Skip to main content

tv   Harmeet Dhillon on Free Speech  CSPAN  August 5, 2017 5:04am-6:00am EDT

5:04 am
on american history tv on c-span3. the c-span cities tour, working with our cable affiliates, and visiting cities across the country. >> the young america's foundation of its national conservatives didn't conference this week in washington, d.c. this year's events include remarks the study of bridge design. froo talks about free speech on college campuses. this is just under one hour. [applause]
5:05 am
harmeet: i would like to share with the berkeley case and the background and give you tips and suggestions at the end of my comments about how to deal with these issues on your own. campuses and there's going to be time for q&a as well. so, kimberly mentioned by tremendous vails with free speech at dartmouth. i just came from a radio interview with laura ingram who was on the board at dartmouth, so i had some good teachers and mentors when i was a young college student at dartmouth. and those are some of my best friends today. and we're still fighting the same battles, just kind of disappointing. i think the stakes are higher now than they were at dartmouth so to set the stage here and i so to set the stage here and i hope i don't bore you with dry, constitutional law, but, i'm sure most of you know that the first amendment is part of the bill of rights and it's sort of the cornerstone of our concept and it's one of the really unique things about the american democratic thoughts is that we have this concept of free speech.
5:06 am
even other democracies don't have free speech rights to the extent that we do. and freedom of thought and speech and freedom of association are natural rights. those are what the founders of our country believe to be rights that la god-given, but not given by the government. they're inherent rights. but today on college campuses, the concept of free speech has metastasized to be a concept of being free from speech. i'm sure all of you have experienced this on your campuses that there are bullies there who will view your free speech as something that infringes on their right or perceived right to be free from speech that is critical or that challenges them. infringes on their right or and that's kind of the new spin that we have here today is that when i was at dartmouth, we were kind of free to be somewhat obnoxious to a point and then that point came where like i said in the "new york times" interview where there was just this massive violent reaction really and we were put on the defensive. and if it hadn't been for some lawyers who helped us out in that situation, actually, i wouldn't be standing here today as the lawyer and free speech activist that i am.
5:07 am
so, the idea of campus unrest and id logical and generational clashes on campus is not new. i studied ancient greek at dartmouth and that was my major. we learned about the classics and we learned what happened to socrates. he was an early campus controversial if you will. he had a student who he was teaching. and he answered questions from some students. and the way he answered those questions about the deities of the city, the gods, do you recognize these gods? that troubled the elders, and they decide that he needed to be put on trial for his her ret -- heretical views. and ultimately sentenced to death for not believing in the gods of the city and the other sin of teaching the students about some other gods and some other beliefs, the beliefs and challenge and rhetoric and free exchange of ideas. well, so that's what happened to
5:08 am
him. but today, it's actually the professors at our universities who are putting free speech to death. they're the ones who are imposing their viewpoint on the students. and they're the ones who are stifling that very speech and that very american tradition of democracy out of existence. and those folks have tenure. and they've been there longer than you. and they're waging a war of attrition on the students, most of you -- the joke at university of california berkeley is that you're on a four, five, six-year imposing their viewpoint on the plan, people are not you believely graduating at four years these days. but you're going to be to be gone in four or five years. and they're going to be there for the next generation and the next generation after that. they have advantage of time and it takes a lot of conviction and force and will to combat these powerful enemies of free speech. so, you guys are the ones who are going to have to fight that war that he once fought to bring enlightenment to the campuses.
5:09 am
so with that, i'm going to have some slides here about the first amendment, the threats on college campuses. and i have a slide about the text of the first amendment. and this is relevant. what it says in it's words is actually not what the law is evolved to be. congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof. or the freedom of speech or the press or of the right of the people to assemble. and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. now, a lot of people look at the first amendment and say well it says congress shall make no law, and congress shall not abridge the freedom of speech. and to petition the government ok, if congress isn't making the law and congress isn't abridging my speech, they get to do that, right? no, the first amendment has been brought in to include any action by the government. so, university of california berkeley which kimberly mentioned is a government university.
