel, or in support of Israel’s terrorism in the West Bank, or people camping out for football tickets?
His record supports questions.
Speaking of “adults in charge,” does anyone — in particular, any of the Federalist Society law professors who operate this blog — want to guess how many disgusting racial slurs this white, male, right-wing blog has published during the most recent week?
__ 0
__ 1
__ 2
__ 5
__ 8
__ 10-15
__ 16-20
__ more than 20
That’s just the most recent week. How many racial slurs?
Or, if a week is too long a period, how many racial slurs during May 2024 alone?
Does even one Volokh Conspirator have the courage or character to address this blog’s record with respect to racial slurs (or other bigotry)? Any comment concerning the longstanding frequency with which this blog launches racial slurs? Just one? Any one?
That’s what I figured.
Carry on, clingers.
You pose an interesting challenge. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to guess with any degree of confidence how many “disgusting racial slurs” occurred on this site during any time period, simply because no one knows how broadly you define “racial slurs.” Help us play your game by quoting some of the slurs you have noted in the past couple weeks.
You could (but won’t) answer the question using a definition of a vile racial slur that you believe to be appropriate.
I was referring, of course, to the “n” word (which has long been much of that for which the Volokh Conspiracy is known).
I doubt Prof. Volokh thinks you are helping, clinger.
He’s probably counting my “‘Kill the Jews’ is every bit as offensive as ‘Kill the Niggers’.”
A: It IS the same thing, equally offensive,
B: Sadly, both are protected speech, but
C: It doesn’t mean we should approve of either being shouted.
But as to Kirkland, just block him. Your cardiologist will thank you.
You’re shouting that slur every time you can, Ed.
Would you prefer “Kill the Bureaucrat”?
I don’t care.
I use the George Carlin list of 7 words you can’t say, on TV or radio.
A few questions for Sasse, about UF students, and about the process of draconian suspensions.
1. Before they committed whatever allegedly violent acts got them suspended, had the students been peacefully assembled?
2. If so, under what circumstances did that peaceful condition end?
3. Was the suspension-precipitating event a blanket declaration from UF that gathered students constituted an illegal assembly?
4. Was ignoring a decree of that sort counted as lawbreaking, to justify suspensions?
5. Were students judged guilty en masse, or was their conduct reviewed individually, according to probable cause?
6. Had suspended students requested negotiations?
7. Did negotiations take place?
8. If clear-cut violence occurred, on what basis did UF determine it was attributable to enrolled students, and not to unidentified others?
I want to take seriously the ongoing controversy over student assemblies on campuses. I am also trying to understand whether university administrators take those controversies seriously. At a minimum, it will require answers to that list of questions to find out.
Steven — why is all of this important now and not 20 years ago?
Oh, I understand, it was a different group of students they were arresting and expelling. And the answer back then to most/all of your questions is no.
So why are these students deserving to be treated differently?
Can you hear the warning at 3:01? Can you tell me what the man said?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPqVaI_K82A
I’d be interested in most of this, but 6/7 are non-starters. If people are committing crimes on campus, then there’s nothing to negotiate over; they can stop or the cops can be called. Trying to haggle with goons doesn’t work. Why they’re doing it– whether it’s a protest, a prank, or otherwise– is irrelevant.
Skye, note that you have posited that would-be negotiators have committed crimes—the very question in controversy. Your, “Haggle with goons,” remark discloses prejudice with regard to the guilt or innocence of those assembled.
I’m assuming nothing. We don’t hold anybody else to this standard– if somebody breaks into my house, I don’t have to determine their exact intentions and try to negotiate them before they call 911. The school can go ahead and call the cops. If it turns out the school is wrong and their actions lead to wrongful arrests, civil sue the school into oblivion. But in the current tranche of criminal activity, they’re committing crimes, are advised of this, and don’t even really deny it; they just think they should be exempt from the law.
It’s possible a bystander got wrapped up in something and charges against them need to be dismissed, or something like that. But every time the police have been called that I’m aware of, a crime has unambiguously been in progress.
