UCLA Seeks To Revoke Free Speech
UCLA is considering recognizing a "right" to be "free from ... expressions of intolerance," reports Eugene Volokh, a tenured constitutional law professor at UCLA who also blogs at the WaPo.

Here's an excerpt from the disgusting (and rather horrifying) announcement about the September 17 Board of Regents meeting to discuss muzzling those on campus.

Intolerance has no place at the University of California. We define intolerance as unwelcome conduct motivated by discrimination against, or hatred toward, other individuals or groups. It may take the form of acts of violence or intimidation, threats, harassment, hate speech, derogatory language reflecting stereotypes or prejudice, or inflammatory or derogatory use of culturally recognized symbols of hate, prejudice, or discrimination.

Everyone in the University community has the right to study, teach, conduct research, and work free from acts and expressions of intolerance.

No, they actually don't. Our right to be intolerant is part of our nation's founding principles, and remains a right today -- despite the desperate attempts of many to muzzle the mean, those who say uncomfortable things and others who offend.

Free speech involves my supporting, demanding, and even celebrating your right to speak like a big, mean asshole -- even if you are a big mean asshole to me.

There are times when free speech crosses into harassment, but this letter is talking about something different.

Here's some of what they're looking to ban:

* Questioning a student's fitness for a leadership role or whether the student should be a member of the campus community on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, citizenship, sex, or sexual orientation.

* Depicting or articulating a view of ethnic or racial groups as less ambitious, less hardworking or talented, or more threatening than other groups.

* Depicting or articulating a view of people with disabilities (both visible and invisible) as incapable.

Just on that last one, John Callahan, my late quadriplegic cartoonist friend, regularly depicted people with disabilities the way they are -- incapable of doing certain things, often physical things. That's why we call them "people with disabilities" and not, say, "Kobe Bryant clones."

Callahan even poked fun at disabled people. In fact, he made a point of it. Why? Because otherwise disabled people are some protected class -- not one of us. And because it gets people talking.

And here's a bit from Eugene on the "intolerance" point:

1. The policy specifically condemns the expression of particular viewpoints as "intolerant," as having "no place at the University of California," and a violation of others' rights to be "free from ... expressions of intolerance." For instance, articulating a view that people with various intellectual disabilities are incapable of various intellectual tasks, or people with various physical disabilities are incapable of various physical tasks, would be condemned by the authority of the University. ("University leaders will take all appropriate steps to implement the principles.")

Articulating a view that there are cultural (or even biological) differences between ethnic and racial groups in various fields -- condemned by the authority of the University, without regard to the arguments for or against the particular assertion. It's just an up-front categorical rule; whatever you want to say along these lines, we don't want to hear it, we don't care what your arguments are, we'll condemn it, and faculty and students have a right not to hear it. Even "depicting" such a view, whatever that means, is "intolerant" and "has no place at the University."

Here's more on what a chill this will put on speech:

2. The policy does say, "This statement of principles applies to attacks on individuals or groups and does not apply to the free exchange of ideas in keeping with the principles of academic freedom and free speech." But what does that mean?

"Attacks on individuals or groups," after all, often are free speech, especially recognizing that "attacks" is used here far beyond physical attacks (or threats of violence and speech that falls within the other narrow First Amendment exceptions). Certainly the third and fourth examples given in the "Addendum" are "free speech" under any existing legal definition of free speech, as is the second. Obviously the authors of the proposal have a much narrower view of "free speech" in mind. Likewise with "the free and open exchange of ideas." The authors of the proposal love free and open exchange of ideas, until some ideas they dislike about, say, disabilities are expressed.

We are living in ugly and dangerous times.