tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg March 7, 2017 6:00pm-7:01pm EST
♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> good evening. i am filling in for charlie rose. on saturday, the president 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 unstated send cheated claim, arguing the -- of claims, arguing the allegations are false. monday morning, a report said president trump does not accept
james comey's charge. joining me is the director -- a director of the cia and national security agency. his book is now out in paperback. i am pleased to have him at the table. this is a fantastic book. i read it in hardcover. i will reread it in softcover. before we get to the book, let's talk about the news happening. first, let's talk about the ,llegations of wiretapping allegations of president obama engaged in wiretapping. we were in the business of wiretapping, loosely defined at cia.sa and can you explain to the viewers the process by which an administration can initiate the wiretapping process? michael: yeah, the first thing i would say is probably the word administration is the wrong word. 1970's, we took the
authority to do that out of the hands of the executive and put it into article three quarts.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, american citizen anywhere, or anyone in the u.s., the only way to target that person is through an article three fisa warrant. 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 criminal activity to a standard of probable cause. so when president trump tweets out that barack obama bugged my -- trump tower, my first reaction is, that is not true. even if barack obama could pull a lever to make that happen,
there's nothing on the other side of it. he can't make it happen. it happens through article three. number one, the president can't order it. number two, did it happen at all? speaking, there are two purposes for a fisa warrant. one is foreign intelligence purposes, or the other is counterintelligence. you have already quoted director comey. that is indirect. i would like to see him speak publicly. but according to reporting, director, he said he didn't do it, so it did not happen in the counterintelligence or law enforcement lane. yesterday on "meet the press," jim clyburn, the former director of national intelligence, was on. chuck todd said, i'm sure you cannot confirm or deny, but clapper said he could deny it. not that he wasn't
involved, that it didn't happen. michael: right, it did not happen. you have the two universes that fisa has come out of, one led by jim comey, the other one by clapper, and both men say it didn't happen. could it have technically happened? sure. 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 organization, the target was the agent of a foreign power involved in criminal activity. that cannot be good news for the administration either. dan: right. i want to come back to the russia piece of this. one other issue, today the administration, secretary kelly, announced a new order relating to the travel ban. i'm somewhat sympathetic.
we can debate the rollout of the initial travel ban, but the argument the initial administration made, that in those countries where individuals are traveling from, you have basically failed states, collapsed vetting processes -- shouldn't there be a case for at least tightening up the process by which we make decisions about who comes in and out of the country? michael: i understand. it took the not so failed state, theck -- iraq, out of order. i would say we have a far better implementation plan, but i disagree with the premise. it's not because these aren't that places. they are. but i do think the campaign rhetoric has gotten ahead of our skis here, and how much a threat
this really represents. the second thing is the campaign continually says, and we have no idea who these people are -- that is not true. we do have vetting. let me go out on a limb here and say we have extreme vetting. dan: the u.s. government? michael: yes, that in these people. should we try to make it better? absolutely. but what you have here is this almost apocalyptic threat with a totally dysfunctional vetting system, therefore we have to stop people coming in and have a do over. that is flawed. leaning on the world unfortunate people to put up with this. it's not just that. it is bad. particularly the fully -- the way the first order was rolled out. but in the improved order is the premise that feeds the jihadist narrative that there is undying
enmity between islam and the islamislam and modernity, and the united states. islam.s a civil war in there is a fractional part of islam that believes that narrative. when we do that kind of thing, we seem to be living the role they say we have. we hate them, we don't want them here. -- 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, that the center of gravity is a fight within a civilization within islam. and by doing what we just did, to my mind, without, real purpose has actually somewhat hurt us within that civil war. region,ying within that
another thing on the top of the perplexing project list, iran. in the campaign, the president talked about the u.s. extricating itself from the multilateral deal that the obama administration struck with iran. do you think that is viable? should it be a priority? michael: here's the way i look at the iranian deal. thick of it in three packages. one is the deal. what is going to happen with the iranian program in 10 years? frankly of the three, it is the best. they are further away from a weapon than they would otherwise be. then you have the problem of what happens after 10 years. you've got all the things that are ongoing in the region now. i think the trump administration
is going to this approach, which is leave the current deal alone. we don't have international consensus to rip it up. start turning up the heat of it on our-- a bit though, friends, about what happens in 10 years. then you have to start punching the iranians in the nose for all the other things they are doing. dan: proxy wars. michael: proxy wars, what they , syria, yemen,aq all the chest thumping. this can be cost free. -- can't be cost free. i fear we held our policy toward all those transgressions hostage to the nuclear deal on the false premise that if we push back against this, the iranians would walk away from the deal. my thought on that is if they walk, they walk. it is not an easy decision for them and we shouldn't hold our
policy hostage to that. dan: that's move around to some of these other easily addressable problems. you live in a world of easily addressable problems. north korea. it has been reported that during the transition, the obama administration basically warned the 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? michael: yes, that's exactly what i would have told them. i have a formula, our move, their move, our move. our mood is syria. no move, russia and china. their move -- north korea. you know as well as i do, we have experienced this. they're foreign policy looks like it was written on the bottom of a shampoo bottle. provoke, accept concessions, repeat.