Skye, to reach that conclusion, you assume at least two premises for which I do not think I have yet seen evidence:
1. That suspended students were personally and volitionally in the roles of the housebreakers you hypothesize.
2. That the power to criminalize whatever conduct they were actually practicing—practices which you have attributed, apparently without evidence, to all of them alike—was a legitimate power exercised with due discrimination and proportionality, and properly informed about the facts of each case.
Long experience following the results of campaigns of mass arrest targeting protestors has taught me to expect that the most common outcome in a court would be charges dismissed for want of evidence. The hazard here is obvious. The university administration—boasting of its political empowerment, and holding itself out as an example for the rest of the nation—will attempt to empower itself as the arresting authority, the judge, the jury, and the executioner of whatever sentences an arbitrary process delivers in each case.
In my previous response to you I cited evidence to show your prejudice. How do you respond?
You didn’t cite any evidence– you just don’t like the word goons, but if you look it up in the dictionary and then look at the video footage, the conclusion is inescapable.
You’re also taking a position that the protestors themselves aren’t even pretending to believe– they were repeatedly warned their activity was illegal and refused to comply with legal orders to disperse. It’s granted the case that each one has to be proven individually, but most of them are on video. Merely being there after being told to disperse is a trespass. They’re still entitled to formal process, but we as citizens can see what’s literally the recorded evidence. Their only “argument” is that they’re protestors, therefore they’re above the law, which is never how the law has worked.
4 & 8 shouldn’t matter — a university can prohibit otherwise legal things — plagiarism comes to mind.
And 1, 2, & 3 shouldn’t matter either.
I can “peacefully” clean my rifle on university grounds, and I can assure you it would be “peaceful” because I wouldn’t be stupid enough to have it loaded, but I somehow suspect this would be of concern to many.
You can peacefully imply threatened violence — what did the Black kids at Cornell do when they brought rifles (and bandoleers of ammo) into the Willard Straight Hall?
A university has a right to dictate who is using what portion of its property, for what, when, and under what conditions. If you don’t like the way they decided that, don’t be a student or employee there.
The right to peaceably assemble was written at a time when evil leftists didn’t exist. Just like leftists say that the 2nd Amendment shouldn’t protect arms not in existence in the 1700s, the 1st Amendment shouldn’t protect evil anti-American traitors whose sick ideologies didn’t exist in the 1700s. Therefore, leftism is by definition treason, and unprotected. Merely espousing left wing beliefs makes one worthy of capital punishment.
It’s simpler than that — use simple substitution of viewpoints.
Replace Hamas with Klan, replace Palestinian flags with Confederate Flags, and replace chants of “Kill the Jews” with chants of “Kill the Niggers.”
Oh, and have them prevent Black (as opposed to Jewish) students from getting across campus.
Would any institution tolerate this? Would Meritless Garland?
The right have succesfully persuaded themselves that freedom of speech would, in fact, require that they be tolerated and face no consequences, but that freedom of speech *also* sweeping anti-war protesters away with fury and vengeance.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/education/2024/04/29/uf-police-arrest-9-pro-palestinian-protesters-after-days-demonstrations/
Steve Orlando, another UF spokesperson, said in a statement that the protesters were given fair warning.
“This is not complicated: The University of Florida is not a daycare, and we do not treat protesters like children — they knew the rules, they broke the rules, and they’ll face the consequences,” he said. “For many days, we have patiently told protesters — many of whom are outside agitators — that they were able to exercise their right to free speech and free assembly.”
Orlando said the protesters also were told that “clearly prohibited activities” would result in interim suspensions and banishment from campus for three years.
“For days (the University Police Department) patiently and consistently reiterated the rules,” Orlando said. “Today, individuals who refused to comply were arrested after (police) gave multiple warnings and multiple opportunities to comply.”
