The incentive to be more concerned about signalling support for a movement than advancing the goals of that movement is the great tragedy of our politics today. It's always been a problem for student activists, especially on Israel, but social media has amplified the problem everywhere.
I don't have any good solutions because the truth is that individuals really do have greater interest in showing what their values are than the minor effect their votes/voice can have. We used to solve it using expert intermediation who would indicate the view you should hold as a good X but we haven't found a way for people to play that role in our new online world.
I find this endless focus on academic freedom of speech distracting and unfortunate. As I have pointed out several times in these comments, the danger to free speech does not come from students or outside protesters. It comes from government power in the hands of the wrong people.
The latest example comes, of course, from Florida. Florida is the site of a fierce battle over an abortion rights amendment to the state constitution. It is on the November ballot and must get a 60% yes vote to pass.
The governor of Florida opposes the amendment, which is no surprise. However, he has directed his state Department of Health to threaten criminal prosecution against any television station or station employee who allows ads supporting the amendment to appear on air. The state's pretext for this threat is so absurd that it is almost comical. But that is not the point. The goal is to discourage any station from running the ad before the election. After that, it will not matter.
I recall that the First Amendment says something about all this. Even the Roberts Court would not tolerate such abuse. When we lose freedom of speech in this country, it will not be because some protesters disrupted a judge's speech. It will be because governments like Florida made baseless but effective threats.
I can't help but think that educational institutions could handle this type of situation much better than they do. Such responses to events are remarkably predictable. Some event sponsors even want such a response. There must be a much better way to plan to mitigate this problem than merely creating a policy, reading a short statement before an event and then waiting for things get out of hand. One of the things most needed seems to be some education (for students as well as public attendees) about how to participate in such events. A lot of people just don't know where the limits are or why they are where they are.
In Citizens United, SCOTUS emphasized that "Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people." It also emphasized the more important principle that in our "republic" it is "the people" who "are sovereign." Too many people don't even comprehend that concept. They think speech is for subversives, not for sovereigns. So some act like subversives, not sovereigns. Others react to critical speech as if it is subversive or subversion instead of an exercise of the primary power of sovereigns.
The incentive to be more concerned about signalling support for a movement than advancing the goals of that movement is the great tragedy of our politics today. It's always been a problem for student activists, especially on Israel, but social media has amplified the problem everywhere.
I don't have any good solutions because the truth is that individuals really do have greater interest in showing what their values are than the minor effect their votes/voice can have. We used to solve it using expert intermediation who would indicate the view you should hold as a good X but we haven't found a way for people to play that role in our new online world.
That was an excellent lecture. I wish I had a way to hear about these things some other way than by them erupting into controversy.
I saw your correction on Spiro's alma mater. You got a lot of complaints from concerned Harvard grads ddin't you!
Actually, I think some of the folks who corrected me were Tufts grads!
I find this endless focus on academic freedom of speech distracting and unfortunate. As I have pointed out several times in these comments, the danger to free speech does not come from students or outside protesters. It comes from government power in the hands of the wrong people.
The latest example comes, of course, from Florida. Florida is the site of a fierce battle over an abortion rights amendment to the state constitution. It is on the November ballot and must get a 60% yes vote to pass.
The governor of Florida opposes the amendment, which is no surprise. However, he has directed his state Department of Health to threaten criminal prosecution against any television station or station employee who allows ads supporting the amendment to appear on air. The state's pretext for this threat is so absurd that it is almost comical. But that is not the point. The goal is to discourage any station from running the ad before the election. After that, it will not matter.
I recall that the First Amendment says something about all this. Even the Roberts Court would not tolerate such abuse. When we lose freedom of speech in this country, it will not be because some protesters disrupted a judge's speech. It will be because governments like Florida made baseless but effective threats.
I can't help but think that educational institutions could handle this type of situation much better than they do. Such responses to events are remarkably predictable. Some event sponsors even want such a response. There must be a much better way to plan to mitigate this problem than merely creating a policy, reading a short statement before an event and then waiting for things get out of hand. One of the things most needed seems to be some education (for students as well as public attendees) about how to participate in such events. A lot of people just don't know where the limits are or why they are where they are.
In Citizens United, SCOTUS emphasized that "Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people." It also emphasized the more important principle that in our "republic" it is "the people" who "are sovereign." Too many people don't even comprehend that concept. They think speech is for subversives, not for sovereigns. So some act like subversives, not sovereigns. Others react to critical speech as if it is subversive or subversion instead of an exercise of the primary power of sovereigns.