STEVE EDWARDS: Good
evening, everyone.
I'm Steve Edwards with the
University of Chicago's
Institute of Politics.
And I'm very pleased
to welcome you
to tonight's event, entitled
"The Battle Over Free Speech
on College Campuses." it's part
of the IOP's ongoing Speaker
Series, which seeks
to elevate and expand
the public conversation
on key issues of the day
and part of our mission, to
cultivate the next generation
of public service leaders.
So if you've been following
the news in recent months,
you know that there
is hardly a more
complicated and contentious
issue playing out
on college campuses these
days than the ones surrounding
the use of language, symbols,
culture, and discourse.
It's an issue that
hits close to home
here at the
University of Chicago,
and at the Institute of
Politics specifically.
Tonight, though,
we come together
not to revisit the details
of any particular incident,
but to engage in a
larger conversation
about the underlying
issues around freedom
of expression for colleges and
universities across the nation.
In the spirit of open
discourse and rigorous inquiry
here at the
University of Chicago,
we invite you to bring your
best questions and an open mind
to the conversation.
As is always the
case, we ask that you
keep your questions
short to the point
when we get to the audience Q&A,
so that we can get to as many
of you as possible during
our conversation tonight.
We want to take a special
moment to thank our colleagues
at International House and
the Global Voices series
for hosting us and
collaborating with us on this.
And here to formally
introduce tonight's topic
and our panelists is a resident
of I House, George Adames.
George is a second year
from Augusta, Georgia.
He is double majoring in
Public Policy and Geography.
He is also very active
in numerous organizations
on campus, including the IOP,
where he sits on our Student
Advisory Board, and is the chair
of our Student Civic Engagement
Committee.
So please join me in welcoming
George to the podium.
George.
[APPLAUSE]
GEORGE ADAMES:
Within the past year,
intense debates concerning
the principles of free speech
have emerged
throughout the country.
Questions regarding the balance
between political correctness
and the freedom
of expression have
caused many to
speak out and offer
their own take on the issue.
Nowhere is this better seen
than on college campuses.
Concerns around
the First Amendment
and the creation
of safe spaces have
led to questions about the
role of college campuses
in balancing free speech
and respectful dialogue.
As members of the
Chicago community,
we experience this
every day, whether it's
in class, at a
guest speaker event,
or even at the dinner table.
It is extremely difficult
to fully understand
this complex balance,
but many top scholars
have offered their input.
Tonight, the
Institute of Politics
is pleased to welcome some
of the top minds surrounding
the debate of free
speech to examine
how this issue manifests
itself on college campuses.
Joining us tonight are
four incredible panelists,
who are each uniquely
knowledgeable on this issue.
Adrienne Green is an Editorial
Fellow at The Atlantic.
Many of her writings
directly address
the issue of community and
identity on college campuses.
Select pieces include "The
Repoliticization of America's
Colleges," "Do Historically
Black Colleges Provide the Safe
Space Students Are After?"
and "Can Schools Be Fixed?"
Aaron Hanlon is an English
professor at Colby College
and a contributor to
Salon and New Republic.
Many of his
contributions directly
address the issue of free
speech on college campuses.
Select writings include
"College Students Aren't Cuddly
Bunnies," and "My Students
Need Trigger Warnings,
and Professors Do, Too."
Greg Lukianoff is
the President and CEO
of Freedom for Individual Rights
in Education-- FIRE-- which
is an educational nonprofit
dedicated to defending
and sustaining individual
rights at American universities.
He is also the co-author of
The Atlantic's "The Coddling
of the American Mind," which
gained wide-scale attention
for its warning of the
dangers of increasing
protection for college students
from certain words and ideas.
Geoffrey Stone is a University
of Chicago Law professor.
He serves as the chair of
the university's Committee
on the Freedom of Expression.
The committee was formed in 2014
by President Zimmer and Provost
Isaacs in response
to events nationwide
that brought institutional
commitments to free speech
and open discourse to question.
The committee was charged
with drafting a statement that
articulated the university's
commitment to free speech
and uninhibited debate
and deliberation.
In January 2015, a
report was released
that reflected U Chicago's
commitment to multiple types
of free expression.
Our moderator this evening
will be Catherine Ross,
who is a law professor at
George Washington University,
and is currently a Visiting
Scholar at Harvard Graduate
School in Education.
