November 18, 2023

By: Corey Fedorowich and Abed Rahman

Day Two Overview:

OVERVIEW:

Day Two of the Symposium focused on calls to action. Panelists and the keynote speakers highlighted what educators, attorneys, voters, and students can do to fight the attack on knowledge, promote diverse voices, and maintain democracy.

Panel Five: Protecting and Advancing Education and Knowledge (Part I)

Chaired by Amelia Hoover Green, Ph.D. former Associate Professor of Politics and Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at Drexel University, Panel Five delved into the crucial role of education in democracy and the multifaceted threats it currently faces.

Opening panel five, Alison Macrina, M.S. the founder and Executive Director of the Library Freedom Project, examined the critical role libraries play in the current sociopolitical landscape. As bastions of intellectual freedom, information democracy, and privacy, libraries find themselves uniquely vulnerable in an era marked by anti-democratic movements. One threat is library takeovers. For example, a Moms for Liberty member who was initially protesting a mask mandate secured a position on a library board to censor content. Legislation is also an issue. Every Library’s legislation tracker monitors the continued movement to limit distribution of “harmful and obscene” material to minors—a thinly veiled attempt to censor LGBTQ+ content. Funding and the continued existence of libraries are also being placed on ballots, with voters influenced by misleading messaging. Building a resilient community to counter these attacks is essential. Librarians face many challenges from a lack of empowerment to demand changes to and respond to harassment. Legal assistance is necessary to bolster the fight against these anti-democratic movements.

Next, Professor Henry Reichman, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of History at California State University, East Bay, delved into historical and contemporary assaults on academic freedom and the autonomy of universities. Reichman recounted the stories of three influential educators: (1) Scott Nearing, an economist, was targeted for his socialist political views and vocal opposition to child labor. Despite his qualifications and academic contributions, Nearing was expelled in 1915 without explanation, marking the American Association of University Professors' (AAUP) first case. (2) James Cattell, a renowned psychologist, advocated for faculty-led university governance in his book “University Control.” This led to his dismissal from Columbia, a move that highlighted the tension between academic freedom and institutional control. (3) Edward Tolman, celebrated for his psychological research, led the resistance against a mandatory oath declaring non-affiliation with the Communist Party. Tolman and seventeen faculty members were fired for noncompliance. The subsequent lawsuit, Tolman v. Underhill, reinstated Tolman's position. From these narratives, Reichman distilled a central theme: the struggle for control over academia, where demands for obedience from regents and donors clash with the principles of academic freedom and self-governance.

Finally, Antonio L. Ingram III, J.D., Assistant Counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and Educational Fund, analyzed contemporary attacks on higher education and drew historical parallels to anti-democratic movements in Germany. Ingram highlighted the mobilization against police violence and racial awakening after George Floyd's murder. Universities were labeled as incubators for these movements. In Texas, Lieutenant Governor Patrick has led efforts to curtail what he perceives as divisive educational content, introducing bills (SB 16, SB 17, and SB 18) aimed at banning critical race theory (CRT) in higher education, discriminatory Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies, and eliminating tenure. This parallels actions in post-WWII Germany, where denial and revisionism of historical atrocities led to legal measures against Holocaust negationists and revisionists. He suggested that Texas’s legislative attempts mirror these anti-truth movements by denying or diminishing the historical realities of slavery and racial injustice. We must recognize the historical context and animus behind denying history, and such denials should not be protected under the guise of free speech.

Keynote Discussion

The second keynote discussion brought together two distinguished public servants, Hon. Anna V. Eskamani from the Florida House of Representatives and Hon. Helen Gym; former city council member at-large of the Philadelphia City Council. Their conversation, aimed at law students, centered on the themes of hope and power amidst challenging times, emphasizing the critical role of law in shaping a more democratic and inclusive society.