5:10 am
and any restrictions by the government property or when the parameters by the government but it's even broader than that. dartmouth is a private ivy league institution, but a federal judge and state judge in our case ruled that because dartmouth accepted federal funding in that case i believe it was title ix funding, dartmouth as well as other private institutions and higher learning are also subject to certain first amendment standards as well. so just because those of you in the audience may not be going to a state school don't assume that the first amendment doesn't apply for your speech as well. just about every american institution nowadays, in education takes government funding and therefore is also liable to follow the dictates of the first amendment. so, to give you a little bit of context, there were -- there were -- there was a free speech movement on campus that started just about every american institution nowadays, in education takes government
5:11 am
funding and therefore is also at berkeley, we'll get to that in a minute. i've talked about this, okay, so the birth of the free speech movement is something that we know about from history and in december 2, 1964, mario is a famous student activist at uc berkeley, and he was -- let's call it a liberal and he was an anti-war activist, and he wanted to -- and the university administration at that time was conservative. berkeley, and he was -- let's so, they did not want students talking about the war, protesting, and students who are being threatened for punishment with that. so he was not having any of this. he gave up and he was a civil disobedience activist who made a speech, famous speech about giving bodies upon the gears. in other words, which is sort of communist rhetoric, it's the idea of throwing your body on the gears of the machine to stop
5:12 am
the machine from crushing the souls of people. so, they did not want students he demanded to lift the ban of on campus political activity and acknowledge the right of free speech and academic freedom. as a result of the activism at uc berkeley, the famous plaza and the steps of the plaza which is an open plaza on the uc berkeley campus was made a designated public forum. today if you go to uc berkeley, you will see that all kinds of -- i'm trying to think of a polite word to say, all kinds of -- hippies, countercultural people, bums, crazy people, these are the sprawl plaza these days. anything goes. anybody can come there. shout their crack pot theories and have a place to talk. and it's very -- it's very interesting. i held a press conference, it was a second press conference
5:13 am
that week at sprawl plaza and as we were giving the press conference and my clients troy warden and others were speaking there, we had all these crack pots circling around and shouting. it was distracting and interesting. when i joined it it was two issues. one was calling for die investment from south africa. any businesses that did business in south africa the students were agitating to ask the university to divest from the corporations. issue number two was the war in
5:14 am
central america between the contras and most of the professors were favoring the communist side, and the dartmouth review, the students were very supportive of the anti-communist movement there. so those were a couple of big issues on our campus. i'm paraphrasing, there was a lot of others. we had incident after incident after incident where our student reporters would go in, expose something, expose a story and have a article follow-up about it, and as these articles were exposing to the alumni and to the rest of the world what was going on at dartmouth for example giving out ru-486, an abortion pill before it was allowed to the fda, basically doing testing on students without authorization, things like that. we exposed these issues at dartmouth and we began to be getting the fire and getting a lot of negative attention from the administration. so this culminated in three of my colleagues at the dartmouth review being suspended
5:15 am
indefinitely from dartmouth after they went -- they heard about a music 101 class. we had an african american professor named bill cook. and cook was famous for going off on these riffs or rants about ronald reagan, how bad and cook was famous for going off on these riffs or rants about ronald reagan, how bad ronald reagan was. he would call white students honkies. he was really quite a character. so one of the young conservatives told one of our colleagues on the paper, hey, this is crazy, you should cover it. so the student went in and audio taped a class. without permission, admittedly, just audio taped it, we published a tape and this went out to the several thousand alumni. and it caused a national human cry and dartmouth alumni were calling the administration, the phone is ringing off the hook. i'm going to take you out of my will, the old guys were really up in arms about this thing.
5:16 am
we thought we'd do a follow-up story. my friend chris baldwin and a couple others and he went to talk about the follow-up issue and what was his comment about the commentary. he basically assaulted the student. there was a photographer and two editors. and there are photographs showing the professor coming closer and closer before he grabs the camera and throws it to the ground. and so there's a disciplinary hearing of the students, not professor. and we had something called the to the ground. committee on standards at dartmouth. and the committee on standards was professors who heard this case. they were like little kangaroo court, star chamber, tribunal. one was known to have make remarks and one of the students challenged him impartiality and he said no, i can be impartial. the three students were suspended. think about it now, i'm sure some of you are in the same situation.
5:17 am
these are all kids with bright futures ahead of them, and assault thud their careers stretching out for their entire lives are going to be impacted by this negative situation. so, then there was a savior that came to the scene. and nafs one of our board members knew some fancy lawyers at the aclu. and the aclu, lord's tribe, actually, you know, had read about the situation and so, we got some volunteer lawyers from new york city to represent the dartmouth review to sue dartmouth to reenstate the students. so there was a state lawsuit filed and long story short, the three students were reinstated. one of the reasons that the court gave was the faculty was biassed against the students. they did not get a fair hearing. and, you know, ultimately we established the principle that the students could not be punished for their speech. they did not get a fair hearing. so that was all while i was editor and chief. i was not one of the three students, but i presided over this lawsuit. and i actually switched my major at that point.
