Newsletter

January 2015

After Ferguson, come the apologies for nothing

Jonathan Turley

Racially-charged campuses shut down the conversation

College campuses last week seemed more like centers of political reeducation
rather than real learning as various academics have been forced into public
apologies over references to the recent controversial decisions of grand juries
in Missouri and New York.

Consider the bizarre case of University of California at Los Angeles law
professor Robert Goldstein who based an essay question on his final on Michael
Brown’s stepfather, Louis Head, chanting, “Burn this b—- down!” after the
grand jury decision. The

angry mob proceeded to loot and burn various businesses in the town. With some

calling for Head to be prosecuted, this was a ready-made question for exploring the
limits of the First Amendment in a real-life situation.

However, Goldstein was immediately attacked by commentators like

Elie Mystal of the blog Above the Law for being “racially insensitive and divisive.”
Mystal falsely stated that Goldstein’s question asked students to “advocate in
favor of extremist racists in Ferguson.”

Goldstein actually apologized and told his students that he “clearly
underestimated and misjudged the impact of this question.” He proceeded to throw
out the question in what seemed a cringing compliance with a new taboo subject.

The
apologies continued at Smith College after President Kathleen McCartney publicly
joined protesters in what she called “a shared fury . . . . [as] we raise our
voices in protest.” McCartney declared “all lives matter,” but was immediately
denounced for being too inclusive by not saying “black lives matter.” Smith
sophomore, Cecelia Lim, complained that McCartney was “invalidating the
experience of black lives.” McCartney asked forgiveness and promised not to
stray from the expected language. (Ironically, the next weekend, a protest
leader was heard rallying the crowd with the
same inclusive message of all lives matter.)

At
the University of Iowa, visiting professor
Serhat Tanyolacar also protested wrongly with a striking statue of a Klu Klux Klan member composed
of newspaper clippings on racial tension and violence. It was a striking piece
of artistic and political speech designed to “facilitate a dialogue.” Within
hours, university officials declared the art to be “deeply offensive” and
ordered its removal. It effectively declared the art, which is protesting
intolerance, to be itself a form of hate speech. Tanyolacar issued a formal
apology and a university official who had promoted the art also apologized for
his “own privilege and culture bias” that blinded him to the feelings of African
Americans.

In
the meantime, Columbia Law School postponed exams after minority students
insisted that it was difficult to sit for exams and apply legal principles that
are used to “deny justice to so many black and brown bodies.” The law school
agreed and Robert E. Scott, Columbia’s interim dean, postponed the exams due to
the “trauma” of the decisions which “threatens to undermine a sense that the law
is a fundamental pillar of society designed to protect fairness, due process and
equality.” Students at other law schools are demanding similar delays in their
exams.

I
sympathize with students who feel deeply injured by what they view as injustice
and Columbia was right to reach out to students. However, as lawyers, we work in
a trauma-filled environment where not just the rights but the very lives of our
clients are sometimes in the balance.

In
the cacophony of apologies, what is being lost is the sense academic freedom and
free speech on college campuses. Ironically, Tanyolacar did “facilitate a
dialogue” but it is whether an open dialogue is still possible on our
over-charged campuses.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, is a member of
USA Today’s Board of Contributors.

USA Today, December 15, 2014.