When the Dean of Yale’s School of Law suggested that an act of protest against a conservative event on campus had not violated the school’s free speech policies in any way, a professor decided to openly contest the assertion.
In a public letter released last Thursday, Kate Smith, a professor from the school’s economics department, called the protest "...a blatant violation of Yale’s Free speech Expression Policy."
Her comments stem from a protest which took place on March 10. Conservative groups on Yale’s campus had invited the Chief Counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, Kristen Waggoner, and Monica Miller, an associate from the American Humanist Association. Together, they had planned to discuss their involvement in the Supreme Court case Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski and its relation to the First Amendment.
But they didn’t get far.
A group of roughly 120 students entered the lecture hall where the event was being held, heckling the speakers and interrupting the discourse. The protests were eventually quelled but not before campus security arrived on the scene to escort the protestors outside.
The conflict quickly caught the attention of conservative news outlets, and many commentators were quick to point out the irony of having a first-amendment lecture interrupted by protestors. One onlooker, D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman, went so far as to send an email to all US federal judges, bringing into question the eligibility of the protesting students for positions in clerkships and warning that these academics may not be committed to the idea of free speech.
In the fallout of these events, Dean Heather Gerken wrote that Yale leadership had taken the appropriate action to uphold the school’s free speech policy.
"Had the protesters shut down the event, our course of action would have been straightforward—the offending students without question would have been subject to discipline," Gerken told school audiences. "In accordance with the University’s free expression policy, which includes a three-warning protocol, those protesting exited the room after the first warning, and the event went forward."
Yale lists its free speech policy on its website. It describes that the university has a long history of supporting free speech, and fostering spaces for intellectual discourse.
"When Yale or its members host outside speakers, they are also generally free to express their views, even if unpopular or controversial. Dissenting members of the community may protest and express disagreement, but they may not interfere with a speaker’s ability to speak or attendees’ ability to attend, listen and hear," the website reads.
It goes on to list various means of protest which are considered to be in contradiction to these guidelines including holding up obstructive signs, speaking from a bullhorn, shouting or playing music, blocking entry, trespassing, endangering others, and engaging in illegal activities.
But professor Smith disagreed with the Dean’s assessment that the school’s listed policies hadn’t been violated. She pointed out that the Dean’s argument was a little self-fulfilling.
"Limiting Yale’s policy to prohibit only ‘shutting down' events would make no sense," she wrote. "...Whether to shut down an event depends on the speakers’ and audience members’ personalities, hearing abilities, and preferences as to which is worse—giving in and stopping the event, or continuing in hard-to-speak/hard-to-hear and uncomfortable circumstances."
The professor stated that she wasn’t calling for some sort of punitive action against the protesting students or even the school’s leadership. Instead, Smith wrote, she would have the school uphold its policies by recognizing when they had been violated.
"As a former prosecutor, I know well that not every violation has to be an occasion for sanctions," Smith said. "That said, we cannot make the most of this opportunity unless we recognize that a blatant violation of Yale’s Free Expression policy occurred on March 10."
Join and support independent free thinkers!
We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.
Remind me next month
To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy
