tv Campus Speech the First Amendment CSPAN June 29, 2018 7:33am-9:01am EDT
state of the union plus 14 more thrillers. interact by phone, twitter or facebook our special series in-depth fiction addition with other bad -- brad thor. next a look at free speech on college campuses and whether hate speech is protected by the first amendment. we will hear from university officials. this event was organized by the association of public and land-grant universities.
good morning thank you for joining us. you can learn more about our organization at teaching freedom.org. it's a pleasure for us to be coat sponsoring with the association of public and land-grant universities. this important discussion at public universities we brought together a panel of people with a range of perspectives on the topic that squarely at the intersection of the u.s. constitution and the first amendment on the one hand and the very purpose of the university engaged as it is an acting as one of the main transmitters have civilizations highest values in the next generation. the put a strong emphasis on the freedom of speech and program. we've stressed the importance of this.
even with those who don't often agree. they can disagree on a whole range of public policy topics. from immigration to abortion appropriate tax rates and u.s. military in innovation vegan overseas. no matter how controversial or against the grain a popular opinion or speech might sometimes be it is vital that we find common ground on the basic procedures for conducting civil debate and the in the area of our differences. protecting the rights of those who wish to speak is indispensable in a free societys but so too is guarding the equal rights of those who wish to hear it was frederick douglass who observed that to suppress free speech is a
double wrong it violates the rights of the heree as well as those of the speaker. like all rights of the freedom of speech comes with an associated duty to exercise it responsibly. let us now begin our exploration of the state of the first amendment at public universities. the chair of her panel this morning is a distinguished prize-winning columnist of the chicago tribune. i can think of no one better to lead this discussionbe and clearance page. clarence page. please welcome clarence page. [applause]. >> think you i'm delighted to be here this morning. to be on the moderate panel today. just the expert discourse. by this issue as a journalist
but also as a parent. [indiscernible] free speech was a right wing funk. so every time i hear about a free-speech rally with some other right winger want to advocate for having a public forum. it's not just for one side it's site is for every side. something that every parent learns kids don't learn things automatically. that's why we are here to talk
about where we are on this issue of free speech today. what are the attitudes. without people breaking down. it's been at least years. public universities have hosted a number of questions about their role in the open-mindedness et cetera. about the parents back home et cetera. we have with rising wage campuses. they are censored by protests. at the same timens there the backdrop for some individuals who aim for that. we have therefore mentioned others with their outspoken speeches. i get to do whatever they say
to me. it does free me to be able to make those adjustments. justice robert said he was there. i will try to contain that role. >> this guy knows nothing. this guy knows nothing. and this guy knows everything. nothing to be more important than this. as in case. we've had a rising wage class. we put episodes have episodes like this.
from 1994. then into the troubling of the intellectual abilities i did not agree with the book he redeemed himself in my view. my just focusing on one book. i was very disappointed that students disrupted an appearance by him before he even got to engage in this discussion. [indiscernible] the month before that i saw
having that at the university is to have a dialogue not justno a monologue. then there's also famous comedians that jerry seinfeld chris rock that won't perform on campuses anymore. because of the people they have to deal with. life is different than what i was taught. but it's supposed to be different. when we go from here. how much do students value free speech. by the deliberately -- what they obtained by deliberately mocking speeches. just about everything. i welcome their comments and analysis. also opened up for a dialogue with the audience. to my far left here. it's physically not politically.
