Given their own strong precommitments, this mixing of functions necessarily builds in an institutional bias against any claim that given speech acts should be protected.As a general matter, a broad definition of relevance is used in cases of this sort, so it is possible for self-appointed inquisitors to roam far and wide to build up a case against unpopular professors or administrators, especially since the Yale procedures include no statute of limitations.The situation is still more dangerous because of the highly dubious procedures that are used in these cases.The tribunals use the lower “preponderance” of the evidence standard for guilt, rather than the stricter “clear and convincing” standard, which means the accuser has to bring less evidence against the accused.It can only be clarified within a complete theory of freedom of speech, which itself must rest upon a comprehensive theory of freedom of human action.At the very least, any speech that involves the threat of force or the use of fraud should be subject to sanction under this principle, given the risk to the autonomy of others.At first look, Salovey’s defense of free speech and inclusion seems unrelated to Braceras’s argument about the reach of Yale’s sexual harassment directive. Yale defines sexual harassment very broadly: “Sexual harassment consists of nonconsensual sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other , which includes (3) such conduct [that] has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work or academic performance or creating an intimidating or hostile academic or work environment.”To be sure, no one wishes to defend assaultive or abusive sexual misconduct.But the Yale definition is capable of a broader reading.
Instead, independent parties, including Yale’s Title IX coordinators, are entitled to initiate and prosecute these cases. Richard Epstein writes that the Yale diehards who are likely to implement the sexual harassment on campus policy are the same folks who have taken the lead in implementing Yale’s policy on inclusion and free speech, in ways that necessarily sacrifice the latter to the former., Yale President Peter Salovey tried to explain how colleges can make room for both freedom of speech and a culture of inclusion and diversity. The supposed tension between free speech and inclusion is false, he argues, because it is possible to pursue both ends simultaneously.Keep up with this story and more , “College Sex Meets the Star Chamber,” Yale’s current policy on sexual harassment has led to a massive expansion of Yale’s control over the life of its faculty, students and staff.One component of that program is a commitment to spend million to make diversity hires on the faculty.Other initiatives are intended to create new centers and programs to study diversity throughout the university.