The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
A Test University Officials Should Use in Enforcing Conduct Rules for Protests
Would a white supremacist group be allowed to engage in this conduct? If not, no group should be allowed.
As a VC commenter points out, universities in the past have often been tolerant of illicit behavior by student protestors, at least so long as they were protesting for lefty causes like Black Lives Matter or action on climate change. So why should David L. Bernstein and I insist that anti-encampment and anti-disruption rules be strictly enforced for anti-Israel demonstrators?
The answer is that universities have not been ideologically neutral in what behaviors they allow. Universities back in the day allowed anti-apartheid encampments to persist, despite the encampments violating school rules. Is there any reasonable possibility they would have similarly permitted pro-apartheid encampments? Universities have been loathe to even permit satirical affirmative action bake sales, even when the organizers did not violate any university rules and were engaged in First Amendment-protected activity.
So here's what David L. and I conclude: The basic question university officials should ask themselves is this: if a group of student white supremacists was engaging in this behavior, are there existing rules that could be enforced and therefore would be enforced to stop them? If the answer is yes, then the exact same level of enforcement should be brought to bear against anti-Israel (or any other) protestors. This is not because such protestors are necessarily akin to white supremacists, but because a university should not be enforcing (or not enforcing) its rules based on the ideological proclivities of the students breaking the rules.
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
Of course, there's another side of the problem...
A lot of times, the rules either don't exist, or aren't written well enough to be truly clear even to the enforcers, or the enforcers don't even know the rules are there, or the enforcers don't have a clear appreciation of their own level of power.
And that's not a mistake, necessarily, it's just that social pressure and private action and improvisation trumps actual rules in a lot of white-supremacist-in-the classroom situations.
I remember a reddit threat about a high school teacher complaining about a certain student who kept turning in virulently racist essays as his assigned homework for history class. And the high school teacher was asking "what on earth am I supposed to do here? I've tried just flunking him for bad essays, but he keeps turning them in."
And the real interesting part of the problem is that it simply never occurred to the teacher, or to most of the commentors responding to her, that her own high school or her own administrators might actually have a relevant policy on this question. Was she required to give a fair grade despite racism in essays? Was she required to send the student to detention for crossing certain very specific lines about using certain words in essays? How had her high school officially dealt with this problem in the past? It just didn't occur to her to ask those questions. She assumed that every teacher was on their own.
And yet, the answers she came up with, without invoking any official school rule, were probably about as good as anything else she could have done. Social opprobrium, Lectures on bad writing, occasional questionable uses of authority to punish in questionable ways, all the other students in the class being extremely reluctant to work with that one weird kid.
If teachers don't have rules or aren't used to checking the rules or usually solve their own problems without reference to the rules... Then that's actually going to work surprisingly well anyway... right up until the point where a critical mass of students become a problem together, and social pressure doesn't work on them anymore, because it's what is actually pressuring them towards becoming a problem.
I actually strongly suspect that very few or even zero Ivy League teacher in the last 40 years or so has had to actually deal with a white supremacist while referencing actual rules on the subject. The rules for that may very easily have been deleted from the current edition of whatever passes for a discipline manual at the university, if they even still have a discipline manual for anything other than plagiarism and sex scandals. There's just so much of the university system which operates on unwritten institutional knowledge, and that kind of knowledge disappears over time.
"A lot of times, the rules either don't exist, or aren't written well enough to be truly clear even to the enforcers"
Right back to the myth of Rule of Law. Laws are interpreted by Men. One commenter on here even bragged about laws purposely being written so vaguely that the ultimate interpretation was up to judges, because only they had the wisdom to decide all the minute details that were necessary for true justice and could not be written down.
The rule of law is a myth because no existing or possible human language is adequate to the task of writing laws with zero ambiguity. Therefore no matter what you do there will always be men interpreting the law.
There is even a point beyond which trying to add more specificity increases rather than decreases ambiguity.
With more complexity comes more possible points of failure and opportunities for the law to be self contradictory.
One of my favorite examples:
https://loweringthebar.net/2021/09/assorted-stupidity-147.html
It's just theft! Why does it need a special law? Oh, because these are crimes usually committed by outsiders and thus harder to track down. But it doesn't mention "motor lodge" nor assault; wouldn't a traveler slugging a waiter be just as dastardly as not paying the bill? What if you steal something that's not "food, fuel, services, or accommodations", such as cash from the cash register?
This law is just begging for lawyers to quibble.
The California Penal Code defines and prescribes penalties for theft via several sections. One deals with thefts of property; this section deals with theft of food and lodging. Maybe they could be combined into one section, but what's your point?
Let us be clear, some things that ordinary people might consider theft, like occupying an apartment while refusing to pay the rent, are not the crime of theft, though that particular item will generally give rise to a civil action for eviction.
That is a rapid, simple, and bright-line test to validate almost any politico-social position.
Which is why the progressives hate it.
It will never happen in practice. School administrators are overwhelmingly leftists, and will bend and even break the rules for their favored positions, until forced to do otherwise.
Lawsuits based on 'controlled tests', where far-right and far-right control-group demonstrations do exactly the same things on alternate days, in a random order, and then the university reaction is recorded and measured... could get kind of interesting. Who would have standing for damages in that situation?
There has been a workable test for decades: Rosenberg. The content of the speech can not be a factor in deciding if it is allowed or not. Actions of the speaker or hosting group can be a factor.
That's nice. Now address the real question as described in the article you apparently didn't read: how does one get universities to honor your precious Rosenberg?
Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz makes a similar argument.
Looks like a leading university is having trouble enforcing its own rules:
Princeton Fails To Enforce Its Rules on Free Speech, Antisemitism
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2025/06/04/princeton_fails_to_enforce_its_rules_free_speech_antisemitism_152870.html
"The real point is that Princeton allowed a visiting speaker, a high-ranking Jewish leader, to be shut down, and allowed masked protesters to shout antisemitic slurs at Jewish students with complete impunity."
"Loathe" is a verb, meaning "dislike" or "detest". If you're reluctant or unwilling to do something, you're "loath" to do it.