Thank you for keeping the liberty of free speech seperate from the acts of civil disobedience. Each has it's place and it's consequences. There is both a time to speak up and a time to listen, a time to stand up and a time to walk away. Allowing for disagreeable (non-violent) views to be expressed in a civil society and especially in an academic forum is critical if we are to understand each other and the complex issues we face. Grace and Peace to you.
Thoughtful post. One of the most disappointing aspects of this debacle on campus is the lack of "more speech" to combat the hate speech. A full-throated rebuttal of these hateful, ignorant brats on campus (students and professors, as well as outside agitators) would assure the rest of the community that there is capable leadership.
How about university administrations simply saying antisemitism on campus is unacceptable, even under the convenient guise of anti-Zionism, and they stand with Jewish students under siege? Their failure to do so, while promulgating land acknowledgments and pronouns, is why you get reasonable people cheering on Governor Abbott's overreach.
I am a veteran college professor (forced to use a pseudonym by the Thought Police) who has gradually coming around to the viewpoint that US (and to a lesser extent European) academia has become not just a self-parody but actively harmful to society, and needs to be torn down wholesale and rebuilt from the ground up.
The rebuilt academia of my dreams would not only be restricted to at most the top 20% of the bell curve (top 10% would be still more to my liking), but the students would be too busy studying and working on lab assignments to engage in agitation. The empire-building administrative class (which has executed a hostile takeover on academia) would be entirely eliminated and replaced by a rota system of the faculty, with just some clerical support staff. Oh, and DEI and all its works should die in a fire.
I appreciate you're trying to show your even-handedness. But I'm afraid you are merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
One gray area I want cleared up is, simply, noise. There's some point of volume, persistence, and kind that turns "speech" into something stress- and pain- inducing to others. I'm trying hard to not call it violence, but maybe it's generalized harassment? I'm thinking of John McWhorter's description of constant drumming and chanting that he could hear in his classroom at Columbia.
I appreciate what you are doing, especially pointing out the fact that civil disobedience, which I would limit to breaking laws and not just being annoying, is different from 1st Amendment-protected speech. I was a war tax resister in the day, and I assumed that it was probable that I would end up being arrested, tried, and sent to prison. Planned for such an outcome. (Didn't happen, but IRS agents showed up at my apartment in Milwaukee when I was not home; I had warned my roommates, so they knew to be polite...and clueless. They told me the agents were very polite and appeared to be tired and not very enthusiastic about their job. They left a card and never came back.)
One issue that came up frequently in the civil rights and Vietnam Was discords of 1960s and 1970s were concerns regarding outside agitators. I witnessed first hand different groups with their own agendas bussing people to other people's demonstrations, and strangers showing up at meetings, taking notes and photos, never to be seen again.
How would you suggest students deal with non-students joining their protests? Too often causes attract people who are angry and hateful with no real attachment to the issue at hand. And at worst, their personal agenda is one of destruction for its own sake.
Thank you. I'm the mom of a UT Austin student and I was appalled to see the images coming out of campus yesterday. Most disgusting in its irony was a photo of a phalanx of state troopers in riot gear (no protestors anywhere nearby!) waiting to begin their march/assault on students next to a poster reading "What starts here changes the world. It starts with you and what you do each day. Thank you for making it your Texas. Thank you for making it our Texas." If you can't join 'em, beat 'em, I guess.
I appreciate your principled defense of civil liberties and agree with almost all you have to say here. I think you're off base on what happened at the University of Texas, however. Put aside Abbott's frivolous diktats against what he considers "hate speech." When these groups announced they were going to "take back" the university, they were following a playbook we've seen repeatedly since the Summer of Floyd: show up, erect tents, assert control of an area, and use it as a platform to harass others and interfere with the operations of the institution. The authorities were right to nip it in the bud with a show of force, particularly at finals time on a university. They don't have to close their eyes to this group's m.o. If the protestors want permission for a demonstration limited in time and scope at the university, I would be more sympathetic, but the playbook is for continuous disruption. It should be noted that if they want to express their political opinions, the spacious grounds of the State Capitol are 10 blocks from UT.
Good post. My only pushback is that given your #1, and zero expectation that the hypocrisy will disappear anytime soon, it's self-destructive and unrealistic - from a practical power/game theoretic perspective - for people to not wield the same tools against those canceling them 2, 3, 4+ years back. If this is a prisoner's dilemma, the cooperative outcome's not happening.
Can you clarify why shouting or emailing "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" at the general student population, and more specifically at Jewish/Israeli students, can't constitute harassment? Given the first part of the slogan specifically, how it's typically paired with pictures of Israel being erased, etc.
Free speech without an educated citizenry leads to totalitarianism, because fascism appeals more to base tribal instincts. The phone social media culture has led to massive ignorance of history, philosophy, politics, economics and governance and has produced cretins. I'd like to think that previous student protests were composed of more informed students, because it happened before social media. I'd like to believe that when I was protesting apartheid in South Africa, I and my fellow students at the MIT shanty town were better informed than the students protesting Israel today, but I'm not sure it's true. What about the students protesting for Nazism (and against communism and the status quo) in the Weimar republic? What about the students protesting for the cultural revolution in pre-Maoist China?
