We expect a great deal of criticism of our new book, Its Not Free Speech: Race, Democracy, and the Future of Academic Freedom, but we were taken aback by Jeffrey Aaron Snyders misconstrual of its main argument. If you go by Snyder, weve written a deeply flawed book attacking three racists that is bound to get attention because of its bold thesis. Snyder positions himself, in his essays in these pages, as a defender of free speech against left overreach and the excesses of diversity, equity, and inclusion offices, and he has also written a notable entry in the free speech is threatened by both sides subgenre. Articles like those can help fuel exaggerated perceptions of campus politics, but we do not begrudge him this territory. Its just not our territory. We are not interested in saving free speech: We are interested in saving academic freedom from free speech. Its Not Free Speech explains how academic freedom differs from free speech and why that difference is of great importance in the era of what Richard Hasen calls cheap speech.

At one point, Snyder invokes the authoritarian legislation sweeping the country and snarkily suggests that our time would have been better spent mobilizing resistance to that even though much of Chapter 4, Whos Afraid of Critical Race Theory Today?, is devoted to explaining those attacks and their origins. (As it happens, Jennifer does spend her time promoting the African American Policy Forums campaign against those bills.) But the real issue is that Snyder does not grasp the main point of the book. Its Not Free Speech is an argument against the bills and the right-wing movement behind them (calling them a perfect, and perfectly hideous, example of intellectual authoritarianism), precisely because it insists that academic freedom is the collective responsibility of faculty members in their disciplines. It is not something politicians can interfere with without destroying the role of the university in a democratic society (as Jennifer has argued in these pages). Central to the book is the belief that academic-freedom cases must be placed in the hands of faculty peers, not administrators vulnerable to outside political pressures or the courts with their wildly uneven record on academic freedom.

So the issue here is not just a misrepresentation here and a misconstrual there. There is something more important at stake: a real disagreement about the relation of academic freedom to free speech.

But as for those misrepresentations: the most serious concerns Snyders claim that we would rule out of bounds any debate about Brown v. Board of Education. This claim rests on a sloppy reading of two sentences in chapter four: Some things are not worthy of entertaining as if we could pretend they were bloodless. Whether Brown v. Board of Education should have happened is one. The phrase should have happened comes from a Princeton undergraduate, Brittani Telfair, who was arguing that some debates do not make symmetric asks. Black people who have to argue, again and again, against the premises of segregation and Jim Crow are not in a symmetric relation to people whose forebears never experienced segregation and Jim Crow. This is an important and, we hope, by now elementary point about the difference between free speech in theory and free speech in practice. Brittney Cooper made it brilliantly back in 2017 in these pages. Snyder implies that by the logic of our book the kinds of arguments made by Derrick Bell regarding how Black children might conceivably have been better off under Plessy v. Ferguson or by Gloria Ladson-Billings on the price paid for Brown v. Board would be off limits. This strikes us as absurd, and we think will strike careful readers of the book as absurd as well.

Snyder missed that point by focusing on the phrase not worthy of entertaining and ignoring as if we could pretend they were bloodless. He also ignores our citation of our Black colleagues Carolyn Rouse and Mark James, who, in the pages that lead up to those two sentences, explain that debating the virtues of segregation or the benefits of colonialism puts Black people in the position of having to take seriously the belief that racism is and always has been justified and having to pretend that the question is bloodless. Of course debate about Brown v. Board is legitimate. The only ideas were proposing to exclude or to put in the dustbin alongside phrenology and phlogiston are the white supremacist ones that provided the foundations for Jim Crow, for eugenics, and for the Holocaust.

But then, Snyder takes things out of context, while cleverly accusing us of taking things out of context. He writes: The authors refer to legions of racist professors and the entrenched, unshakeable beliefs of the white-supremacist professoriate. Snyder does not explain that the phrase refers to the historians of the Dunning School, who devoted their careers to arguing that Reconstruction failed because Black people are incapable of self-government, and that the second phrase was delivered in the context of a discussion of Gregory Christainsen, now retired from California State University-East Bay, a race realist who taught students that there are measurable differences in the intelligence of various races; that these differences are captured in IQ scores; and that they are attributable to genetics rather than to social variables. Anyone familiar with the legacy of pseudoscientific racism would know that these beliefs are indeed entrenched and unshakeable. (Christainsens field? Economics.) His university ignored student complaints about his courses, as readers of our book will learn. We do not think that the professoriate is packed with Klan members; we do think that there are some zombie ideas that keep making a comeback despite their being repeatedly discredited.

