Very important to emphasize that vandalism and physical intimidation is already illegal. Criminal behavior, actions, need to be punished. Not words.
The problem is that such laws are seldom enforced when the violators are Democrats.
Lies and hate speech and mistakes are all part of Free speech. Violence is not. Colleges need to enforce their own rules against hecklers by suspending such students, and expelling repeat offenders.
Dec 9, 2023·edited Dec 9, 2023Liked by Greg Lukianoff
Great work @greg. I'm trying really really hard not to go overboard with my feelings of schadenfreude for these administrators. It's just a shame that they will be forced out over specific speech rather than for their abysmal speech policies. It will give me about 5m of glee and then make the underlying problem worse.
Not at all pleased to hear politicians and presidents calling for more censorship as a means to provide "safety" to college students! Ugh!
Got my copy The Canceling a few weeks ago and am almost done with a "first read." The second read will be to go back over the highlighted sections. Love the "two shots" and will be cheering Greg on, from my couch after a brutal week, watching him spare with Bill.
Remember that some Board of Trustees put these people in charge of multi billion dollar organizations. Remember also that the US government gifts those organizations with tax-free status and bushels of grants. Remember also that the organizations were the big winners in the student loan game and the students were the big losers.
The Universities have concocted a quasi-free society and it's a mess: all the freedom of the adult and all the coddling of a child.
Offering therapy at the prospect of a conservative coming onto campus? No. Screaming "kill all the Jews" at a Jewish student is assault, no? Punish it. Donald Trump wants to speak on campus? Book him.
I'm not sure what I think about this. I think that literally calling for "a genocide against the Jews" can be considered a threat. A reasonable person could expect to be in danger in that environment. I think the more ambiguous question is whether "the river to the sea" or intifada always means genocide against Jews - I'm sure it does to Hamas, I'm not sure it always does to lefty students larping as revolutionaries about the topic du jour. I understand the Republicans have seized on this as a opportunity to strike down a powerful part of the progressive machine. A part of me is tempted to see the enemy of my enemy as my friend. The universities have certainly brought this backlash on themselves by blatantly disregarding free speech in every other issue - their hypocrisy feels targeted. But a win for more emotional safetyism and admin control could easily make universities worse in the long run. We have to be careful not to make the same mistakes as the progressives with compounding reprehensible political positions with actual threats of violence.
I'm uncertain as well and am glad I'm not the only one. I've always believed more speech was the only way to counter bad speech (sunlight disinfects, etc.) and yet no one is free to yell fire in a crowded theater (unless there is one). Does it seem to you that public discourse has inched closer to the incitement of violence than it has for a long time? The distinction seems hardest to make when it is most needed. I have to say I'm conflicted about watching UPenn's president resign and wonder how different her replacement will be. I wish more commenters would admit when they aren't sure as you did here.
The College presidents all failed to answer the simple and most basic question that any College President should be able to answer - does calling for the Genocide of Jews (or any race/ethnicity) violate the University Policy for bullying and harassment? She did not ask if the students had a right to express their views under the first amendment, she asked if this particular speech would be a violation of the Universities standards on bullying and harassment.
I assure you if this was reversed politically it wouldn't even be a question (can say, white people bully and harass black people by calling for their genocide?) . And as noted in this piece the three worst offenders who showed up to congress are the ones with the worst FIRE scores to begin with.
Ilya Shapiro's piece had a link to the Brandeis University response to the same issue when they withdrew funding and support for the campus chapter of National Students for Justice in Palestine.
"Brandeis is dedicated to upholding free speech principles, which have been codified in Brandeis’ Principles of Free Speech and Free Expression,” the letter said. “However, those Principles note that ‘The freedom to debate and discuss ideas does not mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish, or however they wish,’ and that, ‘…the university may restrict expression…that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment…or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the university.’”
Thems the rules at Brandeis. If these are not the rules at Harvard and the others, then they should just say so under oath so that everyone is clear where they stand. They either have standards similar to those like Brandeis and most other sane Universities or they don't. They can't have it both ways.
Exactly. I wrote about this over at my own Substack newsletter, Original Jurisdiction:
"[M]y initial take is that untethering university speech policies from constitutional law is a bad idea. Conservatives who will be thrilled to see Students for Justice in Palestine get banned should think about whether they’re fine with Students for Life of America or the Federalist Society getting banned too."
