Professor Shaviro is a stupid person who said a stupid thing. His endorsement of murder rather than shouting down disfavored speakers is morally repugnant. Shouting down disfavored speakers is not permitted in our community. Killing a human being for making disfavored statements is murder.
We do not believe that any student should have to take a course from Professor Shaviro. Accordingly, I have arranged for alternative professors to teach each of his courses. Consistent with the First Amendment, we cannot take adverse job action against Professor Shaviro, but we can act to protect our students from being required to submit to his judgment on any issue, including grades.
A student may choose to continue to attend a course as taught by Professor Shaviro.
Funny, if my title and name were "President Wilson" I would be extra wary of being the guy arguing that someone's heated rhetoric was unprotected speech.
Nominative determinism at work once again I suppose.
Thanks for this analysis. This is a more interesting case than I had understood from news reports.
Reading Shaviro's actual post, I think his error is less egregious than news reports had suggested. It's clear that the actual message he inteded to send lies in the two central paragraphs of his post, which echo Ken White's well-articulated position. Given the nature of Shaviro's academic profile, I suspect he was writing with a sense of urgency to people he was aligned with, but felt very worried that the content of his message would make it appear that he was unacceptably straying from their common ground. So he framed it with a "more radical than thou" preface, headed with careful esculpatory phrasing, before putting on his Popehat and aligning, consciously or not, with this blog.
That seems a tactically clever design to me, in theory. The problem that Shaviro seems to have overlooked is that he was posting in the real world (or, perhaps, the real virtual world), where the impact of his post was going to fall on people outside his small, academic, targeted audience. In that context his clever tactic created exactly the same effect as the Stanford law students' stupid tactic that he was attacking for its tactical stupidity. He became a mock-troll feeding real trolls a gourmet meal (great fodder for post-modernist deconstruction, though).
Still, I'd never heard of Sholem Schwarzbard and I'm always eager to learn. Now that I have Wikipedia-deep knowledge of the case I can see how totally irrelevant it is, but Shaviro's a teacher and I have to admit that he taught me something new.
On a slightly more serious note, I think Shapiro wins but I think that is through the malleable Pickering Test. Shapiro’s comments are on an issue of public concern. I think the University can plausibly argue that a professor suggesting that people should kill invited speakers on a college campus is something that interferes with the efficiency and disruption free work place, with lots of gesturing towards school shootings or something.
I think this could be a whole new blogging oeuvre for Professor Shaviro, stealth assassin from the clouds, and I eagerly await hearing how his unquenchable bloodlust informs his opinions on various topical issues.
“So here is what I think about provoking people to say stupid bullshit about free speech. Although I do not advocate union busting or committing the largest mass murder in Michigan history, I think it is far more admirable to shout fire in a crowded theater than it is to post some doofy nonsense on Facebook.”
I woke up to this story and just rolled my eyes. Wasn't really worth an extra thought but as an academic expatriate (U of Hawaii, 1987-2001; Los Alamos National Lab afterwards) thanks for covering it, anyway.
Sometimes academics say the silliest things. This story reminded me of the year of the U of Hawaii faculty strike, when a Professor of English lamented how much harder her job was, sitting in her office and writing papers, compared to the labors of the garbage collectors or bus drivers. Most of us rolled our eyes. My wife, teaching five sections of community college Bonehead English, had hypothetical thoughts short of Brandenburg about what should be done to English professors divorced from reality.
Ken, your last paragraph sums it up. In an age when it has become fashionable for many on campuses to exercise the heckler's veto over ideas they don't like, the University president, perhaps, should do two things. One, remind the campus that interfering with other people's speech, whether by homicide or screaming like idiots to shout down a speaker, is not compatible with the purpose of a university. If the professor actually proceeds to encourage campus unrest rather than only speaking hypothetically, it might be actionable. Two, that what Professor Dingbat said on his own time and without a faculty hat on was stupid but protected speech and that yes, at times, even Yale-educated tenured professors can sound like Arthur Figgis, the village idiot on the Monty Python show. Recall Arthur could sound quite erudite except when choosing to act out for the public. But Prof. Shaviro's words do not represent the thinking of the university.
There's a much simpler rule to use: if you find out a person has said "there's no such thing as cancel culture, it's just called being held accountable", they lose any right to object to being "held accountable" for their speech.
