The Presidents of Harvard, MIT, Penn, Columbia should be forced to resign

Academic Freedom Under Fire | The New Yorker

Politicians despise it. Administrators aren’t defending it. But it made our universities great—and we’ll miss it when it’s gone.
By Louis Menand

April 29, 2024

The congressional appearance last month by Nemat Shafik, the president of Columbia University, was a breathtaking “What was she thinking?” episode in the history of academic freedom. It was shocking to hear her negotiating with a member of Congress over disciplining two members of her own faculty, by name, for things they had written or said. The next day, in what appeared to be a signal to Congress, Shafik had more than a hundred students, many from Barnard, arrested by New York City police and booked for trespassing—on their own campus. But Columbia made their presence illegal by summarily suspending the protesters first. If you are a university official, you never want law-enforcement officers on your campus. Faculty particularly don’t like it. They regard the campus as their jurisdiction, and they have complained that the Columbia administration did not consult with them before ordering the arrests. Calling in law enforcement did not work at Berkeley in 1964, at Columbia in 1968, at Harvard in 1969, or at Kent State in 1970.

The right at stake in these events is that of academic freedom, a right that derives from the role the university plays in American life. Professors don’t work for politicians, they don’t work for trustees, and they don’t work for themselves. They work for the public. Their job is to produce scholarship and instruction that add to society’s store of knowledge. They commit themselves to doing this disinterestedly: that is, without regard to financial, partisan, or personal advantage. In exchange, society allows them to insulate themselves—and to some extent their students—against external interference in their affairs. It builds them a tower.

...

Academic freedom is related to, but not the same as, freedom of speech in the First Amendment sense. In the public square, you can say or publish ignorant things, hateful things, in many cases false things, and the state cannot touch you. Academic freedom doesn’t work that way. Academic discourse is rigorously policed. It’s just that the police are professors.

Faculty members pass judgment on the work that their colleagues produce, and they decide whom to hire, whom to fire, and what to teach. They see that the norms of academic inquiry are observed. Those norms derive from the first great battle over academic freedom in the nineteenth century—science versus religion. The model of inquiry in the modern research university is secular and scientific. All views and all hypotheses must be fairly tested, and their success depends entirely on their ability to persuade by evidence and by rational argument. No a-priori judgments are permitted, and there is no appeal to a higher authority.

There are, therefore, all kinds of professional constraints on academic expression. The scholarship that academics publish has to be approved by their peers. The protocols of citation must be observed, ad-hominem arguments are not tolerated, unsubstantiated claims are dismissed, and so on. Although academics regard the word “orthodoxy” with horror, there is a lot of tacit orthodoxy in the university, as there is in any business. People who are trained alike tend to think alike. But, as long as academic judgments are made by consensus, not by fiat, and by experts, not by amateurs, it is assumed that the knowledge machine is operating fairly and efficiently. The public can trust the product.

All professions aspire to be self-governing, because their members believe that only fellow-professionals have the expertise needed to make judgments in their fields. But professionals also know that failures of self-regulation invite outside meddling. In the case of the university, it is in the faculty’s interest to run their institution equitably and competently. They need to be trusted to operate independently of public opinion. They need to keep the tower standing.

This is why the phenomenon that goes by the shorthand October 7th was a crisis for American higher education. The impression that some universities were not policing themselves competently, that their campuses were out of control, provided an opening to parties looking to affect the kind of knowledge that universities produce, who is allowed to produce it, and how it is taught—decisions that are traditionally the prerogative of the faculty. Politicians who want to chill certain kinds of academic expression think that they can do this by threatening to revoke a university’s tax-exempt status or tax its endowment. In the current political climate, it is not hard to imagine such things happening. If they did, it would be a straight-up abrogation of the social pact.

...

Whittington, who says he is “on the political right,” is highly protective of academic freedom. He can see no reason why we would want politicians to dictate what can and cannot be studied and taught. It would be like putting a syllabus up to a popular vote every year. His book is concerned mainly with public colleges and universities (where some seventy per cent of American students are enrolled), since their faculties are public employees and state legislatures control their budgets. This also means, however, that their speech is protected by the First Amendment. Florida’s 2022 Individual Freedom Act, popularly known as the Stop woke Act, which prohibits the teaching in public educational institutions of ideas that some legislators define as “divisive,” was struck down, in part, by the Eleventh Circuit for being what it plainly is: viewpoint discrimination, which is barred by the First Amendment. (The power of states to dictate content in K-12 classrooms, on the other hand, is fairly well established.)

