tv Everett Piper Discusses Free Speech on College Campuses CSPAN September 23, 2017 6:02pm-7:01pm EDT
and i just happen to think that -- that horseman of the trump makes a fine labor day gift. thank you for being here. [applause] hilarious. >> available at the checkout desk he'll be up here signing and please help by folding up our chairs. [inaudible conversations] thank you very much. >> you are watching booktv television for serious readers you can watch any program you see here online at booktv dorgs.
goorchl i like to welcome all of you joined us here at fc and today lecture topic is not a day care. devastating consequences of abandoning truth. my name is ian stevens an intern here at frc also a student of oklahoma west lane university and i have the privilege of welcominged today's speaker. the president of oklahoma wesley university dr. everett piper. what i'm at home i have honor of watching massive dogs when he's giving lectures so which is always fun. [laughter] in his 14 year of president of the university, doctor piper become known for passionate defense of intellectual freedom, the advocate tirelessly for time tested truth and religion, education, and politics challenges the intolerance are
of today's academic community. at oklahoma west lane he teaches to follow four basic, the jesus christ and pursuit of truth, and racket of wisdom. doctor piper on edss our routinely featured local and national news outlets and he serves as a regular guest on talk radio across the nation and most well known op-ed this is not a day care but a university. has since gone viral and is now basis for his new book. a native of michigan doctor piper and wife marci along with their two sonsset and kobe by served as oklahoma first families since august of 2002. dr. piper actively participates in the community and the west lane church and serves on variety of counsel and boards relating to christian leadership, public policy and community leadership so help me welcome up dr. everett piper.
[applause] >> delighted to join you today thank. i'll tell your mother and father you did a good job. [laughter] let's start you should know your audience. i would suggest the audience should know their speak sore let me clarify a couple of things trigger i do in the issue trigger warnings. i don't believe in safe spaces and cs plews said of the great line that he's not safe but he's good i thought argue that the great lion of the academy of the ivory tower of the university of american an western universities and colleges should not be safe but indeed they are good. i don't believe that my feelings or yours are are final measuring of what's right or young. i actually believe education should be more about facts than feelings. feelings lead to fashionism and facts lead to trm.
remember the basic fact that jesus told us of -- you shall note truth ie. the fact and it shall set you free. i believe in ideas and i believe in words. i believe that when we lose control of our words we lose control of our ideas and we lose control of the debate and when we lose control of the debate we ultimately lose control of our freedom. for example, with when we dumb u down the deaf nation of words like hate to nothing more than disagreement we make hate meaningless and disagreement dangerous. words matter. ideas have consequences, and one last word before i get into my lecture, life isn't about you. education isn't about you. it isn't about me george mcdonald a writer from the turn of the 1800s to 1900s a
writer that led to version of c.s. lewis if you will had this to say core principle of hell is i am my own. i am my own king. i am the center. i'm the october and i'm the end. my judgment is the faultless rule of all things. the claim that we can define and reare define everything from marriage to morality from male to female everything from what it means to be goods and what it means to be bad this claim of god-like deity can only lead to the ugly hell of our own making. i believe it is only repentance and confession that will rescue us from this fate. so i'm the guy who wrote this op-ed titled this is a university it's not a day care. let me give you a little bit of a context and then we're going to launch into a little bit of a script and i'll ad lib as we go along too.
it was just before thanksgiving 2015, oklahoma wesley university still has required chapels every wednesday and fridays. and i received a phone call from a vice president who was chapel speaker on this particular day. i didn't go to chapel that day i had something else to do. and he wanted to call me and let me know that there could be a problem. >> i want you to know one of our students after chapel l came to me and basically played the victimization card he told me that i had singled him out and that i had singled his peers out and he didn't like it he didn't like my chapel speech. my sermon. and toys him well what did you speak on? he said you won't believe this i'm a monster is quote unquote. first kringt i corinthians 13 you've heard it love it patient, love it kind.