Her new book, Lessons
In Censorship:
How Schools and Courts Subvert
Students' First Amendment
Rights, examines various
disputes through the frame
of schools and courts, and
ultimately argues that,
by failing to respect
civil liberties,
schools betray their educational
mission and threaten democracy.
Please join me in welcoming
our wonderful panelists
and moderator.
[APPLAUSE]
CATHERINE ROSS: Thank
you for those both lovely
introductions.
I'm going to say a few things to
set the scene before opening up
the conversation
among the panelists.
And I know that
people in this room
are very aware of some
of the recent incidents
here at the
University of Chicago.
But of course, the protests
and the demands-- some of which
appear to conflict
with speech rights--
are a national development.
And more than 60
schools have had
protests that resulted
in the presentation
of a list of demands to
the university or college
administration.
Some of those protests
began in solidarity
with protests at other schools,
so we can't really think
of these entirely as
isolated incidents,
though some of the panelists
have more knowledge
of those specifics than I do.
Our goal tonight
is to have really
a common-sense
discussion of what
has become a very
contentious area,
and to flesh out some
of the background, some
of the problems, and hopefully,
to think productively
about where we go from here.
I just have a few preliminary
points I want to make.
The most important is that
when we think about freedom
of speech, when we
think of the law,
we're talking about
the First Amendment
to the United
States Constitution.
And the First Amendment is
only binding on the government,
which means every
level of government
from the smallest town to
the federal government,
and everyone who acts on
behalf of those governments.
It does not apply to
private individuals
or to private institutions.
So the legal regime that
obtains at a private university
like the University
of Chicago is not
required to follow
the speech clause.
But across town,
just up the road,
the University of
Illinois, Chicago
is bound by the First Amendment.
And we've had controversies and
protests and impositions that,
arguably, affect speech
at both public and private
institutions.
And we'll be talking about
both of those tonight.
But even where the
First Amendment is not
legally binding, many
private institutions
have undertaken to
conform to free expression
in the image of the
First Amendment.
And so we talk not only about
the law of the First Amendment,
but about First
Amendment values,
or First Amendment or
free expression culture,
and the things that
an institution does
to promote that,
to inculcate it,
and the way that both speakers
and listeners-- as well
as administrators-- think
about free expression
as a cultural and social matter,
not just as a legal matter.
And there's an
interaction, obviously,
between law and culture.
We have a lot of ground
to cover tonight.
What's really going
on on campuses?
How widespread is it?
How deep is it?
How serious are the
concerns about challenges
to free speech?
A lot of issues
have been conflated
with a long list of demands,
some of which impact
expressive rights,
and some of which
don't have any relationship
to expressive rights.
Some of the choices
are simply about
does the administration want
to accede to the demands?
And if there is no
constitutional or other
legal limit, it's simply a
matter of their discretion.
Do they want to hire
more persons of color
for the faculty?
That doesn't implicate
the First Amendment.
We also need to sort out
some other issues that can
be conflated, and often are.
Whose speech are
we talking about?
Students-- which students?
In class?
In other parts of the campus?
In their personal life?
Administrators
who have felt they
needed to resign
in the face of some
of the protests and demands, the
faculty in class, out of class.
And to the extent that there
are requests to limit speech,
who's primarily responsible?
Administrators, students?
Which group of students?
Or faculty?
And why is this happening?
And why now?
And just to give you a little
bit of historical perspective,
this is certainly not the
first time in American history
that these kinds of
controversies have arisen.
And I wanted to bring you back
to 1974, to Yale University,
for a story that parallels
many things that have recently
happened.
There were several
incidents during the 1960s
in which speakers were
invited to come to Yale.
And there were protests, and
the speakers either withdrew
or people considered
withdrawing the invitation.
But that never happened.
And Yale lived up
to its commitment
to First Amendment norms-- a
private institution not bound
by the First Amendment.
But then a student group wanted
to invite a Physics professor
from Stanford named William
Shockley to come and lecture
on the campus--
in fact, to debate
with an African-American
activist, the head of CORE.
And Shockley had
become notorious
for lecturing all
over the country,
and for writing about--
"trigger warning--"
about the genetic inferiority
of African-Americans
as compared to Caucasians.
This was outside his
field of expertise,
and there was no
scientific evidence
for what he was saying.
And after some back and forth,
three different student groups
almost invited him, and
then decided not to.
But a fourth student group, the
conservative Young Americans
for Freedom-- part
of a national group--
issued the invitation, to
widespread condemnation,
including from the Yale
administration, the president,
and the trustees.
