最色导航

Erwin Chemerinsky, the 2026 David W. Peck Senior Medalist for Eminence in the Law. 

Former Bachelor Editors-in-Chief Joseph Reilly’18 (right) and Jake Vermeulen ’21 chat in the Littell Lobby prior to the Peck Lecture.

The check-in table was busy on this Thursday afternoon.

Chris Anderson, visiting instructor of rhetoric and director of the Democracy and Public Discourse Initiative (center), enjoys a light moment with students.

Owen Vermeulen '28 talks with a fellow student.

Before the lecture began, Professor of Rhetoric Sara Mehltretter chats with Nathan Gray ’20.

最色导航 College President Scott Feller introduces Erwin Chemerinsky as the 2026 David W. Peck Lecturer:

"It's my distinct pleasure to present the 2026 David W. Peck Medal for eminence in the law. Erwin Chemerinsky, few individuals have shaped America's understanding of constitutional law as profoundly as you have across more than four decades as a scholar, educator, advocate and public intellectual. You have left an extraordinary mark on the legal profession and on our nation for generations of law students. The name Chemerinsky has become nearly synonymous with constitutional law itself. Your treatise on constitutional law, principles, and policies, has become indispensable in law schools around the country, admired both for its rigor and its accessibility, yet your true gift is not merely encyclopedic knowledge of the Constitution. It's an unparalleled ability to distill dense doctrine into insightful clarity. Those who have attended your classes know the legend first-hand...that you routinely deliver intricate, hour-long lectures, complete with case citations and historical context without a single note. You teach with a precision that demystifies the law and a passion that reminds students why they study it."

Ron Waicukauski listens to the introduction.

Feller welcomes Chemerinsky (right) to the lectern.

“I was very interested when Professor Himsel asked me to talk today on the topic of why is free speech under attack, and what can we do about it?" Chemerinsky started. "I was asked today as I was meeting with the students here about what grade I would give to our country at this moment in time with the greater freedom of speech… One of the highlights of the day, in addition to the incredibly kind introduction, was getting to spend time with the students, being so dazzlingly impressed by the students here and their preparation, their thoughtfulness, their participation, and that this is a question I'd never been asked before. What grade would I give to the United States at this moment in time with regard to freedom of speech? I would give our country a “B.” On the one hand, freedom of speech goes on every day all across the country. There are events in universities like this, and more raucous than this, where people are expressing views. You read the newspapers on a daily basis, there are certainly those who express criticism of the current administration, including in the Op-Ed pages. We don't have people who are being imprisoned on account of their views. And yet, I'm very troubled by some of the other things that I see in our country with regards to free speech.”

最色导航 studnets were definitely interested in Chemerinsky's presentation. 

“In 1798, not long after the Constitution and the First Amendment had been ratified, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts,” he continued. “It made it a federal crime to falsely criticize government or government officials. Individuals were prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned for speech milder than we hear on a nightly basis on the late-night talk shows. Thomas Jefferson ran for president in 1800 in part on a platform of having the Alien and Sedition Acts repealed and pardoning those convicted. That happened, but there was no Supreme Court case declaring the Alien and Sedition Acts unconstitutional. It wasn't until 1964, in New York Times v. Sullivan, that the Supreme Court said the Alien and Sedition Acts to be declared unconstitutional in the court of history. That's a wonderful, romantic metaphor, but it doesn't change the reality that people went to prison just for criticizing the government during the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln aggressively prosecuted and imprisoned individuals just for criticizing the way the North was waging the war effort, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and made impossible for those individuals to bring legal challenges.

“It's interesting to think about why, for over a century in American history, did the Supreme Court ignore the First Amendment? Some of it is that the First Amendment didn't yet apply to state and local governments. It wasn’t until 1925, or 134 years after the First Amendment was ratified, that the Supreme Court, for the first time, said that it applied to state and local governments by being deemed part of, incorporated into, the due process clause, the 14th Amendment that regulates state and local governments…The first Supreme Court cases of any consequence to deal with free speech were in 1919. They emerged from World War I. It's often forgotten that World War I was very controversial. America's participation was much contested. The United States had taken seriously the words of George Washington's Farewell Address. We should have no entangling alliances, seeing itself protected by two vast oceans.”

