tv Attorneys and Law Professors Discuss Campus Free Speech CSPAN September 17, 2018 9:47pm-11:23pm EDT
>> our thanks to attorney general sessions for those remarks and for his leadership on the issue of campus free-speech. thank you john gore for your great remarks this morning. please feel free to stand and stretch for just a moment while we prepare the first panel which will begin promptly in five minutes. please be back in your seat in five minutes. thank you. thank you for your patience
as we switch to our first panel. the order they will be macdonald, heather and lee tyner. professor eugene teachers law had ucla school of law. he is the author of two textbooks. him of you will recognize from reason magazine. aather macdonald is contributing editor and a new york times best-selling author.
a recipient of the 2005 bradley prize, she's the author of several books and her writing has appeared in the "wall street journal", the "washington post", the "new york times", the los angeles times, the new republic and the new criterion. robert shipley succeeded director of the foundation for civil rights and education known as fire. during his 15 year career at fire, he has aided students and faculty members had hundreds of colleges and universities and has personally traveled to dozens of campuses to educate students, faculty and administrators about first amendment issues. lee was named the inaugural general counsel at texas christian university earlier this year. before joining the leadership team at tcu, he served as a lawyer for university of mississippi for nearly 20 years.
while at ole miss, he helped spearhead the efforts to revise all campus policies that affect free expression so the university of mississippi earned a green light with respect to free expression from fire. thanks to all of our panelists for me today. we appreciate your time. please note that our panelists on both panel survey will be taking audience questions at the end of their presentations. we ask that you please write your questions on the card provided after chair. someone will be around to collect them. with that, john, thank you. the panel is yours. >> we are going to allow each of our panelists seven to ten for opening. >> this is the subject that is new to my heart partly because i'm a first amendment professor, that's what i do. i teach a clinical class on it. partly, because i'm oppressive and they care about free speech. i like to think because i'm an american and this is something that all of us should care about and part of the reason is just how deep the danger goes. it's not just speech goes
enforced against drunken partiers at a university. it's not just so people would have, we need to suppress the nazis. i have no interest in furthering the speech of nazis for obvious reasons, but it's never just about the nazis. i want to give a few illustrations, and in the course talk livid about both first amendment issues and sometimes there are first amendment issues. sometimes there the artesia academic freedom that kobe on simple first amendment principles that are raised in these examples. so, this is a flyer for a panel in january 2015 at the university of minnesota, and the head is can one laugh at everything saturn free speech after charlie? this is after the "charlie hebdo" multiple murders in paris, and the flyer includes the iconic now iconic cover of "charlie hebdo" after the
killings with a picture, well, supposed to be of mohammad. we don't know if that's what mohammad look like for obvious reasons, with a tear from his eyes. it is in small print, but you see the panel member, substantive people. this isn't some rabble-rouser . this is professors and journalism professors, professor french and attend a digital cartoonist for the minneapolis star tribune. so the panel went on, but here's what happened. some students and others found this flyer offensive to take because he proceeded as blasphemous. well, that's going to happen in university.
what happened was to the complaint filed with the equal opportunity and affirmative action office claiming that this created a hostile environment on religion and, therefore, violated the university policy, presumably could lead to discipline for the tenured faculty members who were organizing this. students should be just as protected as tenured faculty members, but if the students, even if faculty members are not immune from this can imagine what would happen if we were to put up something like this. in any event the director started an investigation defended ultimately in public her decision to strike investigation sink their limits on free speech and that would be wary of harassment of an individual based on their identity. there wasn't any individual targeted in this case. there are occasional cases involving someone personally criticizing a particular student, let's say, or particular faculty member. even that should be protected speech, but that wasn't
involved. nonetheless, that's of the director label to this. the investigation included the flag is not arise to the level of discriminatory harassment but the because many people on the posts are personally offensive that hurtful contributed at mr. disrespect towards muslims and that the director recommend to the dean he communicate the college doesn't -- professor, -- he communicate the college doesn't -- >> professor, can ask you to speak a little bit more into the micro? >> absolutely. and, to his credit i could tell that you never can get this because it's none of his business to communicate universities or colleges on depictions of mohammad. yes this is a criticism in some measure of particular stance within islam. it might be offensive to particular people to a particular religious views
within the muslim tradition. that's been the nature of religious debate for centuries in the west where people criticize often quite sharply and moderately religious beliefs whether if the catholic or protestant or muslim or jewish or whatever else. that is innocent part of the the university, yet the university administrator seemed to be doing what she could to try to deter such speech for the future. so. this is a cover of a book by a professor at baylor, and a man on the cover is the founder of modern turkey and -- very serious scholarly book. he is a that he is an award-winning -- he is an award-winning military historian. so he comes, he's invited, he's invited a new eastern studies department at cal state northridge to give a talk on his book. the talk shouted down by extremist armenian activists.
obviously armenians have a lot of grievances with regard to the turks that they decided that even though ataturk was not accuse of being mastermind behind the killings of the armenians during world war i. he was insufficiently soft on all five and was part of the turkish denial of the killings of the armenians. and the shouted it down,, basically stopped the speech of happening. they probably announce this online.
our presence will send a clear message that college campuses are not incubators for denialists. and treating them as breeding grounds for turkish nationalist ideology is an offensive. some would raise this in the q&a afterward or least landed outside to look, this person is praising, the bar of you think was in some measure some measure positive but here all the things ataturk and the trip did here's what you should take into account the that would've been great academic debate. that's up with the district deliberately denied this award-winning scholar the opportunity to speak and an idea the audience the opportunity to listen. and again if this can happen on a subject like this and what subject could it not happen? let me also just get back a bit. i don't how many people here are students of world war i era history, and in particular in the theater. i am certainly not. i cannot claim any serious reading on what happened to the armenians in 1950 and the ottoman empire. was it in fact, a genocide delivery targeting particular ethnic group based on the religion, the muslim ottoman empire was fighting at the time the christian russians and the armenians were seen by some as
being christian, being kind of sympathy and support of the russians? was it just institutes of our course was it a series of massacres that don't rise to the level of genesis? interesting questions. and if we want to figure out the answer to those questions, either we do the research ourselves or we looked just as a practical matter we look to what the community of scholars has about these kinds of things and look to see what the dominant views. dominic user sometimes wrong but it's the way the smart money bets. this is the normal way that we consume scholarship i looking at the conventional wisdom, the broad consensus any particular scholarly community, but that consent is is only trustworthy window that faculty members and scholars generally are free to argue this. the moment one side of the debate, by the way, not some who thinks the killings of their meanings it didn't happen although he seems to be not as strong on that as the purchase of might've liked, but the moment we know that one side is being suppressed we can't trust the other side. the only way we can trust the scholarly consensus is if we know it can be constantly challenge. -- challenged. once the challenges are blocked
then the dominant view becomes suspect as well. let me mention one other example of this and others can talk about. this is something that came down just a couple of days, a couple of weeks ago from the office for civil rights at the department of education. this was an appeal of the complaint about alleged anti-semitism at rutgers hit the exact dispute to do with whether particular people were required to pay $500 -- five dollars entry to an event because they were perceived as a jewish, something that's really quite tangential which was what was announced in this case. but this is the case in which the decision adopted the state department definition of anti-semitism as occluding among
other things denying the jewish people the right to self-determination, applying double standards to israel and drawing comparisons to that of the nazis. this in the context of deciding what could lead to withdrawal of federal funds under title vi of what could potentially lead to lawsuits against universities. this is a legal document which adopted this definition of the document is fake perhaps
purposefully so but the message seems clear that if universities allow this kind of speech, they could be subject to investigation, to loss of funds, to lawsuits and the like. i'm jewish myself. i'm a support of israel, not everything israel does but it's a lot better than other countries in the area but obviously universities have to be places where people could talk about whether jewish people have the right to self-determination. not all people are bottle except jeff writes of self-determination.
maybe nobody should. it is not a matter of right. maybe it's a meta-politics. plus people plus people by so probably included are not convinced the palestinian people have a right to self-determination and sense of having separate nation even if you're very from, what about the northern -- what about the taiwanese? what about the tibetans? interesting questions. i saw somebody could say every ethnic group that is to find itself as an ethnic group has right to independents at the right to state that runs on ethnic principles. far from obvious. that is never something universities should be debating. likewise i think comparing israel's and nazis is ridiculous but it's the kind of ridiculous that needs to be responsive rather than suppressed. and likewise if you have the government going after people in the three they are applying double standards, very hard to imagine there will be anything but a double standard in the application of such a bait and ill defined rule. so these are very serious problems and very serious threats to speech come very serious threats to the academic enterprise more broadly and a very glad that the justice department has been looking into thin and has been stepping in on the side of the speakers. >> thank you. we will go now to heather macdonald heather mcdonnell, but before her remarks i just want to mention one of the fact about heather. she has published a book about this topic called the diversity delusion, and is very well
regarded in the speed, you. >> thank you so much. today, i'm going to make two contrary arguments that unfettered debate is not the core function of higher education. however, useful such debate is. and second, that the assault on free speech is not the greatest problem facing universities today. however, dangers on free speech is the let me state some core principles. trying to silence speech with which you disagree whether by institutional the yacht, by shouting over the speaker or by mob violence is the start of a terrifying dissent toward the world in which brute power rules.
anyone who can watch windows being smashed and the sucker punch of ideological opponents usually trump's supporters, without feeling for boating at these hallmarks of 1930 fascism is in deep denial. the resort to brute force in the face of this agreement is particularly disturbing in university which should provide a model for civil discourse. the anti-fascist moniker adopted by those who used violence to silence speech is stunningly ironic. a facebook post from quote we students of color at the claremont colleges announced grandiose leaked leak that quote, as a community we cannot and will not allow fascism to have platform. we refuse to have mcdonaldspeak, end quote. that would be me. and these are the people who claim to be against hegemonic power. students acreage of the role of free speech in a a free society tells us yet again that our educational system is failing miserably. these self-righteous sensors claim to free speech is a weapon to further oppress minorities.
tell that to frederick douglass who in 1860 wrote that slavery cannot tolerate free speech. five years of its exercise would banish the auction block and break every chain in the south. it is also remarkable that the proponents of censorship, many of them professors, are unable to engage in the most abstract reasoning. understand that a president once set across a range of situations. the campus silencers may currently monopolize the power to define hate speech, but did he really want that power in the hands of the arch enemy, donald trump? also demonstrate a a lack of confidence in their own arguments and in the power of reason and persuasion. so far progresses fiercely oppose, for example, steve bannon ideas. you would think that they would eagerly welcome the opportunity to describe those ideas in the public forum. instead, the new yorker recently caved in to pressure to disinvited bannon from was going to be a hard-hitting interview with his editor, and the faculty at the university of chicago are trying to scuttle a debate between bannon and a business professor there. in silencing bannon they are in effect silencing their own best arguments. now, and understand the outrage the sometimes violent closemindedness, conservative defenders of free speech have been claiming that the baiting
of opinion is the very essence of education. it is not. the essence of education is this. cramming as much knowledge into the empty noggins of students as a mere four years will allow. for most of that knowledge, the socratic or dialogic model of education is simply irrelevant. it makes no sense for student to say, i have an opinion about the laws of thermodynamics but i'm willing to listen to other views, or i have an opinion about german case and seeing but i will keep an open mind towards the center. there exists a bedrock of facts and ideas that student should simply absorb in humility and gratitude. they would include at a bare minimum the events that led to the creation of the nationstate in europe, the achievements of greco-roman civilization can familiarly with key works of shakespeare, mark twain, dickens and swift among others, and understanding of genetics and the function of neurons and the philosophical basis for constitutional democracy among hundreds of other essential strata of human geology. moreover, the dialogic model of education curly brace by conservatives has -- attends towards current affairs which should be the last on the list of things that education concerns itself with. the issues about that which students are going to have the strongest opinions concern for
clinical and policy matters is out of the fascist? which bathroom should trans individuals use? the fact that only one answer to those questions is acceptable on college campuses is indisputably a problem, but they are not the questions that undergraduate education should focus on. there would be time enough after students graduate to debate current affairs. colleges is a precious operative to plunge into the splendors of the past for which the time is already too short. but, my vision of a pure ivory tower education is sadly probably not realistic. so, if we could assure the dissenting voices from the rainy lake orthodoxies who are allowed onto campus, with that cure the -- what that cure the deepest malaise there? it would not. censorship is the natural result of the paramount mission of today's university, assigning guilt and innocence within a ruthlessly competitive hierarchy of victimhood. almost the entire universities have been taken over by a single idea, that to be a minority, a female one of the ever multiplying varieties of
non-binary genders in america, is to be the target of endless life-threatening bigotry. that bigotry is particularly acute we are to believe on college campuses. minority and female students are being taught to believe that they are quite literally under existential threat. uc berkeley division of equity and inclusion until recently hung banners throughout campus reminding students of the contemporary universities paramount mission, assigning guilt and innocence within the ruthlessly competitive totable of victimhood. one banner showing a female black and a male hispanic student read, create an environment where people other than yourself can exist. after yale students mob a highly respected sociologist for three hours screaming things like after you, you are disgusting,
-- like "f" you, you are disgusting, and we are dying, at him, yale president said he had never been so proud of the students and jail confirmed, convert a racial justice prize on two of the most aggressive participants. as long as this ideology of victimhood remains the dominant narrative on college campuses, the movement to suppress ideas that challenge that narrative will remain overpowering. we can invoke jon stewart mill all be bought by the stock going to make a bit of difference taught by metastasizing campus diversity bureaucracy to see byes were not exists to students will continue to be quite nonconforming ideas with hate speech and hate speech with life-threatening conduct that should be punished, centered and repelled with force if necessary. it therefore becomes imperative to rebut that the commodity narrative. it is not enough to call for freedom of expression that is if i may borrow a term of relatively safe stance to take . even many liberals will back you up.
if we are going to restore harmony and civil sanity will have to take on the victim ideology directly and assert that racism and oppression are not the predominant characteristics of american society and colleges today. for all the sins of our past, and they are real and egregious, there has never been a more tolerant opportunity field quality down or present one. who will make those arguments? not college presidents, not the complicit or cowed faculty, and certainly not the diversity bureaucrats. it is incumbent on the rest of us to speak out against the myths of endemic bias and to remind students that they are the most privileged human beings in history by having at the fingertips the thing that sold --that he sold his soul for knowledge. thank you.