When Shockley showed
up, protesters
had packed the lecture hall.
They shouted him down
with obscenities.
The students who invited
him couldn't even
begin the program.
And after a little
more than an hour,
the program was adjourned,
the hall was emptied,
and 11 students who had been
inside the hall were punished,
but not very severely.
The faculty was really upset
about this lack of respect
for free speech-- both on the
part of the administration
for condemning Shockley
before he came,
and by these protesters
who interrupted speech,
as opposed to picketing
outside, or carrying signs,
or other forms of protest.
And they directed the president
to appoint a committee
to investigate the condition
of free expression,
peaceful dissent, mutual
respect, and tolerance at Yale.
And it was chaired
by Ben Woodward,
who was a very eminent
historian of the South.
And the report emphasized the
importance of free speech norms
to university life, to
the life of the mind.
And they said, the paramount
obligation of the university
is to protect free expression.
Secondary social and ethical
responsibilities, they said,
must be left to the informal
processes of suasion, example,
and argument.
It was widely used as a model.
But the remaining
seminal statements
about free speech
and universities
had their origins
here in Chicago.
The first one was
chaired by Harry Calvin,
a very eminent First Amendment
scholar at the Law School
here, and issued in 1967.
And it explained the
unique role of universities
as follows-- "The
mission of the university
is the discovery, improvement,
and dissemination of knowledge
by design and by effect.
The university is the
institution-- the institution--
which creates discontent
with the existing
social arrangement,
and proposes new ones.
In brief, a good
university, like Socrates,
will be upsetting."
"But," it said,
"the university cannot force
every member of the community
to subscribe to the ideas
that it promotes about justice
and change."
The issue is free inquiry,
and a diversity of viewpoints.
And this brings us
to Chicago today.
And I'd like to ask
Geoff to tell us
a bit more about the
committee that you chaired,
and the current
Chicago principals.
GEOFFREY STONE: So
after a number of issues
arose at other institutions--
involving, for example,
decisions to withdraw speaking
invitations because of student
objections to the views
that would be expressed
by the speakers, and other
similar instances-- President
Robert Zimmer
decided that it would
be useful for the
university to have
a clear statement
of our own values
with respect to
freedom of expression.
The Calvin report that's
already been mentioned
was a little bit
different, because it
focused on the question of
whether the university itself
should take positions on
issues of public controversy.
Here, the issue was rather to
what extent the institution
should in any way interfere with
the free expression and debate
and discourse of members of
the university community.
And President Zimmer
appointed a committee,
asked me to chair
that committee.
We, after consulting
with faculty
with students and with people of
other institutions-- including
Greg Lukianoff and from
FIRE-- wrote a brief statement
of three or four pages, which
essentially encapsulated
the university's view.
And in short, what
it basically says
is that the reason
a university exists
is to promote,
enable, and facilitate
free debate and discussion.
And that a university
must respect that.
It must not interfere
with the freedom
to express ideas, however
offensive or loathsome
or upsetting those
ideas might be,
that the proper response to
ideas that we do not like
is not censorship.
It's not disruption.
It's not preventing those
ideas from being expressed.
It's responding to those
ideas on the merits,
and explaining why
one thinks they
are loathsome and
offensive and stupid.
And that this is what
makes a university.
And that this is a
fundamental value
of the University of Chicago.
One of the interesting
things about the report
is that when we were
asked to write it,
we wrote it very specifically
about the University
of Chicago, and invoked our own
traditions and our own history
in crafting the report.
And then thereafter-- in part
because of the work of FIRE--
the report was adopted by a
number of other universities,
including Princeton,
Purdue, American
University in Wisconsin,
LSU, several others.
And what they figured
out they could do
is lop off the first
five paragraphs, which
were about the
University of Chicago,
and then just adopt the
rest of it for themselves.
So it's been a very good
example for institutions
to use in debating themselves
about what policies they
want to pursue.
CATHERINE ROSS: Thank you.
Greg, you want to give us
a bit of an overview of how
you see what's going on in
the university campuses?
And then I'll ask Adrienne
to do the same thing.
GREG LUKIANOFF: Sure.
I specialize in
First Amendment law.
I've been defending
student and faculty rights
as a full-time job since 2001.
And I have to say, there's
been so much national attention
to the issue of free
speech on campus--
as you saw in an article that I
wrote recently, my answer was,
where have you all been?
