tv Charlie Rose PBS March 7, 2017 3:59pm-5:00pm PST
>> senor: welcome to the program. i'm dan senor filling in for charlie rose. tonight a conversation with retired general michael hayden. he's the former director of the national security agency, and the director of central intelligence agency. >> there is a civil war going on within islam. and there a fraction of islam, not a trivial fraction, that believes that narrative. when we do these kinds of things, we seem to be living the role they say we have. we hate them, we dnt want them here. and so i fear, and the damage, the damage may already have been done. i fear we have kind of reinforced their story. but this is a clash between civilizations rather than what i really think it is, dan, the center of gravity is that this is a fight within a civilization, within islam, and
by doing what we just did, to my mind, without real purpose, has actually some what hurt us within that civil war. >> senor: we continue with the examination of the state of free speech on college campuses with new york times columnist frank bruni and nyu professor jonathan haidt. >> they were all boasting about what a diverse viem they had. i had one question, i said is there a group for republican students. and they looked at me like it had never occurred to them. and there was one student there. and she said i think there is you about they maybe have one member. now schools trip over themselves to get racial diversity. they give a lot of lip service to sewsio economic diversity and some do better than others but what about whole other kind of diversity. how are we going to move forward as a country if many of our top schools are graduating kids who have no-- without can't even begin to plo ses how a human being do vote for donald trump. >> senor: general michael hayden and free speech when we
continue. >> rose: funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> senor: good evening, i'm dan senor filling in for charlie rose. on saturday president trump took to twitter to accuse former president barack obama of wiretapping trump tower during the 2016 presidential election. fbi director james comey reportedly asked the justice department to reject the
president's unsubstantiated claims. arguing that the allegations are false. a spokeman for the white house said monday morning that president trump does not accept comey's denial of the charge. joining me now is general michael hayden. he has served as both director of the cia and the national security agency. his book, playing to the edge, american intelligence in the age of terror, is now out in paper back. and i am pleased to have him at this table. >> hi. >> senor: thank you, this say fantastic book. >> thank you. >> senor: i read it when i was it was in hard cover, and will revisit it in soft cover but before we get to the book let's talk about news happening today and this weekend. first let's talk about the allegations of wiretapping, allegations that president obama engaged in wiretapping. you were in the business bns yep. >> senor: of wiretapping, loosely defined at the nsa and cia. can you explain to our viewers the process by which an administration can initiate the
wiretapping process. >> yeah. and i guess the first thing i would say, dan, is probably the word "administration." >> senor: yes. >> is the wrong word. >> senor: all right. >> in the 1970s church pike, reformer of the american intelligence community, we took the authority to do that out of the hands of the executive, and put it into article 3 courts. >> senor: okay. >> so the only way you can target, and that is the technical word we use here. the only way you can target a u.s. person, an american citizen anywhere or any one inside the united states, the only way you can target that person is through an article 3-- award foreign intelligence surveillance act court warrant. and you have to prove to the judge that the target of the surveillance is either a, the agent of a foreign power, or b, involved in some sort of criminal activity to a standard of probable cause. and so when president trump tweets out barack obama bugged
my home or trump tower, and so on, my first reaction is, well, that's just not so. because even if barack obama was pulling a lever in the oval office to make that happen, there is nothing on the other end of that lever. right? he can't make it happen. it has to happen via an article 3 court. so number one. president can't order it. so put that claim aside. >> senor: okay. >> now number two, did it happen at all? all right? so broadly speaking, there are two purposes for a fiesa warrant. one is a foreign intelligence pups, the other is a counterintelligence or law enforcement purpose. now you have already coated director comey. now that's indirect. i would really like to see the director speak publicly. but according to reporting, director comey has said he didn't do it. >> senor: right. >> so it didn't happen in the counterintelligence or law enforcement lane. and yesterday on "meet the press" jim clapper, former director of national
intelligence was on. and jim todd said well, i'm sure you can't confirm or deny. and jim said oh yeah, i can. i deny it, it didn't happen. and so what you've got-- . >> senor: he said it didn't happen, not that he wasn't involved, he said it didn't happen. >> right, it didn't happen while he was, he and i when this was happening. so you have the two universes, the that fisas come out of, one lead by jim comey, the other by jim clapper. and both men are saying it didn't happen. now look, could it have technically happened? sure. all right. but in order for it to have happened, someone had to go to a court and prove to the judge that the target, which i'm assuming is somebody in the trump campaign or trump organization, the target was the agent of a foreign power involved in criminal activity to a level of probable cause. that can't be good news for the administration either. >> senor: right. so i want to come back to the russia piece of this, the public policy matter.
