Category: freedom of speech

American colleges that adhere to institutional neutrality: I missed a lot of schools

September 16, 2024 • 12:50 pm

When I counted nine schools in North America (Simon Fraser in Canada was included) that adhered to Chicago-like principles of institutional neutrality, I sent an email to FIRE and said they should compile a list, similar to the list of 110 schools that adhere to Chicago’s free speech principles.

Well, is my face red!  FIRE wrote me that they’ve already done that, and you can see that there are a lot more schools than just nine. Click below to see the list, which I’ll reproduce:

Here’s the list for the U.S.: there aren’t just eight schools, but 22. Each school was linked to its statement:

  1. Claremont McKenna College

  2. University of North Carolina System

  3. Vanderbilt University

  4. University of Wyoming

  5. Columbia University

  6. Utah State University

  7. College of the Holy Cross

  8. Harvard University

  9. Syracuse University

  10. Stanford University

  11. Purdue University

  12. Clark University

  13. Johns Hopkins University

  14. Emerson College

  15. University of Southern California

  16. University of Texas System

  17. University of Colorado Boulder

  18. University of Alabama System

  19. Washington State University

  20. University of Pennsylvania

  21. University of Wisconsin System

  22. University of Virginia

You can read FIRE’s own endorsement of institutional neutrality, and the reason this policy is important, by clicking the title below:

UCLA and University of Wisconsin (and, in part, Williams College) adopt institutional neutrality; Vanderbilt updates free expression policies and programs

September 14, 2024 • 10:30 am

It appears that seven universities now have adopted a version of the University of Chicago’s Kalven Principle mandating institutional neutrality (“IN”): the dictum that no political or ideological statements should come from a university save statements about issues endangering the mission of the university. (Faculty are, of course, always free to speak on their own, but not as representatives of an “official view”.) Now it looks as if we can add two more schools to the total: UCLA and the University of Wisconsin system.

This is still far fewer than the 110 schools that have adopted a version of Chicago’s “Free Expression” principle, but I think the tide is turning: colleges are realizing that it’s not to their benefit to weigh in on debatable issues of the day. At any rate, two years ago the University of Chicago was the only school in North America with an institutional neutrality policy.

FIRE needs to start keeping a list of the IN schools, which include these:

The University of Chicago
Simon Fraser University (in Canada: see also here for a discussion of the problems with their statement)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
Vanderbilt University
Columbia University,
Stanford University
The University of Pennsylvania; and the two new ones mentioned here:
UCLA
The University of Wisconsin (whole system)

Now some of the IN policies adopted by these schools have problems, but they’re aiming in the right direction: buttressing free speech by ruling out “official” statements from that could inhibit people in the University from speaking their minds,

Click below to see the story of how UCLA’s Chancellor has accepted a principle of institutional neutrality confected by a University committee:

A short excerpt that gives a link to UCLA’s recommendations:

On Sept. 12, UCLA announced that Interim Chancellor Darnell Hunt has accepted a recommendation from a working group that the university should not weigh in on political matters.

The working group, headed by UCLA School of Law Dean Michael Waterstone,  submitted a recommendation — accepted in full by Interim Chancellor Hunt — that moving forward, “UCLA’s chancellor, executive vice chancellor and provost, vice chancellors, vice provosts and deans should not make public statements on societal, public and political matters, unless those matters directly affect the university’s ability to support a research and educational environment where free expression thrives.” Such institutional statements, the recommendation explained, “can imply a false sense of unanimity about a given topic, stifle the free exchange of ideas, and risk making parts of our diverse community feel silenced or unheard. A focus on these kinds of statements can also divert university leaders’ attention away from their core responsibilities and pursuit of institutional goals.”

The working group’s report elaborated that “whether — and if so, how — a contentious issue relates to this essential mission of the university will itself be disputed at times; as with any general rule, this one would require university officials to exercise judgment in good faith, subject to critique by community members,” adding that in borderline cases, “the presumption should be for not issuing a statement.”

A pretty big problem here: the policy should apply more widely—to departments, center, units, or any moiety of the university, including libraries, museums, and so on. It is because the issue of department statements was unclear that in 2020 our late President Bob Zimmer clarified that Kalven applied to all University departments and units.

I found the University of Wisconsin news in, of all place, the Times of Israel, but below that you can find the official UW statement, provided by Greg Mayer, who teaches at the University of Wisconsin, Parkside. The new policy came into being after a cowardly UW chancellor, Mark Mone, made an invidious deal with protestors. Click to read:

An extract:

University of Wisconsin leaders must limit their public statements to matters that affect school operations and maintain neutral viewpoints under a new policy that system administrators released Friday.

UW system spokesperson Mark Pitsch said in an email to The Associated Press that the policy will take effect immediately and doesn’t need the approval of the board of regents. Asked what drove the policy’s creation, Pitsch pointed to language in the policy that states the restrictions are necessary in order to uphold academic freedom and an environment where ideas can compete freely.

The move comes after UW-Milwaukee Chancellor Mark Mone struck a deal in May to end pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel campus protests. The university agreed to call for a ceasefire in Gaza and discuss cutting ties with Israeli companies.

The deal drew intense criticism from Jewish groups. UW system President Jay Rothman also took Mone to task over the deal, posting on X that campuses need to remain viewpoint-neutral and make sure actions on campus have consequences.

