A Conversation About Academic Freedom

David and Sarah return to discussions they had with their last guest, professor Akhil Amar, ...

By and

David and Sarah return to discussions they had with their last guest, professor Akhil Amar, including living constitutionalism and the question of whether to let voters or jurists decide issues of justice. Then our hosts dive into the University of Pennsylvania controversy concerning the limits of academic freedom at the private Ivy League institution. Plus: the Biden administration’s bid to clarify abortion protections in the Emergency Treatment and Active Labor Act.

Show Notes:

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By and
Comments (94)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Dominic

    Thanks! I've started listening to Professor Amar's podcast (Amarica's Constitution) and it's fantastic. Another great resource for non-lawyers looking to better understand today's discourse and past debates that shaped the country. With his background, I especially like the way he attempts to frame his arguments with an originalist structure - it fits the moment.

    Collapse
  2. Michael.Shermanbklyn

    You may wish to post this link in the program notes under the Penn Law Dean’s letter. https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-cant-be-debated-on-campus-1518792717

    There are a number of other editorials and opinion pieces in the WSJ at about the same time about the Wax affair. It might provide some interesting balance to the perspective you guys took on her purported statements. Context sometimes matters.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      That was from 2018. The oped was clearly protected by her tenure contract, which is presumably why Penn waited 4 more years before taking adverse employment action against her based on recent allegations and statements. David was the president of FIRE so when he is telling you an academics speech isn’t protected….

      Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    I can’t believe you guys couldn’t tell the difference between those two dysfunction impaired function things. Come on. Everyone knows that one. It’s just like… just kidding I have no idea.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    I groaned inside when I heard the names Johnny Depp and Amber Heard again

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Cole Pickard

    Has anyone on The Dispatch team given thought to an audio podcast version of TMD each morning? I think that could be something huge for exposure and let people get your reporting even if they don't have time to read. I'm just curious and would appreciate if you guys could give any feedback on that idea. I'm a loyal reader and just want to support in any way possible. Keep up the great work!

    Collapse
  6. Nickolas

    Hi Sarah and David, long time/ first time. Part of the university speech code mentioned "objectively offensive" speech. How specific or limiting is this principle in practice? It seems patently absurd-- taking offense is highly subjective. Is this a legal principle that exists elsewhere successfully?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      Yeah…a little oxymoronic for sure.

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Witt Case

    How much refinement is required for these laws? The fact medical providers are hesitating and changing care should give us pause. What's a law that would have the support of the pro life cohort? Where is the line?

    I also think the number of necessary abortions is higher than we realize. 1 in 50 pregnancies is ectopic. That's two percent of pregnancies requiring the termination of pregnancy. It doesn't take many conditions that are 1-2% of pregnancies to add up to 10-15-20% of pregnancies.

    Collapse
  8. Raph

    Would you be able to talk about the GA or AZ law and embryo personhood?

    Collapse
  9. AHenry

    With all the talk of state trigger laws surrounding abortion, what happened to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)? Would DOMA snap back into effect if Obergefell were overturned?

    And for all our smug superiority here in the Nutmeg State the contraception ban that brought about Griswold is still in place should that decision be overturned. So whose law would take precedence, US or Connecticut?

    Collapse
  10. barjwr

    Re: the Depp-Heard juror furor. Brings to mind the George Brett pine tar fiasco. Billy Martin knew that there was too much on the bat but waited until Brett had done something excellent to bring it to the attention of the umpire.

    Collapse
Load More