i want to talk to you later about a few things. for the past three years he has taught undergraduate seminars. his most recent book the free-speech on campus. with the national center on free-speech and civic engagement. next to howard. the resident of the southern poverty center. a civil rights organization founded in 1971. what the lot center. it's worth looking at for the key litigation. and he is very successful with a variety of these cases
they really miss how will we handled that. t the show did not change. and now it's so rare. it's hard to get people together in the same room. the current editor in chief of the weekly standard. also the former senior writer. the national review. and commentary everywhere. thank you very much for being with us. and thank you for your patients. can i have a round of applause for a wonderful panel. thank you very much. i'm in a throw out an opening
question and let you all respond to justice at the just to set the stage here today. as i mentioned we've seen a rising wave of headlines making its way over campus. what grade would you give to the state of the first amendment first amendment on campus today. your satisfaction. to let you answer this question first. and the only one on the panel who is actually part of this job. i give it a b. i think i am a tough grader. there's thousands and thousands of college and universities and even though we hear on a regular basis
about things that were concerned about most of those placessi their expression occurs on the campuses. there's not obvious examples of censorship. i think that the notion that there's a serious structural crisis would be an overstatement although there certainly reasons to worry. for a for you reasons. after having spent the last three years each yearor speaking a lot to students about this issue i can say that while they are bringing very important values in questions and ir on the issue think that their concerns are worth listening to in a deeper not dismissing or being condescending to. there is a balance on the other side of civic knowledge
that despite concerns about the emotional well-being of their colleagues and the importance of creating a learning environment that nevertheless and so might be important to protect the right to express ideas.. that they don't come to college with a full knowledge of the history of free speech. in the norms of the free society. there is not a lot of teaching going on any longer and high schools that might count as basic civics teaching. i don't think it's a natural impulse of anyone who hasn't have an opportunity to think seriously about these issues to have an intuition.in i think the universities and colleges now are in a point where we have to deepen that
conversation and when these issues really start to arise rise in 2014 and 2015 a lot of campus leaders we are caught a bit off guard about how to explain why they nevertheless were defending speakers and viewpoints that they found it deeply disturbing. and inconsistent with the professed values. of mutual respect work still needs to be done. to teach university leaders. they know that they need to protect the diversity but they're looking for some help on how to have a more powerful voiceav so that when students are asking why the university is taking a position that they just had a confident response to it.
i think our better now than we were a couple years ago but still work to be done. the other reason i can think it's a b- and a higher grade is that as a result of some fairly dramatic look. the procedures and policies relating to the expression of viewpoints. the ability to come to campus. the deep self-consciousness about it. it works fine outside of a very divisive political environment. but once the issues came to the floor i think a lot of universities realized that they have not thought about those issues for a while. among the leaders of every college and university that i speak to.s to tighten them up.
to ask interesting questions about whether you want to allow outside speakers on campus at all. and what counts as a disruption of punishment. more work is still still needs to be done. in a fe years that grade will get a little bit better. what would your grade be. i think also i forgot my hearing gauge at home. i can hear while but if i ask you to repeat it that's why. i think through that student perspective i would give it a c as in cat because the past three years and my perspective being a student leader throughout those yearsud i saw
on the ground how students were feeling about free speech.ou before that i didn't really know exactly what that meant. until i started getting involved with that student organizations across campus. organizations that represent students. it feels very frustrating. because for them it's not just freedom of speech that goes on. it's other incidents that may spur hate not being inclusive in campus and the students carry that and they refer back
to the university. and never responded and time. it's a lot of work. a lot of learning. more empathy needs to be there from both sides. as well as administrators. you can forget how on the ground students feel h being an administrator you represent several pieces of that. you don't really see those pieces. it's give-and-take. a lot of it goes back to the frustration and how you react to other instances. let me get your grade. the first thing we say is that my college year ended 42 years
ago.o. i'm not sure that i'm the best judge of how they're doing but from a legal perspective there are some instances when a university presidents had done a poor job. who were chanting racist things. the efforts of some university presidents to block speakers richard spencer for example. and then allowing him to file lawsuits that keep him as a first amendment champion and in most cases the universities have a back down. i think those universities know that they were going to use -- lose those cases but they were kind of bowing to political pressure. i would give them sc. the students i would give them a beat.ud
surveys have shown that it's free speech for me but not for the. widespread misunderstanding out there among students about free speech rights. the reason i give them a higher grade than their teachers is because i think it's a teachers fault that the students had this misperception as howard says. in our k-12 schools. that's tragedy that's note not so sure that the universities are doing much better.ur we were blamed for the incident at middleberry school when charles murray was shouted down.
we would call him a white nationalist. that social programs are doomed to failure. as clarence said link that to race. using our material. shouted murray down. i can't think anymore about that were entitled to our opinion. the fact that they shut them down. i think it's a fault of their teachers before they got to college in at college not to make them understand better but with education needs. many students had done outrageous things and colleges. it's the same for the students.
