0

The Bill of Rights and the Cold War

I’ve been hard at work on my Bill of Rights book (three chapters to go), which explains my recent absence here.  I’ll have more posts coming up shortly, but I did want to mention one part of my ongoing research.

The final chapter of the book is about the Bill of Rights and the Cold War. In a symbolic sense, that connection can be seen in the fact that the original Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and an original parchment of the proposal from the First Congress that became our Bill of Rights were all descend each night into a vault that was designed to survive a nuclear bomb. More interesting, though, is that the party platforms that invoked the Bill of Rights after the Second World War almost always did so in the context of fighting communism.  For instance:

The 1956 GOP Platform: “We hold that the major world issue today is whether Government shall be the servant or the master of men. We hold that the Bill of Rights is the sacred foundation of personal liberty. That men are created equal needs no affirmation, but they must have equality of opportunity and protection of their civil rights under the law.”

The 1960 Democratic Platform: “With democratic values threatened today by Communist tyranny, we reaffirm our dedication to the Bill of Rights. Freedom and civil liberties, far from being incompatible with security, are vital to our national strength.”

I’ll have some more on this as the chapter gets written.

10

The Second Amendment: Constructing Racial and Gender Hierarchy

As posts two and three suggest, social justice feminist (SJF) methods illuminate aspects of the Second Amendment’s history that the Court ignored but are essential to understand fully its social meaning.

At ratification, the right to keep and bear arms helped construct notions of citizenship, race, and gender.  Reconstruction challenged those ideas, but failed to dismantle them in the face of hate group terrorism.  Indeed, hostilities such as the Hamburg Massacre illustrate that the right to keep and bear arms was integral to reinforcing white hegemonic masculinity.

SJF shows that the Second Amendment does more than just support patriarchal norms of defending family, home, and hearth. It is a bulwark for the citizen-self, which has been raced and gendered from the founding.  The right to keep and bear arms has served as both a gatekeeper to and symbol of gaining that status.

What does this mean for today?  In the article upon which these posts are drawn, “Guns, Sex, and Race,” I argue that, by ignoring the racial and gender history of the Second Amendment, the Court protected and reinforced intersecting race- and gender-based oppressions as they relate to gun ownership and use.

Consider Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws.  In 31 states, such statutes allow people to use deadly force for self-defense purposes in home or in public with no duty to retreat.  Many of those jurisdictions provide immunity to persons asserting SYG.  The American Bar Association  reported on significant racial disparities it found in surveying these laws last year:  for example, a white shooter of a black victim is 350 times more likely to found justified than a white shooter of a white victim.  The ABA also reported that similar fact patterns yielded drastically different outcomes.

The cases of George Zimmerman and Marissa Alexander, Florida residents who sought refuge under SYG, are useful examples.  As is well known, Zimmerman shot and killed unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin in February 2102.  Police used their discretion not to arrest Zimmerman at the scene because he claimed he had acted in self-defense.  A jury ultimately acquitted him of second degree murder based on instructions that included SYG language.

The same year, Marissa Alexander, an African American woman, was sentenced to 20 years for firing a warning shot in the air out of fear of imminent abuse from her partner, who walked away unharmed.  The court denied Ms. Alexander’s attempt to assert SYG, which an appeals court affirmed.  As Catherine Carpenter has explained, SYG provides no relief for women such as Ms. Alexander defending themselves against battering cohabitants because both parties have an equal right to be the residence.

Race and gender combined powerfully in these cases.  With respect to Zimmerman’s encounter with Martin, they intersected to construct the teen as being a menace, even though he was armed with nothing more than Skittles and iced tea.  For Alexander’s efforts against an abusive partner, on the other hand, patriarchal norms protected the functional or titular head of the household, even when he was posed a real threat to his cohabitant.

Heller and McDonald suggest that the Court’s vision of Second Amendment promotes autonomy and individual rights.  However, as SJF methods demonstrate, by ignoring essential parts of the provision’s text and history, the Court has merely reinforced race- and gender-based barriers.