>> we will hear now from robert. >> thank you. hopefully, we'll get some slides up in a moment. i want to start with a story that is similar to some of the ones that eugene talked about. a story of an undergraduate at indiana university, purdue university indianapolis named keith john sampson to his 58 and putting itself through school as as a janitor working there and he had an assigned break time. so, one day he sat at an the break room of school to read a book. the name of the book was notre dame versus the klan, how the fighting irish defeated the ku klux klan. it's a historical account of how the anti-catholic kkk came came conductance campus in 1924 and have student body confronted it comes to an even as they did not share the plans values
clan's values. on the cover of the book was a picture of my kkk cross burning, superimpose on to the notre dame campus. apologies. >> you can use my slides if you unfortunately for mr. sampson and coworkers on reading the book title into himself and report them to the university for harassment. he was deemeding, guilty of the charge and suspended from campus. my organization fire, the foundation for individual rights in education, came to his aid and after several months of efficacy he was allowed back on campus to continue his education. the reason i bring up this
incident which happened as far back as 2007 is because it's just one of hundreds of examples of cases -- there you go dash at which coalitions and faculty members were punished for expressing or even just holding unpopular viewpoints. i want to use that can start piling the long-standing nature of this problem and second dew point it is a culture of respect for controversial expression on campus has become so threadbare that student and faculty members may face punishment based on this objective reaction of the person who literally judged a book by its cover. fire reviews the written policies at approximate 450 of the nations top institutions of higher education. according to most recent report, 90.9% have at least one written policy either directly infringes on the free speech rights of students or wrongly enough to love campus administrators to do so. as i believe one of the attorney generals mentioned earlier about 33%-40%, depending on how you look at it, have policies that prevent speech in such a way that it's what we would consider to be a very obviously and tragically unconstitutional. we have over the years documented hundreds of examples of censorship of students on campus.
we have been seeing lately, particularly in academic corner this criticism that these actually are not that big a deal, that while there are many instances of censorship on campus when you compare it to the number of students on campus and the number of campuses, it's not that severe. fire water to get hard data on whether or not this is happening, so long -- we took a , we took ath you go survey of 1250 undergraduates that was administered -- this here's what we found that i would highlight some of the interesting points from it. on a positive note 87% of students, they answered yes to the statement or the said they agreed with the statement in my college classes i feel comfortable sharing my ideas and opinions. they didn't very much across lines of race or gender, but when he came to ideology we started to see a difference, a great little students are 14
more likely to feel comfortable sharing those opinions and their very conservative peers. unfortunately that i never, the july number is even less reason to rejoice when you consider more than half of the students surveyed, 54% said they stopped themselves from sharing an idea opinion in a class at some point during college. students -- 53% of them who did indicated they were worried about being incorrect or mistake the 20% shared concern there would be be given lower grades by their professors. disturbingly for in considering culture, 48% said they were afraid of being judged by their peers. that starts look like an awful lot incidents and students think have a good point to make but don't make it for fear of peer pressure probably most alarming because she appointed to with the is the 16% students who have
self-centered inside the classroom at least in part because they fear professes or fellow students would report into campus employees. combined with self-censorship due to peer pressure him it turns out a substantial number of students have been holding back their views even in class for fear of facing some sort of retribution. thus far, we have talked about student attitudes regarding their own speech, but the picture looks different and, unfortunately, worst when we look at student attitudes towards other speech. more than half of students, 58%, agreed with the statement that quote it is important report of a campus committee were i'm not exposed to intolerant and offensive ideas. there is an ideological differences. 62% of very liberal students and 45% of very conservative students feeling this way. in terms of percentages it's not as wide a gap as today's cultural wars might have guessed. again though, that topline number conceals very real differences in what sort of speech counts as comfortable.
for instance while the rest over the definition of hate speech most of whatn, people call hate speech is protected by the first amendment, only 24% of liberal students believe that so-called hate speech should be protected compared to very conservative students. yet when it comes to another constitutionally protected for a speech, campus protest, 64% 4% of very conservative students agree that the court should not have to walk past student protests on campus while only 17% of liberal students agree. this poses a severe problem but those who believe that if campuses can just give speech regulation just like they can get rid of the bad speech while still allowing the good. the fact of all students often agree there is good and bad speech, the definitions of good and bad often conflict. just briefly in the time remaining on what highlight one more set the fighting from the study. given how much controversy we sang in recent years around guest speakers visiting campuses from conservative provocateurs to the first female height of the imf, some colleges have suggested that bringing in
outside speakers is simply no longer worth the trouble. for example, the university of south carolina decreed that henceforth university president -- the university president would be the commencement speaker imager, thereby dodging the political point entirely. after the right at berkeley last year during milo yiannopoulos abortive attempt to pressure abortive attempt is to conduct college. the college spent a shocking $600,000 to secure the campus from banshee. given that universities should be in place for sins have access for all sorts of different perspectives, are controversial speakers are like she's the campuses can afford to lose? our survey indicated that the answer to this question is a resounding no. first of all, it would be enormously unpopular. 92% of students felt have the opportunity to hear diverse guest speakers is important, and i think the survey made the reason for that clear. guest speakers often serve to challenge students deeply held beliefs or into distinct new ways of thinking about the world
and they are successful in doing so. 64% of students admit that they changed quote, changed at least one of my attitudes, perspectives or opinions after hearing a guest speaker. this high number suggest not only to guest speakers being valuable perspectives that students have probably not been sufficiently exposed to these perspectives to the campus culture loan. some had changed her mind on the issue after single speech. it's also receive a deeply concerned that despite the value more than half of students, 56%, agree there are instances where an a college would disinvited speaker, though get there's widespread disagreement among just who should be disinvited. this shortsighted mode of thinking among students is contrary to the principles of liberal education. it to pry students of an opportunity not just have the minds changed, but also the chance to other arguments strengthened by exposure to new ideas. we're glad to see that the department of justice is taken interest in this important issue. thank you.
