Disappointing Development at BYU Law School

[smac97]

Here: BYU Cancels Debate Event on Abortion: Beams before Motes

This was written by Garret Hofstetter, a current 3L at BYU's J. Reuben Clark Law School.

Quote

The recent petition to ban Elder Holland from speaking at Southern Utah University’s Commencement ceremony has once again sparked a debate over cancel culture throughout the Wasatch front. This attempt to cancel Elder Holland perhaps carries an extra dose of retribution. Elder Holland had long been viewed by liberal Latter-day Saints as a political ally, or a “closet liberal,” as a friend once told me. That is, until his (un)surprising affirmation of the traditional family during the BYU 2021 Faculty Speech. His loving but firm confirmation of foundational Church doctrine was unfortunately seen by this group as nothing other than a betrayal.

I wonder if this is an apt description.

Quote

In today’s political climate, is it surprising that so many would seek to silence a loving elderly gentleman simply because they disagree with his views? No. At least, not for “other people.” Members of the BYU Community pride themselves in thinking that we would never do such a thing. Cancel culture is for universities like SUU and UVU. 

The UVU link above is to a story about efforts to disinvite Sis. Wendy Nelson as a commencement speaker in 2021.

Quote

An outside viewer could certainly get that picture, given that BYU and its affiliates have recently been the targets of cancel culture. First, it was Sister Wendy Nelson (wife of BYU Board of Trustee’s President) getting protested at UVU, then the Duke volleyball scandal, and now Elder Holland (former BYU President and current member of the Board of Trustees). In all these instances, BYU stood firm. Other schools may have given in to this irrational hysteria, but not us.

But as so often happens, the victim is also a perpetrator.  

Ouch.  This was painful to read.

Quote

As a BYU Law student, I belong to the Federalist Society, a school club devoted to “providing a forum for legal experts of opposing views to interact with…students [and] academics…[in] legal debate.” Rather than avoiding hot-topic issues, we seek to engage with them through timely, rational debate. Speakers that hold the “other” viewpoint are not enemies, rather opponents. No one wishes any party ill will, but that they will all perform their best. And when the buzzer signals the end of another intellectual match, the reward is understanding—understanding of the weaknesses and strengths of one’s own position, as well as the “other.” Yes, this increased understanding will be used to hone one’s arguments, shore up the defenses, and prepare for battle another day, but there is another subtle by-product, even more important than increased knowledge: respect. Respect when the opponent succeeds because their views were valid, and respect when the opponent fails because their effort was worthy. A respect, I might add, that is possible because of engaging with those you disagree, rather than avoiding them. 

This is a very good encapsulation of the sentiments which ought to undergird a traditional liberal or classical education at BYU. 

Quote

Unfortunately, the BYU Law Administration thinks otherwise. During Fall semester, the Federalist Society planned to host an event to discuss the merits of the Dobbs v. Jackson decision and the legal implications of Roe v. Wade’s reversal. We invited two professors, one liberal (BYU Law) and one conservative (Nebraska Law), to share their views on this issue. These long-time professors and friends would challenge our views, educate our minds, and persuade us to see the law through their eyes. Discussions like this are one of the few holdovers from the forgotten era of a truly liberal education. 

And then I was texted that word:

Canceled.

If true, this is very disappointing.  

Quote

I’d been afraid of this. Yes, even at BYU. You see, the Federalist Society has a rival club, the American Constitutional Society (ACS), that opposes conservative and libertarian thought. I had met with their president before planning the event to see if we could work together. Both sides of the issue would be well represented, perhaps we could pool our resources together to persuade students of all political persuasions to attend the event. Unfortunately, members of the club were “not interested in hearing [our] side of the issue.” 

No matter. I had another purpose in meeting together. I wanted to at least get his assurance that they would not try to cancel us. It seemed like an easy sell. We both agreed to respect one another’s events “because here at BYU, we honor and respect free speech”….sometimes. 

