The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
A Frightening View of Free Speech and Academic Freedom at Harvard
A Harvard Dean suggests universities can and should limit controversial speech.
Professor Lawrence Bobo, Dean of Social Science and the W. E. B. Du Bois Professor of the Social Sciences at Harvard University, has an article in the Harvard Crimson on the proper limits of faculty speech that has to be read to be believed.
He writes:
Is it outside the bounds of acceptable professional conduct for a faculty member to excoriate University leadership, faculty, staff, or students with the intent to arouse external intervention into University business? And does the broad publication of such views cross a line into sanctionable violations of professional conduct?
Yes it is and yes it does.
Vigorous debate is to be expected and encouraged at any University interested in promoting freedom of expression. But here is the rub: As the events of the past year evidence, sharply critical speech from faculty, prominent ones especially, can attract outside attention that directly impedes the University's function.
A faculty member's right to free speech does not amount to a blank check to engage in behaviors that plainly incite external actors — be it the media, alumni, donors, federal agencies, or the government — to intervene in Harvard's affairs. Along with freedom of expression and the protection of tenure comes a responsibility to exercise good professional judgment and to refrain from conscious action that would seriously harm the University and its independence.
In support of this position, he even notes "you can't escape sanction for shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater."
Conor Friedersdorf has an appropriate response to Dean Bobo's argument, tweeting: "Harvard Dean Lawrence D. Bobo's op-ed has incited me, an external actor, to publicly lament the subset of Harvard leaders who neither understand nor support free speech. By his logic, I guess he needs to be sanctioned."
https://x.com/conor64/status/1802280647563661516
One suggestion the article makes which is worth some consideration is that faculty should be sanctioned for encouraging students to engage in civil disobedience that violates university policies and puts the students at risk of sanction. I would agree that faculty who encourage that students put themselves at risk of punishment while they sit on the sidelines themselves are cowardly, but I disagree that encouraging others to engage in civil disobedience is itself civil disobedience that can or should be sanctioned.
Regrettably, this is not the first time I have heard university administrators suggest that speech by faculty or other members of the university community should be curtailed if it might generate controversy, provoke a response, or otherwise reflect poorly on the university. (I can also say, from personal experience, that if my university had ever adopted such a position, I would have been among those in the crosshairs.) That there are university administrators -- let alone prominent professors such as Dean Bobo -- who do not recognize the profound threat such a position poses to academic freedom and the truth-seeking function of a university is both sobering and depressing.
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
I completely agree with Mr. Friedersdorf’s tweet. Dean Bobo’s comments tend to arouse me, an external actor, to want to intervene in Harvard’s affairs. They also make me think considerably less of Harvard and its leadership.
Regarding Professor Adler’s point about inciting students to break school rules, I think the principles of crime facilitating speech would apply. While abstract advocacy of civil disobedience is protected, encouraging specific students to engage in specific acts of rule-breaking would be analogous to solicitation to commit a crime and would not be protected. The distinction has been around for quite a while, so it’s not an unworkable distinction.
"Regarding Professor Adler’s point about inciting students to break school rules, I think the principles of crime facilitating speech would apply."
EXACTLY!
A professor saying "go kill those niggers" would be facing criminal charges and NOT protected by academic freedom.
That professor also would be auditioning for a position as a Volokh Conspirator.
Why, are you retiring and opening a vacancy?
Says the commie who regrets being too young to have been able to torture Solzhenitsyn.
I am a godless commie.
The Volokh Conspirators and their conservative fans are disaffected, whining bigots doomed to failure in the modern American culture war.
Everybody has problems.
These disaffected, whining Prog bigots clutching their certainty that they are the standard bearers for the right side of history are a tedious lot.
Kirkland turns into ever more of a crank.
As some pointed out on Twitter, many of the complaints are that these speakers are inciting alumni and donors to throw their weight around. But alumni and donors are not external. (Alumni explicitly play a formal role in governance.)
And David, do not underestimate the amount of taxpayer money that is going to subsidize the largess of Harvard. If you are taking the taxpayer’s money, the taxpayer’s get a say in what you do with it.
Government grants do not come with secret political strings to bind private schools, actually.
No, they come with explicit, out in the open, nudge nudge wink wink strings attached.
I presume you're intimating something more sinister than the federal research terms and conditions?
More like dear colleagues. Anyway, just more punching the other side.
