The First

I haven't posted any book reviews on this blog, but since this one is relevant to academia, I thought I'd give it a try. Here's my first posting of a review I wrote on goodreads.com.

---

The First: How to Think About Hate Speech, Campus Speech, Religious Speech, Fake News, Post-Truth, and Donald Trump by Stanley Fish
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I started my faculty job at UIC in 2012, eight years after Stanley Fish finished his term as dean of my college, and it didn’t take me long to hear about him. I heard about Fish before I knew the name of my (then) current dean, and I never even learned the names of other former deans. Usually, when an administrator becomes so memorable, he must have done something disastrous that nobody can forgive. But as far as I understand, this was not the case with Fish; he was known for making bold and unusual decisions, often controversial but not inept.

Now, twelve years later, I was at a used book sale where I saw a book by someone named Stanley Fish. Seeing that name jogged my memory, and I checked the author’s bio to see if it was the same Stanley Fish — indeed, it was! I had no idea he wrote books (apparently, he wrote many), and I immediately bought the book to see what he had to say.

The book involves the author expounding his ideas on the First Amendment, and it did not disappoint. True to his reputation, Fish takes many controversial positions— including that freedom of speech should not be the central value on college campuses and that the First Amendment should not have included religion — and he even offers the best defense of postmodernism that I’ve seen. (I still don't buy it.)

In the end, this is a fun and thought-provoking book. It reinforced my views on some things, convinced me on some points, and utterly failed to convince me on many others. But unlike most non-fiction, this book delivers something new and unpredictable with each chapter.

The main downside is that the book feels like a rant more than a principled argument spanning the various aspects of the First Amendment. The long title even betrays its lack of coherence. The other downside, of course, is that I think he’s wrong about too much! Still, it was a fun read.

View all my reviews

Good Riddance to a Bad Policy

Since this is an academic blog and I am a university professor, I ought not to forgo commenting on the large legal bombshell that just dropped on American higher education.  I am, of course, referring to the ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina et al.

Admissions offices: Harvard's (left) and UNC's (right)

I summarized my views on Twitter, and I'll repeat them here:

I think this decision ending "affirmative action" is basically right on the law. In my view, explicit racial considerations clearly violate Title VII. Affirmative action admissions policies also, at the very least in the case of public institutions, clearly violate the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court went a bit further and said that for both types of institutions, explicit consideration of race violates the 14th amendment. That seems to imply that even in the unlikely case Title VII were to be repealed, affirmative action would remain illegal everywhere. Practically, however, the result is the same as under my reading because Title VII is here to stay. Explicit consideration of race will no longer be allowed in college admissions. 

As an aside, I actually wouldn't mind trying a system where public schools were bound by race-neutral measures, but private schools were allowed more flexibility -- not just with Title VII but with other laws too. That was of course never going to happen and can't happen for even more reasons now. 

Of course, many schools will still try to achieve a target racial balance by getting rid of the SATs and other objective measures that may catch them discriminating.  They may even pull out of rankings to try to hide the hit to their reputations. But elite institutions can only do so much of that without losing many good students to their competitors and therefore their prestige over time.

In the end we should strive to judge people as individuals, on their merits and perhaps their hardships. These considerations may of course may correlate with race, but blindly using race as a factor creates many more problems than it fixes.  So I think this ruling is a big step in the right direction and am hopeful that a fairer system will emerge.

Janus and Higher Education

In its recent Janus v. AFSCME decision, the Supreme Court struck down public sector union security agreements.  This relates to my professional life because UIC is a public university, and our faculty are unionized.  I also have an interest in constitutional law, and I finally have a "jurisdictional hook" to blog about it.  Moreover, I recently realized that while I often hear from pro-union faculty and various union representatives, I rarely see other perspectives, at least at work.  So, as a union non-member, I thought it might be useful to give some brief thoughts about the issues involved.

a photo I took of the Supreme Court building during a recent visit to D.C.

