"College deans and administrators keep confronting the same dilemma: They face intense pressure to punish speech that elicits fear or moral disgust on campus. They also have legal obligations-and face countervailing pressure-to refrain from violating the free-speech rights of students. They cannot always do both. The result is cases such as Damsky v. Summerlin -cases that might be avoided under a better approach to fighting anti-Semitism and other hateful ideas."
"Preston Damsky was a law student at the University of Florida who was open about his belief that America was founded by and for the white race and that its racial character should be preserved, by force if necessary. According to court documents, he wrote in one assignment that "the founding generations" fought, killed, and died for their sovereignty, and argued,"
University administrators confront a persistent dilemma between punishing hateful or frightening student speech and preserving students' First Amendment rights. A University of Florida dean expelled a law student who advocated white supremacy and revolutionary violence, prompting mixed judicial rulings and a civil-rights lawsuit. The expelled student's writings included calls to preserve racial character by force and to exercise a revolutionary right to overthrow government. Administrators face intense external pressure to discipline moral transgressions while also facing legal obligations to avoid unconstitutional speech restrictions. Better institutional approaches to countering anti-Semitism and hateful ideas could reduce these legal and ethical conflicts.
Read at The Atlantic
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]