>> thank you, robert. and welcome again to lee. you have a few minutes. >> thank you. i'm glad to be and i was asked to share some thoughts and the prospective agenda council on the campus later with the responsibility for advising and diversity on campus speaker i want to discuss three things that first i'd like to consider whether actually facing some something different , today than we have faced for a long time with respective campus speech pics i can like to discuss three challenges that universities face and eating with expression especially offensive speech of some people call hate speech. and third, i like to share some insight on the campus culture talk about what actually works in the with campus expression. so, are we facing a crisis? sorry, my technology is give me trouble as it always does. i will eventually learn. we've all read and heard today about troubling real-world cases of some of facing consequences in the academy for breaking with its orthodox or expressing unpopular views.
we can find examples with the values of diversity and inclusion are used to shut down debate. we should not minimize or explain away this troubling examples that can withdraw any broad conclusions? when we look at the daily life of colleges and universities what are the facts? , universities provide resources and support for hundreds of student groups organized around a wide range of religious police can political ideologies, causes, interests, identities, affinities, activities and hobbies. if we just look at my new home state of texas, texas christian university students belong to more than 250 student groups and the university of texas, more than 1300 student groups received some measure of access or support from the university. each day at more than 4000 4000 colleges and universities in this country there are hundreds and thousands, hundreds of thousands of classroom lectures about every controversial subject under the sun. any given week there are thousands more extracurricular activities, lectures, town hall
meetings, sermons, performances and exhibits dealing with difficult topics. not to mention student protests or expiration by outside groups or uninvited speakers. for the most part these are without incidents just by way of example, several years ago in the space of just more than a week at the university of mississippi we hosted salman rushdie, the king of jordan and spike lee. within a few semesters of that same week the university hosted a presidential debate and invited into scripts at diverse as the aclu and the nra to set up shop on the day of the debate give each group an opportunity
to speak to the assembled crowd. we also dealt with a demonstration by the klan in full regalia on the same day we hosted a football game against lsu. that was a day in the life of a public university. the point can we can find anecdotes to support any dirty we prefer i don't think the list expenses on campus but ejected objective that established that we're facing a crisis at least with respect to formal university actions, policies or decisions. riker, , we would be hard-pressed to find any civic institutions better than universities and colleges when it comes to civil discourse on issues that divide us. frankly, it's not surprising that when we experience first in the complex our country those couplets are most likely to occur were speech and debate are most likely to occur on college campuses. so if we must be careful not to make generalizations, broad generalization face of anecdotes, what are the objective facts? what does the data tell us? fire, the group led by robert, -- he mentioned this a minute ago with respect to free speech and clearly there's a lot of work to be done, but according to fire we have more institutions with green lights and fewer with red lights today than ever before. in other words, universities
with respect to speech are more consistent with the first amendment principles today than they were last year or the year before. fire tracks the dis-invitation incidents that we've heard so much about in the last few years. they track them for about seven years and they have ranged from a low of 62-24 in 2016. they dropped a 21 the drop to 21 last year with only five reported so far in 2018. given the number speakers feature on the campuses of more than 4000 institutions, we are talking about microscopic numbers. again that doesn't the individual instances don't deserve attention and maybe even legal action to enforce the laws, but it does not a crisis make. for more than 40 years based on more than four years of data gathered through the general social survey, we see that overall support for free speech has risen over time and that those who are earning college degree support first amendment writes marshall and those who don't spend time on campuses. this and other studies suggest that attending college increases
one's commitment to first amendment values. so think part of what you hear up here is trying to define what the issue really is. is the issue a culture of victimhood, as ms. mcdonnell discussed, or a drift towards authoritarianism that both sides of the debate are comfortable with or the self-censorship noted by robert, it settled like a viewpoint diversity in the academy? are those issues we are most concerned about? are we concerned about that the formal use of power by universities to suppress offensive or unpopular protect the expression? if the concern is a ladder, i do not see a crisis, which brings me to my second point. what i don't think we face a crisis on campus with respect to violations of first amendment rights, we can have a discussion about viewpoint diversity and those things. university face real challenges managing and protecting speech, in particular offensive speech. ask someone on the frontlines try to manage a campus, i mentioned three.
first when it comes to offensive , but protected expression, what we call hate speech, universities are on the horns of a legal dilemma. universities have a legal obligation under title vi and title ix to protect students from a hostile environment. that something was off the department of justice talky but in the recent rutgers case that was talked about by professor volokh. we had the obligation to protect students from a hostile environment and universities are under a similar duty under title vii to protect employees. in fostering and marketplace of ideas universities are under duty for public universities for constitutional duty, not to punish protected expression to and discharging these competing duties, many commentators suggest the universities cannot and should not prohibit harassing speech and until it created a hostile environment but if university is indifferent , and allows a hostile invited to develop the university is
breached its duty under title vi for title ix or perhaps under title vii. the university must pick its poison. universities are either liable to the speaker or universities are liable for the target of harassment for failing to stop the harassing conduct before it is greater hostile barbituric an impossible task to fulfill one duty without creating a liability for breaching the other. the second challenge that facing universes concerns provocateurs, people who do not come to campus to engage our students or opportunity in civil discourse or to advance the bait but to use campuses as estates to draw attention. supporters and opponents come dressed for battle not to exchange ideas but to exchange , blows. the players in these dramas are not always members of our campus communities by outside groups hoping to use our campuses as a theatrical backdrop or become a
martyr in the culture wars. in these cases are security costs are not related to the process are counterprotest by members of the academic community of a people come to our campus to fight. all agree protecting kept media violence is a compelling state interest last university of california at berkeley spent nearly $4 million on security for free speech events over the course of the month of september. so, how much are university required to spend in providing a stage for provocateurs? four stated differently, -- or stated differently, how much more should a student have to spend intuition so a provocateur may use a campus to grab headlines? is there any limit? those issues and what what we do about the situations are real challenges faced by universities. the third challenge has a do with our students. one of my former provost uses a we teach to a parade. each year we admit new class of 18-year-olds were not considered many of the city values and core principle of a free society that we hold dear. many of the students are from
homogenous non-diverse backgrounds to give we do our jobs really well and mold the freshman class into resilient citizen scholars ready to meet the challenges of the cabbie to date in the real world tomorrow, we have a whole new batch of freshman the next year. we start over. when we recruit these students to campus and welcome them into our communities, we communicate core values around respect to individual and collegially. we tell them where community, a family. we tell them we value difference and diversity are we telling our campus is their campus, their new home. so when someone comes in the first and foremost, universities
must do what universities do best. teach. we must teach the importance of a robust marketplace of ideas for in an -- for intellectual inquiry. we must teach that the push for diversity has always been granted, especially in terms of legal analysis. in the -- and the notion that the marketplace of ideas that we need people from different backgrounds and perspectives in the classroom so we may lean to educate -- of the educational benefits of a diverse learning environment can we must teach students to expect to be confronted with new and uncomfortable ideas that demand reflection and self examination. we must teach students the best remedy for bad ideas, even hateful or defense of ideas is more ideas. institutionssome for reimagining orientation in a first-year curriculum, and at introducing students to the academy of campus life. universities are addressing expectations with respect to expression, promoting
resilience, and teaching the importance of first amendment values. university is a good example if you want to see what some universities are doing. for universities that manage offensive of speakers most effectively, they use incidents of hate and tolerance -- and intolerance as teachable moments. how to join issue with the ideas that offend. organize opportunities to debate the issues in a meaningful way. universities teach students the importance of surfacing and confronting pernicious ideas, rather than forcing them underground. organizetudents protests promoting the values of the university community can students must learn offensive generateten discussion, debate, and reflection that lead to tremendous personal and community growth. andefending free speech, this is important, especially the rights of others to spread
hateful, pernicious ideas, we must never act like hate speech is benign. we must never dismiss students as snowflakes because they feel subjective injury when they are exposed to veer lent, or device of ideas. the old adage, sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me is the biggest lies our mothers ever told us. we do not protect speech because it does no harm, or because hate poses no threat in the marketplace of ideas. quite the contrary. we protected speech and protect ideas because ideas are powerful. when we sayemember speech is free, we do not mean it has no cost. in dealing with our students, we must remember that the cost of offensive speeches disproportionately borne by historically underrepresented minorities and marginalized peoples. pain, fear,owledge and loss, among the students, if they will persist in higher education. we must acknowledge some ideas are malevolent and dangerous. although free to be
expressed, which leads me to another best practice with respect to universities handling these issues well. even as we seek to remedy and combat the issue of hate speech, we must help students understand why we may not do so by punishing the speaker. while that is a tool in our toolbox that we do not have. we must help students understand why we have chosen as a culture and society not to give those in authority's, like me on a campus, the power to punish unpopular speech. the power to a pop -- punish unpopular speech rarely works well for the underrepresented or marginalize, the reformer, or revolutionary. finally, if we tell students the best remedy for offensive speech is more speech, universities must use our words. the best universities know how to protect a speaker, while joining issue with the idea expressed. they know how to allow speech without suggesting all ideas have equal merit. they know how to vindicate and promote all the academic
community's values, opposing hate and dangerous met -- dangerous notions of plotritarianism, protecting the rights of others to hold the same discredited notions to one last thought. the first amendment gets it right. we don't need morals. we have the tools we need when there are incidents. heartsill not change the or minds of anyone. they will not lead to more viewpoint the diversity or win any ideological battles in the marketplace of ideas. theeally appreciate opportunity to have a voice from the campus. >> thank you. we appreciate you providing that voice today. he has raised a number of issues i would like to hear from our other panelists on to we will go from the same order. we will start with you, professor bolick. let me rephrase the question as to have phrased it.