Free speech has never, ever allowed for the outward call for genocide to be committed.
From River to Sea, is a call to eradicate the Jewish people. Nothing more, nothing less.
You and other Hamas supporters can dance around it all you want.
And in watching the news this week, far too many of the youth at these events are all riled up, but don't know the most basic reason why they were at the protests. They are Useful Idiots.
From my perspective, these "free speech " events look exactly like Kristallnacht in 1938.
You can couch your opinion in the First Amendment, but I keep hearing a faint Heil Hitler chanted over and over again in the background of your remarks.
"At the same Yale protest, protesters formed a human chain to block students’ movement." That's a ploy right out of the Reagan/Bush era when anti-abortion protesters used to block women from entering abortion clinics (which Clinton put a stop to).
The very real danger is that the far left, which is coming to resemble the far right more and more each day and has adopted violence as political expression, is going to join with them and *together* they will end democracy.
I'm not sure if you are aware that the "from the river to the sea chant" means "kill all Israelis". Many of the chanters may not know this either. As such, it is not protected by the first amendment, is it? Or maybe it is because it is not advocating for genociding americans but a foreign people?
What is missing from FIRE's recommendation is the need for "counter-speech" especially at educational institutions. One side of a controversial subject should never have an opportunity to monopolize free speech. Presentation of controversial subjects DEMANDS the presence of counter-speech. Justice Brandies famously said in Whitney v California:
"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
99% of "free speech" in America occurs in forums where the is no opportunity for the counter-speech that can expose falsehoods and fallacies and avert evil by the process of education
National Constitution Center is charged with the mission of educating Americans about the Constitution on a non-partisan basis. Each program about a current case and most programs always includes a real expert from both the liberal and conservative (Federalist Society) perspective. Most programs begin with the host and audience reciting the above non-partisan mission statement.
If colleges had properly educated their students about history of Palestine from the earliest Zionist settlers - who arrived when colonialism was the norm - to the partition of a Palestine that was 2/3rd Arab and 1/3 Jew - to the wars and attempts to resolve the problem, many fewer would be accusing Israel of genocide. Frankly, anyone hoping for a two-state solution should be hoping that the people of Gaza are liberated from Hamas, because there will be no chance of a two-state solution that includes Hamas.
Thank you for keeping the liberty of free speech seperate from the acts of civil disobedience. Each has it's place and it's consequences. There is both a time to speak up and a time to listen, a time to stand up and a time to walk away. Allowing for disagreeable (non-violent) views to be expressed in a civil society and especially in an academic forum is critical if we are to understand each other and the complex issues we face. Grace and Peace to you.
Thoughtful post. One of the most disappointing aspects of this debacle on campus is the lack of "more speech" to combat the hate speech. A full-throated rebuttal of these hateful, ignorant brats on campus (students and professors, as well as outside agitators) would assure the rest of the community that there is capable leadership.
How about university administrations simply saying antisemitism on campus is unacceptable, even under the convenient guise of anti-Zionism, and they stand with Jewish students under siege? Their failure to do so, while promulgating land acknowledgments and pronouns, is why you get reasonable people cheering on Governor Abbott's overreach.
I am a veteran college professor (forced to use a pseudonym by the Thought Police) who has gradually coming around to the viewpoint that US (and to a lesser extent European) academia has become not just a self-parody but actively harmful to society, and needs to be torn down wholesale and rebuilt from the ground up.
The rebuilt academia of my dreams would not only be restricted to at most the top 20% of the bell curve (top 10% would be still more to my liking), but the students would be too busy studying and working on lab assignments to engage in agitation. The empire-building administrative class (which has executed a hostile takeover on academia) would be entirely eliminated and replaced by a rota system of the faculty, with just some clerical support staff. Oh, and DEI and all its works should die in a fire.
I appreciate you're trying to show your even-handedness. But I'm afraid you are merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
One gray area I want cleared up is, simply, noise. There's some point of volume, persistence, and kind that turns "speech" into something stress- and pain- inducing to others. I'm trying hard to not call it violence, but maybe it's generalized harassment? I'm thinking of John McWhorter's description of constant drumming and chanting that he could hear in his classroom at Columbia.
I appreciate what you are doing, especially pointing out the fact that civil disobedience, which I would limit to breaking laws and not just being annoying, is different from 1st Amendment-protected speech. I was a war tax resister in the day, and I assumed that it was probable that I would end up being arrested, tried, and sent to prison. Planned for such an outcome. (Didn't happen, but IRS agents showed up at my apartment in Milwaukee when I was not home; I had warned my roommates, so they knew to be polite...and clueless. They told me the agents were very polite and appeared to be tired and not very enthusiastic about their job. They left a card and never came back.)
One issue that came up frequently in the civil rights and Vietnam Was discords of 1960s and 1970s were concerns regarding outside agitators. I witnessed first hand different groups with their own agendas bussing people to other people's demonstrations, and strangers showing up at meetings, taking notes and photos, never to be seen again.