5:18 am
i had been premed and i thought this law thing was pretty cool and it was pretty amazing to be able to sue your university and win. so i switched. well, as a side, it was bad enough for my parents that i was majoring in ancient greek, fairly, incredibly useless major, and they weren't really fond of lawyers either. my father is a doctor in a small town. he wasn't really nuts about lawyers either. but, you know, they accepted my decision and i went on to eventually, i was a journalist at the heritage foundation for a year and eventually became a law and practicing law for almost 25 years now. that brings know another institution where i attended, also a seminole free speech case. i believe the rosenberger in question is a student graduate, if i'm not mistaken. i went to the law school. there was a christian newspaper at the university and the university had a student fund. i guess they raised this fund from an activity fee that's assessed on all the students,
5:19 am
and it was supposed to be given out equally to different student groups. so if you had a soccer paper or an atheist paper, let's take it out of atheist, if you had a paper of some infinitive group, you could get money from the university to print your paper. christian students asked for this support as well, few hundred dollars and they were denied the printing costs and took this case to the united states supreme court. and the university of virginia's position was, well, first of all, we are denying this money to all religious-oriented publications. the christian group was the only one which had asked for the funding. that was kind of a clever but not availing argument. so that's ok if that doesn't work. we have limited funds. that was another argument, the court wasn't having any of that.
5:20 am
publications. and the united states supreme court pointed out that it was not speech about religion that was banned, but -- so the money could be used by the underwater basket weaving club to talk about payingenism or whatever, so, you know, but a christian group was not allowed to express it's christian views with the student funds. so ultimately, that case established the concept that exclusion of multiple views, all religious views is as offensive as exclusion of only one view. and that scarcity of funds of a university, such as university of virginia and today we're going to use the same argument. berkeley is not permissible. i think these are all incidents that have occurred in the last several years. we've had some recent drama involving the university of missouri. that's a fascinating sthier goes
5:21 am
back several years. and what i think is fascinating about that the story just as a back several years. side is there came a point in time bht university administration was under attack by the african american students, criticizing them, and i think it was beginning to affect funding for some of the sports programs. and so the guys, the coaches and the guys in charge at the athletic department turned on side is there came a point in time bht university the administrators. basically switched sides and started to side with the students who were agitating and basically when that happened, i guess we know where the money comes from or what really matters at that institution where the dean had to resign. yale had an incident about cultural misappropriation. the administrator made the signal error of saying that halloween costumes that offend you, be a geisha or cherokee costume is protected free speech. well, this drove the students nuts.
5:22 am
princeton students staged a sit-in at the university office 32 hours demanding that woodrow wilson's name be moved. woodrow is now openly called a racist, i think that's harsh, but definitely had views that are out of the mainstream of what we call the mainstream speech today. and so, eliminating his name from campuses all over the country is now a big thing. i read about a school district in oregon that has decided that it must remove the name of a famous family donor that's been on the schools for 100 years. the name of the family slimpbl. the lynch family donated a few million dollars a hundred years ago. the reasoning now is well the word lynch has negative connotations for many students, and so, even though the lynch family wasn't actually lynching
5:23 am
people and even though it's oregon, not where the slavery was occurring, forget all of that, that name has to come down. so that's the kind of political correctness we're seeing everywhere. you all know this. so, then we've had incidents involving ben shapiro owe being disinvited. he was then threatened with arrest there at depaul university. and then we've had the incidents that bring us up to the uk berkeley situation. so, it seems like so long ago now, but it's really only been this semester that we've had this much drama there at uc berkeley. as aside, i'm a former chairman san francisco of the republican party and serve on the rnc. i've had over a decades with the uk berkeley college republicans. it's a great club, it's been sometimes the largest republican club in the country. and, up until this year, they were pretty free to bring students on. the students were free to invite conservative speakers on to their campus. it wasn't a controversy, but
5:24 am
what happened was we had this contentious election last year. and after several years, i want to say more than 12 years of fairly stable, liberal progressive mayor there in berkeley, he decided he wasn't going to run for reelection, and what we got instead was a to say more than 12 years of younger, latino mayor who is very vocal about illegal immigration issues. he's also vocal about renters rights, you know, a part of his platform was allowing longer partying hours on -- at berkeley, so, you know, really appeal to the student vote, and i think that's how it got elected. i think that's how it got elected. well, this guy is a member of a group, he's a supporter and sympathizer, some allege of the antifa, i guess they like to be called antifa on the campus. and so he was not a big fan of milo coming to the campus as you
5:25 am
can imagine. my friends at the berkeley college republicans invited milo to come speak on the campus. younger, latino mayor who is and before that, he had been cancelled from speaking at uc davis which is about an hour away from our campus. and so when -- to their credit, the university did give milo a place and gave the uc berkeley republicans to occur and allowed them to have it in the evening. they did impose a significant speech, it was several thousand. i think they hoped if they opposed a large tax on this speech, eventually the students would say it's not worth it. the students raised the money, and they were all set and milo was going to come. he was alleged to be planning, i don't know who planted this rumor, but milo was alleging to plan or out or identify dreamer students on the campus.