Rothman is also trying to stay on good terms with Republicans who control the Legislature in the hopes of securing an $855 million boost for the system in the next state budget. . . .

It is often fear of Republican legislatures that brings these policies into being (and, indeed, Chancellore Mone is an invertebrate), but I don’t care where institutional neutrality comes from so long as it’s put into place with proper wording (yes, it should apply to all “units” of a university) and restrictions (yes, statements are permitted on rare occasions).

The official Wisconsin policy is here, with this extract:

Institutional statements issued by university leaders should be limited to matters that directly affect the operations and core mission of the university, and should maintain viewpoint neutrality in any reference to any matter of political or social controversy.

Institutional statements may include communications on the impact of proposed or enacted regulations, legislation, or court decisions that materially affect the operations and core mission of the university. Such institutional statements may also express a position of support or opposition only when authorized by the president or chancellor.

. . .Where there is reasonable disagreement about whether an event or issue directly affects the operations or core mission of the university, university leaders are encouraged to forgo an institutional statement.

What’s good about this is that it is supposed to apply to every UW “unit,” which they define as as “a school, college, department, division, center, institute, program, or other institutional entity”. That is, as far as I know, the most detailed and specific list of university constituents that must adhere to institutional neutrality.

President Maud Mandel at Williams College, who appears reluctant to commit her entire College to institutional neutrality, at least asserted that she was going to stop making statements on politics and ideology, and pinpoints the reason why she changed her mind and adopted IN:

Here’s the Williams statement; click to enlarge:

Unfortunately, the Williams policy appears to apply only to President Mandel herself. For reasons known best to her it doesn’t appear to apply to any other units of the university. But it doesn’t nearly go far enough.  It’s time for Williams to step up and extend Mandel’s personal principle to the entire school.

Finally, Vanderbilt, which now is really the #1 free speech school in America as far as I’m concerned (its Chancellor Daniel Diermeier used to be our provost), has updated its policies on demonstration and free expression, and appears to construct a whole program to educate students in free speech and to give them an opportunity to engage in controversial but civil discourse. Click below to read Vanderbilt’s announcement. It links to a lot of different programs and initiatives, so click around on the site to see what this school has done to foster free expression.

Here are some changes, clearly put into place to prevent disruptive demonstrations that impede Vanderbilt’s mission:

Relevant revisions include, but are not limited to, the following: 

  • The public may not participate in or be invited to participate in campus demonstrations and protests, and the university may request identification from those participating in demonstrations and protests to determine if they are members of the campus community. 
  • Demonstrations and protests may not occur at times that would require individuals to sleep or gather overnight given safety, logistical and maintenance concerns. 
  • Installations, defined as “temporary displays, art pieces, symbolic structures or other physical objects,” require reservations and may only be displayed between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. or sundown, whichever is earlier, for no more than three consecutive days. 
  • Camping, sleeping, preparing to sleep or any other gathering overnight outdoors on campus is prohibited due to safety, logistic and maintenance concerns and to ensure access to university spaces for other groups wishing to make reservations.

All members of the Vanderbilt community are encouraged to review the full Student Handbook in advance of the start of the academic year.

Even Chicago doesn’t follow all these strictures (especially the first and third), and our school hasn’t made its policies nearly as explicit as those given above.  Nevertheless, the move towards forestalling disruptions of university life is spreading, though just at the time that pro-Palestinian demonstrators have vowed to be even more disruptive than they were over the last academic year.

Something tells me that we’re not going to see this kind of disruption at Vanderbilt. . . .

h/t Mayaan, Greg Mayer

Countering objections to free speech

September 13, 2024 • 12:45 pm

Greg Lukianoff is, as most of you know, President of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. He’s also a lawyer and co-author, with Jon Haidt, of the excellent book  The Coddling of the American Mind.  Yesterday in Quillette, Lukianoff wrote a piece that many of us may find useful, outlining how to give comebacks to flimsy arguments against free speech.  The advice is especially useful now that both extreme Left and extreme Right are finding reasons to curtail speech, the former through demonizing certain opinions that go against Righthink and the latter through banning or censoring books.  I think the article below is free, so have a look.


I’m just going to put the arguments down, and if you’re savvy you should be able to give comebacks to most of these.  Nobody will get them all, I think, so go back and read the piece. I’ve indented Lukianoff’s arguments below, but have left out the ripostes. For some reason I can’t see the graphics that Lukianoff has embedded in the article.

I’ll note first that anyone using the phrase “freeze peach” when referring to free speech is simply mocking this important concept. On to the objecftions (Lukianoff thanks some people at the end for helping him out.)

Assertion 1: Free speech was created under the false notion that words and violence are distinct, but we now know that certain speech is more akin to violence.

Assertion 2: Free speech rests on the faulty notion that words are harmless.

Assertion 3: Free speech is the tool of the powerful, not the powerless.

Assertion 4: The right to free speech means the government can’t arrest you for what you say; it still leaves other people free to kick you out.

Assertion 5: But you can’t shout fire! in a crowded theatre. (I have to do some self-aggrandizing here by quoting part of his answer):

This old canard, afavourite reference of censorship apologists, needs to be retired. It’s repeatedly and inappropriately used to justify speech limitations. People have been using this cliché as if it had some legal meaning, while First Amendment lawyers point out that it is, as Alan Dershowitz puts it, “a caricature of logical argumentation.” Ken White penned a brilliant and thorough takedown of this misconception. While his piece is no longer available online, you can find a thorough discussion of the arguments by Jerry Coyne here. Please read it before proclaiming that your least favourite language is analogous to “shouting fire in a crowded theatre.”