How would you suggest students deal with non-students joining their protests? Too often causes attract people who are angry and hateful with no real attachment to the issue at hand. And at worst, their personal agenda is one of destruction for its own sake.
FIRE is pretty much the only entity behaving with consistent decency through this era. I only wish they had a Canadian branch!
Thank you. I'm the mom of a UT Austin student and I was appalled to see the images coming out of campus yesterday. Most disgusting in its irony was a photo of a phalanx of state troopers in riot gear (no protestors anywhere nearby!) waiting to begin their march/assault on students next to a poster reading "What starts here changes the world. It starts with you and what you do each day. Thank you for making it your Texas. Thank you for making it our Texas." If you can't join 'em, beat 'em, I guess.
Thank you for your work!
I appreciate your principled defense of civil liberties and agree with almost all you have to say here. I think you're off base on what happened at the University of Texas, however. Put aside Abbott's frivolous diktats against what he considers "hate speech." When these groups announced they were going to "take back" the university, they were following a playbook we've seen repeatedly since the Summer of Floyd: show up, erect tents, assert control of an area, and use it as a platform to harass others and interfere with the operations of the institution. The authorities were right to nip it in the bud with a show of force, particularly at finals time on a university. They don't have to close their eyes to this group's m.o. If the protestors want permission for a demonstration limited in time and scope at the university, I would be more sympathetic, but the playbook is for continuous disruption. It should be noted that if they want to express their political opinions, the spacious grounds of the State Capitol are 10 blocks from UT.
Good post. My only pushback is that given your #1, and zero expectation that the hypocrisy will disappear anytime soon, it's self-destructive and unrealistic - from a practical power/game theoretic perspective - for people to not wield the same tools against those canceling them 2, 3, 4+ years back. If this is a prisoner's dilemma, the cooperative outcome's not happening.
Can you clarify why shouting or emailing "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" at the general student population, and more specifically at Jewish/Israeli students, can't constitute harassment? Given the first part of the slogan specifically, how it's typically paired with pictures of Israel being erased, etc.
I want to understand where the line is.
Free speech without an educated citizenry leads to totalitarianism, because fascism appeals more to base tribal instincts. The phone social media culture has led to massive ignorance of history, philosophy, politics, economics and governance and has produced cretins. I'd like to think that previous student protests were composed of more informed students, because it happened before social media. I'd like to believe that when I was protesting apartheid in South Africa, I and my fellow students at the MIT shanty town were better informed than the students protesting Israel today, but I'm not sure it's true. What about the students protesting for Nazism (and against communism and the status quo) in the Weimar republic? What about the students protesting for the cultural revolution in pre-Maoist China?
You are far a field Mr. Lukianoff.
Free speech has never, ever allowed for the outward call for genocide to be committed.
From River to Sea, is a call to eradicate the Jewish people. Nothing more, nothing less.
You and other Hamas supporters can dance around it all you want.
And in watching the news this week, far too many of the youth at these events are all riled up, but don't know the most basic reason why they were at the protests. They are Useful Idiots.
From my perspective, these "free speech " events look exactly like Kristallnacht in 1938.
You can couch your opinion in the First Amendment, but I keep hearing a faint Heil Hitler chanted over and over again in the background of your remarks.
"5. A lot of what we are seeing on campus right now, including tent cities, is civil disobedience."
Looks like uncivil disobedience to me.
"At the same Yale protest, protesters formed a human chain to block students’ movement." That's a ploy right out of the Reagan/Bush era when anti-abortion protesters used to block women from entering abortion clinics (which Clinton put a stop to).
The very real danger is that the far left, which is coming to resemble the far right more and more each day and has adopted violence as political expression, is going to join with them and *together* they will end democracy.
I'm not sure if you are aware that the "from the river to the sea chant" means "kill all Israelis". Many of the chanters may not know this either. As such, it is not protected by the first amendment, is it? Or maybe it is because it is not advocating for genociding americans but a foreign people?
What is missing from FIRE's recommendation is the need for "counter-speech" especially at educational institutions. One side of a controversial subject should never have an opportunity to monopolize free speech. Presentation of controversial subjects DEMANDS the presence of counter-speech. Justice Brandies famously said in Whitney v California:
"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
99% of "free speech" in America occurs in forums where the is no opportunity for the counter-speech that can expose falsehoods and fallacies and avert evil by the process of education
National Constitution Center is charged with the mission of educating Americans about the Constitution on a non-partisan basis. Each program about a current case and most programs always includes a real expert from both the liberal and conservative (Federalist Society) perspective. Most programs begin with the host and audience reciting the above non-partisan mission statement.
If colleges had properly educated their students about history of Palestine from the earliest Zionist settlers - who arrived when colonialism was the norm - to the partition of a Palestine that was 2/3rd Arab and 1/3 Jew - to the wars and attempts to resolve the problem, many fewer would be accusing Israel of genocide. Frankly, anyone hoping for a two-state solution should be hoping that the people of Gaza are liberated from Hamas, because there will be no chance of a two-state solution that includes Hamas.