In a serious blow to academic freedom, a University of Wisconsin-La Crosse faculty committee recommended tenured professor Joe Gow be fired for making pornographic videos with his wife off-the-clock. The University of Wisconsin Board of Regents will now decide whether to approve the committee’s recommendation or to uphold Gow’s free expression rights.
Whether UW-La Crosse likes it or not, the First Amendment gives public university professors the right to a personal life.
https://lnkd.in/d_XFQg-C
But does he really have a “right” to a “personal life” (which he did not keep personal)? Or did he, when he agreed to become a tenured professor of the University, agree to relinquish some of that?
As a tenured professor of the institution, Prof. Gow is, by his own choice, directly associated with the University in the public and professional eye. He’s never really “off-the-clock.” This is part of the nature of this position he accepted.
The problem comes when his conduct starts to affect the public image of the institution.
EdTech CEO: MK Elite Tutoring (click Visit My Website in bio, preview ➡️ DM me questions) | Fave Rapper? me: Sadiq (see Spotify / Apple Music) | 4x Record-Setting Educator, Nat'l Recog. 🏀 Coach & Pro Ref | Father 🎚️💯
This decision seems like a toss up, ignorantly handled by Iowa state legislature move to me.
In my case law Constitutional Law outline from 2L year of law school (I read every page of the 1,200 page damn thing), I have noted down that stare decisis and precedent per SCOTUS holds that school boards, school employees, and school librarians are to be given much greater deference than any other settings when it comes to content-based speech decisions.
School officials do in fact have the authority to remove or prevent books in their schools based on their content; however, they may not do so based on their viewpoint on any content matter.
SCOTUS currently holds that courts ought look to the MOTIVATION for preventing or removing a book:
The only justifiable motivations for preventing or removing a book are pervasive apparent/arguable obscenity and/or apparent/arguable vulgarity.
-----
Ultimately, it seems here that the Iowa state legislature was not properly advised by their Legal Services team as to how a lawmaking governmental agency does not - per current SCOTUS precedent - have the authority that school officials (e.g., school boards) do.
So, it seems the federal district (trial) court made the right decision.
...as a state or federal legislature has zero authority whatsoever to make a content-based law restriction on free speech beyond unprotected/less protected speech falling under the direct purview of the Miller Test, Central Hudson Test, Brandenburg Test, O'Brien Test, Holder Test, or perhaps if clever enough EXTREME true threats/fighting words.
----
In a stoic aside, how am I emanating all of this from my soul in less than 10 mins of reading this article and elucidating upon my public concern nonlayman vantage point on it?
This is like million dollar man lawyer writing and analysis that I'm writing - is it not?
Fascinating.
May it please the Lord.
I wonder if I'm making President Biden, Prof. Hudson, Dean Koch, Chemerinsky, and even myself look good or bad.
I would imagine good, but I get caught in crossfire so much, ain't no telling, man.
Just do the right thing is my mindset.
- Mo
#lawyers#law#lawyer#legal#judges#education#america#iowa
Earlier today, an ArentFox Schiff team of Fred Sperling, Adam Diederich, Kirstie Brenson, and Meera Gorjala obtained a preliminary injunction in federal court in Iowa preventing the enforcement of an Iowa law providing for the removal of books from school and classroom libraries.
The law bans books that contain a description of a sex act without consideration of the value of the book as a whole and includes books that relate to gender identity or sexual orientation. Hundreds of award-winning books had been removed under this law.
The court agreed with our arguments and enjoined the law on the grounds that it is (1) an impermissible content-based restriction in violation of the First Amendment, (2) overbroad in violation of the First Amendment, and (3) void for vagueness in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Our clients include Penguin Random House (the world’s largest trade publisher), four award-winning authors (Laurie Halse Anderson, John Green, Malinda Lo, and Jodi Picoult), the Iowa State Education Association, teachers, a librarian, and a high school student.
https://lnkd.in/dUvtTR8c
Discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics such as one's race, skin color, religion, or national origin is unlawful. Period. That the discrimination might be motivated by deeply-held political or social beliefs does not change the calculus.
But what has been especially alarming to us most recently is a disturbing trend emerging where students who report discrimination are retaliated against in what seem to be attempts to silence their calls for help. FAIR is currently focused on legal advocacy around one such case.
Read the full story in FAIR News:
https://lnkd.in/gipr-m38
This New York Times article highlights how the recent affirmative-action ruling has caused the civil rights ideal to get highjacked.
"Conservative groups have spent the nine months since the affirmative-action ruling launching an assault on programs designed to explicitly address racial inequality across American life. They have filed a flurry of legal challenges and threatened lawsuits against race-conscious programs outside the realm of education, including diversity fellowships at law firms, a federal program to aid disadvantaged small businesses and a program to keep Black women from dying in childbirth."
Please register for our free webinar in partnership with Kanarys to learn more about how this Supreme Court decision and the subsequent legal challenges could impact your mission work. Register at: https://lnkd.in/gEHiUXCHhttps://lnkd.in/g2AaW2jY
Good to see the two authors in this Free Press piece, one a conservative and the other a liberal, both solidly oppose Congress' recent enactment of the Antisemitism Awarness Act. While the law has the noble intent of prohibiting discrimmination against Jewish students and staff on university campuses, it's a classic case of the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. Existing laws and university codes of conduct are sufficient to deal with discrimmination on the basis of race, religion, and ethnicity. Creating special categories of protection for some, uses the same coercive and corrosive princiiples as DEI and will only further divide us and attacks constitutionally protected speech.
https://lnkd.in/eigAPmY7
Robust speech & debate are central to every educational activity and to #DEI as well.
