NEW YORK CIVIL RIGHTS COALITION

501 SEVENTH AVENUE

SUITE 205A

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10018

(212) 563-5636

January 18, 2018

:
Dr. Stuart R. Bell
President
The University of Alabama
Office of the President
801 University Boulevard, Suite 203
Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401

Dear President Bell:

We are three civil rights activists who have worked to resist racial subjugation and invidious
discrimination all of our adult lives. (One of us was the longtime executive director of the
American Civil Liberties Union; one of was an attorney for a number of years in the ACLU's
Southern Regional Office and the longtime executive director of the New York Civil Liberties
Union, and one of us is a former Vice-President of the ACLU and the current longtime head of
the New York Civil Rights Coalition.) We regard, and have always regarded, our commitment to
racial equality as paramount. So it will not surprise you to learn that we were dismayed and
disgusted by Harley Barber's instagram video.

But it may surprise you to learn that we are also dismayed by your decision to expel her, a
remedy we think is unconstitutional, un-strategic and likely to be ineffective. Permit us to say
why:

1. The University of Alabama is a public institution, therefore an agent of the state that is subject
to the First Amendment.

2. The impulse to punish Ms. Barber in response to what she said in that video is understandable
as an emotional reaction. But if the First Amendment allows the state to punish someone for
ugly remarks that are profoundly offensive, as in this case, then it acquires the power to do the
same for other speech that is offensive to those in power.
 Page |2

In the 1960s, for example, Malcolm X and Eldridge Cleaver offended many by their
characterizations of white people. Could a student praising, or re-circulating their views, have
been expelled for deeply offending white people? If you can do one legally, you can do the
other.

In the 1970s, British students succeeded in passing a ban against racist speech. They were
enthusiastically joined by Jewish students. A few years later, a Zionist speaker was banned from
speaking because those with the power to decide believed that Zionism was a form of racism.
The Jewish students who had supported the ban on racist speech were stunned. They shouldn't
have been. Speech bans are like poison gas: they seem like a good weapon against despised
enemies, until the wind shifts.

The standard of "offensive" as a criterion for banning speech or punishing speakers always
depends on who is deciding. In the 1960s, in many towns throughout the South, including
Birmingham in Alabama, the sight of Martin Luther King, Jr. and other civil rights advocates
marching, black and white, men and women, arm in arm through Southern streets was deeply
offensive to many townspeople, to the police and to elected public officials. That is why the
marchers were stopped, blocked and arrested. That is also why the First Amendment was
invoked to strike down what the state did in stopping the demonstrators. And it is why Dr. King
and his colleagues always depended on and supported the First Amendment, even when it was
invoked to protect the right of the Klan to march. As one of Dr. King's colleagues once said in a
television debate on the subject, if the state is allowed to ban the Klan from speaking on
Monday, then they acquire the power to ban me from speaking on Tuesday.

This is a power you should not exercise, nor be allowed to exercise, because once you do, and if
it is allowed, it will not be the only time such power is exercised, nor will you be the only one
exercising it. The first ban on "offensive" speech is never the last, and the power to ban speech
is barred by the First Amendment because it all depends on who is exercising that power, and
what he or she finds "offensive." The First Amendment is a shield especially for minorities and
those disfavored, and that is why Dr. King and his colleagues treasured the First Amendment
even when it protected the speech of their foes.

It is also why punishing Ms. Barber by expelling her was a strategic mistake as well as a breach
of principle.

3. If expulsion was a mistake, what else might you have done?

Certainly, you could have forcefully expressed your own, contrary views, as you did.

But beyond that, the University of Alabama is an educational institution, and this was a teachable
moment that you should not squander.

Landon Collins, a distinguished University of Alabama alumnus, and now an All-Pro football
star in the National Football League, has also reacted with dismay to what Ms. Barber said. But
reportedly he has contemplated talking directly to her. We also would be willing to assist in this
 Page |3

effort. Ms. Barber might well be open to that. Wouldn't it be better to see if you could use your
office to arrange for such a meeting? There is never a guarantee of success from such meetings.
But it would be a more imaginative, less constitutionally dangerous and more educational
initiative. And if it worked, it would be redemptive, and a triumph for you and the University.

We urge you to rescind the expulsion, for the reasons we have articulated, and try something
educational, as suggested above.

We hope this has been helpful, and look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Ira Glasser

Norman Siegel

Michael Meyers