they will provoke. they will create a crisis. dan: and the u.s. response should be? michael: that is a really tough question. that is a genuinely wicked problem. the obama administration, i must admit i thought it was the right hand -- they used what they called strategic patience, which means paying no attention to the three-year-old throwing his porridge on the floor. he wants attention. don't pay attention. they tried that from -- for eight years. now they are a few years away m reaching seattle. there are no easy choices. we could break right, which would mean a more aggressive policy toward the north koreans and try to stop them from developing. which meansak left, we will decide to live with nuclear north korea and make peace with that fact, or we could try one more time to have the approach i call actions have consequences.
i think we need to go to the chinese and say, that's the kind of stuff that happens when you let this guy do this. i think we will put defenses in japan as well. those nuclear capable ships that used to come here will come back again. but you know what? we still have the bunkers for nuclear weapons. i don't mean to be bellicose, but december say he does this, we have to go do stuff, it's not intended for you, but we have to do what we have to do. may be that incentivizes the chinese to increase the torque. dan: let's move to russia. we talked about russia before. understand --y to public analysts, not in the agencies -- a to understand what seems to be the trump
administration's understanding of a warming relation between vladimir putin and his company -- country. there is a view out there that says america is no longer in an ideological struggle in the world. america is in a civilizational struggle, and the other side, the adversary in our isilizational struggle radical islam. russia, while we may not like -- they do in our own backyard and in their neighborhood, we shouldn't let what they may or may not do in ukraine or in the future in lithuania or estonia bother us or get in the way of working with russia to combat the threat of islam. i don't necessarily agree, but that is a school of thought. how do you respond? michael: i think the premise is wrong.
this is not yet a war between civilizations. let's put that aside, and agree for exercise purposes. how do you explain putting their arms around the iranians and other arms around hezbollah? two more picture violent actors in the middle east with regard to radical islam than these shia expressions of radical islam. i don't know that they signed up to, " let's go find the radical islam fight." the president said during the campaign that russia's fighting isis. that's not true. the more orhting less moderate opposition that we thought might have offered an alternative to the assad regime. all they want to do is keep the alawites, the own form of shia iticals, in power because
suits their naked russian geopolitical ambitions to have a foothold in the middle east. dan: to your point, russia is helping syria bomb aleppo, not raqqa, where isis is headquartered. they are contributing to the human suffering. if you are going to solve the broader question of radical islam the pettis, -- presence of that alawite regime is the engine that continually fuels sunni opposition, which the love it goes is more and more captured by the sunnis were not just willing to kill, but willing to die. dan: let's talk about this book, "playing to the edge," which is a fantastic, if not at times unnerving read. not bedtime reading, shall we say. read it during the day so you don't get totally freaked out and oppressed.
