UMich goes all in on DEI, Villareal may get her day in (the Supreme) Court, & more!
Bringing you the latest free speech news (10/20/24)
Story of the week
The University of Michigan Doubled Down on D.E.I. What went wrong? (NYT) by Nicholas Confessore
Some administrators discovered that student activists could be a potent campus constituency. The former president of one top research institution recalled for me how students once came to his office with demands, presented in a kind of theatrical performance, to enhance the university’s D.E.I. program. The former president, who asked for anonymity for fear of risking his present job, later learned that some of the program’s senior staff members had worked with and encouraged the students to pressure the administration on their behalf. “That was the moment at which I understood that there was a whole part of the bureaucracy that I didn’t control,” he said.
This week in FIRE’s blog
Today, the Court agreed to review Priscilla’s case, vacated the Fifth Circuit’s 9-7 decision against her, and sent the case back to the Fifth Circuit, ordering it to reconsider Priscilla’s claims in light of a June Supreme Court decision, Gonzalez v. Trevino. The decision affirmed the power of Americans to sue government officials when they retaliate against speakers by selectively enforcing statutes.
FIRE is hopeful that the recent trend of colleges and universities adopting institutional neutrality indicates that administrators intend to show more backbone in response to cancellation demands.
This week in ERI
International free speech stories of the week
Russian Man Jailed for Daughter’s Anti-War Drawing Released From Prison (The Moscow Times)
Turkey Shuts Down Broadcaster After Armenia Genocide Row (Barron’s)
London Calling: Ronnie’s First Amendment Roundup
“To keep it simple for the State of Florida: it's the First Amendment, stupid.” That was the message of Chief District Judge Walker for the federal court in the Northern District of Florida when it entered a temporary restraining order against the state seeking, directly or indirectly, to coerce, threaten, or intimate repercussions to TV stations, broadcasters, or others for airing political ads with which the state disagrees. The order became necessary because this election cycle presents Florida voters, among other amendments to their state constitution, one that seeks to “Limit Government Interference with Abortion,” which the State opposes and has launched a campaign to defeat. Plaintiff Floridians Protecting Freedom supports the amendment, and while it does not challenge the state's authority to spend taxpayer funds opposing it, FPF objects that the state crossed the line between advocacy and censorship by demanding that TV stations remove FPF’s political ads on peril of potential criminal prosecution. Specifically, after an FPF ad aired on stations across the state in which a woman recalls her decision to have an abortion in Florida in 2022 and says she would not be able to do so under current state law, the then-general counsel for Florida’s Department of Health wrote on agency letterhead to Florida TV stations that the ad is false, dangerous, and constitutes a “sanitary nuisance” under Florida law, so as to create legal jeopardy. Acting quickly on FPF’s challenge, the court, after rejecting various state arguments (including some it labeled “nonsense”), reminded the state of “the bedrock principle that the government cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly by threatening third parties with legal sanctions to censor speech it disfavors.” And the state definitely “cannot excuse its indirect censorship of political speech simply by declaring [it] ‘false,’” given the “very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind through regulating the press, speech, and religion.” That’s a claxon FIRE started sounding—including writing to Florida’s Department of Health—as soon as the state’s threatening letters became public knowledge.
Documentary of the week
On Thursday,
was released on AppleTV and Google Play. It was also scheduled to be released on Amazon, but for some unknowable reason it is not yet available on that platform. Director speculates on possible reasons, but hopefully the issue is purely technical and will be resolved soon!
So basically rioting and disrupting campus, screaming at and attacking Jewish students, barring their entry onto campus, to class and the library is all fine because we have to protect their freedom of speech. What about the Jewish kids? Feels a lot like Germany 1930s. Congratulations.
Moral of the story, don’t send your kids to Univ of Michigan.