SJF reveals that the Second Amendment is an issue of concern for feminist legal scholars and advocates. In our efforts to dismantle the intersecting structural barriers confronting too many in our society, gun regulation should be on the agenda.

1

Feminist Legal Theorizing about the Second Amendment: (Re)constructing Black Citizens

The previous post in this series explored more deeply the text and context of the Second Amendment that the Supreme Court elided in Heller v. District of Columbia.  I argued that the right to keep and bear arms played a role in constructing “citizen” as white and male.  As I continue to draw upon my forthcoming article, “Guns, Race, and Sex,” this post next examines the Reconstruction era, when Congress repudiated that definition.

The Court examined this period in McDonald v. Chicago, when it held that that Second Amendment applies to the states.  Confining its reading of the narrative to instances in which whites sought to keep guns out of the hands from freed slaves, the majority reasoned that arming the former enslaved was essential to their self-defense, thus supporting the individual right first articulated in Heller.  But, social justice feminism reveals that the McDonald history was superficial and incomplete.

Consider this piece of lost history.

Read More

0

Feminist Legal Theorizing about the Second Amendment: What Heller Missed

minuteman-1144032-1279x2743

In my previous post, I suggested that it’s long past time for a feminist analysis of the right to keep and bear arms.  Drawing on my forthcoming article, “Guns, Race, and Sex,” this part follows the Court’s lead in Heller v. McDonald by examining the ratification history of the Second Amendment.

In Heller, the Court split the provision’s text into two parts.  The majority decided that the second (“operative”) clause, supported by the first (“prefatory”) clause, equaled an individual right to possess and carry weapons for self-defense purposes–not limited to militia service.  But closer examination of the Amendment’s terms and the context surrounding its ratification suggests structural purposes extending the individual use of firearms.

Based on their experience dealing with a distant and detached sovereign, among other things, the framers were deeply troubled by the prospect of a standing army.  To them, professional soldiers would be loyal to and help empower central government.  At the same time, they recognized the need for national security.  As a result, the Second Amendment reference to the militia reflects a compromise among the framers to provide for defense, but doing so in a way that would not jeopardize state sovereignty.  Put differently, it’s another check on federal power.  Framers believed that the state’s citizens—local men—would be the best guarantors of peace.  Those men were “the people” the Amendment references, which further suggests that this phrase has structural significance.

Read More

1

Feminist Legal Theorizing about the Second Amendment: Gun Violence is a Women’s Issue

Thanks so much, Naomi, for inviting me to blog this month.  It’s really an honor and pleasure to participate in the lively discussion on this forum.

Starting today, concealed weapons will be allowed on college campuses in Texas.  Ironically, this new law goes into effect on the solemn anniversary of the state’s largest mass shooting at none other than its flagship institution, the University of Texas.

More guns.  Just what we need.

After all, there haven’t been enough headlines about Black lives lost at the hands of police, or stunning murders of white police officers as they protected Black Lives Matter protesters.

Please forgive my sarcasm. I’m frustrated.  Before this year is out, I’m sure there will be more tragic slayings, more outpourings of grief and recrimination, but still no movement toward sensible reform of gun laws.

And, amidst the din, there is little to nothing coming from feminist legal circles.

Two summers ago, Nation commentator Dani McClain argued that “the murder of Black youth is a reproductive justice issue.”  Her call to action came to mind when I saw the “Mothers of the Movement” during the Democratic National Convention.  The mother of Jordan Davis, who was shot for playing his music too loud, openly hoped for a time when membership in this “club of heartbroken mothers” would shrink.

I had been puzzling over this issue for a while, struck by the no-regulation-no-time stance of the National Rifle Association.  In the context of reproductive justice, many have argued with success that the state’s interest in potential life trumps women’s fundamental interest in bodily integrity (thankfully, with Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Court finally has drawn a line over which states cannot cross).  Imagine if potential gun buyers had to jump through the same hoops as women seeking abortions. As district court judge Myron Thompson stated in Planned Parenthood v. Strange, the legislature would have “a heck of a lot of explaining” to do.

