Chronicle of Higher Education, Statement on Academic Freedom and Harvard by Right-of-Center Scholars, Lawyers, and Former Government Officials:

We write as generally right-of-center lawyers, scholars, and former government officials to affirm the central importance of academic freedom and to speak out against the Trump Administration’s attempts to restrict the speech of Harvard and other universities. We see plenty of problems with the academy, including those related to antisemitism. But having the federal government control the viewpoints that are taught and tolerated at universities is not the solution. Under the First Amendment, such decisions are to be left to universities, not commandeered by government officials, even when the government is attaching conditions to grants and other subsidies. …

The demands the Administration has made of Harvard University are especially troubling. The requirement that Harvard “audit those programs and departments that most fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture” expressly targets the expression of disfavored viewpoints. We do not share those viewpoints ourselves, but the First Amendment protects all viewpoints, whether they are anti-Israel or pro-Israel or anti-Palestinian or pro-Palestinian, or even when they supposedly “fuel” antisemitism, racism, sexism, or other such beliefs. Title VI hostile educational environmental rules may permissibly ban certain kinds of harassment based on race or national origin. But Title VI does not, and cannot, require that universities generally suppress the expression of offensive views or ideologies where they fall short of discriminatory harassment.

If the demand that Harvard “immediately shutter all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, offices, committees, positions, and initiatives” were confined to programs that actually engage in illegal discrimination, it would likely be permissible (if the proper procedural requirements were followed). But “DEI … programs … and initiatives” seems to embrace programs that merely aim to teach “diversity, equity, and inclusion” viewpoints. Again, whether we support such programs or not, they are protected by the First Amendment against federal government attempts to suppress them because of their viewpoint. …

Academic institutions are far from perfect. They make many kinds of mistakes. In some instances they have violated the very norms of academic freedom and diversity of thought that they now invoke in their own defense; indeed, if voluntarily adopted by universities through their established forms of academic governance, some of the measures demanded of Harvard would be welcome reforms. But the premise of academic freedom, and the command of the First Amendment, is that universities’ mistakes should be dealt with through debate, university self-governance, and competition among institutions, and not through federal governmental restraint or pressure.

Law Prof signatories include:

• Larry Alexander (San Diego)
• Steven Calabresi (Northwestern; Co-founder, Federalist Society)
• Richard Epstein (Chicago & NYU)
• Michael McConnell (Stanford)
• Michael Stokes Paulsen (St. Thomas)
• Eugene Volokh (UCLA)
• Keith Whittington (Yale)

Editor's Note:  If you would like to receive a daily email with links to legal education posts on TaxProf Blog, email me here.