Two days later, I sat in the Dean of Students’ office. Despite our agreement, a student from ACS had complained. The Dean explained that our event was just too controversial. Why? Because last year when the Nebraska professor spoke at the BYU Federalist Society, some students got “offended.” 

Man, this "cancel culture" stuff is getting pretty bad.  An academic discussion/debate at a law school about a recent and important Supreme Court case is "too controversial?"  Because "some students got 'offended?'"  Candidly, I think this stuff is pretextual.  It's not about protecting offended students.  It is about the suppression of ideas and speech that some college students (and faculty) cannot or will not tolerate.

I recognize that BYU, as a private and religious institution, is not fully obligated to accommodate and allow the full spectrum of "free speech" as is required of public education institutions and the State generally.  For example, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (f/k/a "Foundation for Individual Rights in Education") gives BYU a "Warning" ranking, described as follows:

Quote

FIRE believes that free speech is not only a moral imperative, but also an essential element of a college education. However, private universities are just that—private associations—and as such, they possess their own right to free association, which allows them to prioritize other values above the right to free speech if they wish to do so. Therefore, when a private university clearly and consistently states that it holds a certain set of values above a commitment to freedom of speech, FIRE warns prospective students and faculty members of this fact.

FIRE's critique is, overall, pretty muted, as it only cites BYU's Honor Code and Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity Policy.

Nevertheless, an academic discussion/debate at a law school about a recent and important Supreme Court case between to well-regarded professors of law is nowhere close to being the sort of "speech" that BYU should be excluding from campus.

Back to the article:

Quote

Meanwhile, at that very moment, “The Janes” was being presented by ACS just a few rooms from the Dean’s office. The Janes is a movie documenting how several women formed an illegal underground abortion network during the pre-Roe era. Before being arrested, they were able to perform an estimated 11,000 abortions: true American heroes.

So the law school at BYU can accommodate the showing of a film that openly endorses abortion, but cannot accommodate an academic debate on a Supreme Court case about abortion?

Quote

On the other hand, our proposed speaker was so unacceptable that his very presence could not be tolerated. The speech this 71-year-old law professor gave the previous year was titled, “True Diversity Means Inclusion, Not Exclusion.” During that Federalist Society debate, he explained that true diversity comes from our beliefs, backgrounds, and viewpoints. Therefore, we should never silence someone, whether liberal or conservative (or in-between). Equally dangerous as silencing, is compelled speech, which is simply enslavement of the tongue. One example he gave was forcing someone to use your gender pronouns when they have elected not to. He concluded his presentation by calling on BYU to be a place where honest and tough conversations can happen.

Having this fellow speak on campus at BYU is "too controversial," but screening The Janes is not?

Quote

Fanciful wishes? Not to him. Following the event this professor expressed to me that he loves coming to BYU because he always feels welcome to share his true thoughts. He had been to BYU many, many times in the past. He was no random professor from the street. Though not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, when the faculty representative for the J. Reuben Clark Law Society at his law school died, he volunteered to keep the club going. Why would a non-member, non-BYU graduate represent our club at his school? Because he viewed the BYU and Latter-day Saint community as his friends. 

And BYU's law school appears to have unceremoniously disinvited him.

Quote

And so there I sat in the Dean’s office—two “friends” of this old professor. The Dean relayed the anonymous complaint to me. Not surprisingly, this student’s recollection of the speech was very twisted and overblown. But even if it was true, should it matter? Short of vulgarity or opposition to Church doctrine, what valid reason could there possibly be to silence a man for respectfully presenting his views? 

These are fair questions.  And the answers, IMO, are "No" to the first and "None at all" to the second.

Quote

Evan Gertsmann, Professor of Political Science at Loyola Marymount University, wrote that cancel culture “elevates performative outrage over dialogue, factual inquiry, or respect for values such as free speech or fair process. It rejects the value of ideological diversity.” This student’s “offense” was not the result of being targeted or shamed, rather it was disagreement (and disagreement with views held by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to boot). But for cancel culture, disagreement is enough; cancel culture does not tolerate difference of opinions.