Hypotheticals aside, it doesn’t take much digging to see the gendered and raced aspects of gun violence.  An August 2015 survey by the Ms. Foundation for Women showed that violence is a top concern for women.  Firearms figure prominently in the domestic violence context.  According to the Pew Research Center, gun owners are predominantly male and white—they are 82 % of firearm owners.

So, in the next three blog posts, I accept McClain’s challenge and apply a feminist analysis to the issue of guns in the nation.  Given the medium, the exploration will be brief; but, I discuss it more fully in a forthcoming article upon which my posts are drawn, “Guns, Sex, and Race:  The Second Amendment through a Feminist Lens,” which will be published in the Tennessee Law Review.

The feminist lens that I’m using is one that is intersectional and rooted in feminist legal practice:  social justice feminism (SJF). SJF emerged from practitioners responding to the calls from women of color and other marginalized women to recalibrate the women’s movement with a focus on their needs.  As my colleague Kristin Kalsem and I have explained, SJF is about uncovering and dismantling social and political structures that support patriarchy, while “recognizing and addressing multiple oppressions.” SJF methodologies focus on historical context, structural inequities, intersecting oppressions and underserved populations.  In so doing, they reveal issues liberal feminism might fail to recognize as having gender implications.

SJF’s historical method looks to the past in order identify the roots of structural inequalities and dismantle them.  In this sense, SJF follows in the footsteps of feminist and critical race theory in seeking to uncover lost histories, elevate the experiences of marginalized people, and reveal how traditional historical narratives mask and perpetuate subordination.

In the posts that follow, I will apply this methodology to the Court’s decisions in Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. Chicago, cases that relied heavily on a so-called originalist telling of history.  However, SJF reveals the context omitted by the majorities in both cases—one that helped lay the foundation for a race-and gender-based social hierarchy.

0

Guest Blogger – Verna Williams

Verna Williams, Law professor

Verna Williams

I am delighted to introduce Professor Verna Williams as a guest blogger for the month of August.  Professor Williams joined the University of Cincinnati College of Law in 2001 after  many years of practice in the areas of civil and women’s rights.  She co-directs the University’s joint-degree program in Law and Women’s Studies and the Center for Race, Gender, and Social Justice.  Professor Williams teaches in the areas of  critical race theory, family law, gender discrimination, and constitutional law. In 2004 and 2011, she received the Goldman Prize for Teaching Excellence.

Prior to joining the faculty, Professor Williams practiced law in the private and public sectors. She was Vice President and Director of Educational Opportunities at the National Women’s Law Center, where she focused on issues of gender equity in education. During her time at the Center, Professor Williams was lead counsel and successfully argued before the United States Supreme Court Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, which established that educational institutions have a duty to respond to and address complaints of student-to-student sexual harassment. She also practiced at the Department of Justice and at Sidley Austin LLP. Professor Williams began her legal career clerking for the Honorable David S. Nelson, U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts.

Her forthcoming publications include

  • The Patriarchy Prescription: Cure or Containment Strategy? forthcoming, ___ Georgetown J. of Modern Critical Race Perspectives (2016)
0

FAN 118.1 (First Amendment News) Seasoned SCOTUS Appellate Lawyer Files Cert. Petition in “Public Official” Defamation Case

Here is what Tony Mauro once said of him: “Few lawyers — including the nine lawyers who wear robes to work — know the Supreme Court’s docket as well as” he does. “He is generally regarded,” observed Georgetown Law Professor Steven Goldblatt,  “as one of the best [Supreme Court lawyers] in the country.”

Roy T. Englert, Jr.

Roy T. Englert, Jr.

His name: Roy T. Englert, Jr. That name is known among those seasoned few in the Supreme Court Bar. He has argued 21 cases before the Court, including United States Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (1989), a Freedom of Information Act case concerning privacy exemption. He won, this while he was Assistant to the Solicitor General.

Later, when he was at Mayer, Brown & Platt, he filed an amicus brief in United States v. Eichman (1990) (First Amendment challenge to Flag Protection Act of 1989)), this on behalf of Senator Joesph Biden, Jr. and in support of the Petitioner. There is, of course, more, much more.

One of Mr. Englert’s latest cert. filings is in Armstrong v. Thompson, submitted earlier this month. The issue in the case is whether all (or nearly all) law enforcement officers are “public officials” under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). Here is how his cert. petition opens:

“This case presents a recurring First Amendment question: whether a garden-variety law enforcement officer, with little or no role in setting public policy, must establish ‘actual malice’ to recover for harm caused by tortious statements. A number of Circuits and state courts of last resort—where many issues relating to the First Amendment and defamation are decided—have held that every law enforcement officer is a ‘public official’ under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Accordingly, those courts, including the court below, require each and every law enforcement officer to show ‘actual malice’ before recovering for any tort carried out through speech. In this case, despite an otherwise-error-free trial resulting in a jury verdict establishing that respondent had committed an established common-law tort, the court of appeals joined those courts and reversed on federal constitutional grounds after determining that Armstrong was a public official and that he had failed to prove ‘actual malice.'”

 Later, he argues that the “Court has . . . never determined how far down the government ranks the ‘actual malice’ standard applies. It has, however, unequivocally stated that not every public employee is a ‘public official.’ Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 119 n.8 (1979). And it has made clear that the category ought to be limited to ‘those among the hierarchy of government employees who have, or appear to the public to have, substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental affairs.’ Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 86 (1966); accord Gertz, 418 U.S. at 345 (equating ‘public official’ with someone who has “accepted public office’).”

Furthermore, Mr. Englert maintains that a “number of state courts have taken heed and held that low-ranking law enforcement officers are not public officials for purposes of the First Amendment. Kiesau v. Bantz (Iowa 2004); McCusker v. Valley News (N.H. 1981); Tucker v. Kilgore (Ky. 1964). Nevertheless, until 2013, there was an ‘overwhelming and entirely one-sided’ consensus among federal courts of appeals (as well as a number of other state courts) that ‘police officers are public officials for defamation purposes’—regardless of rank or role—because ‘there is a strong societal interest in protecting expression that criticizes law enforcement officers.’ Young, 734 F.3d at 553-54 (Moore, J. dissenting). In 2013, the Sixth Circuit stated (albeit in dicta) that courts holding the ‘consensus’ view ‘have misinterpreted federal law on the issue.’ Id. at 549 (opinion of the court). . . .”

“Certain state courts,” he notes, “have developed their own idiosyncratic, fact-based inquiries into whether police officers are public officials. . . .”

“Finally, there are courts that have (correctly) determined that there is nothing talismanic about the designation of ‘law enforcement.’ These courts have applied to ‘law enforcement’ employees the same rule that they would to any other government employee.” . . . . “

In light ion the above, Mr. Englert urged the Justices to “establish a clear rule that low-level law officers are not ‘public officials.'”

Other counsel for the Petitioner are: Lanora C. Pettit and Peter B. Siegal.

The time for filing on a response is on or before September 6, 2016.

0

FAN 118 (First Amendment News) University of Cape Town Disinvites Flemming Rose — Floyd Abrams Dissents

Note: Below is a heretofore unpublished letter from Floyd Abrams. It follows another one recently posted on this blog by Professor Nadine Strossen. Vice-Chancellor Max Price, to whom both letters were primarily directed, was invited to reply. (Links have been added for reference purposes.) 

* * * *

July 24, 2016

Dear Vice-Chancellor Price:

I am a practicing lawyer in the United States who has devoted the better part of my professional career to defending freedom of expression. I am also a Visiting Lecturer at the Yale Law School, have written two books and many articles about freedom of expression around the world, and have spoken about the topic in a number of nations including, by way of example, India, Japan, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Great Britain and—of particular relevance—South Africa. I was one of a number of foreign scholars who participated in advising the drafters of the South African Constitution. I have spoken about issues relating to freedom of expression in Johannesburg, Cape Town and Pretoria. I have read your statement about the decision of University of Cape Town to withdraw the invitation to Flemming Rose to deliver this year’s  TB Davie Memorial Lecture. I take the liberty of writing this letter to you because your decision is not only of consequence to your university and to your country but to democratic nations and universities in them throughout the world.

