My New Book on Academic Freedom Now Available

You Can't Teach That! is in fine bookstores now

My new book, You Can't Teach That! The Battle over University Classrooms, is now available in cloth, paper, and electronic formats. You can own a copy today!

From the marketing materials:

Who controls what is taught in American universities – professors or politicians?

The answer is far from clear but suddenly urgent. Unprecedented efforts are now underway to restrict what ideas can be promoted and discussed in university classrooms. Professors at public universities have long assumed that their freedom to teach is unassailable and that there were firm constitutional protections shielding them from political interventions. Those assumptions might always have been more hopeful than sound. A battle over the control of the university classroom is now brewing, and the courts will be called upon to establish clearer guidelines as to what – if any – limits legislatures might have in dictating what is taught in public universities.

In this path-breaking book, Keith Whittington argues that the First Amendment imposes meaningful limits on how government officials can restrict the ideas discussed on university campuses. In clear and accessible prose, he illuminates the legal status of academic freedom in the United States and shows how existing constitutional doctrine can be deployed to protect unbridled free inquiry.

I'm delighted to have received kind words on the advance manuscript from Floyd Abrams and Jonathan Rauch.

The book reviews the history and principles of the academic freedom to teach in American universities and explains the value and limits of such a freedom to teach. It also explores how such principles of academic freedom might fit into First Amendment doctrine and the implications for the recent wave of state legislation represented most notably by Florida's Stop WOKE Act. If you are interested in free speech, higher education, or the First Amendment, I hope you will give it a read.

I'd also be delighted to discuss such issues in public, whether virtually or in person, as scheduling permits.

Comments

[AmosArch]

If I said black people are criminals because of they're black in a public school I'd get in trouble. But its suddenly a horrific crime to apply the same standard to criticism of white people?

[Zarniwoop]

If I said black people are criminals because of they’re black in a public school I’d get in trouble.

You might be "in trouble", but you wouldn't be "a criminal". And that's kind of an important difference.

But its suddenly a horrific crime to apply the same standard to criticism of white people?

No, for values of "horrific crime" that are actually criminal and not your inane pearl-clutching hysteria.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Who are "white people?"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Well, today is (another) White Grievance Day at the Volokh Conspiracy!

[santamonica811]

"If I said black people are criminals because of they’re black in a public school I’d get in trouble."

Well, I assume that black people are black in a school. And, they're black in a bowling alley. And black in their church, and in their bedrooms, and when they reach the pearly gates.

I don't play favorites; so I also assume that white people are white--wherever they go/are.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Na na na na, na na...can't teach this

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Who controls what is taught in American [public] universities – professors or politicians?"

How about the public?

I can imagine a poetry teacher having an epiphany and deciding that it's more important for students to learn economics than poetry. I can't imagine anyone thinking that a poetry teacher has any right, let alone a constitutionally protected right, to teach economics instead of poetry in his poetry class.

Allowing teachers leeway to speak their mind can be an important consideration, but it's a consideration that needs to be balanced against other considerations to deliver whatever kind of education the public wants its universities to deliver.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And a couple questions for people who believe that professors have a first amendment right to teach what they want, or what they think students should learn:

1. If a professor is hired to teach poetry, and decides that it's more valuable for students to learn economics than poetry, should he teach economics in his poetry class, or continue to teach poetry?

2. If a professor is hired to teach math, and decides that he'd prefer to teach Shakespeare in his math class, should he teach Shakespeare, or continue to teach math?

[CJColucci]

Is there anyone here who actually thinks that professors have a first amendment right to teach whatever they want? Not that I'm aware of. And there is actual law to the effect that they have to teach the subject matter they are hired to teach. A math teacher has to teach math, a poetry teacher has to teach poetry, and a history teacher has to teach history.
Where the rub comes is when lay legislators dig down into the details of what the professionals teach within their subject matter. For example, can a state require that American history teachers teach falsehoods, or avoid historically important facts that might be disturbing? Can English teachers be compelled to teach anti-Stratfordian theory? Or to avoid any mention of it? Or, in a course where it would otherwise be relevant, not teach about Shakespeare at all? Must math teachers adhere to the biblical definition of pi?

[TwelveInchPianist]

If the fist amendment protects professor's speech, why wouldn't a poetry teacher have the right to teach economics? The first amendment protects individual rights, and publicly employed professional need to have a duty to act in the public interest, as determined by the public's representatives.

And the flip side of your question, "For example, can a state require that American history teachers teach falsehoods..." is, do American history teachers have a constitutional right to teach falsehoods? I'm not sure how you justify that.

"Can English teachers be compelled to teach anti-Stratfordian theory? Or to avoid any mention of it? Or, in a course where it would otherwise be relevant, not teach about Shakespeare at all?"

If the people want to use their tax dollars to pay people to teach about anti-Statfordian theory, or about Shakespeare, why would the first amendment prevent that?

"Must math teachers adhere to the biblical definition of pi?"

Do math teachers have a constitutional right to adhere to the biblical definition of pi (if you believe that there is one.)? Why would they?