tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 31, 2016 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT
the actual results are flipped and the loser becomes the winner, but that there is confidence in the election results, is undermined. host: is there a role for home care -- homeland security to say perhaps, provide additional guidance, security -- michael: they have done that. jeh johnson had that conference call. he is offering federal forstance to the state securing their systems, to conduct a vulnerability scans on their computers. and the george washington university law school -- >> welcome to the george
washington university law school. to introduce this distinguished panel on a topic that has been front and center in the news over the past year, and that is the issue of freedom of speech on campus. the idea for this panel came last year when developments were andking at yale university the university of missouri. coincidentally, the book of my colleague in one of our panelists, professor catherine ross, was just coming out. professor ross' book is "lessons in censorship." they came out in 2015 under harvard university press. we had hoped to do something last spring, but time passed, and in some respect the presses of time was a good thing. away.ssue is not going
it the events that play themselves out to a certain extent, it is appropriate as we begin the academic year that we have the opportunity to examine the topic of freedom of speech particularly in the university. universities typically may be considered places for the broad exchange of ideas, including unpopular ideas. over the past year, the concept has been challenged on various university campuses. last week, a dean of the university of chicago wrote, announcedtudents and that trigger warnings had no place at the university. the dean cautioned against intellectual safe places and also raised questions about withdrawing invitations to speakers merely because the message of the speaker could be controversial. legalanel will examine and other dimensions of whether and how speech and expression
can be regulated on campus, consistent with the overall educational objective of the university. we have a very distinguished panel here today, that we also have in our audience a number of academics, scholars, practitioners who have worked in this area. i see my colleague professor john van safed, who has been very vocal on these issues while here at george washington and other universities. havee have individuals who played a role in shaping the jurisprudence. today we will first hear from my colleague professor catherine ross. as i mentioned, her new book is "lessons in censorship." this book has been named the best book on the first amendment of 2015 by concurring opinions. has focusedss' book
on free speech over the past year, including the university of chicago, stanford, harvard and gail as well as the hostage and center, with which we are going to learn a little bit more in a second. also on the panel was a dean fred lawrence and jeffrey rosen. she has recently joined the board of advisors first amendment library project of the foundation for individual rights and education, which will make key first amendment documents online. professor ross has a distinguished record, having taught at harvard, princeton, the university of pennsylvania, boston college, and st. john's school of law. professor ross will give us an overview of the areas where we need to be attention on campus and attempted to try to make sense of the situation and how we can assess what has gone right and what has gone wrong.
fredwe will hear from lawrence, the former dean of the george washington university law school and also the former president of brandeis university , who is the ceo and secretary of the phi beta kappa society. first, welcome home, fred. secondly -- [applause] secondly, dean lawrence is a former attorney for the seventh district of new york where he became chief of the civil rights union. he was a professor at boston university school of law before joining the washington university law school, and he is the author of punishing hate, crime under american law, published by harvard university press in 2002. dean lawrence will speak about the issue from the angle of a former academic administrator and a particular will focus --
in particular will focus on what does this mean for the future of universities. and finally, we will care from dw law professor jeffrey rosen, who is also the president and chief executive officer of the national constitution center in philadelphia. inis a contributing editor the atlantic and a nonresident senior fellow at the brookings institution. brandeis,ok is titled american profit. became a out earlier this year with a gail press. the wash -- washington times has called this a widely read and influential legal commentator. professor rosen will examine the issue of freedom of speech on cancerous -- on campus in a brighter contact -- broader context as well as politics. after the principal presentations, we will open the floor for questions and discussion. please note that if you wish to
speak, we will have a microphone. identify yourself, and also note that because this is being recorded live by c-span, that information will be available to the public. let's welcome the panel and professor ross. [applause] catherine: thank you very much, not only for those very gracious introductions but also being a motivating organizer of this --nt, and i'm just back for from a sabbatical year. i am pleased to see so many old friends and new faces as well. my initial research in this focused -- >> we are going to break away to take you live to mexico city to hear from republican presidential candidate donald
announcer: you can tell we are still having audio issues with this news conference from mexico city. we are taping the event with donald trump and president pena nieto. we will show it shortly. we take you back to the discussion on freese each on college campuses -- free speech on college campuses. catherine: they have messages they need to kumbaya, and -- they need to convey, so that students may not disrupt the function of schools. and then there are a few other particular guidelines the court has developed. so schools can control much more speech than the government can control elsewhere, when we are talking about schools. and censorship both in school and elsewhere includes both silencing speech before it occurs, which we call prior
restraint, which was the original free speech doctrine, "no prior restraint to speakers," as well as punishing speech after the speaker has expressed his or her views. lessons and censorship shows that in grades k-12, school officials have push to expand the boundaries of each kind of speech that were has allowed them to censor. they often offer no excuse at or, no rationale for a weak even laughable reason like a school administrator had to spend 10 minutes talking to the students, and there were other things they did not do, or some kids were whispering to each wise federalone judge said that is just the background noise of school, what are you talking about? led atttitudes have
least one student to say, my censorship.l about what are some of the other things schools do that lead to the belief that censorship is the regime of the day? schools silence on commercial ideas in the classroom, where there should be robust debate, and outside the classroom, including criticisms and parities of school officials -- parodies and school officials even though this right is one of the things that distinguishes a free society from a totalitarian society. key to what is going on on college campuses, public schools regularly censor sheep that anyone finds offensive enough to complain about. by the time my book is here last susan has pointed out,
college campuses all over the country were in turmoil over issues related to free speech. i was not working behind the scenes to arrange these disruptions. coddled have been applied to college students who seem to be protected from offense. some people have suggested this might be related to helicopter parenting, to a generation of young people who have never had to fend for themselves in the world. but i suspect there is something more pernicious going on. i see a link to what students learn to and what they failed to learn in grades k-12. schools have failed to teach the meaning of free speech, have failed to demonstrate that way meanwhat we say -- that we what we say when we talk about individual liberty, and they have given precisely the wrong message. they have taught students that it is ok to suppress speech that
offends someone were seen as controversial. line, rules too often out outlaw or punished for words between students -- punish words between students for someone head"called a "poo-poo on the playground to racial and ethnic slurs. i will come back to this, because it is key to what is going on on campuses. and i have to say one last thing about k-12. a doctrine of the first amendment, notice the hecklers veto. this is exactly the reverse of what the doctrine says. the doctrine says that when a speaker enrages a mob, the job of the police is to control the mob and protects the speakers so that the speaker can continue to speak. instead, schools teach that the
mob can indeed and will silence the speaker, just one example. a young man in a high school in east hampton new york, known as the playground to the rich and famous -- hillary clinton is fundraising there this week. repeated something he had heard that was a rude sentiment about hispanics. students,by hispanic very large part of that population, people that work during the summer. they believed that this young man was the originator of the sentiment and believed in it. and they threatened his life. he was rushed to the nurses office and then off-campus escorted by police. he was suspended the remainder of the academic year.
this event took place in september. he was forced to stay home the entire school year. while he was threatened at home, and his part-time job which he had to quit, every time he left his house. he begged for an opportunity to explain himself to his peers either in writing or through the loud speaker or at an assembly, and the school said, no, you cannot speak. seeing this, the hispanic students -- i am lumping them together, of course they are not one group -- but the leader said he was suspended. he has not explained himself. clearly, he is guilty. it took several years before he was cleared by a state inquiry, and it became clear that his speech rights had been violated. meantime, he had had to move to california in order to feel safe
and to resume his education. that is a very dramatic example, but only one of many in which the hecklers veto ruled in the nation's schools. absolutely the wrong lesson. so this kind of experience in high school, protection from offense, protection from morerent, not learning speech is the answer to disturbing speech, may account for wife of -- may account for this pew survey found affected 40% of millennials. they approved of offending speech that -- censoring speech that offended minorities. 12% of people over 70. tohow does this all relates what is going on in the nation's college campuses? and when i say colleges i mean community colleges, four-year colleges and universities with
graduate programs. but start with the purpose of a litter -- liberal education. how is to be able to learn to question perceived truth, how to evaluate it and think critically. two of the most influential statements about the centrality of free speech to the purpose of the university both came from the university of chicago another came from yale in the -- the early 1970's, which explains why chicago is important today, this letter has gotten so much attention in the news. the first was written by harry calvin at the law school. one of the most eminent scholars of his time.
he said the dissemination of knowledge is important, and added the university cannot insist that all of its members favor a given view of social policy. however compelling and appealing that idea may be, it must have free inquiry and a diversity of viewpoints. this led to the statement in brief, a good university like upset, a truthbe that seems to be missing in much of the debate today. in the 1960's, students feared administrators would silence their speech when the students pressed for more personal liberty on every front. to challenge authority, engage in political protest, force rotc off-campus and to embrace sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll, which they largely one.
