Rethinking a rebuke
On Thursday, Stanford University’s Faculty Senate will revisit the censure of Scott W. Atlas, a senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution based there, for promoting “a view of Covid-19 that contradicts medical science.”
A group of faculty members at the university has asked the senate to rescind that censure, arguing it was the result of a flawed process that set a “dangerous precedent” for free speech, reports our Stephanie Lee.
At the same time, a Faculty Senate committee has proposed a competing motion: to table the call for a retraction pending further discussion.
The dispute and its dueling claims to free speech raise a complex question: Does a formal condemnation chill speech, or is it just more speech?
John W. Etchemendy, a former Stanford provost, rallied dozens of faculty members to support the motion to rescind the censure of Atlas, who was an adviser to President Trump on the Coronavirus Task Force.
- Quotable: It’s “not about relitigating the 2020 motion but about restoring due process, which everyone recognizes was not given to Atlas,” said Etchemendy, a professor in the philosophy department
David Spiegel, who was on the Faculty Senate in 2020, said the group was expressing its own opinion when it condemned Atlas and took no real action to punish him for his speech.
- Quotable: “It’s appalling to insult the judgment of the Faculty Senate by asking them to rescind what was simply free speech about what Atlas was saying,” said Spiegel, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences.
At the time of the censure, Atlas had questioned the efficacy of masks in preventing contagion and advocated for the virus to spread largely unchecked through the population. He also encouraged Michiganders to “rise up” against their governor in response to public-health measures.
Atlas’s comments have now been seized upon by a broader movement that is seeking to defend such statements under the umbrella of academic freedom. He was a featured speaker at a 2022 conference at Stanford billed as an effort to “restore the open debate required for new knowledge to flourish.”
Read Stephanie’s full story here.