"This is an institution of higher learning, not a town square, and no one should interfere with others’ efforts to carry on activities on campus. YLS is a professional school, and this is not how lawyers interact. We are also a community that respects our faculty and staff who have devoted their lives to helping students. Professor Kate Stith, Dean Mike Thompson, and other members of the staff should not have been treated as they were."
I like David Lat's positive-as-well-as-negative approach, and will flatter him by imitating it. (Seriously: I was just going to be negative,but I'll be constructive now.) Dean Gerken's statement above is very bad as is, but slight modifications can make it very good. So:
"This is an institution of higher learning, not a town square, but no one should interfere with others’ efforts to carry on activities on campus, just as no one should do so in a town square. YLS is a professional school, and this is not how lawyers interact. We are also a community that respects our faculty and staff who have devoted their lives to helping students. It is not just our guests, Monica Miller and Kristen Waggoner, who were mistreated. Professor Kate Stith, Dean Mike Thompson, and other members of the staff should not have been treated as they were."
In the very recent past, the Yale Law School faculty (supported by the University’s President) voted to grant Heather Gerken another term as Dean. In the wake of the events on March 10, Dean Gerken has claimed that YLS is a “professional school.” What profession might that be? Events during her first term and continuing into her second term have amply demonstrated that YLS has transitioned from a professional school to a social experiment in which faculty members and students are targeted for their sincerely held views and in which invited outside speakers must be accompanied by security officers when they dare enter the Sterling Law Building. I was previously of the view that I am not close enough to the situation to assign blame for this state of affairs. But now I can see clearly the culprits. It’s not Dean Gerken, by the way. She has been consistently feckless throughout. Rather, it’s the faculty that voted her a second term when she was a known quantity. Ladies and Gentlemen, congratulations — your Dean has delivered just as you apparently hoped she would. And YLS and the entire legal profession are the losers.
David, please explain how one can be "friends" with someone for whom one has no respect. IMHO, mere disagreement does not rise to the level of lack of respect. I'm a conservative who lives in California, a type of endangered species. But I have lots of liberal friends with whom I disagree, but none for whom I have no respect. At most, those latter people are mere acquaintances with whom I am compelled to deal because of extraneous circumstances.
I don't disagree with you, Richard—but I think there are a lot of people out there, on both sides of the aisle, who find it very difficult to respect anyone whose views are too different from their own. Friendships like the one between Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg are becomingly increasingly rare. If you were to ask the March 10 protesters whether they respect members of FedSoc, I bet many of them would say no.
Mar 29, 2022·edited Mar 29, 2022Liked by David Lat
I have a huge problem with one of the examples of prohibited conduct under the Yale Free Speech policy: "Standing up in an assembly in a way that obstructs the view of those attempting to watch an event or speaker and/or blocking the aisles or routes of egress"
In my opinion, one of the most effective forms of APPROPRIATE counter-speech is for those who disagree with the speaker to stand and silently turn their backs on the speaker. At most, this would require those behind the protestors to themselves stand, which is de rigueur at sporting events and concerts (especially if you have floor seats).
Any "free speech" policy that bans such a protest is, to my mind, poorly constructed.
To be clear, as a private university, Yale has the right to engage in whatever forms of discipline it wants, without running afoul of the First Amendment.
A fair point—and I actually also don't have a problem with protesters turning their backs on the speaker, at least compared with shouting the speaker down. Some alternatives might be to (1) turn your back on the speaker but while remaining seated (which some justices were known to do back in the day), and (2) stand at the back of the room if you plan to engage in this form of protest. (I do understand why the policy doesn't want protesters to obstruct the views of attendees, especially if the speakers are using visual aids or slides.)
If the event provides swiveling chairs for the audience (a la SCOTUS), then your suggestion works. In the world where the audience is seated in fixed chairs or desks, it does not. Standing at the back of the room and turning your back is literally invisible as protest to the entire audience.
Investing the University with discretion to take punitive action against those who stand silently and turn their backs, for fear that the powerpoint can't be seen, is a poorly designed free-speech policy. I imagine that the disciplinary power would be used most often against those whose protests are unpopular (who are protesting popular speakers).
Again, I agree with much of what you say, Mitch. I could see revising the policy to get rid of that provision, while leaving in the requirement that speakers can be heard. (There might be situations where you have a sign-language interpreter and therefore need unobstructed views—like at university commencements, which sometimes get protested—but I don’t believe that was the case here.)
