Posted by Eugene Volokh:
UC Irvine Chancellor Speaks Up for Free Speech:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_05_27-2007_06_02.shtml#1180645894
The [1]L.A. Times reports:
UC Irvine Chancellor Michael V. Drake ... tried to explain
[Wednesday] that campus events seen by some as anti-Semitic are
actually expressions of constitutionally protected free speech.
Drake met with more than 600 members of the county's Jewish
community who expressed concern about what they perceived as
anti-Semitic activity on campus, much of it involving Muslim
students....
UCI has become a flashpoint in the national Israeli-Arab debate
that has created hard feelings between Muslims and Jews. This
month, Muslim students on campus sponsored a presentation, "Israel:
Apartheid Resurrected," protesting that country's policies toward
Palestinians.
It was the latest in a series of events that have sparked tension
between the groups on campus, with some Jewish students complaining
that the exhibit relayed a message of anti-Semitism and hatred of
Jews.
On Wednesday, Drake heard complaints that Jewish students were
afraid to be on campus and was challenged repeatedly to draw a line
between free speech and hate speech. But he said it was an
impractical and impossible assignment.
"Free speech means simply that: free speech," he told one
questioner.
To another, he said: "Speech is protected. It can be hateful. It
can be wrong. It can be vile." Unlike speech, he added, violent
acts are not protected.
The chancellor repeatedly said he found anti-Semitism abhorrent,
calling it "the utterance of fools." But he also said the right of
free speech allows Muslim students to sponsor speakers with whom he
disagrees....
Sounds exactly right to me. If Jewish students are assaulted or
threatened for being Jewish or pro-Israel (or anything else), that
should be punished -- and if UCI isn't using adequate efforts to do
this, then it should be faulted for that. But expression of
anti-Semitic views should remain protected, just as expression of
other views should remain protected.
As to the quote from "community member Richard Meyers" -- "[The
Chancellor] keeps saying that he abhors hate speech, but he's
unwilling to take a position on the issue of what to do about
anti-Semitic activity" -- it sounds to me like the Chancellor (1) does
abhor hate speech, (2) does take a position for punishing anti-Semitic
violence, and (3) does take a position against punishing anti-Semitic
speech. And these items are perfectly consistent: University
chancellors may (and should) protect even speech they abhor, and
distinguish protected speech from unprotected violence.
References
1.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uci31may31,1,574749.story?ctrack=3&cset=true
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
