Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Positive Developments in Freedom of Expression at UVa

—

by

sherlockj
in ,

James B. Murray Jr., UVa Rector

by James C. Sherlock

I am an alumnus of the University of Virginia and have been one of the most prominent public critics for its drift into left-wing ideology at the expense of academic freedom and the best interests of its students.  

University of Chicago Principles

I have recommended both publicly and privately that my university adopt the University of Chicago Principles, or their equivalent. 

I understand the administration has been working on the development of the University’s own version, UVA Principles. I expect them to have many similarities to the Chicago example, but with a few embellishments unique to UVa’s history and circumstances. 

At the urging of the Board, President Jim Ryan has a group working on this. It will, without pressure, move at the pace of the academy, meaning years, unless Dr. Ryan treats it with the same urgency that he treated racial tensions in the Spring. I hope he will move it forward quickly.

Nevertheless, I expect UVa will get this done.

The New Dialogues

In the meantime there was an event earlier in this month, on the now infamous day of the riots at the Capitol, that has been completely subsumed by that more urgent news. It was notable in the context of the complaints of people like me that UVA and its peers are bastions of politically correct orthodoxy. 

The Board reportedly has been quietly pressing to have the University hold open debates that include those with opinions that contradict that orthodoxy. 

The first one was scheduled for January 6th, the day of the assault on the federal Capitol building. 

The show went on. It featured none other than former GOP Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan and GOP commentator Tara Setmayer, along with some notable speakers from the middle and the left. 

The University plans to have another 4-5 such events, some just one-on-one debates, before the school year is over.

A hero of this major advance in open dialogue is UVa Rector James B. Murray Jr. 

From UVaToday:

Rector’s Gift Supports Democracy Dialogues

At Wednesday’s inaugural event, President Ryan also announced a gift from Rector James B. Murray Jr. to support the Democracy Dialogues series.

Murray’s gift will establish the “UVA Democracy Dialogues Fund,” which will provide the initial funding for the series, but also create a mechanism for other donors that want to provide philanthropic support for future events.

Murray, who was appointed to the Board of Visitors in 2016 and has served as rector since 2019, is a managing partner of Court Square Ventures, and a founder of the Presidential Precinct, a consortium that fosters and enables aspiring leaders in emerging democracies. He lives in Albemarle County.

“A core tenet of democracy, dating back to ancient Greece, is the encouragement of open debate,” Murray said. “A cornerstone of a great university’s educational mission is also the encouragement of open debate. By offering an open forum for opposing points of view, UVA’s Democracy Dialogues will encourage the best elements of both democracy and education.”

Some men in that arena retire to their corners; others rise to the needs of their times. Jim Murray is one who chose to be counted.  

Wahoowah!

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

25 responses to “Positive Developments in Freedom of Expression at UVa”

  1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Good for the University. Do you have any idea how many students showed up for the debates?

    1. sherlockj Avatar
      sherlockj

      It was virtual. I assume it was streamed on UVa’s TV channel.

  2. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    This is wonderful news! I applaud Murray for his generosity and his commitment to open debate.

  3. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Hmmm. Nice. So, colleges are adopting the position of being “just a platform” for wild and hairy expression of ideas a’la pre-0106 Twitter, FB, or Parler? Just ignore 250 years of SCOTUS deliberations with a one-size-fits-all statement of “not my yob”?

    Welcome, my friends, to the Calumet Italian Hall. Ironic the main push comes from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

  4. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Here, much more concise…
    https://legacy.virginialawreview.org/volumes/content/miseducation-free-speech

    The assertion that conservative ideas are being violently suppressed on college campuses is as untrue today as it was in the 1970s.[7] While there have been a handful of violent incidents involving conservative speakers, the vast majority of universities have experienced no such controversies. The attempts at ideological suppression that do occur on campuses are far more likely to target leftist views than right-wing views. In general, students remain more open-minded and tolerant than the general population, and universities remain some of the most robust free speech institutions in the country.

    In other words, the narrative of widespread liberal intolerance and suppression of conservative views on college campuses is simply false. Yet it continues to be repeated by politicians, civil libertarians, university administrators, media outlets, and scholars. This false narrative of the campus free speech crisis is harmful for two primary reasons.

    —–

    You can hang your “F*** UVa” sign in the free speech zone, Dearie.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Thanks for this link. The article should come in handy in the future.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        The politics of exaggeration. The FIRE has a database that actually disproves their hypothesis on conservative suspression of campus — the lie at the basis of the “Powell Doctrine” calling for the corporate takeover of the American college system. Even the smallest of Virginia’s state colleges are suffering the onslaught of corporate money buying free thought, a situation exasperated by the reduction in state support.

