Park chastises the ACLU that “[b]y insisting on a narrow reading of the First Amendment, the organization provides free legal support to hate-based causes. More troubling, the legal gains on which the A.C.L.U. rests its colorblind logic have never secured real freedom or even safety for all.” Park’s disdain for “colorblind logic” is unfortunately increasingly common among university professors who are abandoning core principles of free speech and association to achieve their goals for social advancement and “real freedom.” It appears that “real freedom” for Park is found somewhere without true free speech.
Park insists that the ACLU “perpetuates a misguided theory that all radical views are equal. And it fuels right-wing free-speech hypocrisy.” It appears that Park’s own radical views on free speech should be deemed superior because . . . well . . . she is just right. She wants the ACLU to calculate who it supports in court to fight “right-wing power” and presumably allow the more enlightened left-wing power to flourish. It is constitutional law meets Animal Farm where “all radical views” are equal but some are more equal than others.
Park’s views may reflect her teaching of Critical Race Studies at the U.C.L.A. School of Law, but they are inimical to the core protections that define our Constitution . . . and the ACLU.