Free Webinar: Students and Freedom of Expression on Campus: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 2 PM EST

Free Webinar: Students and Freedom of Expression on Campus

"Today’s students are challenging free-speech norms and are more likely than older generations to support restrictions that limit offensive speech. What’s more, the rise of social media, new sexual-harassment policies, and demands for more racial diversity and inclusiveness have sometimes complicated free expression on campus. In this environment, how can colleges promote open inquiry and discussion while balancing changing attitudes?

Join us for a virtual forum that brings together Michael S. Roth, the president of Wesleyan University, and other experts to share their perspectives on these topics:

• How is free expression evolving on college campuses?
• How do college leaders respond to claims that their institutions have become unwelcoming places for certain views?
• How can colleges mitigate potential conflicts when they do arise?

With Support From the Knight Foundation"

Register here.

A matter of ethics; BC News, April 2021

Phil Gloudemans , BC News; 

A matter of ethics

BC undergraduates advanced to the finals at the 25th annual Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl

"“The format of the Ethics Bowl is unique from other debate-style competitions in that teams are scored based on how well they consider the merit of all sides of an argument,” said team member Angela McCarthy ’21, president of the student-organized Bioethics Society of Boston College. “The spirit of the Ethics Bowl encourages respectful deliberation over some of the most controversial issues of our time. Instead of encouraging an ‘us versus them mentality,’ it promotes productive conversations about controversial issues.”

“I was so proud to see their preparation pay off in their performance at nationals,” said BC team coach Katie Rapier, an assistant professor of philosophy. “The students responded to their opponents and the judges with both professionalism and finesse, and a robust understanding of the material through clear explanations and compelling arguments.  I was thrilled to see such a rich display of learning and skill from our students.”

In advance of competition, each team receives a set of APPE-written cases that explore a variety of topics within practical and professional ethics that could range from cheating and plagiarism, dating and friendships, to free speech, gun control or professional principles in medicine, engineering, or law.  

Teams prepare an analysis of each case, and during a match, a case is randomly selected from the set, and teams have three minutes to huddle before giving a 10-minute presentation.  A moderator poses questions designed to delve deeper into the case’s multiple ethical dimensions.

A panel of judges then probes the teams for further justifications and evaluates their answers. Rating criteria are based on intelligibility, focus on ethically relevant considerations, avoidance of ethical irrelevance, and deliberative thoughtfulness. Teams cannot bring notes or confer with coaches...

Senior philosophy major Caroline Gillette focused on two cases that dealt with the ethics of moderating content on social media, both offensive speech and misinformation."

‘I am not a crisis actor’: Florida teens fire back at right-wing conspiracy theorists; Washington Post, February 21, 2018

Travis M. Andrews and Samantha Schmidt, Washington Post; ‘I am not a crisis actor’: Florida teens fire back at right-wing conspiracy theorists

"Former congressman Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) on Sunday tweeted a USA Today story about the student organizers helping lead a nationwide student walkout in protest of America’s gun laws, adding the message: “O really? ‘Students’ are planning a nationwide rally? Not left wing gun control activists using 17yr kids in the wake of a horrible tragedy?”

Kingston then appeared on CNN’s “New Day” Tuesday and doubled down on his remarks.

“Do we really think — and I say this sincerely — do we really think that 17-year-olds on their own are going to plan a nationwide rally?” Kingston asked, adding, “They probably do not have the logistical ability to plan a nationwide rally without it being hijacked by groups that already had the preexisting anti-gun agenda.”

The show’s co-host Alisyn Camerota fiercely disagreed.

“I talked to these kids before they knew the body count of how many of their friends had been killed. No one had talked to them yet,” Camerota said. “They hadn’t been indoctrinated by some left-wing group. They were motivated from what they saw and what they endured.”

Brandon Abzug, a Marjory Stoneman Douglas senior who survived the shooting, then appeared on CNN and said of the former representative’s comments, “I think it’s very despicable. … To say that just because we’re young we can’t make a difference is not right and he should apologize for that.”"

Derogatory trademarks aren’t about free speech. They’re about discrimination.; Washington Post, June 21, 2017

Robert S. Chang, Washington Post; Derogatory trademarks aren’t about free speech. They’re about discrimination.

"Unfortunately, Reyna’s hypothetical is an actuality of sorts. In Florida and other states, gun store owners have placed signs on their establishments declaring themselves to be a “Muslim Free Zone.” As the owner of one of the stores, Florida Gun Supply, said: “My goal is to make sure they don’t feel welcome here so I don’t have the need to discriminate in the first place.

Following Matal v. Tam, nothing will prevent the owner from obtaining federal registration of “Muslim Free Zone” as a trademark, accomplishing through speech what he might not be able to do through direct denial of service. For businesses not covered by Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, nothing will prevent the creation and federal registration of trademarks such as “No Gays Allowed” or, for that matter, “Whites Only.”

The federal government, though, should not be required to register these trademarks. The government should not be required to participate in discrimination.

This is where we are following the Supreme Court decision. This is the mischief that will come."

Free Speech at the Supreme Court; New York Times, June 19, 2017

Editorial Board, New York Times; Free Speech at the Supreme Court

"The Supreme Court reaffirmed core free-speech principles in two cases on Monday, both decided without dissent...

"The Patent and Trademark Office rejected the name under a provision in a 70-year-old federal law prohibiting the registration of trademarks that “disparage” any “persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols.”

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the law violates a “bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.” That’s the right call. The First Amendment bars the government from discriminating among speakers based on their viewpoints. In this case, the Trademark Office did that by blocking only registrations for trademarks it determined to have negative connotations. The free-speech clause doesn’t apply to the government’s own speech, but registered trademarks can’t be put in that category — otherwise the government would have to argue that it endorses each of the more than two million trademarks it has already registered.

The decision is likely to help the Washington Redskins, who lost their trademark protections in 2014 after years of complaints from Native American groups. At the time, this page supported the Trademark Office’s decision, and we still regard the Redskins name as offensive. Based on this case, however, we’ve since reconsidered our underlying position."

The Supreme Court gives the country some necessary guidance on free speech; Washington Post, June 19, 2017

Editorial Board, Washington Post; The Supreme Court gives the country some necessary guidance on free speech

"THE UNITED STATES is engaged just now in a freewheeling debate about — freewheeling debate. Or, to put it more precisely, about how freewheeling debate should normally be. The struggle is being waged across various battlegrounds — college campuses, social media, New York theater, even the air-conditioned offices in which federal employees decide whether to protect trademarks, such as that of Washington’s National Football League franchise.

Now comes the Supreme Court with a strong statement in favor of free speech, to include speech that many find offensive. With the support of all eight justices who participated in the case (new Justice Neil M. Gorsuch being the exception), the court struck down a 71-year-old law requiring the Patent and Trademark Office to deny registration to brands that may “disparage” people or bring them “into contemp[t] or disrepute.” The ruling means that a dance-rock band may henceforth call itself “the Slants” on the same legal basis that, say, Mick Jagger’s bunch uses “the Rolling Stones” — even though many Asian Americans find the term derogatory and demeaning...

As the court’s decision reminds us, constitutional and decent are not the same thing."

The F-word is making more frequent appearances in appellate opinions; ABA Journal, 8/29/16

Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal; The F-word is making more frequent appearances in appellate opinions:

"Do you call it the F-word? Use asterisks instead of some of the letters? Substitute the word “expletive”? Or write it out in full?

Appellate opinions are more frequently choosing the last option, Law.com reports."

"Duck Dynasty" Pits Free Speech Against Shifting Cultural Taboos; Reason.com, 12/26/13

Cathy Young, Reason.com; "Duck Dynasty" Pits Free Speech Against Shifting Cultural Taboos: "There are at least two lessons to be learned from the “Duck Dynasty” debacle, in which reality TV star Phil Robertson got indefinitely suspended from the A&E hit show after making anti-gay remarks in a GQ magazine interview. One: on freedom of speech, hypocrisy and double standards are rampant across the political spectrum (the title of 1992 book by the great civil libertarian Nat Hentoff, “Free Speech for Me But Not for Thee,” remains ever-relevant). Two: while some speech will always be regarded as beyond the pale in even the freest society, the rapid shifting of those boundaries is sure to generate intense cultural anxiety and conflict."