I read countless posts on here about people’s commitments to these values, but I’m finding very little right now as our students are being silenced, and even gassed, on their own campuses. For what? Standing up for human rights.
This is the time to walk your talk. Find a way, please.
https://lnkd.in/eTJ4T5Sp
Nikole Hannah-Jones writes today for The New York Times Magazine about the post-affirmative action assault on Howard University's College of Medicine, a historically Black institution that a conservative legal group has warned "must cease" any policies and practices with a "racial component" or defend itself against a lawsuit.
Legal threats to dismantle laws and programs supporting historically marginalized people in higher education, law, and other sectors have accelerated since the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings last year to end the use of race as a factor in college admissions. On its face, the idea that a Black college with a mandate of educating the descendants of slaves faces such an existential assault is profoundly troubling and unjust, particularly given the growing inequality in American society.
The organized campaign Hannah-Jones cites disingenuously relies on the tools and language of civil rights to enforce the unrealized ideal of "colorblindness" in a campaign to halt and possibly reverse efforts to secure justice for the descendants of enslaved Americans.
She challenges us to recognize such efforts to subvert the civil rights movement and stay committed to ensuring Black Americans can experience real opportunity. Real racial progress in the United States will require us to constructively address the beliefs, policies, practices, and other barriers that continue to keep African Americans from realizing their dreams.
#racialequity#racialjustice#socialjustice#barriers#slavery#opportunity
Please read and share. One thought that percolated while I read this is that BigLaw firms in the US have been active, pretty much across the board, in trying to dismantle racism in this country — even though not always effectively. Why is this? Is it because of the political make up of major law firms? Or could it be because lawyers, as part of their training, are exposed to the depth of the history of the US system of apartheid in a way that propels them to try to (proactively) create change? Is that perhaps why so many lawyers believe in race conscious efforts to continue to dismantle racism (defined as a system or structure of oppression — and not merely any act taken on the basis of race) rather than race blind efforts? If you are interested in exploring why understanding our history — and particularly our legal history — is so critical (and why some might choose to obscure that very history), this is a must read. Color blindness is the end goal we all seek, but we cannot be color blind until we have fully addressed the vestiges of racism that pollute our systems. If all people are created equal and have equal access in our society, then why still are there such massive gaps in outcomes for different segments of our country? Why then are there still such massive gaps in representation in our organizations and institutions? Because we are certainly still far from the end goal of racial equality in our society.
20 years ago, Kenneth Stern drafted the working definition of antisemitism to help data collectors better understand discrimination and acts of violence against the Jewish community. Now, with an executive order and multiple state laws, the definition has taken on a different role — preventing discrimination on campus.
For Stern, though, this change could have detrimental effects on free speech and academic freedom. Though the definition can help people identify harassment and threats against Jewish students, enshrining it into law could allow colleges to crack down on student organizations, professors, and guest speakers who express anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian views.
"I don’t expect outside advocates to really appreciate what academic freedom means and what free speech means. I see them as trying to use whatever tools are handy in the toolbox to achieve a desired result, and that’s to beat down political speech," Stern says.
We spoke with Stern about the potential consequences signing his definition into law could have, especially as turmoil over the Israel-Hamas war continues to roil college campuses. Here's what he had to say:
Free speech concerns are prompting Indiana University faculty to consider a vote of no-confidence this month against IU leadership, including President Pamela Whitten.
The move comes on the heels of a long string of free speech violations by IU, culminating last month with the postponement of an on-campus event set to feature a popular Hamas critic.
With the administration in the hot seat, is IU finally starting to reform its ways?
Sadly, it’s too soon to tell if leadership changes would help.
FIRE’s long been concerned with IU’s abysmal free speech record, having earned a 🟡 (Yellow Light) rating in our 2024 College Free Speech Rankings and coming in at number 225 out of 248 schools ranked.
Yellow light institutions have at least one ambiguous policy that too easily encourages administrative abuse and arbitrary application. And IU doesn’t just have a Yellow light rating — it wears it like a badge of honor.
Just this January, IU sanctioned a professor after he allegedly violated the university’s procedures for reserving rooms on campus by scheduling an event featuring an Israeli-American critic of Israel.
That same month, IU canceled an exhibit at the university’s Eskenazi Museum of Art featuring Samia Halaby, a Palestinian artist, because of concerns about guaranteeing “the integrity of the exhibit” and complaints by museum staff about Halaby’s activism. After that incident, FIRE requested records and we’re still waiting to hear back — two months later.
And it’s not just speech about the Israel-Hamas war that’s been the subject of censorship.
In 2023, FIRE sent a letter to IU outlining concerns about its requirement that faculty pledge not to engage with ideas contradicting university-approved orthodoxy. In 2022, IU demonstrated a concerning pattern of disregard for transparency and due process by consistently delaying or denying public records requests submitted by student journalists.
Now, we’re asking you to join FIRE in calling on the Hoosier State’s flagship university to step up its game and protect students’ and faculty members’ First Amendment rights!
TAKE ACTION TODAY ➡️ https://lnkd.in/e-9_YxAa
Senior Electrical Engineer & New-Product Developer
2moBut does he really have a “right” to a “personal life” (which he did not keep personal)? Or did he, when he agreed to become a tenured professor of the University, agree to relinquish some of that? As a tenured professor of the institution, Prof. Gow is, by his own choice, directly associated with the University in the public and professional eye. He’s never really “off-the-clock.” This is part of the nature of this position he accepted. The problem comes when his conduct starts to affect the public image of the institution.