what has been -- and depressed. what is the reaction? you adjust some gray areas. i would say morally ambiguous decisions that you had to make almost every day. what is the reaction? michael: playing to the edge. it is designed to be unapologetic. regrets.ave any let me explain to you why we did it. i understand you may disagree, that's ok. we share values and we are just disagreeing. not an argument between the forces of light and darkness, but you may disagree. i began the book tour on the hardcover almost a year ago today. i took it on the road. i've got my personal fingerprints on every controversial program we have engaged in since 9/11. i have done the surveillance program. i created it. i inherited and then implemented renditions, detentions, interrogation programs at cia.
i played a very strong role in convincing the bush administration in 2007 and 2008 thep up dictatin -- amp up killing program. non-apologetic. i took it on the road. frankly, i was prepared to be heckled from time to time, but that turned out not to be the case. there is actually a fair amount of understanding and the american people that these are tough choices. even those who disagreed appreciated the candor and honesty where i explain here's why we did what we did. there's another dynamic that you might find interesting. i was out there a year ago, just as the campaign is getting underway. i'm thinking, i will spend a lot of time explaining why we are playing to the edge. because of the rhetoric from the campaign from certain candidates, i spent as much time
talking about why there are edges and why we shouldn't go beyond the, because some people in the campaign were talking about carpet bombing, killing terrorists' families, waterboarding is too good. people -- too good for people, and so on. it was fascinating for me actually telling american audiences that there are things we shouldn't do. there are limits beyond which we should go. dan: i just want to zero in on the kind of decisions you have to make, microlevel day-to-day. you talk about making the decision about a targeted killing of an al qaeda leader, but in this case if you start the al qaeda leader, you would kill his -- his grandson would be collateral damage? michael: what i talked about was the first targeted killing the united states government took after president bush and the little of 2008 began to ramp up
the program. theindividual involved was wmd my stir for al qaeda, and somebody we were spending a lot and putting a lot of people at risk to find.we had the intelligence that we knew where he was, and we knew it was him. it is a region of pakistan, it really hot in the summer, people sleep outdoors. unfortunately was there with his entourage, and unfortunately members of his family, including his grandson. we had to make the decision. we had to contribute to the government's decision, should we take the shot or not? again, wmd. the united states decided to take a shot. the shot was taken. he was killed. that is the good news. his grandson was killed as well. that is the bad news. dan: the terror attacks we have in so many of,
those kinds of attacks, they are -- likeuch lately ha we have seen here in the united states like san bernardino. michael: launched by the mothership to come into europe. right. and they incubate in europe, and they have plenty of time and space and infrastructure to organize. why don't we see that kind of thing here. ? is it just a matter of time? there arerobably, but important differences. one is geography. they can't walk here. another is demographics. far higher proportion. you have one million refugees in germany. you have a significant number in france. we don't have that, which brings me back to the previous debate. we are probably hyperventilating about the refugee thread here. here, not000 syrians
one million. beyond that, we are actually pretty good at this. our intelligence services are world-class. we are a tough target. our services are actually pretty tough. back to the book, we do a lot of things that make the europeans get a little fidgety in their seats when it comes to making people safe. this is important for the intel guy to call you. -- to tell you. we are welcoming society. we know how to assimilate people. europeans don't. we do have radicalized individuals in america, we don't have radicalized communities. we don't because of who we are. brings us back to the first conversation about the travel ban. we need to be careful about the second and third order of things, even if they are legitimate self-defense steps. region, where a lot of these individuals come from
at first in the middle east, parts of sunni middle east, growing cooperation now really a surprise to many of us between the government of israel and the sunni -- someone had a good line that sure enough president obama did bring the arabs and israelis together. they do a lot of intelligence sharing and strategic cooperation. how important is it? michael: it is real and it is important. in essence, you are sweeping up the sunnis and israelis. way?o you do it that because you have the same thing in all the capitals. they all have the same worldview and they all want to talk about wanting. it's not each other, it is iran. they are focused on iran. i had to visit saudi arabia and i talked about this.
