ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Read The Letter Harvard’s Student Paper Won’t Publish

[Valletta]

It’s a telling irony the paper that reassured its readers “Free speech is the guiding principle of this Editorial Board” refuses to publish a letter calling for less censorship and viewpoint discrimination on campus.
That reflects Harvard’s double-standard approach to free speech: contextual free speech for the enemies of Jews and their state; censorship for supporters of Israel and critics of Harvard.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Read The Letter Harvard’s Student Paper Won’t Publish

The Harvard Crimson has refused to publish a letter I wrote critical of president Claudine Gay’s testimony in Congress.

dailycaller.com

He nailed it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It’s a telling irony the paper that reassured its readers “Free speech is the guiding principle of this Editorial Board” refuses to publish

Declined to publish.

As even he notes: "By refusing to publish my short reply to Professor Fried, the paper didn’t deny my free speech."

So there's no irony here. Just someone upset the paper didn't publish his letter.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

As even he notes: "By refusing to publish my short reply to Professor Fried, the paper didn’t deny my free speech."

That is an important distinction...however, that brings up the philosophical discussion surrounding:
"The Right to Speech" vs. "The Right to Reach"...and how the two concepts are related.


Meaning...if "University President Tom Smith" were running a University, and for every student who wanted to publish a pro-Israel opinion, Tom Smith gave them a front page article in school newspaper, free airtime on the school closed circuit channel, and 3 free billboards to put their message on, but every student who wanted to convey a pro-Palestine message was relegated to handing out flyers on street corners, while neither faction would be getting their free speech rights denied, one could certainly make a strong case that there's favoritism happening.

For entities that are "gatekeepers of reach", granting a lot of reach to your own side and not much to the other side (when considering speech rights) largely becomes a distinction without much of a difference.

If I help facilitate someone on my side getting their message out there to a very large audience (while declining to do that for someone on the other side), the end result isn't much different than if I just flat out tried to ban the other side from talking at all.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Declined to publish.

As even he notes: "By refusing to publish my short reply to Professor Fried, the paper didn’t deny my free speech."

So there's no irony here. Just someone upset the paper didn't publish his letter.

Is a deliberate or accidental misrepresentation of the letter?

He clearly thinks they're engaging in viewpoint discrimination.

Harvard should be stripped of federal funding. That's supposed to be an institute of higher learning. It's now a joke.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That is an important distinction...however, that brings up the philosophical discussion surrounding:
"The Right to Speech" vs. "The Right to Reach"...and how the two concepts are related.


Meaning...if "University President Tom Smith" were running a University, and for every student who wanted to publish a pro-Israel opinion, Tom Smith gave them a front page article in school newspaper, free airtime on the school closed circuit channel, and 3 free billboards to put their message on, but every student who wanted to convey a pro-Palestine message was relegated to handing out flyers on street corners, while neither faction would be getting their free speech rights denied, one could certainly make a strong case that there's favoritism happening.

For entities that are "gatekeepers of reach", granting a lot of reach to your own side and not much to the other side (when considering speech rights) largely becomes a distinction without much of a difference.

If I help facilitate someone on my side getting their message out there to a very large audience (while declining to do that for someone on the other side), the end result isn't much different than if I just flat out tried to ban the other side from talking at all.

I'm done with using terms the left invents for its own immoral behavior.

They aren't really cancelling anyone...they're mainly engaging in political persecution and in the case of MeToo...financial lynching.

They aren't merely practicing diversity and inclusion (forget equity...Mr Dershowitz made that clear) they're practicing racial discrimination and exclusion.

It would be nice if Mr Dershowitz acknowledged the part the Jewish community played in this sorry state. He saw this coming for years??? Why didn't he speak up when the ADL was painting "white supremacists" as some pervasive threat? Where was he when BLM was marching around yelling "ACAB"?

And then they came for the Jews, because white men are a much larger voting block and frankly, they aren't attending college so often now that it's a scam.

I'm glad he got this out before that Epstein list gets published. I heard he's on it.

 

[DaisyDay]

In other words:

 

[durangodawood]

"Right to reach"?

Interesting. A positive claim on others to provide you a platform for your message.

Not buying it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

"Right to reach"?

Interesting. A positive claim on others to provide you a platform for your message.

