Professors cannot teach and students cannot learn without the freedom of speech. First Amendment jurisprudence demands that universities allow their students the exposure to multiple viewpoints which is so necessary for their development as future leaders; this educational mission is fulfilled when the university serves as a forum for diverse ideas. To this end, college diversity bureaucrats attempt to construct an accommodating learning environment for all. Ironically, their actions impose barriers to the educational benefits that flow from classroom diversity. Several types of speech-inhibiting policies, such as safe spaces, racially themed housing, microaggression guidelines, and free speech zones stifle the robust exchange of ideas. These policies create a speech-gerrymander on campuses, empowering selfappointed speech regulators to intellectually intimidate students from entertaining other viewpoints. In fact, speakers are often disinvited or even banned from campuses with college administrators evoking the heckler’s veto to shut down speech perceived as threatening. This article examines the ways the heckler’s veto has been evoked constitutionally to protect campus safety, but also identifies occasions when administrators evoked the veto unconstitutionally. This article proposes educational reforms to create a more inclusive environment where it is less likely that the heckler’s veto would be evoked. These solutions include “We Listen Centers” and mini-colleges focused on intellectual exchanges. With these solutions, instructors can freely challenge students from diverse backgrounds to evaluate different views while respectfully disagreeing with each other.
Disability discrimination is a persistent and pervasive problem. Its history in the United States stretches from the ugly laws of the late-1800s to modern-day employment discrimination. In general, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits employers from discriminating against disabled employees and job applicants. Employers often disregard this law, however, in order to cater to the untoward preferences of their customers. In theory, customer preferences are not a defense to discrimination, unless they pertain to safety, privacy, or authenticity. In practice, however, many courts seem to recognize an unseemly fourth exception to the general rule against customer preference-based defenses. This occurs when disabled persons are deemed “unfit to be seen.”This Note first chronicles the history of the ADA and the economic and psychological realities of customer preference-based defenses. It then describes instances in which the “unfit to be seen” strain of the defense has been recognized by courts and analyzes its legitimacy. This Note concludes that the defense is contrary to the text of the ADA, the intentions of the legislature, and the ADA’s underlying policies. As such, Congress and the judiciary should act to repudiate it. In the alternative, this Note proposes standards that courts should consider in evaluating customer preference-based defenses to disability discrimination.
While several legal scholars have articulated why states should pass safe harbor, affirmative defense, and vacatur laws to protect victims, these laws remain unadopted or adopted in such poor fashion as to provide little assistance to sex trafficking victims. This paper focuses on how until the United States changes the narrative surrounding human trafficking victims, these laws will remain unadopted. This paper first discusses the legal framework nationally and internationally surrounding human trafficking. Second, it addresses the need for safe harbor, affirmative defense, and vacatur laws. Third, it discusses how misconceptions surrounding human trafficking prevent these laws from being passed. Lastly, this paper recommends ways to correct the narrative surrounding trafficking.