James Yang for The Chronicle

It is fitting, somehow, that when Snyder baselessly accuses us of taking a professors words out of context, the professor in question is the notorious Amy Wax of the University of Pennsylvania. Snyder objects to our calling Wax a white supremacist: The authors evidence consists of two excerpts, largely stripped of context, from a speech that Wax gave at the 2019 National Conservatism conference. In that speech, which we discuss in detail, Wax promoted a cultural distance nationalism whose premise is that we are better off if our country is dominated numerically, demographically, politically, at least in fact if not formally, by people from the First World, from the West, than by people from countries that had failed to advance or, more succinctly, our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites. Snyder writes, Without seeking additional information beyond what they have presented, I am not sure how many people would feel qualified to judge whether Wax is a white supremacist. I dont. But when someone says that white people are better (more civilized, more advanced) than nonwhite people, that is literally white supremacism. We cant imagine what else to call it. (Fortunately, The Chronicle provided a link to Waxs speech in Snyders essay, so curious readers can read her remarks for themselves.)

This disagreement about Wax brings us to another fundamental misrepresentation in Snyders review: the implication that we are the ones calling these shots or ruling anything out of court. We explicitly say that we are not. We are calling for what the American Association of University Professors has long considered best practice: a deliberative process, with authority distributed among a horizontal panel of peers in the relevant fields. Too many cases today, we argue, are decided without such a process and, importantly, this includes the adjunct instructor who can simply not be rehired to appease complaining students, parents, or donors. We think academic-freedom committees can do a better job adjudicating the controversies that pop up almost daily than can an individual provost, a series of tweets, or arguments made in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Free speech as a slogan once served dissenting voices and struggles (the Berkeley Free Speech Movement was about the right to protest the Vietnam War on campus), but thats not how it typically functions today. In the public sphere, it facilitates hate speech and conspiracy theories. Most important, the widespread conflation of free speech and academic freedom makes it incredibly difficult for universities to do their jobs, which is to discriminate between high-quality speech (which refers to disciplinary expertise and is protected by academic freedom) and low-quality speech (which refers to ungrounded opinion).

The First Amendment doesnt demand or expect that speech be responsible or informed in any way, but academic speech speech with a claim to expertise does. That distinction is critical. When commentators ritualistically frame every academic disagreement in terms of free speech, they blur an essential distinction and facilitate the movement by which self-interested and partisan forces actively undermine democracy.

The contribution of Its Not Free Speech is not so much to recognize that content-free ideals like free speech work differently at different times on playing fields that have never been even; many people understand this better than we do. (We turn to the philosopher Charles W. Mills for help with this). Our contribution is, we hope, to think about what these insights about content-free ideals, cheap speech, and who makes judgment calls in the academic arena now mean for how we realize academic freedom. Of course, we are not the only ones trying to think this through. A growing body of work analyzes the relationship of power to academic freedom: We are thinking, for example, of Steven Salaitas Uncivil Rites; Johnny E. Williamss article The Academic Freedom Double Standard: Freedom for Courtiers, Suppression for Critical Scholars in the AAUP Journal of Academic Freedom; and Reshmi-Dutt Ballerstadt and Kakali Bhattacharyas collection, Civility, Free Speech, and Academic Freedom in Higher Education.

We welcome spirited discussion of Its Not Free Speech. We hope, though, that it will be discussion aimed at addressing some of the serious problems we face in academe and in democracy.

Original post:

Saving Academic Freedom From Free Speech - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Missouri AG Eric Schmitt argues the government's alleged collusion with Big Tech to violate the First Amendment 'needs to stop.'

Missouri AG Eric Schmitt slammed the Biden administration for allegedly colluding with Big Tech to censor free speech, arguing his lawsuit will take on big government and Big Tech, "two of the biggest, most corrupt institutions that are out there."

ERIC SCHMITT: The government can't violate the First Amendment by suppressing speech, and the government can't outsource that also to the Big Tech partners. And that's what we're alleging in this lawsuit. And we're taking on two of the biggest, most corrupt institutions that are out there, big government and Big Tech

FCC COMMISSIONER SAYS BIDENS 'DISINFORMATION BOARD' IS 'UNCONSTITUTIONAL'

First, they hold over these special protections that big tech has, principally section 230, which makes them immune from typical liability because they're not considered a publisher. So they hold that over, the left does, unless they censor more.

Missouri AG Eric Schmitt discusses the Biden administration's alleged collusion with Big Tech during "Varney & Co." on May 9, 2022. (Fox News)

MUSK HOPES TO BUILD BRAND TRUST THROUGH FREE SPEECH, TRANSPARENCY WHICH 'BIG TECH NEEDS': FMR PARLER CEO

The second way they do it is the direct collusion that we see now and Jen Psaki in press conferences has told us with her own words that they're working directly with Facebook to flag, quote unquote, disinformation. And this has played itself out on a number of different fronts, whether it was the laptop from hell, election integrity issues, certainly during COVID with the origins of COVID and then with the efficacy of masks. So those are just a few examples. But in this lawsuit, we're essentially alleging that they're violating the First Amendment, and they're doing it with their big tech partners, and it needs to stop.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW BELOW:

Missouri AG Eric Schmitt discusses his lawsuit against the Biden administration and top officials for allegedly colluding with Big Tech to censor free speech.

Go here to see the original:

Missouri AG targets Biden, Big Tech in free speech lawsuit: Taking on the biggest, most corrupt institutions - Fox Business

Much is made of Elon Musk taking over complete control of the online platform Twitter in the next three to six months. Musk has made no secret of his disdain for some of Twitters moderation policies. Presently Twitters stated priorities are facilitating safe, inclusive, and authentic conversations and minimizing the distribution and reach of harmful or misleading information, especially when its intent is to disrupt a civic process or cause offline harm. Efforts to roll back Twitters recent policies could lead to an uptick in disinformation, extremist content, harassment, and hate speech that the company has tried to crack down on for years.

Many Republicans meaning Trump followers are happy because they see Musk opening Twitter to absolute freedom of speech. Also celebrating the takeover of Twitter are white supremacist groups and conspiracists that see a way to return to the platform. Twitter may also be reopened to Trump who was banned as a threat to democracy after Jan. 6. Trump says he wont return to Twitter and, of course, his followers know he always tells the truth. (Putin would be happy with the further deterioration of our democracy with the spread of hate and division that an unfettered Twitter would offer.)

All of us defend freedom of speech. But freedom of speech is not absolute and is subject to restrictions. Categories of speech that the First Amendment does not protect include incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats. That is the way the courts interpret free speech.

Companies like Twitter, however, set their own rules for speech as to what is acceptable. In a few months Musk will make those decisions. Hopefully he allows opinion based on truth and facts and wont allow it to be a platform to further spread more hate and division. We have too much of that already.

Jack Strausser,

Elysburg

Go here to read the rest:

Twitter and free speech | Opinion | dailyitem.com - Sunbury Daily Item

Last month, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law HB 7, formally titled the Individual Freedom measure, which bans educators from teaching certain topics related to race and prevents them from making students feel guilt or shame about their race because of historical events. In addition, by April more than 1,500 books primarily dealing with race and LGBTQ issues had been banned in U.S. school districts over the previous nine months. These measures have been described as a rightwing censorship effort unparalleled in its intensity.

Behind these efforts to cancel progressive views lies the mistaken belief that campuses have become laboratories for political indoctrination. As DeSantis stated after signing the repressive legislation: We believe in education, not indoctrination. Yet, the governor and the Republican Party fail to provide significant evidence of such indoctrination.

Many commentators, for example, have noted that Critical Race Theory, a primary right-wing target for cancellation, is actually not taught in public schools and rarely mentioned in colleges. During my 30 years of college teaching, I personally never witnessed professors pushing political indoctrination from the left or the right in the classroom. The Republican Partys highly political attack on public and higher education in America creates confusion and discord and does not solve any actual problems.

