Diversity, Inclusion, Freedom of Speech, and Academic Freedom

  Each member of this class is welcome. No one is more welcome than anyone else, and no one is less welcome than anyone else. Each of you is equally welcome. Each of you is privileged to be entering into a noble profession and vocation in the law. You should be proud of this privilege because you have earned it by hard work, good choices, and by making the most of your natural abilities. Welcome!

 Here are my thoughts (quoted from the Princeton statement) on diversity, inclusion, freedom of speech, and academic freedom in academia:

Education should not be intended to make people comfortable; it is meant to make them think. Universities should be expected to provide the conditions within which hard thought, and therefore strong disagreement, independent judgment, and the questioning of stubborn assumptions, can flourish in an environment of the greatest freedom. 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.

That is how I try to teach my classes. All views relevant to the issues we are discussing are welcome. But all views are debatable. In a country as diverse as ours, there are competing versions of social justice, competing versions of what is true, what is good, and what is beautiful. 

The way to deal with ideas you disagree with is counter-speech, not censorship. Inclusion means inclusion, not exclusion. To be an inclusive leader you must always be open to the ideas of others. Debate yes. Censorship never.

But remember, education is about debate and critical analysis of ideas. Persuasion--not censorship--is the goal of education.

University of Chicago Principles on Freedom of Expression

 Here is one more statement of freedom of expression in the classroom and on campus that I support:

Of course, the ideas of different members of the University community will often and quite naturally conflict. But it 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. Although the University greatly values civility, and although all members of the University community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.

Link

Con Law II Spring 2021 Third Week February 3 and 4

                                     Ray Wylie Hubbard, my twin separated at Birth

 

 For our Third week please read assignments 4 and 5:

 4. Legislative Prayers: Marsh v. Chambers (link); Town of Greece (casebook p. 1727-1738). When reading the Town of Greece opinions, do not overlook Justice Thomas' concurring opinion
(at p.1733) in which he speaks of the EC as a "federalism provision." What does that mean?

5. Widmar v. Vincent (Link);Casebook p.1739-1752

 You should also watch the next two recorded classes:

CLII 5:

https://use.vg/1fVS8V

CLII 6:

https://use.vg/u0WoSK

 

Finally, we will meet on Zoom (join from Canvas recurring zoom page for this course) on Wednesday (assignment 4; video 5) and Thursday (assignment 5; video 6) from 1:15 to 2:15 PM to discuss the issues raised in our materials.

 

On Friday at 1:15 we will have an optional Zoom Q & A/chat session. No one is required to attend. I will just show up to chat with anyone who has a question or wishes to chat.