- Fourth Circuit: Title IX may oblige universities to take action against outside social media sites whose content is said to create hostile environment. By blocking student access to them? [Samantha Harris, FIRE, Eugene Volokh, Robby Soave on University of Mary Washington ruling]
- Return of the loyalty oath? Some senior academics speak out against required faculty diversity statements and pledges, at the University of California [Stephen Bainbridge, Nick Wolfinger, John McGinnis, Law and Liberty] and Harvard [Colleen Flaherty, Inside Higher Ed, Jeffrey Flier, Times Higher Education]
- Speech codes and “The Coddling of the American Mind”: Greg Lukianoff and Adam Goldstein guestblog at Volokh Conspiracy [series: first, second, third, fourth, fifth]
- “OCR’s use of overly broad anti-Semitism definition threatens student and faculty speech” [Zach Greenberg, FIRE] University of Washington lecturer publishes article on sex differences in pursuit of computer careers, it’s cited as gender harassment as part of successful push for training and curriculum review [Stuart Reges, Quillette] Update on “Fourth floor, ladies’ lingerie” joke episode [Katherine Mangan, Chronicle of Higher Education, earlier]
- Bias response teams are benign-sounding way to police speech [Dan E. Way, Martin Center] Prescribed first-year programs do much to bend the assumptions surrounding what can be safely said [John Tierney, City Journal] Artists’ intent was to challenge Confederate imagery, but some students were offended, so down it went [Inside Higher Ed: Scott Jaschik and Emily Chamlee-Wright and Sarah Skwire]
- Speech First, recently formed nonprofit group, sues University of Texas over speech policies [Phil Prazan, KXAN, Washington Examiner: Lauren Cooley and Grant Addison]
Filed under: art and artists, colleges and universities, diversity oaths, free speech, Harvard, hostile environment, Title IX
7 Comments
Re: Fourth Circuit and Title IX – If the government is mandating that access to specific social media sites be restricted for students, how is that not a 1st amendment issue?
If Title IX obligates universities to suppress speech how is Title IX then not in conflict with “Congress shall make no law . . .” Etc?
Indeed; if the Fourth was not so politically correct [Yes Mr. Chief Justice, there are Clinton and Obama Judges] they would have come to the requisite conclusion: “…and hence, Title IX is prima facie unconstitutional both as written and as applied and is hereby stricken.
What ever happened to “Sticks and stones”?
I recently applied to a U Calif branch for a faculty job. They required a diversity statement. The only way to give what they wanted was to agree with affirmative action, agree that women are discriminated against, and document that one is a far left activist. This is an overtly political loyalty oath.
“Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Knights of Columbus?”
Correct, it is a loyalty oath. And it violates the First Amendment. Since this a state institution, seems to me that civil rights crimes are being committed. Time to swear out a criminal complaint.