well i asked this particular vp i said give me a copy of your sermon because i know he always speaks from a text. he rarely ad libs, i knew if i read is it i would get exactly what he said. so i read through the sermon and it was a very simple and brief love. no lil humor no sarcasm, nothing whatsoever that could be deemed offensive other than first corinthians 13. so i was incredulous i thought an institute so bold in market and promotion about who we are and why you should come there you can not enroll without knowing who we are. you know that we stand for the priority of scripture, pursuit of truth and practice of wisdom we have a center on capitalism. free enterprise because we think they're good not bad. you know, that we stand for pro-life that we actually promote through our thursing program and our premed program that god defines life you don't.
and when you choose to pay to go there you're buying a product that is well defined but yet inspite of in my chapel we have a student saying he didn't like first corinthians 13 this is the op-ed, i actually published it on the website oklahoma website and i also -- published it in a local u newspaper which i have the routine of doing and i've been doing that for a decade or so. i said to this young man, you know that feeling of discomfort you have after listening to a sermon it is called your conscience alter call is supposed to make you feel bad. it is supposed to make you feel some degree of guilt. the goal of many a goods sermon to get you to confess sins not to coddle you in your selfishness. primary objective is your confession not your self-actualization. so let me offer you some advice. if you want the chaplain to tell you that you're a victim rather
than tell you you needs virtue, this may not be the university you're looking for. if you want to complain about a sermon that makes you feel less than loving, for not showing love, this might be the wrong place. if you're more interested in playing hater card than you are in confessing your own o hate and air gangtly lecture rather than humbly learn and not feel gilt when you're guilty of sin and you have to be pin abled rather than confronted there are universities across the land in missouri and elsewhere -- that will give you exactly what you want. but oklahoma university is not one of them. we teach you to be selfless rather than self-centered we're more interested in you practicing person forgiveness than political revenge. we want you to model in a personal reconciliation rather than personal conflict. we believe in the con tengt of your krk and more important than the color of your skin we don't belief you've been victimized every time you feel guilty and
we don't issue trigger warnings before alter calls. oklahoma is not a safe place. but rather a place to learn, to learn that life isn't about you. but about others. but that bad feeling you have while listening to a sermon yeah it is called guilt. and that way to address it to reare pengt of everything that's wrong with you rather than blame other for everything that's wrog with them. this is a place where you will quickly learn that you need to grow up. this is not a day care but a university and glenn beck and nb todays and dr. drew and varney and cbs and cbn and national review and washington post and a new york time and chronicle of higher education, and newspapers and great britain, and the far east -- were all of a sudden interested apparently many wanted to hear what i had to say.
apparently i said something many were waiting for -- apparently simple and brief response struck a cord. many who even openly disagreed with what they called my religion and my politics wrote me to say thank you. this was long overdue please carry on. side bar we have 3.5 million views in about -- two week period. 97% of the chents were positive. 97%. there were dozens upon dozens if not hundreds of people that yo wrote in, texted e-mail snail mailed, called and said i don't like your religion i've checked you out. i don't like your politics i read your website. but it's about time somebody said it. thank you. so why? why? i believe it's because we intuitively recognize as rational human beings who were made in the image of goad thats
there's great power in what -- ideas. ideas, and that at the end of the day civilizations are built and cooltures concurred by armies and navies, but by speeches. and lectures and blogs and books by the power of ideas -- much more so than that of bullets u you know this, you've been taught this 1948 richard weaver -- told us ideas have consequences. read the title ideas have consequences, ideas matter. few years after that, few years earlier than 1948 hitler said let me control textbook and i will control the state huxley then said -- we warn of where education can be used as a means of total power and total control. ideas clearly do have
consequences. good and evil people have recognized this. good ideas lead to good control and good community pane church and good corporation and good kids, bad ideas lead to the opposite like your grandmother told you garbage in garbage out. she was right. ideas matter. and i would argue today that education is in a total mess colleges and universities are in crisis contemporary university is no longer then for pursuing truth for rather celebrating toll rangs and in the name of tolerance i'm told that my symbol intolerance is intolerable and i can't tolerate your intolerance i'm sure nothing sure. i'm absolutely confident there are no absolutes and i know nothing can be known. this is humorous this is -- fun thy. if it weren't so sad it is like
watching dog chase its tail. at every turn the result of this nonsense that tradition of good teaching actually become the dark flag of tyranny almost overnight. what was academic freedom just yesterday is fashionism today rather than celebrating liberty liberals demand conformity and universities and campus and colleges have speech codes rather than free speech. faculties and stiewpghts alike are more interested in trigger warnings than pursuing truth run by the statements thought police collegeses across the land have become camps much more so than campuses of open inquiry. propaganda and power now rule for their used to be a pursuit of truth. our track record is terrible decade after decade taught the next generation it doesn't matter what you believe as long as it works for you. if you ever say that shame on you.