Floyd Abrams

I would like to make two brief observations at the outset.

The first is that I am not writing to you to urge you to adopt or to apply American standards in deciding who may be invited. As your statement correctly observed, the framers of your Constitution quite deliberately adopted a general right of free expression subject to certain specific limitations relating to propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence, and “advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.”

The second is that I am not writing to suggest that the cancellation by a university of an invitation to speak made to a  prominent  public figure is unique to South Africa. Quite the opposite is true. In the United States, a number of invitations have been made and then withdrawn by universities to prominent individuals including a former Secretary of State and the current head of the International Monetary Fund after protests were feared if the speaker was permitted to offer her views. Indeed, it is precisely because of my strong belief that the decisions of those American universities—and there are many of them– were so shameful and so contrary to basic principles of academic freedom that I take the liberty of writing to you.

UnknownAt the outset, nothing in the South African Constitution lends any support to your decision. Nothing that Mr. Rose has ever said can possibly be said to constitute propaganda for war. He has never urged violence against anyone or sought to incite it. Your statement observes that “Mr. Rose is regarded by many around the world as … someone whose statements . . . possibly amount to hate speech.”. I appreciate and honor your unwillingness to say that you credit any such an insupportable charge. But if you are unwilling to do so—and there is no basis for doing so—you can hardly rely on the notion of incitement as a basis for cancelling the invitation. I note in that respect that even the clause of the South African Constitution that limits free speech protection to advocacy of racial hatred or the like does so only when the speech at issue “constitutes incitement to cause harm”.

Writing from afar, I cannot comment specifically on your expressed concern about the security risks of permitting Mr. Rose to appear except to say that your nation, as mine, has experienced security risks in the past and when aware of them has been able to protect speakers and listeners alike. The security question is not whether it can be provided; it is whether freedom of speech on your campus is so important that it is worth doing so, with all its risks. Your Academic Freedom Committee obviously thought it was. From any perspective that honors academic freedom, that is a necessary conclusion.

Dr. Max Price

Dr. Max Price

The same is true of your stated concern that inviting Mr. Rose may have the perverse effect of limiting rather than vindicating academic freedom since he “represents a provocatively—potentially violently—divisive view.” Of course, Mr. Rose himself offers provocative views. I am sure that is why he was invited. But he hardly “represents” a “potentially violently” view about anything. The risk of violence is at all not from him but from those who simply do not accept core notions of freedom of expression and academic freedom. To yield to those who cannot abide freedom of expression that they find abhorrent is to abjectly surrender to them.

There remains the first basis articulated by you for rescinding the invitation to Mr. Rose—concern about provoking conflict on campus. It is, I am well aware, awfully easy for people thousands of miles away from your campus and whose views you have not sought, to presume to advise you that even if there is a risk of conflict on your campus that follows or accompanies a speech by Mr. Rose, it is one worth accepting. Who needs, you may well ask, such second-guessers? All I can say is that those of us who weigh in on the issue from abroad do so because we care about your country, are impressed by its Constitution, and are often in awe of your Supreme Court and its liberty-protecting rulings. We also offer our views because the decision to disinvite by your great institution is one that will be viewed carefully by academic institutions around the world as they decide how to respond in similar circumstances.

The very first TB Davie Memorial Lecture was delivered by Chief Justice Centlivres, the Chancellor of your university, on May 6, 1959. He then summarized what he characterized as Professor’s Davie’s “articles of faith” as follows: “The first was that a university is primarily a centre of learning, the second that a university flourishes only in an atmosphere of absolute intellectual freedom, and the third, that the pre-eminent virtue of university life is intellectual integrity,.” Guided by those precepts, it is difficult to understand or accept the cancellation of Mr. Rose’s appearance.