        The hope? They’ve been at it for 50 and they’re still failing dismally. Guards up.

        These Principles are a foot in the door.

  5. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    The Nonproblem Problem.
    42 — the number of conservative-speaker engagements canceled/disinvited because of student/faculty protests or threats of violence in 2016. 11 of those were ONE guy. That’s from FIRE’s records. They don’t maintain numbers for leftist, e.g., feminist speakers, just rightist stuff, e.g., Milo Yiannopoulo, especially.

    So, if all 4500+ colleges and universities held only ONE invited conservative speaker… well, you do the math.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Errata:
      I was wrong.

      1) FIRE does maintain the direction of objection, relative to the speaker’s position. Of course, this does not preclude a conservative speaker being “primaried”. Same for liberal.

      2) FIRE does include liberal speakers.

      3) There were 43 attempts to disinvite speakers in 2016, not 42. Only 24 were disinvited.

  6. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    Lamenting the Death of Conservatism on College Campuses…

    “The Chamber should insist upon equal time on the college speaking circuit. The FBI publishes each year a list of speeches made on college campuses by avowed Communists. The number in 1970 exceeded 100. There were, of course, many hundreds of appearances by leftists and ultra liberals who urge the types of viewpoints indicated earlier in this memorandum. There was no corresponding representation of American business, or indeed by individuals or organizations who appeared in support of the American system of government and business.” — Justice Lewis Powell, 1970

    https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/kent-state-filo-1.jpg

    1. sherlockj Avatar
      sherlockj

      Nancy, the facts that the Rector of UVa endowed a program for open debate and the University is drafting freedom of expression rules have clearly struck a nerve.

      These moves clearly appear somehow seditious to you, reminiscent, somehow, of Kent State.

      You have exploded, responding to your own comments. That is not generally considered a healthy sign.

      Perhaps you should see someone to help you understand the basis for your anger.

      1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        So, posting an errata is “resonding to your own” comments?

        In that case, you should do it more often. That’s not snark.

        I think that is not a dead conservative. That is snark.

        1. sherlockj Avatar
          sherlockj

          Four consecutive comments starting at 5 in the morning sounds like distress. One of the four was errata.

          Seriously, the article relates that:
          – the Rector of UVa endowed a program for open debate; and
          – the University is drafting freedom of expression rules.

          Which of those has you so upset? And why the picture of Kent State?

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Ah now, that’s different. Yes, I posted in a row.

            It was ironic that Lewis Powell was concerned about the “death of conservatism” on college campuses and wrote his corporate takeover plan just weeks after liberals really did die on campus.
            Well so much for free speech…

            As a solution to “free thinking”, I propose food, lodging, transportation and $100/hr adjunct faculty rates… no speaker’s fees.

          2. sherlockj Avatar
            sherlockj

            I ask again, which of the two UVa activities the article described has you upset?

  7. Publius Avatar
    Publius

    As usual from NN, I’m going to go with disinformation…
    The author of the article cites her own book – The Cult of the Constitution. If the title doesn’t say everything you need to know, here is the Amazon description…
    “In this controversial and provocative book, Mary Anne Franks examines the thin line between constitutional fidelity and constitutional fundamentalism. The Cult of the Constitution reveals how deep fundamentalist strains in both conservative and liberal American thought keep the Constitution in the service of white male supremacy.

    Constitutional fundamentalists read the Constitution selectively and self-servingly. Fundamentalist interpretations of the Constitution elevate certain constitutional rights above all others, benefit the most powerful members of society, and undermine the integrity of the document as a whole. The conservative fetish for the Second Amendment (enforced by groups such as the NRA) provides an obvious example of constitutional fundamentalism; the liberal fetish for the First Amendment (enforced by groups such as the ACLU) is less obvious but no less influential. Economic and civil libertarianism have increasingly merged to produce a deregulatory, “free-market” approach to constitutional rights that achieves fullest expression in the idealization of the Internet. The worship of guns, speech, and the Internet in the name of the Constitution has blurred the boundaries between conduct and speech and between veneration and violence.

    But the Constitution itself contains the antidote to fundamentalism. The Cult of the Constitution lays bare the dark, antidemocratic consequences of constitutional fundamentalism and urges readers to take the Constitution seriously, not selectively.”

    Feels like Politifact “explaining” why a Democrat really didn’t mean what he said when you heard him say it. Wasn’t something like that done recently when Joe said he had built the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization? You know the “and inclusive” part makes it OK, because if you object, that makes you a racist who wishes to perpetuate white supremacy through The Cult of the Constitution.
    QED

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Instead of relying on the Amazon summary, I like to look at more knowledgeable reviews. Here is one quote from the Harvard Law Review of the book: “Professor Franks is as critical of the American Civil Liberties Union’s violent First Amendment absolutism as she is of the National Rifle Association’s gun worship.”