it doesn't matter what you believe as long as it works for you. we've taught you that all morality is relative that good and evil are merely subjective social contracts year after year we preach pastor and priests are stupid that liberation theology is only good religion. day in and day out -- we had class resentment and racial and diminish excellence, why are rewe surprised that leaders have lost courage and congress has lost soul. our kids have lost their conscience and their character. our culture is without a conscience. yes ideas do have consequences. and the lousy ideas that we've been teaching in our colleges and in our universities for the past several decades are baring themselves out daily before our eyes. but okay -- bemoaning the problem, i actually think there's a solution.
and i think it's found i think it's found in the historical, liberal arts. side bar my first book which you can find at not a day care.com. if you care as well as -- any subsequent writings. my first was titled why i'm a liberal and other conservative ideas what was my point? as unapologetic bold conservative who believes in conserving things i'm a conservist i believe being a good stewart of the world, air, and whale and owl i'm a conservist but i believe conserving other things tried and test and more enduring truth those ideas that have been tested by time and confirmed by reason and validated by experience. and given to us by revelation evident truths endowed to us by who -- somebody bigger and better than you or me.
the permanency, of those things that should be conserved as a conservative ironically today i'm more classically liberal than my left of center counterpart. because i believe in a good robust exchange of ideas. i believe in the power of the debate. i believe that there's a right answer and wrong answer at the end of the hour. at the end of the lecture and end of the argument and i think that truth is the judge not you not me, not power, not politics not the pundit not the professor, not the priest and not the pastor i believe truth is the judge of the debate that liberates me. to engage rather than confines me -- i'm more liberal. than those that often disagree with me. because i believe in liberty -- and liberation and freedom and justice. i believe that if you go back a thousand years to the birthplace the cradle of the liberal arts movement oxford let's just say some 1,000 years ago, that the
university was established to liberate to educate a free man and woman and culture a free society -- to give us a sense is of liberty and liberation thus the word liberal. so why? why do you believe people requester so interested in what i had to say. why were 3.5 million and still being posted throughout here today to hear about it two years later. it was far pack as moses later from jefferson we were told only by trusting in the paradox of liberty and law, can we ever hope to protect our unalien rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and thereby be -- a beam purpose not hapless but happy. note purposeless but with purpose. and objective goal a measuring rod outside of those things being measured. self-evident truth ares that are endowed from outside not qucted from inside. it was those fences around
freedom that chesterton told us that you can have no liberty without law. and you can have no freedom without -- fences that how we become a free people and a free country. you see freedom trust and principle rather than people power, politics -- freedom knows there's a true north or measure rods outside of those things being measured. again chesterton told us when you get rid of the big laws now this is good stuff this was worth the price of admission when you get rid of the big u laws you don't get liberty. you get thousands of lawing that rush many to fill the vacuum but can't live by ten simple law that's all we needed all we needed ten simple laws we have refused to live by big laws and by the way, jesus narrowed it down to two.
we kangt live by ten or two any longer so what happened? reames upon reames upon reames of little laws rushing in to fill the vacuum you see it they're being produced in this this city. telling us how to do everything down to which bathroom to use. when you get rid of big laws you don't get liberty but rather thousands upon thousands of of little laws that fill in the value you mean the power of professors or temper tantrum of students but rather in few and simple laws of nature and nature's god. there's a reason that dozens of universities were once with the model motto what -- you shall know the truth. and the truth shall set you free. there is no liberty without law and there's no freedom if you stop teaching truth. the solution to this nonsense
can be found in common sense. sense that is common in self-evident truths that are endowed to us by our create are tore rather than self-centeredness entrenched in callused human heart in the laws of nature and nature's god the truth of goode is written on every human heart. for example, if you wanted to dispute that, do we know that rape is wrongsome? do we? is do we know that holocaust was evil and that slavery is a bad thingsome we hold truths to be what, self-evident not socially constructed why because there's a creator and it's not you. and it's not me, the solution to the nonsense is return to teffing laws that make sense.