-- won. very odd turnaround for those of us who experienced the first round of student activism. be students asked to protected from hurtful words, sentiments, even gestures, and in the course of fire -- power and authority to find social norms that may well be laudable and had genesis in the values of the 14th amendment. respect, dignity and equality with regard to race, gender, gender identity and so forth. laudable as these proclaimed goals are, this means that some students advocate for fly in the face of first amendment rights of other students, faculty and other people on campus. so this development led to a second statement from the
university of chicago. in 2014, the university president asked jeffrey stone again, a law school professor and a leading scholar of the first amendment, to chair a group that came up with a new set of principles that sounded an awful lot like the calvin principles. that report says it is not the proper role of the university to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as justification for closing up discussions of ideas, because open and vigorous debate is an essential part of the university's mission. and this is the context in which chicago's dean of students wrote to the freshman board -- who
were about to matriculate last week in the wetter that has -- letter that has been distributed to all of you today and made headlines around the country. the headlines august on trigger warnings, but the scope was much broader. you might think of the letter itself as a sort of gentle trigger warning. they are upset, may be part of your education of your beversity -- being upset may part of your education here at the university of chicago. that may be intent or unavoidable. in response to questions, the dean said nobody willing and able will be surprised. we have quite a reputation for support for appropriate expression. students coming to chicago, the dean said, should anticipate challenge and even discomfort. even discomfort, not so different from the upsetting
experience that socrates promised. so there are several things chicago says it won't do, and i think these provide a very good model for other universities. no trigger warnings, no cancellation of invited cancellation speakers -- invited speakers. no cancellation of safe spaces where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own. members of our community must have freedom to espouse and .xplore a wide range of ideas the word explore his important, because of the age of the process of education, they are exploring. they may say things they will letter -- later disavow, but how will they test whether they want to be different people than
their parents? look at other forms of culture, other believe systems? a student coming from a religious home, they want to think about a more secular life. secular students explore religious growth. it is a. growth.of this is supposed to be the highest first amendment value. exploration benefits everyone. laudableare guidelines. before i go on to talk about some of the specifics, i want to clarify some important points and give you definitions. chicago, like george washington university, is not a state-funded school. it is a private institution. private universities are not bound by the first amendment,
just as private secondary schools are not bound by the first amendment. the state run schools are. the university of missouri had to obey the first amendment, though it did not always. in fact, it posted on its site at one point if you see hate speech, you should report it immediately to the campus police. no, you can't do that. that was taken down, but as another example -- but, many of the universities have voluntarily undertaken to affirm that they support freedom of expression, and that that is part of what they stand for. while we may not be able to hold them to that in a courtroom, the best way, i argue, for us to evaluate whether they have lived up to their promise to respect first amendment norms, or what i
have called first amendment values, is to compare them to what the constitution requires as it has been interpreted by the courts. that is why i think it is valid to talk about first let legal doctrine even in the context of a private university, is that university have said we are a sight of free expression. not if they have disavowed that or said nothing, like religious universities will say, we don't think all viewpoints are equal, and we don't encourage exploration of all viewpoints. and yet, liberty university invited bernie sanders, so i am not disparaging religious universities. second, some expression is outside the protection of the speech clause. there were certain categories of
expression that the law categorizes as unprotected speech, this includes a specifically display -- defined group of statements, libel, fraud, and if students on campus or off engage in unprotected speech, then they can be disciplined. arrested, ande they can be libel in the suit. those are all functions. third, we have to distinguish ideas and speech from conduct. conduct may also violate campus rules or laws, and i will give you an example at ole miss. students, one student and one alum, hunger confederate flag on a statue of james meredith, who was the first african-american to attend the integrated
institution in 1962. that was arguably expressive conduct or what we sometimes call symbolic speech, but it also violated federal law. in short, it was a symbolic lynching calculated to threaten and intimidate black students. it was a federal civil rights crime, and they both pled guilty, and atlas -- at least one of them have served time. so we have to observe, conduct can be stopped and conduct can be punished. or destroying art that depicts slavery in a residential college . that happened when an employee's spastic thing last window -- employee smashed a stained-glass window. the student could have been published for conduct, not for
expressing dislike of the stained-glass window. many people say that speech other if it is racist or bayou speech, makes no country should at all to our exchange of ideas and to our current debate. but first of all, it might be political speech in a matter how objectionable. political speech is the apex of the first amendment values. but in addition, the constitution protects the right to "speak foolishly and without moderation." and if i may, that is often characteristic of young people. us to the arguably immoderate problem of hate speech, which is really at the core of what students are protesting.
what they want to be protected from his things they see as hate speech, though it may seem much more mild to some observers. but courts have overturned every single college hate speech code challenged from infringing on state -- speech rights. and when justice sotomayor your was running as law professor, she said it is impossible for a hate challenged from infringing on speech code to sae first amendment. the rules of free speech are different in other countries we often compare ourselves to, and many of them do have hate beach -- hate speech crime. justice alito, while he was on the third circuit, considered a hate speech code. he said no right to be protected from offensive speech, even if the school's purpose is to create a safe, secure and nurturing environment.
just what these college students are seeking. so if the law demands that high school students and even younger respond toarn how to their peers when they are provoked by noxious speech, surely we can expect university students to do the same. courts have held the same, that shaming and ethnic slurs that i will not repeat. they go beyond micro-aggression. i don't to minimize the pain that is caused by this sort of language. agerdless of the victim's and maturity. so what is going on on our campuses? warnings.ly, trigger
professors may choose to give trigger warnings if they want to. in response to those of victims of rape or domestic violence that might be upset by certain discussions. demandedtudents have trigger warnings for a whole range of things they feel sensitive to that may or may not be comparable. likeften really puzzling, don't teach antigone because it deals with suicide, and we should not have to talk about suicide is a possible life choice. player choice might be the wrong word. -- life choice might be the wrong word. [laughter] but hate speech is verboten under the first amendment. using certain words for pedagogical regions, quoting
shakespeare or mark twain -- that is part of learning. to not use the word is often to avoid the very lesson. let's say we are teaching a history course about george wallace. and we are not going to use the words that he used? the whole point of using those words is to have people understand how they were a slap in the face. and to use a pseudonym or in initial undermines the entire educational experience, as well as the understanding of what was going on when george wallace was running for public office. professors have been disciplined. may, havens, if i gone on about what they've done in their classrooms, outside in their writings, and online. counseling invited speakers -- cancelling invited speakers. presidents rescind invitations.
