BY MARIAH QUINN
The AAUP and eleven other groups issued a statement after President Trump announced in a March 2 speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference that he would soon issue an executive order denying federal research funds to colleges and universities that do not “support free speech.” Read the full statement.
President Trump’s pledge to issue an executive order that would deny federal research funds to colleges and universities that do not support free speech is a dangerous solution to a largely nonexistent problem. American colleges and universities are far from perfect, but with few exceptions they welcome a greater diversity of viewpoints and opinions than just about any other institution in society. While the specific provisions of the promised executive order have not been revealed, like misleadingly named “free-speech” legislation at the state level, they are more likely to stifle than encourage free expression and diversity of opinion.
Add your name to our open letter below:
Dear President Trump:
Given the important role of colleges and universities in debate, dissent, and the free exchange of ideas, the AAUP strongly supports freedom of expression on campus and the rights of faculty and students to invite speakers of their choosing. We oppose, however, any executive action that interferes with the institutional autonomy of colleges and universities by undermining the role of faculty, administration, and governing board in institutional decision-making and the role of students in the formulation and application of institutional policies affecting student affairs.
The AAUP
This petition may be as misplaced as the new executive order is compensatory. I do agree that it is an unfortunate State intrusion into higher education. But I would point out at least two complications that led to lobbying efforts directed at a motion for executive action: 1. the Obama “Dear Colleague” campaign that effectively served an ex-ante warrant on university administrators concerning much broader, and in some case utterly ambiguous, definitions of cause of action, vis-a-vis Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and their notice of effective forced compliance subject to financial sanction (merely the Democratic Party analogue of the new GOP order); 2. the unconstitutional bypass language the Obama letter contained concerning both the categories of accusation (proof standards) and adjudication (presumption standards). Even at the University of Chicago where I’m a graduate alumnus, and where it is fairly well-known as establishing some institutional independence, there are potential administrative abuses against defendants, in tort and even criminal law because of lingering Obama-era special interest influences. Moreover, the threat of financial withholding already existed in the Campaign letter from the previous administration; it was just more cleverly (or more deceptively or even mendaciously) applied. Trump uses a hammer; Obama used coercion. Both serve ideology, although the abuses due to the Obama-era interests created a breakdown in constitutional law to such an extent that universities (not all) generally are out of control in civil standards. Hence the Executive Order in restoration (isn’t law symbolized by a scale in balance?). Universities have only themselves–and Obama–to blame. Readers may appreciate a Wall Street Journal opinion I wrote specifically on this matter. And for the record, if I may, I am a political independent. Thank you and Regards.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-government-and-free-speech-on-campus-1510000926
I’m interested in reading your WSJ opinion piece, but it’s beyond a paywall.