hasking of saudi arabia ties to the director of the cia. that describes what kind of relationship we have with the kingdom. and the foreign minister, he would always be the majestyor -- his manag would give us three to five minutes on the palestinian. you would almost see him go -- and then he would immediately launched into what he talked about, which he would begin by describing the iranian threat. when he got really warmed up, it was the persians. then when he got really going, it was shia. you've got this convergence of self-interest between the sunni states and the israelis with regard to the dominant threat in the region, which is the iranians. dan: and also, i would agree iran is number one on the common threat list, also the rise of
the muslim brotherhood. suny is a threat, inside gaza in egypt, and -- the king of jordan. less complicated. we just talked about a whole bunch of monarchies. not republics. i guess the question i would ask you is what is the future of political islam? where does islam go in a world in which not every comp three -- country is a monarchy? thisd up my hand and say, arm is the sunni root. you have a variety of expressions of sunni political islam. you have isis over here.you've got al qaeda over here .
you've got hamas here. you've got the brotherhood here. and then you have the turkish version here. you drive down part of the arm and you have common roots. where does that go? this one over here, which i discuss in the book, condoleezza rice thought that was political islam. i think she was right for a while, but unfortunately around got off 2012, erdogan the democracy bus. dan: and president obama thought, too. michael: yes. besides the other second and third order effects in the region, the fact that this kind of stopped the engine going forward on the development of political islam is another great sadness. it's a really popular kid in puzzle. frankly -- it's a really
complicated puzzle. one of my last trips was egypt. -- he complained about what was going on in europe. he said he had the situation under control. it turns out he didn't. cul-de-sac, not a highway. we can't live with that forever. how do we end up with a political islam that they and we can live with? thank youal hayden, for a not upbeat, but certainly illuminating discussion. a highlyto the edges," interesting read, as relevant today as when it first came out. thank you for joining us. ♪
♪ good evening. i'm dense seen her, filling in for charlie rose straight last thursday middle barry college experience a scene becoming increasingly familiar. charles murray is scholarly the american editor right to cute was invited to speak. a massive protests greeted him. the intent was not simply to express peaceful dissent, but to good evening. i'm denseshut down his speech f. murray and the middlebury professor who interviewed him
read to him on the, several of whom physically assaulted dr. murray's interviewer and for certain to the hospital to the incident and others like it ringing to sharp relief a growing tendency on american and tolerance for freedom of speech and a challenge to intellectual diversity. join me to discuss this trend join me to discuss this trend are frank rooney, and often columnist for "the new york times." he writes frequently about higher education and is the author of a recent bestseller about the college admission. -- admissions. "where you go is who you'll be" is the title. and a professor at the stern school of business is an author of the global news 24 hours a day, powered by more than 2600 journalists and analysts in more than 120 countries." book -- book, "therk times" righteous mid." "mind."
welcome to you both. how did we get here, this is what dr. murray at not the first time this has happened. this did not exist when you and i were going to college. what has happened? theuckily we are not seeing kind of violence and military or uc berkeley everywhere. we are seeing a desire to shut down speakers who are unwanted. three things come to mind. in a era when you step away from campus, increasingly partisan, polarized, vitriolic debate. heightenedt we see a version of that on campuses among kids who are at the most passionate phase of life? iss important to note this the generation, everybody gets a trophy generation. orody modulates themselves, thinks i should retire in the public space and let others have their say because it's very individualist sentiment like that. there's not a lot of
ideological diversity on a lot of the campuses where this is happening. that somebody with a perspective totally contrary to your own deserves the stage, deserves to be heard, that a sort of going away because there is so little diversity and appreciation for the really important egos of education and settle debate. -- ethos of education and civil debate. dan: how big a problem is? need to put -- parentheses around this. this new moral worldview only develops when you have a group of young people living together for 4 years. people going home to a family or job, you don't get this. if not most students at just about any school. in the humanities especially. in the sciences you don't see much sign of it. -- what youanities have to understand is in any
campus, there is an interesting social environment. multiple communities competing with each other and drawing recruits. what we are seeing in the last few years is the rise of a that isar subgroup extremely passionate morally about equality, fighting racism, and that's all great. but they have adopted a way that is kind of addictive, -- vindictive, about calling people out. afraid of them. it's not just the students, it's the professors too. effectively can file charges against a professor. nyu we have a bias response team. anything i show in class or defend a student. there are numbers to call to report me. exposed to are not diverse ideas, if someone like charles murray comes -- east oak 10 10 years ago.
