Why do people we abhor have the right to say abhorrent things? Because we believe in the rule of law across the board. Another example offered by Alan Charles Kors: "We do not provide jury trials only for people we find decent."
FIRE's October 25 announcement:
The government cannot force public colleges to derecognize Students for Justice in Palestine chapters. That's just what State University System of Florida Chancellor Ray Rodrigues, reportedly at the direction of Gov. Ron DeSantis, is trying to do.
FIRE did not issue this statement because it is taking sides regarding the Middle East conflict. FIRE doesn't take sides regarding the substance of disputes. What FIRE does with unrelenting consistency is to advocate for free speech for all sides of every dispute.
I just returned from the 3-day FIRE Faculty Network Conference in DC.
I was surrounded by brave educators, many of whom have repeatedly faced adversity from their schools for the crime of being excellent teachers. I had the opportunity visit with three women professors who teach in the area of biological sciences (at three different universities). Each one of them was present because biology is so often seen as a threat to ignorant students, professors and administrators.
I also had the opportunity to meet Erika Lopez Prater, who was fired by Hamline University for doing an excellent job of teaching Islamic Religious History--her specific sin was displaying for the class the image of a much-revered historic 14th Century painting of Muhammed, painted by a Muslim for a Muslim audience. She did this after giving her class warning, so that anyone who might be offended could be excused from class. The administrator who fired her called her actions: "undeniably inconsiderate, disrespectful and Islamophobic”
I also had the opportunity to meet Professor of Religion, Mark Bergson, who argued, at considerable risk to his job, that Hamlin was making a horrific mistake by firing Lopez Prater.
Speakers at the conference included Greg Lukianoff and Steven Pinker. We all know that this problem--that many people who formerly opposed censorship and cancel culture are now in favor of these things--is not going away any time soon.
FIRE weighs in on the horrific struggle involving Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the same excellent suggestion that it offers regarding ever other conflict: The more feee speech, the better.
The article is titled: "As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict escalates, so must our commitment to free speech: Intense political disagreements demonstrate the necessity of the First Amendment." Excerpt:
Let every participant in the debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict show their cards, even those with the most extreme views. And let others marshal arguments and evidence to refute or discredit those views. Let it all happen out in the open.
At the end of the day, we’re not better off knowing less about what our fellow Americans actually think. As FIRE co-founder Harvey Silverglate has said, “I want to know who the Nazi in the room is so I know not to turn my back to them.”
In Snyder v. Phelps, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to picket soldiers’ funerals with signs bearing messages like “Fags Doom Nations” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” It’s hard to find a case involving speech that draws less public sympathy. But as the Court said in an 8-1 decision uniting justices across the ideological spectrum:
Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.Free speech comes at a price. But it’s nothing compared to the price we will pay if we abandon it.
On Oct. 18, five alumni groups announced the creation of an organization to stand up for open inquiry: The Alumni Free Speech Alliance. This group consists of alumni. Why?
Because with rare exceptions, everyone else may feel too exposed to attacks to take a stand against campus culture. Our experience is that the few student free-speech groups don’t have many members (Princeton’s has about 20). Champions of free speech among faculty are badly outnumbered, even as many left-of-center professors are starting to realize that they too can be brutally canceled by the mob. Those few students and faculty who speak up often feel isolated and exposed.University trustees, presidents and other administrators are also usually mired in the toxic campus environment, which responds to heresy with attacks. Most have either been cowed by or genuinely believe in a woke orthodoxy that sees free speech as an inconvenient disruption.
That leaves alumni as the only university stakeholders with the numbers and clout to lead the defense of free speech, academic freedom and viewpoint diversity in campus environments. Free speech and academic freedom are fundamental to the advancement of knowledge and to the success of our colleges and universities. Will all teaching and research at these schools soon be subject to a mandated orthodoxy? Will parents keep paying to send their children places where the fundamental elements of learning are suppressed? These institutions constantly seek alumni involvement and contributions. Alumni have the ability and duty to demand that their schools maintain the reasons for which they were created. But to be effective, alumni need to organize.