do you agree that there is no free speech crisis on campus as mr. tyner alleged or asserted, and what is the issue we are really discussing here today? what is the underlying nub of the matter when it comes to this question of free speech on campus? >> look, let's keep a sense of proportion. as between north koreans having nuclear bombs, and campus speech codes, i am more worried about the former. i am more worried about socialism than i am about campus speech codes. are lots of things to be worried about. i would not say it is a crisis as such. but i would say that universities have been both creating -- both restricting speech, chilling speech in the with that the real danger a speech coach is not that they are enforced, it is that they do not need to be enforced because the students are too afraid to talk. this is one thing i agree with,
part of the problem is even without outright suppression of students speech or speakers speech, there are lots of topics that are not discussed on campuses. abortion, for example is something that divides the country more or less. sense is my own ucla law school, i don't recall a single event over the last 20 some years, pretty sure there were very few, if any, where there was a serious debate about abortion. even students who are for abortion rights, are not written -- are not being well prepared for discussion the issues. the university as a whole, it very really discusses it. that is more of a problem. that is harder to fight, because it is not something to be fought through legal channels. universities should be careful about condemning things as hate speech. i agree. if not to come to campus, it is
proper for universities to say nazis are bad, the ku klux klan is bad. i would say the same thing about communists.onary although universities generally don't. maybe they don't need to because it is obvious that many people -- but sometimes it may feel people feelay make better to say that. the problem is it is interesting to hear the things. toxic speech, it is interesting how people, whether you intended to have it be as broad as that. but it is very easy for things to flow from one to the other. toxic. that's bad. we don't like anything toxic. divisive. well? lots of speech is divisive. protected and much of it i do not think universities should speak out on. for example, if somebody says something about current politics, sharply
condemns the president or condemns his position, i don't think the university should step in and say, no, this is bad. i suppose if it advocates violence in an explicit sense, maybe, if it is full of old ovalty, i'm sure it -- of garrity, i'm sure the university could say talk about it more politely. i do not think all devices ideas should be suppressed. there is a lot of discussion of race from the left. some of it may be accurate. some of the discussion on the right may be accurate. it is hard to tell. i don't think the moment that someone says, this is divisive, try to suppress it. what they mean is certain kinds of divisive speech. the problem is we see that this isempt to suppress speech used with regard to antiabortion speech, with regard to anti-affirmative action speech, with regard to speeches but should be required to use certain pronouns.
as the subjects of the pronouns prefer. if the university takes an occasion of her time to speak out up -- out on the outcome it may be within its rights to do that. but i think in and of itself may be did -- may be dangerous to public debate. while it is valuable for the university to speak out against certain things, there is the danger of demand creep, while you spoke out against the nazis, why aren't you speaking out against the anti-same-sex marriage people? they are just as bad as the nazis. many people believe that what you did -- get is a university using its power, including its power that people know over andr employers -- staff, students, to sharply condemns something and send the message without outright suppression that this is the thing that if you value your career, you may be better avoid. i'm university should never speak out against such things.
-- i'm not saying universities should never speak out against such things. >> thank you. miss mcdonald, your thoughts, and if you have any thoughts on the issue professor volokh raised on whether universities are equipped to define terms like divisive and caught -- and toxic and enforce those? mr. china or was scrupulous in claiming that there was not a attempt toh the stifle non-orthodox views on campus. and dismissing instances, i could add to, these are all liberal professors and speakers who have been silenced. brett weinstein at evergreen state college, nicholas kristof ats at yale, james comey recordsmichael schill,
try to shut down mark loewen and camellia foster. american university canceled the panel on feminism. and yet, he speaks very broadly about this alleged parade of speakers that are spewing, in his words, divisive, racist ideas. hate, hatere spewing speech. i don't know who he is referring to. prays mayateur he apply to me will you and opelousas. and i suppose and coulter. but the people who have been put under the hate speech category are people like ben shapiro, academic. mainstream amy wax at the university of pennsylvania law school who will speak at the next panel. one of the most respected legal scholars in the country.
these are not -- and me, i'm not defending or laying the victim, but i speak about minority support for the police in high crime neighborhoods. i don't think this is hate speech. that to even give validity to that rhetoric, that somehow campuses are experiencing this parade of ideas isewing racist already part of the problem. areays that universities the best at managing civil complex. maybe -- conflicts. maybe that is because this victim knowledge he is already rapidly starting to spread into civil society, as in by the firing of computer scientist james damore from google in august of 2017. damore had written a reasonable memo challenging the reigning
feminist orthodoxy at google, and an firing him, google ceo used the identical language from campuses saying that google's employees were hurting because he had presented a set of arguments about why there is not 50-50 general parity at google that is not because of sexism on the part of engineers. even more worrisome than google firing him, was the fact that in -- a council at the national labor relations board wrote a memo upholding the firing on the grounds that this memo constituted harassment and sexual discrimination. equationw seeing this of rational arguments with injurious hate speech, moving into the nonacademic civil
society. i think this is something to be very worried about. the universities are spreading this model. with thelso disagree emphasis on, again, to use the term hate speech is already to take a position in this debate. from the white supremacist rally at the university of virginia, i do not know of any speakers who have been engaged in hate speech on campuses, as that term could possibly be reasonably defined. but to say that we want to focus on the cost borne by historically marginalized minorities of hate speech, i think gets it exactly backwards. it is the cost of censorship that has been historically born by marginalized minorities.
