> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • The Evolution of Race in Admissions
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
Newsletter Icon

The Review

Understand the big ideas and provocative arguments shaping the academy. Delivered on Mondays. To read this newsletter as soon as it sends, sign up to receive it in your email inbox.

October 3, 2022
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print

From: Len Gutkin

Subject: The Review: Florida's Totalitarian Academic-Freedom Crackdown

Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, a Republican, is attempting to control public university curricula around race and gender by insisting that college teaching is a form of government speech. That will sound insane to most faculty members. But it can’t be dismissed out of hand. As the University of Virginia Law School’s Frederick Schauer told our Francie Diep, the First Amendment protection of academic freedom “remains more of an open question than those of us who are academics would like it to be.” In Florida and states like it, we’ll soon find out just how open.

We’re sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network. Please make sure your computer, VPN, or network allows javascript and allows content to be delivered from c950.chronicle.com and chronicle.blueconic.net.

Once javascript and access to those URLs are allowed, please refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com

Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, a Republican, is attempting to control public university curricula around race and gender by insisting that college teaching is a form of government speech. That will sound insane to most faculty members. But it can’t be dismissed out of hand. As the University of Virginia Law School’s Frederick Schauer told our Francie Diep, the First Amendment protection of academic freedom “remains more of an open question than those of us who are academics would like it to be.” In Florida and states like it, we’ll soon find out just how open.

In an article forthcoming in the Wake Forest Law Review, Princeton University political scientist Keith E. Whittington explains the legal history of academic freedom and lays out a case against strategies like Governor DeSantis’s. During the Cold War, the activity of professors came to be understood as having a major claim on Constitutional protections. This was a solution to a problem that long predated the persecutions of the 1950s. In its earliest forms, American academic freedom was, as Whittington writes, a question of “contracts and custom” rather than law. But state repression of professorial political commitments in the teens — Whittington mentions Bolshevism after 1917, though even before that suspicion of pro-German sentiment during the First World War had painfully inflamed political passions — made the fragility of academic freedom clear. Nor was such repression limited to questions of insufficient patriotism or pro-Communism. As late as 1940, as Whittington recounts, the state of New York blocked City College from hiring Bertrand Russell on the grounds that his ideas about premarital sex were “immoral and salacious.”

The 1950s saw a grim amplification of political repression around suspected Communism. But for that very reason it also saw academic freedom become a properly Constitutional issue. Today’s arrangements descend substantially from a period of jurisprudence that began with Sweezy v. New Hampshire, a 1957 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Marxist economist Paul Sweezy could not be imprisoned for refusing to answer questions about the contents of lectures he’d given at the University of New Hampshire. A decade later, in Keyishian v. Board of Regents, the court held that the SUNY Board of Regents cannot prohibit faculty members from being Communists.

By 1967, then, academic freedom for public-university faculty members seemed to have firm constitutional grounding — Keyishian looked like the culmination of decades of jurisprudential theory recognizing that college teaching and research have special claims on the First Amendment. Chief Justice Earl Warren’s rousing words in Sweezy might stand for the whole tradition: “The essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident. … Scholarship cannot flourish in an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust. Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise, our civilization will stagnate and die.” Pickering v. Board of Education (1968), which held that public employees had First Amendment rights (the case involved a high-school teacher criticizing his school board in a letter to the editor), was icing on the cake.

So far, so good. Then, in 2006, a hiccup: Garcetti v. Ceballos, a Supreme Court case that, as David L. Hudson Jr. summarizes in Slate, ruled that “when public employees engage in official, job-duty speech, they are not speaking as citizens but public employees and have no free-speech rights at all. None. Zero.” Garcetti involved a district attorney’s office, not a college. But public-university professors are public employees, and teaching is a duty of the job. The consequences for professorial speech might have seemed ominous.

By exempting such job-duty speech as a memo to one’s boss from protection, Garcetti undoubtedly weakened Pickering. But its bearing on faculty members remained — and remains — unclear. In a dissent, Justice David Souter specified the risk: “I have to hope that today’s majority does not mean to imperil First Amendment protection of academic freedom in public colleges and universities, whose teachers necessarily speak and write ‘pursuant to official … duties.’” Writing for the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy insisted it did not: “We need not, and for that reason do not, decide whether the analysis we conduct today would apply in the same manner to a case involving speech related to scholarship or teaching.”

Whittington, the author of the Wake Forest Law Review article, urges that Kennedy’s “proviso should be taken seriously.” Unlike other government employees, “professors are distinctive in requiring constitutional protection for their speech as government employees.” If the courts agree, the present moment of unusual peril could, like the anti-Communist persecutions of midcentury, end up solidifying academic freedom, rather than devastating it.

What about Florida’s specific claim — that academic freedom in effect doesn’t exist because professorial activity is state speech? Because official government speech is, as the 2005 decision in Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association put it, “exempt from First Amendment scrutiny,” Florida therefore asserts that classroom speech in a public university is similarly exempt. On this view, a philosopher teaching a course on ethics is no different from a spokesperson for the CDC or an agent at the Motor Vehicle Association.

That would be a perverse outcome — no one thinks of a professor as speaking in an official capacity for the state. And that’s relevant. Whittington says that, in recent years, “the court has emphasized three main factors in identifying government speech: whether the history of the medium of expression ‘long has communicated messages from the’ government; whether the medium is ‘often closely identified in the public mind with the government,’ and whether the government maintains ‘direct control over the messages conveyed’ through the medium.” Plainly, professorial classroom speech fails to meet all three tests.

I asked Adam Steinbaugh at FIRE — which is challenging Florida in court — about the state’s theory. “The point of academic freedom,” he said, “is that when an academic speaks, they are not speaking for the government … The authority Florida claims is one that invites unfettered censorship, complete with lists of disapproved viewpoints. The First Amendment rejects that authoritarian notion, and we hope that the courts and public will reject it, too.”

What if the courts don’t reject it? A public university system hobbled by Florida’s proposed elimination of academic freedom would die. Private competitors, as well as public colleges from states with less totalitarian legislatures, would become the obvious alternative for faculty members and students. The University of Florida would turn into a kind of zombie college, lurching around in a hideous imitation of the real thing. For DeSantis, maybe that’s the goal.

Read Keith E. Whittington’s “Professorial Speech, the First Amendment, and the ‘Anti-CRT’ Laws” here.

The Latest

  • photo illustration of an exhausted woman sleeping on a pile of books
    The Review | Essay

    You’ve Burned Out. Now What?

    By Rebecca Pope-Ruark September 19, 2022
    Academe’s competitive productivity is a dead end.
  • illustration of a black woman walking away from a broken pencil and scattered papers
    The Review | Reporting

    Why Faculty of Color Are Leaving Academe

    By Joshua Doležal September 20, 2022
    Too many find themselves disenfranchised, exhausted, and isolated.
  • Illustration of a student's face covered with digital static and glitches
    The Review | Opinion

    What the Faltering OPM Market Means for Colleges

    By Phil Hill September 20, 2022
    Even institutions not involved with the companies should take heed.
  • Truth Issue
    The Review | Opinion

    When Truth and Social Justice Collide, Choose Truth

    By Jonathan Haidt September 23, 2022
    Why I’m resigning from my professional society.

Recommended

  • “It is a brave imagination that can keep to order while exploring the terrain of its own torments; rarely has a nightmare — not wholly comprehended by the dreamer — been dramatized with such variety and wit.” In The New Yorker, Anthony Lane is wonderful on the centenary of The Waste Land,
  • “This is essentially the same story as in the U.S. and elsewhere — workers have decisively left the left.” In Crikey, Guy Rundle on what to make of the Italian elections.
  • “Philosophy, Bertrand Russell wrote, is ‘cold steel in the hand of passion.’ Easy, tiger!” In The Point, Helena de Bres’s fourth and final entry in her series on “academic philosophy and the meaning of life.”

Write to me at len.gutkin@chronicle.com.

Yours,

Len Gutkin

Len Gutkin
Len Gutkin is a senior editor at The Chronicle Review and the author of Dandyism: Forming Fiction From Modernism to the Present (Virginia). Follow him at @GutkinLen.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
    Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
  • The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
    The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
  • Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
    Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2023 The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin