1/ There seems to be a great deal of confusion about what advocates (like me) of Kalven Report institutional neutrality in non-sectarian universities are arguing such universities should be neutral about. We do not believe they should be neutral about the value of truth. 2/ Those of us who advocate Kalven Report institutional neutrality do not believe universities should be neutral on the question of free speech. We do not believe they should be neutral on the question of whether to adopt Kalven Report neutrality.

1/ I have respect and affection for the old-school liberals. They're people of integrity. And there were things they were right about, like civil rights and political free speech. In the 50s & 60s, their record on those issues was much better than the record of the conservatives. 2/ Today old-school liberals (Bill Maher's a good example) are in shock about Woke ideology's influence in the progressive movement and the Democratic Party. They see the illiberalism of the contemporary left as a betrayal of what they stood for. They're deeply distressed by it.

1/ On the question of what caused the Civil War, can there be a more eminent authority than Abraham Lincoln? What can we learn from him? We know that he did not fight the war to abolish slavery. He made that clear. And yet, he stated that slavery was indeed the cause. His words: 2/ "One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war."

1/ Over the past two months, the public has learned about some crazy things happening on college campuses. Folks are also now aware of some of the disturbing beliefs young people have come to adopt (e.g. 67% of 18-24 year-olds regard Jews as "oppressors"). What can be done? 2/ First, let's talk about what not to do. Don't further restrict free speech on campus. (Believe me, that will backfire.) Don't expand speech codes or further ramp up the power of DEI bureaucracies in the hope of, e.g., combatting anti-Semitism. It won't work.

1/ Repeating here what I've said elsewhere on this site. My friend Colin Wright has drawn some unfair criticism from religious folk who object to his expressing disappointment (as an atheist) that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has become a Christian. They view this as hostility to Christians. 2/ If someone thinks that someone else, especially a friend, has moved from a position he believes is true to one he believes false, of course he will be disappointed. That doesn't mean he's arrogant or regards himself as intellectually or morally superior, much less infallible.

1/ Democrat and liberal support for the idea that Israel is an illegitimate "settler colonial" apartheid state is roughly where Democrat and liberal support for the idea that marriage should be redefined to include same-sex partners was in the mid-2000s.
msn.com/en-us/news/pol… 2/ The base of the party and the movement, its intellectual leadership, and youth brigades are there. On campuses, it's already unquestionable dogma. Office holders and politicians, holding fingers to the wind, aren't there ... yet. But they're heading or will be dragged there.

1/ I'm puzzled that people describe Cornel West as a "Marxist" or as "blending Marxism and Christianity." Cornel is a Christian socialist, but he is a not a Marxist. Indeed he is an anti-Marxist. He rejects everything distinctive and important in Marx's teaching--everything. 2/ People--on the left and right--who identify Cornel West with Marxism misunderstand West, Marx, or both. Brother Cornel rejects Marx's atheism and dialectical materialism, his historical determinism, his account of the class struggle and theory of the base and superstructure.

1/ As the new academic year begins, I have some advice for students entering colleges and universities--especially conservative and religiously observant students whose views will place them "outside the mainstream" of secular progressive campus opinion.
mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustic… 2/ You'll encounter double standards. Don't be quiet about them. Ask for them to be removed. If necessary, be assertive and persistent, though always respectful, relying on the force of argument and the power of reason.

1/ "Where there is a faculty consensus on political matters, that consensus provides no justification for a non-sectarian university or one of its units to publicly commit itself to that, or any, political position."
theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/… 2/ If anything, a faculty consensus on political issues on which there is broad disagreement among reasonable people of goodwill raises the question of WHY there is uniformity. Where are the dissenting voices? Has groupthink set in—in a department, or perhaps in an entire field?

1/ It's OK to disagree--even about the most important issues. Where liberty of conscience and freedom of speech are in place, disagreement is inevitable. Big issues are hard--there are burdens of judgment--and all of us are fallible. None of us gets things perfectly right. 2/ When we disagree, don't silence people who think differently. Don't violate their right to speak. Don't shout them down. Certainly don't call for them to be murdered! Contest their points by giving your reasons, citing your evidence, and making your arguments. Then listen.

@DavidLat offers a spirited defense of Stanford Law Dean Jenny Martinez's handling of the disruption of a speaker by students. I think Mr. Lat's defense fails, but as a counterpoint to my more critical view, I urge my followers to read and consider it.
open.substack.com/pub/davidlat/p… David Lat suggests that Dean Martinez was constrained by certain facts on the ground: "Let’s be realistic: Dean Martinez is the leader of an elite law school in the year 2023. Her faculty has a single public-law conservative. Her student body is overwhelmingly progressive."