It's a major bummer to think that this crapola is in play at BYU's law school.

The next part is also pretty bad:

Quote

And so he was canceled. To make matters worse, I was left with the job of informing this professor that he needed to cancel both his flight and hotel room. To my knowledge, the BYU Law Administration never reached out to him. They never offered an explanation. They never offered an apology. As I sat down to notify this professor that he wasn’t allowed to speak at our school, my anger turned to shame. How was I supposed to explain this? Fortunately, he responded that I “shouldn’t worry.” He “knew exactly what had happened” and “wasn’t surprised.” While his words comforted me, they also opened my eyes to the dismal reality of contemporary higher education. 

How long is this ban, one might wonder? It is unclear. I was told that it would last at least until there were no longer students who felt unsafe with this professor in the building; in other words, until these students graduate (minimum 2 years).

"How long is this ban, one might wonder? It is unclear. I was told that it would last at least until there were no longer students who felt unsafe with this professor in the building."

"Unsafe."  What a lot of crapola.  This is a pretext for the suppression of a viewpoint that ought to be openly welcomed at BYU.

Quote

Given this professor’s age, it’s very possible that he won’t be teaching anymore. But that’s not what matters. The real question is, would he even want to come back if he could? 

In complete sincerity, I think the answer is yes. This man embodies BYU’s aspirations of resilience and community, rather than fragility and division. He isn’t afraid to stand up for what he believes. And unlike the “cancellers,” he is willing to forgive. What higher education needs is more people like him, not less.   

Good words, these.  I hope the Law School reverses course, apologizes to Prof. Duncan, and allows the debate/discussion to proceed.

Quote

It is difficult in today’s world to take the road less traveled. Restricting conservative speech is popular in higher education. Giving in to the wishes of the frequently “offended” students seems to keep the peace—and it just might for a time—but it comes at a high price. Whatever platform BYU might have had to defend Elder Holland’s invitation to SUU has been severely undermined. How can BYU expect SUU not to cancel Elder Holland for his views on human sexuality while we banish professors like the one from Nebraska for sharing his identical beliefs? 

The rest of academia may see no problem with this hypocrisy, but that is no excuse for us. Indeed, Elder Clark Gilbert spoke true in his recent article when he encouraged BYU faculty to “Dare to be different.” 

I think "Latter-day Saint" thought and speech (that is, from generally informed and faithful and observant Latter-day Saints) has some overlap, but also some distinctions, from what is typically characterized as "conservative" speech.  Nevertheless, turnabout is fair play.  Latter-day Saints have often been criticized for being too beholden to "conformity."  But these days the criticism has been turned on its head: we are not "conforming" enough.

Quote

I have full confidence in the free marketplace of ideas. Truth and reason will win out. Students will gravitate toward that which is good, wholesome, and right. I also have confidence that as we treat others with respect, even when we disagree (especially when we disagree), then we will receive the same in return. BYU can, and should, lead the effort to restore respect and dignity to higher education.

But before we tackle that mote, we’ve got a beam to take care of.

Good concluding thoughts.

Here is a follow-up article: Complaints of ‘disrespectful’ Speaker Used to Cancel Abortion Debate Appear Unfounded

And excerpt:

Quote

Yesterday, April 11, the Chronicle broke a story of the BYU Law School recently canceling an event with Rick Duncan who spoke at the school a year before.

[READ: BYU Cancels Debate Event on Abortion: Beams before Motes]

Ed Whelan, the author of the National Review article about the J. Reuben Clark Law School’s cancellation of Rick Duncan, added an addendum, provided by a source at BYU. The addition gave more information about the cancellation, stating:

“One source at BYU law school tells me that Duncan’s 2021 event on diversity generated complaints that Duncan had been ‘disrespectful’ to a university DEI administrator who took part in the event. This same source says that law-school administrators told Federalist Society leaders that they were welcome to seek approval for Duncan to speak on Dobbs at a later date, which would allow administrators to prepare adequately for the event.”