Assertion 6: The arguments for freedom of speech are outdated.

Assertion 7: Hate speech laws are important for reducing intolerance, even if there may be some examples of abuse.

Assertion 8: Free speech is nothing but a conservative talking point.

Assertion 9: Restrictions on free speech are OK if they are made in the name of civility. (Note that this argument doesn’t hold for this website; as I explain in the Roolz, if your comment is uncivil or insulting to another reader, I don’t have to publish it. On a website like this, I do not have to put up every comment that comes in, though I try to use a light hand when moderating. But First-Amendment-style free speech doesn’t apply to websites, discussion groups, and the like.)

Assertion 10: You need speech restrictions to preserve cultural diversity. 

Assertion 11: Free speech is an outdated idea; it’s time for new thinking.  (Note that this is the same argument made in #6 above).

Assertion 12: I believe in free speech, but not for blasphemy. 

Of these, the one I think it’s most useful to understand is the rebuttal to #7: the claim that “hate speech” doesn’t count as free speech. To answer this properly you’ll have to know what exceptions to First Amendment-style free speech have been carved out of that Amendment by the courts (false advertising, defamation, etc). Indeed, in countries like Germany and Britain, “hate speech” is a violation of the law, but Lukianoff notes that, at least crudely, “hate speech” laws don’t seem to go along with a strong reduction in bigotry, nor would you expect them to.

In his conclusion, Lukianoff once underlines the need for free speech. And speaking personally, I’d recommend that everyone who hasn’t read Mill’s “On Liberty” do so now (it’s free here on the Internet).

Lukianoff:

Free speech is valuable, first and foremost, because, without it, there is no way to know the world as it actually is. Understanding human perceptions, even incorrect ones, is always of scientific or scholarly value, and, in a democracy, it is essential to know what people really believe. This is my “pure informational theory of freedom of speech.” To think that, without openness, we can know what people really believe is not only hubris, but magical thinking. The process of coming to know the world as it is is much more arduous than we usually appreciate. It starts with this: recognise that you are probably wrong about any number of things, exercise genuine curiosity about everything (including each other), and always remember that it is better to know the world as it really is—and that the process of finding that out never ends.

Another two schools, Penn and Stanford, adopt institutional neutrality, while Yale studies the issue

September 12, 2024 • 9:30 am

Two days ago I reported that Simon Fraser University had adopted a policy of institutional neutrality, which I don’t think I have to explain any further, as I’ve written about it in detail (see the University of Chicago’s Kalven Report). This is heartening to some extent, as for years my own school was the sole upholder of neutrality. But it’s also disheartening in that 110 universities, both public and private, have adopted Chicago’s policy of Free Expression, but a mere five have adopted institutional neutrality, an important policy meant to buttress free speech.  Schools just can’t seem to resist the urge to make moral, political, and ideological statements; clearly, their desire to “be on the right side” outweighs their desire to adopt freedom of speech.

Here are the five schools that have embraced institutional neutrality:

The University of Chicago
Simon Fraser University (see also the link above, noting the problems with their statement)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
Vanderbilt University
Columbia University

And of course Columbia and Simon Fraser bear watching—Columbia because of its toxic history and Simon Fraser because its policy has problems.

Well, these don’t add up to 110 schools, but five is better than none.  And now, with the announcements of both Penn and Stanford that they too are adopting institutional neutrality, while Yale is thinking about it, we have seven universities pledging neutrality and one seriously studying the issue.  Could it be that American colleges and universities are finally realizing the palpable advantage of staying neutral on moral, political, and ideological issues?

Here’s Penn’s announcement from two days ago, written by its interim President and taken taken from Penn Today, the school’s official newsletter.  (Perhaps the policy was prompted because the previous president, Liz Magill, after a lame performance on free speech  before a House hearing, was forced to resign last December after pressure from alumni, donors, and others. The statement below denies, however, that this was the motivation.)

An excerpt; I’ve put the key words are in bold. It seems that if Penn, which has been around for ages, only now has realized the value of not chilling speech!

Today, Penn is introducing two new institutional positions: a statement of University Values and a statement Upholding Academic Independence. These statements sit alongside two older collections of words, one from last year, and one from 1755.

The words from 1755 comprise our Latin motto, Leges Sine Moribus Vanae, commonly translated into English as “Laws without morals are useless.” These few words communicate deeply. The motto urges us to do what is good and practical, and also what is right. This spirit has guided Penn for centuries, and I am proud to be part of an institution built upon such a motto.

. . . Today, we introduce a statement of University Values. [Check the link; the “values” are very skimpy.] These values are also a product of our long history, and yet re-presenting them in new words today carries added importance. Over the past months we have found ourselves reacting to the events of the world and responding to events on our campus. Both the Presidential Commission on Countering Hate and Building Community and the University Task Force on Antisemitism called for an explicit articulation of our values to help guide us through these challenges. Like the committee that developed In Principle and Practice, the Task Force and Commission sought and received broad input about our values from the Penn community. The current statement reflects this input and aspires to capture what is distinctive about Penn. Our values were always there and are best revealed through our actions. But the words we use to express them are guideposts along the way. I urge you to read and reflect upon those words.