(from left) Matthew Gorey, assistant professor of Classics, Himsel, and Feller listen intently.

“It's really not until you get to the 1960s in the advent of the Warren Court, that you find significant supreme court protection for freedom of speech,” he said. “Some of this was in cases involving civil rights demonstrators in a series of important rulings. In the early 1960s, the Supreme Court stressed the need for constitutional protection for dissent and for those who were using protests try to challenge the apartheid that segregated so much of the country. I've already mentioned to you New York Times v. Sullivan. In 1964, the day after it came down, then University of Chicago Law Professor Harry Calvin said it should be an occasion for dancing in the streets there. What the Supreme Court said is to be very difficult for someone who holds public office or runs for public office to win in a suit for defamation. Justice William Brennan wrote the opinion for the court and said that the First Amendment protects the right to have open and robust debate that can include caustic and even vituperative attacks on those who hold government office. I agree with Professor Calvin and think no single decision has done so much to advance freedom of speech in our country,” he said.

“I trace a lot of history quickly, because I think it's part of the answer to the question, why is free speech under attack?” he continued. “It's because free speech has always been under attack, and our nation's commitment to free speech is relatively recent, something not more than a half century old. I have a second part of my answer to the question, why is free speech under attack? And there's a social answer: people always want to try to stop the speech they dislike. People always want to stop the speech that they believe to be harmful…Every hate speech code to be considered by a court has been declared unconstitutional. It's not that they weren't well intentioned, it's they were often vague and over broad. One of the first to go to court came from the University of Michigan…Michigan had, as I described, a number of racist incidents and adopted a hate speech code. It borrowed language from European countries that prohibit hate speech. It prohibited speech that stigmatized or demeaned on the basis of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation. But ask yourself, what does it mean to stigmatize or demean? A challenge was brought by a sociobiology graduate student who said that his research was about whether or not there are inherent differences between men and women with regard to certain beliefs and abilities, he said he was worried that his research might be thought to stigmatize or demean. The federal district court found that the University of Michigan hate speech code was unduly vague and over broad. Why did the hate speech codes get adapted? Undoubtedly, because it was thought it would be important to create a more hospitable learning environment for all students, but it also fits what I say, the inherent tendency of people to want to stop the speech they don't like.”

Chris Runyon '26 pays particular attention.

“Through the 19th century, administrators controlled universities, largely they were religious institutions, and the administrators controlled what professors could teach and what students can learn,” he said. “This changed in the 20th century. In 1915, the American Association of University Professors issued its first statements with regard to academic freedom, saying that instructors have the right academic freedom in their teaching, their scholarship, their public dissemination of ideas, so long as it remains within professional standards… But now in some states, I think there is a rejection of that model of academic freedom and freedom of speech. I think in some states, there is expressed desire to return to the ability of the state, of those who control universities, to be able to dictate the content of courses, be able to dictate what students learn. This, to me, is a very frightening shift, and it's one that I worry about greatly.”

Austin Pickett '26 (right) and fellow pre-law students pay particular attention.

“I was given two questions to address for you this afternoon,” he said. “One of them is, why is there attack on free speech? I've given you two explanations, historic and a social one. Then the question is, what can we do about it? And I think the most important answer to this part of the question is we need to recommit to the basic principles and doctrines with our freedom of speech that exist now and focus on colleges and universities. I think the core of what a college or university is about is that all ideas and views can be expressed period. I actually believe that's the core of what the First Amendment is about, is that all ideas and views can be expressed in our society. There's no such thing as a false idea. There's no such thing as a view that's too dangerous to allow it to be heard. The United States Supreme Court has made this clear, that the government cannot punish speech or hold speech liable just because it's offensive, even deeply offensive.”

