RUTHFULLY YOURS

Editor’s Note: The following piece first appeared on Josh Blackman’s blog. It is adapted and reprinted here with permission.

On Thursday, March 29, students at the City University of New York School of Law protested and heckled my lecture about free speech on campus. You can watch video of the entire event, which lasted about 70 minutes, below. The protest and heckling took place during the first eight minutes of the recording.

In this post, I will recount the events that led up to the protest, and describe my experiences during the encounter. In future writings, I will provide my own commentary. Here, I will try to lay out the facts to the best of my recollection, aided by the (sometimes) inaudible recording.

In October, the CUNY School of Law Federalist Society invited me to speak on a panel discussion about theories of constitutional interpretation. I had planned to speak about originalism. Alas, the students were not able to find any other professors who were willing to participate in the event. After several rounds of emails, I suggested an event about free speech on campus. It is a talk I had given before, without any problems, at Southern Illinois, Texas Southern University, the University of Massachusetts, Barry University, the University of Oregon, and my home institution, the South Texas College of Law Houston. The Federalist Society chapter agreed that this would be a good topic for CUNY. Alas, once again, the chapter was unable to find any other professor who would participate in the event. (This is fairly common.)

Three days before the event, the president of the chapter wrote, “We passed out the flyers today (first day back from spring break) and a large number of students are already up in arms about the event.” The Office of Student Affairs explained that “some enraged students, . . . apparently, are planning to protest.” I asked why they were protesting. The president provided an explanation:

These students saw first, that this is a Federalist Society event; and second, they saw a few of your writings (specifically a National Review article praising Sessions for rescinding DACA and ACA), and instantly assume you’re racist; and third, our event being titled about free speech is reminiscent of events that claim free speech just to invite people like Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter.

He explained that “we have the support of the administration” and the event would proceed as scheduled.

Hours before the event began, Mary Lu Bilek, the dean of CUNY Law, sent an email to all students:

As a law school, a public institution, and a school within the CUNY system, we are committed to academic freedom, the free exchange of ideas, and expression of all points of view, including the freedom to disagree with the viewpoints of others.

Students at the City University of New York (CUNY) Law School protested and attempted to shut down a lecture on free speech by accusing the speaker of holding racist views and belittling his commitment to the rule of law.

Josh Blackman, a newly tenured professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston, was invited to campus by the CUNY Law School Federalist Society, and had prepared a lecture on free speech. Three days before the event, the president of the Federalist Society chapter informed Blackman that a group of “enraged” students intended to protest his lecture but assured him that he had the administration’s full support.

“These students saw first, that this is a Federalist Society event; and second, they saw a few of your writings (specifically a National Review article praising Sessions for rescinding DACA and ACA), and instantly assume you’re racist; and third, our event being titled about free speech is reminiscent of events that claim free speech just to invite people like Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter,” the chapter president told Blackman.

Upon arriving at the event, Blackman was met by dozens of law students shouting phrases such as “Legal objectivity is a myth” and “He’s a white supremacist,” according to his account, which is corroborated by a video of the incident.

Most of the protesters were carrying signs with messages espousing their support for social equality and assigning racist motives to Blackman.

Is this just a gratifying dream or a frightful, dangerous fancy: to have a government agency that cracks down on the sources of intellectual and spiritual pollution the way the Environmental Protection Agency treats manufacturers that produce toxic pollutants?

The dream is reality, at least in part, as evidenced by the recent intervention and inquiry of the Department of Justice in lawsuits against Harvard and other elite colleges and universities. The real monster here is not expanded powers of government that might endanger free minds in higher education but rather the administrative state itself that, of course, gets its brains from these institutions.

The administrative state, which the Trump Administration intends to “deconstruct,” is a hulking monstrosity of bold bureaucracy and supine elected officials that has replaced constitutional government in the United States.

Harvard and other elite colleges have recently attracted the attention of the Trump Department of Justice. The issues include long-suspected discrimination against Asian-Americans in admissions at Harvard and collusion (that is, a conspiracy!) on early decisions in admissions. To prove this in court, the accusers would need access to admissions committees’ data and decision-making. The universities plead privacy and protection of trade secrets about their admissions decisions and financial-aid calculations.

Might colleges violate “antitrust laws by exchanging information about prospective students who make early decision commitments”?

Early decision (narrower than early application) requires students who are accepted to commit to that institution—and no other. This practice requires an applicant to take an offer without being able to compare financial aid packages. “Early decision programs have afforded some colleges nearly half of their freshman classes”—Duke University, for example. One education consultant observed, “only about 200 schools of the more than 4,000 in the country use early decision. ‘Given that this doesn’t affect many schools, or many students, it’s the ultimate first-world problem.’”