Respectfully submitted,

Floyd Abrams

_______________________________________________________

News Update: Michael Cardo, UCT: A tale of two lecturers, PoliticsWeb, July 25, 2016 (“This coming weekend, the University of Cape Town will host Hamza Tzortzis, a highly controversial lecturer who propagates a radical version of Islam. His visit to the campus follows hot on the heels of an executive decision to bar Danish journalist Flemming Rose from delivering the 2016 TB Davie Memorial Lecture on academic freedom.”) 

0

University of Toronto Law Journal – Volume 66, Number 3, Summer 2016

utlj-logo

University of Toronto Law Journal – Volume 66, Number 3, Summer 2016

FOCUS FEATURE: THE FUTURE OF LAW AND DEVELOPMENT
In this focus feature, David Trubek and Michael Trebilcock present an assessment of the past forty years of the law and development movement and map the challenges that lie ahead. While law and development research today seems to be on more solid ground than it was in the late 1960s and early 1970s, it is still at risk of facing a second demise. The recent revival of the law and development movement has been marked by a research agenda increasingly attuned to the importance of local context. On the one hand, contextualization has countered the ethnocentric analysis produced in the Global North and exported to developing countries in the 1960s. On the other hand, attention to context has caused a severe fragmentation of the academic dialogue, as the concern with adaptation to particular circumstances defies any attempt to somehow connect these research efforts in one single conceptual framework. The new generation of law and development scholars is thus left with the challenge of maintaining contextualization, while avoiding letting the movement break down into a ‘series of self-referential silos.’

The past and future of law and development
Mariana Mota Prado

Law and development: Forty years after ‘Scholars in Self-Estrangement’
David M Trubek

Between universalism and relativism: Reflections on the evolution of law and development studies
Michael Trebilcock

ARTICLES
Enhancing moral relationships through strict liability
Seana Valentine Shiffrin

Taking on responsibility and trusting others: A response to Shiffrin
Sophia Moreau

The utopian promise of private law
Hanoch Dagan

BOOK REVIEW
Thomas Piketty Capital in the Twenty-First Century
Hamish Stewart

Full text of the University of Toronto Law Journal is available online at UTLJ Online, Project Muse, JSTOR, HeinOnline, Westlaw, Westlaw-CARSWELL, LexisNexis and Quicklaw.

2

FAN 117.3 (First Amendment News) University of Cape Town Disinvites Flemming Rose — Nadine Strossen Dissents

In the classic expression of freedom of speech and assembly, UCT’s policy is that our members will enjoy freedom to explore ideas, to express these and to assemble peacefully. The annual TB Davie Memorial Lecture on academic freedom was established by UCT students to commemorate the work of Thomas Benjamin Davie, vice-chancellor of the university from 1948 to 1955 and a defender of the principles of academic freedom. Organised by the Academic Freedom Committee, the lecture is delivered by distinguished speakers who are invited to speak on a theme related to academic and human freedom. 

* * * *

Note: Below is a heretofore unpublished letter from Professor Nadine Strossen. This coming Wednesday FAN will post another dissenting letter, this one by Floyd Abrams. Additionally, Vice-Chancellor Max Price, to whom the letter is primarily directed, is invited to reply should he be so inclined. (Links have been added for reference purposes.) 

July 22, 2016

Dear Vice-Chancellor Price, AFC Chair Professor Rousseau, and Professors Hendricks and McClachlan-Daniels:

UnknownAs someone who was honored to deliver the TB Davie Memorial Lecture in 2011, I was inspired by the University of Cape Town’s proud history of defending academic freedom, and its ongoing commitment to doing so, including through this Lecture and the work of the Academic Freedom Committee. I also recall fondly Dr. [Max] Price’s cordial hospitality and  appreciated support for the AFC and the Davie Lecture.

