Axel Anderson
Contributing Writer
Nemsie Gonzalez
Editor-in-Chief
On Wednesday Sept. 17, Jamal Greene — a Columbia Law School Dwight Professor of Law, constitutional law scholar and ex-deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel under the Biden administration — joined the campus community in its second installment of the Democracy and Academic Freedom forum in Gault Recital Hall. Professor of Philosophy John Rudisill opened up the lecture with an acknowledgement of Greene’s work, identifying him as being part of the annual Constitution Day and Bell Distinguished Lectureship in Law.
In his lecture titled “The Art of the Deal: Free Speech in the Age of Trump,” Greene argued that college and university campuses should have more agency in deciding what counts as necessary or beneficial free speech, in the same way that institutions are allowed to decide curriculum standards. Greene spoke primarily about four free speech ‘panics’ in recent history that altered the way we understand and appreciate free speech, using these ‘panics’ to underscore a broader message about how discussions about relevant issues should be conducted on campuses — instead of debates and argument, open, non-conflictual conversation should be the focus going forward.
Greene then began his description by explaining his personal investment on free speech on college campuses, saying “in light of the horrific murder of Charlie Kirk last week … the issue of freedom of expression is up everyone’s alley right now.” Greene then explained the first of the four panics with background on speech codes that administrators attempted to put in place in the 1980s and 90s.
Greene presented a key shift in the landscape of speech on campuses that occurred in the 2010s, citing the creation of cancel culture and increase in provocative speakers on college campuses. When Richard Spencer, a white nationalist and Nazi sympathizer, was invited by students to speak on the University of Auburn campus, administrators prohibited him from having a campus-sanctioned platform. U.S. District Judge W. Keith Watkins ruled that Auburn could not prohibit his speaking on the campus.
“The school’s administrators and faculty, not a federal judge, should’ve been the one making that judgment, which I think is fundamentally a pedagogical and educational judgment, not a legal judgment,” Greene stated.
The third panic Greene mentioned referred to “anti-semitism and its relationship to protest.” Greene explained the ways in which Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been interpreted, and the challenges it might pose for college administrators and free speech. “I’m not suggesting exactly how anti-semitism should be defined. I don’t have a strong view on that. I am suggesting that if it is defined in a way that equates anti-zionism or certain criticisms of Israel with anti-semitism, it greatly complicates the task of steering Title VI and steering any student code of conduct clear of the First Amendment and clear of promoting a culture of free expression of political beliefs,” Greene said.
The fourth panic, referred to as “the administrative response,” according to Greene, is the response by higher education institutions to the government’s criticisms of their response to perceived anti-semitism on college campuses. Many universities are facing abrupt changes in grant funding after the Trump Administration “canceled an estimated $7 billion in science grants at more than 600 schools in all 50 states,” according to a Forbes report.
Greene reflected on this phenomenon, saying “the federal government has been cagey about its legal authority to pause appropriated research funds based on claims of anti-semitism, now Title VI … arguably gives the government the power to do so — the government’s pauses did not follow the explicit requirements of the Title VI statutes.”
Greene also suggested a recent lack of procedural legitimacy and transparency in comparison to traditional policy pathways. “Lawmaking is not a personal prerogative of the president — it’s a public act, it’s not a private settling of scores,” Greene said. “It is produced under coercive conditions. I don’t think it’s too much to say that it abandons the very premise of collective governance.”
As Greene closed out his lecture, he stated his plea “for the autonomy of the university to make decisions about the educational environment on campus … these are educational judgements and they should be educational judgements — and not legal ones.”
The event then transitioned to a Q&A session, where audience members posed questions ranging across political issues and current events. One audience member asked about the political environment following Charlie Kirk’s death, referring to the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s show following comments on President Trump’s behavior.
Greene responded, saying, “there’s nothing illegal about firing someone if you’re not a government agency … a government agency firing someone for that reason I think raises very serious … First Amendment issues.” He continued, saying “we all have a responsibility … to participate in that culture in ways that … allow for the free and equal participation of others.”
“[What] all of us need to do more of is engage in a politics that doesn’t have an answer or a conclusion at the end of it,” Greene added. “We have a tendency to structure all of our politics in terms of … who you’re going to vote for ultimately … healthy political discourse doesn’t necessarily have an answer at the end.”
The next installment of Democracy and Academic Freedom: A Forum is planned for October 15 at 7:30 p.m., located in Gault Recital Hall, titled “Academic Freedom and Academic Responsibility.”