Lita Little Giddins, Vice President of BYU’s Office of Belonging, was the administrator present at the event; a photo of Rick Duncan and Lita Giddens happily shaking hands contradicts the complaints of disrespect.

In response to the claims, Rick Duncan responded: 

“I definitely was not disrespectful of anyone. Our ideas were in conflict, but our conversation was civil and respectful on both sides. We even had a friendly hug at the end.”

Months after the debate, Lita Giddens told a law student that she received many positive phone calls and emails regarding the event. At no time during the event could one receive the impression that anyone was upset by the discussion, according to the Chronicle’s sources.

A student present at the original event told the Chronicle, “During the Q and A portion, Professor Duncan said how we must allow all to be heard (even if we don’t agree with their position), to which Dean Giddins grabbed his hand to show they were on the same page…. I left that presentation thinking: wow, BYU Law is a special place.”

Another law student provided us with their account of the event, stating, “Though it was styled as a debate, the speakers were mainly in unison. Their point was that everyone deserves to be heard and that we can be civil even though we disagree. I suppose the controversial part was when Professor Duncan said he admired Jack [Phillips] (MasterPiece Cakeshop) for sticking to his beliefs in the face of so much hatred.” 

“[P]erhaps it was when he said we don’t have to use someone’s preferred pronouns if we don’t want to. Either way, he was respectful and dignified in his beliefs and how he presented them. Those who were ‘offended’ simply didn’t like that he disagreed with them,” the student concluded. 

A third student relayed to the Chronicle, “Professor Duncan addressed the harassment conservative thinkers face on college campuses regularly. He was respectful and directed his biggest critique on colleges that don’t protect free speech. [They] hugged, held hands afterward and got a standing ovation. The overall message was positive and good.”

Notably, the students recollected a civil discussion, with no instances of disrespect or discourtesy. Such statements from several students present at the event contradict the complaints leveled towards Professor Duncan. 

Oi.

I have many times come to the defense of BYU on this board.  Not on this one.  I am quite troubled and disappointed by what is being reported here.

I have sent an email on this story to the dean of the law school, and I copied several BYU administrators as well.  I will advise if I get a response.

Anyway, thoughts?  Should BYU's law school allow a discussion/debate about the Dodds decision?  Even if some unnamed students were "offended?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Should BYU's law school allow a discussion/debate about the Dodds decision? 

Absolutely. 

[Duncan]

I agree that they should allow a debate, I think preparing future lawyers about debating and seeing different viewpoints and how to argue and win, is essential to being a lawyer, civil or criminal.

[Tacenda]

50 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Absolutely. 

Youth will inevitably cause the change, not cancelling, just teaching because they all have a lot of family and friends on the diverse side unlike Wendy and Holland, in their day. The church will die out if if doesn't change, IMO. 

[The Nehor]

That is an interesting way of describing the Federalist Society.

Strange that the article leaves out why this “kindly” professor was ‘cancelled’. It was because he considered having to use someone’s preferred pronouns to be coerced speech. That was the part some students were upset about but the article disingenuously tries to make it about abortion.

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is an interesting way of describing the Federalist Society.

Strange that the article leaves out why this “kindly” professor was ‘cancelled’. It was because he considered having to use someone’s preferred pronouns to be coerced speech. That was the part some students were upset about but the article disingenuously tries to make it about abortion.

Now we know who "they" are...

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here: BYU Cancels Debate Event on Abortion: Beams before Motes

This was written by Garret Hofstetter, a current 3L at BYU's J. Reuben Clark Law School.

I wonder if this is an apt description.

The UVU link above is to a story about efforts to disinvite Sis. Wendy Nelson as a commencement speaker in 2021.

Ouch.  This was painful to read.

This is a very good encapsulation of the sentiments which ought to undergird a traditional liberal or classical education at BYU. 

If true, this is very disappointing.  