not only is that nothing more than prior restraint, but more speech is the answer to noxious speech. students can demonstrate outside where the speech is going on, but they can't go inside and shout the speaker down. taken hand out pamphlets and hold a competing event at the same time, or at a different time. -- ube your communications peer to peer communications, micro-aggressions, where people not only want a safe place, but a place where people only look and talk like me. want to be safe wherever they go. in the cafeteria, in the gym. this is limitless. it has almost no boundaries. as indicated by a code promulgated at the university of
california santa barbara. that code said you can't ask people where they were born, where they were from. if you do that, you have to have sensitivity training, and he will be reported for a bias offense to the campus police. you also can't make positive statements like, america is the land of opportunity. someone who disagrees or who has had a different experience might be offended. think about going to santa barbara as a student, how are you supposed to know how you can have a conversation with anybody, much less find out the kind of biographical information that is currently the basis for building a relationship? speech ratherore than less. we can set norms and encourage certain ways of interacting.
we can provide setting for difficult conversation. what we can't do is sensor including punishment reflected on a permanent record. [laughter] --[applause] >> thank you so much professor ross, first for illustrating the extent to which the education in k-12 is having a profound effect on the attitude of students and universities. secondly, giving us the specific examples and tension points. and how, in your judgment, they should be resolved. thank you so much. >> it is lovely to the introduced as dean lawrence in this building. thank you for your kind words of introduction. it is a distinct and great
pleasure to look around this room and see so many dear friends and colleagues. students, who if i had a chance, we would base studying criminal law together. that is relevant to what i wanted to talk about. and to be with jeff and catherine on this setting, both of whom i have debated and discussed these issues. ff'serine and i did it in je national constitution center. so we had to come and smoke you out. in many ways, my take on these issues is not different from conference, as much as it begins at the end. catherine's, as much as it begins at the end. it's not so much as a
divergence, but a line that continues. sometimes it takes someone from outside our culture to dulles something about our culture something we are too close to see. he wrote a wonderful piece in the new york review in the aftermath of a censorship case involving artwork of robert mapplethorpe. his work was provocative, to say the least. he had an exhibition at the cincinnati art museum, which they decided to shut down, deciding it would be better to save the citizens of cincinnati from this artwork. a lawsuit was brought under the first amendment, not surprisingly, the cincinnati art won,m lost, mapplethorpe and the right for the art to be exhibited was upheld. he was wrote an essay where he
said americans tend to over constitutionalize important matters. punishment the following. by asking the wrong question, you get the wrong answer. you get an unhelpful answer. if the question is, is the artwork protected? the question -- the answer is yes. hughes said that is an unimportant question. questionhe important is the aesthetic question -- is the art any good? some of it was good, some was ok, and some was lousy. but by constitutionalize and the question, we deprive ourselves of the question in which to have that debate. you can take it out of the art context and put it in the speech context. similar example some of you will recall in skokie illinois.
where the neo-nazi party which wished to- partty march and the leaders of skokie could have thrown the request out. apparently there is no first amendment right to have your mail return. but they gave the nazis the only victory they could have gotten. on the first amendment question, the nazis were right, and skokie was wrong. on everything else, the nazis were wrong. the demonstration did happen. they were vastly outnumbered by a counter demonstration. they were revealed to be a pathetic ragtag little group. having expressed their views, it collapsed of its own weight. by framing it as a first amendment question in an interesting way, the good and great of skokie illinois asked the question in the only way the nazis could have won.
we talked about that so far in the first amendment context. private universities are not bound by the first amendment. this is not where i was privileged to be president for a number of years. it was a private university. but what seems to be an advantage of private universities is that the exercise is not just one of constitutional interpretation, it is a relentlessly normative argument. we are building from the ground up. what would we want the rules of free expression to be if we were starting over again? what makes it complicated universities is that there is a be in bothnt for us more and less productive of expression. -- more and less protective of expression. we have a mission in universities, and it's wonderful to have the late great harry: when you of this --
are 18 or president, you fall into the habit of thinking these fall and run.you lose track of our they exist. we have a sacred mission, the discovery of knowledge and transmission of it through our scholarship and teaching there are local and international communities. that is our highest responsibility. as a result, you would expect that free expression must be as broad as it possibly can be for the battles of the debate, for all ideas to flourish as louis brandeis taunus -- taught us, the answer to that speech is more speech. we are a very unusual kind of community. studentsucating our and each other not just with t for the roleu
that he will play in running a society. -- the role that you will play in running a society. to use an old-fashioned term, you can purport to play a role in your moral education. something if the president of the university work is a, it might sound a little old-fashioned, maybe a little cringe worthy, but you would not say it was out of bounds. whereas if the mayor or the governor said it, i think you would say it's out of bounds. i don't need to mayor or governor of my citi participating in my moral education. thate other people to do for me, thank you very much. on theng my wife, record. [laughter] professor, that is what they might well choose to be about. this is education on the provost level. -- august level.
that argues other concerns about speech. let me come back to what robert hughes talks about not over constitutionalize and this substance. more secondsn 30 of catherine's good presentation about the constitutional piece. for good and sound reasons, we want protected species --we want protected speech to be as wide as possible. sometimes the marketplace of ideas does not give us a better insert. in a somewhatnk less consequential utilitarian view of speech, and in a more way, how we are as human beings is how we express ourselves.
what distinguishes ourselves from other mammals is this sum. being able to express ourselves and be understood in a deep subtle nuanced, profound way -- that is who we are. that is what it means to be a person. forsociety to shut down is society to shut off our oxygen, at least figuratively and sometimes literally. we expect the bounds of protected speech to be wide. but that is just the first part of the discussion. there is a speech that is protected and should be protected. but is there nothing more to say about it? might we wish to say, you have the right to say certain things, and in certain contexts, to the right that you might be willing allies not to exercise? that is part of education on a campus. these are delicate, complicated, nuanced lines to be sure.
but as my teacher, the late charles black said, just because lines are hard to draw, we are not freed of the obligation to try to draw them. so of course the lines are hard to draw, but we are not free of the obligations to draw them. so how do we solve some of these puzzles? let's look at some specific examples on campus that are challenging. i will argue that part of this, and part of where i think the --cago letter got it right where they got it wrong, it got it wrong in problematic ways -- part of it was about time. i think there was an overly muscular tone to why it is a good thing for people to be backed up and offended.
i think it is fair to say it could have been predictable that would be the response. brush.s with too broada we will not give trigger warnings -- this was a trigger warning all in itself, wasn't it? curious how we do business in chicago, i think you should be aware. you might even call that a trigger warning. when i taught criminal law in boston university, routinely one of the most compelling classes, one of the most electric classes, and most difficult for us in the room is one in which we took up rape in the context of acquaintance rape. i did not know the term trigger warnings because it had not been invented yet. but i did start every class on acquaintance rape by saying, let's just be aware of the fact that unlike any other crime we have done this year, i am
virtually certain there is at least one victim in this. and i am virtually certain there is at least one perpetrator, accused perpetrator in this room. and if i explained the question to say -- expand the question to say people that are one degree of separation, i have probably picked up most if not all of you. i don't think that took 60 seconds to say. i view that as my obligation as setting a context for a conversation to go forward. and no one was silenced or told what he or she could not say. i don't know that a student had a right as a matter of a trigger warning to hear it, but i felt an obligation as an instructor to say that for my class. i think university wide there are contacts in which -- there are contexts in which that statement is at least helpful,
and sometimes part of the education overseas. if a trigger warning means setting a context, it means one thing. if it means you should not have to read huckleberry finn because there are words in it that we would not use today, it seems to me that it's something else. but we don't get very far in an argument by taking the most extreme version of the other side and cartooning it. instead, taking the other side's position at its most attractive and trying to join issue with it is when we will get our best work done. i think in that context, there is a role for a kind of trigger warning, which does not paint with too broad a brush. and incidentally that is not even the rule of the university of chicago. pictures that -- it turns out that professors are perfectly free to give trigger warnings. that would be a vast violation of academic freedom.