University speech codes are ALREADY unthethered from constitutional law. FIRE itself puts Penn, MIT, and Harvard near the bottom of its rankings for expressive freedoms. "Oh noes, they might cancel the Federalist Society!" is, as far as conservatives are concerned, a sunk cost.
The question isn't whether campus speech policy will reflect the First Amendment. It will not; that ship has sailed. The question is whether campus speech policy, such as it is, will at least be enforced *consistently*.
Based on the presidents' performance this week, the answer to that question appears to be no.
Yes, we see it. We think it sucks. But we're not going to live under the old rules (all speech, no matter how vile, is tolerated) while universities live under the new rules (repulsive speech gets cancelled).
There will be one standard. Either we're going to tolerate all speech including conservative speech, or we're going to cancel thinly-veiled, beloved-in-certain-progressive-precincts calls for the genocide of Jews. Pick one.
I think you have no idea what you're talking about and don't actually know any conservatives other than the straw-man caricatures that live inside your mind. What you're calling "empathy" is in fact just projection of your personal bigotries.
Though I admit I savor the irony of being accused of ad hominem attacks by a clown who just spent three paragraphs turning a dispute about speech into a question of conservatives' motives.
Criticizing someone's motives (by way of lazy and patently-ridiculous generalizations) rather than their arguments is *definitionally* ad hominem, my dude.
Very important to emphasize that vandalism and physical intimidation is already illegal. Criminal behavior, actions, need to be punished. Not words.
The problem is that such laws are seldom enforced when the violators are Democrats.
Lies and hate speech and mistakes are all part of Free speech. Violence is not. Colleges need to enforce their own rules against hecklers by suspending such students, and expelling repeat offenders.
Great work @greg. I'm trying really really hard not to go overboard with my feelings of schadenfreude for these administrators. It's just a shame that they will be forced out over specific speech rather than for their abysmal speech policies. It will give me about 5m of glee and then make the underlying problem worse.
Not at all pleased to hear politicians and presidents calling for more censorship as a means to provide "safety" to college students! Ugh!
Got my copy The Canceling a few weeks ago and am almost done with a "first read." The second read will be to go back over the highlighted sections. Love the "two shots" and will be cheering Greg on, from my couch after a brutal week, watching him spare with Bill.
Remember that some Board of Trustees put these people in charge of multi billion dollar organizations. Remember also that the US government gifts those organizations with tax-free status and bushels of grants. Remember also that the organizations were the big winners in the student loan game and the students were the big losers.
I certainly never forget that!
The hypocrisy of pretending to finally be supporting free speech when it suited them gagged everyone watching.
We will be watching . Best of Luck
Thank you!
Your did Great! Got the show off on the right foot
This was Bill's best show this year. I think you set the tone, Bill's other guests picked up the pace, so did Bill.
Great Job Greg, especially on such an important issue.
Thank you!! I appreciate it!
The Universities have concocted a quasi-free society and it's a mess: all the freedom of the adult and all the coddling of a child.
Offering therapy at the prospect of a conservative coming onto campus? No. Screaming "kill all the Jews" at a Jewish student is assault, no? Punish it. Donald Trump wants to speak on campus? Book him.
I'm not sure what I think about this. I think that literally calling for "a genocide against the Jews" can be considered a threat. A reasonable person could expect to be in danger in that environment. I think the more ambiguous question is whether "the river to the sea" or intifada always means genocide against Jews - I'm sure it does to Hamas, I'm not sure it always does to lefty students larping as revolutionaries about the topic du jour. I understand the Republicans have seized on this as a opportunity to strike down a powerful part of the progressive machine. A part of me is tempted to see the enemy of my enemy as my friend. The universities have certainly brought this backlash on themselves by blatantly disregarding free speech in every other issue - their hypocrisy feels targeted. But a win for more emotional safetyism and admin control could easily make universities worse in the long run. We have to be careful not to make the same mistakes as the progressives with compounding reprehensible political positions with actual threats of violence.