i have a booming voice. otherwise it would be silencing my speech. if you're like me. we been working in the media here. it doesn't stop that. and from your point of view. the headlines and issues that we've had to deal with. in regard to campus speech. what kind of grade would you get. i want to thank you for your generous introduction and correct a misimpression that your generosity created. t it is true that i did the mclaughlin group. never as often or as well as clarence did. i want all the easy
questions. i did exactly once. i was never asked back. we've done plenty of other battles. to get beyond that low bar the low bar that i set for myself made and the least optimistic up here. i would say c- or d+. and i don't bring to the debate the kind of data into mincey that and see that some of these other panelists do. the purpose of the industry is to teach. to teach students how to think and sometimes make students feel uncomfortable. while there has always been it
we can talk about the university of michigan, plenty of examples where this has not only been prevalent but they have been institutionalized. been made part of universities themselves. i think that's a dangerous trend and i hope it is reversed. >> alejandrina, how do you feel about the issue of hate speech on campus? first of all, the definition, how do you feel about it and how do you think it should be dealt with? >> yes, that is a great question. so my perspective and what i believe of hate speech is not just that you feel uncomfortable, it's the threatening, you feel threatened of your existence.
privilege is a big piece of that, in myiv opinion. i think that a lot of students across campus think about hate speech, and they say that effective or that's frightening, but it's beyond that because most of the time you already feel that you have adequate resources or you have the adequate personnel on campus to navigate those conversations. and when you have nowhere to turn to its threatening. for me one thing i want to mention real quick is when i started as a freshman, i was very surprised to see that there was catching an illegal immigrant came any meat or meat that was my first exposure to
hate speech on the college campus. i started to seek out students in tobo see how they understood and felt about it. there are students who are able to go to state universities and they see this, you know, what message does that send? to navigate hate speech is really difficult. where you draw the line? expelling? what does it look like for students? recently an incident at texas tech university that happened i think about a week ago, a group chat and a fraternity group talking about ice and border patrol and all that stuff, and students demanding texas tech do something about this hate speech. how can the students be enrolled at the university and walking around speaking these things? something i also blame
navigating because i understand that freedom of speech, first amendment at that same time how do you also navigate the conversation with students when it already don't feel welcomed at school. >> how do you respond -- let me ask for so, you graduated and congratulations by the way, have you changed your mind at all over the course of your colleger experience and since becoming an alarm? -- alum. should there be more or less? how do you respond? >> that's a tough question because i had the opportunity to serve the student body president. that gave me access to seeing all the ins and outs of how administers look at it and how they wereof navigating, hand-in-hand with students to club students don't know and don't really understand how administers goo about it and i
was in the middle of it all because i saw how students were reacting and is how administers were handling it. this past year was really interesting, something to draw an example to draw from that is in november ofro last year at ut austin it was a white supremacist rally. it was in the middle of the night. it happened right onhe the stret that i go to and from my apartment to campus. i happened to be still on campus when the rally happened. that night i had work to do and ended up staying a little past midnight, around 1 a.m. the rally had just happened. the idea is, like you said, now that i've graduated and i've seen what those two pieces look
like, it's still a hard question because a part of that is what are the full policies? what are the student organization policies? what does it look like? it happened to not be by a student organization. it was an outside group said the universities responded very strongly against the rally because most student organizations got that back to campus so being an alum i start thinking about the empathy part and what that looks like and how we can connect students to the administrators for them to feel more hurt because that is something still missing and that is a great question. >> i heard a noise outside of my hotel.