It is crucial to clarify the distinction between the campus as a public space as different from the classroom as a space for teaching. Princeton Professor Wendy Brown notes that the classroom is a space where were not talking left wing or right wing but offering the learning that students need to be able to come to their own positions and judgments. In other words, the classroom is centered on academic freedom and the development of critical thinking. The professor through his or her selection of course materials and lesson plans establish the agenda and the direction of the discussion. All views are welcome that contribute to the topic, but the direction and objectives of the course are set by the teacher.

In contrast, the campus is a public space where free speech should be the norm. Neither governors, legislators, administrators or professors have the right to impose their political biases on the campus community. At all the colleges I have taught, speakers from the left and right were consistently encouraged to participate in the civic life of the campus.

The Republican Party attacks on public and college education have blurred this important distinction between academic freedom in the classroom and free speech on campus. Perhaps an example from my experience can demonstrate the importance of academic freedom in the classroom and the dangers of the current repressive political measures adopted by the state of Florida.

Subscribe to our free Stephinitely newsletter

Columnist Stephanie Hayes will share thoughts, feelings and funny business with you every Monday.

Want more of our free, weekly newslettersinyourinbox? Letsgetstarted.

For many years at Eckerd College, I was honored to give the opening lecture on the liberal arts to all of our new first-year students. I consistently began this lecture with a reading of Langston Hughes brilliant poem Let America Be America Again. Through his poetry, Langston Hughes reminds us of the hope and dream of America. He cries out: O, let my land be a land where Liberty is crowned where equality is in the air we breathe. Let it be the dream it used to be.

While presenting pleasing patriotic images of America, Hughes makes us question these images. Hughes writes: There never has been equality for me, Nor freedom in this homeland of the free. I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart, I am the Negro bearing slaverys scars. I am the red man driven from the land.

These lines remind us of the atrocities, such as the violence of slavery, that are also America. And yet, Hughes ends on an optimistic truly American note, the idea of hope. He hopes that America can be all the things it was expected to be. He will not give up on the idea of the American Dream. He wants America to be better. I told the students that Langston Hughes represented the best of the liberal scholar seeking the truth, writing clearly, persuasively and movingly on the major ethical issues of his time racism and discrimination. Langston Hughes helps students more deeply appreciate the struggle for true freedom in America.

Unfortunately, a few right-wing alumni and parents posted angry notes on social media denouncing this lecture. In their eyes, Langston Hughes was desecrating America and my lecture was left-wing political indoctrination, which made white students feel bad. They sought to cancel one of the most celebrated African-American writers from the curriculum and destroy academic freedom in the classroom. The new Florida law will further empower these individuals with political agendas to more effectively pursue their dangerous goals.

It is also unfortunate that these critics didnt take the time to actually examine the content of this course. In addition to Langston Hughes, the students were also engaged with the works of conservative thinkers, including theologian C.S. Lewis and philosopher Ayn Rand. We were trying to get students to think critically about all of these important thinkers and decide for themselves what to think. This can only happen in an atmosphere of engagement, active learning and open discussion of all points of view the opposite of political indoctrination. The Republican Partys outrage machine is more interested in canceling leftist views, stoking controversy and scoring political points than in protecting free speech and academic freedom.

William F. Felice, professor emeritus of political science at Eckerd College, was the named the 2006 Florida Professor of the Year by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. He can be reached via his website at williamfelice.com.

Read more from the original source:

We need free speech on Florida campuses and critical thinking in the classroom | Column - Tampa Bay Times

Bill Maher delivered a scorching attack on the movement in the U.S. to censor what we say ... and gotta say, it may be his best commentary in a long time.

The "Real Time" host declared his position from the jump -- "Sorting out lies from truth is your job," adding it's ridiculous we treat everyone like "helpless dumb blondes ready to believe everything ... like Donald Trump!"

He makes the point ... people living today aren't special -- as he says, every age is the misinformation age. He harkens back to 1858, when the New York Times worried Americans couldn't handle the transatlantic telegraph because it was "superficial and too fast for the truth."

Go back even further, Bill says, to 1487, when the Pope cautioned against the misuse of the printing press, saying it was the source of pernicious writing -- hmmm, sounds like fake news.

And, then there's radio ... in 1938, some listeners freaked out listening to Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds," believing the Martians invaded New Jersey.

As Bill says, lies are everywhere ... like germs. He says you can't germproof the world, so develop a better bull*** meter.

