GULC - Free speech

[SSHoya]

Okay folks. Have at it!!

The conflict over El-Kurd’s appearance was the second major speech controversy on the campus this year, reflecting the pressure on administrators nationwide to showcase their schools as sites of diverse viewpoints while ensuring students feel safe and welcome. In January, an incoming faculty member was placed on administrative leave over his tweets about President Biden’s pledge to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court, a move that earned both praise and criticism.

www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/05/05/after-controversies-georgetown-law-students-call-culture-shift/

[RusskyHoya]

Obviously a complex topic, with no shortage of questions and standards to debate, but an obvious point that has to be made upfront: a University (or other comparable organization like a think tank) will almost inevitably have different standards for its employees, especially employees that are in positions of authority over students or others, than it will for invited speakers.

[HoyaRejuveNation85]

Wasn’t an invited speaker from Homeland Security shut down by GULC protesters a couple of years ago as well if memory serves? While there were some platitudes offered by the administration in defense of free speech at the time and a promise to investigate the situation, I don’t recall ever reading about how that concluded. Whatever happened to the notion of a university as a marketplace of ideas — even ones you don’t necessarily agree with?

[SSHoya]

For more than three months now, Georgetown University has pondered whether to discipline a staff member whose words offended a number of students and faculty. The university’s written policy on free speech pointed to one answer: No. Georgetown’s protections for free-speech policy are very broad; on April 26, for example, its law school hosted a Palestinian activist who has appropriated Holocaust history to condemn Israel for “Kristallnachting” Palestinians. So that’s in bounds at Georgetown Law.

At the same time, the offended students and faculty are still riled up, and people do not rise through the ranks of university management by brave defiance of local opinion. So perhaps it’s natural that Georgetown has decided to … dither. But the longer the dither, the more painful and embarrassing the eventual outcome, whatever it should be.

www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/ilya-shapiro-georgetown-law-tweet-investigation/629911/

[SSHoya]

GULC punts on jurisdictional issue regarding the suspension of Ilya Shapiro as Executive Director of the Center for the Constitution.

IDEAA and HR have now completed their investigations, and I received their reports this morning. As Mr. Shapiro posted the tweets on January 26, 2022, but his employment did not start until February 1, 2022, IDEAA and HR concluded that Mr. Shapiro was not a Georgetown employee at the time of his tweets. As such, he was not properly subject to discipline for them. As a result, he can begin his work as Executive Director and he will, subject to the Law Center’s normal Office of Academic Affairs processes, be able to teach upper-class elective courses as a senior lecturer. At the same time, IDEAA and HR found that Mr. Shapiro’s tweets had a significant negative impact on the Georgetown Law community, including current and prospective students, alumni, staff, and faculty, and they recommended that I put in place actions to address the negative impact that the tweets had on the law school community.

I share this concern about the impact of Mr. Shapiro’s tweets on our community and on our efforts to build a culture of equity and inclusion at Georgetown Law and am following up on the recommendations of IDEAA and HR. I have met with Mr. Shapiro to discuss the tweets, which he had already acknowledged were “recklessly framed” and “inartful” and for which he has apologized. I stressed to Mr. Shapiro that, although he has every right to express his views, I expect him, as a staff member at the Law Center, to communicate in a professional manner. I requested he consult with his faculty supervisor at the Center for the Constitution, Professor Barnett, on how to ensure that his future communications in his capacity as a Law Center staff member are professional and comply with our University policies. Mr. Shapiro will also participate in programming on implicit bias, cultural competence, and non-discrimination, which the Law Center is requiring senior staff to attend. Finally, I expressed my concern that his tweets would potentially have the effect of making some students feel unwelcome in any elective course he might teach. To that end, I have asked him to make himself available to meet with student leaders concerned about his ability to treat students fairly.
 
I am deeply aware of the pain this incident has given rise to in our campus community, particularly but not exclusively among our Black female students, faculty, staff, and alumni. I am thankful for the involvement and commitment of so many. I know that there will be a range of feelings and concerns about this resolution, and I am respectful of those differences. 