I applaud the AFC’s March 2015 decision to invite Flemming Rose to deliver the 2016 Davie Lecture, and I am heartened by the AFC’s refusal to rescind that invitation despite apparently great pressure to do so from both within and beyond UCT. Having read Mr. Rose’s enlightening book, The Tyranny of Silence, as well as many other publications by and interviews of him, I consider him one of the most principled, courageous exemplars of intellectual freedom and freedom of conscience, including freedom for religious and other beliefs. I was therefore deeply honored to present to him the biennial Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty, awarded by the Cato Institute, in New York City on May 25, 2016. For your information,  I append below this letter the text of the remarks that I delivered on that occasion.

maxresdefaultOf course, I would neutrally defend Mr. Rose’s right to speak at UCT  — and the UCT community’s right to hear his ideas – even if I strongly objected to his ideas. But he is especially deserving of a forum such as the Davie Lecture because his ideas have been so widely caricatured and misunderstood, and because these ideas are urgently important precisely due to the sensitive nature of the issues they address.

 For the foregoing reasons, I was deeply disheartened to learn recently that UCT had overridden the AFC and breached the commitment to host Mr. Rose to deliver the 2016 Davie Lecture. I was particularly disheartened by the reasons set out for that action in Dr. Price’s recently released letter, dated July 12, 2016.

These are the very same reasons that regularly have been cited to suppress the expression of any view that is politically unpopular at the particular time and place. In the U.S., for example, these were the reasons that too many universities cited for barring civil rights advocates from speaking during the twentieth-century Civil Rights Movement. Likewise, they are the same reasons why too many U.S. universities more recently barred “Black Power” activists from speaking. In a nutshell, the arguments both then and now are that the suppressed ideas could well offend other people, threatening their most cherished personal beliefs and community values, and potentially leading to violent reactions by those who are thus offended.

Professor Nadine Strossen

Professor Nadine Strossen

I have read the persuasive responses that have been issued to Dr. Price’s letter by the 2015 Davie Lecturer, Kenan Malik, and by the Index on Censorship, as well as by the AFC and Flemming Rose himself. I will not repeat the powerful arguments they made.  Rather, I will confine myself to making several additional points.

First, why does UCT succumb to the victim-blaming approach in this context that it would surely eschew in other contexts? To say that Flemming Rose should not advance ideas that others might find provocative and respond to with violence, seems to me the same as arguing that women should not wear certain clothing that others might find provocative and respond to with violence.

Second, Dr. Price’s letter references the limits upon free speech that the South African Constitution sets out, which are also generally accepted in other legal systems.  Yet the letter doesn’t expressly contend – nor could it credibly do so – that anything Flemming Rose has said, or is likely to say, would transgress any of those limits.  Indeed, apparently acknowledging as much, Dr. Price’s letter makes only the tentative, qualified observation that “Mr. Rose is regarded by many around the world as..someone whose statements.possibly amount to hate speech.”

As any survey of the media will reveal, if universities declined to host any speakers whom some people consider to have made statements that “possibly amount to hate speech,” then they would have to ban from campus just about everyone who is addressing any important, contentious, sensitive issue. For example,  in the U.S., many critics recently have denounced “Black Lives Matter” protestors as engaging in hate speech, even blaming such speech for allegedly instigating murders of police officers.

Dr. Max Price

Dr. Max Price

Flemming Rose’s speech clearly is not “advocacy of hatred . . . that constitutes incitement to cause harm,”  which the South African Constitution excludes from free speech protection (as quoted in Dr. Price’s letter). First, there is no basis for concluding that Mr. Rose would say anything that could fairly be considered “advocacy of hatred that is based on.religion.” Moreover, even if someone did engage in such “advocacy,” it would still be protected speech, unless it also “constitutes incitement to cause harm.” To the best of my knowledge,  not even Flemming Rose’s most unfair, harshest critics have charged him with “incitement” – a legal term of art that means intentionally spurring on listeners who are supportive of his views to commit harm against third parties, in a context where his sympathizers are actually likely to do so imminently. And if any such charge has been leveled, it would be patently unjustified.