Man, this "cancel culture" stuff is getting pretty bad.  An academic discussion/debate at a law school about a recent and important Supreme Court case is "too controversial?"  Because "some students got 'offended?'"  Candidly, I think this stuff is pretextual.  It's not about protecting offended students.  It is about the suppression of ideas and speech that some college students (and faculty) cannot or will not tolerate.

I recognize that BYU, as a private and religious institution, is not fully obligated to accommodate and allow the full spectrum of "free speech" as is required of public education institutions and the State generally.  For example, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (f/k/a "Foundation for Individual Rights in Education") gives BYU a "Warning" ranking, described as follows:

FIRE's critique is, overall, pretty muted, as it only cites BYU's Honor Code and Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity Policy.

Nevertheless, an academic discussion/debate at a law school about a recent and important Supreme Court case between to well-regarded professors of law is nowhere close to being the sort of "speech" that BYU should be excluding from campus.

Back to the article:

So the law school at BYU can accommodate the showing of a film that openly endorses abortion, but cannot accommodate an academic debate on a Supreme Court case about abortion?

Having this fellow speak on campus at BYU is "too controversial," but screening The Janes is not?

And BYU's law school appears to have unceremoniously disinvited him.

These are fair questions.  And the answers, IMO, are "No" to the first and "None at all" to the second.

It's a major bummer to think that this crapola is in play at BYU's law school.

The next part is also pretty bad:

"How long is this ban, one might wonder? It is unclear. I was told that it would last at least until there were no longer students who felt unsafe with this professor in the building."

"Unsafe."  What a lot of crapola.  This is a pretext for the suppression of a viewpoint that ought to be openly welcomed at BYU.

Good words, these.  I hope the Law School reverses course, apologizes to Prof. Duncan, and allows the debate/discussion to proceed.

I think "Latter-day Saint" thought and speech (that is, from generally informed and faithful and observant Latter-day Saints) has some overlap, but also some distinctions, from what is typically characterized as "conservative" speech.  Nevertheless, turnabout is fair play.  Latter-day Saints have often been criticized for being too beholden to "conformity."  But these days the criticism has been turned on its head: we are not "conforming" enough.

Good concluding thoughts.

Here is a follow-up article: Complaints of ‘disrespectful’ Speaker Used to Cancel Abortion Debate Appear Unfounded

And excerpt:

Oi.

I have many times come to the defense of BYU on this board.  Not on this one.  I am quite troubled and disappointed by what is being reported here.

I have sent an email on this story to the dean of the law school, and I copied several BYU administrators as well.  I will advise if I get a response.

Anyway, thoughts?  Should BYU's law school allow a discussion/debate about the Dodds decision?  Even if some unnamed students were "offended?"

Thanks,

-Smac

I totally agree with you on this. A debate on the issue would be good, robust and healthy. And yes cancel culture is getting WAY out of hand.

[pogi]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Having this fellow speak on campus at BYU is "too controversial," but screening The Janes is not?

It takes someone to complain before something gets cancelled.   I'm guessing that no one complained.

I think it is stupid the debate got cancelled, but it is not just one side that was cancelled or silenced in this case.   If the Nebraska Professor is the issue, find someone else to debate.   Simple!  I somehow suspect that this event was canceled for other reasons and that this student is simply taking advantage to jab at cancel culture -  otherwise, why can't they just find a replacement?  Just my suspicion.  

 

Edited April 14, 2023 by pogi

[Duncan]

I was going to say too if you can't handle opposing viewpoints then going to law school to become a lawyer and then, for some, a judge is not the career path for you. Judges deal with various viewpoints and they have to sift through it all and come to a conclusion in the matter.

[webbles]

Deseret News (https://www.deseret.com/2023/4/14/23680649/sen-mike-lee-responds-to-campus-free-speech-issues-at-stanford-byu-law-schools) received a statement from the school:

Quote

“BYU Law School has one of the most active student chapters of the Federalist Society. With Law School approval, the Federalist Society hosts numerous speakers each year, including this year,” the statement read. It further described the school’s approval process for scheduling speakers and event coordination, concluding that through its process “to our knowledge, no Federalist Society event has ever been denied.”