The Florida act was one of a hundred and forty educational gag orders passed by state legislatures in 2022; almost forty per cent of these targeted colleges and universities. The gag-order phenomenon is one of the topics covered in “The Right to Learn.” The volume’s editors argue that efforts such as these are worse than McCarthyism. McCarthyism went after individuals for their political beliefs; today, the targets are the curriculum and the classroom, the very bones of the educational system.

...

What about students? The student version of academic freedom is Lernfreiheit, the freedom to learn. This rule is a little harder to apply. Students don’t typically determine the curriculum, and they are usually passive subjects of a disciplinary regime called grading. Originally, “freedom to learn” referred simply to the freedom to choose one’s course of study. Now it gets invoked in the contexts of classroom speech, where instructors are witnessing a lot of self-censorship, and campus speech, where students chant, carry banners, and exercise civil disobedience.

Some students report that they don’t feel free to express their views, because what they say might be received as hurtful or offensive by other students, and instructors find themselves second-guessing the texts they assign, since students may refuse to engage with works that they find politically objectionable. Instructors worry about being anonymously reported and subjected to an institutional investigation. Instructors and students can also, needless to say, suffer trial by social media. These are not great working conditions for the knowledge business. You may lose the argument in an academic exchange, but you have to feel free, in the classroom, to have your say without sanction.

...

Academic freedom is an understanding, not a law. It can’t just be invoked. It has to be asserted and defended. That’s why it’s so disheartening that leaders of great universities appear reluctant to speak up for the rights of independent inquiry and free expression for which Americans have fought. Even after Shafik offered up faculty sacrifices on the congressional altar and called in the N.Y.P.D., Republicans responded by demanding her resignation. If capitulation isn’t working, not much is lost by trying some defiance.

 

if you assault others or threaten them or destroy public or private property then you should go to jail. you shouldnt be arrested simply for protesting, but thats what governor abbott and many others are calling for.

its bizarre watching some of yall get so excited about non-violent protesters getting arrested while you also call the people arrested for january 6th "hostages" and that they are being held in "gulags". let me know when the pro-palestinian groups start beating up cops and destroying my alma matter!

and PLEASE let me know when sleepy joe records a cover of "god bless america" with the pro-hamas choir!

there was a cameraman from a local news station who was arrested and they are claiming he hit a cop with his camera. he is being charged with a felony.

 

he claimed he was pushed...

charges for all 57 arrests at UT last week were dropped, then he was later charged with the felony for assault after more video surfaced

"lunged toward" doesn't sound like assault

I'm very doubtful a photojournalist, there to do photojournalist things, just decided to assault an official. This sounds like prosecutorial discretion overreach and misconduct to me.



https://www.kxan.com/news/local/aus...fter-arrest-during-ut-protest-affidavit-says/

According to an active arrest warrant affidavit, Carlos Sanchez, 43, faces a charge of assault on a peace officer, a second-degree felony.

The affidavit said Sanchez lunged toward a Texas Highway Patrol officer, who was on campus assisting the university’s police department during its response to the protest, striking him with his camera.

“They said that I hit an officer. I didn’t hit an officer. They were pushing me. They were pushing me,” he said. “This never happened to me, you know what I mean? I was just covering things… I told them I was press.”

 

They arent being arrest for simply protesting and nobody has called for that. Public land has rules that govern its use. For example, you cant throw a rager at your neighborhood playground at 3 AM

 

I mostly agree, though I believe intimidate is too broad or general of a term to have any real meaning in restricting people's right to protest. The rest of it, I agree with.

But does intimidate mean to physically threaten someone or threaten to harm their family members? Does intimidate mean to threaten more protests, sit-ins, or non-violent occupations? I would agree that the former shouldn't be allowed, but believe the latter examples would be allowed. However, carrying through with sit-ins, occupation of buildings does come with legal consequences and protesters should be willing to accept those, or not protest in that manner. But threatening or warning of those actions should still be protected.

 

At this point I just don’t care and 90% of the people I know don’t really care.

People protest - especially young people and double especially college kids in America at elite schools.

Every few years these protests happen - and these protests always involve a group that is repressed and not properly represented.

A lot of these people protesting on campus aren’t even students - and even the students that are protesting are not hurting people.

Israelis and Jews that support Israel can act all appalled that they are in someways the bad guys - but again most people don’t give a ****. Oppress a group of people, steal their land, control their borders and ensure systemic poverty and people will eventually view your position for what it is. All the talking points used by Israel were used by South African whites.

I don’t live in Israel and I don’t live in the occupied territory. The protests by the left on college campuses make 0% difference, and honestly I am tired of the pity party by both sides.