      I have not read the book, in fact, this is the first that I have heard of it. It sounds though-provoking.

      1. sherlockj Avatar
        sherlockj

        Mary Anne Franks made her reputation fighting revenge porn, a worthy endeavor.

        She remains frustrated that she cannot get that done to her satisfaction – the existing state laws she inspired don’t go as far as she would like – because of the First Amendment.

        I don’t know what “violent” First Amendment absolutism means. I will order her book to see what it actually says rather than how it is summarized.

        If she simply argues that activities of which she disapproves are not covered by the Bill of Rights because she finds them offensive, she should be dismissed as a serious commentator. If she has a more sound legal basis, I will listen.

      2. sherlockj Avatar
        sherlockj

        I just read the Ms. Franks’ introduction and first chapter of The Cult of the Constitution.

        She is expert on fights about the First Amendment from her work trying to outlaw revenge porn. She claims no such experience in the Second Amendment, but lumps it in with the First as a right that she thinks has been abused by “white men” who she argues disproportionally benefit from their protections.

        Her legal argument is that the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the laws trumps an “absolutist” – her word – reading of the First and Second Amendments. That is where the “white men” argument comes in. It is her self-proclaimed disproportionality of the benefits of those Amendments to white men that makes them ripe for trimming until her standards of equal protection are met.

        I find her legal reasoning absolutely deadly if adopted.

        She could just as easily attacked the 4th Amendment (Protection from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures), 5th Amendment (Protection or Rights to Life, Liberty and Property), 6th Amendment (Rights of Accused Persons in Criminal Cases), 9th (Other rights kept by the people), and 10th (undelegated Powers kept by the States and the People).

        They were written by white men.

        State sovereign immunity (11th) – how is that fair?
        13th, abolished slavery, that certainly had disproportionate benefits.
        14th Defines citizenship, contains the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Due Process clause, and the Equal Protection clause. Disproportionate benefits? Demonstrably so.

        Since she grants herself the right to judge disproportionate benefit, there is nothing whatever to prevent her and those who adopt her legal reasoning from dismissing every clause in the Constitution.

        So, bottom line, she has browsed the Constitution for protections that offend her and declares them void because of disproportionate effects, as judged by her, citing the 14th Amendment as her touchstone.

        I encourage her to continue the good fight against revenge porn.

        But she expands her specific cause to a general critique of the First and Second Amendments and apparently believes her judgements are the last word on the matter if her legal reasoning is adopted.

        That position is unserious, and constitutes perhaps the most narcissistic and short sighted legal position I have ever read from a lawyer. I reject it utterly.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          Yep, that’s a critic. One chapter.

          1. sherlockj Avatar
            sherlockj

            If you haven’t read a policy book recently, Nancy, the authors including Ms. Franks tend to summarize their positions and arguments in the introduction. She was very straightforward. Give it a try on Apple Books or Kindle.

        2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          She is suspect as far as I am concerned. Despite her claims, the Supreme Court has not adopted an absolutist stance toward the First Amendment. She may think that the courts have extended freedom of speech protections too far in some areas, but that does not make for absolutism.

        3. Publius Avatar
          Publius

          Ok, that was above and beyond to read a chapter of her book. The title told me pretty well, and the thumbnail reinforced that impression, particularly the ACLU being a 1st Amendment zealot (it has fallen far from its old purity on that score) and the 2nd Amendment being a fetish of the NRA.
          As to revenge porn, it is a douche thing to do. But I have my conservative answer…don’t make porn if you don’t want it seen! Problem solved…
          Common sense is not common needs to be updated – maybe “common sense is non-existent on social media…”

  8. Acbar Avatar
    Acbar

    FYI all, Jim’s post above is about the series of lectures sponsored by Rector Murray called the “Democracy Dialogues”: these are hosted by Larry Sabato and produced through the Center For Politics at UVa, which Sabato heads. There are only three episodes to date, all available for streaming on YouTube. They are fun to watch, and I highly recommend listening to the third one, which is an interview with Tim Kaine, who was supposed to participate in the first episode and missed his original interview time-slot as he was huddling with other senators on January 6; he describes what it was like being led around the Capitol by the police in order to avoid the mob. Here are the three links to the episodes so far:
    https://youtu.be/NYMz45hwMWc
    https://youtu.be/xhG-rv1WVGE
    https://youtu.be/qWNvCDNI8F4

  9. Positive Developments in Freedom of Expression at UVa | The Jefferson Cabinet

    […] This column is republished with permission from Bacon’s Rebellion. […]

Leave a Reply

Read More