Let us all facetiously pretend our side is as pure as the snow in 10,000 BC.
Let’s require evidence for allegations we make more like.
Has Gaslight0 ever heard of the US Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights?!?
Or ever heard of Grove City and Hillsdale Colleges?
If you want to take Federal money, you get to deal with the representatives of the taxpayers and have to meet their expectations.
Yeah, I deal with Title VI stuff in my office.
But you're not talking about abiding by current federal laws, Ed.
Or at least not current interpretations of such laws.
To be eligible for federal funding (grants or otherwise), there are all sorts of strings (perhaps not so secret) applied. These strings are a big part of the reason that Hillsdale rejects all state and federal funding. These strings change with administrations as well in the form of "Dear Colleague Letters" (such as the standard for adjudicating conduct hearings). From reporting on drug use to reporting demographic data to how websites are designed - there are a huge number of compliance standards one must meet to accept federal funding. Whether those strings are good or bad is a different question, but there are definitely strings.
Indeed, but I don't think that's what Ed is talking about.
Maybe I'm overreading 'the taxpayer’s get a say in what you do with it' but I don't think he was talking about current laws. Well, not current laws as anyone but Ed thinks about them.
You voluntarily associate (and associate your employer) with a blog that publishes a daily stream of multifaceted bigotry — vile racial slurs (the tone is set at the top in that regard at the Volokh Conspiracy, as you well know), antisemitism, misogyny, Islamophobia, gay-bashing (especially superstitious right-wing gay-bashing), transphobia (regarding which this blog exhibits a bizarre fetish), other racism, xenophobia. More important, you never address the bigotry exhibited in the posts and comments at this right-wing blog. Not a fucking word. For many years. Why?
(None of your colleagues addresses that point, either. It’s right up there with things that would displease Leonard Leo on the list of “issues the Volokh Conspirators are too timid to touch.”)
This also is a blog whose conservative operators and right-wing fans have been on a spree lately concerning disapproval of (and advocacy of punishment for) students who express opposition to Israel’s war crimes (in Gaza and the West Bank) and general superstition-driven, violent, bigoted right-wing belligerence.
The Volokh Conspiracy also has a record of imposing viewpoint-driven censorship. Did you ever muster the courage (or interest in free expression) sufficient to comment about that? (Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland says "hi," Prof. Adler. Anything you would like me to pass along from you?)
Other than that, though, great post!
What a bunch of sniveling, character-deprived cowards.
What's wrong, Conspirators -- Trump got your tongue? Afraid Leonard Leo won't bribe a downscale school to hire you if necessary?
Or are you just another batch of right-wing bigots?
#TiresomeAntiSemiticTroll
What's the matter, run out of synagogues to throw rocks at?
disapproval of (and advocacy of punishment for) students who express opposition to Israel’s war crimes
Expressing disapproval is part of free speech. Yes, I know people like you think it's only for you and yours, but tough.
Punishment is for criminal activities. Students don't get a pass from punishment for crime because they express ideas you like. And in this case, crimes include property damages, physical assault, harassment, and hate crimes.
As for Israeli "war crimes" that's a vile anti-semitic lie perpetrated by the likes of you. Let's wait for the ICJ -- staffed by such bastions of human rights like Russia, China, Sudan -- to rule before you come out with your drivel.
"ICJ — staffed by such bastions of human rights like Russia, China, Sudan"
The president of the "court" is from Lebanon, a country legally at war with Israel!
The other two things to remember is that (a) homemade explosives tend to be quite unstable -- much of the science and technology in explosives (including military ones) involves not just having stuff that goes "bang" but doesn't go "bang" until you want it to.
And (b) the reason why you are not supposed to store munitions in hospitals, schools, & religious buildings (beyond making the buildings legitimate military targets) is because the supersonic shock wave of a nearby explosion will often set off even the high quality military stuff.
So you store a lot of unstable stuff where you shouldn't, whose fault is it when it goes "bang"?
This all assumes their business model doesn't include getting their own citizens killed deliberately, to get their Israeli opposition cowed down by useful idiots in the west.
Naww...nobody is that evil. Except maybe people who cut babies from wombs, or openly admit the business model on a BBC interview.
The best a western useful idiot can claim is ok, they do this deliberately. Still, we should take it easy.
But even that assumes they think of "we" as in a democracy there defending itself, and not "we" as in "Good luck, our friends Hamas!"