And I think that
students have a reason
to be a little bit frustrated.
Because we've been banging
the bell for years on the fact
that administrators,
particularly
with the massive growth of
the administrative class
at universities, have
been getting away
with some pretty bad abuses
of power over the years.
And sometimes,
they're political.
Sometimes they fit the PC mold.
A lot of times they don't.
In the book that I wrote in
2012 called On Learning Liberty,
opens up talking
about a student who
was expelled with absolutely
no due process-- he was
an environmentalist
student-- for posting
a collage protesting a
parking garage project.
I could talk about
that case all night.
But for most of my
career, it's been
abuses of administrative power.
And I'll say, some of the
worst cases I've ever seen
weren't in the past
couple of years.
They were in 2007.
They were in 2003,
in some cases.
And they usually involved
administrative overreach.
Now, it is true--
something has changed.
And I've said this
very publicly--
for almost all of my career--
CATHERINE ROSS: And you're
saying it publicly now, too.
GREG LUKIANOFF: Oh yeah, I'm
saying it publicly again.
That for almost
all of my career,
the most reliable constituency
for freedom of speech
and due process on
campus were the students.
They just seem to
get it better than--
and frankly, better
than a lot of faculty
did in a lot of cases.
Something in the last
two or three years,
starting around
the time we started
seeing the uptick in sort
of disinvitation season,
suddenly the bar was getting
higher and higher for how
pure the purity
test you had to pass
was, that there seemed
to be a lot of demands
for freedom from speech,
as I called in another book
that I wrote.
That's really upsetting to me.
I'm not used to being in
a position of disagreeing
with students.
Because I spent most of my
career defending students.
So we're in this funny
position, where we're defending
students' rights to protest.
We're even defending the
right to demand speech codes.
But also saying at the same
time, oh, and by the way,
you can't pass those.
And we totally don't agree with
what you're advocating for,
or, for example, setting
up new free speech zones.
So the past couple
years it's been
very much in media attention,
partially because students
are more involved.
But I do think it's a
little bit frustrating
that we have these incredibly
expensive universities now--
$60,000, $70,000 a year.
A lot of what
you're paying for is
this massive
administrative class.
And so many of the abuses
I see, still to this day,
are abuses of power by,
in some cases, usually
mid-level administrators,
but in some cases, university
presidents themselves.
CATHERINE ROSS: So you think
the national press doesn't
have it entirely right
when they're pointing
the finger at students?
GREG LUKIANOFF: Exactly.
CATHERINE ROSS: Adrienne.
ADRIENNE GREEN: I
would also agree.
I would say I will preface
this by saying I'm a writer.
And so a lot of the
issues that I deal with
have to do with
race, but they're
applicable to other areas.
My entry point has been
the student protests.
And so while I think that
everything that Greg said
was accurate as far as
administrative overreach
and things of that
nature, my entry point
was when these student
protests started
to ramp up in the last year.
Why has that been happening?
And I think that
students and colleges
are microcosms of America.
And I think America
has been going
through a reckoning with
what has been happening
with race as it pertains to our
history with diversity issues.
And free speech is important.
And I think it's some
people's entryway into how
to grapple with these
American institutional issues
over people's identity, and the
way that they want to identify,
and the way that they are
demanding to be treated,
and balancing that with other
people's navigation of what
race and racism and other
types of identity issues mean.
And sometimes I think
that free speech
is kind of getting mixed in in
places where it doesn't belong.
And that's what I think is
happening on college campuses.
And that's why I think
students are being
pointed to as [INAUDIBLE].
CATHERINE ROSS: Is this about
being heard, being listened to,
or is it about something else?
ADRIENNE GREEN: I can't
speak on behalf of students.
I think that that is
in part what it is.
I think that students, as
I've understood their demands,
are demanding to be acknowledged
that they are facing issues
on their campuses.
And their climates
are tense and hostile.
And it is making it
difficult for them
to navigate their
campuses in the same way
that their peers are.
And those issues haven't been
readily recognized in the way
that they would like to see it.
That's what I've interpreted.
And I think that speech
is the only way that they
know how to go about it.
CATHERINE ROSS:
Speech is the only way
they know how to go
about it, meaning
their own speech-- being
vocal about what they need?
ADRIENNE GREEN: Exactly.
CATHERINE ROSS: Or limiting
other people's speech?
ADRIENNE GREEN: No,
no, speaking out
to what-- being vocal about
what they would like to see
their campuses provide for them.