so even he did not really mean what he said in this not terribly well worded, but still ultimately very helpful, for raising the subject, trigger warning. places -- what do you mean by a safe place? does it you can't discuss difficult things in the classroom? obviously not. i just gave an example of that. victims wantedlt a place where only victims of sexual assault could discuss what they have been through, not only do i not see a problem with that, i see that as a helpful way for many of them to deal with a issue they need to deal with. if you want to test where safe places work, just to get issue that you care about deeply and ask yourself the following question -- would you like a place on campus once in a while want oneu can say, i place on campus where people
agree with me on the. if you say, i want the whole campus to be like that, you have no business being in a university. but should there be some places where you are not going to have this issue? i think this issue all the time, and i want one place where i don't debate that issue. we used to, and a more innocent time, called fraternities and sororities. there are many ways we can think about a right of association which is perfectly consistent within a broad canvas that is ultimately committed to a broad range of free expression. and yes, finally hate speech. something that i have worked on 30 plus years. ate speech is a h category that captures a number of different things. there is actually violent words, which is to say verbal assault.
words that literally threaten. catherine said that is actually outside the bounds of the first amendment. so that's sometimes what we buy hate speech. --what we mean by pete speech. university, i think it's fair to say that speech could be restricted. but suppose it is not words that are intended to threaten. but words that are in fact intended to provoke, intended to offend. to say that that should be esesented to me is, as hugh said about mapplethorpe, is both true and ultimately unhelpful. it doesn't take us to the next stage to say, what ought a dean do in response to that? let's take a couple of examples. a couple years ago the , aversity of oklahoma
fraternity is having a bus ride out to their founders day. it is not so surprisingly in overwhelmingly white male fraternity. and they are engaged in singing apparently been part of their fraternities culture. it is horrific beyond bounds, right? it's not that "we will never have a thin word in our fraternity" and if that's not enough, there are allusions to clinching and the like. terrific stuff. like.lynchin ang the horrific stuff. how is this different from 20 years ago? because now everybody wants run with a tape recorder and a
camera and video, and the levee to send it viral. the president of the university of oklahoma throws them out of school having seen this. and he gets lucky that they don't sue. because if they so, the same thing they haven't to them -- same thing that happened to --mm will happen to skokie the only way they are allowed to win. you mean they are allowed to sing this song? if they are involved in activity directly threatening somebody, that is different. here i would differ with catherine. i don't look at speech and context so much. burning the flag, is that speech or content? he said it's 100 speed and 1% content. i think -- he said it is 100%
speech and 100% content. i think that is right. look at the mental state of the actor. what did that person intent to do? if they are threatening someone, it seems restrictive. they were being disgusting and operators. that is what they were being trying to do. why did he throw them out of school? he felt he had to say something strongly critical, and i think he was right. and he felt this was his only option, and i think he was wrong. i think he had another option, another range of options. that is to use the pulpit of the president, which are used very sparingly. it is a currency that was used, dissipates very quickly, to say this is inconsistent with the best values of this university. let me tell you what happens when you do this. you get a 360.
roughly half of the people say, that is totally pointless. you did no good. you affected nothing. no guts. and the other half say, you have restricted free speech. i guess they cannot both be right, but it seems to me there is something we call moral education that the university of to be engaged in. there is speech you are allowed to give, and sometimes the dean and even the president is allowed to say this is inconsistent with the highest values of this university. thank you. [applause] susan: thank you so much dean lawrence for emphasizing the
importance of the manner of the attempt to regulate speech. i thought that was very observant. and secondly the emphasis on context. and then this tension between of moral obligation professors and administrators. how do we go about judging that obligation? i think it's a difficult issue. through dean lawrence's comments, we understand the convexity of it. professor rosen. >> a few so much. i am honored to be here with my former colleagues katharine ross and fred lawrence, and this empirically important discussion. you talking about the context between free expression and dignity. how should they be reconciled? i'm here not only is it proud gw
law professor but as a head of the constitution law center and the author of this riveting new book-- [laughter] about louis brandeis, who had a lot to say about the conflict between free speech and dignity. basically what i want is to wbs?nel brandeis and ask, w what would brandeis say? before that, i want to give applause for this incredible tool that the national constitution center launched that will help you to make up your own minds about to strike that balance. that is the interactive constitution. we have assembled with the help of the conservative and libertarian federal society, and progressive american constitution society, top scholars in america, to write about every clause of the constitution describing what they agree about what they disagree. but that is not all!
[laughter] you can compare the roots of the constitution to how it is protected around the world. what i want to show now, if i can find the mouse, like all technology, this is a leading me -- one of the talks countries scholars talks about a speech clause in the first amendment. the constitution center.org, click on the interest of constitution. writtenehold, it is about by none other than geoffrey stone, who wrote the free speech principles at the university of chicago. and eugene bullock or the ucla school of law. in 1000 words these scholars give up the subtle history and meaning of the first amendment. you will learn that courts of agree to that in america, speech
can only be found -- only can be bound if it is causing imminent violence. that projected principal from louis brandeis is the crown jewel of the american free-speech tradition and distinguishes us from the rest of the world. how am i confident in that? when we go to rights around the world, i can click on free expression and note the way other countries attacked free-speech. -- other countries protect free speech. the freeor example, communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious rights of man any citizen may therefore speak. of course that huge exception, as determined by law like europe and most countries, japan, he speech that causes dignitary
offensive end group libel and prescribe all sorts of speech that in america is constitutionally protected. this tool lets you see historic roots of american liberty. pastedmers cut and revolutionary era state constitutions. you can see the proposal of roger sherman, which says the framers believed people have certain natural rights. the framers believed the rights of speech were a natural right inherent from god or nature, and not from government. when we moved from a state of nature, we retain those rights to secure greater safety of the rights surrendered to
government. we can learn from this tool that madison fought free-speech was what he thought most important was the proposal prevented -- would have prevented the states from preventing free-speech. violate freel speech -- it took one of the bloodiest wars to make that a part of the constitution. each of you in this room will reach different conclusions about the proper balance between dignity and free speech. by going to this remarkable to notnd how exciting only click on the clauses of the first amendment, but all of these cases -- a remarkable tool for constitutional education. educate yourself and make up
your own mind. wwbd --whattion, would brandeis do? the reason he is so relevant is because not only did he write the most important opinion about free speech in the 20th century, one that justice kagan said one is the greatest statements about free-speech. but he wrote about privacy in the 19th century. conceded wasandeis a dignitary right from emotional injury. they were concerned about new technologies, namely the instant camera and tabloid press that ensured what was whispered from the closet with shouted from the rooftops. they claimed pages were filled with idle gossip that can only be procured by intrusion on the mystic circle. essentially they looked at american law for production for what they rightly called protection of honor.