The statement then addressed the specific BYU Law School event in question: “Last fall, we became aware that a Federalist Society officer was organizing an event and had invited a speaker without applying for approval under the Speakers and Events Policy. The student planned to stage a debate regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. This topic is of great interest to our students, and we are eager to engage on this subject.”

The statement continued: “The assistant dean of students, who administers the policy, informed the organizers that the event would need to go through appropriate channels but expressed concern about the anticipated timing of the event and suggested that they explore hosting the event the following semester. The Federalist Society officers did not apply for the required approval for this academic year.”

Per the statement, it looks like the Federalist Society actually never requested approval for it.  The discussions with the assistant dean showed concerns about the "timing of the event" and suggested that the following semester might be better.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

Deseret News (https://www.deseret.com/2023/4/14/23680649/sen-mike-lee-responds-to-campus-free-speech-issues-at-stanford-byu-law-schools) received a statement from the school:

Per the statement, it looks like the Federalist Society actually never requested approval for it.  The discussions with the assistant dean showed concerns about the "timing of the event" and suggested that the following semester might be better.

Shoddy reporting and fact-checking from the Cougar Chronicle and the National Review? Who could have seen that coming?

[2BizE]

In light of the new academic requirements  for professors to align all their work with the teachings of the church, I’m not surprised BYU has canceled this debate. The decision from administration to not contact the intended speaker not offer a reason or apology is also consistent with how this administration operates. Remember the various professors whose contracts have been cancelled without any rational provided?

[teddyaware]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Youth will inevitably cause the change, not cancelling, just teaching because they all have a lot of family and friends on the diverse side unlike Wendy and Holland, in their day. The church will die out if if doesn't change, IMO. 

A very interesting and highly ironic point of view! The true church of Christ will “die out” unless it abandons the scriptures and embraces the satanic religion of child sacrifices made to the idolatrous god Moloch? Yup, makes perfect sense. I’m guessing this is what passes for logic when one no longer believes God exists and does believe the Church of Christ is a purely human institution?

Edited April 15, 2023 by teddyaware

[SkyRock]

BYU Law is much different today than 30 years ago.   This is all pretty pathetic but not unexpected given certain choices BYU has made over the last few decades. 

[rpn]

But now we know that the Federalist Society started the process, but didn't start/finish the paperwork to actual DO it (and apparently got discouraged and decided not to actually set it up in the way it was supposed to in the first place when it was suggested being done it the next semester instead of when it was originally "planned" by the person proposing it.

So let's not keep wallowing in the incomplete picture that lead to most of the posts here.   (Though I wouldn't be surprised if the suggestion to delay and insistence on following the process left the original proponent feeling like there might be institutional opposition to the event.)

[The Nehor]

16 hours ago, teddyaware said:

A very interesting and highly ironic point of view! The true church of Christ will “die out” unless it abandons the scriptures and embraces the satanic religion of child sacrifices made to the idolatrous god Moloch? Yup, makes perfect sense. I’m guessing this is what passes for logic when one no longer believes God exists and does believe the Church of Christ is a purely human institution?

I don’t know. This Moloch deity seems kind of nice.

The number of amateur exorcists in the comments on this video has me giggling.

Oh, and praise Molech!

[smac97]

On 4/14/2023 at 6:08 PM, webbles said:

Deseret News (https://www.deseret.com/2023/4/14/23680649/sen-mike-lee-responds-to-campus-free-speech-issues-at-stanford-byu-law-schools) received a statement from the school:

Per the statement, it looks like the Federalist Society actually never requested approval for it.  The discussions with the assistant dean showed concerns about the "timing of the event" and suggested that the following semester might be better.