You know what would happen to someone on the other side who said anything remotely like this.
Since I am in the presence of an expert, I will present a hypothetical involving a government actor and an employee, with similar but not identical facts.
If a police officer posts from his private social media account that it is morally admirable to kill African-Americans who "don't know their place", there may not necessarily be workplace disruption, but he or she would have provided evidence of unfitness for the job.
What does the law say about the department, a government actor, firing the hypothetical officer?
Of the differences between this hypothetical and the real case, which differences are legally important?
Again, I agree with your analysis. No matter how provocative and moronic Professor Shaviro’s comments are- and I oppose bigotry and intolerance as much as the next 60s liberal- turning this over to law enforcement is nonsensical and demeans those instances when speech is truly incited and needs to be moderated. My response would have been more like “ we’re very disappointed in Professor Shapiro’ s comments that it would be better to kill those who espouse bigotry rather than shout them down. While we defend his right to free speech and are certain that no rational person would see his comments as inciting or fomenting violence, his rhetoric around murder is inappropriate and only seeks to exacerbate a situation, rather than elicit an honest analysis of how to handle situations when someone’s bigotry, intolerance or just plain disagreement with you on an issue occurs. We should moving towards open and constructive debate, not ratcheting up emotions that espouse violence as a ways of handling our differences.” Or words to that effect, and maybe add “after all, we’re an institution of higher learning, not Fox News.”
I understand your point completely. Yet, Tte past 6 years have revealed to me the degree of malevolence that we have in America along with all the celestial revelations provided to Supreme Court Justices who, oddly, look to the 18th century in the Dobbs case, but ignore the history of gun restrictions that go back to the settlement of the west.
What I mean is. Is it possible that conditions in society have changed such that we need to re-examine how close or imminent means in incitement?
Ken, much respect for your consistency on these issues. He’s a moron, but morons still get to say moronic things without fear of government retaliation.
Thank you for shedding light on a situation that is already generating a lot of heat.
Since you did not ask, here is the statement that I would have put out if I were Wayne State University President M. Roy Wilson:
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Professor Shaviro is a stupid person who said a stupid thing. His endorsement of murder rather than shouting down disfavored speakers is morally repugnant. Shouting down disfavored speakers is not permitted in our community. Killing a human being for making disfavored statements is murder.
We do not believe that any student should have to take a course from Professor Shaviro. Accordingly, I have arranged for alternative professors to teach each of his courses. Consistent with the First Amendment, we cannot take adverse job action against Professor Shaviro, but we can act to protect our students from being required to submit to his judgment on any issue, including grades.
A student may choose to continue to attend a course as taught by Professor Shaviro.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Funny, if my title and name were "President Wilson" I would be extra wary of being the guy arguing that someone's heated rhetoric was unprotected speech.
Nominative determinism at work once again I suppose.
Of all the possible silly academic hypotheticals, is any sillier than the concept of a post-COVID crowded theater?
This is why I send my children to Garth State University. Party on.
Thanks for this analysis. This is a more interesting case than I had understood from news reports.
Reading Shaviro's actual post, I think his error is less egregious than news reports had suggested. It's clear that the actual message he inteded to send lies in the two central paragraphs of his post, which echo Ken White's well-articulated position. Given the nature of Shaviro's academic profile, I suspect he was writing with a sense of urgency to people he was aligned with, but felt very worried that the content of his message would make it appear that he was unacceptably straying from their common ground. So he framed it with a "more radical than thou" preface, headed with careful esculpatory phrasing, before putting on his Popehat and aligning, consciously or not, with this blog.
That seems a tactically clever design to me, in theory. The problem that Shaviro seems to have overlooked is that he was posting in the real world (or, perhaps, the real virtual world), where the impact of his post was going to fall on people outside his small, academic, targeted audience. In that context his clever tactic created exactly the same effect as the Stanford law students' stupid tactic that he was attacking for its tactical stupidity. He became a mock-troll feeding real trolls a gourmet meal (great fodder for post-modernist deconstruction, though).
Still, I'd never heard of Sholem Schwarzbard and I'm always eager to learn. Now that I have Wikipedia-deep knowledge of the case I can see how totally irrelevant it is, but Shaviro's a teacher and I have to admit that he taught me something new.