we need laws that teach liberty and not lie natural law leads to freedom. manmade laws bring nothing but more restrictions more government, more division, more control, more fascism and less liberty. it may seem a bit redundant but i would like to leave you as i get ready to wrap this up with a very simple and clear message. culture is about ideas. and ideas are defined by what? words. in other words, words mean something. side bar -- always remember that he who defines the words wins the debate. education is about words. politics is about words. culture is about words. words mean something. guess what, they have definition
words like marriage, green -- and gay and left and right, change and choice and right and wrong and up and down and goods and evil. male and female. moral and immoral -- all words have meaning. and as thinking human beings and thoughtful moral agents, we do know what the deaf of is is -- and we also intuitively know something else very important, changing and manipulating meaning of words is called something. it is called lying. we also know that deceit does bring consequences. as we're told by prophet well on to him isaiah calls bittersweet light and dark darkness lying
about words and with words turning them upside down -- is always wrong. self-evident as it is it should be clear to all of us. but what i'm trying to challenge with you right now words mean something. take this couple of examples here many who stand against i want to say us -- those of white house care for religious freedom many of who stand against us and fight for religious freedom today do so in the name of tolerance, a word. but there are objection seems to be anything but tolerant right? again they say i can't tolerate your intolerance and i hate you hateful people i'm sure nothing is sure i know nothing can be known and i'm absolutely confident there's no absolutes. i don't seem to recognize that everything they just said is self-refuting that every turn it
makes no sense. they saw off the branch upon which they sit. waving the branch waving banner of toll rangs while being intolerant does not make you the champion of your ideal. it makes you excuser and it doesn't take an eighth grade education to see this for what it's worth. terrible politics at its worth and anything but a principled argument any schoolboy can see that the premise prosed is not about tolerance it never has been. so the contrary it is more about tyranny. and power that every turn we see it on our campus and in courts and angry red faces shouting you must agree with us. you must be one of us. you must think like i think and do like i do and if you toangt -- don't applaud what i say and what i think you will be expelled we do not want you in
our culture, in our community and surely not on our sledge campus. tolerating intolerable is no interest to them and in the end, their world view is not about coxyst answer. but rather it is a poster child for contradiction. it isn't about tolerance or freedom it's about fascism pure and simple you may mow this but a fascist a roman bundle of sticks bonged together so tightly that it could not be broken. couldn't break it the power of the fascist that's where we get the word fascism and today is like wise unbreakable bundle of what, power it's a group of people bound together no differences no diversity, it's the rule of the gang.
it is unquestioned and unchallenged power that called arms of these mods earn day you must submit. so the question we face today is rather not to be ruled by ideological fashionism prevailing across our land or do we want to enjoy intellectual freedom? let me ask questions to point out headlines of the past couple of years. should our government have power to force religious on its students excuse me on its citizens, students i suppose too, or do we have freedom to believe and behave by the dictates of our conscience unimpeded by government should the government have power to force a jewish own of a meat processes business to process pigs and should government have power to force muslim own or of a local newspaper to print charlie "charlie hebdo" cartoon and demand a catholic owner of a convenient store sell bread and wine to the church for its mock.
should the government be able to force the on owner of a billboard company to sell services to someone who wants to mock christmas or easter? if your answer is no and i hope it is, how in the world can you possibly think that the government should now be able to force the owner of a flower shop in washington to participate had in a religious service, a religious service that directly violates a key sacrament, a sacrament of her faith? when did the government get the power to define sacraments of the church talk about a breach of the wall of separation. should the government be able to force a catholic order called the little sisters of the poor to buy contraception they don't want and won't use side bar they're catholic and they're nuns.
