Your Cart is Empty
FIRE
Excerpt: Last week, an assassin silenced speech on a college campus. A family lost a father and a husband. As we have said without equivocation, political violence is never an acceptable response to free speech.
Appropriately, we can expect colleges and universities to place even greater emphasis on safety and security ahead of outside speakers arriving on campus moving forward. They have a moral and legal obligation to redouble their efforts to protect free speech as well as their campus community. However, administrators must not pass those security costs along to speakers or use security concerns as pretext to cancel a speaker’s appearance. Rewarding threats of violence by taxing speech or silencing speakers will only invite more threats and more violence.
Judith Butler
Chronicle of Higher Education
Excerpt: On September 4, I received an email from the University of California at Berkeley’s chief legal counsel, David Robinson, informing me that my name has been handed over to the Trump administration in a file containing allegations of antisemitism.
A few days later, I discovered that the university had sent a list of 160 names to the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. The list includes the names of students, staff, and faculty who may well suffer serious consequences, including the loss of jobs, expulsion, deportation, or harassment. This was a shock for many of us who believed that Berkeley is a university where one can expect support for freedom of expression and guarantees of fair procedure.
Emma Whitford
Inside Higher Ed
Excerpt: At least eight faculty and staff members have been fired or suspended so far for comments they made in response to the death of Turning Point USA founder and conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk, who was shot and killed Wednesday during an event at Utah Valley University.
Ryne Weiss Chapin Lenthall-Cleary
FIRE
Excerpt: The sickening assassination of Charlie Kirk at a campus speech this week has brought attention to worrying trends in political violence and the public’s stated support for it.
According to FIRE’s annual College Free Speech Rankings survey, in 2020, the national average showed about 1 in 5 students said it was ever acceptable to use violence to stop a speaker. That number has since risen to a disturbing 1 in 3 students.
Tyler Austin Harper
The Atlantic
Excerpt: Since the release of ChatGPT, in 2022, colleges and universities have been engaged in an experiment to discover whether artificially intelligent chatbots and the liberal-arts tradition can coexist. Notwithstanding a few exceptions, by now the answer is clear: They cannot. AI-enabled cheating is pretty much everywhere. As a May New York magazine essay put it, “students at large state schools, the Ivies, liberal-arts schools in New England, universities abroad, professional schools, and community colleges are relying on AI to ease their way through every facet of their education.”
Miriam Elman and Mark G. Yudof
Inside Higher Ed
Excerpt: In sports competitions, someone has to draft the rules and make critical judgments about their enforcement. Was the runner out or safe at home? Did a defensive player trip the dribbling guard? Should the tush push be banned? So too for the professions: lawyers, physicians, accountants and others. In higher education, the American Association of University Professors for many decades has been the gold standard for impartiality. No more.
In a recent disturbing interview published in Inside Higher Ed, the AAUP’s president, Todd Wolfson, made it unmistakably clear where the organization stands at a time when antisemitism on college campuses is spiking—against both students and Jewish faculty, whom the AAUP purports to represent.