they said american law, unlike roman law, is strictly did not protect against that honor. they have a series of what is called brandeis torts, which sounds like a delicious dessert, which is actually a confusing twist of law, which allows celebrities to sue for the publication of truthful but embarrassing information that causes emotional injury. brandeis proposes this new right, which he calls the right to be let alone. he then had second thoughts. article,soon after the it's not as good as i thought it was. over reflection, she changed his mind about the balance between free speech and dignity. he came to be troubled by three aspects of encouraging courts to protect dignitary towards. citizens toallowed
remove truthful information from public discourse. second, and allow people to sue for emotional injury. third, required judges to decide what was and what wasn't in the public interest. brandeis came to decide that should be decided by citizens and not by courts. he expressed this in the whitney opinion. this is another homework assignment on giving to you. read the whitney case. we are going to read a couple paragraphs right now. live googling is not a good idea, but here we go. whitney versus california. you can read it from my book, but i want you to see this as well. brandeis's concurrence. historically published speech that had bad
tendnecies. the quintessential example was the sedition acts, where john adams forbade criticism of hims elf and the federalists but allowed criticism of thomas jefferson. thomas jefferson was so appalled by what he called the freedom of thought and opinion that he both part in several opinion theicted, and wrote kentucky resolution that declared speech to be a natural right, and suggested that punishing speech because it might have a bad tendency was against what jefferson believes to be complete freedom of thought and opinion. fast-forward to 1917 and the espionage act. anarchists are being published for speech advocates communism. punished under an extremely of jews california law
association in advocating terrorism. several levels of removed. the thought is that when she stood up at a rally and attacked lynching and racism, that she would have people be sympathetic to the communist party, which would eventually lead them to resist the draft. and she is accused under this law and is connected. other politicians have been convicted under similar laws, including eugene debs, socialist candidate for president. was put in jail for standing up and giving a mild beach denouncing the draft. upholdsty of the court this conviction, just as it did with debs. but many have been reading thomas jefferson. they are reading his denunciation of the sedition acts.
he reads his letter to elijah boardman in the nation. --s is jefferson "these are safer corrections in the conscience of the judge." there's the core of jefferson's safe and reasons. you believe that your the duty to develop your faculty, to reason at the top, passion at the bottom. untrammeled access to all sides of public importance, including hateful councils, can we make up our own minds as citizens. jeffersons reading and condenses it into constitutional poetry in the whitney opinion. my assignment to use to read all of it. it encapsulates why brandeis changed his mind about the balance between privacy and free speech.
those who won our independence revolution are not cowards -- he's talking about james madison. " they did not give political change. they did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. to relate this courageous self-reliant men with puerile is reasoning applied -- with reasoning applied, no danger in speech can be unless the dangerous so imminent that it made the fall before there is full opportunity for discussion. if there is time to expose through discussion the falsehood of fallacy, to the evil by process of education, the remedy is more speech, not enforced silence. only in emergency can justify
repression. such in my opinion is the command of the constitution." that is as good as it gets when it comes to legal writing. you can understand why brandeis is so insistent on hateful councils. he says as long as there is time to reason and deliberate, then citizens can reject for themselves hateful speech. the best counsel for evil counsel is good one. the speech is intended to cause imminent violence and violence is likely to occur. in the he says even -- only on since relatively serious. he says minor crimes don't justify repression of speech. it is hardly conceivable that the court would uphold constitution which punishes trivial felonies that might lead to trespass.
that speech might lead with some violence and disruption of property is not enough to justify its suppression. there must be the profitability of serious injury among freemen that determines to crime or education, and punishment for violations of law, not attachments to free speech. the core of this thinking is a faith and education and reason, and faith in the american people that when presented with the best arguments and educating themselves with rigorous self-study, reason would prevail. believe, although imd had of an institution that has an inspiring mandate from congress to educate americans on a nonpartisan basis. our job is to bring together the best arguments on all sides, just as brandeis insisted.
nevertheless, because of this defensive reason, the supreme court was correct, and jefferson was correct to construe our constitution to prohibit the punishing of speech except one intended or likely to cause violence. rightis why brandeis was to change his mind about the dignity of every speech and why the glory of the constitutional tradition is so central to freedom today. "when governed by the light of reason, we must let our minds be bold." thank you very much. [applause] thank you so much professor rosen for giving us insight into the work of the national constitution center, access to the web portal. that is important. comparative work can arise. looking at some of the premises
of free speech, the focus on faith and reason. a lot of us are being challenged right now -- do we have the ability to change and deliberation in light of these devices? are we questioning? we thinking critically? this raises the importance of the role of universities. we haven't had three wonderful speakers and have about 15 minutes for russians and,. -- we have had three wonderful speakers and have about 15 minutes for questions and commets. jeffrine: you think that is thinking that brandeis is so important, you can read about him in the first chapter of this book that jeff just quoted. it's really important.
jeff: this is a really wonderful book. get it. and the only guy not selling a book. [laughter] among the things that keeps us going back to louis brandeis opposed to some of his brandeis has an extraordinary freshness. and you will see it in either one of these wonderful books. >> i am a professor of public interest law at washington university. i have a question i'd like to suggest. the first amendment is dead or dying on most campuses, including our own. they are private, but under contract law and other laws, many courts say we still must
protect free speech. i think that reason is that those that should be doing something about it when free speech is strangled on campus are not. by that i mean professors, and particularly professors of law and constitutional law. tenure so that have we can do without too much worry. let's take some examples from gw so maybe you can tell me why this happened. last year one of our students dropout a religious --students brought home a religious symbol from india. someone saw it and thought it was a swastika, it wasn't. and they were immediately suspended and were about to be thrown at. as far as i know, and the only person i came forward, we kept them to being thrown out. everybody else was silent. a year or two earlier, you remember we had a pinkerton anonymous speech code.
anyone anonymously could call into the pinkerton's and complain about any student or faculty. that went on for a while. i complained about it. i found out the complaint was that i had been rude. you, john? [laughter] >> yes, me. turns out the complainant had nothing to do with gw. she never walked on gw property. and she had broken into a place where i was in charge. when i told her that if she did not leave, she might be arrested -- i was rude. [laughter] it was not until i kicked some ass that the university change that policy. as far as i know, no faculty members stood up. our student newspaper the hatchet in its april fools edition -- we had a dean of students who wasn't popular. they ran a cartoon showing them as a dominatrix.
for that freedom, they were about to be expelled a month or two before graduation. i would be unable testified in. hillwould be on the testifying. i would be delighted to get over there. they did such a good job, it was over before i got there. [laughter] i can give you a dozen more in distance on her campuses. nobody else stood up. texas last week, men and women are parading around with inlders -- with dildos objection to guns. and the chancellor is threatening to discipline them. the one you cited where a couple kids worsening a racist song in a bus, clearly constitutionally protected. yes the president acted, and of all of these, none of the professors spoke up or did anything about it.
that may be the reason. let me ask you, why? why is this happening? can you explain it? better yet, can you justify it? fred: i assume he is looking at you, jeff. [laughter] >> no, all of you. this happens on her campuses. -- on our campuses. when i read about these things going on, where someone puts the word "trump" on the sidewalk in shock, and they are -- in chalk, and they are punished. they are being thrown out. these articles that are read are never raised about the faculty coming forward.
why is it that summary professors, particularly law professors talk the talk, but don't walk the walk? susan: thank you so much. first i will start with every. -- with emory. the news coverage suggested president punished the person who put "trump" in chalk on campus. the minority students that went to the president said they understood that the person that understood that person had a right to express themselves. they just wanted people to understand how it made them feel.and the president should be commended for his decision not to find out who the speaker was, and not to try to discipline him. >> there was discipline. john, this is not the
place to have a debate about that. no no no-- i am trying to clarify the record. the president took some legitimate steps to say we ought to facilitate difficult conversations on campus. codes,t to look at her but in fact nobody was punished. as to the gw, i have to confess that i rarely if ever read the gw paper, and i was unaware of 2 of the 3 examples you gave. students my con law bring things to my attention. but if another incident arises, please let me know about it. i am probably oblivious, and an well-known for speaking up.
susan: dean morris, do you have insights as a bird as a present --as a university president? >> from president and faculty, the president gets enormous pressure from constituencies. that is not why i will respond to reasons that out of professional courtesy. i won't take shots at other presidents. but i will say in slightly more abstract terms that as i try to describe it, it is incumbent upon the president to articulate the values of the institution on both sides. you start with a full throated defense of free expression. you do get to say after you pointed that flag firmly, here is where i think there are limits on that right, and here is an example of where you have the right, but you ought not to exercise it.
