Law professor Eugene Volokh critiques the US Civil Rights Commission’s report on antisemitism, focusing on its analysis of First Amendment protections for universities. The report suggests that colleges should receive deference when deciding not to take action against students engaging in expressive activity on matters of public concern, equating such decisions with academic freedom. However, Volokh argues this interpretation allows universities to discriminate unfairly by enforcing rules inconsistently—protecting certain types of speech while allowing harassment directed at specific groups, like Hillel events disrupted during discussions about the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Written locally by qwen2.5:14b on 2026-10-08,
using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the
same event (that is the story summary below).
Story summary
In December 2021, the US Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) released a report focusing on antisemitism, which sparked criticism from legal scholars. David Bernstein of Reason Magazine argued that parts of the report are misleading regarding universities' responsibilities under the First Amendment. The report suggests that private institutions should receive significant deference when deciding not to take action against students engaging in expressive activities deemed problematic but protected by free speech laws.
Bernstein critiques this reasoning, arguing it invites colleges to discriminate without consequences. For instance, a university might overreact during disruptions of events like "Take Back the Night" rallies while ignoring similar disturbances at Hillel events (Jewish student organizations). The report implies that universities should prioritize academic freedom and avoid censorship by not intervening in expressive activities even when they conflict with other regulations against harassment or intimidation.
This interpretation faces criticism for conflating protected speech with harmful behaviors such as vandalism and harassment. Universities already have policies regulating the use of campus spaces to balance free expression with maintaining a safe environment, but the report suggests an overly broad application of First Amendment protections that could hinder effective enforcement of these rules.
Written for “US Civil Rights Commission Report Cri…” on 2026-10-08,
grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Perhaps the most wrongheaded analysis in the Report is this:
Because the government may not "conscript private institutions to act as censors by dangling the threat of civil liability for a hostile environment," the First Amendment "'demands substantial deference to a college's decision not to take action against' students who engage in expressive activity on matters of public concern."
uncertain
who → conscript → concern
In other words, courts must "'defer to colleges' decisions to err on the side of academic freedom.
asserted
courts → defer → freedom
'"Whereas a grade school's failure to take action against a student who sexually harasses a classmate might well support an inference of deliberate indifference to that harassment—because any reasonable actor would intervene—the same is not true when a university determines how to enforce rules regarding the use of campus spaces in light of its academic mission and competing claims of different groups.
uncertain
university → take → groups
"Expressive activity" is doing far too much work here.
asserted
activity → do → work
Universities have rules against vandalism, harassment, intimidation, and also have time, place, and manner restrictions for protest/speech activities, to avoid disruption.
asserted
Universities → have → disruption
You might, for example, be able to chant on the campus green at lunch time, but not in the campus library.
uncertain
You → chant → library
Breaking these rules--vandalizing, harassing, intimidating, disrupting contrary to campus rules are often "expressive activities."
asserted
vandalizing → break → rules
But they are not protected by the First Amendment, and have nothing to do with academic freedom.
asserted
they → protect → freedom
And to the extent these rules are clearly stated in the student handbook, everyone breaking the rules has fair notice of what the rules are.
asserted
rules → state → notice
Suggesting that universities should get deference in enforcing these rules is an open invitation to college officials to discriminate; to, for example, have a full-on campus wide meltdown when students disrupt a "Take Back the Night" rally, but do nothing when a Hillel event is disrupted.
asserted
event → suggest → nothing
Indeed, in a recent Harvard Law Review article, Prof. Eidelson and Hellman, cited frequently in the USCCR report, positively endorse such discrimination, suggesting that universities, for reasons that make zero sense to me, may have a greater reason for not intervening in the context of debating the Israel-Palestine conflict than elsewhere.
uncertain
that → cite → conflict
This not only encourages universities to allow a hostile environment in some context regarding some protected groups, but crack down on it in others, but also invites universities to engage in disparate treatment.
Disparate treatment claims are, as the Report notes, very hard to prove because it's so hard to compare apple situation A to orange situation B, but disparate treatment is nevertheless illegal.
uncertain
treatment → encourage → B
Yet the USCCR Report basically encourages it, by inventing a non-existent academic freedom and First Amendment right to it.
asserted
Report → encourage → it
I originally tweeted the above on X, and Prof. Edelstein responded:
asserted
Edelstein → tweet → X
David, I believe this is the discussion you construe as our "positively endors[ing]" disparate treatment (of Jews or Hillel events or something like that).
asserted
you → believe → that
I'm leaving it here so readers can judge for themselves:
asserted
readers → leave → themselves
Second, while we are in no position to assess the mental states of countless university administrators, there are obvious nondiscriminatory explanations for why a university might take a more cautious approach to the recent claims of alienation or exclusion raised by Jewish students than it has in some other cases.
uncertain
it → assess → cases
For one thing, insofar as the complaints allege anti-Israel bias, that allegation actually cuts against the required inference that Jewish students were treated differently on the basis of their race.138
asserted
students → allege → basis
As one court observed in rejecting a "double standard" claim, "viewpoint discrimination . . . is not actionable under Title VI."139
uncertain
discrimination → observe → claim
But even setting that point aside, the simple fact that the current claims by Jewish students are enmeshed with hotly disputed views about world affairs means that efforts to accommodate them may pose risks of chilling political speech or intruding on academic freedom that are less acute in many other cases.140
uncertain
that → set → cases.140
Similarly, as our earlier discussion reflects, many of the expressive acts at the center of the relevant campus conflicts are more ambiguous — by dint of the different interpretive contexts that different students bring to bear — than are more classic examples of hate speech.141
asserted
examples → reflect → that
The most natural comparator, in all of these respects, would be claims of discrimination and exclusion raised by Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim students, and it is far from clear that universities have been systematically more accommodating when those students have alleged peer harassment over the same period.
uncertain
students → raise → period
And I in turn rejoined, "Yes, that's exactly what the text at find 140 and 141 is endorsing."
asserted
text → rejoin → find
To elaborate briefly, once you argue that universities have a legal right to "take a more cautious approach" to claims of discrimination by Jewish students than by analogous claims raised by other students, you are endorsing disparate treatment of Jewish students, and indeed inviting it.
uncertain
you → elaborate → it
The Aporia