In his offer letter, we invited Mr. Shapiro, as we do all staff, to “learn more about the rich traditions embodied in the Mission of the University: our belief that diversity promotes understanding, our intellectual openness, our international character and our commitment to the principles of lifelong self-reflective learning, responsible community membership, the common good and generous service to others.” These are principles we should all embrace, and it is my hope that Mr. Shapiro will embrace them as he joins our staff. 

Georgetown Law is committed to preserving and protecting the right of free and open inquiry, deliberation, and debate. We have an equally compelling obligation to foster a campus community that is free from bias, and in which every member is treated with respect and courtesy. I am committed to continuing to strive toward both of these indispensable goals.

Sincerely,

William M. Treanor
Dean and Executive Vice President

[SSHoya]

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/04/georgetown-law-ilya-shapiro-free-speech/

[ksf42001]

Dude has now resigned for GULC. Time to make some money on the conservative victimization tour...

[SSHoya]

My guess is a book deal.

www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/06/06/ilya-shapiro-georgetown-resigns/

[SDHoya]

To be fair to Shapiro, without conspicuous institutional support after this, he would pretty much be doomed to failure. GULC did not need a 4 month long investigation to decide not to decide anything. GULC could have reaffirmed its commitment to open and free debate--even when the message may be inartfully crafted or controversial. Thats what GULC did when Professor Carol Christine Fair tweeted that people defending the Kavanaugh nomination "deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh" and "we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine." GULC statement following Fair's tweet spoke of the need for "respectable dialogue", but clearly affirmed that "The views faculty members expressed in their private capacities are their own and not the views of the university. Our policy does not prohibit speech based on the person presenting ideas or the content of those ideas even when those ideas may be difficult, controversial or objectionable.”

bariweiss.substack.com/p/on-decency-and-double-standards-at?s=r

GULC could have taken that same template and applied it to the Shapiro tweet. Students may not have loved it, but a clear statement would have at least given Shapiro a chance. By effectively implying that his tweet constituted a fireable offense, and that he survived the axe due to a technicality--GULC does nothing to ease a volatile situation, and makes it too easy for Shapiro to claim continuing in his position to be untenable.

Will Shapiro attempt to profit from his "victimization"? Probably. But GULC did not exactly bathe itself in glory here either.

[SSHoya]

Jun 6, 2022 14:42:13 GMT -5 SDHoya said:

To be fair to Shapiro, without conspicuous institutional support after this, he would pretty much be doomed to failure. GULC did not need a 4 month long investigation to decide not to decide anything. GULC could have reaffirmed its commitment to open and free debate--even when the message may be inartfully crafted or controversial. Thats what GULC did when Professor Carol Christine Fair tweeted that people defending the Kavanaugh nomination "deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh" and "we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine." GULC statement following Fair's tweet spoke of the need for "respectable dialogue", but clearly affirmed that "The views faculty members expressed in their private capacities are their own and not the views of the university. Our policy does not prohibit speech based on the person presenting ideas or the content of those ideas even when those ideas may be difficult, controversial or objectionable.”

bariweiss.substack.com/p/on-decency-and-double-standards-at?s=r

GULC could have taken that same template and applied it to the Shapiro tweet. Students may not have loved it, but a clear statement would have at least given Shapiro a chance. By effectively implying that his tweet constituted a fireable offense, and that he survived the axe due to a technicality--GULC does nothing to ease a volatile situation, and makes it too easy for Shapiro to claim continuing in his position to be untenable.

Will Shapiro attempt to profit from his "victimization"? Probably. But GULC did not exactly bathe itself in glory here either.

It punted and left him to twist slowly in the wind.

[reformation]

www.wsj.com/articles/the-georgetown-law-purge-ilya-shapiro-resigns-tweet-william-treanor-11654552225

No matter where you come down on this Gtwn leadership looks pretty weak and indecisive--not a surprise

Maybe bad publicity is better than no publicity as a consolation