– – – –
Your questions 1-5 and 8 sound reasonable, your questions 6 and 7 do not. The whole point of UF’s approach is that no “negotiations” are ever needed. All that is needed is a clear statement of what is and is not permitted, a clear statement of consequences, and the will to follow through.
The whole point of UF’s approach is that no “negotiations” are ever needed. All that is needed is a clear statement of what is and is not permitted, a clear statement of consequences, and the will to follow through.
DaveM, that’s the part in controversy, isn’t it? As the other questions you agreed with might have suggested, you posit a power in a public university administrator less constrained than any Governor of any state can wield, except perhaps during a legislatively declared state of emergency—but legislative authorization is no part of this power you assert for Sasse.
What you demand combines the worst features of, l’état, c’est moi, and suspension of habeas corpus. You may suppose that’s what it take to govern a public university. I insist it is unwise to think so.
Stephen — a wakeup call — en loco parentis has returned — has been for at least 25 years now, likely longer.
The irony of this is that Lathrop has argued that with respect to speech the 1A shouldn’t apply to public schools at all! That schools are “purposeful” (I’m pretty sure that’s the word he used) institutions and speech should therefore be forbiddable to the same extent it could be at private schools, and that any attempt to argue otherwise is actually part of a right wing plot to destroy public schools!
Note the term “INTERIM suspensions.”
That means something in AdminSpeak — you are entitled to a hearing before you are *actually* suspended, but you will be suspended in the interim, hence the term.
Think of it as particularly dangerous perp being denied bail — the judge (or university administrator) thinks that acting now is necessary. And if someone truly is innocent (and I’d be very surprised if they don’t have some high quality digital imagery) then the person won’t be suspended (and a decent administrator will call the kid’s professors and ask them to give the kid his finals late and otherwise “fix it” so the kid doesn’t get screwed on his grades.
And if the professor is a total arsehole, then the dean can do various things to fix it.
I’d like to hear the defense of the suspended students from their media supporters. Will they deny that the students broke the rules, or will they acknowledge it (implicitly or implicitly) and say that the rulebreaking shouldn’t have been punished (or punished so severely) because…well, whatever the explanation is.
That’s the UMass OCR complaint: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24602894/palestine-legal-umass-title-vi-complaint.pdf
They did it, but it’s not fair to suspend them for it.
Margrave, in the cases of enrolled students—the only cases I care to address now—you seem to call for a burden of proof on accused students to show their innocence.
I do not think presence of students on the campus they attend is credible evidence of wrongdoing.
I do not think a power to punish students is proper if it is not based on a particularized showing of intentional wrongdoing by each accused student—with the wrongdoing defined prior to the conduct proposed for punishment.
I do not think politicized announcements from authorities who propose to punish students begin to meet the burden of impartial judgment required to justify authority to punish.
I do not think a proclamation to say, “This is an unlawful assembly,” can possibly be the basis for the party who makes the proclamation to punish individuals the proclamation targeted.
I do not think it is right or customary to create a crime to match conduct witnessed in real time, and then proceed to punish it.
I think there is a big difference between legitimate power to do what is necessary to maintain order during an emergency, and legitimate power to punish afterwards individuals targeted during the emergency. I think it is at least conceivable, however unwise, to break up a campus assembly to serve some goal to maintain order. I think it ought to be inconceivable to abet that power to maintain order with summary punishments.
A sympathetic media article would presumably say whether they think it’s all a frame-up and that the students didn’t actually do the actions indicated. This is not shifting the burden of proof, but rather, getting the best case in the students’ favor as stated by their own unofficial advocates. Will the students’ own defenders go so far as to claim innocence by the students, or will they focus on a broader social-context narrative?
It’s kind of like looking to a defense attorney’s press release, and seeing if the press release makes any mention of innocence or simply gives sociological analysis. The dog that didn’t bark, and all that.
“I do not think a proclamation to say, “This is an unlawful assembly,” can possibly be the basis for the party who makes the proclamation to punish individuals the proclamation targeted.”
Sounds like a version of the Riot Act.