Today, Penn also introduces Upholding Academic Independence. Over the years, and with increasing frequency, leaders across the University—indeed across most universities—have made public statements in response to external events. By and large, these messages sought to provide acknowledgement and solidarity following often horrific circumstances. Although well-meaning, these institutional messages fundamentally compete with the free and unencumbered creation and expression of ideas by individuals. Going forward, the University of Pennsylvania and its leaders will refrain from institutional statements made in response to local and world events. By quieting Penn’s institutional voice, we hope to amplify the expertise and voices within.

The release of this new guidance should not be construed as fear to take a studied position. Quite the opposite, it is a confirmation of our commitment to academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. Likewise, the timing should not be interpreted as a response to past or upcoming events, or prior institutional positions. We will, of course, continue to communicate about policies and activities that have direct relevance to the University’s missions and its operations. This new guidance represents the culmination of intensive deliberation about how Penn and its leaders can best support our mission and our community—now, and moving forward.

I see one loophole in their statement: they won’t comment on “local and world events.”  But that doesn’t keep them from making ideological or political statements that arise not from world events, but from societal changes in views or values.  For example, they could still make statements about the value of equity or DEI, which are not based on any events in particular but on the Zeitgeist. It would be far better if they simply said they wouldn’t take any “University positions on political and social action, with the exception of matters that threaten the very mission of the University,” as the late President Robert Zimmer emphasized.

So Penn people, keep an eye on your school and see if it adheres to its principles.

In the article below (click to read), the National Review reports the Stanford as well has just put into practice institutional neutrality. Stanford, of course, has been roiled by political turmoil, with many students explicitly coming out against free speech (remember Judge Duncan?).

First, a comment they make about Penn’s policy:

Penn has repeatedly weighed in on prominent public events in recent years, condemning the Supreme Court’s landmark Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022 and celebrating the jury conviction of Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis police officer who killed George Floyd, in April 2021.

The decision to move toward neutrality comes after the Ivy League school was embroiled in campus protest throughout the previous academic year. Campus police dismantled a 16-day pro-Palestinian encampment toward the end of the spring semester, and former president Liz Magill stepped down following her widely criticized testimony at a House hearing on campus antisemitism in December.

And a tweet just sent to me. The caption may be a bit exaggerated since this is just a display of history books, not the full history-book section, but it’s still reprehensible and morally obtuse:

And here’s an excerpt from the NR’s article about Stanford, whose policy seems better than Simon Fraser’s or Penn’s because it hews more closely to the Kalven Principles:

Stanford University’s faculty senate adopted an institutional-neutrality policy in May, which the university’s Board of Trustees commended this week. 

“When speaking for the institution, Stanford University leaders and administrators should not express an opinion on political and social controversies, unless these matters directly affect the mission of the university or implicate its legal obligations,” reads a portion of the “Institutional Statements Policy” adopted by the Stanford faculty senate in May. The policy applies to “Academic Organization Executive Officers of the University,” which includes leadership, vice provosts, deans, and others, but not to the directors of centers or institutes within the university. 

In formally adopting a policy of institutional neutrality, the universities are following the recommendations laid out by University of Chicago faculty in their 1967 “Kalven Report,” produced amid nationwide protests against the Vietnam War.

“The neutrality of the university as an institution arises then not from a lack of courage nor out of indifference and insensitivity,” reads the University of Chicago’s Kalven Report. “It arises out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints. And this neutrality as an institution has its complement in the fullest freedom for its faculty and students as individuals to participate in political action and social protest.”

The problem with this is that it doesn’t apply to departments, centers, or institutes, all of which fall under the University of Chicago’s Kalven Principoles (I’m proud that this clarification by President Zimmer was something I helped forge):

The principles of the Kalven Report apply not only to the University as a whole, but to the departments, schools, centers, and divisions as well, and for exactly the same reasons, i.e., these essential components of the University should not take institutional positions on public issues that are not directly related to the core functioning of the University.

Finally, Yale has created a committee to study adopting institutional neutrality, at least according to President McInnis’s announcement (click to read):

An excerpt (my bolding):

Although I am only beginning to gather your suggestions, one topic has emerged as top of mind for many people in our community: the question of when Yale, as an institution, speaks on issues of the day. This topic also has been central to a national discussion in higher education over the past year. Recognizing that members of our community hold multiple views, I write to announce that I have convened a committee to address the question.

I have asked the committee to examine when the university, or those speaking on its behalf, should comment on matters of public significance, weighing the value that Yale places on engaging with the wider world as well as the university’s commitment to fostering an environment of diverse viewpoints and open dialogue and debate. To be clear, I am not charging the committee with revisiting the vital and robust protection for the free expression of individuals within our diverse community. Rather, the committee’s focus is on the role of Yale itself as a speaker.

. . . . The committee will host listening sessions over the next few weeks to solicit feedback from students, faculty, and staff. Information will be posted online. Community members who are not able to attend in person—including alumni—can share their perspectives via a webform, which will be open until the end of the last listening session.

