First, while I’m about to defend some of the substance of the presidents’ remarks, I will not defend—and in fact, I condemn—the style in which they were delivered. For a detailed and devastating critique of the presidents’ insensitive and high-handed manner, see Sarah Isgur and David French of Advisory Opinions.

Second—as my longtime readers know, and as the rest of this post will make clear—I abhor free-speech selectivity. So I do not defend, and in fact I condemn, the many, many times that university leaders, including law school deans, have run roughshod over free expression to advance certain (typically progressive) political perspectives. These are often the very same leaders who, in the words of Greg Lukianoff, “have suddenly rediscovered the value of free speech and academic freedom.” Such inconsistency, even hypocrisy, is utterly unacceptable. And if you read through the Original Jurisdiction archives, you will see me repeatedly calling it out over the years.

[This is really worth reading in full, and I concur with Lat’s approach in theory and concept. The proper response is to protect all speech. But that’s not at all what these universities do — not these three specifically, nor most generally. They routinely punish speech that dissents from their ideological orthodoxy; many of them block conservative speakers on the basis of “safety,” while allowing the pro-Hamas crowds to intimidate Jews and call for genocide in Israel. It is all absurdly hypocritical, especially the rush by these three to hide behind a First Amendment for which they have shown utter contempt for years and maybe decades, with blather about “safe spaces” and “microaggressions.” — Ed]