CATHERINE ROSS: Which is
certainly a First Amendment
value.
That's what they should do.
ADRIENNE GREEN: Absolutely.
CATHERINE ROSS: So
among the demands--
we've got sort of on the one
hand hire more people of color
as faculty members,
as administrators.
We think they will
understand us better.
We'll trust them more.
Or change the name
of a building,
because the person
the building's
named after was a horrible
racist or a slave owner.
And those don't
implicate speech issues.
They don't try to
silence anyone else.
But then we come to things
like, make hate speech
illegal on this campus.
Have mandatory diversity
training and penalty
for people who engage in
offensive speech afterwards.
And these are demands
that come directly
in conflict with some
First Amendment principles.
Who defines what's offensive?
Who defines what's hate speech?
And in public universities,
where the Constitution does
apply, is it OK--
is it permissible--
to limit that
speech, some of which
the people who are articulating
these offensive ideas
might even say is political
speech at the highest level
of our speech clause values.
So how do we sort out both those
demands that impact speech,
and how to balance them against
the demand to be listened to,
understood, and empathized
with, and supported?
Who would like to-- Aaron.
AARON HANLON: I
mean, I think this
has a lot to do
with the categories
that we use to classify
different kinds of speech
or speech acts, and the
ways in which we classify
some forms of speech, or
some actions as free speech,
and other speech
acts as speech acts
which are inclined
toward censorship.
And so from my perspective,
this is, I think,
a function of what's been an
ongoing confirmation bias--
to look at these very
complicated instances
of students maybe pushing
back against injustices,
or pushing back against
speech that they don't think
has a place on campus.
We can talk about whether
that, unto itself,
is a bigger picture issue.
Seeing these kinds
of instances as
fitting this nice,
convenient narrative
of political
correctness as a thing
particular to the
progressive left,
but I'm really interested
in thinking about if that's
our confirmation bias.
If that's our
inclination, what, then,
are we missing that's also
a threat to free speech
that is along the lines of
maybe right-wing political
orthodoxies, right-wing
political correctness?
What isn't on our list?
CATHERINE ROSS: Do
you have an example,
or you really think that
we're missing those examples?
AARON HANLON: Well, I
think on the softer level,
or the more difficult to
categorize or define level,
certainly, if it's possible for
a kind of predominant culture
of political correctness
from the left on the campus
to have a chilling effect
on conservative students
or right-wing speech.
It's also possible for a
campus climate of antagonism
toward certain minority
or marginalized groups
to have an equally chilling
effect on the speech
of the people in those groups.
But on a more direct
level, we could also
talk about
administrative efforts
to intervene-- Board
of Trustees' efforts
to intervene-- in
democratic student
processes along political lines,
efforts to shut down critiques
of Israeli state policy.
We see that, which is not a
left-wing political orthodoxy,
but more kind of comfortable
right-wing political orthodoxy
that we see getting shut down.
So there are a few of those
kinds of examples, yeah.
CATHERINE ROSS: Greg.
GREG LUKIANOFF: Israel-Palestine
comes up all the time
in the FIRE office.
And definitely every
time we get a case like
that, we're, like-- [SIGHS]
because it's just so polarized.
And nobody is going to hear
each other out at all when
it comes down to it.
And on the one hand,
you have a case--
like an older case where
a student was making art
about Palestinian terrorism
against Israeli Jews.
And he was not allowed to.
He was accused of
hate speech, and not
allowed to show
it in Penn campus.
And we've made a
video out of that.
But more recently, when one
of the biggest cases out there
was the Steven
Salaita case, where he
left his job to take a job
that he'd been offered.
He thought it was completely
all done at the University
of Illinois, Champaign.
And when he tweeted some stuff
out about the Gaza attacks--
and some of it
was pretty harsh--
they rescinded the offer.
And that's led to a
big national case.
So I do agree that ultimately,
the narrative about what's
actually going to get you
in trouble is not as simple.
And sometimes I
get frustrated when
people think-- because
it comes from so
many different directions.
Conor Friedersdorf had
this wonderful paragraph
talking about the 50 different
directions it comes from.
And in the Salaita case,
it was a donor, basically,
saying you better fire this guy.
And I believe that kind
of stuff happens a lot.
CATHERINE ROSS: He hadn't
even arrived at campus.
GREG LUKIANOFF: Yeah.
CATHERINE ROSS: He
had just been hired.