The question is not WHEN Yale speaks on issues of the day, but WHETHER it speaks on issues of the day. (One exception, mentioned in the Kalven Report, is that speech about “issues of the day” is okay when it bears directly on the university’s mission to foster teaching, learning, research, and free discourse.)  Do we really need another committee to study the issue? Well, I guess so, but they should begin by reading the Kalven Principles and then see if there are any good reasons for deviating from them.

h/t: Simon

Simon Fraser University (sort of) adopts a policy of institutional neutrality, making five North American colleges to do so

September 10, 2024 • 10:00 am

As I’ve said many times, while over 100 American colleges and Universities have adopted a version of the University of Chicago’s policy of free speech, only a handful have adopted our complementary policy of institutional neutrality (“The Kalven Report”). That policy mandates that our University, its departments, and other “official” units, are forbidden from making statements espousing a specific ideology or taking moral or political stand—except when making such a statement directly supports the university’s mission of teaching, learning, and research. Institutional neutrality—which in our school also involves investment decisions—is designed to buttress freedom of expression: nobody feels that they would be punished if they went against some “official” political statement.

As I wrote in an earlier post announcing that Columbia University also has professed this policy (I’ll believe it when I see it there):

The only universities that have adopted Kalven-esque principles, besides us, number two: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Vanderbilt University. (Vanderbilt’s Chancellor, Daniel Diermeier, is a free-speech advocate who was Provost here before he moved south.)  Some professors at Northwestern University have urged adoption of institutional neutrality, but so far little seems to have happened.

(See Diermeier’s WSJ critique of Harvard’s lame attempt at institutional neutrality.)

So, including Chicago, we had four schools adopting a policy that should be universal.  But if you count Simon Fraser University near Vancouver, B.C. as “American” (well, it’s North American), now we have five.  Read the announcement from Simon Fraser’s President by clicking on the screenshot below.

A transcript (I’ve bolded the important stuff except for the title and subtitle, but some of the bolded stuff is troubling, at least to me):

Message from the President: the Role of Universities in Troubled Times

September 09, 2024

As president of SFU, I am often asked by students, faculty and staff to take a stance on partisan political matters and current events. These requests have increased greatly in the past year, during which this topic has been at the forefront of discussion on university campuses around the world. I want to share some thoughts on why I have come to the view that it is important for university administration not to take public positions on such matters.

Universities are comprised of thousands of students, faculty and staff who all hold unique opinions and views, informed by their scholarly work and lived experiences. I believe that universities need to be a place where people can freely engage in academic inquiry, share ideas, learn from each other, disagree constructively and peacefully protest. And I believe that my role as university president is to help facilitate an environment where people can have robust conversations, including on controversial topics.

In the past, I have made statements related to world events in an attempt to be responsive to issues our community is concerned with. However, I have come to understand that taking a public position on behalf of the university can have a chilling effect on the vigorous discussion and debate of students, faculty and staff. While these statements were intended to provide comfort to and express solidarity with members of the university community, their potential impact on open discussion runs contrary to the university’s purpose. I also recognize that there are many local, global and personal issues affecting community members at any given time, and issuing statements on some topics but not others can further contribute to feelings of exclusion.

If SFU is truly to be a place where people feel comfortable sharing their ideas and participating in meaningful dialogue, the university must be non-sectarian and non-political in principle. In order to facilitate this, I believe that the institution—and senior leadership as representatives of the institution—must refrain from taking public positions on topics unrelated to the business of the university, including partisan matters and world events.

Living by Our Values

Academic freedom, as enshrined in our collective agreements and underscored in What’s Next: The SFU Strategy, creates the conditions for scholars to freely examine, question, teach and learn within their area of study, provided that these actions are based on an honest search for knowledge. To truly live by our core values of academic freedom and critical thinking, we need to hold space for difficult and controversial conversations to take place responsibly and respectfully, as well as defending and protecting the human right to express views within the bounds of the law.

As outlined in What’s Next, we are also committed to embedding the values of equity and belonging in every decision and action. We have a collective responsibility to create a culture of inclusive excellence where all feel welcome, safe, accepted and appreciated. Taken together, academic freedom and inclusive excellence support each other and work together to create a vibrant academic community where everyone feels a sense of belonging.

One of the foundational practices of university life is to be exposed to different points of view, broaden our perspectives and have our beliefs and ideas challenged. This may be uncomfortable, but it is also an important part of being an engaged citizen. As we take on this work, it is important to remember that students, staff and faculty are accountable to SFU’s policies and codes of conduct. If violations of established codes of conduct, university policies or laws occur, we will follow the appropriate processes and procedures to address them.

In a time of increased polarization, we must preserve the vibrancy of our academic community while ensuring that difficult conversations are grounded in care and respect for each other. This is a challenging task, but I believe it is one we can accomplish, together. I want to assure you that senior leaders are committed to doing our part by promoting—not shutting down—healthy dialogue at SFU.

Joy Johnson
Pronouns: she, her, hers
President & Vice-Chancellor
Simon Fraser University

Now the “pronoun statement at the bottom undermines this statement just a tad, but on the whole Dr. Johnson (a researcher in “gender and health”) seems to understand the issues at play. But there is one bit of her message that seriously undermines her statement:

As outlined in What’s Next, we are also committed to embedding the values of equity and belonging in every decision and action. We have a collective responsibility to create a culture of inclusive excellence where all feel welcome, safe, accepted and appreciated.