they don't have sex because they're nuns they're celibate. why in the world would think about you, me, a government official presuppose to tell these women what kind of pills they need to buy in their health care? this is absurd. it's insulting it is anything but prowoman. it's misogynistic -- and somebody should say so. and by the way, if the little sisters of the poor shouldn't be forced to buy contraception they don't want and don't use and contrary to their convictions their beliefs and what they want to do with their body then how not world can government presuppose so tell oklahoma faculty who are pro-life by definition that they too must submit? i'm going to go off on a little rant here.
what possibly is prowoman argument, what could possibly be more misogynistic than to ignore obvious fact of the female? what is more insulting to a woman than to tell her she's not a fact? you're no longer a biological reality you're nothing but a social contract you're nothing u but the fantasy, fabrication, the feelings of a disfork male who raise his hands on a given day and say i am one and by the way prowoman in insulting you and such a way and suggesting that any time someone else raises his hand and says i am a female, with even though biology does not show it vizzology does not show it genetics does not show it chromosomes don't show it it is feelings and emotion and fabrication it makes the woman it makes the female less than a pact. you're nothing but a leprechaun and unicorn anymore you're a
fantasy. you're make believe. i would suggest that that's anything but being prowoman. but i digress back to my point portioned agreement is totalitarian asm and requiring women to submit to the whims and wishes of a male driven government is not feminism it is misogyny this is ideological fascism and not intellectual freedom and clear example of the government establishing what religion is acceptable and then prohibiting the free expression of any religion that is in disagreement with that. sound constitutional to you? so let's wrap this one up. words mean something. students, as leaders as
community leaders, hang on to your words. define them. defend them. honor freedom and fight fascism. stand for truth and fight tyranny. stand for love and fight hate. stand for the rights of woman and fight against their subjugation and stand for liberty and liberation fight -- and remember the words of bonn who have oar they mean and not to act is to act silence in the face of evil is evil itself. one more time. not to speak is to speak. not to act is to act. silence in the face of evil is evil itself. god will not hold us emitless. there's a reason that jesus is described in the gospel of john. as what -- the word. the word he means something he can not be changed he's the way, he's the truth, the light he
defined himself as the alpha and o megago an alphabet jesus son of god dwelling among us defined himself as alphabet as a word. why? why? remember his words. you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. remember that he is the word made flesh. and dwelling among us remember he's said behold i'm coming soon may the word the word be your confidence and courage as you fight the good fight to win the prize. which christ, the word has called you heavenward. amen. you have some questions q and a -- fire away.
>> thanks so much for coming and speaking dr. piper i was curious to hear to maybe talk a little bit more practically so after macken tire says this octave standard of morality a place of making people respond to the way you feel about things and only way to adjudicate is through power which seems to pretty accurately describe movement of the left to make people respect the way they feel. but in response i feel like conservatives have embraced a lot of aggressive and called provocateur like steven crowder go to liberal campus and yell back louder which makes the left accuse conservatives of being fascist. so i guess a two part question one like do you think that's a wide embrace of those who yell back loudly as liberals are yelling and second like how practically to trying to -- encourage the open exchange of ideas and -- other opposing ideas to the left
without sort of stooping to their level of aggression does that make sentence >> i think so. i'll respond by pointing to christ so i'm a christian if that's outside of your world view -- i guess that's okay. we're here to talk about ideas, and when i bring ideas to the table i brung in the context of my conviction and my world view and my world view is biblical. i believe it's the world view that's been tested by time and to give greatest measure of history throughout human history and so let's go back to founder of this world view jesus. when he was confront od by an adversary rather it be political or academic, pharisee let's say, what did he almost always do when he was confronted with the contrary question? he almost never debated. he almost always simply asked a rhetorical question.
who's face is on that coin do you want to throw the first stone? and then christ himself again if you're a christian son of god -- the word made flesh and dwelling among us the guy smartest guy to ever walk planet he, obviously, knew the answer i would argue he probably could have won the debate. but he chose not to. he chose to ask rhetorical question to ask o opponent to implode and more than not they would drop stones and walk away. i think that best thing we can do in a culture today that is prone to anger and -- that is costic and condescending is ask bold and clear, i don't think pitchlation and compromise is necessary. i don't know forced conversation about evil is necessarily the only way to go. when i say conversation, there's some things that are not debatable.