but one other issue, today the administration, secretary kelley who you know, announced a new order relating to the travel ban. now i am some what sim pathetic. we can debate the rollout of the initial travel ban. but the argument that the administration made initially that in those countries where individuals, you know, could be traveling from, you have basically failed states, not in all cases but in most, you have failed states, collapsed vetting processes. you know, shouldn't there be a case for, they would argue, shouldn't there be a case for at least tightening up the process by which we make decisions about with comes in and out of the country. >> i understand. and they took the not so failed state, iraq, out of the list. because there is a working government there. so i mean, i would say that we have got a far better implementation plan. but i probably would disagree with your premise for what i
think is a flawed policy. and it's not because these aren't bad places. they are. but i do think the campaign rhetoric has gotten way ahead of our skis here in how much a threat this really represents. second thing, is the campaign continue allly said, and we have no idea who these people are. that's simply not true. we do have vetting. in fact, let me go out on a limb here. we have extreme vetting already. >> senor: the u.s. government driven on this side. >> vetting these people. can we make it better, sure. should we try to make it better, absolutely. but what you've got here is this almost apocalyptic threat with this totally disfunctional vetting system, therefore we've got to stop people coming in and we've got to do a do over. i just think that's flawed. now in one way that's just unfortunate, and we're leaning on the world's unfortunate people to put up with this. but in other way, it is not just that. it's bad, all right.
because particularly the way the first order was rolled out. but i think at the court even at the very improved order, is a premise that feeds the ji haddist narrative that there is undying em knit between islam and the west islam and modernity islam and the united states. there is a civil war going on within islam. and 24r is a fraction of islam, not a trif kral fraction, that believes that narrative. when we do these kinds of things, we seem to be living the role they say we have. we hate them, we don't want them here. and so i-- i fear, and the damage may already have been done. i fear we have kind of reinforced their story that this is a clash between civilizations rather than what i really think it is, dan, the center of gravity is that this is a fight within a civilization, within islam. and by doing what we just did,
to my mind, without real purpose, has actually some what hurt us within that civil war. >> senor: so staying in that region, let's spend a moment on another issue that is top of the per flex-- perplexing problem list, a lot to choose from. iran. so during the campaign, then candidate trump talked about the u.s. extricating itself from the multilateral deal that the obama administration struck with iran. what do you think, do you think that is viable. do you think that should be a priority. >> so here's the way i look at the iranian deal. think of it as three packages, okayment one is what we call the deal. and that's what is going to happen to the iranian program in the next ten years. i got gas with that, we can build the rest of the state by complaining about it, but frankly of the three baskets i'm going to give you, it is the best. they are further away from a weapon than they would otherwise be. then you've got the problem of
what happens after ten years. when the limits age off. and then finally, you've got all the things that iran is doing in the region now. i think their correct approach and i think the trump administration is going there, is leave the current deal as deal alone. we don't have international consensus to rip it up anyway. start turning the heat up, though, amp up the pressure a bit on our friends about what happens in ten years when these things begin to age off. and then, and here is something the obama administration refused to do and then you got to start punching the iranians in the nose for all the other things they're doing in the region. >> senor: proxy wars. >> proxy wars, what they are doing in iraq, certainly what they are doing in syria, yemen. all the chest thumping in the straits of hormuz and so be o. these can't be free, i'm pretty sure that we hell our policy on all those transgretions hostage to the nuclear deal on the false
premise that if we push back against this, the iranians would walk from the deal. my thought on that is if they walk they walk. but it's not an easy decision for them. and we shouldn't hold our policy hostage to that. >> senor: let's move around to some of these other easily addressable problems. you live in a world of easily addressable problems. north korea, so it has been reported that during the transition, the obama administration basically warned the trump, incoming trump administration to keep their eye on north korea. that this could become the sleeper problem that could consume this administration. is that how you see it? >> yeah, it is, exactly what you would have told. i had this formula, it is our move, their move, no move, all right, our move's syria. we got to go do something. no move, i think, russia and china. i think they're going to ground a little bit to figure out where these guys are going. their move, north could cor
yavment you know as well as i we have experienced this. their foreign polingsee looks like it was written on the bottom of a shampoo bottle. provoke, accept concessions, repeat, and provoke. and they will create a crisis. >> senor: u.s. response should be. >> that's a really tough question. that say genuinely wicked problem. the obama administration, and i must admit for awhile i thought this was the right hand. the obama administration has used what they call strategic patience which means pay no attention to the three year old throwing his more i believe on the floor,-- more region the floor, he just wants your a attention, pay no attention. we tried that for eight years and now they are a few years away from an icbm capable of reaching seattle. so that is probably not working out as well as we would hope. so there are no easy choices. we could break right which would be a more aggressive policy towards the north koreans, actually trying to stop them from developing. we could break left, which means we are going to decide to live
with a nuclear north korea, and we're going to make our peace with that fact. or we could try one more time to have which i call actions have consequences, which means are you familiar with the theater high altitude air defense we put in south korea and the chinese are going crazy. i think we need to go to the chien-- chinese and say that is the stuff that will happen if you let this guy do there, i think we will putted that in japan as well and those nubbing clear-- nuclear capable ships that used to come here, they will come back again med-of. and we used to have nuclear weapons in-- we still have the bunkers, i don't mean to be bellicose to the chinese but to say he does this, we have to do stuff. it's not intended for you, i know you think it is, but it's not. but we're going to do what we have to do. and maybe that incentivizes the chinese to increase the torque. >> senor: let's move to russia. you talked about russia before.