“Academic Freedom protects the ability of the instructor to make choices about how to teach material in class, what to publish as a scholar, how to disseminate ideas to the public. So long as they're within the scope of the profession, there's an interrelationship between freedom of speech and academic freedom. I always think of it as a Venn diagram. There are some things that would be protected by freedom of speech that wouldn't be protected by academic freedom.”

“Obviously, there's difficulty in line drawing,” he said. “The point is, academic freedom, like freedom of speech, isn't absolute. The Supreme Court has made clear that there are categories of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment, incitement of illegal activity, true threats, harassment, and then are categories like child pornography or false advertising. And the Supreme Court has been clear that the government, including universities, can have time, place, and manner restrictions with regard to speech. Even though there may be a right to speak on campus, no one has a right to come in here and shout so I can't be heard. No one has a right to come into my classroom and shout so I can't be heard. Universities can prohibit demonstrations near classroom buildings while classes are in session. Universities would be able to restrict speech near dormitories at nighttime. All of that is about time, place, and manner restrictions. I go through all of this to say that we already have the principles and doctrines to provide protection for free speech… We need to educate and inform people. We do a terrible job of civic education in this country. There are so many indications of this. I recently saw a survey that said more people can identify some of the Seven Dwarfs than can identify justices on the United States Supreme Court. Half the people in the survey could not describe how a law gets adopted by Congress and federal government. A third of the people surveyed couldn't name the three branches of the federal government. I worry whether democracy can survive if people understand so little about the government and the Constitution, and I think that creates a burden on all of us to be informed and help inform others. I think we need to go into high schools and junior high schools and be able to educate those students. We need to go to community groups, Lions Clubs and rotary clubs, and educate them about these basic principles of government, including freedom of speech. And I think this is a duty that we all possess. I've heard so many people say to me recently, ‘The news is too depressing. I'm not going to read it or listen to it right now.’ We can't afford that ignorance, and once we're informed, we have to inform others.”

“It's important for all of us to find ways to speak out,” he said. “Maybe it is by going to rallies, maybe it's by writing op-eds. Maybe it's by just writing to members of Congress in the Senate-- they do pay attention--but I so believe that democracy can't die if people speak out. It will only die in silence, and it's then our responsibility to speak out, to protect democracy, to let our views be heard. I have the opportunity to speak to non-lawyers about these topics, and when I talk about these things, they're very skeptical of protecting the speech that they want to suppress, that they find deeply offensive. And the message that I try to transmit to them is that the only way that my speech can be protected tomorrow is to safeguard the speech that I don't like today. The only way that their speech will be saved tomorrow is to protect the speech that they don't like today. What I try to convey is that ultimately, freedom of speech is based on a faith, and the faith is that we are all better off as a society…I very much subscribe to that faith that we are much better off as a society for all ideas and views to be expressed. And if you share that faith with me, then I think it's an obligation for all of us to communicate it and help educate others.”

“I think that universities changed and the major shift was in the 1960s,” he continued during the Q&A. “One shift I already talked about, which occurred in the beginning of the 20th century, was a shift to academic freedom. But I think that universities, beginning in the 1960s, began treating students much more like adults, much more rejecting in loco parentis. So the kinds of restrictions that universities used to have, curfews for students, largely disappeared at major universities. By the time you get to the 1970s, more universities give students much more flexibility in choosing courses. It was all part of treating students like adults, and I think that also goes along with allowing them to choose how to speak and when to speak. And I think that the free speech movement at Berkeley in the mid 1960s was coincident with that, and I think that's all a good change. It's hard for me to see it otherwise. I started college in 1971 just as all of those changes had really begun to take effect… The change I see, and I've been a professor for 46 years now, is my students are much more consumerist than they used to be. It's understandable they'd be more consumerist because they pay so much now to go to school. In my law school, in-state tuition is $66,000 and out-of-state tuition is $80,000 and that's comparable to similar peer schools. So I understand why students are consumers, and some of it is a good thing. I think students are much more impatient now with poor teaching than when I was in school, and I think that's a good thing. Sometimes, as an administrator, it's frustrating.”

