It is about Brandeis professors.
Basically, they expressed some typically left-wing, occasionally anti-Semitic opinions on a Listserv.
In response, the university vigorously defended their right of free speech. Which is absolutely the correct response, in my opinion.
However, this is the same Brandeis that would not allow Ayaan Hirsi Ali to receive an honorary degree. Where was the vigorous defense of free speech back then?
I don’t think it occurs to Brandeis administrators and others on the left that if they are going to defend free speech and open inquiry, that this includes opinions with which they disagree.
Free speech means getting whatever you want from other people
“I don’t think it occurs to Brandeis administrators and others on the left that if they are going to defend free speech and open inquiry, that this includes opinions with which they disagree.”
No, I think it occurs to them.
The whole thing is embarrassing on an institutional level, but not because of the double standard you cite. I know these are private, informal emails, but yeesh. The impression I get from reading those excerpts the Free Beacon published is of a bunch of third rate intellects sharing sophomoric, ignorant, unhinged opinions and lampooning their bosses with no more wit or skill than a bunch of McDonald’s flunkies standing around the deep fryer after the lunch rush is over.
In other words, not the impression you want to give prospective students and their parents.
Dr.Kling,
I think I’m missing something here :
1) Ayaan Hirsi Ali has a right to her views;
2) Brandeis professors protesting the degree-award, are entitled both to disagree with/condemn those views, and to protest against the award, via a signed petition.
3) The powers that be at Brandeis, it seems to me, unilaterally decided, and announced, the award. Given that Brandeis is an institution, and, hopefully, not somebody’s plaything, were they entitled to declare their, perhaps personal, support to her via an institutional award without internal consultation?
4) Having made the announcement unilaterally, however, they should have had the stomach to go ahead and award the degree, or, failing that, resign. That was the test. They failed.
I’m not sure what this has to do with not respecting someone else’s freedom of speech. The protest was against Ms.Hirsi Ali’s ideas; not her right to express them.
Do you really and truly not see the double standard, here?
Free speech in the legal sense is a straw man in this instance. I thought that, as we’ve been told by the left for decades now, free speech isn’t just a legal right, it’s a VALUE.
We were told that Brandeis didn’t want to implicitly “endorse” Ali’s views (coupled with a sanctimonious invitation to Ali to maybe engage in a “dialogue” at some uncertain time on the future).
Now we find some Brandeis professors (perhaps some of the same ones who claimed Ali’s award as a prized scalp…and the same ones who should have been consulted on the Ali award) spewing antisemitic rants in such crass and sophomoric terms that the administration is sufficiently embarrassed about it to make public comment. But the gist of their thoughts? “FREE SPEECH!!”
I await Brandeis’ announcement about the defunding of the offending professors’ research programs, lest the school be mistakenly viewed as implicitly continuing to endorse the drivel of their own professorate, in spite of their earlier “distancing”. Perhaps they can be invited some day to engage in a “dialogue” at a designated free speech zone on campus. But for the avoidance of doubt, Brandeis should assure us that such defunding is not a challenge to the professors’ speech rights, but rather only a rebuke of their ideas.
Rules-based versus…whatever not-rules-based is called.
The main debate is over invited talks and graduation addresses. Did they ever complain about it done under the same rules for someone they agreed with?
I have no use at all for the credentialed pseudo-intellectuals who browbeat the Brandies administration into withdrawing the honorary degree from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a brave, truth-telling woman whom I very much admire. That said, Ms. Hirsi Ali did not have a First Amendment right to be honored by Brandies, and the withdrawal of the honor and commencement speech platform, cowardly though it was, did not violate her right of free speech.
It is a bit more complicated than this.
The protesters intended to try to limit free hearing.
Yes, but there is no First Amendment right to speak at a private forum, such as Brandeis University (which is private). The First Amendment does not guarantee that private actors will provide you with a platform for your speech. If that limits your ability to get your message out, that’s just too bad – it’s not a constitutional issue.
Leaving the relative free speech claims aside, the content of the revealed email messages reminded me of a line from a WSJ letter to the editor that I read long ago, yet have cause to think of more frequently than I prefer:
“Your character and your virtue are judged by how you behave when you think no one is looking. Peekaboo.”
These people are exemplify exactly what Thomas Sowell has written about certain academic intellectuals (but in my own words, which are so much more poorly crafted that his), in summary, that they form a closed shop, shouting at each other in an echo chamber, rolling in their verbal carrion like a dog rolls in roadkill, without care or caution as to the veracity of their conclusions and opinions.
*than his*
*these people exemplify*
…how nice it would be to have an edit button. 🙂
This one is a battle of framing. Defenders say it’s apples and oranges and want to talk about “free speech” in a legalistic constitutional context and ignore Arnold’s deliberate mention of “open inquiry”.
Attackers feel that principles are being violated for the sake of tribal affirmation, that there is a spirit of open inquiry and toleration which is at risk, and fear that these academics are a fundamentally unfair and unreasonable bunch of ideological opponents.
If you are only definding speech you agree with, then you’re not defending free speech. You’re only defending your opinion. If you call this “defending free speech” you’re lying.