←back to thread

A university president makes a case against cowardice

(www.newyorker.com)
450 points pseudolus | 5 comments | 03 Apr 25 12:29 UTC | HN request time: 1.094s | source
Show context
necubi ◴[03 Apr 25 23:48 UTC] No.43576821[source]▶
Oh hey, Wesleyan on HN! I’m an alumnus (matriculated a year or two after Roth became president). Wesleyan has a rich history of activism and protest, and not always entirely peaceful (Roth’s predecessor, Doug Bennet, had his office firebombed at one point).

I’ve had a few opportunities to speak with Roth since the Gaza war started, and I’ve always found him particularly thoughtful about balancing freedom of expression with a need to provide a safe and open learning environment for everyone on campus. In particular, he never gave in to the unlimited demands of protestors while still defending their right to protest.

In part, he had the moral weight to do that because—unlike many university presidents—he did not give in to the illiberal demands of the left to chill speech post-2020, which then were turned against the left over the past year.

I don’t see any particularly good outcome from any of this; the risk of damaging the incredibly successful American university system is high. Certainly smart foreign students who long dreamed of studying in the US will be having second thoughts if they can be arbitrarily and indefinitely detained.

But I hope the universities that do make it through do with a stronger commitment to the (small l) liberal values of freedom of expression , academic freedom, and intellectual diversity.

replies(7): >>43578254 #>>43578551 #>>43578928 #>>43579619 #>>43582082 #>>43585458 #>>43586399 #
kevingadd ◴[04 Apr 25 06:27 UTC] No.43578928[source]▶
People are being abducted off the street for writing tame op-eds and we're still complaining about the left chilling speech post-2020? What are we doing here?
replies(4): >>43579250 #>>43580751 #>>43581013 #>>43587658 #
rayiner[dead post] ◴[04 Apr 25 12:02 UTC] No.43581013[source]▶
[flagged]
mistersquid ◴[04 Apr 25 12:27 UTC] No.43581261[source]▶
> The US has the prerogative to filter immigrants based on their views and affiliations.

What comes before “filter[ing] immigrants” is due process. Resident aliens have the right to due process which the current US administration is not providing.

Alien residents with every right to be here are being removed from the US illegally and mistakenly.

replies(1): >>43581758 #
1. pclmulqdq ◴[04 Apr 25 13:07 UTC] No.43581758[source]▶
I am not sure there's technically a due process right in the case of immigration visa revocation and the ensuing deportation. There is a due process right in the case of crimes, but getting your visa revoked is not a crime.

The best argument I have heard is that visa revocation may be like firing: the US can do it for almost any reason and you can fire someone for no reason, but can't do it for specific prohibited reasons. Speech would probably be one of those bad reasons under the US's civil rights framework.

replies(1): >>43581979 #
2. rayiner ◴[04 Apr 25 13:23 UTC] No.43581979[source]▶
> The best argument I have heard is that visa revocation may be like firing: the US can do it for almost any reason and you can fire someone for no reason, but can't do it for specific prohibited reasons. Speech would probably be one of those bad reasons under the US's civil rights framework.

No, the U.S. has the prerogative to pick and choose foreigners who are allowed to immigrate based on categories that would be impermissible for employers. That includes nationality, e.g. our green card quota system, as well as speech and affiliation. The Supreme Court has upheld deporting communists who are foreign nationals: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/342/580/.

This is reflected in the statute. Aliens can specifically be excluded for political beliefs and views if the Secretary of State determines that is necessary: "An alien, not described in clause (ii), shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) because of the alien's past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States, unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien's admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest." 8 USC 1182(a)(4)(C)(iii).

replies(2): >>43582167 #>>43590177 #
3. pclmulqdq ◴[04 Apr 25 13:36 UTC] No.43582167[source]▶
I think the real argument here is a constitutional one about that statute, not about the statute itself. It is unlikely, though, that the supreme court would reverse its stance here.
replies(1): >>43582415 #
4. rayiner ◴[04 Apr 25 13:53 UTC] No.43582415{3}[source]▶
The current statute reflects the Supreme Court’s precedents on the issue. The Supreme Court precedent, in turn, reflects the fundamental difference between citizens and non-citizens. The government has plenary power, constitutionally, to decide who is permitted to enter the united states and on what terms.
5. wcarss ◴[05 Apr 25 02:41 UTC] No.43590177[source]▶
> personally determines that the alien's admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.

What, exactly, about Rumeysa Ozturk's student newspaper contributions[1] could possibly justify the notion that her _residence in America_ is compromising a compelling US foreign policy interest?

The clear purpose of that statute including a long list of properties which would not normally be grounds for exclusion is to set a reasonably high bar for the Secretary of State's 'personal opinion' about a compromising admission. If the intent were to grant a broad, beyond question license to deport Fulbright scholars for _engagement in society_, it would just say they can do whatever the fuck they want and skip the salad.