[inaudible] i think that the law is absolutely clear on this under the first amendment that one has thone hasthe right to be offenso be provocative. the fact that speech is offensive and protected and on the other hand the universities have an obligation to ensure there isn't a hostile atmosphere based on the religion or the like. how do two things come together isn't always clear when we look back on our history, 95% of college students were white. today that figure is much different and issues of sensitivity has likewise changed. hate speech is protected but there is difficulty drawing the line between that which is offensive and that which is
objectively hostile. the university of michigan is in trouble right now for the second time in a court case because its policy is focusing more on students feelings rather than some objective standard of hostility, but it i that it is a difficult question and in many cases the wall is absolutely clear and muddled. >> the law is pretty clear, with students asking hard questions about why is it that the norms of the united states extend protections to hate speech as crazy a thoughtful person would ask that question. in canada there are laws against hate speech. there's plenty of places we all agree our free democratic societies where the attitude about hate speech is different
than the attitude as it has evolved in the american constitutional provision. the arguments about the real harmful impact hate speech can have especially on vulnerable communities are a serious argument and the notion someone that asks the question why in a free society would you allow a kind of speech that has it intends to complete marginalization that is a good question and it's not within our larger political system we don't see a lot of anger and intolerance on both sides of the aisle. everybody is always about the other side expressing themselves in a way that people think are dangerous or immoral and so i think that hate speech is a very interesting issue to put on the table and i agree it should be
protected but when the issue arises on campus, the issue shouldn't be don't you know the supreme court has protected the speech and that is the end of the conversation. if you are a thoughtful person on the campus you have to systematically evaluate the claim and it's right for students to ask these hard questions. there's a lot of smart law professors who think we have this wrong. there was a recent book against the protection of hate speech. i know my commitment as a university leader and i'm not going to use the category of hate speech as a reason to not put somebody speak on campus and i think i could have good conversations in my community about why in the end especially vulnerable populations don't want to give power holders the right to punish people merely for the expression of the views that they consider to be hateful. think about public officials you trust and like the least and ask the question how would they use
the power. >> there would be a different person in mind and that is the point. those are interesting questions, but it's not a society in general people ask that question is exactly the sort of question that should be asked on the college campuses even if they have to know what their legal and moral responsibilities are with respect to the questions of the decisions you will be making on the campus when you have to decide whether to allow or not allow someone to speak. >> that is a good point who do you want making those decisions. if you look at the university of michigan, friends suggest 90% of the people he was addressing at one particular time who had voted for hillary clinton had voted against hate speech because they had opposed donald trump. i'm very uncomfortable with some
of the things he says. says. i'm a conservative but i often criticize him and his language in the 2016 campaign, about what he said about the indiana judge. he is in the case most people who voted for donald trump and so because they hate other people. that isn't the case. when you think about the power somebody but the president of the university of michigan has two shape the way the campus environment exists on a day-to-day basis and you suggest it ought to be the one making these determinations for everyone, i think that does raise very difficult questions and certainly something i would be uncomfortable with. i go back. i don't spend a lot of time on the college campuses but i graduated recently a few years ago, okay 25 years ago.
i would say the prevailing sentiment certainly at my school in indiana also campuses around the country as i spent time working on these issues it was almost cliché and it seems to me now that is at least a controversial proposition and abnavy isn't the prevailing sentiment as you talk to people and the university leaders, administrators were student leaders and i guess i believed more speech is the end to that speech and i think about something like the game that you described as the undocumented immigrants. i wouldn't want the university to step in and try to stop it but there are groups that find that offensive may be the college republicans would say
i'm opposed to illegal immigration but that's not appropriate and to have that fight and that debate and make those arguments and to win the argument, that's the best way to affect long-term changes to make the argument, to have the argument prevailed rather than to have the universities they did so offensive we can't even discuss it. >> we have more dialogue or speak to >> after that game i think it was the same day i are a member wanting to wear a white t-shirt [inaudible]
it's the listening part and i keep looking at the administrative and student side because that is how the students felt at the same time, i think that and though it was divided, there was a huge crowd that came out and protested against it. i would be disappointed if they didn't. are we getting more dialogue? >> i am more optimistic about how the leaders have been thinking about it the last couple of years and about how students, with the students
expect that the university. there's no question in 2014 and 2015 there were these impulses playing out that sort of led to this framing of the coddling of the american mind which i don't think is the best way to frame the issue especially if you want to win over the students saying they have psychological problems so it's better to understand the issues they are raising are vitally important for any society. society. what it means to be a member and not in a discriminatory learning environment. environment. part of the vocabulary they are using to challenge this activity is a vocabulary that is provided to them in federal law because the universities are obligated under title ix and others to make sure that they are not creating a hostile environment
and under the department of education up until recently, there were a lot of arguments about how allowing certain kinds of speech to the disadvantage of certain populations of students might violate federal law so we of course think that is something that i should be thout about but it's not as if it doesn't exist in the legal framework so using those categories as part of the argument is a natural thing that requires us to figure out how to balance the competing configurations. as a result of work that was done if you sat down and asked the responsibilities to protecting the offensive speech who wouldn't agree that responsibility was to do that? they may feel in some cases they have to speak out on behalf of