so as analysts try to understand public analysts, not analysts in the agency, in the intelligence agencies. analysts try to understand what it seems to be the trump administration's motivation for seeming, warming of relations with vladimir putin and his government, to give them the benefit of the doubt, there is a worldview out there that basically says america is no longer in an ideal logical struggle in the world. america is in a civilizational struggle. and the other side, the adversary in our civilization struggle for survival, for the survival of western civilization as we know it is radical islam, which. and russia while we may not like what they do in their own backyard and while we may not like what they do in their neighborhood, we shubt let what they may or may not do to, in ukraine or potentially in the future in lith wantia or estonia bother us or get in the way of cooperation, in working with russia to come bat the threat of
radical islam. that is, i mean that is the school of thought out there. i don't necessarily agree with it, but that is the thought. how do you respond to that? >> i think the premise is wrong. remember, i said, this is not yet a war between civilizations. so we've got a disagreement on the premise. but let's put that aside. let's agree for exercise purposes. let's go implement it, all right? so how do you explain putting their arms around the iranians and putting their other arms around hezbollah. you can't -- you can't picture two more violent actors in the middle east with regard to radical islam than these two shia expressions of radical islam. so i don't know that they have signed up to, let's go fight the radical islam fight. i mean the president was fond of saying during the campaign that russia is fighting isis. that's untrue. they've hardly dropped a bomb on isis. they're fighting the more or less moderate opposition that we thought might have offered an
alternative to the bashar al-assad regime. all they nt to do is keep the allwhites, their own form of shia radicalism in power because it suits not the war of civilizations narrative, because it suits their naked russian geo political ambitions to have a foothold in the middle east. >> senor: and so to your point, russia is helping syria bomb aleppo, not raqqa where isis is headquartered. >> exactly. >> senor: they're actually contributing to the catastrophe, the human suffering. >> yeah. and so if you think syria is a problem you have to solve, if you are going to solve the broader question of radical islam, the presence of that allohite regime is the engine that continue allly fuels sunni opposition which the longer it goes is more and more captured by the sunnies who are not just willing to kill but are willing to die the radicals. >> senor: let's talk about this book.
playing to the edge which is a fantastic, if not at times unnerving read. not bed time reading, shall we say. it's read it during the day while the sun light is out so you don't get totally freaked out and depressed. what has been the reaction to the book? i mean you address some pretty, as you call them grey areas, really morally, some would say morally ambiguous decisions that you had to make almost every single day. >> you bet. >> senor: what is the reaction? >> so, playing to the edge. i mean it's designed to be, and st, unapologetic. this is what we did. i don't have any regrets. let me explain to you why we did it. i understand you may disagree, that's okay. we share values and we're just disagreeing on this. not an argument between the forces of light and darkness. but you may disagree. and so i begin the book on the tour on the hard cover almost a year ago today. i took it on the road, and dan i have my personal fingerprints on every controversial program we've engaged in since 9/11.
i have done the surveillance program, at nsa. i created it. i inherited and implemented renditions, detentions, interrogation programs at the cia. and i played a very strong role in convincing the bush administration in 2007/2008 to amp up the targeted killing program, check, check, check, check, check. i've got them all. and again, not apologetic. so i took it on the road. and frankly, i was prepared to be in in a ropea dope from time to time depending on the audiences. and that turned out not to be the case. they're actually is, i think, a fair amount of understanding of the american people that these are tough choices. and even those who disagreed, appreciated the candor, the honesty with which i said here's why we did what we did. i get your objection, but there's another dynamic too, that you might find interesting. so i'm out there a year ago, just as this campaign is getting under way. and so im's out there thinking
i'm going to spend a heck of a lot of time explaining why we are playing to the edge. and because of the rhetoric of the campaign, dan, from certain candidates, i spent as much time talking about why there are edges and why we shouldn't go beyond them. >> senor: right. >> because some people in the campaign were talking about carpet bombing, killing terrorist' families water boarding is too good for people and so on. and so it was a fascinating exercise for me, the playing to the edge guy, the guy with his fingerprints on all this, actually telling american audiences, no, no, no, no. there are things we shouldn't do. there are limits beyond which we should not go. >> senor: so i just want to zero in for our viewers, on the kind of decisions you had to make in a very microlevel day to day. so you talk for instance in the book about making a decision about the targeted killing of an al-qaeda leader but if you, in this particular case if you struck the al qaeda leader, you would kill his grandson would be
collateral damage in the operation. >> what i talked about was the first targeted killing that the united states government took after president bush and the middle of 2008 began to ramp up the program. and the individual involved was al massri who was the wmd mice ro in al-qaeda and someone we were putting a lot of people at risk to find. and we had the intelligence that we knew where he was. we knew that was him. but in the travel region of pakistan it is really hot in the the summer, people sleep outdoors, families go out and put out cots. and he unfortunately was there with his entourage and unfortunately with some members of his family including his grandson. and so we had to make the decision. we had to contribute to the government's decision do we take the shot or not. and again, wmd,. >> senor: right.