centralized power, whether it is from the state or from an institutionalized -- institutional like a university is used not to hurt the majority, but to hurt the minorities. it is the freedom of speech, the power to challenge, to speak truth to power, that has brought down regimes. do we want to silence martin luther king? do we want to silence frederick douglass? or do we believe in the power of rhetoric and persuasion to challenge hegemonic power? i think again, the core problem here is the victim knowledge he -- victimology narrative. it is having consequences and how we to -- and how we define speech. as eugene properly brought up, to say well, we have not seen six dozen instances of somebody challenging racial preferences being shouted down. that is because there is a mess
of informal censorship going on on campuses. most professors have their heads down. there are very few remarkably courageous students who are willing to have -- to stand up and challenge the orchid -- orthodoxies. i can promise you that fewer and fewer people are willing to subject themselves to what brett weinstein and nicholas kristof gets experienced at yale and evergreen state university. >> if i can respond briefly. we are really in agreement on the need to protect all speech, including offensive speech. and why it is important for people who do not have power over anyone else. what i am talking about is a discrete issue. is there an epidemic, a crisis, of universities using hard power to punish speech in violation of the first amendment? that is a different question than whether there is a
developing cultural problem of a cultural victimhood. that is a different question. weanted to suggest that should form conclusions about whether first amendment rights are being violated these upon data and based upon long-term based uponate -- not antidotes. we can always find evidence to support our propositions. everyone of those antidotes, are serious. they should be taken seriously. whether -- when there is a violation of the law, the doj should look at whether they should take a position. that does not mean we have an epidemic of universities using of thepower in violation first amendment. that is where i think we need to be careful about drawing conclusions based on that. >> i thank you for that point. that dovetails my point for you, robert. fire,has been data from including the trend in greenlight awards or recognition that fire has been handing out. i'm curious on your thoughts. are you seeing transition in high speech -- free speech
issues and what would you say about the green light, red light, data trends that mr. china has talked about in these issues more generally? robert: i think there are definitely, with respect to written policies which is what ofevaluate for our purposes our speech policies, there has been a huge improvement. frankly, a big part of that improvement has been directly due to a whole enormous amount of work by fire and other groups. this is not something that universities have come alive -- come around to on their own. there has been a lot of pushing on this, 10 years ago, it was closer to 80 and 90% of schools were red light speech. we were able to push that down. excuse me, 79% in 2009. that decrease has been the result of a lot of pressure for fire of other groups from students and professors willing to sue and vindicate their
rights on campuses. there has been progress. it hasis not like been some kind of great awakening of tolerance. it has been a lot of holding people's nose to the grindstone and making them do it. with regard to the hard power question that lee was think that does dovetail a little bit with what heather was saying. she said there is this enormous apparatus, this informal apparatus of informal censorship happening on college campuses. while it might -- and there might not have to be that many brett weinstein's, the thing is everybody knows about those. one of the principles behind the way we do free speech and figure out about it is that there is this chilling effect. brett weinstein at length. this is a person who has been through a lot. he does not have another job at a university. frankly, i'm not sure what the prospects are for him, given he
did nothing wrong but he has become this celebrity. bething he does -- he will radio accurate -- radioactive if he does or say anything. the informal censorship does a lot of the work. as to whether or not it has come to a crisis now, i agree with eugene. north korean nukes are definitely much more of a crisis. i am the executive director of fire. this is not the most important issue in the entire world. it is a very important issue. but is it a crisis or not? i want to be careful. fire doesn't usually call it a crisis. i think one point you made emily, about the fact that it is costing universities a lot of money, it obviously costs a lot of money to have a free society where people can communicate like us. -- like that. it has gotten worse. i think one of the things that might point toward their being an inflection point is the fact that a few years ago, berkeley
was not spending $600,000 to defend the place after ben shapiro -- in terms of him trying to come. --hink there's definitely something has changed on campuses where universities are saying, oh my goodness, we want to have something that would go off without a hitch. now we have to spend huge amounts of money in order to do that. what is driving that? a lot of it is universities bringing this expectation that there is going to be some kind of field. you also mentioned -- i hate to use your remarks as a punching bag, i feel bad, but you mentioned can universities speak out against bad speech? universities do have rules about speech. they do speak out against speech. studentshe reason think it is a home and they will be protected from the speeches because the university is saying, you are going to be
protected from that speech. we actually agree with you. we are sorry that these people have the right to free speech that they do. i think that is a lot of what is driving that expectation, that students have now. i don't think they had 20 years ago. but that might be my old man cane waving. do you think there are more uses of hard power that would my late the first amendment today than five years ago on campuses? >> it is hard to know. one of the things we know is that as fire has gotten -- and the issue has gotten bigger, we have more cases coming in every year. we have more reports of it. we know we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. it's hard to say. havese of hard power probably -- i don't know if the numbers have increased, but i think they have become more ambiguous in many ways. more complicated. when they do blow up, they have blown up into a huge problem for the people that really has these national reverberations.
up tonot all universities. social media and the echo chamber of fact has had a huge part of that. that has been driving a lot of it. want to give everyone on the panel an opportunity to pick up on that trend. which is an important one. we have received questions from the audience. i am going to combine a few of these questions into one. i will read the first sentence because it is further proof we have a university crowd here today. university students don't spring into being like athena when they arrive on campus. whatthena reference shows kind of group we have for today. thank you for that. i think it is two different questions. i would like to get everyone's viewpoint. starting with you, professor bolick. this notion that students come to a university with a set of experiences and with free-form -- already formed ideas. they also reflect rotter social and cultural trends. -- broader social and cultural
trends. to what extent is the issue that we are seeing on campus? i think everybody agrees that there is an issue with free speech rights on campus. it is how much of an issue we are debating out 30 to what extent is this issue reflecting broader social and cultural and generational trends among students and the power of social media and internet to magnify speech and lead to some of the group dynamic some -- that robert was talking about? and how does that project outside of the university environment. eugene: it's very hard to tell. it's hard to tell why a large group of people who -- why one person does what they do. some people theorize that part of it stems from greater speech restrictions in high schools. in junior high schools. not greater than in the long past when i think the restrictions back then were more severe, but greater than the 1970's and shortly after tanker b des moines. don't --when schools
you can't talk about this, to about that, then they come and to universities with them. i'm not sure that is right. but that is a possibility. another possibility is a lot of things in life are prices of expectations. if you tell students that not only is there offensive speech offensive, but it is a violation of their civil rights to have two here to certain things. then my sense of human nature is it makes it more offensive. thatr than just saying, guy, that idiot is saying what he is saying. i will try my best to ignore it. how can i ignore it? the civilating rights. it is almost like he is slapping me in the face. i shouldn't ignore that either. it may be that by telling students that they are entitled they arerotection that more likely to be offended.
