Category: Academic Reportage

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science, Amherst College

Delivering a university commencement address used to simply be a unique kind of honor. Speakers stand before a podium, wearing a traditional graduation cap and robe, and offer graduates life lessons and inspirational words as they enter the next phase of life.

But today, speaking at a university commencement ceremony carries considerable risk, as Morton Schapiro, former president of Northwestern University, recently found out. Schapiro was scheduled to speak at Georgetown University Law Center’s graduation on May 17, 2026, but announced on May 6 that he would no longer appear at the event.

Some Georgetown law students had protested and petitioned to have Schapiro’s invitation rescinded, citing what they said were Schapiro’s “controversial, Zionist, and harmful opinions.” The students pointed to an op-ed that Schapiro wrote expressing support for Israel and Jewish people a few days after the Hamas attacks on Oct. 7, 2023, which killed 1,200 people.

Schapiro is in good company. There’s a reason why the free speech advocacy group FIRE calls the lead-up to college commencements disinvitation season.

Over the past two decades, colleges and universities across the country have withdrawn invitations to various commencement speakers after students protested their scheduled appearance. Or, in some cases, invited speakers have said they will no longer participate after students spoke out against their upcoming speeches.

As a political scientist who has written about the First Amendment and free speech on college campuses, I think Schapiro’s ill-fated Georgetown commencement invitation – and other instances like this one – show that intolerance for dissenting viewpoints lasts until the last diploma is handed out at graduation.

Some students only want people who hold similar views to address them at their graduation. They exercise what free speech law experts call a “heckler’s veto,” meaning when an audience’s reaction, or anticipated response, stops someone from speaking. Free speech then takes a back seat, and a graduation becomes just a performative moment of political correctness.

It wasn’t always this way

The first university commencement in the U.S. took place in 1642, when Harvard College held a ceremony to honor its nine graduates. The students were joined by some of the Massachusetts Bay Colony’s most distinguished citizens, including Governor John Winthrop and his deputy, John Endicott, who observed the proceedings.

No one delivered a commencement address.

Instead, each graduate delivered an address and displayed the fruits of their classical education by speaking in Latin and English.

By the middle of the 19th century, university commencements drew well-known outsiders to college campuses to speak.

In 1837, for example, the poet and essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson addressed Harvard’s Phi Beta Kappa graduates and issued a stirring call for American students and scholars to end what he called “our long apprenticeship to the learning of other lands.”

In 1881, James Garfield became the first sitting American president to deliver a commencement address, when he spoke at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.

Twenty-four years later, President Theodore Roosevelt spoke at the first graduation ceremony at Clark University, in Worcester, Massachusetts. He told his audience there, “I have always felt most strongly that it is true of a nation as of the individual that the greatest doer must also be a great dreamer.”

Since then, other presidents have used commencement speeches to announce major policy initiatives and agreements, including on foreign policy.

In 1963, President John F. Kennedy told the graduating seniors at American University that the U.S., the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union would start negotiations to ban the testing of nuclear weapons.

Two years later, President Lyndon Johnson announced at Howard University’s commencement that he would launch a major initiative to address socioeconomic disparities that disadvantaged Black people.

There was no controversy or protest about Kennedy, Johnson or other prominent speakers who delivered commencement addresses before a few decades ago.

The commencement speaker as a lightning rod

But that was then. Times have changed.

FIRE estimates that between 2000 and 2024, there were 345 attempts to disinvite commencement speakers. Many of the scheduled speakers who faced pressure to not appear at the ceremonies backed out.

Examples of commencement speaker disinvitations have happened at small, private liberal arts colleges, as well as big public universities. Being uninvited from speaking at a graduation is often precipitated by petitions and protests, from both conservative and progressive activists.

For example, in 2019, former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey, a Democrat, withdrew as the scheduled commencement speaker at Creighton University. This followed the Nebraska Republican Party objecting to Kerry’s pro-abortion rights voting record.

In 2024, Dickinson College rescinded a commencement invitation for Michael Smerconish, an author and television commentator who focuses on politics. This decision came after a student wrote an opinion piece that showed that 20 years earlier, Smerconish said, “in order to keep America safe, the TSA should deliberately target Arabs and Muslims for searches because they look like the perpetrators of past terrorist attacks.”

“Does someone like Mike Smerconish in any way represent the achievements and ambitions of its students? If Dickinson truly loves and values its students, shouldn’t it honor them with someone who reflects that love?” the student asked in the opinion piece.

