On Sunday, I published a Sunday Opinion cover story on campus free speech, campus protests and civil disobedience. It’s long, and it includes my own experiences with three decades’ worth of campus controversy. Here’s the key paragraph:
There is profound confusion on campus right now around the distinctions among free speech, civil disobedience and lawlessness. At the same time, some schools also seem confused about their fundamental academic mission. Does the university believe it should be neutral toward campus activism — protecting it as an exercise of the students’ constitutional rights and academic freedoms but not cooperating with student activists to advance shared goals — or does it incorporate activism as part of the educational process itself, including by coordinating with the protesters and encouraging their activism?
You can read the whole thing here. It was paired with my colleague Lydia Polgreen’s column about the protests.
On Wednesday, I published a short post that tried to give some historical context to help understand the extent of Trump’s foreign policy extremism. During the Cold War, Republicans and Democrats had important differences, but they were both serious parties, led by serious people.
Republicans and Democrats are not equally serious today. In a new interview, Eric Cortellessa of Time magazine asked Trump about his pledge to let Russia “do whatever the hell they want” to countries that he believes don’t meet NATO military spending targets. Trump doubled down.
“Yeah, when I said that, I said it with great meaning,” he said, “because I want them to pay. I want them to pay up. That was said as a point of negotiation. I said, Look, if you’re not going to pay, then you’re on your own. And I mean that.”
In 2024, the voters face a choice between a strategy and a temper tantrum. They should choose accordingly.
Finally, on Thursday we published an audio conversation with my colleague Sarah Wildman about the limits of student speech on campus, and I drew a sharp line between lawful protest and protest that actually limits the rights of others:
Sarah Wildman: And next fall, we may, unfortunately, still be seeing conflict in the Middle East. What’s the best-case scenario for campuses going forward?
David French: I think that a lot of campus administrators need to read some of the statements that I have seen come out of, for example, University of Chicago, where lines are clearly drawn: We will protect free speech. We will permit all voices to protest. We will protect faculty academic freedom. But the instant that your protest violates the rights of others is when it is too far. That language has to be clearly, clearly communicated from Day 1 of the fall semester, and then the university has to walk the talk.