Which brings us back full circle to the shit at some Universities.
Hamas is a bunch of theocratic, repressive, violent, war-crimey assholes.
The Netanyahu government is a bunch of theocratic, repressive, violent, war-crimey assholes.
Decent people root against both.
So, after the Holocaust, we have one forum for actually prosecuting crimes against humanity, but it's so inconvenient when the war crimes are by the US and it's allie.
One suggestion the article makes which is worth some consideration is that faculty should be sanctioned for encouraging students to engage in civil disobedience that violates university policies and puts the students at risk of sanction. I would agree that faculty who encourage that students put themselves at risk of punishment while they sit on the sidelines themselves are cowardly, but I disagree that encouraging others to engage in civil disobedience is itself civil disobedience that can or should be sanctioned.
This makes no sense. If a professor encourages students to break university rules, or engage in criminal activity, that should be grounds for termination.
"Hey kids, go take over a building and disrupt the teaching mission of a school."
"Hey kids, set up a No Jew area so the Kikes, err, I mean Zionists, can't pass."
"Hey kids, here is a list of university board members, go harass them."
Why you think academic freedom protects any of these is a mystery.
Incitement to imminent unlawful action, like the examples Bored Lawyer mentions--assuming they are heard by people in a position to act on them--is not protected by the principles of free speech. Abstract statements like "When tyranny is the law, revolution is the order" or "Civil disobedience is the proper response to Columbia's financial and academic ties to Israel" are protected.
“Civil disobedience is the proper response to Columbia’s financial and academic ties to Israel”
We are talking about academic freedom, not the First Amendment. And, no, a professor who advocates civil disobedience, which means disruption of the university, should not be protected by "academic freedom" for making such a statement.
As a T14 graduate, I'm perfectly familiar with the difference between academic freedom and the First Amendment. However, I consider the principles of academic free speech to be coextensive with, or possibly broader than, the protections of the First Amendment.
Would academic freedom give one the right to not teach at all, or teach a poetry class when one, or give a lecture on why you should vote for Trump instead of teaching geology, or give weekly Christian sermons instead of teaching engineering?
Academic freedom principles serve an entirely different purpose than first amendment rights and have different constraints.
First amendment rights are individual rights that individuals rightly use to pursue individual goals. Academic freedom principles serve institutional goals and should be limited to where they serve instructional goals.
No, academic freedom involved the right of a Stanford economics professor to demonstrate how Leland Stanford had exploited Chinese labor in building his railroad.
‘Academic freedom’
Oh, we’re finding out that ‘academic freedom’ means not teaching whatever conservatives disapprove of.'
‘Academic freedom principles serve institutional goals’
Other way round.
No, what a silly idea. Academic freedom does not encompass the right not to do your job. So, for instance, if someone in the fundraising office were urging prospective donors not to donate, they could and probably would be fired. The same rule would apply to a military recruiter urging people not to enlist, or a revenue agent who declined to collect taxes as a protest against the use of tax dollars.
No doubt, creative lawyers can postulate some interesting borderline cases, but TwelveInchPianist has not done so.
"No, what a silly idea. Academic freedom does not encompass the right not to do your job."
So it's not coextensive with, or possibly broader than, the protections of the First Amendment.
Good to know.
"So, for instance, if someone in the fundraising office were urging prospective donors not to donate, they could and probably would be fired. The same rule would apply to a military recruiter urging people not to enlist, or a revenue agent who declined to collect taxes as a protest against the use of tax dollars."
Um, none of your examples involve academic freedom.
The question is whether encouraging students to disrupt the school constitutes "academic freedom." Even if motivated by some political position.
And the answer is: No.
When someone says T14, you know it was number 14, not one of the better schools.
In The Firm, Tom Cruise is being interviewed after graduating law school, and says he was top 5 in his class. The interviewer says "top 5%, good."
He immediately replies top 5, not top 5%. I thought obviously he means #5, or else he'd have said top 4, 3, urk 2, or number one.
Also, top 5% may be better than top 5, at a smaller school that graduated fewer than 100 each year, anyway.
Or am I thinking of Keenau Reeves in Devil's Advocate?
Academic freedom is not "academic free speech". The principles of academic freedom are laid out in the AAUP's "Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure."