Day 8. More than a week has now gone by, and no announcement of an investigation or disciplinary proceedings against students who shut down a speaker at Stanford Law School. Have the bullies succeeded in intimidating the Dean? Day 9. Stanford Law Dean Martinez knows what the right thing to do is. It's what she WOULD be doing had a right-wing mob disrupted a left-wing group's speaking event. The perpetrators would have been held accountable. So why are the perps not being held accountable in this case?

1/ The shameful incident at Stanford Law School happened because SLS, like so many other academic institutions, has become an ideological echo chamber. Such incidents can be prevented, but only by enhancing viewpoint diversity, especially among faculty and administrators. 2/ The core of the problem is that Woke students, being constantly confirmed in their beliefs and not having them regularly challenged, come to suppose that they are self-evidently true to any reasonable and decent person, and that anyone who doesn't share them must be a bigot.

A large number of Stanford Law students disrupted a speaker and prevented others from hearing him, in gross violation of Stanford's rules. Dean Martinez has a duty to take disciplinary action against them. Will she? If so, how many days will pass before she does? I'll keep count. Day 2. Will Dean Martinez of Stanford Law School take disciplinary action against students who by disrupting Judge Duncan's talk violated his right to speak, the right of fellow students to hear a speaker, and Stanford's free speech rules? Or is free speech dead at Stanford Law?

1/ I wish more liberals (as we used to call them) would recover and stand up for what was best in their tradition--understanding the value and importance of maintaining a culture in which people think for themselves and say what they think, and defending people's rights to do so. 2/ Because I defend the free speech and academic freedom rights of people with whom I disagree, I sometimes find myself being classified as a "liberal," though I'm not one. I'm a conservative. But that's where we are these days.

1/ Good commentary by my Princeton and Academic Freedom Alliance colleague Keith Whittington on a troubling "guidance" to University of Idaho faculty enjoining them to remain "neutral" in classroom discussions of abortion and other controversial issues.
reason.com/volokh/2022/09… 2/ I certainly think faculty may not require students to agree with them, or remain silent in class discussions if they disagree with them; and it’s important for faculty to give students opportunities to express their views, whether or not they are in line with the professor’s.

1/ In this age of ideological partisanship, we need to recognize that, whatever our beliefs, there are reasonable people of goodwill who think differently--even on the most profound and consequential questions. Let's not demonize honorable people for arriving at different places. 2/ To recognize and honor the intelligence and goodwill of people who reach conclusions, even on the great moral questions, which one believes are wrong, even tragically wrong, is not to embrace moral relativism or indifferentism. Nor is it to cease being a person of conviction.

1/ St. Paul's Church in Princeton has beautiful stained glass windows--all rich in symbolism. A favorite of mine reminds us of Jesus' Jewishness and the Jewish roots of Christian faith. It recounts a story from Christ's infancy in which he is presented in the Temple in Jerusalem. 2/ In the Temple, Jesus is recognized by the elderly Simeon, a man of great righteousness (and also by the elderly prophetess Anna). Note the Temple menorah, the Star of David, the knife on the platter (representing circumcision), and the caged doves (used for Temple sacrifice).

A valuable thread by Aaron Sibarium for students who've been admitted to Harvard and Yale law schools and are choosing which to attend. The right answer--it's not close--is Harvard, at least for those who value intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity and reject groupthink.

https://twitter.com/aaronsibarium/status/1533833108012908545

In addition to the conservative Harvard law profs Aaron mentions, there are Henry Smith & Allen Ferrell, plus profs who aren't easily classifiable (e.g. Ruth Okidiji, Scott Brewer, Richard Parker) plus independent thinking liberals and progressives like Jeanie Suk & Janet Halley.

1/ It seems that the credibility of the Washington Post is taking yet another hit because of the misconduct of Taylor Lorenz. I won't pile on. On the contrary, I want to praise columnist and editor Ruth Marcus--someone whose moral & political opinions are quite distant from mine. 2/ A colleague and I recently submitted an op ed piece to the Washington Post defending the authority of Congress to enforce the 14th Amendment equal protection rights of unborn children by prohibiting elective abortions. It was accepted and given to Ruth Marcus for editing.

1/ Medieval Christianity had great strengths, but also serious weaknesses. Its profound achievements (including those in philosophy and theology, poetry, and art and architecture) should be deeply appreciated and vigilantly conserved; but we should not idealize (or idolize) it. 2/ Modern Christianity has weaknesses but also strengths. We have produced no thinker on a par with Aquinas; no poet even remotely in the league of Dante, no building to match in beauty the cathedral at Chartres. But we have the benefit of important developments of doctrine.