the last thing i want to suggest, and this is not about all students, but the violence and the extra cost, is i am not a psychologist, but i -- life tells us that behavior that is rewarded is repeated. by shoutingow that or by throwing rocks, or sometimes just by threatening something, that they can get stuff that they dislike suppressed, then they feel, wow, that is cool. i felt powerful from doing this. i got no pushback. of that what more is mark amodei the people say, wait, why can't i get in on the action? if these people are suppressing the speech they dislike, what about me suppressing speech i dislike? angive an example, there was anterior -- anti-israel ad that seattle transit
authority. because some people, i think it was little -- it was like one or two cent threats. if you put this up, i will vandalize the bus. we will take it down. those people probably got the message from some other things they had heard in the news of how some speeches they disliked was being suppressed. other people get the message from this. i think when it comes to the particular kind of suppression, not indeed by the university directly as such, but possibly by the university refusing to allow certain speakers, because of security cuts or the university having to spend a lot of money -- you are right, we wish they didn't have to spend -- part of it may be that they didn't spend enough back then. they didn't do enough to punish the students who are acting violently or shouting people down. othersg that, they let to feel -- lead others to feel that this will get to michael's.
john: miss mcdonald, i would like to give you an opportunity to chime in. broader sold -- cultural issues? heather: as i understood the question, it is what is causing this? i would argue that it is the rise of an evermore delusional victimo. on campus is good minorities occupied the president's office at brown university several years ago and said, it is too hard to have to show up on time on colleges because we are "so focused on staying alive at brown." i'm so i commend is completely hyperbolic and delusional. no student at brown is at risk of his life. modlinat sort of
hysterical rhetoric is now the currency of the realm. we are teaching favored victim groups on campuses to think of themselves as an existential threat and the demand to shut down what is then deemed hate speech, which is anything that orthodoxies,mpus to beout of that claim, at existential risk. hate speech -- we have a few other alchemical transactions that go on. this was exemplified by an op-ed published by a professor and administrator at nyu several years ago at the new york times. speeched about hate
causing literal damage to minorities. and if you are already at risk then the idea that action, that speech becomes a form of behavior, and this was rhetoric that was used by the middle barry faculty as a reason for shutting down charles murray. something that resulted in a gettingarry professor pummeled, so she got a concussion, had to wear a neck brace for months, allison stanger. the idea that hate speech is a form of action, and therefore can be shut down, grows out of the oppressionof of females another -- under representative -- under represented minorities on campus. that is why i argue that we are not going to be able to open up
the ability to challenge campus orthodoxies unless we take on this core problem. john: i would like to give you an opportunity to respond. see to determine if we something different instruments today, we need more data like what robert and fire gathered and what we have seen from the knight foundation in pew and other spirit we need more data there is ae if difference in the attitudes of students. rather than a snapshot. to determine if things -- if our students are different today than yesterday. data, oneook at the of the reasons i cited the general society survey, it was because we had data over many years, since the early 1970's. our society is more open to speech and expression today than it was yesterday. and college graduates are more open than people who never attended college.
i found a study of ucla freshman and seniors, and their attitudes toward free expression became more consistent with assistant values during their time at ucla. that was a very small cohort. data to figure that out. what is happening to our students? do they leave with a better expectation and understanding of why we don't punish offenses speech? do they leave with different attitudes than what they come in with? are they coming in with different attitudes today than five years ago or fried -- or five years from now? i think we need more data. question,me ask a another from the audience that i think brings a lot of these issues and to focus. is thing mr. tinier has said that universities are concerned and rightly so about protecting unwritten -- and a representative minorities and others who may come into an environment and feel us to liddy.
hostility. speech to be free something hostile to members of underrepresented of minority groups. there may be members of those groups who think all the talk about free speech is to justify speech that is critical of them and not critical of the majority. with that frame of mind, it is too hypothetical. i will start with robert runcie what you think. was it appropriate for oklahoma to expel david boren fraternity members for singing a racist song? robert: no. [laughter] what, if anyht to circumstances should permit a college to dismiss a student by the n word? robert: that is more complicated. with regard to president boren's disband, to not just the fraternity, kick everybody out of their fraternity house
within 48 hours, they had the letters down, all because several people were filmed on a bus, not everybody on the bus on this fraternity party bus, singing what was acknowledged as an extremely hair-raising leave racist song. oft was such a clear example guilt by association. is not protected speech, racist songs are protected speech. it was not aimed by somebody there. it does not rise to the level of unprotected speech. fire condemned that loudly when it happened. thereonly imagine how -- were people on another bus. i can only imagine how i would feel if i was one of the people on the other bus and was thrown out of my home and kicked out of my school for people on the other bus singing the song that i may not have known about.
no. when it comes to when using the something for which you could move to discipline, it has to raise -- rise to the standard of discriminatory harassment under the supreme court's decision from davis in 1999. simply using a word one time, or several times can the one up enough. it needs to be a pattern of harassing behavior. generally a pattern. very severe one-time come a could be a one-time thing. like a sexual assault. be so severe, and objectively offensive that it affected the student from getting their education at that school. it is a high standard because on reason -- when it is here peers stuff, which i believe is what you're talking about come a would be one thing if it was a professor or administrator, then
you have other issues of employee discipline. if they are calling people that. in a position,t generally, of having power over one another. a lot of what makes harassment discriminatory as the power relationship of one person over the other. if a student calls me a bad name, they call me -- whether or not it has to do with my race or political beliefs, which frankly, people are called that names for their political beliefs all the time now, that in itself does not rise to the level of harassment. i would say if it raises to that standard and the university would have to investigate and establish that, then yes, they can be punished. but uttering the word? we had a case where a professor at brandeis was explaining the use of the term went back -- wetback. because somebody asked him about it. the professor had been there for 50 years it and ended up having
to retire to make it go away. you can't let the tripwire for it be that low a level. , how doofessor volokh you think on this question? eugene: there is a reason that people -- historically on the left, but people all over, worry about the slippers. ihave to warn you, i hope -- wrote an article 15 years ago so i will try to condense it a little bit. once atom line is that particular kind of legal rule is excepted, there will be consequences from it outside the situation. there are lots of mechanisms through which this happens. just to give an example from a different area that many of you might have thought about elsewhere, but precisely because it is different, is privacy. that one particular form of
surveillance may be very modest. it is used as a precedent for other forms o surveillance -- of surveillance. i think we have less privacy than before. maybe for good reason. what if you look at the history and restrictions on privacy from the 60's to the present, we see some of that slippery slope. the same thing happens with regards to university speech. university student speech. once you accept the proposition that somebody, even for off-campus speech, talking to friends, can be expelled because he uses a racist slur, maybe you can say come a will only be limited to racist slurs. but why should we think that? why wouldn't we and further that there was going to happen that other people will say, he used an anti-semitic slur, isn't that the same?
