On Sunday, I published a Sunday Opinion cover story on campus free speech, campus protests, and civil disobedience. This is a long one, and includes my own experience with campus controversy over 30 years. The important paragraphs are:
There is currently serious confusion on campuses over the distinction between free speech, civil disobedience, and torts. At the same time, some schools appear confused about their fundamental academic mission. Do we believe that universities should be neutral toward campus activities, that is, protect movements as an exercise of students’ constitutional rights and academic freedom, but work with student activists to advance common goals? Does that mean we shouldn’t, or do we include the activity as part of the educational process itself? Including working with protesters and encouraging their activities?
You can read the full text here. It was combined with my colleague Lydia Polgreen’s column on the protests.
On Wednesday, I published a short post that attempted to provide historical context to understand the extent of extremism in President Trump’s foreign policy. During the Cold War, there were important differences between Republicans and Democrats, but both were serious political parties led by serious people.
Today, Republicans and Democrats are equally unserious. Time magazine’s Eric Cortelessa says in a new interview that Trump wants Russia to do “whatever it wants” to countries he believes are not meeting NATO military spending goals. I asked about the pledge. Trump doubled down.
“Yeah, when I said that, I meant it in a big way because I want them to pay,” he said. I want them to pay me. That was mentioned as a point of negotiation. I said, “Look, if you don’t pay, you decide for yourself.” And I mean it. ”
In 2024, voters will have to choose between strategy and tantrums. You should choose accordingly.
Finally, on Thursday we published an audio conversation with my colleague Sarah Wildman about restricting student speech on campus, but I don’t understand the difference between legitimate protests and protests that actually limit the rights of others. I drew a clear line between.
Sarah Wildman: Unfortunately, conflicts may still continue in the Middle East next fall. What is the best-case scenario for the campus going forward?
David French: I think a lot of campus administrators need to read some of the statements I’ve seen from the University of Chicago, for example. The lines are clearly drawn there. “We protect freedom of speech.” We recognize all voices of protest. We protect the academic freedom of faculty. But the moment your protest violates the rights of others is when it goes too far. That word must be communicated loud and clear from the first day of the fall semester, and then the university must walk the talk.