In Janus v. AFSCME, Janus challenged the constitutionality of charging public sector employees "fair share" agency fees.  In about half of the states (those without "right-to-work" laws), when a workforce became unionized, unions were allowed to negotiate security agreements, which gave them the power to collect agency fees from non-members.  The Supreme Court held that these agreements violate non-members' first amendment rights by forcing them to subsidize political speech they disagree with.  Unions were already not permitted to compel non-members to pay for the portion of their activities that are overtly political, but the Supreme Court ruled that in the public sector, union bargaining is inherently political because the unions negotiate with the government, which impacts public policy. Especially illuminating was one particular exchange from the oral argument, between Mr. Franklin, the Solicitor General of Illinois, and Justice Kennedy:

Mr. Franklin: ... Independent of that, we have an interest at the end of the day in being able to work with a stable, responsible, independent counterparty that's well-resourced enough that it can be a partner with us in the process of not only contract negotiation -­ 

Justice Kennedy: It can be a partner with you in advocating for a greater size workforce, against privatization, against merit promotion, against -- for teacher tenure, for higher wages, for massive government, for increasing bonded indebtedness, for increasing taxes? That's -- that's the interest the state has? 

Whether you buy this argument or not, you only have to look at the budget crisis in Illinois to understand the concern.

Turning to my own experience, when I first arrived at UIC, the faculty had just unionized.  And while UIC is not the only public research university with a unionized faculty, I viewed unionization as a worrisome development.  It especially seemed to me that tenure-track faculty at an R1 university should be able to negotiate on their own behalf when the need arises.  My concerns were further reinforced when two years later, a faculty strike almost coincided with our interviewing faculty candidates.  Imagine trying to convince someone to join your department with your colleagues holding "unhappy faculty on strike" signs.  Moreover, I thought it would be detrimental for faculty to have to worry about possible repercussions of teaching during strikes or to face potential political pressure from colleagues to join the union.

a union strike at UIC

As I already mentioned, I never joined the union; but on occasion, various union representatives have tried to get me to join and invariably made the following pitch: "You're going to have to pay the union anyway, so why not sign the membership card and have a say?"  The union wants to keep the majority of the bargaining unit as members in order to avoid facing a credible decertification effort, and thereby wants everyone to join.  And non-members were incentivized to join even if they didn't support the union, so that they could have some say in their contract.  To me, this argument for non-members to join the union seems as objectionable as the impetus will be for members to become "free riders" in the post-Janus world.

So what will happen now that security agreements are struck down? It's hard to predict.  I don't know if it's possible, but I'd like to see a workable middle ground emerge. A compromise, for example, that allows workers to unionize and allows unions to charge, represent, and negotiate on behalf of their members only, while leaving the non-members alone, might be one answer.  I hope there are also other interesting possibilities to consider.  Whatever happens, the status quo is about to change, and I envisage for the better.

Caveat Surfer

A recent article got me thinking about laws and the internet. A couple days ago, the Latvian police apprehended a researcher at the University of Latvia who they claim hacked into government systems and obtained tax documents of various officials. Apparently, there was a security flaw that allowed anyone to access Latvian tax records by basically visiting the proper url. So this alleged "hacker" probably wrote a simple shell script to get 7.5 million tax documents and sent them to a journalist. He now faces a possible 10 years in jail for essentially executing an illegal command.

Now, we don't really know what he did, and I have little knowledge of Latvian law, but it got me thinking about what I'd ideally like the law to be. On one extreme, we have people who write viruses and purposely cause lots of damage; on the other extreme are people who steal wifi from the local coffee shop (even they can get arrested).

This Latvian story falls somewhere in between -- unlike the wifi "thief," the Latvian hacker probably should have known what he was doing could get him into trouble, but do we really want to live in a society where you can be sent to jail for visiting a website? It seems one problem is that visiting a website can include everything from buffer overflow attacks to illegal currency transfers. But this incident feels more like the Latvian government put sensitive information online and then decided to arrest anyone who accessed it.

I guess it's unavoidable that laws about the digital world, even more so than laws about face-to-face interactions, will have seemingly arbitrary lines between what's legal and what's not. But there should be some burden on people and governments to reasonably protect their own data -- and freedom for all of us to poke around a little.

Reddit has some interesting comments on this story.

For a blog on these types of issues by people who have thought about them more than I, visit Freedom to Tinker.