Margrave, would you expect an accusation of violation of the Riot Act would be tried by the person who announced it, or by a court at which both sides were entitled to present evidence?
I’m seeing an awful lot of “I do not think”s and not a lot of actual argument. In any case, unlike a private school, a public school is bound by due process. But due process at its core is notice and a right to be heard. The level that is due depends in part on whether we’re talking about criminal prosecution or just administrative punishments by the schools. But if students are being sanctioned for camping out, sure, they’re entitled to a hearing where they can present evidence that they weren’t actually camping out.
Trespass is already illegal. Trespass laws in otherwise open places generally require that the trespasser be given a warning and then nevertheless return/refuse to leave. So, yes, a public school couldn’t just abruptly punish students without giving them a warning that they weren’t allowed to camp out. But that has nothing to do with the fact patterns here. None of the students being evicted/arrested are saying, “We had no idea there was a rule against this; nobody told us we couldn’t camp out here.” (I don’t know what a “particularized showing of intentional wrongdoing” even means in this context. How can one accidentally camp out?)
Because public institutions are bound by the 1A, they cannot selectively ban these encampments based on the viewpoint of the campers.
Same with his mirror images on the left that want to criminalize opinions running counter to ideals of racial equality.
It means evidence that the person actually was camping out as opposed to just haning around the encampment, for example.
“6. Had suspended students requested negotiations?
7. Did negotiations take place?”
I wasn’t aware there was a collective bargaining agreement in place.
There is nothing precluding IHEs from instituting such agreements, and back in the 1970s, a lot of places did. Mt Holyoke College had a policy that whatever a student did outside of the classroom was between her and the South Hadley Police (not quite what it said, but what it meant) and that got changed in the mid 1990s. UMass Amherst had a Welman (trustee) Document mandating shared governance of students with the student government, and the trustees have since essentially rescinded it.
The only thing is that (at a public institution, which UF is), Team Hamas and the White Supremacists come under the same set of rules, and do you want to have to negotiate with the latter?
What is there to negotiate? The protesters are trespassing and violating school rules. They are in no position to negotiate. They are either trespassers and/or school rule breakers. The school has no reason to negotiate with them, any more than with any of the criminals that were arrested.
There are avenues for negotiation. They mostly go through the university’s administration, similarly, there are ways to legitimately protest, and stay within the rules. There are tens of thousands of legitimately trying to get ready for finals, and maybe a hundred or two of protesters who think that they are entitled to inconvenience everyone else.
“ I want to take seriously the ongoing controversy over student assemblies on campuses. I am also trying to understand whether university administrators take those controversies seriously. At a minimum, it will require answers to that list of questions to find ”
No. You assume that the protesters have rights that they don’t have. Schools like this one are allowed to place reasonable time and place restrictions on free expression, and conduct is not considered speech, and thus not protected by the 1st Amdt. The school has a rational reason to ban camping, and rational reasons for specifying where and when protests can take place. That’s all that is needed. Students don’t get to ignore those rules, promulgated to protect the community, just because they think that is important to be heard. Everyone else has the right not to have to deal with their protests, their nonsense, when trying to get to class, etc.
So sorry Ben, but “that’s stupid and dogmatic and I hate it” isn’t a great example of a “best counterargument.” It’s not a counterargument at all. Neither is legislation to ban discussion of topics that you don’t have a good counterargument for.
When will the right come up with some substantive points and stop just whining about and banning stuff? My guess: not until the Republican party entirely implodes and gets replaced by a more principled conservative party.
For example, many people on the left, I can vouch, agree that trans women shouldn’t qualify for competitive women’s sports. If the right would make the effort to make that case on the merits, it would be a winner.
Instead they roll it into a culture war narrative about biology and the definition of women. Which, I suppose, at least counts as an argument, but a terrible one based on bigotry. Bigotry is always gonna lose the debate (I hope!) so try harder.
“For example, many people on the left, I can vouch, agree that trans women shouldn’t qualify for competitive women’s sports.”