yes, say the universities. but he didn't use the slur. he didn't call me that he called me a zionist pig. of thatmplained because care lots of jews view that is or something cake along those lines. the modern version. likehen you get something the civil rights statement that says something if you harshly condemn israel, then many jews perceive that as an attack, especially in light of what they see as many physical violent attacks on jews in israel and elsewhere. thankfully very few in america. this is the way things happen. in a legal system build on analogy and president, tempting as it is to say, these are different, these are nazis, they are different, we will have a separate role for them. it will not spread. it is hard to keep it from spreading. that is why nasty speech needs to be -- continue to be
protected. especially once we get to a point where off-campus speech, speech where you could have been at a party, someone recorded it, or overheard it, once again to the point where people can be expelled from the university for that, then the door is wide open. i asked progressives, do you trust donald trump to define hate speech? and apply the sanctions on you? i assume the answer is no. so, do not assume that you are always going to be in power, which you are now certainly on the university campuses, to be able to control that extraordinary principle to be able to silence your enemies. because believe me, donald trump would love to use it. lee, i would like to ask
you, do you think the use of the n words or other words we have used the pier 1 qualify as hate speech? lee: robber and i generally agree with what the law says. not a usefuls terminology tried to determine what is actionable under the law. can be clearly hate speech but it is still protected. let's be clear. hate speech is not useful as a term of trying to determine what is protected speech and what is not. the question is whether or not the word can be used to to create a hostile environment. the circumstances and whether it is unavoidable for the student. if it is a condition of what they have to do to go to class. it depends on the circumstances and whether it is directed at a person or individual and what the context is. is of the challenges we face the legal standard for when a
university has to pay the victim of discrimination for having isled the discrimination whether or not they have acted with reckless disregard -- delivered in difference toward harassing conduct that is so severe, present -- pervasive, or objectively offensive as to effectively deny a student programs orcrook -- benefits to that is the standard. if we don't hear harassing conduct, that we know about, we liable student -- we are to the student for having failed to secure the harassment. but at -- it leaves many to suggest that we have to sit and watch the n word be used multiple times until it -- before we can punt -- punish it. that can't be right. wherehas to be some room
the university can walk. where it is neither liable to the speaker nor the victim. there has to be some space there somewhere. that being said, the abstract promotion of awful ideas and use of racial slurs in the abstract context of promoting ideas we disagree with is not -- does not create a hostile environment under the law. i think robber and i would agree with both where the tension is and what the law is with respect to that. minutes.have two i would like to give each person 30 seconds for any closing thoughts. starting with you, professor volokh? eugene: just want to stress one thing i mentioned before. free speech has many functions. one of the most important ones at the university is it gives us confidence in what is accepted received wisdom. that is true on history,
science, everything else. the real scholars will to you it should never have real confidence. everything should be up for grabs. as a practical matter, we as outsiders need to be able to hear a question about whether or anda biological difference differences among the sexes. are there or aren't there? if there are, what is the magnitude? as outsiders, we need to be able to have sources we turn to. that there is a conventional wisdom among fine,rs and we can say, we will defer to that judgment. not if we know that there has not been free speech both at the university, both among the faculty and students and among graduate students and everybody else who says, wait, maybe that is not right. as long as the process of free speech continues, that is when we can actually have confidence there are things that are right
and we can measure some of the other speech against it and say this is speech that is false. once there is that suppression, it does not does undermine speech. it undermines our ability to trust of the output of the academic enterprise. that's dangerous. i do not think that we're living through an epidemic of racist acts on campus. we have heard the example of the n word used on the fraternity bus are but i have not heard any other examples above. i would also say more broadly, we have two choices. we can live in a world where we resolve their differences through reason, through rhetoric, through efforts of persuasion. or we have a world where forces used. where force is used. there is no middle ground. whether that force is implicit censorship ofal
disfavored ideas, formal censorship, or as we have seen in the last several years, the use of literal violence, to try that is down speech, our alternative. be i think that we need to completely unequivocal in the idea that anything short of ,hreats of physical violence those disagreements have to be through other ideas that challenge them. incannot lose our confidence the power of reason, in the enlightenment values that have given us so much prosperity, freedom, and progress. road of carving
out exceptions for hate speech is very dangerous. firm, whatme read really colleges are about is the transmission of knowledge. these things we're talking about are on the surface, and what they are about is the passing on of an inheritance. hadrt: there is a man we speak at a conference for fire last year. darrell davis. he is an african-american musician. i guess you would call it a hobby, he befriends members of the ku klux klan. he befriends members. he tries to relate with them as a person. so far, he has convinced dozens of them to leave the claim. they have given -- he has a whole collection of kkk robes from people who are quitting. the reason i ring this person up
key to dealing with bad speech, and i think -- campuses are a more diverse place and they are a place that there is much more firm and right now then maybe there was in past years, though certainly not from the 1960's, is because we have given up, it seems, on persuading instead of coercing. there seems to be this intellectual virus that has gotten this idea that if nobody hears something bad, if they don't hear that somebody doesn't don't heary anti-semitism committee would not occur to them normally. what i would suggest is i don't know whether or not that is true or not you but i do know that persuading somebody to change their mind will be more effective than trying to make sure that they are never exposed to that topic. i think to the extent that universities and other cultural institutions are currently
making this effort to make it so that we are not persuading you, we're not letting other people persuade, but we will actually ban your speech if you step over the line, that has been a huge mistake. a couple things pier 1, we need to encourage universities and faculty members do not grow weary of doing good. by that, i mean they have new students every year. who come from environments where they have not confronted ideas that they are uncomfortable with. where they have not been required -- and they don't have an appreciation of our civic institutions or the values that are important to the maintenance of our civic institutions. that is one of the key roles of universities. i think the data shows that universities move the needle in a favorable way on this key things. college graduates have more favorable views toward free expression and those ideals more than the rest of our society. we can't grow weary of that
notion. act like the fact that 18-year-olds come next year, who are not fully formed, and some hold racist abuse and some who don't obey the first amendment, the fact that that is true, we can't let that discourage us from making us think that we are failing cap that is one thing i would say. a second thing i would say isn't same thing i say when i'm speaking to professionals at other conferences or on campuses. many of the most sublime days on a campus that i have seen in my career have been when hateful, offensive speakers come to our campus. it is because our students think and our students engage, and they struggle with what it means and they learn about free expression and they learn -- they begin to have more meaningful conversations. then they otherwise would have that day on campus. i have always viewed it as something of a great day when we speakers thatave
are controversial. it inevitably leads to advancement in the citizen scholars on our campus in how they think and engage with the world. i tried to encourage campuses offensive speakers coming to campus, but take advantage of when they come. please join me in thanking john and our panelist for that outstanding discussion. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer: here is what is live on tuesday. officials from the pentagon and state department will give an update on u.s. arms control's efforts. they will take questions from members of the senate foreign relations committee at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. in the lee's list says it will spend $37 million in this election cycle. we will hear from the group's president at the national press club at 1:00 eastern. that, the harken institute
holds a discussion on congressional redistricting and how it could affect elections. c-span2, the senate continues work on a defense labor and hhs spending bill for 2019. and on c-span3, the senate homeland security committee will get an update on u.s. policy on migrant children and border security. that is at 10:00 a.m. eastern. we will also have coverage of the annual air force association conference in the afternoon. the senate judiciary committee has postponed this thursday's scheduled vote on supreme court nominee judge brett kavanaugh. i, the committee will have a hearing with the judge kevin a and prayer -- and the professor who has accused the judge of assaulting her in high school. follow live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span.org, and listen on the c-span radio app.