Academic freedom is primarily concerned with the formal research and teaching duties of a faculty member. The faculty is under no obligation to act in the best interest of the institution when performing those duties. Academic freedom is not a blank check to do whatever you want in the classroom, though. They are restricted to discussing the subject they have been assigned to teach. An instructor assigned to teach an astronomy course who spends the semester teaching classical guitar should be sanctioned, and this would be perfectly consistent with academic freedom. Furthermore, instructors who insert controversial material into a course unrelated to the subject matter (e.g., an astronomy professor who spends class time talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict) could also be sanctioned.
The principles of academic freedom also protect the freedom of faculty members to engage in debate as citizens (i.e., unrelated to their scholarly and instructional duties). However, the restrictions placed on such a speaker go much further than the First Amendment would generally allow.
Academic freedom does not protect a faculty member's speech outside of the scope of their instructional and research responsibilities and does not protect an academic's speech that is inaccurate, disrepsectful, unrestrained, or not clearly dissociated from the university. There may be First Amendment (or other state laws) that protect such speech from employer sanction, but it isn't academic freedom.
Now one may want to make the case that academic freedom should go further than where the AAUP goes, and indeed some universities may commit to more expansive protection of expression by members of the faculty (I think they should!), but academic freedom is far more constrained. It would not generally protect a faculty member from sanction for advising students to engage in civil disobedience.
Termination may be too harsh as a rule but some sort of sanction for encouraging violation of university rules seems to be what sanction is for. Now whether the rule, the violation or the sanction were good things are open for broader debate on a case by case basis.
How ironic that this totalitarian scum is the WEB Du Bois chair holder....
And yes, you can and should suffer the ramifications of shouting fire in a theater....but nobody should have the authority or ability to stop you before the utterance. Especially a Harvard jackass.
FALSELY!
It's a problematic argument even without the falsely, due to both it's reductionism and the history of it's actual deployment.
It's evocative, but pro's steer well away.
The ramifications of truly shouting fire in a theater is likely a medal from the city for saving the six people that were in it.
AGAIN, "fire in a crowded theater" was a lot different a century ago with nitrocellulose film, no sprinklers, and no fire alarms.
Sort of like standing on an active runway versus a ramp.
He has learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
"the W. E. B. Du Bois Professor of the Social Sciences . . . "
Stopped reading.
Stopped caring a single bit about Harvard.
I stopped at the "social science" oxymoron. Not only does dressing it up under false colors show it is nothing of substance, it also shows their contempt for real science.
Is social science not real because you think it's not sufficiently predictive? Do you also come at zoology and entymology and systematic biology etc?
Also, ask advertising folks what they think about the predictive utility of social science some time.
It's gatekeeping ignoramuses like you who show the real contempt for science.
It's ignoramuses like you who are ignorant of the massive replicability problem of "social science".
Replicability only applies to predictive science. Plenty of social science is descriptive (lots of anthropology and sociology for instance)
So I ask again, do you indeed intend to declare entomology and the like not real science.
But as to replicability, is medical science not science? And of course current issues ignore that social science has been a thing since before our Republic was a thing.
"Replicability only applies to predictive science."
No it doesn't. What the hell are you talking about?
Think for a moment what being unable to reproduce a descriptive finding means about the previous result versus a predictive one.
In Sarc’s definition the interpretive dance of shaman counts as science.
Documenting a shaman's dance is baseline ethnography, for sure.
Whoosh goes the point. Leftist twats like you push this as "ways of knowing" and set them alongside modern medicine as treatment, but grade A deflection.
You didn't say medicine, you said science.
Don't get angry at me because you made a stupid post.
Social science is not science in the same sense that physics is science. Either is history, literary criticism, or engineering. That doesn't mean that medicine, sociology, anthropology, etc... aren't valuable fields of inquiry. Science is unique due to its predictive powers and is thus a source of positive knowledge. As such it is normative in ways that other fields are not. Of course, these other fields make use of science, but generally they cannot tell you what is possible or not in a way that science can. They can tell you what is(was) and organize observations, and again that has value, but the status of the knowledge is different in kind from what one gains from say physics.
HIstory is a humanity, the difference between humanities and the social sciences is that the latter use statistics.
'Must be predictive' is not the usual definition of science. And it's also still pretty muddy. Is economics predictive? Is psychology? Depends on the particular claim you're examining.
I came into the DoD as a physicist with that view of science myself. So I do have the zeal of the converted.
