Merrit E. McAlister, the Interim Dean at the University of Florida College of Law, released this statement to the UF Law Community:
Dear UF Law Community:
Many of you may have seen the recent New York Times article about a student at the law school. The article stated that the student—who told the Times it "would not be manifestly wrong" to call him a Nazi—received a recognition through a "book award," which is given to the highest overall grade in a law school class. The paper he wrote, which counted for 65% of the final grade in the small seminar course, argued for constitutional "nationalism" based on an understanding of the Constitution that excluded non-white people from legal and civil participation in America. Although the law school is limited by what it can say about these events under federal and state law that protects the privacy of student record information, that student has now disclosed some information publicly.
Let me state unequivocally: the student's views are revolting and do not reflect the values of UF Law, its faculty, or its administration. We welcome all, we discriminate against none, and we aim to create a community where students feel a sense of belonging and connection—without experiencing fear or threats or hatred.
The paper's views also in no way reflect the views of the professor in this course. The professor had no knowledge of this student's history at the law school or his deeply held personal views. The professor took the paper on its face—as a student paper attempting to use originalist methodology to reach a detestable and extreme position. As abhorrent as the paper's thesis may be, that work still falls within the bounds of academic freedom and the First Amendment, and, as such, was graded consistent with the grading standard for the course.
As a matter of practice at UF Law and most other law schools across the nation, the highest-performing student in any class receives a "book award" during the grading process. Indeed, the professor believed that recognition was mandatory for the top scoring student.
I understand that these events and this article have caused many in our community pain, disappointment, and fear. I know that many of you are outraged at the law school for not taking the book award away from the student. But the administration does not second-guess grading decisions at the law school, except in very narrow circumstances, and those circumstances did not apply here. Upholding academic freedom and the student's First Amendment right to express even odious ideas is the harder path, but it is the path our principles require.
Rescinding the honor might feel righteous, but it would betray those principles and set a dangerous precedent in a law school that trains students to confront unpopular ideas and represent unpopular clients. Defending free expression is easiest when we approve of the speech; it is hardest when, as in this instance, the speech tears at the fabric of our community. But that is precisely when our commitment must hold.
We have protected academic freedom and the student's First Amendment rights while also prioritizing the safety and security of our community. As soon as the student's conduct became threatening and substantially disruptive, in collaboration with UFPD and UF administration, the student was barred from campus. We heightened security across the college. It is important to note that the escalation in the student's conduct that led to his trespass happened three months after the book award had been announced in January.
Sadly, this article has given an extremist provocateur exactly what he wanted: a platform for greater visibility. And it has caused hurt and pain within our community in the process. I also regret that this has led an honorable public servant—one who has served his country for decades as a federal public defender and a federal judge—to receive death threats because of an impartial grading decision he made. No one deserves that treatment for selflessly teaching as a part-time instructor in a law school.
The decisions we've made in this instance reflect the best efforts of dedicated professionals to protect students' First Amendment rights and embody the principles of academic freedom in grading, administering, and guiding a law school. Not everyone will agree with our judgment, and I respect that. But I hope we can begin to move forward together recognizing that, collectively, we share commitments to uphold the First Amendment, academic freedom, and our shared sense of humanity.
I think this statement largely strikes the right tone, and makes several important points. First, and most importantly, when the grade was given, the student had not yet made the statements on social media. Second, the grade given was well within the bounds of reasonableness. Third, regrettably, Judge Badalamenti was subjected to death threats. There is so much outrage about pizzas, but here the New York Times unfairly tarred a good judge's reputation to no end. These threats were entirely predictable.