Protests ensued, and the college president gave in.

In 2025, the noted author Salman Rushdie withdrew as commencement speaker at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California, after members of its Muslim Student Association urged the school to revoke his invitation. They accused Rushdie, a self-described “hardline atheist,” of “disparaging a global religious community” in his writing and public appearances. In a 2015 commencement address at Emory University, he said: “I sometimes think we live in a very credulous age. People seem ready to believe almost anything. God, for example.”

Over the past few years, the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip has led to various commencement controversies and rescinded invitations, based on scheduled speakers’ politics around the conflict.

There have also been various commencement speakers who have delivered controversial addresses that some graduates – and outside observers – found offensive. Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker, for example, spoke at Benedictine College’s commencement in 2024 and encouraged women to become homemakers.

Commencement and free speech

That brings us back to Schapiro.

“I have presided over 28 commencements as a president and dean,” Schapiro wrote in a note to Georgetown’s law students, “and those ceremonies are about celebrating the graduates and their supporters. I was looking forward to giving a talk about humility and gratitude, but I don’t want my presence to distract from the day’s festivities.”

Humility and gratitude are often missing in disinvitation season.

In 2017, Drew Gilpin Faust, then the president of Harvard University, seemed to understand this absence when she issued a free speech message to graduates in her commencement address. “Silencing ideas or basking in intellectual orthodoxy independent of facts and evidence impedes our access to new and better ideas, and it inhibits a full and considered rejection of bad ones,” Faust warned.

Commencement season puts Faust’s admonitions to the test. “Universities,” she said, “must model a commitment to the notion that truth cannot simply be claimed, but must be established – established through reasoned argument, assessment and even sometimes uncomfortable challenges that provide the foundation for truth.”

Austin Sarat does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. More universities are disinviting commencement speakers who might challenge students’ ideas, unraveling an apolitical tradition – https://theconversation.com/more-universities-are-disinviting-commencement-speakers-who-might-challenge-students-ideas-unraveling-an-apolitical-tradition-283131

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science, Amherst College

Thomas Hobbes took a very dim view of rebels and insurrectionists. He believed that insurrectionists relinquish their status as citizens the moment they seek to overthrow the government and should never be rewarded for doing so.

Hobbes, one of the finest political theorists of his time, said this in his great political treatise, “Leviathan,” published in 1651 during a civil war in England and Scotland.

Hobbes would likely also take a dim view of a major development announced by the Trump administration on May 20, 2026.

The U.S. Department of Justice has established a US$1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” to be used, the AP reports, to “allow people who believe they were targeted for prosecution for political purposes, including by the Biden administration Justice Department, to apply for payouts.”

The fund, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said, offers “a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.”

Critics immediately charged that it might be used to compensate people involved in – some even convicted for – the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Blanche has not ruled out that possibility.

The establishment of the fund is part of a settlement agreement, in response to which President Donald Trump dropped his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service for damages stemming from the leak of his tax returns. Those leaks, the lawsuit alleged, “caused Plaintiffs reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, unfairly tarnished their business reputations, portrayed them in a false light, and negatively affected President Trump.”

A DOJ press release indicates the fund will provide “formal apologies and monetary relief” to those who file claims and will cease processing claims “no later than” Dec. 1, 2028. It will be run by a five-person board appointed by the attorney general, and the president will also have the power to remove board members.

Whether or not Jan. 6 participants benefit, some believe that this situation creates an unavoidable appearance of self-dealing and favoritism. As a student of American law and political morality, I think there are important moral and constitutional issues implicated by the president’s suit against the IRS and the creation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund.

Some of them are straightforward; others are less so.

A judge in their own cause

An obvious question is: Should taxpayer funds be given to Trump allies, in a settlement reached by the Trump-controlled DOJ as compensation for a Trump family lawsuit?

As far back as ancient Greece, philosophers like Aristotle have worried about what happens when people are called on to make judgments in cases where they are involved. Aristotle thought that the natural instinct for self-preservation meant that they would always favor themselves.

From that concern emerged what was then, and remains, an uncontroversial, bedrock moral principle.

In the Roman world, the Latin phrase “Nemo iudex in causa sua” meant “no one should be a judge in their own cause.” It recognized that anyone having a personal interest should not get to decide matters in which they are involved.