And, then he makes a brilliant point ... "Sometimes misinformation is history's first draft" -- like the stories that circulated about COVID -- that 50% of those who are unvaccinated become hospitalized when it's less than 1%.

To drive home the point, he notes lots of folks believe in "an imaginary best friend in the sky who they can talk to to help them with their problems." Bill asks if there should be a warning label on that.

He's all for banning things like child porn, calls for insurrection, personal threats, etc, but people should be able to express their opinions even if they are repugnant. And, deciding whether something is true, half-true, a quarter true or false ... well that's our job, not the job of some publisher.

In sum, Bill says people have the right to be assholes and express ridiculous opinions. That's called free speech. That's called democracy -- it's as messy as it is precious.

Read more:

Bill Maher Rails on People and Media that Want to Censor Free Speech - TMZ

Everyone knows that the Constitution protects free speech under the First Amendment.

But many may not realize that the First Amendment also protects commercial speech, such as advertisements. Even though the level of protection afforded to commercial speech is less than that given to other kinds of speech, especially political speech, businesses still have rights about what they say.

The First Amendment is also implicated when laws require labeling for commercial enterprises. For example, it is entirely legal for government to require fast food businesses to post the calorie count on the products they serve to the public. There are innumerable other examples of required disclosures, such as gas mileage and safety ratings for automobiles and whether a newly constructed home is subject to Mello-Roos taxes.

One infamous example of forced speech in California was imposed via Proposition 65, passed by voters in 1986. Commercial enterprises are required to post warning labels that their products or place of business may contain substances known to cause cancer. But Prop. 65 warnings are so ubiquitous in California that they have become meaningless. They are found on everything from bread to potato chips to chocolate chip cookies. In California, it appears, everything causes cancer.

But a recent court ruling over acrylamide, a naturally occurring substance that is formed in the process of baking goods, may have reined in the absurdity of Prop. 65 warnings just a bit. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that because scientific evidence couldnt come to a single conclusion over whether acrylamide in food and beverages can cause cancer in humans, the Prop. 65 warning signs for these products were likely misleading.

Turns out that government itself was violating truth in advertising laws.

But perhaps the greater benefit from the ruling has to do with inhibiting nuisance lawsuits that cost businesses millions of dollars. Thats because Prop. 65 has a private right of action provision allowing attorneys to sue businesses on behalf of the state. Prop. 65 essentially deputizes private trial lawyers to search for evidence of noncompliance.

The elimination of the misleading Prop. 65 warning for acrylamide might be a welcome step in reducing false or unproven claims that confuse consumers and cause adverse market effects. This not only would help businesses but also consumers who end up paying more for goods and services when businesses face shakedown lawsuits.

Lawsuit abuse is a huge problem for California and has resulted in the state having the worst rating in the nation from the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation as a Judicial Hellhole. Prop. 65 lawsuits are a major reason for that dubious designation since they can result in fines of up to $2,500 per day, not to mention the costs for their own attorneys as well as those of the plaintiff. Given that there are approximately 900 chemicals on the Proposition 65 list, the law presents a great temptation for unscrupulous lawyers looking to make a fast buck.

But Californians are waking up to the absurdity of Prop. 65.

A few years ago there was a push to put a Prop. 65 warning on coffee, again because of the presence of acrylamide. But the blowback from the public, as well as ridicule from late-night TV hosts, may have been a factor in a legal victory for sanity.

Were all for transparency. But Prop. 65 has long outlived its usefulness in providing consumers with reliable information. In fact, it has done just the opposite.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Read the rest here:

Free speech and trivial lawsuits - The Whittier Daily News

DEAR News Of The Area,

I WOULD like to comment about things to do with the coming election.

I have been getting together with a small group and making banners to save koalas.

We put banners up last Saturday and they were gone shortly after dark.

One banner took three people many hours to paint, then hand stitch the loop for the bamboo rod top and bottom.

They have also taken many A4 posters off community notice boards and three Climate Action Now posters were removed.

Talking with a ranger he advised they had a call from the Greens as twenty roadside posters had been removed.

The loss is one thing but for us it is more disappointing that we have people in our community that do not want free speech and want to stop alternate views.

These are people who do not want action on climate change, do not want an ethical Government and a fair, decent and democratic Australia.