The Jews stole the land from the Palestinians and lack the integrity to just admit it. The Jews have been given WAY more than enough help from the USA. The Jews are slowly pushing out the Palestinians… and by the same token, many in Palestine would love nothing better than to rape and slaughter every last Jew in Israel and the Israeli’s have been targeted and hated ever since they were stupidly granted nationhood.

If I have to hear another Zionist or American Jew tell me that Israel is their homeland, I am going to throw up. It is an incredibly entitled and historically false statement.

The next time I have an Arab Muslim tell me that they practice a religion of peace - and then tell me that Israeli’s should be killed - I’m going to scream.

Both sides are utter **** and arguably aren’t even worth fighting for and have received far more attention than deserved.

While I find it interesting to discuss - it really feels like a waste of America’s focus and concerns- there are FAR more important issues domestically.

Im sure this will piss over people on both sides of the topic - but it is nothing personal. It is that there is a complete lack of integrity and honesty from both sides.

 

its BS. the video is out there. the cameraman is behind an officer who looks to have been pushed back into him. he might have been too close to the officer, but its obvious that there was no intentional contact on his part. and then another cop came from behind the cameraman and threw him to the ground.

 

like i already said, greg abbott has. and judging by many comments im reading here it seems like many support arresting people simply for protesting.

"Arrests being made right now & will continue until the crowd disperses. These protesters belong in jail. Antisemitism will not be tolerated in Texas. Period. Students joining in hate-filled, antisemitic protests at any public college or university in Texas should be expelled."
greg abbott

 

No, they are arrested for not following the rules on occupying public land owned by the state. For example, if they protested by boycotting, they would be fine.

Public property has rules. These rules are set by the public (by voting). Go take ten thousand people and 'protest' in the middle of rocky mountain national park. Let me know how it goes

 

https://www.thefire.org/news/heres-what-students-need-know-about-protesting-campus-right-now

Here’s what students need to know about protesting on campus right now
As Israel/Gaza campus protests spread nationwide, FIRE answers questions about students’ expressive rights.

To be clear: FIRE takes no stance on the content of the speech we defend. Time and again, both recently and throughout our 25 years defending student rights, we’ve defended the rights of pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli speakers alike. Yet we’ve always drawn a distinction between protected speech and unprotected conduct: The former reflects the core purpose of a functioning university; the latter undermines it.

Students should know their rights. We hope this Q&A will equip students to speak freely.

....

What forms of protest are not protected?
The First Amendment does not protect unlawful conduct. If you engage in conduct while protesting that violates the law — such as violence, assault, vandalism, or underage drinking — you can face arrest and/or campus disciplinary proceedings. Other unprotected conduct (including speech) that can lead to arrest or disciplinary action includes:

• True threats and intimidation
• Incitement
• Discriminatory harassment
• Substantially disrupting events or deplatforming speakers

For a more detailed explanation of the First Amendment’s boundaries, check out this article by FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley.

Is civil disobedience free speech?
Civil disobedience is nonviolent unlawful conduct undertaken intentionally as a form of protest. Examples might include occupying a campus building or participating in a “die-in” that blocks traffic on a campus street. Acts of civil disobedience may strike onlookers as powerful because they reflect belief strong enough to violate existing law or policy. But students who engage in civil disobedience should realize that breaking the law — or campus policy — may result in consequences. And that price may include facing legal or institutional punishment by their college or university.

What about encampments? Can I join one on my campus?
In recent days, a large encampment in the heart of the Columbia campus has spawned similar demonstrations at other colleges and universities. Columbia’s encampment received national media attention first for its size, and subsequently due to the university’s decision last week to suspend and arrest protesters who refused to leave it.

Even in open, outdoor areas of campus where protest is typically allowed, universities can still regulate large gatherings and overnight camping. Such regulations on protest or use of grounds typically appear in student handbooks or other policy documents.

In short, colleges can regulate around-the-clock encampments, even removing or arresting protesters who refuse to leave them. Students occupying campus spaces in violation of reasonable, content-neutral rules risk punishment. When that punishment is viewpoint-neutral, proportional, and in keeping with past practice, it does not violate expressive rights.

 

lol, fat chicks aren't happy about this

 

Do they make burkas in xxl?

 

Im rooting for the maoist college kids to burn down the shitty school BLM style

 

Did you see James Carville’s comments? He kind of echoes this. There are other, even larger issues that are being ignored in the meantime.

 

No I didn’t- but obviously I agree with him. I just took a step back on the topic concerning protests in the USA and realized that essentially no one is getting hurt and the protests are being used by both sides in deceptive manners to push an agenda that honestly I don’t like.