he was under enormous pressure from all sides. areterms of faculty, there lots of faculty doing lots of different things. tenure was designed precisely to give people the opportunity to do some of the things that you have done john briefly. whenever i get into an airplane and there is no smoke, we're all in your debt. even these people that don't know what i'm talking about in this room, now they will look it up and know. give examples to the contrary -- there are plenty of examples to the contrary. -- half of which he read in the paper and others which never made it to light. that is other stories of selective reporting.
it's fair to say there were faculty on all sides, including the law school. several members of the law the moressociated with fervent first amendment side. there are plenty where that happens too. this issue is at a level of public awareness that we will see more discussion of, not l ess. that is ultimately a good thing. that is why at the end of the day, i posted several pieces of the chicago letter. i am grateful that they took the opportunity to raise the issue. i am grateful for that dean for taking flak and doing it. more discussion, not less. susan: next question. >> wonderful to see you back here, fred. this is a fascinating topic. i've had students increasingly interested in this issue because i teach domestic violence.
survivors who find criminal law and the teaching of rape to be re-traumatizing. there was a study by what my students, which i am dying to get her to publish, an anonymous survey getting feedback from those that have experienced it. i want to ask a global question. it seems to me that it's easy to be an absolutist and in defense of the first amendment, and to be glowing about the glorious noble purposes and the concept. but i don't see a lot of honoring, although fred is moving in that direction -- of the pain inflicted by some free speech in some settings, and how damaging it is. good, butxamples are gender examples are more ubiquitous because they are more acceptable. to say things that are demeaning to women word survivors of
abuse. in settings where there are plenty of survivors plenty to be feeling unsafe. i have a friend, i don't know his relationship to brandeis desk i'm curious to know if either of you have read it. i'm curious about what fred might think of it. you goes beyond what i hear doing, saying that the first amendment itself to be a more balanced analysis. free speech cannot be in absolute trump the matter the pain or the horror. talking about the protest of the funerals of gay servicemen. there should be a limit on this. is not adding to the free glory of free debate to have that kind of thing. the extreme viciousness of the kind of speech where it cannot
be remedied, there are other rights at stake. his book is very thoughtful and thorough. i am trying out as a larger general question, if it were true that there are certain kinds of free speech that go to the right of equal protection because they silence women, gay people, with the be any nuanced view of the first amendment if that were understood or known? what do think of his book? >> a number of people have taken on this book. up, in says straight don't know if this will persuade everybody, but someone wants to think in a careful and methodical way about a speech.
i talk about this in a narrative constitutional context -- we fall into this habit of american exceptionalism. thinking that our constitution is -- is you see how these issues are treated in canada and in britain places that appear to be functioning democracies, and take a very different view of free expression. when i come away from people like waldren, it does keep me up at night and it does trouble me. it pushes me to do a lot of work on what i call the second side of the equation. to me, one of the two biggest differences in terms of how universities is to look like and how they look today -- i talked about social media and internet, the other is the colossal impact of diversity. blessedlympuses that
look and are very different from ones that most of us of my generation went to. that means that the cost of free expression does not fall equally on all members of the community. however i ultimately conclude it's a cost worth bearing. but the fact that the cost does not fall equally on all groups does mean there is more to say than just it is protected. it does mean it is incumbent to talk about what community we want to have and what kind of speech we want people to be revolted by. born in oklahoma had in his power to cannot strongly against them to the point where he would say, that chills ourthat rights.
this, you are say going to be thrown in jail, that is one chilling effect. another is that if you have persuaded me that something i'm saying is wrong, i could say that is a chilling effect. that is a healthy way that we influence each other. that part of the discussion has to go on as well. would you like to provide any thoughts into that before we wrap up? jeff: brandeis thought hard about the balance between dignity and free expression and concluded a constitutional matter, no, there should be no exception to free speech for dignitary arms because of the importance that citizens make up their own mind. but that does not mean that the harms of hate speech can't be acknowledged or subject to counter speech, and can be
restated on the platforms that mattered most. it's remarkable that in this great discussion we have not discussed the platforms that look at what students can here and say. that is the internet platforms -- google, twitter, social media -- it's the content policies of those committees that have more to say about hate speech than the first amendment does. they are not bound by the first amendment because they are private companies. and they do restrict hate speech more than the first amendment does. on google or facebook, you cannot engage in hate speech at the noses religion, or you can denounce a religious leader. the balance between free speech and dignity is being struck in a nuanced way where students are speaking and hearing. that is all the more important to inexorably and
uncompromisingly defends this free-speech tradition as a constitutional matter. just because the constitution is limited in which implies. interesting.sting we are going to define, what is the university? a lot of that information is outside of the bricks and mortar so to speak. >> this question came up at a panel discussion at the stanford constitution center that i was a part of. it came out to ask where people are from, but it came out that everyone on the panel was a refugee, froma people that left the soviet union. people whose families had survived the second world war, jewish families. why was it that this panel
mostly agreed that hate speech should be protected in the united states? i had not mentioned anything about my background, but it provoked me to do that, not something i usually do in this context, but i think it is relevant. my family arrived in the united states in 1940, one of the last to reach the united states from europe, russian jews that had moved across europe seeking safety. when my father was a teenager, they lived in the free city of supposed to beas protected by the league of nations, but was not. at a certain point jews could no longer go to school. before he was sent to belgium to continue high school, he would walk his younger brother to a special school for jewish children.
danzigely people of stood and threw rocks at them jews." "jews, jews, do i know that words, hate speech and harmful ideas can beyond conduct that is comprehension of evil? of course i do. what i learned from my family is that we are so lucky to be in the united states. we take the values of liberty that were not part of the culture where we came from so seriously. we have not only a privilege to exercise our rights, but an obligation to exercise them in standing up against injustice,
against hate speech, racism, and prejudice of all kinds. it depends what the context and the message that you get is. not to silence people, but to say let's make sure these ideas do not go too far. that we have the tools to do that within our constitutional system. for putting so much this discussion into a broader historical context and giving it a unique meaning as well, the significance. for so many people that have been affected by limits on speech and the consequences associated with that in other contexts. if you could join me in thanking the panel. [applause] to havingrward additional conversations in the reception across the hall. thank you so much for coming.