This statement is indeed a debatable political assertion, because “equity” is not equal opportunity for everyone, which is not only the law but morally correct. Rather, “equity” is a policy of equal outcomes, and is premised on the debatable claim that a lack of equal outcomes must perforce reflect bias against an underrepresented group (e.g., “structural racism” or “structural sexism”). The University of Chicago would never adopt a policy calling for equity, but of course we do have a policy of equality of opportunity.  Our University would never assert that it tries to ensure “equity” because that is a debatable statement about ideology.

Further, ensuring that everyone feels “welcome, safe, accepted, and appreciated” may not be possible if there is true freedom of speech.  For that kind of speech almost invariably assures that, at least at some times, some students claim that they feel “unsafe” and “unwelcome”.  That, for example, was one reason that an art history professor at the private Hamline University in Minnesota was fired for showing images of old Islamic pictures in which Muhammed’s face was unveiled.  Showing those pictures (which some Muslims feel is disrespectful or even blasphemous) made some students feel “unsafe,” and that  “they didn’t belong.”  (The professor sued Hamline and, I think, got an other job.)

Finally, “inclusive excellence,” though it links to an explanation of its meaning, is really a slippery concept.  In many cases where students and groups differ in achievement, the words “inclusive” and “excellence” may not be compatible.

So this statement is a sort-of acceptance of Kalven, but shows some unsettling signs of wokeness. For the time being we’ll see what happens at Simon Fraser. It is a public university, but there’s no First Amendment in Canada.

The link was sent to my reader Mike, who is associated with Simon Fraser. Mike said this in an email:

I wanted to share some good news. My university president today publicly embraced institutional neutrality for the university and its senior leadership.  (See below).

We don’t have a real policy yet, we don’t know how far down the administrative structure this neutrality will extend, and I don’t know whether this or a different message was sent to our students at the same time. But I hope clarifying those things will be a next step. It’s a huge improvement over the past 5 years in which the president created a new vice-president-level DEI infrastructure and pursued other initiatives that have chilled free expression by choosing sides on controversial topics including Hamas terrorism. So although there is work to do this is good news and a good day for my university.
The people most responsible for this positive development are the faculty leaders of our Heterodox Academy Campus Community at SFU. Our group has politely, publicly, and insistently urged our colleagues and administrators to back off from adopting public positions on policy or cultural issues on behalf of everyone at the university, and we have extolled the virtues of academic freedom of expression. We think that public campaign has borne its first fruit. I hope its effects will continue to be felt (a real policy, extended to students, and extended down to the level of department chairs).

Mike’s statement about the President setting up a DEI infrastructure is further unsettling. I hope this is good news for Simon Fraser, but, as a cynic, I found the President’s statement worrisome. The first sign that Dr. Johnson means what she says it that she has to dismantle or cut way back on the DEI business. For DEI itself, or at least the ideology behind its most common implementations, is itself ideologically debatable. Remember, the “E” stands for “equity.”

Colleges should adhere to the First Amendment when adjudicating speech

September 7, 2024 • 10:45 am

I’ve long urged all colleges and universities, including private ones, to adopt a speech code that adheres as closely as possible to the First Amendment of the Constitution.  The few exceptions, like specifying the “time, place, and manner” of protests, are made simply to avoid demonstrations from disrupting the main business of colleges: teaching and learning.

The University of Chicago and its “Free Expression” policy has now been adopted by 110 American universities, but there are many more who haven’t yet (there are roughly 4,000 colleges and universities in America).

Further, fewer than a dozen schools have adopted the principle of institutional neutrality embodied in Chicago’s “Kalven Report”, which prevents the university and its units from making any political, ideological, or moral statement—with the rare exception that statements are permitted when they bear directly on the teaching, learning, and research mission of the university. A neutrality principle is important because it prevents the university from taking official ideological positions that might chill the speech of those who dissent from such positions.

A similar defense of the neutrality principle, for scholarly associations, by the way, just appeared as an op-ed in the WSJ, written by our former provost Daniel Diermeier, now Chancellor (aka President) of Vanderbilt University. You can read it by clicking below, or find it archived here:

A quote:

The American Association of University Professors sparked a firestorm in higher education last month by reversing its longstanding opposition to academic boycotts. As wrongheaded as that move was—and as poorly received as it was by many, including the group representing America’s leading research universities—the real trouble with the AAUP began in February, when the organization signed on to a petition from organized labor calling for a cease-fire in Israel’s war in Gaza.

It is inappropriate for the AAUP to take a position at all on the war in the Middle East. Here is an important guardian of academic freedom—the essential rights of professors to study, write and say what they like—espousing a particular ideological position, thereby sending the message to its members that there is only one correct way to think about the war.

. . . This is a problem for several reasons. There is the chilling effect on debate, and the potential silencing of dissenting members, that occurs when a professional association declares there is only one right way to think about an issue. There is the risk of eroding the organization’s legitimacy and effectiveness by turning it into one more political player or advocacy group. And there is the undermining of respect for earned and credentialed expertise, the foundation of academia, that results when leaders of an association whose discipline is unrelated to the topic at hand opine on the issue nonetheless. But what concerns me most are the damaging consequences that position-taking by academic associations can have on the careers of individual faculty members.

But I digress, for the topic at hand is Sunstein’s op-ed. I just happen to agree nearly completely with both pieces, which lay the ground work for free speech and academic freedom.