I think those people are called TERFS.
By people called “bigots”.
Some of us, not happy about how Title 9 was interpreted, are laughing…
” If the right would make the effort to make that case on the merits, it would be a winner.
Instead they roll it into a culture war narrative about biology and the definition of women.”
So, many people on the left agree, but they don’t have any actual rational reasons? Because biology and the definition of women IS the reason that men shouldn’t be allowed in women’s sports just because they say they’re women.
Biology is why they shouldn’t be allowed, and the definition is why they’re saying so doesn’t make it so.
Super rational. Semantics and just shaking around the word biology.
You’ve been pointed to studies. You discard all of them as liberal propaganda.
Here is an olive branch from a liberal. Nope still gotta rage!
Wait, you think you’re the rational one in the room rejecting basic biology, and words having definitions? You’re the rational one? What in the world do you think “rational” means, then?
Look, if the basis for excluding men from women’s sports isn’t based on the fundamental biological differences between men and women, what in the world IS it based on? The feelz?
Nobody denies that there are physiological differences between males and females. In the sports world, the ones that matter are the ones that result from testosterone. There are proposals for defining eligibility for competitive women’s sports on that basis, sort of like weight classes.
It has nothing to do with gender, except to the extent that gender often correlates with testosterone levels.
The biology argument is just bigotry rewarmed.
When you’re making a science-y argument and the scientists aren’t with you, you know you’re in trouble. See also: flat earth, climate deniers.
‘Biology is why they shouldn’t be allowed, and the definition is why they’re saying so doesn’t make it so.’
Lots of biological anomalies in sports. Trans women don’t dominate womens’ sports. The only reason to exclude them is bigotry.
“To cherish the First Amendment rights of speech and assembly, we draw a hard line at unlawful action.”
Sounds good but is actually meaningless, Ali Khamenei could truthfully say the exact same thing about free speech in Iran. When a protestor gets arrested there, they factually violated laws about criticizing the Islamic Republic.
Greg Abbott wants free speech revised to not cover, for example, overly harsh criticism of Israel. If he got his way he could then say he’s a big supporter of free speech, unless that law gets violated. Same with his mirror images on the left that want to criminalize opinions running counter to ideals of racial equality.
Sure, probably he was just performing for his donors and voting base; he’s started to do a lot of that lately. But it still shows what the problem is with thinking “unlawful action” is the rule. Lots of stuff is unlawful that shouldn’t be, and opponents of free speech are always trying to add to the list.
Have you no faith in the left-wing legal profession?
+1
Criticizing the Islamic Republic is speech. Overly harsh criticism of Israel is speech. Opinions running counter to ideals of racial equality are speech.
Sasse went on to say, “Throwing fists, storming buildings, vandalizing property, spitting on cops and hijacking a university aren’t speech.”
Same with his mirror images on the left that want to criminalize opinions running counter to ideals of racial equality.
Literally nobody on the left wants to criminalize opinions. What the fuck, man.
“Third, universities need to recommit themselves to real education. Rather than engage a wide range of ideas with curiosity and intellectual humility, many academic disciplines have capitulated to a dogmatic view of identity politics. Students are taught to divide the world into immutable categories of oppressors and oppressed, and to make sweeping judgements accordingly. With little regard for historical complexity, personal agency or individual dignity, much of what passes for sophisticated thought is quasireligious fanaticism.”
Look, given the …. changes … that have been made to the Florida higher education system recently, that’s kind of rich.
Florida has (according to all reputable sources) a quite good public university system, and most of the changes have occured in the past few years. It will take several years to see the effects. Since I am not the arbiter of the future, I cannot tell for certain what the effects of all the changes will be. It’s possible (for example) that if it becomes known as the “conservative place to be” it might attract more highly-qualified out-of-state applicants* that are very conservative, for example.
But the reports I have seen do not indicate that the changes have been beneficial.
*A separate question is whether that should be a goal of a state university system.