Freedom of policy

What exactly is free speech?

Is it talk that you don’t have to pay for? Is it a corporation spending money? Is it not wearing a mask? Is it a stripper communicating, um, something?

And what if one person’s free speech is the denial of another person’s free speech? Who gets to be freer?

We, as a society, haven’t spent enough time on these questions. This, I think, is mainly because it would give us severe headaches just thinking about them.

Unfortunately, the American Bar Association doesn’t seem to care about our head pain. The ABA House of Delegates has approved a resolution requiring ABA-accredited schools to come up with “written policies that protect academic freedom.”

According to resolution’s “executive summary,” the point of this was to “provide clarity and information to law schools on academic freedom and freedom of expression issues as they relate to accreditation.”

And what, you may ask, clarity and information did the ABA provide?

See if you can find it. Take your time. I’ll wait …

Are you back?

You’re at a loss, aren’t you? If you aren’t, you’re hallucinating. All the resolution does is tell law schools to come up with their own policies — any policy, just so long as there’s a policy.

Hey, we’re talking free expression here. Free expression might as well apply to school free expression policies too.

Reportedly, protests at talks by controversial characters was one of the reasons for this resolution. Clearly, those situations ought to have a policy applied to them.

But whose freedom of speech gets priority? Is it, for example, the Nazi on the stage or the students yelling at the Nazi? Shouldn’t there be equality of yelling? Or maybe there shouldn’t.

The ABA resolution doesn’t exactly help — it says the policies should protect the right to communicate controversial ideas “including through robust debate, demonstrations, or protests” but also ban “disruptive conduct.”

Is your head hurting now?

It gets worse. The resolution “interpretation” also says the policies on freedom of expression can “reflect the law school’s mission, including a religious mission.” So at religious schools you’re free to talk if the religion is OK with it.

Then there’s “Interpretation 208-3” that begins by saying the policy requirement “does not preclude a law school from identifying the courses that will be taught.”

Apparently, there are law schools that keep their courses secret! Potluck School of Law?

Surprise! You’re in a real property class!

Imagine the excitement. Imagine the disappointment.

At some point, we’re going to have some fun comparing blue state and red state law school policies.

Headline of the week. From Reuters: “Pay is top reason associates stay at their law firms, study finds.”

Law firms that don’t pay are at a serious disadvantage.

Categories / Op-Ed