Campus Protests and Free Expression

Carrie Robinson, Aaron Terr
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

Excerpt: When the government hosts its own programming, it can pick and choose which speakers it wants to feature. But when it opens space such as library meeting rooms for the public to hold their own speaking events, the First Amendment applies. And the First Amendment restrains authorities from discriminating against speakers based on their views or forcing them to use the government’s preferred vocabulary.

That’s why FIRE’s First Amendment alarm bells were ringing when a California public library manager abruptly shut down an event focused on women and girls in sports because the event’s speakers said “male,” “men,” and “biological men” when referring to transgender women.

Kathryn Palmer
Inside Higher Ed

Excerpt: Law schools may soon be required to adopt written free speech policies under a proposal being considered by the American Bar Association.

The potential changes come after, but are not a direct consequence of, multiple high-profile incidents of student disruptions of speakers at law schools prompted widespread debates about free speech, academic freedom and students’ right to protest.

Joe Killian
NC Newsline

Excerpt: The UNC System has issued directives to its 17 campuses on how to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s June decision on the role of race in admissions. Over five pages, it lays out specific policies for universities and warns against actions and policies not explicitly prohibited by the Supreme Court decision, due to “the high cost of litigation” for those who might sue.

As NC Newsline has reported, legal scholars and critics of the decision have warned threats of lawsuits by conservative activists may intimidate universities into going beyond what is required by the ruling. The UNC System’s directives appear to substantiate those fears.

J.D. Tuccille
Reason Magazine

Excerpt: Have we hit the high-water mark of social-justice loyalty pledges? The signs are encouraging for those of us who prefer to move through life without declaring fealty to political ideologies. Mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion statements (DEI), which have become increasingly de rigueur political litmus tests for hiring at academic institutions, suffered a significant setback last week when Arizona's public universities unceremoniously dumped their use going forward.

Press Release
Cornell Free Speech Alliance

Today, the Cornell Free Speech Alliance, a nonprofit and nonpartisan coalition of Cornell alumni, faculty, and students, sent a report featuring 20 policy recommendations to Cornell University leaders intended to restore open inquiry and academic freedom on campus. The recommendations are the culmination of nearly two years of research and dialogue that began in response to an increasingly degraded free speech environment at the University. The transmittal of the recommendations coincides with the beginning of Cornell’s free expression themed 2023-2024 academic year, which many consider to be an empty and insincere attempt by university leaders to deflect pressure over free speech concerns.

Stephen McGuire, American Council of Trustees and Alumni
Wall Street Journal

Excerpt: When the Supreme Court struck down the University of North Carolina’s affirmative-action program in June, the trustees of its flagship Chapel Hill campus were quick to respond. Embracing the letter and spirit of the law, the board passed a nondiscrimination resolution in July that applies not only to admissions but to hiring and contracting as well. The resolution goes beyond race to prohibit discrimination based on “race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, disability, genetic information, or veteran status.” . . .
Meanwhile, Harvard, UNC’s co-litigant, has looked for ways to keep discriminating, and so have many other institutions. They focus on one sentence of the court’s ruling: “Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it thr
ough discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”