5:26 am
i don't know if that's true or not, but that was the reasoning used by the mob to come there and disrupt this event. so, i think a lot of you may have seen this video. it made international headlines where basically these thugs about 100 plus wearing mask and and before that, he had been gloves came armed with metal bats and set fires in downtown berkeley, which is a lovely town. and there were hundreds of police there and they stood there and watched. they did not make any arrests for the most part. this riot went on for hours and of course the threat was cancelled. there was a threat and the event got cancelled. what we've subsequently learned is because of -- because of the occupy wall street protests earlier this decade, in 2014, uk berkeley city of beckly was sued by occupy rioters who were arrested. they were sued for wrongful arrest violation of their civil
5:27 am
rights. the city of berkeley entered into a settlement agreement with what a consent decree and agreed that unless somebody's about to be killed, the police are not going to step in and intervene. so, i didn't know that was the policy, i'm sure my friends at the berkeley policy republicans didn't know that was a policy, but that's the policy on the screen there. screen there. they were merely property damage. it was merely starbucks being broken into. it was merely windows being broken and flames and people being beaten on the head with metal bars and the police have a policy not to intervene. that's the backdrop of which we doom to our later events in the smesic. so before i get to that though earlier this year, all in the same semester and other campuses, we had heather mcdonald who was being prevented from speaking at mckenna college in southern california. we have a federal judge ordering
5:28 am
auburn university to allow white supremacists, richard spencer to speak on the campus where violence erupted. it was really unfortunate scene there. uc santa cruz made a protest also in california, turned violent with passer by and police officers assaulted. and then, just about a couple months ago, evergreen state college has got this ongoing protest going on with violent armed agitators, protesting carrying bats and clubs on the campus. so, fast forwarding to our situation at uc berkeley, what happened was -- let me go back a slide there. berkeley college republicans work with them. they weren't deterred with the milo situation. they wanted to bring milo back, but meanwhile, they already had a program to bring david horowitz to campus. he's one of the stable speakers and, you know, actually
5:29 am
incidentally somebody who i heard speak at dartmouth and i co-wrote a chapter in his book. he's a great conservative speaker. but universities response was as follows. you can let this dude come speak, but, um, you know, safety concerns been these conservatives, so ok he can't speak beyond -- he can't speak late. like after 3:00. ok. well, students, were in class until 3:00, i mean, how's that going to work. some people can go see him speak. ok, where can we have him speak? over there. like two miles away from the center of campus. like bus distance away from the center of campus. during classes, ok, that's going to be hard. ok, but on top of that, we strongly encourage you not to publicize this event in any way. don't turn on your social media, and by the way, if you invite outsiders off the campus to come, we're going to charge you extra security fees for that.