If South Africa withheld free speech protection for non-inciting statements that merely criticize certain religious beliefs, or actions that are based on certain religious beliefs, then it could not protect many views that have been widely aired around the world:  for example,  criticism of’ discriminatory views and actions concerning LGBTQ individuals that are held by many Christian and other denominations and their adherents.

Third, Dr. Price’s invocation of “the rise in extremist terrorist groups” as somehow allegedly justifying suppression of Flemming Rose’s speech is also part of a general pattern that has been used to suppress a wide range of freedom, all over the world, not only in the recent past, but also historically. Ironically, this was precisely the topic of my 2011 Davie Lecture:  the unjustified violations of academic freedom in the name of fighting “the War on Terror.”

Given that this “War” is likely to remain “The New Normal” worldwide, it will remain an all-too-convenient, but unjustified, rationale for suppressing academic and other freedom.  This danger was recognized by none other than the namesake of the TB Davie Memorial Lecture himself. Let me quote a passage from my Davie Lecture, which quoted Dr. Davie’s pertinent observations.

“In his 1948 Inaugural Address, upon being installed as UCT’s Principal and Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Davie noted that `[r]ecent history has…shown …how easily and almost imperceptibly Universities can be deprived of their freedom.’  In words that are chillingly apt today  [almost seven] decades later, he warned: `Controls and restrictions [that are] imposed and accepted under conditions of war are only too meekly submitted to, even when the conditions necessitating their imposition have disappeared.'”

Fourth, I would like to add to the critiques that have already been made of Dr. Price’s argument that proceeding with Flemming Rose’s lecture “might retard rather than advance academic freedom.”  This reminds me of the much-maligned statement by a U.S. military official during the Vietnam War, that “we had to destroy the village in order to save it.”

It is also the same argument that the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected in the landmark 1997 case of Reno v. ACLU, in which the Court for the first time upheld freedom of speech for the then-new medium of online expression. The U.S. government had argued that individuals might avoid an uncensored Internet “because of the risk of exposing themselves or their children to harmful material,” and therefore that censorship could have a net positive impact on free speech. The Court resoundingly repudiated this Through-the-Looking-Glass argument for the same reason that it is unpersuasive in the current context:

“We find this argument singularly unpersuasive…[I]n the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship.”

Fifth and finally, I am troubled by the ongoing threat to academic freedom that Dr. Price’s letter signals. On the one hand, he  asserts that UCT “hope[s] never again to have to interfere with an invitation to deliver a lecture on academic freedom.” On the other hand, though, he later endorses  “a considered version of academic freedom that is avowedly sensitive to the concurrent rights to dignity and freedom from harm.” In other words, it is only his version – or UCT’s “official” version – of academic freedom that will be honored, not that of the AFC, or the viewpoint-neutral version that would be consistent with the South African Constitution and UCT’s own proud traditions, as exemplified by TB Davie.

In light of the positive experience that I was so honored to enjoy as a prior Davie Lecturer -the same positive experience that Kenan Malik described in his response to Dr. Price’s letter – and in the constant hope that “more speech” will prevail over censorship, I respectfully urge reconsideration of the decision not only to “disinvite” Flemming Rose from giving the Lecture, but also apparently to exclude him from speaking at UCT altogether, even as part of a debate or panel presentation. I don’t think that bringing any speaker to campus could reasonably be viewed as anointing that speaker “as the chosen champion of the University of Cape Town,” as Dr. Price says. Certainly, when I had the privilege of delivering the Davie Lecture, I saw myself as the champion only of my own views on academic freedom; I did not see myself as even a spokesperson for UCT, let alone its “champion.” By continuing to create fora for discussion and debate by and with speakers expressing a range of views – including such an important thinker, writer, and activist as Flemming Rose — UCT itself would continue as “the chosen champion” of academic freedom.

 Very truly yours,

 Nadine Strossen

John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law,  New York Law School

Immediate Past President, American Civil Liberties Union (1991-2008)

APPENDIX   Read More