Not buying it.

To clarify, I don't think any truly private entity should be compelled to platform everyone else.

What I was referencing is the fact is that the concepts of "speech" and "reach" are intertwined in that one is pretty useless without the other.

If I'm allowed to speak in a way that reaches 1 million people
And you're relegated to talk to 5 people at a park, that and a $1.25 will get you a cup of coffee.


Where it gets messy is that most universities (even ones that are "private" schools) are receiving some form of government funds. So while a truly private entity is free to amplify one message over another, I don't know that entities receiving the proceeds of other peoples' tax dollars should be playing that game.

In the case of Harvard (per their own financial disclosures),
Federal funding, which accounted for approximately 67% of total sponsored revenue in fiscal year 2021, increased 1% to $625 million.

 

[durangodawood]

To clarify, I don't think any truly private entity should be compelled to platform everyone else.

What I was referencing is the fact is that the concepts of "speech" and "reach" are intertwined in that one is pretty useless without the other.

If I'm allowed to speak in a way that reaches 1 million people
And you're relegated to talk to 5 people at a park, that and a $1.25 will get you a cup of coffee.

Thats how its supposed to be. Horrible and odious views should face an uphill battle in getting prominence - not because we outlaw them, but simply because decent people want nothing to do with them.

Free speech is not entitlement to reach and it was never conceived as such. Note that Dershowitz in the OP article himself says that : "By refusing to publish my short reply to Professor Fried, the paper didn’t deny my free speech."

Where it gets messy is that most universities (even ones that are "private" schools) are receiving some form of government funds. So while a truly private entity is free to amplify one message over another, I don't know that entities receiving the proceeds of other peoples' tax dollars should be playing that game.

In the case of Harvard (per their own financial disclosures),
Federal funding, which accounted for approximately 67% of total sponsored revenue in fiscal year 2021, increased 1% to $625 million.

Depends. The biology dept getting an NSF grant should not compel the school paper one way or the other.

Otoh, I do agree that most higher ed does oppress certain legit exchange of idea. But the answer isnt "anything goes". Instead we need a fight of ideas based on sounds principles that exposes the situation, which may have to come from outside the institutions in question.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Thats how its supposed to be. Horrible and odious views should face an uphill battle in getting prominence - not because we outlaw them, but simply because decent people want nothing to do with them.

Right, but in a "perfect world", that uphill battle should be the result of something more organic, like something resembling a public consensus.

Not by a fraction of the population acting as gatekeepers, and deciding for everyone else what should be considered "horrible" based on their own tastes and preferences.

Depends. The biology dept getting an NSF grant should not compel the school paper one way or the other.

Otoh, I do agree that most higher ed does oppress certain legit exchange of idea. But the answer isnt "anything goes". Instead we need a fight of ideas based on sounds principles that exposes the situation, which may have to come from outside the institutions in question.

The "Harvard Crimson" has a rather unique source of funding, where it doesn't appear to be directly from tax dollars (although, many Universities do fund their papers that way via Endowment grants), but in the form of donations (many of them outside entities -- some corporate, and some of which do receive some tax money)...as well as other entities from within the University ecosystem itself, some of which who do receive grants (like the Harvard Kennedy School)

Financial support for Harvard Kennedy School comes from a broad spectrum of funders in two principal forms: Sponsored grants are received from U.S. government agencies, foreign government agencies, multilateral agencies, private organizations, and non-profit foundations.


So, I'll acknowledge that Harvard's school paper is in something of an ethical grey area...it's also unique in that it acts as the city of Cambridge's only newspaper (which is is unique compared to others) and in some ways, gets treated as a Bona Fide media outlet instead of just a school newspaper. It'd be like if the NY Times were run by the students of NYU.

 

[durangodawood]

Right, but in a "perfect world", that uphill battle should be the result of something more organic, like something resembling a public consensus.

My fear is that in the rush to build a perfect world we end up with the govt taking away the discretion that private entities have to set their own standards, or even just preferences, about what to publish. That would be an actual free speech violation.

Not by a fraction of the population acting as gatekeepers, and deciding for everyone else what should be considered "horrible" based on their own tastes and preferences.....