On a slightly more serious note, I think Shapiro wins but I think that is through the malleable Pickering Test. Shapiro’s comments are on an issue of public concern. I think the University can plausibly argue that a professor suggesting that people should kill invited speakers on a college campus is something that interferes with the efficiency and disruption free work place, with lots of gesturing towards school shootings or something.
This “Professor” should be fired.
Out of a cannon.
Into the sun.
I think this could be a whole new blogging oeuvre for Professor Shaviro, stealth assassin from the clouds, and I eagerly await hearing how his unquenchable bloodlust informs his opinions on various topical issues.
“So here is what I think about provoking people to say stupid bullshit about free speech. Although I do not advocate union busting or committing the largest mass murder in Michigan history, I think it is far more admirable to shout fire in a crowded theater than it is to post some doofy nonsense on Facebook.”
I woke up to this story and just rolled my eyes. Wasn't really worth an extra thought but as an academic expatriate (U of Hawaii, 1987-2001; Los Alamos National Lab afterwards) thanks for covering it, anyway.
Sometimes academics say the silliest things. This story reminded me of the year of the U of Hawaii faculty strike, when a Professor of English lamented how much harder her job was, sitting in her office and writing papers, compared to the labors of the garbage collectors or bus drivers. Most of us rolled our eyes. My wife, teaching five sections of community college Bonehead English, had hypothetical thoughts short of Brandenburg about what should be done to English professors divorced from reality.
Ken, your last paragraph sums it up. In an age when it has become fashionable for many on campuses to exercise the heckler's veto over ideas they don't like, the University president, perhaps, should do two things. One, remind the campus that interfering with other people's speech, whether by homicide or screaming like idiots to shout down a speaker, is not compatible with the purpose of a university. If the professor actually proceeds to encourage campus unrest rather than only speaking hypothetically, it might be actionable. Two, that what Professor Dingbat said on his own time and without a faculty hat on was stupid but protected speech and that yes, at times, even Yale-educated tenured professors can sound like Arthur Figgis, the village idiot on the Monty Python show. Recall Arthur could sound quite erudite except when choosing to act out for the public. But Prof. Shaviro's words do not represent the thinking of the university.
This was the most entertaining thing I've read in a while. Keep up the good work.
There's a much simpler rule to use: if you find out a person has said "there's no such thing as cancel culture, it's just called being held accountable", they lose any right to object to being "held accountable" for their speech.
You know what would happen to someone on the other side who said anything remotely like this.
Ken, I love you. "Comp-lit majors carrying baseball bats"🤣🤣🤣
Since I am in the presence of an expert, I will present a hypothetical involving a government actor and an employee, with similar but not identical facts.
If a police officer posts from his private social media account that it is morally admirable to kill African-Americans who "don't know their place", there may not necessarily be workplace disruption, but he or she would have provided evidence of unfitness for the job.
What does the law say about the department, a government actor, firing the hypothetical officer?
Of the differences between this hypothetical and the real case, which differences are legally important?
Again, I agree with your analysis. No matter how provocative and moronic Professor Shaviro’s comments are- and I oppose bigotry and intolerance as much as the next 60s liberal- turning this over to law enforcement is nonsensical and demeans those instances when speech is truly incited and needs to be moderated. My response would have been more like “ we’re very disappointed in Professor Shapiro’ s comments that it would be better to kill those who espouse bigotry rather than shout them down. While we defend his right to free speech and are certain that no rational person would see his comments as inciting or fomenting violence, his rhetoric around murder is inappropriate and only seeks to exacerbate a situation, rather than elicit an honest analysis of how to handle situations when someone’s bigotry, intolerance or just plain disagreement with you on an issue occurs. We should moving towards open and constructive debate, not ratcheting up emotions that espouse violence as a ways of handling our differences.” Or words to that effect, and maybe add “after all, we’re an institution of higher learning, not Fox News.”
I understand your point completely. Yet, Tte past 6 years have revealed to me the degree of malevolence that we have in America along with all the celestial revelations provided to Supreme Court Justices who, oddly, look to the 18th century in the Dobbs case, but ignore the history of gun restrictions that go back to the settlement of the west.
What I mean is. Is it possible that conditions in society have changed such that we need to re-examine how close or imminent means in incitement?
Ken, much respect for your consistency on these issues. He’s a moron, but morons still get to say moronic things without fear of government retaliation.