i'm not going to sit arranged around and discuss merit of slavery or o discuss merit of the holocaust or values of those who engage in rape. it's self-evident when i ask those question i'm not going to give any ground to those bad ideas. but that doesn't mean i get angry. that doesn't mean i get costic. that doesn't mean i get condescending or employ whether a non non it means that i can sy and clearly ask a question that would cause the person that's advocating the contrary world view to recognize the brokenness of their idea. so you think slavery is okay? >> i don't think black people
are inferior to white. >> so you think -- consensual sex with minors is okay? >> are you telling me a ten-year-old can consent to desires and passions of a 25-year-old man? >> be quiet, don't say anything. force the answer let the world view that's, obviously, broken and wrong implode upon itself. i think that's the best strategy. hope i answered your question. this one down here. >> thank you dr. piper just a question to a few of us interns and college students is and if you can kind of give us maybe a little bit of what you've experienced as students on oklahoma --
university campus, you gave the example of someone in chapel but what we can do practically whether we go to secular or christian schools or any other o religion just kind of how we can approach this problem with not only our peers but professors that might give us an opposite view of how we feel and what we know to be true, and kind of how we can approach these situations. >> i'm going to say a couple of things that are common sense and it's probably not true for you because my virtue of who you are you are spending whole summer study, reading putting several more arrows in your quiver so you're prepared to engage but you know very well that generally speaking very few other people in your peer group or o in general culture younger and older are prepared they don't read. they don't know how to express their ideas. they may have intuitive feel. they may understand and i would argue that it's a biblical fact that the truth is written on every human heart.
we have a general understanding whether you're -- secular or rather you're religious, that slavery is a bad thing. we have a general understanding that the holocaust was probably a bad idea. so you don't to be religious but any raiding to say anything beyond that. so in a debate they're intimidated and they don't know what to do. so number one, do cs lewis told you to do before you read a new book, maybe go pick up a dozen or so old ones and read them. because those ideas have been arranged a while and there's reason -- they've been around a while -- they've stood the test of time. so don't assume and he accused his own new generation of cron cological snobbery and challenge you not to fall in the same trap
and get involved with you think idea worth considering something that's on this phone that just came across your twitter feed. go read the old books that have stood the test of time and know what they say and odds are because they won the detect a thousand years ago, they'll probably be a value in winning the debate today. that would be my first point of advice second is get a spine. courage and have some confidence. it's amazing to me it's amazes to me how few people on the conservative side of the debate have the courage and confidence to even engage at all. maybe it's because intuitively we defer to good manners. intuitively we defer to being courteous and avoiding the conflict. buzz we don't want to break relationships. that could be why conservatives are often reluctant and noble things. but i would also say that christ himself tells us that if you
love me you'll obey me and lord disciplines those he loves so there is no false dichotomy of explain but it has a mutually beneficial truth. love and discipline conflict, confrontation, if handled properly is necessary in a loving relationship rather than contrary to it. i was on the o'reilly factor -- during the tile of say two years ago, and it turned to the issue of cultural engagement cultural debate and at the end of the debate an conflict that was taking place and basically church was -- turning tail and running other direction. afraid to engage because of the conflict -- and i said so mr. o'reilly he brought up issue of tolerance i said on your anniversary or perhaps it was thanksgiving, did you sengtd your wife and i tolerate you card?
i would suggest answer is no because i tolerate you card that probably didn't end well? because why mr. o'reilly tolerance says -- i could careless do what you want. i don't love you. i really are don't even like you that well but i'll tolerate you. do what you want. love says -- i care deeply, stop. love says i don't care. excuse me tolerance says i don't care do what you want. love says i care deeply, stop. so have confidence and courage get a spine. do some reading, understand your ideas practice them chuck i'm a student of chuck he told us that only way you learn it is to teach it. so teach it. teach it to yourselves teach it to your peers talk about it con isn't ally. be prepared for your speech. then you're confident and you
can do it without getting angry because anger is always last resort emotion is always last thing when you've lost the ability to be logical an make sense and you see it. you see it, so often and political debate. people will digress to the name calling. to the -- popular or they'll digress to fallacy because that's grounded in feeling rather than stay on point and if you have the ability the courage, the confidence, the conviction to stay on point, because you practiced, you'll be only one in the room that has it. >> wondering if you could trying to figure out what could be observancive about first corinthians 13 and talking and read it did you ever like find this guy or girl and ask them i guess you said it was a -- male. what was wrong? what's wrong with first corinthian 13 it is baffling.
