What could be controversial about awarding an honorary degree to someone who has fought for free speech for 25 years? Yet, with two pieces attacking him in The Dartmouth as a right-wing shill and transphobe, four alums have managed to create a controversy. There should be none.
Lukianoff is a legal scholar of, and non-partisan advocate for, free speech as protected by the First Amendment. He is Stanford Law-trained, where he took "virtually every class the law school offered on the First Amendment,”, and has worked for the Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression since 2001, when he started as its legal director before becoming its president in 2006. He also co-authored the insightful 2018 best-seller “The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting Up a Generation for Failure” with Jonathan Haidt, a well respected social psychologist and professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business. More recently, he co-authored two other serious books on free speech: “The Cancelling of the American Mind” and “The War on Words: 10 Arguments Against Free Speech — and Why They Fail.”
Contrary to the impression the four activist alums try to paint, neither Lukianoff nor FIRE are shills for right wing causes. If they had read the book he and Haidt co-wrote, they would know that both are proud life-long liberal Democrats. And if they had listened to any of the myriad of interviews that Lukianoff has done over the years, they would know that Mr. Lukianoff regularly receives criticism for his and FIRE’s free speech advocacy from both sides of the political spectrum.
That is because he and FIRE are principled free speech purists –– non-partisan and principled advocates for the constitutional rights protected by the First Amendment. Their legal advocacy centers around the core First Amendment principle that everyone has the right to express their view, even when others disagree or may be made uncomfortable. In our highly charged times, there is plenty of speech on both sides of the political spectrum that others not only disagree with but are discomfited by.
A review of the “Cases” section of FIRE’s website shows what Mr. Lukianoff reports in all of his interviews: FIRE regularly defends speakers on both sides, right and left.
Here are just of few of the case descriptions of FIRE’s efforts on behalf of speakers on the non-conservative end of the political spectrum:
“1) Bowdoin College: Institution Persecutes Bowdoin Socialists Leader for Protected Speech. FIRE demands an end to retaliatory campaign against student activist.
2) FIRE Sues Bondi, Noem for Censoring Facebook Group and App Reporting ICE Activity.
3) VICTORY! Tennessee Man Jailed 37 Days for Trump meme wins $835,000 settlement.”
As for the activists’ claim that Mr. Lukianoff is a transphobe, it is a classic example of one of the 10 methods of argument condemned by Mr. Lukianoff in his book “War on Words”: argument by ad hominem. If you can’t win on the merits, just call your opponent a name designed to raise the hackles of readers and hope they will dismiss your opponent as deplorable.
The basis for labeling Mr. Lukianoff a transphobe? He explained in an interview with Megyn Kelly that people cannot be compelled, under the First Amendment, to call a transgender person by their preferred pronoun. In the section entitled “Research and Learn” on FIRE’s website, it has a comprehensive piece entitled “Pronouns, free speech and the First Amendment.” That piece details, among other things: “The refusal to use an individual’s stated pronouns may cause offense or discomfort. But this alone does not bring it outside the First Amendment’s protection.
When the government mandates what pronouns individuals must use when referring to others, it threatens to force some people to say things that contradict their beliefs. Any policy compelling the use of certain pronouns intrudes on the right to private conscience and, when it comes from the government, violates the First Amendment. Government compelled speech is an especially pernicious abuse of power. In the 1943 landmark case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme Court declared that “if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” Compelled speech, Justice Jackson wrote, 'invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control’.As bad as it is to tell people what they can’t say, it’s even worse to tell them what they must say.”
However, FIRE (with Mr. Lukianoff’s approval) goes on to explain that if a person seeks out transgender persons and taunts them by insisting on using their sex-based pronouns those facts do support a harassment claim that is not protected by the First Amendment.
So according to the trans-activist alums, by explaining settled core First Amendment law, Mr. Lukianoff is trans-bashing? In my experience, this is of a piece with the practice of the trans-activist community anytime anyone disagrees with any aspect of their agenda. Though there is no evidence that the person hates or harbors any ill-will towards those who identify as trans-gender, just call them a “trans-phobe” or accuse them of “trans-bashing.” That will shut them up and intimidate anyone else from questioning any aspect of the trans agenda. A recent survey in Maine shows that 75% of respondents favor protecting girls in women’s sports, bathrooms, and locker rooms. In my experience, according to the trans-activist community, if any of them express that view, people are “trans-bashing” even though they are perfectly accepting of transgender persons. Mr. Lukianoff has publicly supported trans-activist alums’ free speech right to state their view and to encourage others to turn their backs on Mr. Lukianoff at Commencement. He is confident that fair minded and reasonable folks will investigate the facts first and discover they don’t support the name calling. That is how free speech works. I am proud as an alum that Dartmouth’s trustees and President Beilock have chosen to honor a dedicated and principled advocate for free speech and viewpoint diversity in higher education.
Michael Jeffrey Morris ’75 is a member of the Class of 1975. Guest columns represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.
