How to protect Jewish students on campus, photographers in public parks, and more this Festivus Eve!
Bringing you the latest free speech news (12/22/24)
Story of the week
Title VI currently only prohibits discrimination based on “race, color, or national origin” — not religion. Congress can fix this by codifying religion as a protected class, as it already has in other contexts. This simple change would ensure Title VI covers all discrimination based on a student’s religious practices and their membership in a religion that is not tied to a particular country.
(Note: I wrote about this previously on ERI!)
This week in FIRE’s blog
“The press and public have a constitutional right to discuss what’s publicly known,” said FIRE attorney Adam Steinbaugh. “Government officials can’t punish the press and public when officials fail to safeguard information. That responsibility starts and ends with the government.”
One day after FIRE lawsuit, Congress passes changes to filming permits in national parks by Colin McDonell
College faculty are more likely to self-censor now than at the height of McCarthyism by Nathan Honeycutt and David Volodzko
This year, FIRE surveyed 6,269 faculty members at 55 major colleges and universities for “Silence in the Classroom: The 2024 FIRE Faculty Survey Report,” the largest faculty free speech survey ever performed. What we found shocked even us here at FIRE. A deeply entrenched atmosphere of silence and fear is endemic across higher education.
O holy fight: New Hampshire Satanic Temple statue threatened by more than vandals by Carrie Robison
FIRE to Congress: More work needed to protect free speech on college campuses by Sofia Lopez
LAWSUIT: Videographers sue to overturn National Parks Service arbitrary permit scheme by FIRE
Free speech advocates converge to support FIRE’s ‘Let's Go Brandon’ federal court appeal by Sara Berinhout and Conor Fitzpatrick
This week in ERI
[W]hile we’re only a few days away from Christmas and Hanukkah, most of these free speech gifts are available right away — whether it’s via e-book and audiobook for the suggested reads, streaming for the documentaries, and express shipping on the super cool FIRE gear.
The Campus Deplatforming Hall of Fame by Sean Stevens
A few weeks ago it happened — 2024 eclipsed 2023 as the year with the most deplatforming attempts according to FIRE’s Campus Deplatforming Database. What’s even more alarming is that one-fifth of all the entries in FIRE’s Campus Deplatforming Database, which goes back to 1998, have occurred over the past two years.
This week on ‘So to Speak’
This week on So to Speak, Nico Perrino sat down with FIRE staffers to take your questions on the TikTok ban, mandatory DEI statements, the Kids Online Safety Act, Trump vs. the media, and more. This is a public version of FIRE’s monthly member webinar, which normally is only open to FIRE members, so if you like it, become a member today!
International free speech stories of the week
France's Charlie Hebdo Holds God Cartoon Contest 10 Years Since Attack (Barron’s) by Adam Plowright
Meta put on watch over terrorism content in the EU (TechCrunch) by Natasha Lomas
New York man pleads guilty in Chinese 'secret police station' case (Reuters) by Luc Cohen
Podcast of the month
I joined Jonah Goldberg on his podcast, The Remnant, where we discussed free speech, artificial intelligence, deepfakes, X, David Hume vs. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and how to defend free speech in an age of partisan blinders!
Most forms of antisemitism aren't theological; they're racial. The law as written already protects Jews.
The problem isn't the way the law is written, so changing the law will likely have very little effect.
It's not like universities are looking for opportunities to protect Jewish students but are hamstrung because of legal technicalities. They're in hoc to an ideology that prioritizes the interests of so-called oppressed peoples above so-called oppressors. The religious zeal of that ideological commitment isn't likely to be overcome by adding a clause to a subsection in US Code whatever point something.
Long time listener, first time caller, big fan.
I've read and re-read your July 8 post and the more recent one.
I'd like to see you more directly answer a comment from "Jonathan" on July 8th. He wrote:
"Here's the problem with this kind of analysis of the issue. The Hamsniks and radical leftists on college campuses are smart enough to know exactly how to create an environment that is extremely unwelcoming and uncomfortable for Jewish students without crossing the line into any direct threats or speech that would violate the Davis standard."
Greg, I'm trying to grasp if you're saying to the self-described uncomfortable Jewish students "A" or "B" per below? (Or neither!)
A. Greg says:
1. I'll stipulate that the DEI staff are unfair and frequently do NOT follow Davis on many topics. FIRE will keep fighting them.
2. We can help you a BIT by adding religion and then applying Davis. I'll improve your self-advocacy "direct" with Administration (bypassing DEI staff).
3. The non-Davis stuff you're complaining about seems like 75% of what's happening to Jews on campus. Sad. But there "You've got to suck it up." Jonathan is mostly right in that sense. 1A is a long game but a better endgame for everyone, including Jewish students who currently have short end of the stick. My proposal solves 25% of your complaint.
or
B. Greg says:
1. I'll stipulate that the DEI staff are unfair and frequently do NOT follow Davis on many topics. FIRE will keep fighting them.
2. We can help you a LOT by adding religion and then applying Davis. I'll improve your self-advocacy "direct" with Administration (bypassing DEI staff).
3. The non-Davis stuff you're complaining about seems like 25% of what's happening to Jews on campus. My proposal solves 75% of your complaint.
I think (???) you're saying "A"?