look at the primetime schedule on the c-span networks. on c-span,. eastern democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton speaks at the american legion convention in cincinnati. on c-span2, book tv with a look at recent adventures in oakland, hartford, and santa barbara with our vehicle. on c-span3, american history tv and events on native american history. the c-span wrote to the white house coverage continues with donald trump outlining his immigration plans and agenda. he will speak to supporters in phoenix at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. ♪ "washingtonhost
journal." the director of policy institute will discuss current immigration policy in the u.s., including the status and impact of president obama's deportation program and recent immigration trends. what c-span's "washington journal." a.m. eastern7:00 on thursday morning. join the discussion. tomorrow, c-span's road to the white house coverage continues with remarks from donald trump at the american legion national can mention in cincinnati at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span two. >> with the house and senate returning from their summer break next week, thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern we will preview 4 key issues facing congress. o funding to combat the zika virus. >> women in america want to make
sure they have the ability to not to get pregnant because mosquitoes go after pregnant women. theoday, they turned down money they argued for last may and decided to gamble with the lives of children like this. >> the annual defense and policy bill. >> all of these folks are very vital to the future of the nation in a time of turmoil and a time of the greatest number of refugees since the end of world war ii. >> gun violence legislation and criminal violence reform. republican and every democrat wants to see less gun violence. >> we must continue the work of toviolence and demand an end senseless killing everywhere. >> the resolution for congress
to impeach irs commissioner john cost can in. >> impeaching john andrew cost can in commissioner of the internal revenue service for high crimes and misdemeanors. >> we will review the debate with a senior congressional correspondent for the washington examiner. join us on thursday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span for congress this fall. >> earlier, treasury secretary jack lew preview the upcoming thatummit in china, noting president obama plans to call on his counterparts to follow through on the g20 commitment to achieve global economic growth. secretary lou spoke about tax policy and the trans-pacific partnership agreement. this is almost one hour. sharing perspective on his trip starting tonight to the g20 summit in china. i will not do a long
introduction. he is the 76th secretary of the treasury. confirmed by the senate in 2013. he serves as the white house chief of staff for president obama before he was the director of managing and budget in the obama and clinton administration. quite experienced in the public sector and academia. andas the professor executive vice president for new york university. he has always been involved with brookings when it comes to our roundtable. he has always worked with civil society. time is very tight. i will not steal any time. let me add that perhaps the g20 at the summit level launched in
2008 in washington. the height of the crisis. it was launched at the finance ministers level in 1999. both were crisis response actions. response to the asian financial crisis, and in 2008 the united states took the lead to face the great financial crisis. despite the difficulties of the political side, in particular two years ago, there were tensions, i think the g20 has survived as the major international economic forum to guide the world economy. is not representing all the world, it represents a huge part of the world. it works with the rest with the imf, international institutions, to implement some of the strategies that are agreed upon. been, somet it has
people call it a revolution in 2008. as the world economy changed, as worlduntries in the economy change, the g7 and g-8 was no longer representative of what the economy is and was. the g20 has become much more inclusive and relevant. much more difficult. it is nice when we all knew each other personally for years, but i think this reach is that global and it has become the premier forum international economic sanctions and also beyond that. so secretary lew, thank you for joining us. i know you're heading for china tonight. i know time is very short. you will address us and then our distinguished friend, colleague, senior fellow david wessel from the head of the actions of an economic studies will engage in
a conversation as well as with the rest of the audience. many thanks again. [applause] mr. lew: thank you so much for that kind introduction, and let me begin by thanking the brookings institution for that kind introduction and david wessel for hosting this important discussion. it's really a pleasure to be with you here today. as kemal notably today i depart to hangzhou to join president obama. alaska 20 meeting the president will attend during his tenure. it's a fallible moment -- [inaudible] eight years economic growth and financial stability , both of which remain so important to american workers. president obama will use the summit to advance -- towards the
-- to advance concrete steps towards the future that is safer , environmentally sustainable, and one which benefits of economic growth are more widely shared. can you hear me? there we go. we've made significant strides during the past eight years. in late 2008, the world economy suffered the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. recognizing that truly global nature of the crisis president obama joined world leaders from large economies both advanced and emerging. for his first g20 summit in april 2009, it was a time of great uncertainty that required a spirit of close cooperation. g20 leaders pledge to do whatever was necessary to halt the crisis including committing $5 trillion in new fiscal stimulus and bolstering resources for the imf and other multilateral institutions. coordinated action made a difference. five months later in september 2009, president obama hosted the
next meeting of the g20 in pittsburgh where two simple words into simple words latest assess the forceful response to the crisis by declaring, and i quote, it worked. but they also recognized much more remained to be done. in pittsburgh, g20 leaders committed to a company support program aimed at boosting the recovery, strengthening the financial system and building an architecture to prevent future crises. since 2009, we've used as a gateway to deliver on that commitment. we address the problem of too big to go by strengthening the global financial records within the company placed structures to prevent the repeat of the crisis including higher capital standards, improved monitoring and regulation of derivatives , and greater transparency and resolution plans. we built a critical consensus on exchange rate policies to avoid bigger action that leave us all worse off and on working toward shared global growth using all
available means, monetary policy, fiscal policy and , structural reforms. we reform the governance of institutions like the imf to make sure they are well resourced and more representative of a diverse global economy. so they continue to be relevant and effective in a changing world. we implement reforms at the world bank and regional development banks to advance efforts to close the develop the gap and to fight poverty. we reaffirmed our resolve to fight terrorism in all of its strengthening efforts to prevent forms, the financing of terrorism. we worked together to strengthen global action to fight climate change and to make sure financial resources stand behind this commitment. and through a shared belief in the importance of financial inclusion, we continue to strengthen efforts to improve access to the world's financial system. the united states is stronger at -- stronger, and the american people are more prosperous because of the work that we've
done at the g20. first, the g20 brings policymakers from leading global economies together to exchange views about key global challenges, diagnose common problems, and debate strategies to address them. sometimes there's a broad agreement on these issues in the g20 served as a platform to coordinate policy responses and to maximize their effectiveness. as was the case in immediate aftermath of the global financial crisis. at other times there are divergent policy views, and the g20 provides a black to work one through the issues with the goal of building a consensus over time. when i became secretary of the treasury in 2013, a debate over growth versus austerity dominated these meetings. the united states believed it was misguided to impose immediate fiscal austerity with the global economic recovery still fragile and unemployed but still unacceptably high. we thought there was a need for short-term growth and longer-term structural reforms. but not everyone agreed and our
differences would not be resolved immediately. it was only over time through persistent discussion and evaluation in g20 meetings and as these issues increasingly became topics of domestic political debate in many countries that a consensus began , to form around the u.s. position. in february of this year she 20 -- g20 finance ministers meeting in shanghai finally by the committed to use all policy tools, monetary fiscal and structural, individually and collectively, to support the recovery. beyond words in a communique this commitment was almost immediately reflected a new policy measures in several major countries including canada, : china, south korea, japan and parts of europe. all undertaking additional fiscal spending or delaying tax increases to support the economies. today the g20 is a lot of debate no longer debating growth versus austerity, but
rather how to best employ fiscal policy to support our economies and increasingly how to make sure the benefits of growth or more widely shared. while continuing to focus on sustainable long-term fiscal policies. more needs to be done, but we've made real progress. second, g20 meetings provide a mechanism to hold countries accountable to one another for commitments they make, particularly when their policy actions could harm others. take currency exchange rate policy. the united states has long opposed using exchange rate policy to devalue the currency to gain an unfair trade advantage. we have pressed this bilaterally multilaterally. we worked in the g20 to build a consensus that all major economies should refrain from unfair exchange rate practices. at a time of slow economic growth, policymakers can be tempted to look at interventions in foreign exchange markets to lower the value of the currency or prevent it from appreciating as a quick and easy fix.