5:30 am
so can't speak in the middle of campus, can't speak during a time when students can come hear him speak, can't publicize the to pay the security fee. oft i call the coup de grace the situation, the students gamely moved forward with all of this, by the way. securityrsity said the fee will be $75,000. it left restrictions, about 30 students. ad they really want to pay 200 dollar per student tax to the university to hear this speaker? they decided it was not worth it inconvenience and the event was canceled. that was the same month as the oulterulter -- ann cu
5:31 am
situation. cal --capital -- ridge bridge cal. they decided that the topic of this particular speaker series, they wanted to have was illegal immigration. -- they approached the berkeley college republicans to see if they would help bring a conservative speaker to campus. they proposed to the university several weeks before the event, that they would have a clinton administration deputy chief of staff come and speak about the pro-illegal immigration. people's --cumented
5:32 am
the pro-undocumented student situation. coulter -- ann coul ter was going to come and represent the other side. they graciously agreed to underwrite this event. mineer is an old friend of from when i was in law school. i know from her speaking career -- she is very concerned about her own safety. she'll voice has some x-men military bodyguards around whenever she is coming to a place like this. they started making arrangements. for theed for a room expected number of people. they were expecting a big crowd. she draws a big crowd. the university allowed the clinton administration official to speak in the evening, in the
5:33 am
middle of campus, with all of the advertising that they wanted without restrictions. some people showed up. it was not that compelling. nothing near 500. let us be fair. --n it came to ann coulter they kept giving the students the runaround. then they said it would be the same restrictions as david horwitz. takedecided they needed to some security precautions to make sure there was the violence. and we will charge you a security fee. we will not tell you what that is. but you will have to abide some restriction -- by some restrictions. they used the word curfew. a 3:00 p.m. curfew. it has to start at 1:00 or 1:30 p.m. and end by 3:00.
5:34 am
you cannot have it in the middle of campus because that would make it easy for people to get to. we don't want people to get to it easily. you cannot advertise the event except for a few hours before the event. come toff campus cannot the event. back and forth. coulter accepted these restrictions. she was ready to come speak at 1:00, off-campus, if they would just let her come speak. she agreed to the restrictions. the university actually said, guess what? all of the rooms are booked. but she can come in the fall. that is cool.
5:35 am
the then president of the berkeley college of republicans was going to graduate. there was an imminent need for us to adhere to the request. somebegan to get publicity. college offered an alternative. the alternative offered by cal was that she can come speak, between the end of classes and exam time. howone week, i do not know many of you are familiar with our campus system, but a lot of students leave the campus. it is the reading period. they were going to impose the same restrictions. 1:00 curfew. you will have to pay several thousand dollars in security costs. at that point, we said -- enough
5:36 am
is enough. yaf, they called me to see if i could help. i am a longtime activist and issues- in free speech dating back to dartmouth. this was a thursday. the speech was scheduled for the following thursday. logistics had already been arranged. three bodyguards had already booked their tickets. they were going to do a security assessment. ready. she was fired up about this. she was very fired up and wanted to speak. we had to then confront the university. aey hired me and i wrote detailed letter to the university saying that they were violating the first amendment. legal time,ave the
5:37 am
place, and manner restrictions on the students. whatever you allow other people, like this lame clinton administration person, you have to give the same time slot to ann coulter. i remember it well. this was addressed to -- dear mr. dylan. my lawyer hat goes on -- as a lawyer you are israel hethis lawyer not doing a good job. as a cryolife, the first thing you do is look up who you are dealing with. i will respond differently if i am dealing with the guy who has mesothelioma or the guy that is unemployed. will deal-- i differently with him. he types out a letter.
5:38 am
my clients were split on this. some thought that they were just messing with me. deal -- missed gender and they misgendered you. back to thetter lawyer, campus counsel and i -- first mr. whatever of all, i have to say that of all people, i am so disappointed as a taxpayer and a california resident that you of all people would misgender me. and deeply troubling -- let us not have that happen again. what is really hilarious about
5:39 am
that is that this guy and other people in the administration -- these are people whose signature blocks say my preferred gender him.uns are he, this is symptomatic of the problem. bad lawyering. lack of attention to detail and generally, i just do not care. my colleagues and i filed a lawsuit. we worked around the weekend. lawsuit.a civil we filed allegations involving the first amendment and equal
5:40 am
protection and due process as well. an allegation that the students were denied their right to speech. coulter is not a plaintiff in the case. it is the rights of the students that are being suppressed. our lawsuit seeks to vindicate the important principle that where the university of california berkeley allows outsiders to come and speak on the campus like the dalai lama, mayer,otalol my -- soto they will allow outsiders to speak on campus, they have to allow conservative students equal access to those facilities and they cannot allow what is called a heckler's veto. that is what i alluded to earlier. we anticipate a violent reaction ergo weoulters speech
5:41 am
will make it difficult for you to have her come and speak. where are we in the case? the university hired a very good lawyer and law firm. crashed myr lawyers press conference, very tacky i must say. they had not even -- the lawsuit had barely been filed and they sent an associate to crash my press conference but thankfully, i had a good republican press person who got rid of that lady. we kicked the interloper out. and had our press conference which was very satisfying. got fan mail from liberal lawyers all over the country about this lawsuit. you may get jaded as conservative students on campus to think you are on your own but
5:42 am
there are a lot of people that do not share your political views who do share the concept that our government cannot discriminate on the basis of viewpoint. heartening to me. i am used to being a minority. i am a republican lawyer in san francisco. it was nice to get that fan mail from around the country. and pretty much to a man and woman, all the lawyers that practice in this area of law agree that there was no legal justification for the university to treat the students and their invitees like this. let me give you some tips. at the end of september, we will argue the motion to dismiss that these lawyers have filed. their arguments are that the policy that we are talking about -- the argument is that it is not while -- it is not well settled law.