In the Englsh-speaking world, Hobbes himself reiterated that phrase as he explained some of the advantages of living in an organized society, which could supply impartial judges to resolve disputes. And in 1787, James Madison wrote, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”

Commentators reacting to the Justice Department’s decision to establish an Anti-Weaponization Fund to settle the president’s claims against the IRS have drawn on these longstanding principles to criticize it, including how the DOJ, which is part of the executive branch controlled by Trump, negotiated with him to reach this settlement.

The conservative lawyer and activist Ed Whelan said, “There is a glaring conflict of interest with Trump being on both sides of the claim.” Whelan added, “It is outrageous that he and those answering to him would be deciding how the government responds to these extravagant claims.”

In testimony on May 19, 2026, before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Blanche offered a different view. He said the settlement fund was not unprecedented and likened it to a different fund, established by the Obama administration, to settle discrimination claims brought by Native American and Black farmers.

“It’s not limited to Republicans. It’s not limited to Democrats,” Blanche added. “It’s not limited to January 6th defendants. It’s limited only by the term weaponization.” Blanche promised that payments from the fund will be publicly disclosed.

Negotiating with himself

In April, Kathleen Williams, the Florida federal judge who was presiding over Trump’s lawsuit, reframed the moral issue of self-dealing as a legal one. She questioned whether the case could go on, noting “President Trump’s own remarks about this matter acknowledge the unique dynamic of this litigation.”

The remarks she referenced occurred when the president talked about the lawsuit and the prospect of negotiating with himself. “And they do say that, you know, it’s never been a case like this. Donald Trump sues the United States of America. Donald Trump becomes president, and now Donald Trump has to settle the suit.”

Williams, the judge, wrote that “it is unclear to this Court whether the Parties are sufficiently adverse to each other so as to satisfy Article III’s case or controversy requirement.” That requirement means that a court can only rule when there is a real dispute before it.

That rule is designed to prevent so-called collusive lawsuits, in which “the parties are not actually in disagreement but are cooperating” to achieve a result. Judge Williams was scheduled to hear arguments on that question on May 20, 2026. But the settlement announcement was made two days before, and, in light of it, she dismissed the case.

Back to Hobbes

Beyond the case and controversy question, the Justice Department’s actions may implicate constitutional issues.

One is whether, under the constitutional separation of powers, the executive branch has the authority to create a victim compensation fund, or whether that authority rests with Congress.

Another is whether the fund violates the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, which prohibits the president from receiving any “Emolument from the United States” other than his salary.

While the new fund may not make direct payments to Trump, he may benefit from payments to family members, business associates and others who will claim to have been victimized by the Biden administration, including people prosecuted and convicted of crimes committed on Jan. 6.

Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin, a former professor of constitutional law, also contends that what the Justice Department has done violates Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, part of which states: “neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”

Referring to the president, Raskin argues hypothetically, “So, to the extent that he wants to give a million dollars to each of 1,600 pardoned rioters and insurrectionists, we think that that’s an unconstitutional use of money.”

That section of the 14th Amendment was designed to ensure that Confederate rebels would not receive compensation for the value of their emancipated slaves. However, in Perry v. United States, a 1935 case, the Supreme Court stated that Section 4’s “language indicates a broader connotation” beyond its Civil War context.

It seems clear that courts will soon be asked to decide whether Raskin and other legal critics are right in their assertions of a host of legal problems with the Anti-Weaponization Fund. How they will do so remains to be seen.

But, in a democracy, deciding whether the creation of the fund violates the moral maxim that no one can be a judge in his or her own cause ultimately will be up to the people.

Austin Sarat does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. When a president settles his own lawsuit to create a fund for allies, fundamental questions about justice arise – https://theconversation.com/when-a-president-settles-his-own-lawsuit-to-create-a-fund-for-allies-fundamental-questions-about-justice-arise-283345

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Jamie Rowen, Associate Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science, UMass Amherst

Memorial Day is an apt time to reflect on the long-term consequences of war. Among them are substance use, mental health problems, homelessness and jail time for those who served in the military.

About 8% of all Americans in prisons or jails are veterans, according to the Council on Criminal Justice, a nonpartisan think tank. Veterans end up incarcerated largely because of substance use and mental health disorders, both of which also contribute to homelessness.

For more than 15 years, one tool for helping veterans break out of addiction has been Veterans Treatment Courts. These programs help veterans accused or convicted of crimes address the challenges driving their involvement in the criminal legal system.

Veterans Treatment Courts require a dedicated clinician and need to provide access to counseling, housing support and other social services to meet veterans’ needs. For this, they must have funding from the government. As a legal scholar studying the use of criminal law to aid veterans, my research shows that these programs, which exist in every state except Connecticut and Vermont, can be very effective. But they only work when they have the staffing and the resources to support veterans’ complex needs.

