FIRE launches Faculty Legal Defense Fund to Defend Faculty Members for Engaging in Constitutionally Protected Speech

Scholars in higher education who were targeted for their expression have quadrupled since 2015. In response, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education ("FIRE") has launched its Faculty Legal Defense Fund to defend faculty members under attack for engaging in constitutionally protected speech. The FLDF provides free legal assistance to faculty at public colleges and universities across the country. I am proud to be one of the attorneys who will be working with FIRE on this effort.

A new report from FIRE shows an alarming 74% success rate for campaigns targeting collegiate scholars for their constitutionally protected speech — and the data suggest the worst is yet to come.

What is the focus of this effort? "Targeting Incidents," which are defined as follows:

We define a targeting incident as a campus controversy involving efforts to investigate, penalize or otherwise professionally sanction a scholar for engaging in constitutionally protected forms of speech. Our definition of a targeting incident does not include instances in which the scholar is subjected to harassment or other forms of intimidation, but does not face an attempt at being professionally penalized or sanctioned. Nor does it include cases where the individual(s) or group(s) expresses opposition to a scholar’s speech, but does not make any demands that the scholar and/or institution take action to remedy the situation.

Universities that are more likely to violate the rights of their faculty are those who have not adopted "The Chicago Statement":

Because the University is committed to free and open inquiry in all matters, it guarantees all members of the University community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn . . . . [I]t is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.

—Excerpt from the Chicago Statement

Continue ReadingFIRE launches Faculty Legal Defense Fund to Defend Faculty Members for Engaging in Constitutionally Protected Speech

About Police Officers Aggressively Talking to Strangers. Why This has been Encouraged and What Can Go Wrong.

Matt Taibbi has reviewed Malcom Gladwell's book, published in 2019, prior to the George Floyd incdent. The title of Gladwell's book is Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know About the People We Don’t Know. Taibbi's article is "The Overlooked Factors in Police Abuse CasesCops take most of the blame, often deservedly, but the single-minded media furor of the last year has let other bad actors off the hook." Taibbi cautions that when things go wrong between police and those who identify as black, it's often about far more than race, and we need to consider the role of the politicians who encourage these frequent contacts between police and strangers. Sometimes, as in Ferguson, what is motivating these contacts is for profit policing.

Gladwell’s point seems to be that if you ask police to stop millions of cars and pedestrians, and instruct them to look for pretexts to conduct searches of all of them, police will override their “default to truth” and begin to see threats in innocent people everywhere. He’s trying to be understanding about scenes like the Encinia video, by asking readers to look at the policy context underneath that car stop.

The backdrop of the Ferguson, Missouri case, for instance, involved the strained finances of the city. As the Justice Department later found, “City officials routinely urge [police] to generate more revenue through enforcement,” which meant busting people not just for breaking the law but violating municipal order codes...

Individual police got most of the blame, and in some cases deserved it, but it’s politicians desperate for revenue or lower crime numbers who artificially heighten stranger contacts, jack up numbers of bogus summonses and tickets, and push people like Brian Encinia to fudge pretexts for thousands if not millions of stops and searches.

A percentage of those encounters will always go wrong, and when they do, it’s not always all about racism. It’s usually also about political stupidity, greed, and laziness, and a host of other problems our habit of reaching for simplistic explanations prevents us from understanding. Saying it’s all about race or white supremacy isn’t just inaccurate, it lets bad actors off the hook — especially city politicians and their upscale yuppie donors who vote for these interventionist policies, and are all too happy to see badge-wearing social janitors from middle-class towns in Long Island or Westchester take the rap when things go bad.

Gladwell concludes that “Sandra Bland is what happens when a society does not know how to talk to strangers,” but I think that doesn’t put it strongly enough. Bland is what happens when police spend too much time talking to strangers, and when the rest of us talk too little about why that is.

Gladwell opens the above talk (regarding his book) with this:

I wanted to talk a little bit about it a paradox about human communication which i think is extremely important and relatively under-recognized and that is that everything that is good and meaningful and powerful about a human communication has a price as it turns out I think the price is worth paying but I think sometimes we overlook the consequences of the fact that there is this particular consequence to effective communication.
The following excerpt is from a summary of Gladwell's book.
The problem at the heart of the two puzzles is that people assume that they can make sense of others based on relatively simple strategies. But when it comes to strangers, nothing is as simple as it seems.

There are three major strategies that people use to make sense of strangers:

People default to truth. People assume transparency. People neglect coupled behaviors.

These three strategies ultimately fail because they operate under the assumption that simple clues are enough evidence of a stranger’s internal thoughts or intentions. We will look at each of these strategies separately to see where they came from and why they often result in failed interactions with strangers.

Continue ReadingAbout Police Officers Aggressively Talking to Strangers. Why This has been Encouraged and What Can Go Wrong.

Ben Franklin: It’s “a Republic, if you can keep it.”

On September 17, 1787, as delegates left the Constitutional Convention in Independence Hall, Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government do we have?

"A Republic," he replied, "if you can keep it."

I am stunned at the willingness of many on the political left to ignore the First Amendment out of convenience when it comes to their favorite issues. As I predicted several days ago, the ACLU has been silent. Many of us who used to fear government censorship are publicly warming up to that idea.  In recent days, Glenn Greenwald has commented repeatedly. For example:

Those who remember the recent past the federal government be able to declare and enforce its version of the "truth" re COVID.  Here's a few examples:

There is apparently something in the water that is causing Americans to become obtuse, unable to understand their own history, their own government and nuance. Many people who hear my opinions of these topics accuse me of liking it when malevolent and stupid people kill other people by spreading lies about COVID.  They think I like it when harmful false ideas are spread through social media. Many of them are proud Americans who wave flags and celebrate the Fourth of July, but they don't understand the function and power of the First Amendment and free speech (the latter of which is a broader issue). It's as though they don't understand that many truths are complex, making them unendingly imperfect and tentative. It's as though they don't understand that by allowing the marketplace of ideas to run its course, we will be in the best position to understand what is going on around us on every topic and every issue. It's as though they want to completely trust a government that excels in spewing out lies, year after year, administration after administration.

Is it too much to ask that Americans understand their own Constitution before willingly shredding parts of it?

Continue ReadingBen Franklin: It’s “a Republic, if you can keep it.”

Ed Snowden Talks Shop with Daniel Ellsberg

Ed Snowden invited Daniel Ellsberg to have a conversation. These two men who are heroes to me (and to each other), discuss the importance of whistle-blowers, free speech and the war powers of the United States. Ellsberg points out (at min 8) that he did not disclose the Pentagon Papers because the government was lying or because the Vietnam war wasn't winnable. Almost everyone knew these things at that time. He did it because the war was "wrong" and it was "getting bigger," at a time where Nixon knew that he might be drawing the Chinese into the war and he was considering the use of nuclear weapons.

At minute 12, Ed Snowden explains that he acted not because he was against spying (though he was against spying), but because the government was acting outside of the knowledge and control of the People. The government was reinterpreting the Constitution outside of the knowledge of the People (and outside of the knowledge of most members of Congress) in a "secret rubber-stamp court." The People were no longer "partner" with the government, but "subjects" of the government. Snowden continued, from Bush to Obama to Trump, "the government is becoming less accountable to the People, and the people are becoming more accountable to the government."

Continue ReadingEd Snowden Talks Shop with Daniel Ellsberg