The keynote opened with reflections on the current societal climate, likened to the transformative and challenging phase of transition similar to being in a womb—dark and painful yet leading to something beautiful. Gym emphasized that the social struggle is not solely against regressive forces but is fundamentally about building a healthier democracy. Both Pennsylvania and Florida, as political battleground states, face pivotal moments in education and democracy. To combat unjust laws, both speakers underscored the importance of focusing on strengths and areas for advancement. Eskamani and Gym advocated for restoring a popular vision of democracy as inclusive, challenging narratives that seek to disenfranchise the majority.

Eskamani shared her journey to becoming a Florida state representative, rooted in her experiences as the daughter of working-class Iranian immigrants. Her mother's untimely death and the pursuit to understand her heritage through literature on Iranian women illuminated the universal challenges of immigrants and women, propelling her towards activism, higher education in political science and women’s studies, and ultimately, a political career focused on freedom, equity, and public education.

Gym recounted her path shaped by her upbringing in an immigrant family in Ohio, her transformative experiences in public libraries and schools, and her resolve to fight for-profit takeovers of public schools in Philadelphia. Her journey underscored the importance of protecting children and challenging established power structures.

Eskamani highlighted Florida's attacks on academic freedom, citing legislation and policies that threaten public education's integrity and inclusivity. She detailed the systemic issues within Florida's part-time legislature and the financial barriers to entry, advocating for voices that represent diverse experiences. The speakers linked the erosion of public education to broader issues of class disparity, voting rights, and anti-immigrant legislation, emphasizing that every cultural war has class dimensions. Eskamani stressed that undermining public education serves to maintain existing class structures and power dynamics. Gym highlighted the significant impact of local government in effecting immediate change, particularly in education. She cited examples where local initiatives influenced state and federal legislation, showcasing the power of local governance in shaping broader policy landscapes.

The speakers gave a call to action for law students and professionals to engage deeply with governmental and advocacy efforts. They underscored the importance of civic education, grassroots involvement, and the need to frame debates around the common good to foster a more inclusive and democratic society. They encouraged students to leverage their legal expertise to support democratic structures and advocate for humanity in every aspect of public discourse and policy-making.

Panel 6: Protecting and Advancing Education and Knowledge (Part II)

Chaired by Amy C. Offner, Ph.D., Associate Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania, the last panel featured Jonathan D. Glater, J.D., Liliana M. Garces, J.D., Ed.D., Bethany Letiecq, Ph.D., and Allison Scharfstein, J.D.. They scrutinized the impact of recent socio-legal challenges on educational systems and academic freedom. The session emphasized the necessity of defending and promoting an inclusive and informed educational discourse in the wake of escalating legal and ideological pressures.

Glater, a law professor from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, opened the panel with an incisive critique of the assumed neutrality of higher education institutions. Institutional acts and policies inherently carry biases, so universities cannot remain neutral entities. He examined the University of California’s requirement that faculty applicants submit DEI statements, a policy challenged in Haltigan v. Drake. An applicant challenged the requirement on First Amendment grounds, arguing the statements were "thinly veiled attempts to ensure dogmatic conformity" and acted as "proxies for particular beliefs favored by the administration." However, the university’s intent was only to foster a more inclusive environment to discuss DEI engagement and propose new initiatives. Thus, there is a need for a nuanced, fact-dependent inquiry into these types of allegations because of broader implications for university autonomy and the legal landscape's evolving stance on affirmative action and university policies. He emphasized the political nature of the criticisms levied against DEI initiatives, framing them as attacks on institutional autonomy and the efforts to redress historical inequities through academic policies. The case also serves to illustrate the complex interplay between institutional autonomy, shared governance, and the collective effort to articulate and uphold the values of diversity and inclusion within the academic community.