>> and the united states government decided to take the shot. the shot was taken. he was killed, that's the good news. his grandson was killed too, that's the bad news. >> senor: the terror attacks we've seen in europe, paris, nice, brussels, i can go on. germany. in so many of those kinds of attacks they are not so much like we experienced here like san bernardino, for instance, which seemed like a lone wolf operation. >> these were launched by the mothership to come into europe. >> senor: right, and they incubate in europe. and they have plenty of time and space and infrastructure and resources to organize. why don't we see that kind of thing here? is it just a matter of time before we do. >> probably, but. >> senor: looking forward to the but. >> there are important differences. one is geography. they can't walk here. all right. and another is demographics. there are far higher proportion, i mean you got a million refugees in germany.
you got a significant number in france. we don't have that. which brings me back to the previous debate, we're probably hypervent lating about the refugee threat here. we had 10,000 syrians last year. not a million. beyond that, we're actually pretty good at this, our intelligence services are actually world-class and we're a tough target, dan. and our services are actually pretty tough, back to playing to the edge. we do a lot of things that make the europeans kind of get a little fij ety in their seats when it comes to making sure our people are safe. and then one more thing. this is actually really important for the intel guy to tell you. we're a welcoming society. we know how to assimilate people. our european friends don't. we do have radicalized individuals in america. we don't have radicalized communities. and we don't because of who we are. it brings us all the way back to the first conversation about the ban. you need to be careful about the
second and third order affects of things, even if they are legitimate self-defense steps. >> senor: over in the region where a lot of these individuals come from, at first, middle east, parts of the sunni middle east, growing cooperation now really is the last few years between the government of israel and the sunni arab-- someone had a very good line that sure enough, president obama actually did bring the arab and the israelis together. >> yes, he did. >> senor: so you know, in terms, they do a lot of intelligence sharing from what i understand, strategic cooperation. how important is it, how legal is it? >> it is real. and it is important. the normal rhythm for a cia chief going to that part of the world is in one sequence or another, do the emirates, to the saudis, the jordan ans, do the israelis and dot egyptians so in essence you are sweeping up the sunnies and the israelis. why do you do it that way? because you hear the same thing
in all the capitals. they all have the same worldview. and they all want to talk about one thing. and it's not each other. it's iran. >> senor: iran. >> an they're focused on iran. i used to visit saudi arabia and i talked about this. i would visit with his majesty king abdullah. the first message is the king of saudi arabia has time for the director of the cia. that describes what kind of relationship we have with the kingdom. and his majesty, and the ambassador would always come back, and we always be the translator. and his majesty would give us three to five minutes on the plight of the palestinians, all right. and then dan, you could almost see him go-- . >> senor: right, right. >> and then he would immediately launch into what he wanted to talk about. which was he would begin by describing the iranian threat. >> senor: right. >> and then when he got really warmed up t was the pergses, and when he really-- persians and then the shia. so you've got this convergeence of self-interest between the
sunni states and the israeli-- israelis with regard to the dominant threat in the region, which is the iranians. >> senor: and also one would think, i agree that iran is number one on the common threat list. also the rise of the muslim brotherhood, sunni extremism is a threat, it's a threat inside gaza and the west bank, so israel has a reason to be concerned about it. and it is a threat to sisi in egypt, it is a threat to king abdullah in jordan. >> yep. >> senor: the gulf sunni states. >> yeah, you know, life's complicated. we just talked about a whole bunch of monday arckies, not republics, other than israel. >> senor: right. >> and so i guess the question i would ask you is so what is the future of political islam. >> senor: right. >> where does islam go, going forward, in a world in which not every country is a monday arcky. in which you have republics. i kind of hold up my hand here and say if this-- is this arm
here the sunni root, okay, you've got a variety of expressions of sunni political islam. you've got isis over here. you've got al-qaeda over here. you got hamas here. you got the brotherhood here, and you've got the acapa in turkey here much you drive far enough down my arm, dan, you got common roots. >> senor: right. >> all right? and so word where does that go? this one over here, and again, i discussed it a bit in the book, connede thought that was political islam we could bet on. this is erdogan in turkey, i think she was right for awhile. but unfortunately about 2011, 2012, i think erdogan got off the democracy bus. >> senor: right. president obama thought too we could work with erdogan. >> yeah. and besides all the other second and third order of facts that created in the region, the fact
that it kind of stopped the engine going forward on the development of political islam is another great sadness. so it's a really complicated puzzle here. because frankly, i mean, i know what sisi is doing in egypt. my last international, almost my last international trip was egypt and mu barack harangued me for over an hour complaining about president bush and secretary rice about the freedom agenda. i understand what is going on here. i have got the situation in control. >> senor: he said that, mu barack. >> he said that. it turns out he didn't. and so arab autocracy, okay, is a cul desack. it is not a highway. and so we can't liver with arab autocracy forever. so how do we end up with a political islam that they and we can live with. >> general hayden, thank you for always-- certainly illuminating discussion, playing to the edge is the book which i highly recommend. it's a terrific read and it's as
relevant today if not more than it was when it first came out. so thank you for being here and joining us. >> thank you, great seeing you again. >> senor: good evening, i'm dan senor filling in for charlie rose. last thursday middle burry college experienced a scene that's becoming increasingly familiar. dr. charles murray, a scholar at the american enterprise institute was invited to speak. a massive protest greeted him. the intent was not to simply express peaceful dissent, but to shut down his speech. dr. murray and the middlebury professor who interviewed him ran into a mob of protestors, several of whom physically assaulted dr. murray's interviewer and forced her to the hospital. the disirnt and others like it bring into sharp relief the a growing tendency on american campuses. an intolerance for freedom of speech and a challenge to intellectual diversity. joining me now to discuss this trend are frank bruni, an op ed columnist for "the new york times." he writes frequently about