dan: but there is more controversy. since his 20 12th of -- [inaudible] quoting anthony collins in "the new york times." >> is the biggest problem of our age. why did trump win? it's a coming apart by clas. -- class. we need a social science establishment that can address these problems. students are increasingly reacting, it's almost an allergic reaction. dan: if you were to give those organizing these protests the it is aof the doubt -- minority of students and it is a minority of schools. but they do set as a shadow schools where this is criminal, it's really pronounced and we are producing graduates with little sense of the ideological political diversity of american life. within the last couple of years to a very esteemed liberal arts college in the northeast. when i was there, the president -- they had a dinner for me at the president's house.
all these faculty members went around the table and sang the praises of the school. i heard about the affinity group they have this group, xyz. there were like 20 faculty members. at the end they said, do you have any russians? -- questions? i said, is there a group for republican students? they looked at me like it had never occurred to them. there was one student there and she says, i think there is that they maybe have 1 member. trip over themselves to get racial diversity. -- schools trip over themselves .o get racial diversity but what about this whole other kind of diversity, how are we going to move forward as a country if many of our top whools are graduating kids can't even begin to process how a human being could vote for donald trump. they need to understand who voted for donald trump why -- and why they are not monsters. dan: academics, how would they
rationalize this? >> they would say this is hate speech. they would say charles murray is a racist great with a -- they would say, would you let somebody from the klan come and speak. but, in terms of his attitude towards trans students and all of that -- if we are being honest, it's hard to figure out where the line is an everybody draws a line in a different place. what is constructed and acceptable dissent and what is your provocation. i think milo melo is your provocation -- pure provocation. think he is merely a provocateur. if you look at the book "coming is discussing essential things that already 2016 political cycle --auger the is discussing
essential things that already 2016 political cycle. >> what happens when you start doing college admissions on the basis of iq scores and sat's, rather than who your father is. there's a racial divide, a class divide, and a political divide, left-right divide. -- sincet to 1980 then, one of them has gotten them have two of gotten worse. in this country blows apart, you will be because of the combination we are seeing of the class divide and political divide. in universities we are mostly focused on the race problem. that is still in -- still a problem. diversity's have a crucial role to play. they should be the premier place when you bring people from all over the country who are different in politics and class and a learn to get along with each other, they learn to tolerate people who have different viewpoints. dan: how do your colleagues at nyu view you? do they view you as an outcast,
or are they quietly supportive? like a silent majority on campus that is saying to you, thank you for being what they would say is the voice of reason on this issue? >> you have to look at it field by field. the academy is vast. it's like different country straight if i were to give a talk in english or gender studies department, i think it might not go so well. by and large, the fifth majority of professors are what you would call liberal left. they are really anti--- they really believe in freedom of speech. since i've been on this mission to call attention to this problem, we have lost our political diversity in the social sciences, nothing bad has happened to me. my colleagues in social psychology have been very positive. they recognize, good research requires we challenge each other. nothing that has happened to me. on the internet people say that things about me. [laughter] been a lot of support.