Thank you for sharing this.  While I have some residual questions about the purported communications between Mr. Hofstetter and the associate dean about students being "offended," this article resolves the bulk of my concerns about this issue.

If the article is substantively true, then Mr. Hofstetter has some 'splainin to do.

Thanks,

-Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

On 4/14/2023 at 11:43 AM, smac97 said:

I recognize that BYU, as a private and religious institution, is not fully obligated to accommodate and allow the full spectrum of "free speech" as is required of public education institutions and the State generally.  For example, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (f/k/a "Foundation for Individual Rights in Education") gives BYU a "Warning" ranking, described as follows:

Quote

FIRE believes that free speech is not only a moral imperative, but also an essential element of a college education. However, private universities are just that—private associations—and as such, they possess their own right to free association, which allows them to prioritize other values above the right to free speech if they wish to do so. Therefore, when a private university clearly and consistently states that it holds a certain set of values above a commitment to freedom of speech, FIRE warns prospective students and faculty members of this fact.

FIRE's critique is, overall, pretty muted, as it only cites BYU's Honor Code and Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity Policy.

I must say, I've been impressed with FIRE for a few years now.  It's difficult to find any sort of national ranking system or problem-pointer-outer group that isn't buffeted about by political sides, favoring one over the other.  FIRE seems to be a breath of fresh unbaised air - if you run afoul of the 1st amendment, FIRE doesn't care if you're left or right, liberal or conservative, dem or rep, they'll go after you.   And if you're a student being denied public speech, FIRE doesn't care if you're handing out copies of the constitution or campaigning for transgender rights.  Or spreading information about the importance of gun rights, or pro choice healthcare, or criticizing your professor, or criticizing the school board that punished your professor for saying stuff.

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I must say, I've been impressed with FIRE for a few years now.  It's difficult to find any sort of national ranking system or problem-pointer-outer group that isn't buffeted about by political sides, favoring one over the other.  FIRE seems to be a breath of fresh unbaised air - if you run afoul of the 1st amendment, FIRE doesn't care if you're left or right, liberal or conservative, dem or rep, they'll go after you.   And if you're a student being denied public speech, FIRE doesn't care if you're handing out copies of the constitution or campaigning for transgender rights.  Or spreading information about the importance of gun rights, or pro choice healthcare, or criticizing your professor, or criticizing the school board that punished your professor for saying stuff.

Interesting site.  I am glad to see they have a section on limits to free speech.

https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/limits-free-speech

[california boy]

7 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I must say, I've been impressed with FIRE for a few years now.  It's difficult to find any sort of national ranking system or problem-pointer-outer group that isn't buffeted about by political sides, favoring one over the other.  FIRE seems to be a breath of fresh unbaised air - if you run afoul of the 1st amendment, FIRE doesn't care if you're left or right, liberal or conservative, dem or rep, they'll go after you.   And if you're a student being denied public speech, FIRE doesn't care if you're handing out copies of the constitution or campaigning for transgender rights.  Or spreading information about the importance of gun rights, or pro choice healthcare, or criticizing your professor, or criticizing the school board that punished your professor for saying stuff.

I listened to a podcast of an interview of the head of Fire.  Honestly, I was not impressed with him, nor did think he was even handed in how he views free speech.  It was clear to me that he had a very pronounced far right agenda.  He talked a good game about championing all free speech at the beginning of the podcast.  But as the interview went on, it was clearly coming from one side.  It was more like his claims of protecting all free speech was just to give some credibility to defend far right positions.

While I liked the idea, I wasn't at all impressed with his slant on what free speech means.  He completely distorted that definition to suit his own agenda.  Just my only real experience with Fire.  Not surprised one bit by the distortion of facts about BYU law. 

Edited April 18, 2023 by california boy

[LoudmouthMormon]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

But as the interview went on, it was clearly coming from one side.  It was more like his claims of protecting all free speech was just to give some credibility to defend far right positions.

While I liked the idea, I wasn't at all impressed with his slant on what free speech means.  He completely distorted that definition to suit his own agenda.  Just my only real experience with Fire.  

