In my book out this week, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, I write about the anti-free speech movement that has swept over higher education and how administrators and faculty hold a view of free speech as harmful. Now Harvard is again at the heart of a free speech fight after Lawrence Bobo, the Dean of Social Science, rejected views of free speech as a “blank check” and said that criticizing university leaders like himself or school policies are now viewed as “outside the bounds of acceptable professional conduct.”
Bobo warns that public criticism of the school could “cross a line into sanctionable violations.”
In his opinion editorial in the Harvard Crimson, Bobo declares:
“A faculty member’s right to free speech does not amount to a blank check to engage in behaviors that plainly incite external actors — be it the media, alumni, donors, federal agencies, or the government — to intervene in Harvard’s affairs. Along with freedom of expression and the protection of tenure comes a responsibility to exercise good professional judgment and to refrain from conscious action that would seriously harm the University and its independence.”
The column adopts every jingoistic rationale used by anti-free speech critics today, including the invocation of the Holmes “crowded theater” analogy:
“But many faculty at Harvard enjoy an external stature that also opens to them much broader platforms for potential advocacy. Figures such as Raj Chetty ’00, Henry Louis Gates Jr., Jill Lepore, or Steven A. Pinker have well-earned notoriety that reaches far beyond the academy.
Would it simply be an ordinary act of free speech for those faculty to repeatedly denounce the University, its students, fellow faculty, or leadership? The truth is that free speech has limits — it’s why you can’t escape sanction for shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.”
First and foremost, the ability of faculty to speak out on public disputes should not depend on whether you are more popular or visible.
However, it is the theater analogy that is most galling.
I have an entire chapter in The Indispensable Right that addresses the fallacies surrounding this line out of the Holmes opinion. It is arguably the most damaging single line ever written by a Supreme Court justice in the area of free speech.
I have previously written about the irony of liberals adopting the analogy, which was used to crack down on socialists and dissenters on the left.
One of the most telling moments came in a congressional hearing when I warned of the dangers of repeating the abuses of prior periods like the Red Scare, when censorship and blacklisting were the norm. In response, Rep. Dan Goldman, D-New York, invoked Oliver Wendell Holmes’ view that free speech does not give a person the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. In other words, citizens had to be silenced because their views are dangerous to others.
When I attempted to point out that the line came from a case justifying the imprisonment of socialists for their political viewpoints, Goldman cut me off and “reclaimed his time.”
Other Democrats have used the line as a mantra, despite its origins in one of our most abusive anti-free speech periods during which the government targeted political dissidents on the left.
Dean Bobo is now the latest academic to embrace the theater rationale to justify the silencing of dissent. At Harvard, he is suggesting that the entire university is now a crowded theater and criticizing the university leadership is a cry of “Fire.” It is that easy.
By punishing criticism of the school’s leadership and policies, Bobo believes that they can look “forward to calmer times” on campus. It is precisely the type of artificial silence that academics have been enforcing against conservatives, libertarians, and dissenters for years. It is the approach that reduced our schools to an academic echo chamber.
The reference to Professor Steven Pinker is particularly ironic. As we have previously discussed, Pinker was targeted for exercising free speech. In past controversies, most Harvard faculty members have been conspicuously silent as colleagues were targeted by cancel campaigns. It was the same at other universities.
As faculties effectively purged their ranks of conservative or Republican members, the silence was deafening. Others either supported such campaigns or justified them. Notably, over 75 percent of the Harvard faculty identify as “liberal” or “very liberal.”
Then the Gaza protests began and some of these same faculty found themselves the targets of mobs. Suddenly, free speech became an urgent matter to address. Fortunately for these liberal professors, the free speech community is used to opportunistic allies. Where “fair weather friends” are often ridiculed, free speech relies on “foul-weather friends,” those who suddenly see the need to protect a diversity of opinions when they feel threatened.
Bobo’s arguments are consistent with years of rationales for silencing or investigating dissenting faculty for years. It violates the very foundation for academia in free speech and academic freedom. The university is free to punish students or faculty for unlawful conduct. However, when it comes to their viewpoints, there should be a bright line of protection.
Of course, this criticism is likely to trigger another common fallacy used to rationalize speech controls: as a private university Harvard is not subject to the First Amendment and thus this is not a true free speech issue.
As discussed previously, free speech values go beyond the First Amendment whether it is a controversy on social media or campuses. For years, anti-free-speech figures have dismissed free speech objections to social media or academic censorship by stressing that the First Amendment applies only to the government, not private companies or institutions. The distinction was always a dishonest effort to evade the implications of speech controls, whether implemented by the government or corporations.
The First Amendment was never the exclusive definition of free speech. Free speech is viewed by many of us as a human right; the First Amendment only deals with one source for limiting it. Free speech can be undermined by private corporations as well as government agencies. This threat is even greater when politicians openly use corporations and universities to achieve indirectly what they cannot achieve directly.
Dean Bobo’s desire for “calmer times” would come at too high a price for free speech as well as Harvard.
Does anybody else get the impression that Jonathan Turley’s concept of free speech greenlights willful trashing of norms of constructive political discourse? For example, let’s take ad hominem attack as an unproductive and caustic veering away from constructive criticism. The norm being walked over in that case is being able to focus attention on competing ideas without attacking the messenger. The Latin words “ad hominem” (toward the person) indicate that norms of constructive argumentation were recognized going back to ancient times. By failing to control the childish emotional impulse to transfer criticism from the idea to demonization of the person espousing it, the chance to come together around a solution to a problem is destroyed — rather, it hardens thinking (cognitive freeze), and abandons group cohesion as part of the desired outcome.