GREG LUKIANOFF: Exactly.
But I will say, there is
political correctness.
I mean, it's one of
those things that we
can't pretend doesn't exist.
I'm not very fond of the
term, to be completely frank.
It's useful.
But ultimately, it's useful
only as sort of a shorthand
for a big jumble of things.
Because when you say
"political correctness"
to someone who's conservative,
they think brainwashing.
When you say
"political correctness"
to a liberal from
my generation, we
think flight
attendant-- just trying
to be polite as opposed
to stewardess, which
is the term that they
used, believe it or not,
in the savage, old
days that I come from.
CATHERINE ROSS: I
recently got in trouble
for referring to a lunch lady.
So--
GEOFFREY STONE:
Could I add, I think
one of the things that's
important to understand
is that academic freedom is
something which is vulnerable,
has always been vulnerable.
That if you go back
in our history,
there was a time when
Darwinism was prohibited.
If you go to the beginning
years of the 20th century,
faculty members or students
who criticized capitalists
could be fired or expelled,
because the university was
interested in getting the
philanthropy from those people.
During World War I,
students and faculty
were routinely
punished and expelled
if they expressed criticism
of the war or the draft.
During the McCarthy
era, of course, no one
could criticize our government.
No one could defend Communism.
And any student or faculty
member who did that
would be removed
from the university.
So censorship within a
university-- expression
of freedom at the
university-- is vulnerable.
And it's important to
understand that whatever
I think is good
speech to get rid of,
other people think other
speech is good to get rid of.
And when one opens
the door to that,
one can't close it very easily.
And those who seek censorship
because they say, well, I
don't like that speech,
have to understand
that if they win that argument--
which they should not--
that they will then be the
targets in the future of others
who will want to censor them.
And the principle
of academic freedom
requires us to
tolerate those things
that we don't like-- not because
they're good, not because we
agree with them, but because
we don't trust ourselves
with the power of censorship.
GREG LUKIANOFF: And
I just want to add,
Eugene Volokh has a brilliant
term for this very phenomenon.
He simply calls it censorship
envy, which is essentially
if I got to get my
speaker disinvited,
then I get to get your
speaker disinvited.
And I see this
happen very quickly.
So sometimes people talk about
speech arguments being based
on a slippery slope fallacy.
But when you deal with the
kind of ridiculous cases
that I deal with at
FIRE, I'm like, no, no.
This is genuinely a
slick, slick slope.
Because people think it's like--
and I think if end went up
having a situation where
you have this sort of back
and forth with of you can
get my person disinvited
and I can get yours disinvited.
CATHERINE ROSS: Escalation.
GREG LUKIANOFF:
Escalating, you're
going to end up in a situation
where the only people invited
to campus are going to
be incredibly bland,
uninteresting speakers.
CATHERINE ROSS: And nobody
will show up to hear them.
So Geoff, in your
opening comments,
you talked about the traditional
First Amendment approach
to noxious speech, which
is more and better speech.
And I think it's worth
thinking about who
on campus should be engaging
in that additional speech.
Where does that
responsibility fall?
So to the extent that a free
speech environment suggests
that the university
should not be using
its disciplinary or coercive
powers to punish the speech it
doesn't like,
someone has to bring
that more and better speech in.
The university, and its
officials, and its faculty
can do that.
But students can also do that.
And so one of the
things is for students
to take responsibility
to push back
on the people who
say offensive things,
and to exert peer pressure.
That's not state authority.
Students can do that.
Students can say, I
don't really even want
to sit with you
in the dining hall
because you say such
disturbing things.
And they were very
hurtful to my friend
yesterday when you said them,
or confront them and say,
do you understand how you made
me feel, or my friend feel?
Let's really have a serious
conversation about this,
and not just call
each other names.
So that's another way to think
of some of what's going on.
GEOFFREY STONE:
Universities also
have a responsibility
to encourage civility
and mutual respect, in
the same way we encourage
hard work among our students.
We don't throw our students
out if they don't work hard.
And we shouldn't throw them
out if they're not civil.
But we should encourage it.
We should educate them
about the value of that,
not only while they are
students in our institution,
but for the rest of their lives.
And that's an important part
of what an institution like
ours is supposed to do.
CATHERINE ROSS:
Yes, and to do it
before there are
horrible incidents--
to say when people arrive,
this is the kind of community
that we strive to be.
And you'll get informal pressure
if you step out of line.
