HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017221.jpg
2.16 MB
Extraction Summary
4
People
6
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Manuscript / legal exhibit / memoir excerpt
File Size:
2.16 MB
Summary
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or memoir by Alan Dershowitz, submitted as evidence to the House Oversight Committee (Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017221). It details Dershowitz's historical defense of a professor named Franklin at Stanford University, his collaboration with research assistant Joel Klein, and his public conflict with Stanford President Lyman regarding First Amendment rights. The text describes the Faculty Committee's decision to fire Franklin for urging students to occupy a computation center and Dershowitz's subsequent lecture criticizing the faculty's stance on civil liberties.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alan Dershowitz | Narrator / Harvard Law Professor / Defense Attorney |
The narrator ('I') describing his defense of Franklin at Stanford. Explicitly named in a quote by President Lyman.
|
| Joel Klein | Research Assistant |
Assisted Dershowitz in defending Franklin.
|
| Franklin | Defendant / Professor |
Subject of a firing case at Stanford involving free speech issues.
|
| President Lyman | President of Stanford University |
Attacked Dershowitz on the radio and opposed the defense of Franklin.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| ACLU |
American Civil Liberties Union, involved in the defense of Franklin.
|
|
| Stanford University |
Host university where the events took place.
|
|
| Harvard |
University where Dershowitz is a law professor.
|
|
| Stanford Daily |
Newspaper where Dershowitz published a statement.
|
|
| Faculty Committee |
Stanford committee that ruled on the Franklin case.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Implied by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Historical (1970s context)
Firing of Professor Franklin
Stanford University
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of events.
|
|
|
Location Franklin urged students to occupy illegally.
|
Relationships (3)
Joel Klein was Dershowitz's research assistant.
Dershowitz took the lead in defending Franklin.
Lyman attacked Dershowitz on radio; Dershowitz challenged him to debate.
Key Quotes (4)
"It is a myth that all speech is constitutionally protected. No constitutional lawyer in the land—no, not even Mr. Dershowitz... could make such a sweeping claim."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017221.jpg
Quote #1
"If Dr. Lyman wants to challenge my view of the Constitution or civil liberties—and those of the ACLU—I invite that challenge, on its merits."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017221.jpg
Quote #2
"They found that he 'did intentionally write and urge' students and other to 'occupy the computation center illegally,' to 'disobey the order to disperse'"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017221.jpg
Quote #3
"[T]he true test of a genuine civil libertarian is how he responds to a crisis close at hand."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017221.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,843 characters)
4.2.12
WC: 191694
WC: 191694
I persuaded the local ACLU chapter to become involved but I, and my research assistant Joel
Klein, took the lead in defending Franklin.
Klein, took the lead in defending Franklin.
Word quickly spread around the Stanford campus that I had gotten the ACLU into the case. I
was criticized for my intrusion into the affairs of my host university. President Lyman went on
the radio to attack me:
was criticized for my intrusion into the affairs of my host university. President Lyman went on
the radio to attack me:
It is a myth that all speech is constitutionally protected. No constitutional lawyer in the
land—no, not even Mr. Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor come to Stanford to save
us all from sin—not even Mr. Dershowitz could make such a sweeping claim.
land—no, not even Mr. Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor come to Stanford to save
us all from sin—not even Mr. Dershowitz could make such a sweeping claim.
I responded with my own statement in the Stanford Daily:
There are important civil liberties issues at stake in the Franklin firing. If Dr. Lyman
wants to challenge my view of the Constitution or civil liberties—and those of the
ACLU—I invite that challenge, on its merits.
wants to challenge my view of the Constitution or civil liberties—and those of the
ACLU—I invite that challenge, on its merits.
Lyman rejected my invitation to debate and continued to attack me—both personally and through
his surrogates—in highly personal terms. The hostility toward me and toward the ACLU spread
quickly among the established faculty. Not surprisingly, it soon reached the Faculty Committee
that was considering the Franklin case.
his surrogates—in highly personal terms. The hostility toward me and toward the ACLU spread
quickly among the established faculty. Not surprisingly, it soon reached the Faculty Committee
that was considering the Franklin case.
We filed a brief on behalf of the ACLU urging Stanford, which is a private university, to apply the
spirit of the First Amendment to Franklin’s case. The committee agreed and said they were
applying First Amendment standards, but it ruled, in a divided vote, that Franklin’s speeches
violated those standards. They found that he “did intentionally write and urge” students and other
to “occupy the computation center illegally,” to “disobey the order to disperse” and to “engage in
conduct which would disrupt activities of the university and threaten injury to individuals and
property.”
spirit of the First Amendment to Franklin’s case. The committee agreed and said they were
applying First Amendment standards, but it ruled, in a divided vote, that Franklin’s speeches
violated those standards. They found that he “did intentionally write and urge” students and other
to “occupy the computation center illegally,” to “disobey the order to disperse” and to “engage in
conduct which would disrupt activities of the university and threaten injury to individuals and
property.”
Following the Franklin firing I gave a lecture on the implications of the case. I predicted that
Franklin himself would soon be forgotten because his message would be rejected in the free
marketplace of ideas. But the Committee’s decision would be long remembered as a leading
precedent in the jurisprudence of universities.
Franklin himself would soon be forgotten because his message would be rejected in the free
marketplace of ideas. But the Committee’s decision would be long remembered as a leading
precedent in the jurisprudence of universities.
I concluded my lecture by pointing an accusing finger at some of the faculty who pretended that
the Franklin case raised no important civil liberties issues:
the Franklin case raised no important civil liberties issues:
How often have I heard the absurd remark that Franklin is being fired for what he “did,”
not for what he “said,” without a recognition that this quibble doesn’t’ hide the fact what
he “did” was to make speeches. How often I have heard the statement that this case does
not involve “academic freedom,” it is simply an employer firing an employee for
disloyalty—as if a requirement of loyalty and academic freedom were compatible. [T]he
true test of a genuine civil libertarian is how he responds to a crisis close at hand.
not for what he “said,” without a recognition that this quibble doesn’t’ hide the fact what
he “did” was to make speeches. How often I have heard the statement that this case does
not involve “academic freedom,” it is simply an employer firing an employee for
disloyalty—as if a requirement of loyalty and academic freedom were compatible. [T]he
true test of a genuine civil libertarian is how he responds to a crisis close at hand.
134
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017221
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document