5:43 am
that is one of the arguments. that is frankly, silly. and then we have not pled sufficient detail. i think we have and i am confident about our chances. most importantly, they have issued a new policy. they asked me to put the lawsuit on hold as they were issuing a new policy. i said -- i don't think so. they issued the new policy. it is a very obtuse policy. and i think it is unconstitutional. we are moving forward with our lawsuit. if they want to come to the table and agreed to give equal access to conservative students on their campus, we can talk. otherwise, we will speak to a federal judge to make sure that happens. and we are prepared to take the case all the way. thank you. [applause] let me and my prepared remarks are giving you some tools. some news you can use. ok.
5:44 am
here are some things you should know. your rights on the college campus. speech restrictions cannot be content based. a colleget prevent from covering certain topics. the heckler's veto cannot be allowed. you can not borrow someone's speech based on the expected negative reaction. a university cannot doubt you with unnecessary security fees. i suspect this will be litigated in our case. imposed feesy has of $3000, $10,000 in an effort to get them to drop their events. this is unconstitutional. this restriction as what i call a speech tax. useents have every right to the public spaces of the university with very few exceptions.
5:45 am
by public, i mean even semipublic. roms --ed forms -- for forums. the restriction is that you publicmake use of the space that excludes its primary purpose. if the crowds will interfere with other students going to classes, that is not permitted lecturet of that, any should be allowed on the university campus. there is no constitutional right to be free from offense. there is thought the -- there is a lot of garbage. i would see people on cnn and msnbc saying -- hate speech --
5:46 am
howard dean said hate speech is not covered by the constitution. this is whated -- happens when amateurs attempt to practice constitutional law. he is an amateur. howard dean. finally, some strategies for you. i am sure that many of you come from campuses where your viewpoint is not the dominant viewpoint. let us start with that assumption. if you want events on your campus that are successful, and you think you may run into some roadblocks, start by following the rules. thethat, you have to know rules. there should be some written rules somewhere about how people
5:47 am
are brought to campus. follow those rules. you usually have to propose a speaker and then ask for a space . and then there will be a back-and-forth. get it all in writing. what the university often wants you to do is come to a private meeting where there will be one or two of you, and they will be the ones that give you a degree or crush your lifeblood and career at the age of 18. what do you think? don't be intimidated by that. try to do as much as you can in writing. or confirm it in writing. you be also suggest that strategic in who you invite. i probably would not invite richard spencer as a speaker. that is just my taste. i cannot -- i am not saying you can't. if you want to be a group with credibility and win people over to your side, think carefully
5:48 am
about who you invite. they should be persuasive, outgoing, attractive, rational speakers. it makes you look better if you are in tempting to enrich the educational atmosphere at your school. and then, i recommend, and this requires some guts, if you have a speech and you expect there to be protesters, videotape everything. have your students with a skill in that, videotape that because you will be accused of starting it. you will be accused of being the instigator. sure there is a video record. i find that very salutary in many encounters. make sure there is a record. that helps back people off. universities and colleges have unlimited resources.
5:49 am
do not go into battle unarmed. tank go into battle with a with a slingshot. a --leads me to buy found that leads me to my final slide. there are a number of conservative and pro-free-speech lawyers out there who can help you. there are conservative lawyer groups. there is a federalist society that is a nonpartisan, conservative lawyers group. association may have young lawyers who may not share your views, but first amendment law forhe sexiest lawyers.
