By Mike Huckabee
October 18, 2024
|
|
On Thursday, for the conservative nonprofit the Steamboat Institute, George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley debated Harvard Law School Professor Randall Kennedy on the question “Does Harvard support free speech and intellectual diversity?” Not surprisingly, considering Prof. Kennedy is FROM Harvard, Turley took the opposing view, which, conveniently, he agrees with.
Isn’t it sad that this question even has to be debated? It should go without saying that an institution of higher learning would strongly support free speech and diversity of thought. But no.
Turley is extremely gracious in the way he writes about this, and we have to agree with him that “civility and substance” are always refreshing these days. (Full disclosure: Turley’s own son Aidan attends Harvard.) “I have great respect for Professor Kennedy and I believe that we were both able to fully present our opposing views in the area.”
Turley points out that this year, out of 251 institutions of higher learning, Harvard ranked “dead last” in free speech on the FIRE Survey. (FIRE is the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.) If you’re politically on the left, you’re fine with this, he says; it feels “just right.”
“One of the tests of free speech,” he says, “is to try to understand how others feel,” as in, those who hold different views.
Turley cites some blatant examples. Here’s just one of them: in 2022, the Harvard Crimson conducted a survey that found “virtually every Republican had been eliminated from the faculty at most departments” (although it editorialized that “that was not a problem” [!]).
Another: “a breathtaking” 91 percent of political donations over $200 from Harvard faculty go to Democrat campaigns. That’s “off the charts,” he says, and “doesn’t happen randomly. It takes a concerted culture for a faculty to replicate their own views.”
“And, of course, those faculty members feel that they have total freedom, ‘cause of course they do.”
“Half of this country,” he says, “has views that are not represented on your faculty and in your student body.” And this is not good for living “a full intellectual life.” He doubted that they would want to change from “an environment that is an echo chamber.”
Turley makes a compelling case that the censorship and intimidation going on at Harvard is “not conducive to an education.” He notes that “this idea that Harvard is a victim of a vilification campaign is a little hard to accept. You’ve virtually cleansed your faculty of Republicans and conservatives.”
He addresses the matter of pro-Palestinian protests --- “From the river to the sea!” --- saying it’s “a very difficult question, because there happens to be a country there.” Jewish students see this as questioning their very existence in that space. He comes down to this: “We have to stop punishing people for the content of their speech, but you CAN punish people for CONDUCT.”
And what is conduct? Turley says this includes de-platforming (as social media does with conservative speech), occupying and trashing buildings at Harvard, harassing individual students, and tearing down pictures of Jewish hostages (as students did).
Kennedy says he considers such conduct as disinviting a speaker to be “a form of expression” and therefore permissible. Shouting down a speaker would be unacceptable, but stopping him or her from coming in the first place would be okay. What??
When Kennedy takes exception to the criticism that Harvard looks very different from America at large, Turley says that America at large, split among conservatives, liberals and moderates, “is actually a healthier environment than Harvard. I would take that environment any day. I would take that ‘rest of America’ that Prof. Kennedy refers to, as a better intellectual environment than this one.”
That’s because “there IS a diversity of thought.”
One can just imagine the reaction from the elitists at Harvard. Get the smelling salts!
But Turley goes even further. Regarding the unity of thought at Harvard Law, he says, “I don’t think you’re better lawyers for it.”
Whoo-ee. Watch the whole debate if you can. Turley is one of the top spokespeople on behalf of the First Amendment these days, which makes him a hero. He’s provided a link to the livestream; apparently this event started late, the video actually starts at 33:00.
https://jonathanturley.org/
Gosh, we see a problem with Prof. Kennedy’s opening statement. Harvard is considered one of the great universities in the world, he says, and “it could not be a great university if it did not support free speech…” You don’t have to be a distinguished law professor to poke that reasoning full of holes (Ever heard the phrase, “Coasting on your reputation”?) Indeed, Turley didn’t even bother to.
Once you’ve watched the debate, scroll down to the comments section and enjoy the worthwhile observations. We especially like this one:
“[Jonathan Turley] is the Ricky Gervais of academia. He points out what a joke academia has become since its flagship institutions have run aground on woke shoals. The bubble boys and girls who populate these oases from reality comprise the intellectual ’elite’ solely in their own minds. They are Potemkin intellectuals exhibiting all the trappings but not of the depth of real scholarship. They are in a stratospheric death spiral and most of us are anxiously awaiting the crash.”
At moments during this debate, Prof. Kennedy becomes defensive about his school, even a bit confrontational, with Prof. Turley being more polite and gentlemanly by comparison, calmly citing specific examples to make his point and remaining completely respectful even during disagreement. In that way, it was a little like Kamala Harris having a conversation with the always-professional Bret Baier.
To show “diversity of thought,” here’s how THE HARVARD CRIMSON wrote it up…
https://www.thecrimson.com/
Contrast this with THE DAILY CALLER. We like the points made in this one…
By the way, canceling speakers and entertainers over politics is not just an on-campus thing. If they show support or even interest in Trump in any way, they might not be “a good fit” for that venue.
Since it mentions the “Flagrant” podcast that Trump appeared on, you might want to watch that. It was wide-ranging, funny and free-wheeling (Warning: occasional bad language.) Trump came for an hour and stayed for 90 minutes because everyone was having so much fun talking off the cuff about all kinds of subjects. Compare that to Kamala on Fox News, where she showed up 15 minutes late, recited memorized sound bites, then fled after 17 minutes with her handlers rushing her out the door
More Stories
Thanks, Joe
EPA reform…more likely than ever
Leave a Comment
Note: Fields marked with an * are required.