i'm very encouraged. we have 400 numbers. dan: explain what heterodox is. an obscure academic name because our goal is to appeal to professors. everyone can agree that an orthodox academy would be a bad thing. had a sacramento and pledged allegiance -- we can all pledge allegiance to truth. the the allegiance becomes focused on antiracism, if we all are like this is our mission,
dan: i want to come back to what frank said about students not being exposed to people who may view the world differently, ideologically. so, talk about when the are leaving their senior year of college and they are actually pursuing jobs professionally, not just the lack of ideological diversity. what this means for them in terms of their ability to compete and increasingly cutthroat competitive employment environment. >> gear very rigid in their notions of how things should be and that translates well beyond politics to everything else. i employers complaining all the time about this generation of students because they hate to be challenged, they hate to be countermanded as they have been told, you are right. that you are right extends to andr ideological beliefs, the ivy league, outside the ivy league. the minority of schools, as john said, that a significant number of schools that some of the employers. -- feed some of the employers. >> business school is much more
pragmatic. things are just much more ideological, much more about projecting an image of yourself as having a certain cap of quality. the students are much more pragmatic. business schools, engineering schools, natural sciences, there's very little of this. a lot of students write to me. i hear that education and social work schools are the worst. the ones i hear about are really repressive. that should be very concerning. dan: in terms of how we are preparing students. >> to build on what frank said, the best analogy is to understand what's happening with peanut allergies. why are you allergies rising? they have been raising alarming rates since the 1990's. i take my kids to school, we get these long lectures on how we can't have anything better in peanut butter in
schools. do you know why peanut allergies are rising? because we haven't exposed kids to peanuts. the new recommendation is you have to give kids peanuts early. there is this wonderful book called "anti-fragile." anti-fragile, like your phones, your brain, your pals and it -- personality, unique challenges and setbacks. problem is the loss of unsupervised play. she has been brilliant on this with her book called "free range kids." in my time on after school we spent time where there was no adults around. dan: imagine that, you have to come home and figure out how to keep yourself busy. >> that's right. in the 1980's there was a real crime wave, there were anti-bullying measures, there was fear of abduction. for a number of reasons, kids were never out of adult oversight in many towns can get arrested if you can goes to the park to play. them of -- ined
the name of keeping them safe and happy and comfortable, we have deprived them of uncomfortable experiences with their peers. there's always an adult around, so they come to campus, this is the last chance we could 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 there is always an adult to call in to settle the problem. >> this is the helicopter parent producing the bubble wrapped kid. when i did my college book about schools, the elite complaint i heard most often from deans of omission, college presidents at the very tip schop schools in terms of selective this was that these kids arrive on campus and their overachievers by every metric the colleges using, in the phrase that sticks, i'm always amazed by the stunning fertility of these kids, which is what jonathan was -- fragility of these kids, which is what jonathan was saying. debate about that is so shut
down. i wrote a column asking the question, are these colleges that put so much effort into bringing in a diverse class, one of those kids are on campus, what do they do to promote interaction, so you have diverse and don't affinity it --, don't say space safe space it. yous a racist because -- asked how to jonathan's colleagues react to him. when i talk to people in higher education, he's a hero. he's bringing of stuff like free speech and ideological diversity. they won't say that in the they won't say the same things he is saying because they are so worried about a kind of shaming that the left seems to specialize in. >> i think this is crucial. mark miller had a piece in "the theyork times" after
election on the problem of identity politics and how this may have alienated a lot of people and contributed to trump 's victory. the response from many academics was ferocious. one of his colleagues at the election on the problem of and an essay basically linking him to the ku klux klan. he comes back with this brilliant point. columbiahe comes back with this brilliant point. he says, that's a slur, not an argument. once he said that, i realized, that is exactly what has been happening to me. i've been saying some provocative realized, that is exactly what has been happening to me. i've been saying some provocative things. i keep looking on the internet for people who respond to it, >> the professor, she said she
wanted to challenge him. the reason she wanted to interview him was because she strongly disagree with his ideas and she was looking to a robust, spirited debate. she's the one who wound up in the hospital. >> i want to retract a little bit of what i just said. middlebury is not the villain in the way they handled his visit. created at being schools like middle barry are producing students who behave that way. free speechnd more and more free speech is better for students to protest the speaker coming, stand outside the venue, make clear i don't believe in what is being said in there and i want to offer a contrary perspective.
what you had happened in middle barry and uc berkley, -- berkeley, who saw a form of registering disagreement that completely out of bounds and has nothing to do with enlightened discourse. >> i think this called attention to a gigantic generation gap is not just the millennial -- gap. it's not just the millennials. if you look at terms like safe space, trigger warning, the only emerge around 2012, 2013. i think social media is absolutely central to this. facebook lowered its age. 2006,uld join at 13 in 2007. the first wave of kids growing up on social media, just graduated a year or two ago. emerge around 2012, 2013. it is the younger millennials.