I guess it also depends on who the target audience for the protest is. I think that a lot of the time, the protesters just want to give the metaphorical (or in this case actual) finger to the speakers, so standing at the back of the room still accomplishes that goal. Sadly, I think they’re unlikely to sway attendees in many cases, since the folks attending “in earnest” tend to be supporters of the speakers or the hosting organization.
I'm curious as to your thoughts on something that I think has been missing from these free speech discussions: providing a platform and implied acceptance of some quite hateful groups. ADF believes LGBT should be criminalized, trans persons should be sterilized, Jewish and LGBT persons should be prevented from adopting, among other things. I agree we should encourage debate and discussion with different opinions represented, but we also need to pay attention to who we are having as part of those debates. By including people and groups that advocate such hate, you give them a platform to spread such hate, and give credence to the notion that such hate is a valid point of contention. I'm not suggesting there can't be disagreement or disapproval of LGBT, but to advocate that I be put in prison for who I love, that should not be given a platform by our institutions. We can put together events to discuss various political topics or legal discussions without inviting people and groups that advocate hateful policies.
You are expressing your views very well, Nate, and many people, lawyers and non-lawyers alike, share your views.
I’m something of a free-speech absolutist; I’ll slide all the way down the slippery slope. One of the most famous free-speech cases allowed the Nazi Party of America to march in a town with many Holocaust survivors. You can’t be in the position of deciding which group is too bad to allow to speak.
I think the best thing to do is often to ignore the speakers one deems “hateful.” This event wouldn’t have become a national event without the protesters. It would have played to a crowd of 30 and that would have been that. Just deny them oxygen.
Two other things to remember:
1. This event had nothing to do with ADF’s views on LGBT issues, which didn’t come up until raised by the protesters.
2. The law school doesn’t approve or reject any speakers. So that’s why I don’t agree with the “platforming” argument. The law school doesn’t “endorse” the views of any speakers (and it really couldn’t, since they often disagree vehemently with each other, like the AHA and ADF speakers here).
3. I think some of your statements about ADF are not 100 percent accurate. Their basic view—which I disagree with strongly, but don’t find “hateful”—is a traditional religious view of marriage (which we still allow churches to adhere to, even if civic marriage can’t be so limited).
But this is neither here nor there in my viewpoint-neutral view of the world.
Please note, also, I'm not a lawyer, and may not be expressing myself the best here. I believe in free speech and open debate and discussion. I just think we need to have a broader conversation about what groups and people are being invited to these debates.
"This is an institution of higher learning, not a town square, and no one should interfere with others’ efforts to carry on activities on campus. YLS is a professional school, and this is not how lawyers interact. We are also a community that respects our faculty and staff who have devoted their lives to helping students. Professor Kate Stith, Dean Mike Thompson, and other members of the staff should not have been treated as they were."
I like David Lat's positive-as-well-as-negative approach, and will flatter him by imitating it. (Seriously: I was just going to be negative,but I'll be constructive now.) Dean Gerken's statement above is very bad as is, but slight modifications can make it very good. So:
"This is an institution of higher learning, not a town square, but no one should interfere with others’ efforts to carry on activities on campus, just as no one should do so in a town square. YLS is a professional school, and this is not how lawyers interact. We are also a community that respects our faculty and staff who have devoted their lives to helping students. It is not just our guests, Monica Miller and Kristen Waggoner, who were mistreated. Professor Kate Stith, Dean Mike Thompson, and other members of the staff should not have been treated as they were."
See the difference?
In the very recent past, the Yale Law School faculty (supported by the University’s President) voted to grant Heather Gerken another term as Dean. In the wake of the events on March 10, Dean Gerken has claimed that YLS is a “professional school.” What profession might that be? Events during her first term and continuing into her second term have amply demonstrated that YLS has transitioned from a professional school to a social experiment in which faculty members and students are targeted for their sincerely held views and in which invited outside speakers must be accompanied by security officers when they dare enter the Sterling Law Building. I was previously of the view that I am not close enough to the situation to assign blame for this state of affairs. But now I can see clearly the culprits. It’s not Dean Gerken, by the way. She has been consistently feckless throughout. Rather, it’s the faculty that voted her a second term when she was a known quantity. Ladies and Gentlemen, congratulations — your Dean has delivered just as you apparently hoped she would. And YLS and the entire legal profession are the losers.
David, please explain how one can be "friends" with someone for whom one has no respect. IMHO, mere disagreement does not rise to the level of lack of respect. I'm a conservative who lives in California, a type of endangered species. But I have lots of liberal friends with whom I disagree, but none for whom I have no respect. At most, those latter people are mere acquaintances with whom I am compelled to deal because of extraneous circumstances.