But I also know that predictive science doesn't tell you what's possible. Only what's supported so far.
One suggestion the article [should make] which is worth some consideration is taxing the endowments so we don't have to care about Harvard.
Education-disdaining right-wingers who want to tax university endowments but not churches -- because they dislike legitimate education, favor nonsense-based education, and are gullible enough to believe that childish fairy tales are true -- are among my favorite culture war casualties.
Huh. I thought you had stepped down so your betters could have a shot at your role. Dang.
I do not expect to be going anywhere. You might have been thinking of former professor Volokh.
Yup. There's no reason for Ivy league schools to be on welfare. Education subsidies could be better spent.
So, let me get this straight. It's A-OK for students / faculty to cheer mass-murder of Israelis and to call for genocide of all Israelis (in some cases, all Jews worldwide). But denouncing such students / faculty (or the administration's (very out-of-character) quiescence) is out of bounds!
Prof. Lawrence Bobo is a real piece of work!
Free speech is only for people who agree with the professor.
I'm not so sure this issue is as clear as Adler makes it out to be.
Assuming Harvard wants to hold itself to First Amendment standards, I think this is analogous to the government suppressing employee speech where speech is afforded lesser protection.
It seems pretty clear that the faculty is speaking on a matter of public concern. But, can Harvard successfully argue encouraging civil disobedience (assuming the faculty isn't inciting imminent lawless conduct, which would never be protected speech) damages Harvard's operation more than the value of the speech (Pickering balancing test). Does the university environment (i.e., academic freedom) make a difference in the analysis. Likewise for using an external platform that invites external pressure.
Wow, Derrick Bell and Cornel West have criticized Harvard plenty. I wonder how Dean Bobo feels about their actions.
Hypothetical racial hypocricy says more about the hypothesizer than anything else.
Dafuq? It's not hypothetical. Those are real professors with real statements that the dean has not seen fit to send out a statement for.
I wonder is not about real facts chief.
What are you claiming is hypothetical, sarcastro?
‘ I wonder how Dean Bobo feels about their actions’ assumes an answer to an hypothetical and you should not pretend otherwise.
This guy screwed up just fine on his own no need to speculate about other stuff.
Bobo's perception of "Harvard's affairs" is far too narrow. He probably does not think the Supreme Court had any business butting in to Harvard's admission policies, no matter how racially discriminatory they were. If Harvard really is an island that deserves full autonomy, it should agree to self-fund like Hillsdale. I am not holding my breath.
Reminiscent of the masked BLM/Antifa “protestors” who blocked anyone with a cam from documenting the rioting, looting and burning, so the cooperative liberal media could maintain their “peaceful protest” narrative. Must have been those White Supremacists who burned down city blocks?
Since most of the rioters were progressive leftists, yes they were.
> "excoriate University leadership, faculty, staff, or students with the intent to arouse external intervention into University business?"
By this logic, any Harvard-affiliated person who supported SFFA in seeking to change Harvard's admissions criteria was engaged in sanctionable conduct. And the same would be true for anyone filing a Title IX complaint. It would appear that the Dean either is utterly ignorant of free speech concepts, or he has a different, perhaps hyper-focused sensitivity that only applies to some kinds of criticism. I wonder which it is?
Since the author is speaking about Harvard, a private institution, that university has the right to limit or encourage any speech they wish on campus (aka their property) since no one has the 'right' to speak on that property (not students, not faculty, not even administrators). One may only speak on that property if one is granted *permission* to do so from its owners.
The same is true regarding the speech of "faculty". As a private institution, Harvard has the right to make any contractual agreements it deems fit regarding what its employees may say in regard to the institution. And if a prospective employee doesn't like that contract, he is free to walk away.
Put simply, there is no issue of "free speech" here. Instead, there are issues of property rights, free association rights, and free trade rights (amongst others).
You’re confusing the First Amendment “right” of free speech, with the academic and liberal “principle” of free speech. A person or group can purposefully embrace free speech as a central precept without regard to whether it is a legal “right” vis-a-vis a government actor. See, e.g., the Chicago Principles.
“Of course, the ideas of different members of the University community will often and quite naturally conflict. But it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Although the University greatly values civility, and although all members of the University community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.”
Breach of contract.
Harvard doesn't have to contractually promise free speech, but it does so and hence is legally liable to honor said contract. Remember that the college catalog is a contract.