That actually is freedom at work. People put money and effort into building forums for this and that, and they get to make the rules so long as they dont throw up impediments to competition.

There have always been subcultures with their own forums, press, events etc. I dont recall them demanding someone step in to force mainstream entities to host their particular views. Sometimes the subculture notions would catch fire and "go mainstream". Thats how these things go in a free society.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

There have always been subcultures with their own forums, press, events etc. I dont recall them demanding someone step in to force mainstream entities to host their particular views. Sometimes the subculture notions would catch fire and "go mainstream". Thats how these things go in a free society.

Actually, we did have something called the "Fairness Doctrine" in the US (that lasted for nearly 40 years, but was allowed to expire in 1987)

Fairness doctrine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been cited as a contributing factor in the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[5][6]


The part in bold is a theory I happen to think has merit.

If major platforms, media entities, etc... box a particular viewpoint out of the mainstream public discussion, it forces people off into their own little pockets and echo chambers.

As the saying goes, "sunlight is the best disinfectant".

A political pundit (I forgot the guy's name again) did an interview with Lex Friedman and was explaining how France was left scratching their heads, not being able to figure out why, that in the few years following their strict anti-antisemitism speech laws went into effect, antisemitism (and pockets of extremism) actually increased.

His explanation was that "by taking away the public/mainstream discourse aspect of that conversation, you've all but guaranteed that the only people they'll ever talk to are other extremists, and their ideas will never be challenged"


For instance, let's say you have a person who's an anti-vaxxer, if they're allowed to debate that position in a mainstream public forum, there's at least a chance that they (or someone who sees them losing the debate) will jump ship and move to the other side of that issues.

There's virtually 0% chance of that happening if they're relegated to an anti-vaccine echo chamber.

It also conveys a certain level of "weakness" when too many people are content to get on-board with "deplatform over debate" because it sends the message "we're afraid we might lose the debate or their side may be able to construct a convincing argument or two, and we can't risk that"


I think there's some value in looking at the trajectories of different conspiracy theories over time.

For instance, "Flat Earth" is one that's yet to take off in any significant way...yet, the vaccine conspiracies managed to spread like wildfire.

I think at least some of that can be explained by the fact that on the flat earth topic, there's never been a shortage of people willing to step up and make them look silly in very public settings (either on social media, or on actual debate stages), as to where the anti-vaxx stuff has been met with "well, we just need to censor them".

It appears (surprisingly) the DailyBeast agrees with me on this.

Here’s Why Legitimate Scientists Should Debate RFK Jr.

Joe Rogan offered a ton of money for scientist Peter Hotez to debate RFK Jr. about vaccines. Hotez should do it and expose RFK Jr. as the unhinged crank that he is.

www.thedailybeast.com

(they even put the "sunlight disinfectant" quote in that I used earlier)

 

[durangodawood]

Actually, we did have something called the "Fairness Doctrine" in the US (that lasted for nearly 40 years, but was allowed to expire in 1987)

Yes I remember it. But dont forget the rationale, which was that an entire huge sector of media (broadcast) was regulated and govt apportioned because of natural limits on the availability of spectrum.

Note that there was never a "fairness doctrine" for print, as no such natural limits applied. Cable pretty much blew up those limits. Streaming and the internet generally, even more so.

The part in bold is a theory I happen to think has merit.

If major platforms, media entities, etc... box a particular viewpoint out of the mainstream public discussion, it forces people off into their own little pockets and echo chambers.

Does it? I have access to a variety of views, and Im not special.

In fact thats the problem right there: forcing people. In the interest of freedom, we ought to force people as a last resort. But maybe youre right and we've approached that resort, where people embedded in Fox news 24/7 should be forced to "eat their broccoli" so to speak, and digest some countervailing content, as everywhere they turn will have to present them with "both sides".

And same for the "liberals" - tho I dont think they have been deliberately lied to, to satisfy their demand to be lied to, in quite the same consequential ways. (See the Fox news defamation trial depositions). But I do agree that they aren't getting a fully complete picture.

As the saying goes, "sunlight is the best disinfectant".

A political pundit (I forgot the guy's name again) did an interview with Lex Friedman and was explaining how France was left scratching their heads, not being able to figure out why, that in the few years following their strict anti-antisemitism speech laws went into effect, antisemitism (and pockets of extremism) actually increased.