higher ed kins and is the author of a recent best seller about the college admissions mania, where you go is not who you will be. book. and jonathan haidt a professor at nyu's stern school of business is the author of "the new york times" best selling book the righteous mind. why good people are divided bipolar particulars and religion. he is also founder of a new organization dedicated to countering what he calls liberalism on campus called the headerdocks academy. welcome to you both. i want to start with you, frank, there is a lot to cover in this discussion. first of all, how did we get here, this incident with dr. murray at middlebury is not the first time this has happened. we're seeing this all over the place. this didn't exist when you and i were going to college. what has happened? >> well, luckily we're not seeing the kind of violence at middlebury or uc berkeley but we are seeing this desire to shut down speakers that are unwanted. i think there are three things to come to mind. one is we are living in an era
where if you step away from campus of increasingly partisan, poll afterrized vitriolic debate. so why wouldn't we see a hideened version of that on campuses among kids who at the most passionate phase of life. i think it is also important to note that this is the generation that everybody gets a trophy generation. so no one mod lates themselves or thinks i should kind of retire in the public space, let other people have their say because everybody is, it's very individualist sentiments like that and lastly, and jonathan i think speaks to this much better than i can. there is not a lot of idea logical diversity on the campuses where this is happening. so the notion that somebody with a perspective totally contrary to your own deserves the stage, deserves to be heard, that sort of going away because there's so little diversity and so little appreciation for that in a really importantetteos of education and civil debated. >> so jonathan, how wide spread is this. gifer us some perspective here. how big a problem is this? >> first we need to put some
parentheses around this because it's not happening on most campuses. most campuses are not four year residential schools. this kind of new moral worldview, of real moral passion only develops when you have a group of young people living together for four years. people are going home to a family or job, you dopt get this. secondly, it's not most students at just about any school, it's in the-- in the humanities especially, in the sciences you don't see much sign of it. and even humanities, it may not be most students. i don't think it is. what you have to understand is that in any campus, really interesting social environment where there are multiple moralities, multiple communities competing with each other and drawing recruits and what we are seeing in the last few years, i think, what we are seeing in the last few years is the rise of a particular subgroup that is extremely passionate morally about equality, about fighting racism, and that is all great but they've adopted a way that is kind of vin particular-- vin
dik tiff, calling people out. people are afraid of them. it's not just the students but actually the professors too. so even if sph only five to ten percent on any campus, the fact that they can file charges against a professor at nyu, we have a new dyes response team. so any video i show, anything i say in class, if it offends a student, there are numbers all ore over, every bathroom, urging them to call, report me, that changes the way we teach f students aren't exposed to diverse ideas, then sph somebody like charles murray comes, he spoke at mud el burry ten years ago and there was no big problem. >> after his more controversial book, his 2012 book coming part-- . >> quoted an opinion columes of "the new york times." >> left and right. >> it is the biggest problem of our age, why did trump win, it is the coming apart by class. so yes, this should be the century of social sciences, we have gigantic social science problems. we need an establishment that can address these problems but students are increasingly reacting, almost an allergic
reaction because they are not exposed to diversity. >> so if you were give those organizing those protests the benefit of the doubt, how are they-- i want to say something jonathan said it is a minority of students and schools. but they do set the tone. that, at those schools where this is prevalent, it's really, really pronounced and we're producing graduates who have little sense of the true idea logical diversity of american life. i went within the last couple of years, to a various themed liberal arts college in the northeast. when i was there the president had a dinner for me at the president's house. and all these faculty members went around the table and sang the praises of the school. and i heard about the affinity group they had for this group. i heard about xyz. we got to the end, there were like 20 faculties members. at the end they said do you have any questions. they were all boast being what a diverse environment. i said is there a group for republican students. and they looked at me like it had never occurred to them. and there was one student there,
and she said i think there is but they maybe have one member. now schools trip over themselves to get racial diversity. they give a lot of lip service toes soio economic diversity and some do better than others but what about this whole other kind of diversity. how are we going to move forward as a country if many of our top schools are graduating kids who have no, you who can't even begin to process how a human being could vote for donald trump. they need to understand who voted for donald trump and why and they're not monsters. >> if you give them the benefit of the doubt for these students who are organizing and some of these academics, how would they rationalize it, how would they explain it. >> they would say this is hate speech, charles murray was a racist, they would say would you let somebody from the clan come up here and speak and say the same thing about millo or millo i done know how to pronounce his first name incomer terms of his attitude towards transstudents. if we're being honest t is hard to figure out where the line is
and everybody dah draws the line at a different place. what is kind of constructive and acceptable dissented and what is pure provocation. i think millo is pure provocation. charles murray has espoused a wol bunch of things i have problems with, via methodology that i have questions about. but i don't think he is merely a provak-- provok ture frk you look at the book, coming part, he is discussing actual things in that book in many ways augur the 2016 election cycle. that book is a precursor to hill billyelogy which people are not raising the same questions about. >> senor: his whole career,-- bell ker was primarily a book about social class and what happens when you start doing college admissions on the basis of iq tests or sat's rather than who your father was. i think we have three giant divides, a racial divide, there is a class divide, and there is a political divide, left right divide. and of these three, if you go back to 1980, one of them has gotten a lot better, and two have gotten a lot worse.