At any rate, Cass Sunstein, a professor of law at Harvard (and formerly at the University of Chicago), has written a NYT op-ed emphasizing that yes, colleges and universities should follow the free speech guidelines of the First Amendment as they have been interpreted by the courts. You can read the article by clicking on the headline below, or you can find it archived here.

I’ll add the Sunstein is of Jewish descent given his statements about speech that may be anti-Semitic.  His introduction:

Last spring, protests at numerous American universities, prompted by the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, produced fierce debates over freedom of speech on campus.

Colleges and universities struggled mightily over how to mount an appropriate response. The University of Pennsylvania refused to allow a screening of a movie that was sharply critical of Israel. Brandeis University barred a pro-Palestinian student group in response to inflammatory statements made by its national chapter.

At Columbia, police officers arrested more than 100 students in an effort to empty the school’s pro-Palestinian encampment; classes were later moved online. But at Northwestern, the administration entered into a deal with protesters in which almost all of their tents were removed in return for multiple commitments by the university, including an agreement to provide the “full cost of attendance for five Palestinian undergraduates to attend Northwestern for the duration of their undergraduate careers.”

There have been intense debates about whether antisemitic speech, as such, should be banned on campus and about the right definition of antisemitic speech. With the new academic year starting alongside a looming presidential election, we can expect protest activity on a host of issues, raising fresh questions about free speech on campus.

To answer those questions, we should turn to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that Congress “shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” Those words provide the right foundation for forging a new consensus about the scope and importance of free speech in higher education.

. . . It is true that the First Amendment, as framed, does not apply to private colleges and universities — only to public officials and institutions. If Harvard, Stanford, Baylor, Vanderbilt, Pomona or Colby wants to restrict speech, the First Amendment usually does not stand in the way (though a state might choose to apply First Amendment requirements to colleges and universities, as California has in fact done).

Still, most institutions of higher learning, large or small, would do well to commit themselves to following the First Amendment of their own accord.

As a rallying cry, that consensus should endorse the greatest sentence ever written by a Supreme Court justice. In 1943, Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote, “Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.”

Agreed, and remember, as Sunstein emphasizes, the courts have placed limits on free expression: no defamation, no false advertising, no sexual harassment, no speech intended to provoke imminent and lawless violence. The last one, and several others, are relevant to the abrogations of speech likely to occur on campus this year:

If students want to take over a building or to destroy university property, the First Amendment will not help them. The Constitution does not forbid universities from enforcing the law of trespass.

Nor does the First Amendment protect criminal conspiracy. If a group of students or professors conspires to violate the law, it is not protected merely because the conspiracy consists of speech.

More subtly, the First Amendment allows universities to punish speech that is intended to incite, and is likely to invite, “imminent lawless action.” Under this standard, students or professors can be punished for inciting an angry crowd to take over the president’s office.

But they cannot be punished for saying, “The United States is a racist country” or “Capitalism Is Rape” or “Israel is committing genocide” or “Abortion is Murder.”

The First Amendment protects speech that is angry, unpatriotic, insulting, hateful, hurtful, offensive — or even harmful.

Sunstein then quickly lays out a program of what speech should be permitted (and again, he’s talking largely about campuses, for this is where the problem has become most acute, at least for academics).  Colleges should not ban speech because of its viewpoint. Colleges should not restrict speech based on its content—unless that content inhibits the mission of the college (for example, if a professor in an evolution class starts fulminating about politics).  Here’s another sensible exception:

It follows that even if colleges and universities choose to follow the First Amendment, they can impose restrictions that would not be permissible elsewhere. They can direct professors to treat their students respectfully in class. If a teacher of physics says he believes it is hopeless to try to teach physics to women, he can probably be disciplined; it is hard to teach physics if you are on record as saying that your female students are incapable of learning.

Most important, colleges and universities should not (and public ones cannot) forbid “hate speech”, for that’s a slippery term that, unless designed to incite imminent and predictable violence, could encompass any statements that people find offensive, including criticism of affirmative action or religion.  I, for example, should be free to stand in the middle of the University of Chicago campus and shout “gas the Jews!”. (If you’re shouting it to a group of Jews who could enact violence, however, that is banned speech.) Such words are reprehensible, of course, and I’d never say them, but I would defend those who would.  And for sure that’s “hate speech”.

Sunstein shouldn’t have to write such an op-ed, as the value of the First Amendment is obvious, especially on campus, where the clash of ideas, many of them “offensive,” is supposed to take place as the way to sort out good ideas from bad, truth from falsehood. But each generation of students needs to learn this anew, which is why our University, and many others, will be giving entering students a short introduction to the meaning and application of the First Amendment.  As Sustein concludes,

. . . freedom always deserves the benefit of the doubt. The educational mission does not give colleges and universities a green light to punish speech that their alumni, their donors or influential politicians abhor or perceive as harmful. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. put it, “we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death.”

Colleges and universities exist for one reason above all: to promote learning. They are democracy’s greatest arsenal. They do not need the unanimity of the graveyard. They need the noisy, teeming pluralism of living communities that search for truth.

Mount Holyoke College blatantly violates free speech: mocking a policy now becomes a reportable offense

September 7, 2024 • 9:00 am

Speaking of violations of freedom of speech by colleges, here’s a letter to the “faculty community” of Mount Holyoke College (a high-class women’s liberal arts school), telling professors that they have to report certain types of speech. Note that these violations, however, are apparently in line with the Biden Administration’s recent rewriting of the Title IX guidelines, so federal money could be withheld from schools who don’t comply. In that sense, it’s the Biden administration itself who is responsible for policing “hate speech” and creating these new—and in my view mostly harmful—regulations (Note that as a private school, Mt. Holyoke needn’t abide by the First Amendment, but, like all nonreligious and nonmilitary schools, it certainly should.)