Regards,Colin HUTTON,Thora.

Read the rest here:

OPINION: Shutting Down Free Speech and Alternate Views - News Of The Area

Dr. Rita began writing just before George Floyd was killed; its publication date, 5/24/2022, falls on the eve of the second anniversary of his death

The book is designed to rewire our understanding of systemic racism and offer a practical approach to dismantling oppression

LOS ANGELES, May 11, 2022 /PRNewswire/ --Dr. Rita Sinorita Fierro, Ph.D. is a white woman with dual Italian/American citizenship who has studied systemic racism for 30 years, across four continents. Dr. Rita channels this wealth of experience and academics into her powerful new book, Digging Up the Seeds of white Supremacy (Collective Power Media), to be released May 24, 2022 the eve of the second anniversary of George Floyd's death.

A coach and healing professional, she interweaves memoir with a robust discourse on race and culture to bridge the gap between the construct of racism and the practice of self-healing. Dr. Rita's narrative is grounded in historical fact; she adds illustrations to visualize her message, personal practice notes, and "How To" guidelines to help readers embody antiracism.

Created via iPad, Dr. Rita's drawingswere conceptualized as graphic recordings to assist readers in digesting complex issues, further support visual learners, and pictorialize 500+ years of history across 10 systems. The tree image "The Whole System: Roots to Branches" functions as an infographic for the book's thematic flow: the System with a capital "S," which brings all the single systems with a lower-case "s" together.

Dr. Rita says that when we act from fear, we're upholding "the System." The progressive, liberal side of our culture continues to accumulate evidence of injustices but we have not found our way to diffuse them. Analysis has led to paralysis. How do we use such evidence not to confirm what we already know, but to transform the racist systems that drive society to change the world for the better, for everyone?

In the "Personal Practice" section of the chapter "Building Collective Power," she writes,

Later, she writes, "We must stop accepting that inequality, inequity, and injustice are normal and inevitable. We must engage in collective intellectual imagination about what it looks like to meet the needs of all."

At a time when misinformation is rampant, distrust of "the other" is epidemic, and rights are threatened daily, this book could not be timelier. Dr. Rita hopes that by following its lead, people can build collective power and co-create new seeds together "an exercise in replacing fear with love."

About the author:Dr. Rita Fierro Ph.D. is an intellectual artist, author, speaker, and radio host. For 30 years, she has studied systemic racism. Combining a coaching approach with evaluative thinking, she leads a consulting firm that assesses projects, social inequities, and provides processes that illuminate complexity for businesses, foundations, non-profits, NGOs, and the United Nations. Dr. Rita has a Ph.D. in African-American studies from Temple University in Philadelphia, PA, and a masters in Sociology from the University of Rome, Italy. She co-founded Home for Good Coalition so as to transform systemic racism by placing the voices of people who were traumatized by systems at the center of its work. Born in New York City, she lived in her family's ancestral town in Italy from age 10 until her college years. Dr. Rita comes from a long line of traditional healers, and she is both a Reiki and family constellation practitioner.

Dropbox: images, excerpts, illustrations, etc: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/r01yt4fa62ki8es/AAACXujVS2Avf9F-aT0Npaaia?dl=0

Dr. Rita interviewed for Life Her podcasthttps://youtu.be/PK0JnCDncTA - Discussing:The Bridge Between Systematic Racism and Healing

Medium articles by Dr. Rita:https://medium.com/equality-includes-you/being-white-in-racial-healing-work-7057d4024ad7https://medium.com/@ritasfierro/white-people-aint-free-7ac633c875a9

Digging up the Seeds of white SupremacyISBN 978-0-5783786-3-3 (Hardcover)ISBN 979-8-9858796-0-5 (Kindle)ISBN 979-8-9858796-2-9 (Audio book)ISBN 979-8-9858796-3-6 (Large-print hardcover)ISBN 979-8-9858796-1-2 (paperback)https://www.amazon.com/Rita-Sinorita-Fierro/e/B09ZXT9FFWhttps://www.drritawrites.com/

Contact: Laura Grover: [emailprotected] or 310-994-1690

SOURCE Dr. Rita Sinorita Fierro, Ph.D.

See the original post here:

At a Time when Voting Rights, Reproductive Rights, and Free Speech are Threatened, DR. RITA FIERRO Ph.D. Evaluates History and Explores the Systems...