5:50 am
in some states, probably not in my area, but the aclu may help you in itself. they have chapters and each one is different. maybe in alabama, the aclu would be willing to help you there. then, there are some nonprofit groups. groups out bunch of there that handle these types of cases. they are founded for conservative free speech. if you areint -- involved in a dispute with your university and you think you might need a lawyer, ask the lawyer before you start tweeting, snap chatting and face looking about it because you do not want your communications on these issues to undermine your ultimate goal. those are my tips and points. any questionstake if i have any time left. >>[applause]
5:51 am
he got to the microphone first. from the university of arkansas and i want to play devil's advocate talking about restricting funding. i believe that this affords private universities to choose under their own beliefs. schoolsthat holding -- do you believe that if this route is taken to protect free speech, will this reflect the failed application of the title ix enforcement?
5:52 am
>> that is what i call a speech and not a question. to answer the question wrapped up in that. you are free as a university to take zero federal dollars. there is a good argument that the first amendment does not apply to your campus. almost all universities including most private universities do accept some federal funding. that is a deep philosophical issue. when you take money from the federal government, you open the door to the federal government regulating what you do. if you don't want to be subject to the first amendment, do not take federal funds. >> my name is ashley. i go to the university of texas at austin. we have had to deal with a lot of these issues. fees, atg speaking
5:53 am
what point should you be concerned that they are trying to gouge you? ? we deal with an administration that slows things down until we find that it is too late. what is too much in terms of speaker fees and what can you do in terms of the war of attrition? there is no bright line. the courts have held that an activity fee that seems to vary by who the speaker is is probably suspect. if you are charging $1000 to the clinton administration guide and you are charging $20,000 to ann coulter, that is illegitimate. the way they do it at uc berkeley, if they estimate based on the threat assessment, how many people they will need.
5:54 am
i will not be surprised when we bring ben shapiro that they will need 100 police officers to check all of the bags. events sonja sotomayor's may need five police officers. that is a sort of attack. the universitysk for examples of what they have charged prior student groups and keep a record of that. make sure there is some institutional knowledge. as to the slow walking -- same thing. create a record. you have to consider this as a long game for your club. you may not be able to prove your case but if you create a good record of all of the way,ents -- and by the have good relationships with your friends that do not share your views. it turns out their application got approved in three days and
5:55 am
yours never got approved. keep a record of that and that will help your there are a lot of free lawyers out there at that can give advice. you just need to find one. if you have trouble finding somebody, yaf might be able to help or i may be able to help. i go to sacred heart university in cap netiquette. this is a -- in connecticut. this is a general question. where do you think the campus mentality of the left comes from? only twoays there are genders and they are triggered to the point of violence. sameen i was a kid -- thing when i was a kid only now, when i was a kid it was sandinistas were good and contras were bad but now, it is gender fluidity and a lot of
5:56 am
things i think are damaging in the long of our society. academicsspeaking, are liberal. i recall a study at dartmouth, where 99% of the professors voted not for ronald reagan. toy had a liberal attitude start with. it is an easy place for people who have time on their hands to take up causes that are bound to be trivial to those of us that hold down 9-to-5 jobs. these bad ideas fester. and metastasize. thece called san francisco utopian petri dish of america. that is what happens on the campuses and then they propagate. i don't know if the students come to campus prebaked with these insane ideas that no one
5:57 am
should challenge them. he talked about the adventist helicopter parents and how they have shielded their kids from allergen antigen or that might move a hair on johnny's head. spoiledse same coddled, kids come to campus, they cannot take a contrary view. that is the fault of the parents. with the bado live parenting of the liberal parents. when i was a kid, if i disagreed with my parents, they wondered. -- they won. i go to bunker hill community college. private, transfer to a
5:58 am
for your college. i wanted to know, how do you find that private schools funding and how they received federal money? >> i don't know if i know the answer in detail but there are records. you can call the university and ask them about federal funding. you are entitled to know that. the general avenue whereby the federalism is put onto these private institutions is the title ix funding. funding to equalize sports between women and men. --you take any of that money but then there are pell grants. grants that come from the federal government. or if the school accepts money for research. all of those are avenues of federal funding that may subject the university to first
5:59 am
amendment analysis. i hope that answers your question. i think we are out of time. thank you all for your time. thank you very much. [applause] >> the national conservative student project also heard from ben carson. he spoke about the importance of overcoming challenges. this is a half-hour. good evening again. we are excited to continue our program this evening and welcoming secretary ben carson. this year, dr. ben carson was sworn in as the 17th secretary


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on