their students if they think things are happening. they may make one wrong decision here or there but in general leadership at the universities understand that they are trying to catch up with the practical implications of it and policies you have to embrace or not and when i see our students whereas a few years ago when i relocated twice we were lucky enough to have them on campus twice and both times he spoke. the first time by the way hundreds of students were upset and nevertheless, he spoke. the second time and everybody got on board and nobody showed up and then he decided not to come back to the campus. i think that is your recommendation when it comes to certain speakers as well but they now understand we are not going to stop people from speaking on campus and that allows them to think about what kind of strategies are better and i think we are moving in the direction of a common understanding of more speech even if the individual is still
arguments about how to treat or difficult circumstances. >> [inaudible] >> absolutely not, we would not like to see that. people have a right to hate but not to hurt people and when someone's amendment rights are trampled by also concerned and there've been a number of laws introduced in the state of the goldwater institute that are quite heavy-handed telling the administrators what to do say dy that if a student violates or is protesting inappropriately vested an student should be
suspended or expelled. most university administrators wouldn't want to be told by state legislators how to run their campuses. there's no doubt university administrators with paper to be left alone with respect to how to run their campuses but in a free society especially public institutions that are accountable if there is a perception among the state legislators or attorneys general for that matter that universities are not stepping up foover taking strong enough ste, you are going to see this kind of intervention politically and legally. we are in an environment now where the universities are being told how to deal with the issue. we have the attorney general bringing the justice department in two certain lawsuits that is
not a criticism but folks that are looking to make sure and keep universities on the stand now they have the backing of the government when it comes to some of the claims being made. but generally speaking, the median state legislator probably doesn't have the sensitivities you would want for how a university with young people that have an obligation to teach them first how they should deal with these issues. if universities decide to wash their hands and are never intervening when people are disruptive to the point where there's two ways you can violate the rights of free expression. i could sense her or punish them directly or step back while students take that responsibility into their own hands and i do nothing about it. so it has to be a both of those issues but it turns out when you really start thinking okay we are going to create a disruption
policy, the state legislature might say to disruption disruptd urls but it turns out this interesting questions you have to look at. no speaker is entitled to a cooperative audience. if an audience decides a speaker says something so outrageous they engage in extended doing and then start to walk out and it takes three or four or five minutes for that energy to leave the room is that a five minute descriptioa five-minutedescripts punishment, is it different whether it is a planned activity designed to undermine the rights of students, are there mitigating factors in some circumstances and factors that should lead you to have stronger punishment? we are thinking about all those issues and we want to end up with a situation where students who engage in this activity have opportunities to be put in a learning environment first and then for us to make more nuanced judgments about how to proceed,
but if we don't step up is every reason to expect legislators and others will force us to do what we know we are supposed to in the first place. >> in the media we can debate the first amendment. do you feel any better about the watchful eye of administrators? >> it may be the case that perceptions have been created by the cases that give the media a lot of attention. but having said that, i do think those things exist, the things
we saw at middlebury, berkeley, michigan. at a certain thinkers and a poie cumulative weight that adds up to something and i think that is a problem and the concern i have is if you have administrators however good their intentions might be that are willing to give into the mob mentality of shutting down speech or allowing speech to be shut down or looking the other way if administrators and faculty say it would be great if he wouldn't disrupt the speech. i find that hugely problematic and it's a bigger argument from my perspective to learn more when we have free speech and these debates. when shapiro spoke at berkeley as a group of protesters on the street and i looked at the the n and they were protesting the
appearance. we say no to your white supremacist bull was the sign. it's incredible to me a group of protesters would be so ignorant, whatever you think of them, to have consistently taken on white supremacists. it is a core part of what he does. he's a victim of antagonism on a consistent basis. the idea that these protesters would broadcast their ignorance by saying we say no to your white supremacist them is incredible and suggest suggestsd for more speech is required, more speech would improve that. we would have a vigorous debate about whether charles murray is a white supremacist. i think it isn't fair to take one small section and from that, draw a vast conclusion about who
charles murray is when he has done countless other things including the advocacy of the basic income that we would all be poor if we didn't have that debate. let's have a fight you won't believe this and think i don't know what i'm talking about and he is brilliant. that's fine. but we can have the debate and i'm worried that given this need for the emphasis on feelings at the universities there is an imbalance, the need for speech. the one thing i would see us first about if i didn't think there wathere was some issue anm i wouldn't have written a book on it we wouldn't have created this new national center so
there is more work that has to be done. having said that, the example of berkeley is interesting. berkeley went to great lengths to make sure he was able to speak. he had a terrific audience and then there were people outside who were exercising their free speech rights. you might think they were saying wrong things and didn't know schapiro and if they took the time to listen to him speak they would know that, but i was an example of anybody's rights being violated, it was just a lot of people speaking and you think some of the people who were speaking were saying the wrong things. that's okay. and in fact berkley, which sometimes gets thrown into the mix of being a problematic place, it is an interesting story that we find ourselves in. january, 2017, berkeley took extraordinary actions to make sure he would be able to speak.