Updated at 2:40 p.m. ET on May 11, 2022

The lurid spectacle that is Johnny Depps $50 million defamation lawsuit against his ex-wife Amber Heard hasnt just tarnished his star and hers with allegations that he beat her and violated her with a bottle or that she severed part of his finger and emptied her bowels in the marital bed. (Both deny wrongdoing, and Heard has countersued for $100 million.) Amid this grotesquerie, it might be possible to overlook the bizarre involvement of the ACLU. But the civil-rights organizations cringeworthy role deserves closer scrutiny because of its centrality to the case, and because it exemplifies the degree to which the ACLU has lost its way in recent years.

The heart of Depps claim is that Heard ruined his acting career when she published a 2018 op-ed in The Washington Post describing herself as a public figure representing domestic abusea thinly veiled reference to much-publicized accusations of assault she made against Depp in court filings toward the end of their short-lived marriage. But Heard hadnt pitched the idea to the Postthe ACLU had. Terence Dougherty, the organizations general counsel, testified via video deposition that after Heard promised to donate $3.5 million to the organization, the ACLU named her an ambassador on womens rights with a focus on gender-based violence. The ACLU had also spearheaded the effort to place the op-ed, and served as Heards ghostwriter. When Heard failed to pay up, Dougherty said, the ACLU collected $100,000 from Depp himself, and another $500,000 from a fund connected to Elon Musk, whom Heard dated after the divorce. (The ACLU denies that it would ever request or solicit donations in exchange for ambassadorships or op-eds.)

The ACLUs bestowal of an ambassadorship and scribe-for-hire services upon a scandal-plagued actor willing to pay seven figures to transform herself into a victims advocate and advance her acting careerHeard pushed for a publication date that coincided with the release of her film Aquamanis part of the groups continuing decline. Once a bastion of free speech and high-minded ideals, the ACLU has become in many respects a caricature of its former self.

Conor Friedersdorf: The ACLU declines to defend civil rights

Over the organizations 100-year history, the ACLUs unique value has been its apolitical willingness to stand up for all speech, regardless of the speakers identity, and to stand up for those accused, no matter what the accusation. This content-neutral, take-all-comers stance is based on the premise that the silencing of one side will inevitably lead to a collective hush irreconcilable with the free marketplace of ideas and the commitment to due process that are the hallmarks of our democracy. Doing this often-unpopular work turns on the belief that having an informed and independent-minded citizenry requires the ability to countenance, analyze, and, yes, at times defend opposing points of view.

In 1978, the ACLU successfully defended the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, a community populated by Holocaust survivors. But in 2018, following the ACLUs successful litigation to obtain a permit for white supremacists to march in Charlottesville, Virginia, which ended in death and disaster, the ACLU issued new guidelines. Citing concerns about limited resources and the potential effect on marginalized groups, the organization cautioned its lawyers to take special care when considering whether to represent groups whose values are contrary to our values.

By our values, the ACLU was referring to the progressive causes it has championed with fervor and great fundraising success since the election of Donald Trump: immigrant rights, LGBTQ rights, reproductive freedom, and racial justice. Should its lawyers decide to take on a client espousing opposing views, the organization instructed them to engage in a public campaign denouncing those views in press statements, op-eds, social media, and other available fora, and participating in counter-protests. How, exactly, loudly disavowing their clients is consistent with lawyers duty to zealously represent them was not explained. Speaking as a criminal-defense lawyer, I dont think it can be.

I dont look to the ACLU to affirm my beliefs or those of my allies. On the contrary, I look to the ACLU to defend everyone, including my ideological enemies. To do that work, it cannot be beholden to any political party or ideology. Yet in 2018, the ACLU spent $800,000 on a campaign ad for Stacey Abrams during her run for governor in Georgia and $1 million in an attack-ad campaign against Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. When the Trump administration proposed in 2018 a new regulatory scheme for schools to follow in Title IX campus-sexual-assault cases that offered more protections to students defending themselves against these allegations, the ACLU responded in an angry tweet thread: It promotes an unfair process, inappropriately favoring the accused. (The following year, the ACLU declared its support for new Title IX regulations fair process requirements for live hearings, cross-examination, [and] access to all the evidence, but it has never taken down the tweets or walked them back.)

