Free Speech "Wisdom" From Erwin Chemerinsky and UCI Chancellor Howard Gillman

UC Irvine Chancellor Howard Gillman and his former law school dean, Erwin Chemerinsky, are always lecturing us about free speech issues even though the UCI campus has been remarkably unsuccessful in dealing with pro-Palestinian disruption pro-Israel events, which they have done with virtual impunity.

In the wake of their latest slap on the wrist "punishment" of the Students for Justice in Palestine after the latter's latest disruption of an event they didn't agree with, Gillman and Chemerinsky have penned another article, this time in the Wall Street Journal, giving us advice on how to prevent fiascoes like they regularly experience. I have inserted my own comments in bold between certain paragraphs. The authors article is in Italics with quotation marks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-free-speech-to-do-list-for-college-administrators-1504550276


"During the past year appearances by controversial speakers on college campuses have led to a string of tense, sometimes violent, incidents. As students return to school, administrators will again face the challenge of protecting freedom of speech while ensuring safety for their students, staff and faculty. We offer this checklist to help them prepare for the difficult issues that are sure to arise. 

1  Disseminate a clear statement of free-speech values and create opportunities to teach the campus community about free speech. Senior administrators at colleges and universities need to communicate with their communities the vital importance of freedom of expression and academic freedom for higher education. At a minimum, they must state that all ideas and views can be expressed, no matter how controversial or offensive, and must explain why a university can’t fulfill its core purpose without this freedom.

Campus officials can no longer assume this is obvious and therefore unnecessary. Our experience is that too many students, faculty and administrators lack familiarity with basic principles of free expression and academic freedom. Because protection of offensive speech comes naturally to few, campuses should supplement strong free speech statements with online resources and educational programming that allow all members of the community to develop a better understanding of the issues. For example, schools can include a discussion of free-speech issues at their freshman orientation programs.

But freedom of expression is never absolute. Some speech—such as true threats and harassment and interfering with the speech of others—is not protected. Campuses can enact regulations that ensure ample opportunities for communication while preventing interference with the teaching and research of faculty and students.

2. Publish a clear statement supporting the presence of controversial speakers before particular incidents occur. Speakers should never be excluded because of their views, but campus officials also need to explain that it is completely appropriate, and indeed desirable, for students and faculty to express disagreement with speakers they find  objectionable. There can be nondisruptive protests at events, statements of objection through the media, and counter-events that highlight different messages. As the old saying goes, the answer to speech we don’t like is more speech.

3. Devise and publicize transparent and neutral procedures for approving events. Campuses typically require advance permission for use of their facilities. There is no free-speech right for groups to demand unconditional access to limited campus venues at a time of their choosing. But the procedures and the criteria for receiving such approval must be clear, stated in advance and applicable to all. Otherwise such fair limitations could be abused."

Comment: This should include not requiring conservative organizations having to put up higher  security deposits for their speakers simply because they are apt to be disrupted by the left. This is currently an issue at UC Berkeley, where Chemerinsky is now the law school dean. In addition, last year UCI tried to suspend the College Republicans for a year over an insurance misunderstanding when they were bringing Milo Yiannopoulos to campus. These practices are clearly discriminatory.

4. "Ensure everyone’s safety. Campuses need to prepare security assessments that ensure adequate protection for controversial speakers and their audiences. A campus might insist on venues that make it easier to prevent protesters from blocking access to the event, and it might require tickets or university identification to minimize the chances of disruption. Speakers in uncontrolled venues on campus public spaces have no right to speak without interruption or rebuttal from a gathering audience, but they do have a right to be protected from violence or threats of violence."

Comment: How about having campus police in place when disruption from pro-Palestinian speakers or leftist groups is all but predictable? That could have avoided the May 10 disruption as well as that of the previous year (May 18, 2016) by Students for Justice in Palestine.

5."Put in place rules that prohibit disrupting the speech of others during authorized campus events—with disciplinary measures when appropriate. Campuses undermine free speech by not responding adequately to those who disrupt others when they are exercising their First Amendment rights. Administrators must defend against the heckler’s veto, where the reaction of the audience can silence the speaker. This does not mean that every minor disruption be treated with severe sanctions. That would also chill speech. But severe or persistent efforts by students to prevent the expression of certain views should be treated as a serious violation of codes of student conduct. "

Comment: How about real punishment, especially for repeat offenders like SJP? For two years running, they have disrupted the annual May I(srael)- Fest with impunity. After the May 18, 2016 disruption, SJP got a letter of warning. After the May 10, 2017 incident, they got two years probation. Reportedly (according to Palestine Legal), no individual students were disciplined.

How about not letting SJP use the Cross Cultural Center for a staging area to disrupt pro-Israel events? How about not allowing the Marxist National Lawyers Guild, which has a chapter at the UCI law school, to lend their assistance to SJP as "legal observers" when SJP disrupts pro-Israel events-as happened May 18, 2016 and May 10, 2017?

"In our roles as university officials, we are aware of the difficulty many campuses face regarding free speech. Careful messaging and planning before crises develop can make a huge difference."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: UCI has not been noted for planning before crisis' develop as evidenced by the incidents I mention. This article is like the farmer telling the rest of us to lock our barns after their own horses have left.