Robert Peck, a prominent expert on constitutional law, visited Grinnell this week and gave three lectures to students on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday. He also sat in on other classes and talked to faculty outside the lectures.
Peck has worked in law for over 30 years and has argued multiple cases before the Supreme Court, as well as being on the board of directors for the National Center for State Courts and contributing to a PBS documentary on the Constitution which the Associated Press awarded "Best Documentary."
On Monday, he gave a historical perspective to the current administration's stances towards constitutional law. We interviewed him afterwards about his diverse experiences and dedication to his mission to protect citizens' rights under the Constitution.
Has your experience and your extensive work in your field made you more skeptical of the power of youth activism as opposed to scholarship and research? What place do you think students like those at Grinnell have in this debate?
Peck: The fact is that when I get involved in an issue, I get fully involved in that issue. It comes from the faith that I can make a difference here. You know, I can jump into the stream of history, and guide it in a direction to some extent. That faith has not changed in thirty years of practice. So part of what I am doing, regardless of whether you agree with me or don't, is to suggest to young people that they can make a difference too. It doesn't have to be as a constitutional lawyer, but they should know its their lives and their country and their world at stake.
What do you think is the most influential ... thing that you have personally done in your career?
Peck: There are different things... [W]ithin days of [9/11] the U.S. airlines went to Congress and asked for immunity from congress from any lawsuits, because they were responsible for any failures in security. [T]hey basically said that they would lose their insurance and not be able to fly in the aftermath of that. I was one of the few people who said to Congress if you're going to do something for the airlines, you need to do something for the families of the victims. I was asked to draft a statute that would do that, which became the Victims Compensation Fund, was something that I did the first draft of. So that's something that I had an impact with.
What do you think might be some of the most dangerous threats to the fabric of our way of life from this "hard right turn," the subject of your speech tomorrow?
Peck: I think that we're going to see an erosion of individual rights. The court is going to consider them less worthy of respect. The fact that there are less opportunities to go to courts when you are dissatisfied with the political process. So you're going to see the standing doctrine invoked more frequently, saying that no one has standing to raise this question before the court. Since 1968, the idea that as a taxpayer, if your money was being spent to promote religion, that you had standing to challenge that the government was taking a position on one side or another, and that this violated the separation of church and state. Just a couple of years ago, out of nowhere without any expectation that this was going to change, the Supreme Court said no, that that's not enough standing, that you have to be individually and adversely effected in a way that no one else is, which is a pretty tough thing to prove, so as a result, almost no one's going to be able to bring those lawsuits anymore.
We've had some incidents of hate speech at Grinnell, trying to intimidate various groups around campus. How does constitutional law deal with hate speech?
Peck: [The constitution] tolerates hate speech. The first amendment has a sort of safety valve function to it. By allowing this not to be underground, to be out in the open, it allows others to organize against it, and to combat it with good speech. On the other hand, if the speech becomes more intimidating than just speech, then it goes beyond advocacy ... [T]o the extent that hate speech crosses the line to that sort of intimidation it is subject to legal constraint