The new rules are laid out in this email sent to the Mount Holyoke faculty by the College President and another administrator, with the text taken from a tweet by Steve McGuire (bolding is mine):

Dear Faculty Community,

Welcome to the start of another academic year at Mount Holyoke College! As you may have learned in President Danielle R. Holley’s email communication on August 20th, the College has created a new compliance department as of this past summer. To ensure that Mount Holyoke is a safe and inclusive campus for our community as well as compliant with ever-changing regulations, two new positions were created: Assistant Vice President for Compliance and Director of Civil Rights and Community Standards.

Some of you recently heard from the Assistant Vice President for Compliance, Shannon Lynch, regarding your responsibilities as Mandated Reporters at the College. Per our Sex Discrimination and Sex-Based Harassment Policy, all College employees who are not designated as Confidential must disclose to the Title IX Coordinator when they have information that may reasonably constitute a violation of the Policy.

On August 1, Title IX Regulations expanded to include misgendering, deadnaming, and mispronouning as prohibited acts and thus expanded the set of prohibited activities of concern to mandated reporters. Because faculty have a unique role in creating classrooms as spaces of mutual trust, respect, and concern—a role that lives alongside their responsibilities under Title IX—we would like to provide some guidance regarding faculty observations of misgendering in their classrooms. It is the expectation of the College that faculty report when misgendering occurs in the following ways:

  • when the misgendering has created a hostile environment;

  • when there is open mocking of our Pronoun Policy or an individual’s choice of pronouns;

  • or when a student reports being misgendered, deadnamed, or has been subject to incorrect use of their pronouns.

Shannon will follow up with all parties named in a report, offering resources and support, as well as procedural options if the policies’ definitions and standards have been met.

The scope of Title IX has shifted, but Mount Holyoke’s overarching commitment to education, care, and support of our gender diverse community of students, faculty and staff remains unchanged. Faculty can continue to look to the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, as well as the Teaching and Learning Initiative (TLI) for additional resources and support. We also want to highlight the upcoming TGNC10 programming, which will provide opportunities for education, discussion, and community related to our 10 years as a gender diverse campus. [Although Mt. Holyoke is a women’s school, about a decade ago they decided to allow transgender women to enroll.]

Additional resources related to our Title IX policies can be found here. You may also visit the College Title IX webpage to learn more about our policies and procedures, as well as support and resources available to our campus community.

Should you have any questions or concerns regarding your responsibilities listed above, please contact Shannon Lynch at shannonlynch@mtholyoke.edu for more information.

Thank you and we wish you a successful semester ahead! =

Shannon Lynch
AVP for Compliance

Lisa M. Sullivan
Provost and Dean of Faculty
Mount Holyoke College

You can see how Title IX has changed for the worse under Biden, which, beyond changes highlighted above, also removed protections for students accused of sexual harassment or assault when their cases were being adjudicated by colleges. These protections, like the right to cross-examine witnesses, are inherent in the legal system when sexual harassment or assault is judged in the courts, and were reinstated by Betsy DeVos, but dismantled again by the Biden administration. The protections afforded students when they are judged in college hearings are far weaker than when they’re judged in the courts.

And there’s more, but they’re saving these changes until after the election, presumably because they’ll be unpopular:

Absent is a proposal on transgender participation on specific men and women athletics teams, which is anticipated after the November election.

You can read about that rule at the link to the WaPo article above, which describes a proposal apparently applying to all secondary schools through high school:

[The rule] would outlaw blanket state bans but gives schools a road map for how they can bar transgender girls from competing in certain circumstances, particularly in competitive sports.

But allowing transgender females to compete against biological women isn’t a popular view, and so the administration, in an act of duplicity and mendacity, put it off:

. . . . Nonetheless, issuing such a rule risks injecting the issue into an election year in which President Biden faces a close contest with former president Donald Trump, who has promised to ban trans women from women’s sports if reelected.

“Folks close to Biden have made the political decision to not move on the athletics [regulation] pre-election,” said one person familiar with the administration’s thinking. “It seems to be too much of a hot topic.”

Seriously, how is it okay to adopt a policy that’s unpopular with the public, but not publicize it or put it into force until the three-month period between the election and the inauguration of a new administration?

At any rate, I agree with Mt. Holyoke’s first point above: misgendering should not be allowed to create a hostile climate for a given student by repeatedly harassing that student directly, although criticizing the general notion of going along with someone’s pronoun preference is simply freedom of speech to criticize compelled speech.

Ditto for “open mocking of our pronoun policy”, which again prevents someone from criticizing a policy that is debatable. That mockery, too, is in line with the First Amendment.  Finally, deadnaming or pronoun “misuse” not used to harass a student directly seems to me in line with the First Amendment as well. (Still, if a student simply hears about it and reports it, that too has become a violation.) I suspect that if this issue gets to the courts, some of the provisions of the new Title IX provisions will be struck down.

Here’s a tweet about this from Nicholas Christakis, who along with his wife Erika had their own speech run-in at Yale University: