#Chicago moment of silence free

One does not directly affect or change the other rather, both speak to a broader social problem that can’t be brushed away and forgotten by an appeal to the First Amendment: Too often, protecting free speech feels like a one-way street. There are stark differences between the Supreme Court’s opining about the government’s ability to criminally prosecute people for harassment and a university, particularly a private one, making decisions when it comes to protecting its scholars or regulating student conduct. Opinion: The Supreme Court rewrites American society once again As the Supreme Court decides the fate of affirmative action, most Americans say the court should allow consideration of race as part of the admissions process, yet few believe students' race should play a significant role in decisions. So it’s clearly urgent for institutions to strike the right balance in protecting the free speech of critics without allowing them to chill the free speech of those with whom they disagree.įILE - Activists demonstrate as the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on a pair of cases that could decide the future of affirmative action in college admissions, in Washington, Oct. Schmidt posted Journey’s photo and email address along with the claim that “anti-white hatred is now mainstream academic inquiry.” Afterward, Journey was deluged with hate emails, including one which said, “blow your head clean off.” Journey postponed the class, which Schmidt described on Twitter as a “huge victory.” When it was offered in March, the university had to hold it in an undisclosed location and implement additional security protocols. Getting the balance right between free speech and protecting people from abuse is tricky, in court and beyond.Īn example of how important it is to get it right occurred at the University of Chicago, where lecturer Rebecca Journey postponed teaching her course “The Problem of Whiteness” after a male student at the school, Daniel Schmidt, organized an online campaign targeting her. While the court may claim to be defending free speech by ruling that the threats were protected by the First Amendment, the decision is likely to have the opposite effect - it will censor and silence the victims of harassment.

Chicago moment of silence