His explanation was that "by taking away the public/mainstream discourse aspect of that conversation, you've all but guaranteed that the only people they'll ever talk to are other extremists, and their ideas will never be challenged"


For instance, let's say you have a person who's an anti-vaxxer, if they're allowed to debate that position in a mainstream public forum, there's at least a chance that they (or someone who sees them losing the debate) will jump ship and move to the other side of that issues.

There's virtually 0% chance of that happening if they're relegated to an anti-vaccine echo chamber.

It also conveys a certain level of "weakness" when too many people are content to get on-board with "deplatform over debate" because it sends the message "we're afraid we might lose the debate or their side may be able to construct a convincing argument or two, and we can't risk that"


I think there's some value in looking at the trajectories of different conspiracy theories over time.

For instance, "Flat Earth" is one that's yet to take off in any significant way...yet, the vaccine conspiracies managed to spread like wildfire.

I think at least some of that can be explained by the fact that on the flat earth topic, there's never been a shortage of people willing to step up and make them look silly in very public settings (either on social media, or on actual debate stages), as to where the anti-vaxx stuff has been met with "well, we just need to censor them".

It appears (surprisingly) the DailyBeast agrees with me on this.

Here’s Why Legitimate Scientists Should Debate RFK Jr.

Joe Rogan offered a ton of money for scientist Peter Hotez to debate RFK Jr. about vaccines. Hotez should do it and expose RFK Jr. as the unhinged crank that he is.

www.thedailybeast.com

(they even put the "sunlight disinfectant" quote in that I used earlier)

No serious media hosts flat earth debates. Thats all one to one in the backwaters of discussion forums. No serious media should even waste their own or anyone elses time with that total nonsense. People reject flat earth because their intuition favors round earth, not because theyve seen flat earth taken apart on tv.

Re something like vaccines, I have doubts that most people will be able to adjudicate between the real and fake "studies" that each side presents, and the overall impression will be "well no one really knows!" Im starting to wonder if both truth and lies both blossom under sunlight in our unhinged era. Now I dont think we should ban anti vax talk by any means. But Im fine if people dont want to host the parts of it that are flat out lies.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No serious media hosts flat earth debates. Thats all one to one in the backwaters of discussion forums. No serious media should even waste their own or anyone elses time with that total nonsense. People dont buy flat earth because their intuition favors round earth, not because theyve seen flat earth taken apart on tv.

Re something like vaccines, I have doubts that most people will be able to adjudicate between the real and fake "studies" that each side presents, and the overall impression will be "well no one really knows!" Im starting to wonder if both truth and lies both blossom under sunlight in our unhinged era. Now I dont think we should ban anti vax talk by any means. But Im fine if people dont want to host the parts of it that are flat out lies.

No, you won't find a flat earth debate on CNN if that's what you're referring to...or at least none that I'm aware of.

But they're still on all of the major social media platforms and I'm not aware of any efforts to sensor them.

For instance, this video has over 4.5 million views.

The "covid equivalent" of this debate would've been yanked off of YouTube pretty quickly.


That leads me to one of two conclusions:

1) People on a particular side of the debate are afraid they may not be able to "win" a debate. Neil DeGrasse Tyson talks about this in a interview he did with BigThink, where he stated "it's possible to have objective truth on your side and still lose a debate if the other side is a skilled enough debater" (and perhaps that concerns people?)
...and that dovetails into #2
2) There's something of a bell curve with the preposterousness of ideas and how much people are willing to debate the proponents of them (or avoid debating it out of fear that they may be out-debated)

IE: the idea of the earth being flat is more ridiculous than the theories about the covid vaccines, therefore, it's easier to slam dunk against the former even if one isn't the most skilled public speaker.

If an idea is common sense enough or preposterous enough, people don't seem to care how skilled the orator on the other side is.

For instance, if I was debating for the idea that smoking is bad for you, or against the idea that smoking is good for you...I wouldn't be particularly concerned about debating regardless of how skilled the presenter was on the other side.

However, if it was a less-ridiculous sounding assertion (that had elements of nuance), I could easily lose that debate in the eyes of the audience if I wasn't on my "A-game".

As the previous article I linked alluded to, the point of a debate isn't necessarily to convince your opponent, it's to convince the audience.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's been a long time since I read a student newspaper, but I don't remember them having a lot of editorials from non-students in them. Mr Dershowitz doth protest too much. He should try "Old Lawyers Monthly" or some other publication from his peer group.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It's been a long time since I read a student newspaper, but I don't remember them having a lot of editorials from non-students in them.

Once upon a time Dershowitz taught at Harvard Law.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Once upon a time Dershowitz taught at Harvard Law.

and student newspapers don't generally publish faculty articles.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

and student newspapers don't generally publish faculty articles.

As I referenced in my previous post (although, it was buried in a bunch of other stuff), the Harvard Crimson is something of a unique publication in that, while it's the school paper, it's also the official daily newspaper of the city of Cambridge.
(perhaps that's more common than I'm knowing, but I do think it's somewhat unique to them)

In the case of the Harvard Crimson, they actually have an entire section dedicated to op-eds, many of which are authored by Harvard (current or former) professors.

For instance, they just published a piece written by Steven Pinker in October (who's a well-known Harvard Professor)

Academic Freedom Prohibits Censorship and Punishment, Not Judgment | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson

The principle of academic freedom gives all members of our community the right to express their opinions without censorship, intimidation, or punishment. It also gives other members of the community the right to rebut those opinions and to draw inferences about the judgment of those expressing them.

www.thecrimson.com

They also published one from Charles Fried (a former Harvard professor)

President Gay Was Right: Context Matters | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson

I have taught at Harvard Law School since 1961 and began practicing before the Supreme Court in 1985 and I would have felt professionally obligated to answer as the presidents did. It does depend on the context.

www.thecrimson.com

In fact, by their own mission statements, being affiliated with Harvard is a requirement for their Op-eds
We welcome op-ed submissions from the entire Harvard community. With the rare exception of extenuating circumstances, op-ed authors must be affiliated with Harvard.

 

[durangodawood]

No, you won't find a flat earth debate on CNN if that's what you're referring to...or at least none that I'm aware of.

But they're still on all of the major social media platforms and I'm not aware of any efforts to sensor them.

For instance, this video has over 4.5 million views.

The "covid equivalent" of this debate would've been yanked off of YouTube pretty quickly.


That leads me to one of two conclusions:

1) People on a particular side of the debate are afraid they may not be able to "win" a debate. Neil DeGrasse Tyson talks about this in a interview he did with BigThink, where he stated "it's possible to have objective truth on your side and still lose a debate if the other side is a skilled enough debater" (and perhaps that concerns people?)
...and that dovetails into #2
2) There's something of a bell curve with the preposterousness of ideas and how much people are willing to debate the proponents of them (or avoid debating it out of fear that they may be out-debated)

IE: the idea of the earth being flat is more ridiculous than the theories about the covid vaccines, therefore, it's easier to slam dunk against the former even if one isn't the most skilled public speaker.

If an idea is common sense enough or preposterous enough, people don't seem to care how skilled the orator on the other side is.

For instance, if I was debating for the idea that smoking is bad for you, or against the idea that smoking is good for you...I wouldn't be particularly concerned about debating regardless of how skilled the presenter was on the other side.

However, if it was a less-ridiculous sounding assertion (that had elements of nuance), I could easily lose that debate in the eyes of the audience if I wasn't on my "A-game".

As the previous article I linked alluded to, the point of a debate isn't necessarily to convince your opponent, it's to convince the audience.

As I mentioned, flat earth is doomed out of the gate because people intuitions disfavor it - not because they are on the fence and clever argument sets them right. I think if flat earth was inherently attractive and assent to it compelled behaviors that are dangerous to others, then we'd see a different attitude toward it from youtube, for better or worse.

But, to the essence of our disagreement, even if Im completely wrong about this, I still dont think its the states place to compel youtube to host any of it. We have a big liberty interest in keeping govt out of those private entity decisions as much as possible. If govt compulsion has any place it might be to prohibit hosting instructional videos for making powerful bombs, and stuff like that.

 

[essentialsaltes]

and student newspapers don't generally publish faculty articles.

The Crimson published a letter supporting Gay from a Harvard Law prof.