>> it causes your head to spin answer is no i never went to student specifically there's a reason because this pit became a public issue i didn't want him to feel that he was being -- called out publicly and believe it or not i'm told to this day that that student did not know the article was about him. believe it or not. [laughter] which tells you something you might say how is that possible? the only reason it could be possible is if he believed that there were several students that shared his view and it must have been about them not him. that's part of the answer. other part of the answer is what was so observancive about it. i have no idea. other than it made him feel uncomfortable and discomfort i thought apparently we're at a time and place in our culture and college and had many our campuses where discomfort is any idea that makes you feel bad -- is to safety and nonsense. what i said earlier i think it
is powerful maybe you don't. cs lewis great line -- when the kids are talking to mr. and mrs. beaver, and lion and witch and regard robe they ask mr. beaver, is aslin safe hen mr. beaver, of course, says no. he's not safe but he's good. so you paraphrase that the great line of liberal arts, the great line of the academy, the great lion of the university, the great lion of the ivory tower is it supposed to be safe? or o is it supposed to be good there's a huge difference. sir i think we're actually at a time where if the ideas don't make you feel comfortable and safe, unchallenged that those ideas can be askewed those ideas can be labeled as bad ideas. and that is not the measure of a
free society that's the measure of ideological fascism that's not the measure of intellectual freedom. if you haven't read first corinthian 13 read it and you tell me what's offense oive in that other than -- it may make you feel uncomfortable for not measuring up. good! i'm glad it does. i'm glad it does. i'm not interested in -- interested excuse me i'm not interested in coddling you or comforting you at my university. i'm interested in confronting you because when you graduate i want you to be a man and a woman of character. not going to what could you a dloam ma that says congratulations you ever got an opinion. you majored in opinions good for you. you have a degree in opinions. how absurd is this this is lunacy. i actually home you learned something. that's right and wrong and just and -- i want you to know what -- how it is juxtaposed to injustice and i want you to know
some truths relative to nursing and accounting and biology and philosophy. if you don't know anything that's true are when you graduate i suggest you wasted yr time and money you don't get a dloam ma in opinions because opinion mine and yours don't matter on graduation day i don't care what your opinion. i really don't. and you shouldn't care that much about mine. opinions lead to apology and all of the history had opinions, it didn't end very well. jesus told you you shall is know the ruth and the truth shall set you free. yes, ma'am. >> so i was at a conference roongtly at american university, and one of au government profess came and discussed trigger warnings and safe spaces he believed that they should be mandated across country and campuses and i was only one against trigger warnings so i thought it was easy to shut it down and show flaws xepght own
fact when he said what if there's a person with ptsd or war veteran and railed and talking to a topic to bring it back. how would you best help combat that particular situation on trigger warnings is this >> that the biblical world view always defers to love. okay. and in such a situation if somebody has a technical disorder or dysfunction such as ptsd, then, of course, we're going to be compassionate with that individual, recognize that we shouldn't ignore them. be cruel to them -- expose them to greater harm, but this is what often happens in the progressive left of the debate they will take an isolated distinct, anomaly aberration, brokenness of our world, and then they'll break all of the rest of the world to measure up to that anomaly as if that is the standard now.