Dr. Garces, a former ACLU lawyer turned social scientist, examined the nuanced challenges faced by academia from legal threats to academic freedom and racial inclusion, or "repressive legalism." Her academic study was spurred by the marked increase in hate speech incidents on campus during the 2015-2016 election cycle. Her research scrutinized the responses of educational institutions to these challenges. Students voiced a need for their institutions to actively promote a greater sense of belonging and directly address the underlying structures of racism. Schools were reluctant to do this, largely due to fears of repressive legalism. This term encompasses the broader dynamics at play, where external pressures—ranging from court decisions and legislative actions to societal expectations—exert a profound influence on the educational policies and practices concerning racial equity and inclusion. By naming this dynamic, it becomes possible to identify and implement strategies that might counteract these repressive forces and foster a more inclusive academic environment. Garces also explored the internal and external pressures that shape university policies. A comparative study of faculty responses at two universities in states that proposed anti-DEI laws, revealed widespread "repressive legalism" that led to significant self-censorship among faculty members, notably affecting Black faculty and prompting considerations of leaving their positions. Nevertheless, Garces identified factors that mitigate these pressures, including supportive leadership, connections to civil rights organizations, and the framing of academic freedom as integral to racial inclusion.

Dr. Letiecq, a professor in the College of Education at George Mason University, delved into the dynamics between universities and their donors. Donations have shifted from passive financial support to a mechanism to exert significant influence over academic directions and priorities. This is exemplified by George Mason University. Secret Koch Brothers’ donations to the schools of economics and law caused "academic capture," where the donors' ideological and financial clout begin to directly impact faculty hiring, curriculum decisions, and the overall academic ethos. In 2016, students led the "UnKoch My Campus" movement, demanding an education free from donor influence. Students and faculty called for public scrutiny of gift agreements, challenging the administration's initial resistance. This led to the GMU Gift Acceptance Policy UP 1123, mandating detailed disclosures of the terms accompanying monetary donations. This policy reform, instigated at George Mason, eventually influenced legislative changes across Virginia, setting a new precedent for transparency in university-donor relations. Lastly, Letiecq noted the foundational structures of universities are built upon white, heteronormative principles. Any movement of reformation like this must embrace justice, diversity, and inclusivity.

The last panelist was Scharfstein, an Education Fellow at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She presented a strategy to counter the anti-truth movement, emphasizing legislative advocacy, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) complaints, and local organizing efforts. There is broad public support for academic freedom and access to diverse literature despite efforts of a vocal minority advocating for censorship. Pro-truth coalitions successfully rallied against proposed anti-truth legislation in Indiana and Alabama by showcasing likely negative impacts on educators and students, like exacerbating the teacher shortage. Relatedly, in California and Texas, legislative efforts to support pro-truth curricula and culturally responsive teaching have seen significant success. OCR complaints are also a tool to address discriminatory practices at educational institutions. They leverage existing anti-discrimination laws to ensure schools take corrective actions to create a more inclusive environment and have been successfully used to battle book bans. Lastly, local organizing is crucial to fight censorship and promote educational equity. Community groups like the Round Rock Black Parents Association successfully challenged book bans and got members elected to school boards to influence educational policies at the local level.

Day 2 Impact Paragraph:

The second day of the Symposium illuminated the robust intersection of education, law, and democracy, embodying a collective call to action that transcended professional boundaries and societal divisions. Through an array of distinguished speakers and panels, attendees were invited into a critical dialogue about the pressing issues facing education and knowledge in our contemporary moment. The discussions underscored the urgent need for collective effort in protecting the sanctuaries of knowledge and learning, as well as promoting inclusive, diverse voices within the fabric of our democracy.

As the Symposium drew to a close, the imperative for educators, attorneys, voters, and students to unite in the fight against the erosion of academic freedom and the assault on knowledge was palpable. The panels did not merely delineate the challenges; they offered a blueprint for resilience and action. From the valorization of libraries as pillars of intellectual freedom to the advocacy for transparent university-donor relations, the Symposium underscored the pivotal role of education in sustaining the bedrock of democracy.

The call to action was clear: engage deeply with advocacy and governmental efforts, leverage legal expertise to uphold democratic structures, and foster environments that encourage the free exchange of ideas. In doing so, we can confront and surmount the threats to education and democracy.

To read more about some of the issues discussed, please see our Symposium Issue.