if this country ever blow as part it will be because of the combination we're seeing of the class divide and the political divide. now if universities where mostly focused on the race problem. that is still an important problem. i'm not saying it is not. we need to work on it but i think that universities have a crucial role to play. they should be the premier place where you bring people from all over the country who have, who are different in politics and different in class and they learn to get along with each other. they learn to tolerate people at with different views. >> how do your colleagues at nyu view you. do they view you as an outcast or are they quietly supportive, is there sort of like a silent majority on campus saying to you thank you for being, what they would say is a voice of reason on this issue. >> you have to look at it again, field by field, the academy is vast and like different countries. and so i suspect that if i, if i were to give a talk in the english department or gendzer studies department it might not go so well am but by and large, the vast majority of professors are what you might call liberal
left. they are flot at all a liberal. they are really anti--- they really believe in freedom of speech. and so since i have been on this mission, i suppose, to call attention to this problem that we've lost our political diversity in social sciences, nothing bad has happened to me. my colleges in social psychology have been very positive. they recognize yeah, you know, good research requires that we challenge each other. so nothing bad has happened to me. have i not been kicked out. on the internet people say bad things about me but in the academy, there has been a lot of support. so i'm very encouraged. we have 400 members. >> the viewers explain what headerdox is. >> so we pick the kind of obscure academic name because our goal is to appeal to professors. everybody can agree that an orthodox academy would be a bad thing. if everybody, with if we have a sacrament and pledge allegiance, truth is fine. but if the academy becomes focused on, you know, antiracism, even, even if it is a good goal f we all are like
this is our mission, this is going to blind us. so it started when a wrote a paper with a few other social psychologists showing we have lost almost all of our political diversity in psychology and when we publish that, i heard from people in other fields saying the same thing. people who even would dare question the sort of favored position get kind of shot down or humilityia-- hum il yaited. so our research, only in the polit sized areas. in certain areas our research is not as reliable as it would be. me and other professors got together, we said hey, let's, by web domain name, let's start writing. call attention to. this and we are, i think the post balanced organization in the entire academy. we are about even between left and right. we have a lot of centrists and libertarians, so if you go to headerdox academy.org and if you are a professor, join. we are advocating. we need to have sort of the give and take. we need freedom of inquirery. >> i want to come back to what frank said about students being exposed to people who may view the world differently. idea logically.
>> a way of education. >> right. so talk about when these students are leaving their senior year of college and actually pursuing jobs, professionally. not just lack of idealogical diversity, what this means for them in terms of their ability to compete in an increasingly cut throat competitive employment environment. >> well, they're very, very rigid in their notions of how things should be. i think that translates well beyond politics to everything else. i hear employers complaining all the time about this generation of students because they hate to be challenged, they hate to be counter mannedded. they have been told you're right, you're right, you're right and that extends to their idea logical beliefs in these incredibly homogenous enclaves that we krublghtded for them in the ivy league, outside the ivy leg. again the minority of schools as jonathan says but a significant number of the schools that feed some of the employers, i think you have in mind when are you asking that question. >> you say the same thing for the business school. >> not so much.