Freedom of speech subserves a greater purpose, which is the ability of a free, self-governing people to navigate complex, gnarly problems (social, economic, technological) while maintaining esprit-de-corps, trust and confidence. A measure of how well this freedom is operating is whether the polity can fully perceive all its options in a decision timeframe, and in retrospect agree that the best choice was taken. A sign that free thought and expression became blocked is post-hoc regret in having walked into a public blunder (e.g., fighting to topple Saddam Hussein based on the public being duped about WMDs and a secret Al Qaeda plot to obtain them).
This raises the pivotal question: Does intentional duping of the public to achieve a political goal fall under the umbrella of protected free speech? And, if not, what are the best means of deterring such willful public frauds (ruling out govt. prosecution as a 1st Amendment violation)?
My sense from reading JT’s opinions is that an expansive definition of free speech — allowing ad hominem denunciation and artful fabrications — “will eventually get us there” (effective policies). But, in a fast-paced world buzzing with threats, there simply may not be time to get it wrong before getting it right. That’s where norms of political discourse become very crucial. Norms which work to keep thinking focussed positively on solving a problem while maintaining trust and cooperation use public brainpower efficiently. Relaxing those norms leads to militant tactics that inhibit creative problem-solving (creative juices become expended on how to make your opponents look bad and thwart them), derailing constructive problem-solving. The result is less freedom of overall thought and speech. The result is policy chaos, and loss of unity. And that poses an existential threat.
So I ask: What (if any) norms of civility, comity and responsibility are baked into JT’s “free speech” concept?
Translation of Dennis WacIntyre’s statement below into plain English:
“I hate America. I hate liberty and freedom and I love Marxist rubbish that will help enslave people. I especially hate Donald Trump because he stands for America and all of the American people, instead of the Marxist Elite.”
Thank you, Dennis for your “thoughtful” comments. We don’t hear enough from the depraved, degenerate Marxist scumbagwormmeat community.
Jonathan: Trump is in a slump–in more ways than one. And he’s whining about it on Truth Social–that also is slumping in viewership–along with his Trump Media stock. Everything in Trump’s world is SLUMPING!
In a post yesterday DJT whined and complained about former House Speaker Paul Ryan who was invited on Fox News and said he didn’t think DJT is fit to be president again. And what did DJT have to say about the Ryan interview?: “He’s [Ryan] a total lightweight, a failed and pathetic Speaker of the House, and a very disloyal person. Romney was bad but Paul Byan made him look worse [got that backwards don’t you, Donald? Probably a cognitive problem]…. Rupert and Lachlan, get that dog off your Board–you don’t need him. ALL YOU NEED IS TRUMP. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”
Notice that Donald has a problem with sharks and dogs. He rather be electrocuted than be eaten by a shark. And anyone who won’t support him is either “disloyal” or a dirty “dog”. Kind of gives you a new appreciation for dogs! Dog loving voters out there remember that in November. And if I were Paul McCartney I would sue DJT for stealing the title to one of the Beatles’ early hits “All You Need is Love”. Of course, no confusing the Beatles song about “Love, love love” with DJT, who is all about hate and revenge. Then there is the “lightweight” remark. Ryan is still fit and trim–while DJT is definitely in the “heavyweight” division! And Joe are you paying attention? You are still fit and trim. Why not use some of my material next week in your debate with the Trumpster. Humor and mocking is the best way to really get under DJT’s skin.
But I’m not finished. DJT then complained and whined about the latest Fox poll that shows Biden in the lead. DJT was beside himself: “The latest Fox News poll is TRASH! They used a biased, Democrat-leaning sample of voters, polling more Biden 2020 voters to show the results in favor of Crooked Joe”. Actually, the Fox poll was pretty unbiased that included independents. DJT knows absolutely nothing about the methodology used by Fox in conducting its latest poll. And take it from me, Donald, your status now as a “convicted felon” is not helping your poll numbers!
It would not be an overstatement to accurately characterize Harvard Dean Lawrence Bobo and former Harvard President Claudine Gay as depraved, Marxist, degenerate scumbagwormmeat.
Free Speech In Action:
The Filthy Rants Of Floyd ‘Turdrunner’ Estovir
*****
See Below, as D____s the cock sucking LIAR,
D____s the unconvicted pedophile is the real bottom feeder here.
As I eat the peanuts from my own shit.
What happens when he steps in the wet spot on the tile floor after he gets creampied by some yuge maga cock.
Who the fvck are you talking to retard???
So you can piss up a rope wrt what i believe, but you really should study Christianity.
………………………………..
KEY PASSAGE FROM ABOVE:
“As I eat the peanuts from my own shit”.
******
No wonder commenters have tagged Floyd with the name ‘Turdrunner’; he’s always writing about sh1t!
Yet this same, deeply disturbed loser presumes to be a ‘Christian’. Go figure!
All these filthy passages are from yesterday’s column about a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision. Again and again, Floyd resorts to filth in responding to liberals.
But Professor Turley’s commitment to free speech is such that he allows these comment threads to become an abandoned porto-potty.