he'd come to my campus at every university california campus had berkeley police officers to make sure they had as many people as possible. students were going to protest that it is an example of everyone exercising their rights and berkley said something no campus in the history of planet in north america has ever faced which is about 150 protesters with bats and helmets and body armor and material to start fires, coming to campus to start a riot. it's true they didn't stop that from happening but not with a lack of effort. without having known in advance i never knew such a thing could happen.
as a result of that when my oldest decided he didn't have enough fun in january 2017 and was going to continue to hold the university which turned out to be a fake speak to the free-speech week at the last of the academic year berkeley now knowing what possibly they would trace and comes up with the need needs were spent spent $3.9 million to make sure that that event could go through, even though it turned out milo wasn't serious about it. so i don't know what else you would want from university that was trying to demonstrate its commitment to doing everything possible. and i think that what's true about all of these is with the exception of the first milo event which was disrupted by a riot the spilled outut into berkeley itself, the city itself, everybody who's wanted to speak at berkeley -- >> we will break away briefly. the sin is coming in for a short pro forma session while they're in break for the fourth of july holiday recess. the senators passed the farm
bill setting agriculture and food policy for the next five years. live senate coverage now one c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., june 29, 2018. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable mitch mcconnell, a senator from the commonwealth of kentucky, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 9:00 a.m. stands adjourned until 9:00 a.m.
>> brief pro forma session from u.s. senate. they are back from their fourth of july recess on monday, july 9 at 3 p.m. eastern. live coverage as always here and c-span2. we will take you back live now to the discussion on of free sh on college campuses. >> it was african americans, latina and native americans. it just kept getting less and less. >> except if you are a black you paid less but a black woman with a less than a black man. >> exactly. the difference is about 25 cents to ten cents, et cetera. students, from myo understandin,
it still has happened numerous times on campus, and that year someone had happened to live stream as your passing by. it just, it was everywhere. i remember i was in class when he was talking about it. [inaud] there is an area where a lot of protests were back in 1976 and there was a lot of yelling cut student body president.
they were talking about his opinions and what that looked like. it was a big crowd and right afteafter there were student government representatives that walk together and in the beginning of us to condemn the d. organization for their actions and then they are talking to several leaders in the organization of may minority groups.
i was a student leader and one of the groups under the multicultural engagement center and a couple of us signed on to the legislation the reason being to showcase a and in the sense that they felt that much and felt that they were being listened to. the reason was to draw attention as well you can have free speech but it doesn't have consequences for how they see.