Interesting.  2 minutes on thefire.org's news sections, and I don't think it's possible to carry that experience forward.

Like FIRE attacking states for silencing drag shows: https://www.thefire.org/news/drag-free-expression-legislatures-across-country-introduce-bills-unconstitutionally-targeting

FIRE is actually suing Texas University for banning a drag show: https://www.thefire.org/news/lawsuit-fire-sues-texas-university-president-illegally-blocking-charity-drag-show

FIRE isn't impressed with Musk's Twitter: https://www.thefire.org/news/twitter-no-free-speech-haven-under-elon-musk

And an article bringing attention to possible police misconduct when raiding a black rap artist's home: https://www.thefire.org/news/do-cops-suing-afroman-after-raiding-his-home-have-case

 

Do you have 2 minutes to further expose yourself to this group?  I'd be interested in your take on their current news section, or their website in general.

[The Nehor]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

Thank you for sharing this.  While I have some residual questions about the purported communications between Mr. Hofstetter and the associate dean about students being "offended," this article resolves the bulk of my concerns about this issue.

If the article is substantively true, then Mr. Hofstetter has some 'splainin to do.

Thanks,

-Smac

And presumably you have diminished trust in the outlets that fed you this story and will be more dubious of their claims in the future?

[california boy]

On 4/18/2023 at 8:20 AM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Interesting.  2 minutes on thefire.org's news sections, and I don't think it's possible to carry that experience forward.

Like FIRE attacking states for silencing drag shows: https://www.thefire.org/news/drag-free-expression-legislatures-across-country-introduce-bills-unconstitutionally-targeting

FIRE is actually suing Texas University for banning a drag show: https://www.thefire.org/news/lawsuit-fire-sues-texas-university-president-illegally-blocking-charity-drag-show

FIRE isn't impressed with Musk's Twitter: https://www.thefire.org/news/twitter-no-free-speech-haven-under-elon-musk

And an article bringing attention to possible police misconduct when raiding a black rap artist's home: https://www.thefire.org/news/do-cops-suing-afroman-after-raiding-his-home-have-case

 

Do you have 2 minutes to further expose yourself to this group?  I'd be interested in your take on their current news section, or their website in general.

I looked at your links.  I am open to digging further and learning more about fire.  I have to say, the founder gave me the impression that they definitely had an agenda on what kinds of free speech they were speaking up for.  Maybe they are more than that.

I wonder what they think about BYU confiscating pamphlets at BYU because of their queer content.

LGBTQ groups say BYU trashed their resource pamphlets after agreeing to give them to freshmen

Edited April 19, 2023 by california boy

[Thinking]

On 4/14/2023 at 11:43 AM, smac97 said:

Should BYU's law school allow a discussion/debate about the Dodds decision?

It seems to me that a law school should have healthy debates about just about anything.

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, but, apparently, although the Federalist Society member who was given the unenviable task of "disinviting" Richard Duncan from the scheduled Federalist Society debate at JRCLS between Richard Duncan and Fred Ge****s regarding Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health did not jump through the administrative hoops required to hold such an event, another JRCLS Federalist Society chapter official did do so, yet Mr. Duncan was disinvited and the event was cancelled anyway.

It would seem, then, that, indeed, this is an instance of those who wish to silence speech with which they disagree from taking place at JRCLS*, and the whole, "No, sorry, the only reason the event was cancelled is because the administrative steps needed for it to be approved weren't followed" argument doesn't hold water.

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2023/4/19/23689586/byu-law-school-cancel-culture-richard-duncan

__________________

*aka "snowflakes" ... but not to put too fine of a point on it, or anything.

P.S.: I love what the software does to Professor Ge-Richards' [sic] name.  I don't know him well, although I have taken a class from him.  From what I do know of him, if I were a betting man, I would say that he would take it in stride and would probably get a pretty big kick out of it.

 

Edited April 19, 2023 by Kenngo1969