However, since 2025, massive staffing losses at the Department of Veteran Affairs as well as cuts to publicly funded healthcare such as Medicaid and Medicare, which are widely used by veterans, are making it harder for veterans to access healthcare.

What are Veterans Treatment Courts?

Veterans Treatment Courts are a subset of the drug treatment courts that were created by judges and criminal legal reformers beginning in 1988. These courts are an alternative to jail for people arrested or convicted for crimes that may be related to substance use disorders.

The idea was to allow courts to address the root causes of criminal behavior rather than simply punish people who committed crimes. Specialized treatment courts were soon developed to provide support for specific issues, such as mental health, or to groups accused of specific crimes, such as sex work.

In 2008, a judge in Buffalo recognized that veterans in his drug treatment court would benefit from support from other veterans and the comprehensive services from the VA. So he launched a distinct program just for veterans that soon received national media attention. Veterans Treatment Courts now operate in over 745 courthouses.

Eligibility varies across courts, but typically requires that the person have served in the military and that the crime they committed is not considered so serious that it deserves incarceration. While these programs are funded through a variety of sources, such as local and state governments, the federal government offers tens of millions of dollars every year for local courthouses to set up Veterans Treatment Courts.

Veterans Treatment Courts have a variety of requirements for participants. Once admitted to the program, participants must attend a hearing where they talk to the judge about how they are doing. They must also take drug tests and attend therapy appointments. They may also have to show that they have stable housing and employment and that they have performed community service or engaged in other activities that indicate they are connected to their communities and therefore at lower risk for substance use or criminal behavior.

If participants meet program requirements, they graduate. Graduation usually means some sort of legal benefit, such as dropped charges and fines or the termination of probation.

Resources are key to success

Advocates suggest that Veterans Treatment Courts are more effective than jail or prison in preventing people from committing new crimes, and that treatment courts in general cost less than incarceration. But studies on whether they help veterans more than alternatives such as drug treatment courts or a regular criminal court have been inconclusive.

My research shows that treatment courts, in general, are most effective if they have dedicated staff and access to services to address substance use as well as housing insecurity. That level of support is exactly what the VA provides.

Veterans with VA benefits not only receive outpatient and inpatient substance use treatment, but they are able to access federally funded education and housing support unavailable to most U.S. citizens. Even Veterans Treatment Court participants who are ineligible for VA healthcare benefit from the unique levels of public support and state-funded programs for veterans in the U.S.

All this gives Veterans Treatment Courts the resources to help their participants more than other treatment courts or regular criminal courts can.

A program under threat

Recognizing the connection between veteran homelessness and incarceration, the federal government has put millions of dollars into the VA to help veterans in the criminal legal system. Congress annually authorizes tens of millions of dollars to support VA clinicians working in Veterans Treatment Courts. In January 2026, Congress even created a new center dedicated to this goal.

However, despite this support, cuts to healthcare that is delivered by VA providers, as well as to publicly funded healthcare such as Medicaid and Medicare, present numerous challenges for Veterans Treatment Courts. Tens of thousands of VA employees have left the agency since President Donald Trump took office. This has lead to staffing shortages that undermine care for all veterans.

Staff stability is especially important for these programs’ viability and success. My research shows that funding cuts lead to high turnover and low morale. When the Department of Health and Human Services sent a notice canceling US$2 billion worth of funding in January 2026, treatment courts were scrambling to figure out how they could staff their programs. Though this money was restored, the cancellation showed treatment court staff that their work could end without warning.

Given that the country’s criminal legal system is already overburdened, enabling Veterans Treatment Courts to do their vital work does more than help veterans. In my view, this program also models how comprehensive social services can help people struggling with substance use disorders, mental health problems, housing insecurity and other challenges.

As people recover from past wars and return from ongoing conflicts, they will need the country’s continued investment to reintegrate and thrive.

A previous version of this article incorrectly referred to funding cuts at the VA. It has been updated to specify the cuts were related to staffing and delivery of healthcare services.

Jamie Rowen receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

– ref. Special courts helps veterans stay out of jail – but staffing losses at VA and cuts to government programs are threatening their work – https://theconversation.com/special-courts-helps-veterans-stay-out-of-jail-but-staffing-losses-at-va-and-cuts-to-government-programs-are-threatening-their-work-275742