i understand how the students of the marginalized communities deal. i can also see how that looks. at the same time i think about how can you move forward with the students directly talking to them providing a platform not just allowing students to congregate. if you are in charge of the university you would call on the
it seemed there was more speech encounter began hostile speech >> as a student leader you can be more empathetic to that role. do youad feel like, this would e a priority on both sides that leaders need of more dialogue and spread that to the rank-and-file of the university? >> i think yes because after the incident, , after the legislatin had not passed, within days a lot of organizations that had signed on to the petition titions organization in the nation they
>> keeping my eye on the clock, the cost of free speech, there was tremendous cost" whether the actual speech occurred or not. [inaudible] the conservative student group complained to. everybody is in a better place now than they were a year ago. it was assumed by some leaders at the event was to be organized it was going to trigger a protesprotest and so is an addil cost and you could assign those to the organizers. that is unconstitutional and
wrong. it can't be the case people who are inviting controversial speakers don't have to pay a special price because no one is protesting them that anybody that might be controversial has to pay a fine for someone trying to bring some of the campus. in california tha but is now completely understood. the way we think about it if somebody wants to organize an event there are normal costs associated if they want to organize an event with 20 people visited of cost if they want to organize the 500 fear to hire more parking attendants and have normal basic security you could assign the ordinary costs they are creating on their own terms and that's true whether they are inviting a controversial speaker or if you want a film festival
this costs the have to bear and you can pass that onto the organizers that you can't impose the cost of first right to impose because they are resisting it so we can assign the cost basefind thecost basede planning according to a clear content of mutual criteria everybody sees you go through the same so we are not justifying the one to another but if they try to protest the event all the costs have to be socialized by the universities of its commitment. we are not facing a situation where we are targeting every single one was tremendously controversial activities that
could cost a million dollars in activity essentially bankrupt the university because if you ever heard they are not exactly flush with cash these days and every million dollars we are spending we are not spending it on hiring faculty at the light. >> they will budget a certain number of the beginning of the year is the $100,000 a and they will go through events and spend whatever money they need to deal with those events of their own accounts people in throug and te $100,000 no more event's. that's an interesting model forf its content is digital and it's going to raise practical problems to have their events
organized because you don't want to be at the other end but it shows how creative universities are trying to get to prevent themselves from being in the position that can be targeted by groups trying to be provocative to the point you run into problems with financial solvency institutions. >> howard is absolutely right they can't force the groups that bring controversial speakers to pay the cost of keeping protesters away. it's the classic case but there's also the problem howard refers to wear if this happened every week the university would be bankrupt. something's got to give. if it will prevail i don't know
it is a murky area of the law but something's got to give at some point. >> do we have a microphone? >> i have a question that there was an incident regarding recruitment flyers so from what i recall it took maybe two or three weeks to issue a public statement to students to the general public about the fires and while there wasn't anything
outwardly, anything else that was done i guess my question is how would you respond to such a situation you are not allowing someone to speak that you are sayinbut you'resaying our valuen with hate speech. >> every university leader needs to be prepared to face a situation where something is happening on the campus that is so disruptive of the values of the campus and its mission even if someone comes to campus i
didn't think it was worth saying anything because i didn't want to draw that much attention that we have the student affairs respond to those that were concerned with the message that underscores the commitment to speech but also says we are not going to stand silently by while they come in and use the well-being of the students. you have to be prepared to speak on behalf of the values and on the other hand it can't be the case every time something happens on campus and i know that you were dealing with a particularly important event but when it's just something people are upset about that you have to respond to every circumstance of the president or chancellor is always responding every time someone is upset about what happened you lose the importance
of that and that's all that he would do as a running commentator for the expression of ideas on the campus and in fact it undermines the campus that is always taking strong views. i felt when trump was elected you and others concerned about it but that wasn't for me to speak about. students could express themselves about it but it has to be the case in the normal democratic politics especially the leaders of public institutions have to know when you take a step back you have to allow people to have a dialogue and arguments on their own
because i am mindful they have the different majority views on the campus and i don't want those people to think the university doesn't belong to them as much as everybody else so you have to speak when i think the core values of the universities are at stake and nobody should expect the way that they defend the values is only through with a president or chancellor says. don't rely on the figures to defend your own values. the point of the university is to allow people to see what it looks like to find their voice. >> i want to push bac back onto plates and invites your critique to the response. the first point i want to make i think we are grossly
it shouldn't be my job as a citizen and a society that supposedly values equality to convince him else i am in fact, an equal. it should not be a function of my ability to use rhetoric. the anti-semite isn't interested in reason rather domination. i would like to hear your response. >> something that disturbed me down south, graffiti that said trump was viewed as hate speech by black students. we're getting into political speech. how do you feel about? >> i think that the one hand -- i think it is context dependent, that's my short answer. >> the context was -- [inaudible] this is graffiti. >> if, for example, he put on the side of the building summer
vote for trump, people have different opinions about trump what you envisioned that a certain way. if you put next to the black student center, that's a context where you might see a little differently. [inaudible] >> possibly. >> i'm just asking. part of the dialogue. i don't think it is hate speech. let's go to the panel. >> the one thing i would say is your question is a really good one. the law says you have to have hostile atmosphere to be actionable from a a reasonable persons point of view. but who is a reasonable person? is that defined for majority white point of view, from the privilege point of view or is it defined in a different way? as universities change their racial composition i think those questions, to the fore and become even more difficult to answer. i don't know if i have a good
answer but but i recognize it a great question. >> i do think, i think it's wrong for people to respond to your concern by saying it's only speech, exact right, take one for the team. i think hate speech is a much more difficult situation than most people on the other side realize. i think the harms a real in what you described them, and i think it's possible for people believe in free societies to think that hate speech is a different sort of thing. because a lot of other countries as i mentioned treat hate speech different that we do. you need a good answer to your question. one thing you can say is there's power differentials but there's almost and all situation. the main thing i would say is first we've been down this road before.