I don't disagree with you, Richard—but I think there are a lot of people out there, on both sides of the aisle, who find it very difficult to respect anyone whose views are too different from their own. Friendships like the one between Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg are becomingly increasingly rare. If you were to ask the March 10 protesters whether they respect members of FedSoc, I bet many of them would say no.
I have a huge problem with one of the examples of prohibited conduct under the Yale Free Speech policy: "Standing up in an assembly in a way that obstructs the view of those attempting to watch an event or speaker and/or blocking the aisles or routes of egress"
In my opinion, one of the most effective forms of APPROPRIATE counter-speech is for those who disagree with the speaker to stand and silently turn their backs on the speaker. At most, this would require those behind the protestors to themselves stand, which is de rigueur at sporting events and concerts (especially if you have floor seats).
Any "free speech" policy that bans such a protest is, to my mind, poorly constructed.
To be clear, as a private university, Yale has the right to engage in whatever forms of discipline it wants, without running afoul of the First Amendment.
A fair point—and I actually also don't have a problem with protesters turning their backs on the speaker, at least compared with shouting the speaker down. Some alternatives might be to (1) turn your back on the speaker but while remaining seated (which some justices were known to do back in the day), and (2) stand at the back of the room if you plan to engage in this form of protest. (I do understand why the policy doesn't want protesters to obstruct the views of attendees, especially if the speakers are using visual aids or slides.)
If the event provides swiveling chairs for the audience (a la SCOTUS), then your suggestion works. In the world where the audience is seated in fixed chairs or desks, it does not. Standing at the back of the room and turning your back is literally invisible as protest to the entire audience.
Investing the University with discretion to take punitive action against those who stand silently and turn their backs, for fear that the powerpoint can't be seen, is a poorly designed free-speech policy. I imagine that the disciplinary power would be used most often against those whose protests are unpopular (who are protesting popular speakers).
Again, I agree with much of what you say, Mitch. I could see revising the policy to get rid of that provision, while leaving in the requirement that speakers can be heard. (There might be situations where you have a sign-language interpreter and therefore need unobstructed views—like at university commencements, which sometimes get protested—but I don’t believe that was the case here.)
I guess it also depends on who the target audience for the protest is. I think that a lot of the time, the protesters just want to give the metaphorical (or in this case actual) finger to the speakers, so standing at the back of the room still accomplishes that goal. Sadly, I think they’re unlikely to sway attendees in many cases, since the folks attending “in earnest” tend to be supporters of the speakers or the hosting organization.
I'm curious as to your thoughts on something that I think has been missing from these free speech discussions: providing a platform and implied acceptance of some quite hateful groups. ADF believes LGBT should be criminalized, trans persons should be sterilized, Jewish and LGBT persons should be prevented from adopting, among other things. I agree we should encourage debate and discussion with different opinions represented, but we also need to pay attention to who we are having as part of those debates. By including people and groups that advocate such hate, you give them a platform to spread such hate, and give credence to the notion that such hate is a valid point of contention. I'm not suggesting there can't be disagreement or disapproval of LGBT, but to advocate that I be put in prison for who I love, that should not be given a platform by our institutions. We can put together events to discuss various political topics or legal discussions without inviting people and groups that advocate hateful policies.
You are expressing your views very well, Nate, and many people, lawyers and non-lawyers alike, share your views.
I’m something of a free-speech absolutist; I’ll slide all the way down the slippery slope. One of the most famous free-speech cases allowed the Nazi Party of America to march in a town with many Holocaust survivors. You can’t be in the position of deciding which group is too bad to allow to speak.
I think the best thing to do is often to ignore the speakers one deems “hateful.” This event wouldn’t have become a national event without the protesters. It would have played to a crowd of 30 and that would have been that. Just deny them oxygen.
Two other things to remember:
1. This event had nothing to do with ADF’s views on LGBT issues, which didn’t come up until raised by the protesters.
2. The law school doesn’t approve or reject any speakers. So that’s why I don’t agree with the “platforming” argument. The law school doesn’t “endorse” the views of any speakers (and it really couldn’t, since they often disagree vehemently with each other, like the AHA and ADF speakers here).
3. I think some of your statements about ADF are not 100 percent accurate. Their basic view—which I disagree with strongly, but don’t find “hateful”—is a traditional religious view of marriage (which we still allow churches to adhere to, even if civic marriage can’t be so limited).
But this is neither here nor there in my viewpoint-neutral view of the world.
Please note, also, I'm not a lawyer, and may not be expressing myself the best here. I believe in free speech and open debate and discussion. I just think we need to have a broader conversation about what groups and people are being invited to these debates.