business school is much more pragmatic. i was in the psychology department atu va, in the school of liberal arts. things are much more idea logical, much more a about projecting an image of yourself of having a certain kind of politics. business students are more pragmatic. there are hints of it but business schools, engineering schools, natural sciences, those is very little of this. what i am hearing from students, is that education schools and social work schools are the worst. those are some of, the ones i hear about really, really repressive. so i think that should be very concerning. >> and your concerned about just in terms of how how we're preparing students. >> so to build on what frank said, i think the best analogy is to understand what is happening with peanut allergies y are they rise. they have been rising at an alarming rate since the '90s. so what do we do? i take my kids to school, we get these long lectures on how we can't have any peanut butter in school. >> if you bring them, you are basically expelled. >> that's right. >> a report came out last year, do you know why peanut allergies are rising, because we haven't exposed kids to peanuts, that is
the reason they are rising. so the new recommendation is you have to give kids peanuts early. so this is what we have been doing. >> it is not even a metaphor. it is the exact same psychological process. so this book called antifragile. kids are anti-fragile fsm are you fragile it means if i knock this, it will break, don't knock it. but anti-fragile like your bones, your brain, your personality, you need challenges, setbacks, you need to experience exclusion and insult in order to make it to adulthood. the bigst problem is the loss of unsupervised play. nora has been brilliant on her book free range kids. after school we spent time where there was no adults around. >> no after school program, you have to come home and figure out how to keep yourself busy. >> yeah, that's right. and so but in the '80s there was a real crime wave there were anti-bullying measures, a fear of an-- abduction so for a variety of reasons kids were never out of adult oversight and now in many times you can get
arrested if your kid goes to the park and play. we can't be too tough on these kids. we have deprived them of, in the name of keeping them safe and happy and comfortable, we have deprived them of uncomfortable experiences with their peers. there is always an adult around. and so they come to campus, this is the last chance, the last chance we could possibly give young americans to learn to work out their differences. and we don't do it, we have more and more deans and processes and bias response teams so that there is always an adult to call in to settle the problem. >> to use the jar gone, this is the helicopter parent producing the bubble wrapped kid. when i did my college book about admissions to elite schools the complaint i heard most often from deans of admission from college presidents at the very top schools in terms of selectiveness was that these kids arrive on campus and they are overa comeefers by every metric that that college is using. and the phrase is one admissions deans said i'm always amazed by the stunning fragility of these kids which is exactly what jonathan was talking about. and so what do we do?
we give them the safe spaces. we construct these affinity groups. and debate about that is so shut down, i wrote a colume not long ago asking the question, all of these colleges that put so much effort into bringing in a diverse class, once those kids are on campus, what do they do to actually promote interaction so you have diverse interactions, and. >> imagine that. >> and don't affinity groups, sont safe space it. don't those work in the opposite direction. i was forwarded tweets were people were saying things like i never knew frank brni was such a racist. i was a racist-- you asked how jonathan colleagues reacted to them. when i talk to people in higher education he is a hero because he is bringing up stuff about free speech and idea logical diversity that they know-- but they won't say it in the public square because they are worried about a kind of shaming that the left right now sadly seems to specialize in. >> yeah, this is really crucial. mark littlea had a piece in the new york times right after the election on the problem of item
politics and how this may have alienated a lot of people and contributed to trump's victory. and the response from many academics was ferocious. one of his colleagues in columbia had an essay basically linking limb to the ku klux klan. >> but here is the point. so littlea comes back with this brilliant point. he says that's a slur, not an argument. and once he said that, i realized oh my god, that is exactly what has been happening to me. i've been saying pretty provocative things beginning with an atlantic article and i keep looking on the internet for people who will respond to it and pretty much nobody is-- nobody is arguing about it for anything i say. but i do get a lot of people basically saying i am a white male, or i show am winking at racism, something like that. so young people who go through these colleges, they're exposed to rhetorical training that prevents them from learning how to engage. they're trained carefully in how to basically discredit your opponent. slur. they learn to slur. they do not learn to argue.
>> so go look at the tape from middle burry and that's exactly what you see, you see students with their backs turned and they are chanting flurs, not having an intellectual argument. >> then what happens is they decide to move dr. murray and the middlebury professor to another room. >> which credit middle burry. >> middle burry is not the vilan here at all. >> and actually, the professor alison sanger she said she wanted to challenge him, the reason she brought him, and the reason she wanted to interview hims with because she strongly disagreed with his ideas and she was looking to a robust spirited debate. and she is the one who wound up in the hospital. >> here is the thing. i want to kind of retract-- retract a little bit. middle disz burry is not the vilan in the way they handled his visit. they did all the right things but the culture is being created by things like middlebury is producing students that behave that way it is fine, and there is more free speech and more free speech is better for students to protest a speaker
coming. stand outside the venu, in some way make clear i don't believe what is being said in there, i want to offer a contrary perspective. but what you had happen at middlebury and berkeley, millo millo went, what you saw was a form of registering disagreement that was completely out of bowppeds and has nothing to do with enlightened discourse. >> i think this calls attention to a guy began-- gigantic generation gap t is not just the millenials, it started two to four years ago, this new way of thinking thrk new moral order fsm you look at terms like safe space, trigger warning, they only begin around 2012, 2013 if you look at google trends. the big wave of disinvitations was 2013. there is a new moral order and i think social media is absolutely central to. this facebook lowered its age for,-- could you join it at 13, to 06, 2007, around there. so the first wave of people of kids who had been growing up on social media just graduated a year toor ago, so very young,
