The Understatement of the Month Award goes to David Lat, who says in a recent post that “when it comes to free speech and intellectual diversity, U.S. law schools continue to face challenges.”
One Big Challenge, more like: the contempt university policymakers routinely show for the speech of members of disfavored groups, if and when they say things that members of favored groups dislike.
Lat points to a decision, last month, by the Law School State Senate of Columbia Law School. The organization denied official recognition to a group formed to combat antisemitism, Law Students Against Antisemitism.
Reason: some pro-Palestinian students objected to LSAA’s definition of “antisemitism.”
The objection is cause for debate, sure, but not for preventing an organization from formally operating. Fortunately, after much attention was paid to the Senate’s decision by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and others, the Senate reversed itself.
In addition to bad publicity, one thing that may help improve prospects for free speech on campus is a new rule issued by the American Bar Association,
Standard 208 requires law schools that want to be accredited by the ABA to “protect the rights of faculty, students, and staff to communicate ideas that may be controversial or unpopular.” This requirement is more encompassing than existing (if often ignored) protections of academic freedom for faculty members.
The ABA’s action is a big step, but not sufficient, Lat says. The cultures of our schools must change too.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
2 replies on “Hope for Campus Free Speech”
Every one of our instititions of formal education that exists in close relationship with the state — whether we are talking about kindergarten through high school or about colleges and universities — is beyond practical salvation. These institutions have been captured by administrators and by “progressive” faculty.
No one who is willing to effect a proper reform is positioned to do so. We will simply have an idiotic political tug-of-war in which the two largest teams consist each of fools and of knaves. Principally opposing the “progressives” and those who posture as such will be right-wing populists, social conservatives, and those who posture as one or as the other.
Any hope lies with institutions not in close relationship with the state. Some already exist, others may be created.
State (federal) control of education has always been problematic. “Put your money where your mouth is” is a recipe for state controlled thought and bias. The U.S. Department of Education should be abolished and education handled at the local level, with minimum equalized funding per student guaranteed by the federal government without strings attached.