Conor Friedersdorf: The ACLU should keep representing deplorables

The ACLU now seems largely unable or unwilling to uphold its core values. To be fair, the organization still goes to bat for some causes that are associated with conservatives and free-speech absolutists, including the right to bear arms, of anti-Semites to protest, and of parochial schools to discriminate in hiring based on religion. And yet since Trumps election, according to The New York Times, the organizations annual budget has grown threefold and its lawyer staff has doubledbut only four of its attorneys specialize in free-speech issues, a number that has not changed in a decade. Instead, the ACLU has expanded its servicesand filled its coffersas it takes partisan stances or embraces dubious causes. Meanwhile, when it comes to the red-hot culture-war issues squarely within its wheelhouse, such as the right to free, albeit hateful, speech on campus, the ACLU has stayed largely on the sidelines.

Progressive causes are near and dear to my heart. I am a feminist and staunch Democrat. As a federal public defender turned law professor, I have spent my career trying to make change in a criminal legal system that is riven with racism and fundamentally unfair to those without status and financial resources. Yet, as someone who understands firsthand that the fundamental rights to free speech and due process exist only as long as competent lawyers are willing to vigorously defend extreme positions and people, I view the ACLUs hard-left turn with alarm. It smacks of intolerance and choosing sides, precisely what a civil-liberties organization designed to defend the Bill of Rights is meant to oppose.

I used to be a proud card-carrying member of the ACLU. Today, when its fundraising mailers and pleas to reenroll arrive in my mailbox, I toss them in the recycling.

This article has been updated to clarify the details of Terence Dougherty's testimony.

More:

Helping Amber Heard Was Just the Start of the ACLU's Problems - The Atlantic

Were living, learning and teaching in a time when our relationship with discourse and debate is increasingly fraught. Everywhere, including in higher education, there is increased hesitancy and, sometimes, a complete inability to engage with perspectives, opinions or ideas different from our own. At the same time, a flood of disinformation causes widespread confusion and distrust. Together, these challenges undermine our future. This isnt only higher educations problem, but it is incumbent on us to help solve it, as it threatens our democracy, communities and well-being.

Unfettered, evidence-based intellectual inquiry is at the very heart of what we do as a university. Our highest goals are to prepare our students to thrive and to expand humanitys knowledge of itself and our universe. And that universe is not getting any simpler. We fail our students if we dont help them hone the skills to successfully encounter complexity, difference and thorny, complicated problems.

Free speech, civil discourse, civil education, diversity of ideas, pluralism, engaged listeninga wealth of terminology describes these issues, but terminology should not be our focus. What is most urgent is that we actively engage in respectful discussion and learning with complex, different and diverse ideas. At the University of Denver, we are taking on this work by being explicit about what we hope to achieve.

Most important, we want everyone in our community to feel free to express themselvesand to uphold that same freedom for others. Discussions, no matter how divided or tense, must remain respectful, evidence-based and guided by the shared goal of seeking greater understanding. In our classrooms and everywhere on campus, we seek to model the myriad skills needed for civil discourse: respect, empathy, inclusivity, kindness, and an openness to learn and engage across difference. And we provide opportunities for our students to sharpen those skills. Our biggest challenge, but one to which we are fervently committed, is to provide balance and symmetry, considering voices from all walks of life, including those with very different experiences, because doing so adds to the richness of our community and gives our students the deepest education possible.

As we work to provide and affirm these values, we avoid pitfalls that undermine or distort our mission. By engaging in diverse ideas and perspectives, the University as an institution does not elevate or favor a particular way of thinking or ideology. We welcome respectful protests and disagreements. Indeed, they are important forms of expression. As the community encourages engagement with difference, the goal is not agreement or consensus, but learning and understanding. Disagreement is important and perhaps even essential.

This work is rife with nuance, but that is why it is vital that we commit to it wholly. Our students need these skills if they are going to be the leaders, thinkers, doers and creators that society needs. Difference is inevitable. Its also important. Education itself is based on encountering new information, new ideas and being powerfully changed by it.

We have work to do, but no one is better able to do it than we are.

See the original post:

It's time to recommit to civil discourse and free speech - University of Denver Magazine