they've grown up totally linked to each other, always with her finger on the button, knowing anything i say, i cannot just be shamed in front of 7 people, but the entire planet. >> this generation also reflects the fact that when you curate your information the way you can with the internet, would you choose only certain twitter feeds to follow, when you like and share only certain things on facebook and let out a rhythm kick in, we are living in a time when not just this generation but newcomers to it but everybody is able to construct their information flow, and that's the reality, and to live apart in the silo ways online. -- these siloed ways online. >> why can't i block charles murray? why can't i press a button to keep him off campus? >> when i was on college campus, i was active in the israel debate, the peace process. when i speak to students today on campus, they say the boycott divestment and sanctions debate about boycotting israel, it's no longer just between those who
support one policy on israel and those who oppose another policy when i was going to college. now those who are hostile to israel were u.s. policy towards israel are joined by almost a coalition of all these different factions who know nothing about the issue but they all lock arms. >> the key to the new morality is a method of looking at society and looking in terms of power and privilege. the old idea of education is, come to campus. we teach lots of perspectives. let's look at poverty. what would an economist say? what would a marxist say? what's happening now is some students -- they are learning one perspective. t -- there's a good kind of identity politics, if black people are being denied rights, let's fight for their rights. it is a bad time, which is to train students, train young people to say, let's divide everybody up.
you will assign the moral merit -- we will assign them moral merit. are thethe palestinians victims. therefore they are the good, and the jews were israelis are bad. perspective.g also show problems get reduced to the simple framework. i think we are making students less wise. >> how many campuses do you touch in this report? >> we just took the u.s. news and world report top 150. we said, what if you actually care about exposure to diversity? we have that up. in the next couple weeks we will get the top 50 liberal arts colleges treated appears a liberal arts colleges, especially in new england, are particularly intense on this. we are to get those ranked in the next couple weeks. >> in the middle very case -- arelebury case, they
destined to try to set up a satellite room where they will conduct their interview and lives in it to the audience -- live stream it to the audience. someone pulls the fire alarm. there is a good reported "the washington post." -- report in "the message and post -- "the washington post." students are listening on the live stream for whether or not the fire alarms are breaking through in the live stream so they can determine if they are getting closer to the room and they can storm the room. when this happens, there is campus security, campus law enforcement. have been almost absent from the situation. >> if you go to the aei website that charles murray writes about this. they were doing what they could. luckily no one was hurt. >> the middlebury professor, interviewing murray, ended up in
the hospital. saide thing we have not loudly and clearly enough is, when people on the left, when they try to shut down this debate, do they not realize that donald trump's election is partly the fruit of those actions? i know so many people who flirted with voting for trump who were responding to destruction of a political correctness that they find oppressive. there's a real relevance to what we are talking about on campus, and he was governing our country right now. i don't think the people on the left have wrestled adequately with that. as: you have to see this not a practical method of addressing problems. it's a john of a new religion. -- dawn of a new religion. the greasy this in the charles murray case very clearly. this in thee see
charles murray case very clearly. we're going to move the talk. off campus, off campus. he says to another venue, on campus. and then they scream. and you cannot have blasphemy on campus. the best way to understand what happened is to say -- it's a religious right coming together to punish the devil, and reaffirm our community. it's a crazy time, but it's also an incredibly fascinating time to be a social scientist. >> you really want to salute the passion of those students. i liked that they are engaged, but i don't think they understand or the people who have constructed these campus environments understand the potential damage. becomes a to excess vice. in 10 years, the college campus could become unrecognizable to us if this trend continues. we had a discussion today.
♪ >> trading places, we are coming down to the latest exports data from china, with strong numbers expected. ask the u.s. deficit reaching a five-year high in january. trump prepares its case against beijing. wikileaks says the cia could hack into smart devices. thousands of documents show agents can monitor our messages. on international women's day, the governor of tokyo says she wants more female politicians in