In their otherwise valuable new book, two prominent professors acknowledge the need for diverse viewpoints on campuses but don't offer a cure for intellectual uniformity
Since you are a conservative, see if this analogy appeals to you.
Suppose that you started a book club, but the Trump administration wrote a report that said that the nation's book clubs are a problem. They are not fulfilling their "compact with America" and so, from now on, at least 40% of the books in every book club must be approved by the administration. Also, if the book club hires staff, we want those names.
a) Should you acknowledge that the nation's book clubs need to change?
b) Should you admit that, indeed, some of the books you've been reading are bad?
c) Should you pre-adjust the books that you read to avoid the "backlash" you refer to above?
Or, should you tell the Federal Government that the books you read and the staff that you hire are none of their business unless you violate some federal law?
I'm sorry to have to say this, but IMO, what the authors are doing, and what you are doing is your review is "Obeying in Advance" (Tim Snyder, On Tyranny).
Thanks for the challenge. I don't think that's a good analogy, however. As I try to explain in the review, Chemerinsky and Gillman, although they did warn that the very arguments being used to punish speech at universities might be turned against them, made in 2017, on principle, an argument in favor of free speech and academic freedom. Why would they abandon those arguments merely because the Trump administration is exerting pressure on universities. Chemerinsky has been personally involved in litigating against arbitrary Trump admin attacks on the universities. I think you can do that while you also attend to internal reform.
I looked up Chemerinsky's 2025 writings about this. I am happy to see that he takes a strong and principled position. Fancy legal arguments are nice, but you have to remember the wisdom of the school yard. Until you are ready to say no and ready to fight, the bully will never leave you alone.
"The Trump administration has no authority under any law to impose these requirements." - Chemerinsky
Since you are a conservative, see if this analogy appeals to you.
Suppose that you started a book club, but the Trump administration wrote a report that said that the nation's book clubs are a problem. They are not fulfilling their "compact with America" and so, from now on, at least 40% of the books in every book club must be approved by the administration. Also, if the book club hires staff, we want those names.
a) Should you acknowledge that the nation's book clubs need to change?
b) Should you admit that, indeed, some of the books you've been reading are bad?
c) Should you pre-adjust the books that you read to avoid the "backlash" you refer to above?
Or, should you tell the Federal Government that the books you read and the staff that you hire are none of their business unless you violate some federal law?
I'm sorry to have to say this, but IMO, what the authors are doing, and what you are doing is your review is "Obeying in Advance" (Tim Snyder, On Tyranny).
Thanks for the challenge. I don't think that's a good analogy, however. As I try to explain in the review, Chemerinsky and Gillman, although they did warn that the very arguments being used to punish speech at universities might be turned against them, made in 2017, on principle, an argument in favor of free speech and academic freedom. Why would they abandon those arguments merely because the Trump administration is exerting pressure on universities. Chemerinsky has been personally involved in litigating against arbitrary Trump admin attacks on the universities. I think you can do that while you also attend to internal reform.
I looked up Chemerinsky's 2025 writings about this. I am happy to see that he takes a strong and principled position. Fancy legal arguments are nice, but you have to remember the wisdom of the school yard. Until you are ready to say no and ready to fight, the bully will never leave you alone.
"The Trump administration has no authority under any law to impose these requirements." - Chemerinsky
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/resources/human-rights/2025-october/assault-on-academic-freedom/