rather than recognizing by definition it's not the standard. by definition it is different. it is dysfunctional. there should be correction from it to the norm. rather than moving the norm downward we should love the person enough to bring them upward. so, of course, we recognize being e-the anomaly we recognize brokenness. but we don't break everything else because of it. we try to correct it. that would be my response to that particular question. big trigger warning believe all things about treating people with kindness, love, and you know kind of an interesting way to sort of think about it. that kind of answers the from a christian perspective. but rather than go into
ideological and be kind to people. >> exactly. >> right so somebody is offend employ principle of kringt i an ironically if first corinthian 13 the solution becomes offense oive to me because everything is subjective everything come down to me i'm god, you are not -- god is not. i am god, i would argue today that question seem to be more interested in praying to the god we see in the mirror than praying to the god we see in the bible. and i would argue that the end result of that is not positive o. there has to be a measuring rod outside of things being measured and lady justice has to be blind when she takes blindfold off and starts putting her thumb on scale then justice is lost. truth non existent. power always will trump principle. there is no correction. there's nothing self-evident everything is self-constructed.
everything is self-and we can come to the point where we can say that the solution which has been obvious for 2,000 year ares love is patient, love it kind is the problem because i don't like it. and i'll define things in any own image and gazing in the pool we slip, we fall in, and infatuated with ourselves we drown, and all that's left is the name was echo pining after the lost of such wasted beauty. that's where we are coming as a culture today we're on precipice of the pool are the to slip and fall in we might be wise to recognize that thing we see in the mirror is not as grbd and glorious as we think. but there might be something actually better, bigger -- more permanent than that that's worthy of conservation and that is only that that will give us
liberty and liberation and freedom at the end of the day. thank you. [applause] former president bill clinton recently shared his thoughts on what he calls the most important political book of the last decade. >> you know what the exhibit is at the clinton presidential center right now? extreme bugs. you know what my staff gave me for christmas last year? two not one, two ant farms so i can have one on my desk at presidential library and one in my office in harlem why because i'm always telling them -- that the most important political book that nobody read
or read for a political book written in the last ten years that would have made us all much healthier as citizens is eo wilson a conquest of earth which is i think less than 250 pages long and he's a double pulitzer prize winning microbiologist first taught me that combine of the ants on earth is greater than weight of people on earth that's quite a number of ants. why am i telling you this? [laughter] because here's the conclusion of the book i'll save you the purchase price all of the species that have ever inhabited our earth -- and we know there are hundreds of thousands of them, right? sadly disagreeing now at the most rapid rate in 10,000 years,
but he said the most successful species that ever lived if you define success is we have repeated chances to be wiped out but -- they failed. here we are. still around most successful species are ants, terminate and bees and people. not the the biggest not the strongest, and he says it shall what do they have in common? these have all of the species that ever lived are greatest cooperators they found ways to work together to solve common problems and build stronger futures. and he says people are the greatest cooperators but -- it they're great strength is their great curse. we have a we have a conscience and consciousness, and we know it.
so it makes us air gangt air arrogant and we slice and dice ourself ourselves in the end threaten our ability to escape we're existing threatening challenge. this climate change thing gives me a kick, i can't no one doubts the question because this knew mareically verifiable more than 95% of the scientists say this is a threat to our planet. now position is saying they might be wrong. i'm just saying door we have coldest march in new york in 100 something years. i was pleading global warming to come back. look i get it we can make all of these jokes you name me one other threat every parent many this audience -- name me one threat that you woct
take seriously if you thought that odds of doing this were more than 90% better than the odds of doing that. the child in the backseat the 100% chance your child will survive a crash unless the car completely collapses. 5% people say no, that's crazy. odds are just about you throw the kids in the backseat and will the them roll around. [laughter] nobody would do that right that's what we're doing on climate change throwing kid in the backseat and letting them roll around. >> you can watch e.o. wilson conquest of earth on booktv.org, booktv television for serious read arers.
>> you're watching booktv on c-span2, television for serious readers. here's our prime time lineup, at 7 p.m. eastern hillary clinton gives her personal account of the 2016 presidents cial campaign and election. then at 8:30 historian looks at global ramification of the cold war on booktv afterwards at 10 p.m. eastern "new york times" magazine contradict tore suzie hanson reflects on travel abroad and reports on world view of america's tolerant inthriewns, and at 11 paul professor of sociology at the university of massachusetts talks about western lek chul who is supported policemen dictator over the past century that whats tonight on c-span2's booktv. and now -- hillary clinton.