Today, I had the pleasure of debating Professor Randall Kennedy on the question “Does Harvard support free speech and intellectual diversity?” I took the opposing view. Various readers asked for a link to the debate, which is included below.
Professor Kennedy and I obviously disagree about the free speech culture at Harvard as well as some questions such as the use of cancel campaigns to block speakers at Harvard. However, I appreciate the civility and substance of the debate. I have great respect for Professor Kennedy and I believe that we were both able to fully present our opposing views in the area.
Thanks again to the sponsors, including Harvard Alumni for Free Speech, the Harvard Federalist Society, The Steamboat Institute, and the Adolph Coors Foundation for a most interesting program.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Turley, as usual, killed it. His opponent was mumbling and thrown completely off his horse, because he knows he is wrong.
Turley’s point that Harvard is dead last for free speech, wow. So, Harvard students aren’t getting a proper education, as Professor Turley stated. Harvard needs to allow conservative thought to be voiced on campus and in class. Conservatism needs to show up at Harvard by balancing out its faculty and administration. Conservative speakers need to be welcomed at Harvard allowing students to hear a different viewpoint and any students protesting this need to be disciplined. I can only believe that professors have something to do with the liberal protestors not allowing conservative speakers on campus.
When your existence is predominantly within an ideological bubble, opposing viewpoints are as offensive as being slapped in the face with a shit pie. It explains their outrage, anger, stampy-footed tantrums, writhing, retching, vitriolic screaming & physical violence……………………………………
* Was the invitation sent and accepted? It’s a contract. Presumably she was paid the fee after cancelation. It’s commerce.
Turley makes a case for lack of free speech. There’s evidence. 1st amendment violation for the speaker.
Presumably a student group was involved with an interest in hearing her lecture. 1st amendment violation if student want to pursue.
* Most likely the speaker was rejected , uninvited after invitation because of her topic–> British Romanticism? Her views on transgenderism are anti hard luck cases.
Read 10 successful essays by ten applicants to Harvard law. All hard luck cases. 😂 like jd Vance and his mother was a drug addict story BUT I overcame, I want to help…
Kennedy specialty is race and the law. We shall overcome type thing.
There’s no room for the British or Romanticism .
Brute world…thanks
Prof. Turley, you are good. I really enjoyed listening to the debate. My only request is that you post the chart that showed the “before and after” results of the debate. As for my vote, I agreed with you before the debate and agreed with you more after the debate. Thank you for all of your commentaries. I try to read them all.
* It’s all shrill and manic movement. It’s crime world. Congrats professor Kennedy.
Ugh
Peace to all
Kennedy is a crackpot.
The scholar was invited to speak and students to hear her presentation re British Romanticism. The topic was not Romanticism and Transgender culture was it? Sketchy information about her views on transgenderism isn’t clear. Students, the mob, objected and the invitation withdrawn.
Kennedy said the invitation can be withdrawn at the pleasure of the authorities.
Turley points out it’s censorship and students lose. Students hearing alternate views is a loss.
Alan Dershowitz threw a party on Martha’s Vineyard. Barack Obama was invited. He called professor Dershowitz and said he’d have to disinvite so-and-so or he wouldn’t attend. Professor D said he couldn’t do that. I guess you can’t attend.
Trangenderism is a medical condition in my mind. Perhaps a debate among physicians is appropriate. Another debate with clergy perhaps. Another debate re the constitution. Another debate re commerce. British Romanticism just doesn’t apply.
Perhaps P Kennedy isn’t aware that speech and press include hearing and reading. P Turley won this but then did Kennedy even try?
* I think it was a mock debate. P. Kennedy provided P. Turley with a space within Harvard to make his point. PK didn’t even try.
Thanks, It was fun.
* it’s occupy Harvard and thanks for the endowment. Gay is being paid a million per year not to there?
* to BE there
I believe that Prof Kennedy demonstrated a failure to distinguish between speech and behavior. This failure renders human beings the equivalent of chimpanzees. Was this apparent failure due to his conscious choice or the result of him being incapable of drawing such a distinction?
What is the distinction between speech and behavior? I’m not interested in things that are already illegal or subject to private lawsuit, e.g. defamation, or sending an anonymous death threat. There are many crimes and torts where speech or writing are elements, not protected by 1A. The work left to be done here is easier to define, e.g. more widespread enforcement against making death threats, and eliminating the long delays in achieving defamation judgments.
I’m looking for more nuanced distinctions saying exactly where speech degrades into misconduct. The Professor gives examples aplenty: shouting down a guest speaker, applying pressure to disinvite a speaker,
doxxing an opponent (violating their privacy), working to get someone fired from their job.
I have some markers in mind, which all have in common departures from trustworthiness and civility. All move a disagreement over some issue away from civility in the direction of ad-hominem attack, oppo-branding, premeditated inauthenticity (deceit and manipulation), and intimidation of opponents.
Some speech tactics can be very subtle forms of manipulation: The example I use is, after the Barbara Jordan Commission recommendations called for credible, diligent immigration enforcement circa 1990, activists on the left devised a crafty idea: “We’ll simply deny any distinction between legal and illegal immigrants”. This speech tactic makes it impossible to discuss or develop policy specific to illegal immigrants — it verbally kills off meritocratic debate. Does that kind of premeditated, obfuscatory speech tactic qualify as “free speech”?
I’d have to say “no”, because it is intending to block good-faith negotiation and problem-solving.
When you recognize how subtle can be deviations from constructive, trustworthy speech, the inability to define the boundaries of civility and authenticity makes me shudder about debating free speech rights without discussion of concomitant responsibilities. A free society that cannot navigate complex problem-solving, and just descends into oversimplified narratives, heroes and villains, identity virtue signaling, and deceptive manipulations does not have good prospects for the future. It will blunder through, and look back with regret at what might have been had standards of public speech been more precisely defined.
That’s where understanding the details of civility, or the difference between speech and conduct becomes central to making progress.
pbinca: inre Speech / Behavior
When you muzzle someone else to stop them from expressing their protected speech, you are engaging in transgressive Behavior, not Speech. In doing so, you are crossing a taboo line by violating someone else’s rights.
* Kennedy calls it all a lump as “expression” – freedom of expression. Express yourself type thing.
* Kennedy has some unique thoughts and ideas. I may read his books. For no other reason than know what the enemy is thinking.
Thanks PJT
* to know
Well done Mr. Turly! I’m a longtime reader of yours and share your concerns with free speech in this country. I thought you composed yourself very well and kept a cool head. The poll change from the beginning of the debate to the end, was a clear indicator that through your free speech, you convinced people of your perspective. Very interesting discussion and wish you well on your endeavors.