I'm uncertain as well and am glad I'm not the only one. I've always believed more speech was the only way to counter bad speech (sunlight disinfects, etc.) and yet no one is free to yell fire in a crowded theater (unless there is one). Does it seem to you that public discourse has inched closer to the incitement of violence than it has for a long time? The distinction seems hardest to make when it is most needed. I have to say I'm conflicted about watching UPenn's president resign and wonder how different her replacement will be. I wish more commenters would admit when they aren't sure as you did here.
Thanks, Mike. That's a good question. I've read about some incidents that are easy to call incitement to violence (like this: https://katv.com/news/nation-world/uc-davis-prof-under-investigation-after-threatening-jewish-journalists-their-children-university-of-california-jemma-decristo-israel-hamas-palestine-gaza-middle-east-conflict-terrorism-invasion-los-angeles-berkeley), others that I would call threatening, though FIRE might disagree (https://cornellsun.com/2023/10/16/cornell-professor-exhilarated-by-hamass-attack-defends-remark), and others I think should not be considered a call to violence, even though some people probably genuinely find them upsetting and offensive right now ("Free Palestine" signs, for example). I'm also concerned about who will replace these admins. I think the student letter blaming Israel for the Hamas attacks is disgusting and the students who signed it are morally stunted. But will we disinfect the rot at universities by bringing in a new president who will vet all announcements from student groups to make sure they confirm to approved opinions? I'm afraid we will see the kind of extreme safetyism we saw during COVID.
The College presidents all failed to answer the simple and most basic question that any College President should be able to answer - does calling for the Genocide of Jews (or any race/ethnicity) violate the University Policy for bullying and harassment? She did not ask if the students had a right to express their views under the first amendment, she asked if this particular speech would be a violation of the Universities standards on bullying and harassment.
I assure you if this was reversed politically it wouldn't even be a question (can say, white people bully and harass black people by calling for their genocide?) . And as noted in this piece the three worst offenders who showed up to congress are the ones with the worst FIRE scores to begin with.
Ilya Shapiro's piece had a link to the Brandeis University response to the same issue when they withdrew funding and support for the campus chapter of National Students for Justice in Palestine.
"Brandeis is dedicated to upholding free speech principles, which have been codified in Brandeis’ Principles of Free Speech and Free Expression,” the letter said. “However, those Principles note that ‘The freedom to debate and discuss ideas does not mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish, or however they wish,’ and that, ‘…the university may restrict expression…that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment…or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the university.’”
Thems the rules at Brandeis. If these are not the rules at Harvard and the others, then they should just say so under oath so that everyone is clear where they stand. They either have standards similar to those like Brandeis and most other sane Universities or they don't. They can't have it both ways.
Exactly. I wrote about this over at my own Substack newsletter, Original Jurisdiction:
"[M]y initial take is that untethering university speech policies from constitutional law is a bad idea. Conservatives who will be thrilled to see Students for Justice in Palestine get banned should think about whether they’re fine with Students for Life of America or the Federalist Society getting banned too."
https://davidlat.substack.com/p/against-free-speech-hypocrisy
University speech codes are ALREADY unthethered from constitutional law. FIRE itself puts Penn, MIT, and Harvard near the bottom of its rankings for expressive freedoms. "Oh noes, they might cancel the Federalist Society!" is, as far as conservatives are concerned, a sunk cost.
The question isn't whether campus speech policy will reflect the First Amendment. It will not; that ship has sailed. The question is whether campus speech policy, such as it is, will at least be enforced *consistently*.
Based on the presidents' performance this week, the answer to that question appears to be no.
Much depends on the ownership of the ox being gored...always has, always will.
Yes, we see it. We think it sucks. But we're not going to live under the old rules (all speech, no matter how vile, is tolerated) while universities live under the new rules (repulsive speech gets cancelled).
There will be one standard. Either we're going to tolerate all speech including conservative speech, or we're going to cancel thinly-veiled, beloved-in-certain-progressive-precincts calls for the genocide of Jews. Pick one.
I think you have no idea what you're talking about and don't actually know any conservatives other than the straw-man caricatures that live inside your mind. What you're calling "empathy" is in fact just projection of your personal bigotries.
Right back at you, champ.
Though I admit I savor the irony of being accused of ad hominem attacks by a clown who just spent three paragraphs turning a dispute about speech into a question of conservatives' motives.
Criticizing someone's motives (by way of lazy and patently-ridiculous generalizations) rather than their arguments is *definitionally* ad hominem, my dude.