Josh Bleisch '16 asks a question during the post-lecture Q&A.

Chemerinsky concluded by saying, “I alluded to the message that I send to my students at the beginning of each academic year, and it always concludes by saying, ‘just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean that you should say it.’ That I hope that when we talk to others, we'll always do so with respect, civility, and kindness, but respect, civility, and kindness can't be enforced by the government. They shouldn't be enforced by an institution. So, there is a right to engage in blasphemous speech. There's a right to engage in very hurtful speech, but people, hopefully, will think carefully before they do so. Just because the right to do it exists doesn't mean it should be said.”

Guided by Himsel, Chemerinsky leaves the stage with a smile.

Hutcheson Norris '27 (left) chats with a classmate during the Peck Dinner reception at Chadwick Court.

Rowan O'Daniel '28 (left) shares a laugh with Connor Phillips ’28. 

Matthew Brookman (right) makes a point with a fellow attendee.

Andrew Dettmer '15 talks with Mehltretter at the dinner.

Roger Billings '59 (left) shares a moment with Nick Maraman '10

Bryce McCullough '23 was all smiles at the dinner.

Gorey (left) chats with a dinnermate.

Mark Riffle '14 (left) catches up with a friend.

Jake German '11 (center) shares a laugh with President Feller (left) and trustee Jennifer Evans.

Matt Price '90 (right) listens as a firend makes a point.

Anderson (left) and McCullough converse before dinner.

Gray (right) talks with Pam Sacco, academic administrative coordinator for Division III.

Jon Pactor '71 (right) reacts in conversation.

Greg Castanias '87 (center) and Evans (right) listen to a thought from Feller.

Jake Leisher '29 engages with a classmate.

Jesse Martinez '26 (right) enjoys this conversation.

Todd McDorman, dean of the college, (right) listens to an attendee.

Waicukauski asks a question.

Thomas Price '26 smiles during conversation.

Reagan Perkins '22 (right) listens intently.

Charlie Esterline '21 (center) makes a point during conversation.

Morgan Govecar '26 (center) engages in conversation.

Mehltretter (facing camera) reacts to a comment by Billings.

Himsel opens awards portion of the David W. Peck Dinner with a smile.

These awards recognize recipients from the 最色导航 College Pre-Law Society.

Zamir McNeal '29 (facing camera) enjoys some dinner conversation.

Elijah Wetzel '27 (right) makes a point to a tablemate.

Chris Runyon '26, president of the pre-law society, presents the Richard O. Ristine Award.

Runyon (left) with Ristine Award winner Matthew Gorey.

Riley Floyd '13 presents the Joseph J. Daniels Award in Constitutional Law.

Floyd (left) with Daniels Award winners Jackson Ray '28 (center) and Wade Wisler '27.

Jason Jackson '97 presents the William Nelson White Scholarship Award.

Jackson (right) with White Scholarship winner Michael Enz '26.

Andrew Rankin '98 presents the James E. Bingham Award.

Price enjoys a light moment during the awards presentation.

Jakob Goodwin '23 listens attentively.

Rankin (right) with Bingham Award winners (from left) Ben Cody '26, Thomas Price '26, and Austin Pickett '26.

Himsel presents the Junior Peck Medal.

Himsel (left) with Junior Peck Medal recipient Chris Runyon '26.

The Class of 2026 Pre-Law seniors with Professor Himsel. Front row (l to r): Morgan Govekar, Justin Spurgeon, Austin Pickett, Professor Scott Himsel, Chris Runyon, Ben Cody, and Nathan Ellenberger. Back Row: Ethan Hill, Silvio Radice, John Allen, Michael Enz, Thomas Price, Isaac Grannis, Tobey Condon, and Andrew Barsich.