younger millenials, they have grown up totally linked to each other, always with their finger on the button, always knowing anything i say, i could be not just shamed in front of seven people but in front of the entire planet. it could be an international sensation. >> this generation also reflects the fact that when you curate your information the way you can now with the internet, when you choose only certain twitter feeds to follow, when you like and share only certain things on facebook that then let an algorithm kick in, we are living at a 250eu78 when not just this generation but the newcomers to it, but everybody is able to construct their information flow and reality and to live apart in the sillod ways online an are you seeing that reflected in this too. >> you can literally block, why can't i block charles murray, why can't a press a button and coop him off campus. >> if you can do it on the internet, why not in the flesh. >> when i was on college campus i was active in the israel debate about the peace process. when i speak to students today about campus, they say bds,
boycott divestment, getting campuses to boycott israel. it's no longer just between those who support one policy on israel and those who oppose another issue like when i was going to college. now those who are hostile to israeli or u.s. policy towards israel are joined by almost like a coalition of all these different factions who know nothing about the issue but they all lock arms. >> that's right. cuz the key to the new morality is a method of looking at society and looking in terms of power and privilege. so the old idea of an education is come to cam pause, we'll teach you lots of perspectives that you can use, you know, what, let's look at poverty. what would an economist say, what would a marksist say, a lot of perspectives to look at i a single problem. what is happening now is some students, only in a few departments are learning one perspective to look at everything. and so you start, so there is a good kind of identity politics which is if black people are being denied rights, let's fight for their rights, that is good. but there is a bad kind which is
to train students, young people to say let's divide everybody up by their race, genlder, we'll assign them morale merit based on their level of privilege is bad, and victimhood is good. okay now let's look at everything through this lens. israeli, the palestinians are the victims so therefore they are the good and the jews or the israelis are the bad. and then you get, and so this one totalizing perspective. all social problems get reduced to this simple framework. i think we are doing a disservice. we are actually making students less wise. >> what i also season on campuses is students who are not part of, without don't have the party line down pat. they really feel miferled. for some reason frequently when i'm on campuses i will have a student guide or end up with a student who gives some sort of tell that he or she is religious. and i will say to that person, and i'm in the a particularly relige es push in the way we define it in this country but i believe fervently on freedom along those lines. i will say to that student, how comfortable do you feel bringing
up your religion or god in class or in the fraternity house or sorority house or whatever, and always this sort of, they are so happy i asked the question. they say i almost never talk about it. that is so wrong. you mentioned israel, i think if you are an israeli supporter you probably bite your tongue more than you shout it sowt. and you shouldn't have to do thatness bns right. >> so this report that you do, how many campuses do you touch in this report. >> so far we have, we just took the u.s. news and world reported top 150 and we said we don't want just people looking at that and going for the top. what if you compare about-- care about exposure and die virts. we have that up. we will get the top 50 liberal arts colleges. it appears leb ral arts colleges especially in new england are particularly intense on this. so we're going to get those ranked in the next couple of weeks. >> in the middle bury case, so murray and sanger are they decio set up a separate room like a sat like-- satellite room where they will kruk their interview
and live stream it into the audience. >> someone pulls the fire alarm and then the sort of mob according to the public reports there is a good report in the "washington post," a good report in the weekly standard here from a former student there, so this mob of students with masks on. >> some of them. >> they start-- they, they're listening on the live stream for whether or not the fire a recall las are breaking through in the live stream so they can determine if they are getting closer to the room and then they could storm the room. so when this happens, there is campus security. there is campus law enforcement. they seemed, i guess based on what i have seen to have been almost absent from the situation. >> if you go to the aei website charles murry wrights about it, the end of the day.t, rights >> the middle bury professor was interviewing murray wound up in the hospital way neck injury because someone. >> before we leave, one thing i
don't think we said loudly and clearly enough is when people o the left or who you ever you want, when they try to shut down this debate, do they not realize that donald trump's selection in 2016 is partly the fruit of those sorts of actions. i know so many people who flirtedded with voting for trump works did vote for trump, who were responding to his destruction of a kind of political correctness that they find oppressive. and so there is a real relevance to what we are talking about today on campus. and who is governing our country right now. and i don't think the people on the left have wrestled adequately with that. >> and the reason is because you have to see this not as a practical method of addressing problems. it is the dawn of a new religion and i study moral psychology as though it's religion, politics, even sports tribalism. they are all manifestations of a tribal lism. we see this in the charles murray case clearly. i just watched the video again today before coming here. at the end when the administrators say okay, we're going to move the talk and some-- off campus, off campus.
>> and then he says to another ven ewe on campus then they scream, because you have to see is the campus is-- you cannot have blasphemy on campus. so the best way to understand what happened is an auto-- it is a religious right coming together to punish the sinner, the devil and reaffirm our community. so i think, i mean it is a crazy time but it's also an incredibly fascinating time to be a social scientist because there is straight out of-- what we are seeing. >> you really want to salute the passion of those students. >> right. >> i like that they are engaged but i don't think they understand or the people who constructed these campus environments understand the potential damage they're doing. >> if only they learned that any vur teu carried to excess becomes a vice. >> the baby boomers did so good at learning that. >> in ten years the college campus could become unrecognizable to us. if this trend continues. so hopefully we had a discussion today that will lead news the direction to not let that happen. i want to thank you both for