in the late '80s and early '90s about 350 colleges and universities past hate speech code. not one of them that went before a federal judge was upheld. they were all struck down for a variety of reasons including deep definitional problems. once you get from defense of the one circumstance you have in mind to what the rule, it's very difficult to figure out the role and becomes so vague that it would be up like you and i don't think would be the right way to apply them. university of michigan case went to the federal courts on hate speech code. within the university of michigan may past that hate speech code. not one sort of anti-black racist was prosecuted under the code, but pro-african american anti-whiteness advocates were prosecuted on the grounds their speech was racist. when great britain past hate speech code, jewish, advocates
for israel were among the first to be prosecuted because united nations had just declared design is a is a form of racism. we have to be careful about the definitional issue, how it's going to be admitted. you're talking by giving power to people. the last thing i would recommend is most antiracism advocates are very sophisticated about existing structures of power and how you can't trust certain kinds of authority figures. and so i think it would be helpful to take that same wise sophisticated political analysis of what happens when you cower people and ask, if you give the power to punish hate speech to sheriff and district attorneys and mayors and university presidents and attorneys general and then presidents of the united states, how are they going to use that power?
that's the best response, a political response. then i think with something we can talk about a little bit more substantial. >> which is why i would go back. your hypothetical is an interesting and provocative one but that's what i would go back to the argument as inadequate as a might sound that more speech is the best antidote to bad speech or hate speech. talk about that administrator or share in the example you set forth for us. it may be the case vote for donald trump written next to black students in was menace, evocative, hateful. would you want an administrator to make the determination or a sheriff? to me donald trump what you like it or not is the president of the united states. he won the election. it's hard to imagine punishing someone for any kind of retribution or official action. because somebody wrote that, and i suppose an investigation could
lead to an conclusion that was minute hate speech but boy, you could done a pretty difficult road if you start to give them that power. >> more questions. >> i -- that's the argument i hear constantly from students. again, i think it just depends on the history of said group or said person acting on the actions i guess. and accountability needs to be there as well. when students feel threatened and i agree with you, sir, why do you need to prove over and over and over again that your
existence, power dynamics, all that stuff, it's hard just because how first amendment right are, but at the end of the day i agree with you. and again i'm coming from a student perspective that i've heard over and over again, and just hearing these answers i feel like that's true, but i guess nothing new. >> a lot like déjà vu all over again. it is true that used to love me back in the '60s. i was ambassador in the dormitory. if we had some of black folks around you i wouldn't have to be the ambassador. the struggle still continues, and diversity issues are expanding. next person on the mic. >> thank you, panel. i have two basic questions.
where is the line between hate speech and violence? unmasking this because i think violence is more than just physical violence. we are hearing in his people committing suicide after being bullied in school context. so where does administration stepped in to control hate speech or affect hate speech in light of this kind of violence? how do you maintain an inclusive environment in light of trying to operate civil discourse and also tolerate or make room for hate speech? some of the conversations we had today including adding more conversations versus shutting down hate speech. where is the line? because i wonder how institutions go about maintaining the manner of inclusivity when we are the most diverse we've ever been, and so i think there's a lot of patients that has to be had, but
when we go from here in terms of having the inclusive environment that we all seem to advertise? >> they only ask tough questions. >> briefly, although it really deserves a very long conversation i will take right draw the line. there's a lot of things you can do with speech. one thing you can do with speech is express a view point. so my view edit think this is a way the law treats it, is that you can never punish or sent to some a nearly for the act of expressing a viewpoint. ..