but as we know these policies in , the past have led to a vicious cycle of currency wars and protectionist measures that ultimately lead to lower global growth which hurts everyone over , time. we engage counterparts on this issue at meeting after meeting. until 2012, president obama affirmed with other g20 leaders a new shared commitment to move rapidly toward market determined exchange rate systems and exchange rate to reflect underlying fundamentals avoid , persistent exchange-rate misalignments and refrain from , competitive devaluation of currencies. there, for the first time china , committed to allow market forces to play a larger role in determining movements to -- in the renminbi. that is including in shanghai earlier this year with the g20 agreed for the first time to consult closely foreign exchange markets to avoid surprise one
another with sudden changes in policy that could have a impact negative on other countries. this was no small achievement considering china's objection to , such policies not long ago. we will continue to china and -- hold china and others accountable to those commitments. thes notable that amid various political and economic surprises that periodically unsettled financial markets this year, g20 countries have continued to abide by their exchange-rate commitments, providing stability at otherwise volatile moments. to what can we attribute this discipline? at one level, g20 members know that they each benefit from the collective restraint that's respected. they also want to avoid being taken to task by the g20 beers -- g20 peers should they be the country that appears to violate the commitment. on top of the important progress achieved at the g20, the united states and 11 nations that are part of the trans-pacific partnership have agreed to high
standards designed to address unfair currency practices including unprecedented , transparency and reporting standards, as well as enhance communication and cooperation on macroeconomic and exchange-rate policy issues. earlier this year president , obama signed legislation that puts in place important exchange-rate reporting and monitoring tools of our trading partners and gives the , administration the authority to levy meaningful penalties to hold countries accountable for unfair currency practices. the trans-pacific partnership put in place historic labor and environmental standards that ensure our trading partners play by our rules and values. we are committed to seeking support for tpp and hope that , congress will approve the agreement as soon as possible. it's the right thing to do for our economy and for american leadership in the strategically importantly asia pacific region. finally, g20 meetings provide a platform for deepening relationships and building trust among senior political and economic leaders throughout the
world's leading countries. solid relationships are indispensable to making progress in the work of the g20. leaders,hips among g20 finance ministers and central bank governors, for example, were critical to extend efforts to secure u.s. congressional passage of imf reform legislation. in we lead the world to embrace 2009, reforms which gives the imus sufficient resources to be the first responder at times of economic crisis and also get emerging and underrepresented countries a greater stake while maintaining u.s. influence. but after more than five years when the united states failed to ratify these reforms, many countries including our close allies begin to question our , commitment to the international financial architecture that we helped design. time and again at these meetings , either the president or i needed to persuade the world that we would keep our commitment. that the world should not try to
move move on and find other paths forward that would dilute u.s. influence. personal trust forged in large part through the g20 process prevented the united states can -- united states from being isolated. even during this difficult period we were still able to marshal support for u.s. priorities like the imf's ukraine program and the response to the ebola crisis. with the approval of imf would've reform legislation by congress last the summer, we quickly restored u.s. political capital for future challenges that lie ahead. close working relationships also allow for rapid and clear communication and action in challenging times. particularly when events or issues can be difficult to understanunderstan d and predict a moment of trouble. this was the case in the wake of the recent u.s. brexit referendum. regulatory and policy collaboration by finance ministers and central bank governors in the lead up to the was effective and helped settle , nervous global markets. in the days following the referendum the treasury team
, worked closely with our international counterparts again drawing on strong relationships of mutual trust. so when volatile currency movements could have prompted uncoordinated responses, coordination among g20 counterparts helped to calm financial markets. of thisfits coordination are not limited to economic and financial shocks. we also see the benefits, for example, in the wake of terrorist attacks when rapid cooperation on areas like track and blocking terrorist financing are so critical. we've come a long way in a short period of time. when i became treasury secretary 3.5 years ago there was still a , lingering bitter review around the world based on the fact that the u.s. was at the epicenter of the 2008 global financial crisis. but today there's broad , appreciation for the resilience of the u.s. economy at our ability to i can drive -- again drive growth providing
much-needed support for the global economy. as a result the economic , policymakers around the world see the united states as an example to be emulated which historically has been a very real sort of use leadership strength. but there is more work to do in hangzhou. at his final g20, president obama will press on several issues help for stronger growth environmentally sustainable futures, and a global economy that truly works for everyone. the president will call on his counterparts to follow through on the g20's commitment to use all policy tools including fiscal policy to achieve robust and inclusive growth. he will underscore the importance of investing in jobs, in supporting middle-class incomes. support for the global economy can and should be stronger, and we continue to believe that more countries have room to enact pro-growth policies. we also see the choice of using fiscal or structural tools as a false choice. some countries have different -- have defined structural reforms as a solution and and of
themselves. it is clear macroeconomic support is essential for many structural reforms to be successful. both to provide important transitional assistance to displaced workers in regions, and to boost an economy during an adjustment period when mr. -- when necessary structural changes can lead to short-term declines in economic activity, such as when excess industrial capacity is retired. the president will press for action on excess capacity most notably in the steel industry . excess capacity distorts markets and the environment. it harms our workers, and runs counter to efforts to achieve alan's sustainable, and to growth. he will press for fiscal measures to smooth the transition and increased short-term demand. as we work to achieve strong, sustainable, balanced growth, the g20 must remain mindful on the need to focus on making sure the benefits of growth are broadly shared by all our citizens and that the benefits of global economic integration
reach working and middle-class families through better jobs and living standards. around the world the message of , anxious and angry citizens who feel left behind underscores the need for global financial discussions to show both an understanding of this concern and a commitment to action. that's why at the g20 nine its -- finance ministers meeting in hangzhou in july we press the g20 to refocus on the goal of strong, sustainable balanced and inclusive growth. in hangzhou president obama will , advocate for greater emphasis on inclusive growth by the g20 including policies great , opportunities for youth and vulnerable populations and will , encourage countries to develop action plans to go the digital, financial inclusion so that banking services become more universally available. president obama will reiterate his support for an open, integrated global economy. as the president has said there , are very real concerns of globalization and technology but the answer cannot be too close
ourselves off. the u.s. has a strong interest in increasing access to markets that are becoming a larger share of the global economy. the united states looks forward to discussing ways to ensure the g20 is upholding high standards, protecting workers, ensuring a level playing field and , expanding opportunity. the president will also continue to emphasize the importance of the g20's works to ensure a level playing field for workers and businesses to compete. in recent years the g20 has made , significant progress, cracking down on corruption and addressing tax evasion and avoidance. these efforts remain critical to promoting broad-based economic opportunities. in the wake of the financial crisis the united states late a , leadership role in pressing for and implementing financial reforms. the u.s. financial system is considered stronger than it was eight years ago and will continue to work with the g20 and the financial stability board that it created to strengthen regulation and supervision of the financial system which in most cases what standards closer to our own. president obama will stress the
need for all countries to implement the agreed upon financial reform agenda in a timely basis. in hangzhou will take the opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to preserving access to the u.s. financial system while continuing to protect its integrity by enforcing u.s. laws and regulations against money-laundering, terrorist financing and sanctions evasion. to advance these contradictory goals we have work together with federal banking agencies to bring greater clarity to the conversation about correspondent banking including to a joint , fact sheet released yesterday which outlined supervisor , enforcement processes with respect to anti-money laundering and sanctions. access to the formal banking system is not only a key to unlocking economic potential, it's a critical way to avoid illicit activity in an informal cash economy. climate change remains a serious threat to the global economy and to international security. and no nation is immune. the longer we wait to address
this challenge the more costly , it will be both a financial -- in financial and human terms. the g20 must continue to exercise leadership in meeting this critical challenge. at the pittsburgh summit in 2009 leaders agreed to phase out , inefficient fossil phil -- fossil fuel subsidies over the medium-term. we must renew our efforts to phase out the subsidies and in hangzhou the president will press to move forward with this commitment. the united states and china have recently completed our respective fossil fuel subsidy. the first be undertaken under the auspices of the g20 we congratulate germany and mexico for launching their own reviews , and encourage other g20 members to do the same. the g20 is also making important contributions to beating climate and other environmental challenges through the new green finance study group, and a final report showing the group's process this year will be publicly released along with the communique at the leaders summit . we encourage the g20 to continue developing this valuable body of
work. we will continue to look for ways that the g20 can support the implementation of the paris agreement. finally, president obama would underscore the continued importance of the g20 going forward. at the pittsburgh summit in 2009 , we made the decision to elevate the detroit as the premier forum for international economic cooperation. since then the g20 may global , economic governance more effective and representative and provided an indefensible setting to facilitate cooperation among the world leading economies. the president believes the g20 will continue to play a central role in preventing a reemergence of the types of imbalances and regulatory gaps that contributed to the global financial crisis in 2008. i will close by noting that the g20 has proven to be a flexible forum for global cooperation. as we've seen over the last few years, moments of global crisis like 2008-2009 over one kind of