Read on Twitter
What does the Newsweek kerfuffle about Harris’s eligibility for VP have to do with campus free speech and deplatforming debates? I’m glad you asked! The short answer: a lot. A brief 
. (1/11)
. (1/11)
First things first: Eastman’s argument is wrong. It has been for a long time, as @Profepps, @kewhittington, @jadler1969, @IlyaSomin, Akhil Amar, @questauthority, and many others have demonstrated. I collected some of those arguments in this thread. (2/11) https://twitter.com/ConnorMEwing/status/1293708635487576065
Soon after Eastman’s op-ed was posted, Newsweek’s opinion editor and global editor-in-chief posted an apology. Well, not really. They were sorry the way people who aren’t really sorry are sorry—they regretted that readers assumed certain things or reacted in certain ways. (3/11)
What struck me, though, was one piece of evidence offered for why it was perfectly acceptable to provide a platform for Eastman’s position: His argument is routinely aired on (the best!) law school campuses. If that’s true, then what’s so wrong with airing it in an op-ed? (4/11)
So there’s the connection between l’affaire Newsweek & campus free speech/deplatforming: The boundaries of reasonable disagreement on the opinion pages are constituted, at least in part, by the marketplace of ideas within the university. But that’s a *very* bad argument. (5/11)
One prominent argument in the interminable campus free speech/deplatforming debates is that institutions of higher education shouldn’t suppress speech. In fact, the argument goes, the university is the place where any and all viewpoints should be expressed and tested. (6/11)
But if campus discourse is governed by a free- or open-market ethos, that can’t provide any substantive, independent support for the legitimacy or acceptability of particular viewpoints outside of the campus context. The two are entirely separate issues. (7/11)
Where does this leave us? If the justification offered by Newsweek is right, then the fight over the boundaries of reasonable disagreement should & will be fought on campuses. If the campus is the gateway for broader acceptability & legitimacy, I think that’s inevitable. (8/11)
Alternatively, we could acknowledge that journalistic outlets & universities are quite different institutions. They serve different goals, advance different purposes, & therefore have different responsibilities. (9/11)
In that case, universities could & should have a broader range of acceptable speech--perhaps even a strong presumption in favor of speech--while editors (among others) could & should exercise greater discretion & gate-keeping authority. (10/11)
Of course, this won’t resolve any substantive disagreements! But recognizing the distinction would at least allow those disagreements to be confronted directly, which is exactly what Newsweek’s response precluded. (11/11)
