Trustee Responsibility Free Speech

Ethan Bueno de Mesquita
Boston Review

Excerpt: While intolerance is a matter of culture, policy and administrative actions play a role in creating the culture. When university leaders who enthusiastically made statements about Black Lives Matter, knowing that such statements would likely discourage free expression of dissenting views on related issues, later assert a deep commitment to free expression concerning genocide of the Jews, they appear to be cynically picking and choosing their principles to suit short-run exigencies.

In this sense, university leaders are lying in a bed of their own making. I suspect at this point many wish they could give something like my First Amendment answer but cannot without facing charges of hypocrisy. One important question, then, is how they might get from here to there.

John Tomasi
Inside Higher Ed

Excerpt: “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment, yes or no?” Instead of rising to the moment at a high-profile congressional hearing, Harvard president Claudine Gay ducked into a nearby legal hedge and crouched. The Economist put it kindly: “Sometimes you get the technicalities right but still flunk the test.” What test was flunked? The test of presidential leadership.

Jordan Howell
Foundation for Individual Rights in Expression

Excerpt: Since the October 7 Hamas terror attacks in Israel and the subsequent invasion of Gaza, college campuses across the United States have experienced almost daily protests and demonstrations by students and faculty of all political stripes. Some are raising their voices in support of Israelis; others, in support of Palestinians.

That being said, FIRE has been troubled to see some college leaders react to protected speech and peaceful protests with calls to prohibit speech they view as inflammatory or even to ban student groups because of their viewpoints. The use of one phrase in particular — “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” — is so hotly contested that some have called for banning its utterance entirely.

Eugene Volokh
The Volokh Conspiracy, Reason Magazine

Excerpt: A very interesting new article, by Profs. James L. Gibson (Wash. U.) and Joseph L. Sutherland (Emory). What struck me is the magnitude of the felt lack of freedom among the three most moderate segments, even setting aside the different reactions on the extremes:

And here's an excerpt from the introduction to the article: “While some might understand these data to indicate that those with ‘bad’ views are no longer free to express themselves, which may be a good thing, we have no means of discerning whether the speech lost is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ speech. Owing to the benefits of deliberations among citizens for democratic politics, most democratic theorists would regard these results as too important to ignore…”

Jessie Appleby and Graham Piro
Foundation for Individual Rights in Expression

Excerpt: Free speech fallout continues from the disastrous congressional testimony on campus anti-Semitism given earlier this month by the presidents of Penn, MIT, and Harvard. Now, at least three other elite universities have announced that calls for genocide would violate their policies. Last week, FIRE wrote Stanford University, Columbia University, and Yale University, urging them to forgo revising their policies to punish speech that allegedly calls for genocide, because such an overbroad rule risks prohibiting protected speech including hyperbole, satire, or ambiguous language.

Keith E. Whittington
Volokh Conspiracy, Reason Magazine

Excerpt: On December 12, I participated in a timely panel discussion at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study on "Free Speech, Political Speech, and Hate Speech on Campus." The panel included Jeannie Suk Gersen, Nadine Strossen, and Erica Chenoweth, and was moderated by Tomiko Brown-Nagin.