But we won't expel you, or
use other coercive powers.
But this brings us to some
questions about what's
the role of the university.
And I included some
statements about what
that role was thought to
be by the Woodward Report
and by the Calvin Report.
But I'm wondering how
the people on this panel
think universities-- what's
their primary commitment?
And is it the same for
a community college
and the University of Chicago?
So a political scientist
who's been writing
a lot about these
controversies, Jim Sleeper,
said while an undergraduate
community is, he said,
"A civil society
on training wheels.
And administrators
have to provide
guidance and guardrails.
And they also have to tolerate
some immature posturing
and testing of roles."
What do you think?
What's the university's role?
And how does this
controversy fit
into our vision of what a
university is here to do?
GREG LUKIANOFF: I've watched
that thinking that the Jim
Sleeper refers to go wrong-- go
off the rails-- so many times.
And it is so patronizing
the way it sounds.
Because if you do-- and I agree
that civility is important.
But Milton got it dead right
in 1859, when he said, "Well,
the funny thing about civility,"
and this is an exact quote,
as you can tell, "is that
everybody thinks that if you
say, oh, we believe
in freedom of speech,
but you just have to
be civil about it."
If you agree with the majority,
or agree with the power
structure, even if you're
shouting in someone's face,
they're, like, oh, I
applaud your righteous rage.
But if you disagree
with it, you're
like, oh, that's
uncivil, even if you're
being very polite about it.
CATHERINE ROSS: Joan Scott has
written a very powerful piece
in her address to the American
Association of University
Professors, in which
she said, civility
is whatever the people
in power say it is.
So we can't demand that.
Aaron.
AARON HANLON: I mean, a
couple issues here, too.
I think one, the
question that emerges
for me is, how do we
distinguish between some
of these types of values
that an institution might
want to promote, like civility,
hard work, character values?
I know that term
is not in fashion,
but I'll use it anyway.
And some of the
more what you could
call overtly
politicized values--
the line between those
things is precisely the crux.
That's why it's so difficult.
Then the other thing is
that institutions all
fundamentally shape values,
even if they do it tacitly.
Which is to say
they're going to do it.
You can choose, in
the best scenario,
different institutions.
If you're completely
appalled by the idea
that an athletic
department could determine
that your day-to-day
life is going
to be oriented
around the success
and failure of a football
team, don't go to-- I'm
not going to name one.
If you're completely
appalled by the idea
that student activism
is going to be a thing,
then don't go to--
GEOFFREY STONE: Berkeley.
AARON HANLON: Right, Oberlin.
Representing for the
liberal arts colleges.
Right, so the question then is,
it actually more intellectually
honest for institutions
to be open about the way
that they're inculcating
values, rather than backing off
and saying, actually,
no, we don't have biases.
Just sort that out
amongst yourselves.
When institutionally,
it's almost impossible,
virtually impossible.
CATHERINE ROSS: In that
sense, Liberty University
would be the ideal.
GREG LUKIANOFF: Yeah, they're
very clear about that.
No dancing at Liberty U.
AARON HANLON: And
It's not to say
you couldn't strive for an ideal
of a broad-based intellectual
diversity.
That I think we
should strive for.
But there are value
distinctions even within that.
GREG LUKIANOFF: I do
want to say, though,
that if there's one role that I
really wish universities would
do a better job of-- and
confirmation bias is something
I write a lot about.
I'm concerned about it.
Is that I think it's a
natural phenomenon that we're
able to increasingly
surround ourselves
with echo chambers of
people who agree with us.
And The Big Sort covered this.
The research is we're even
dividing ourselves down block
by block.
But then we can also just
consume media 24 hours a day
that completely
agrees with this.
So given that
circumstance, I think
that's one of the reasons why
these political disagreements--
I think just like you said,
it's a microcosm of real issues,
but also of signs of the time--
of the fact that we don't have
as much experience
as people growing up
in maybe the 1950s had in
disagreeing with each other.
And I think
universities could be
doing a much better
job of how to have
a meaty, solid, useful debate.
CATHERINE ROSS: Let me
just say that goes back
to elementary school, middle
school, and high school.
GREG LUKIANOFF: Yes, very true.
CATHERINE ROSS:
Because those schools
are disregarding and
denigrating these speech rights
that students have, even though
those rights are a little bit
less than the rights in the
rest of the United States
under special set
of jurisprudence.
But they're basically
telling students,
we don't take civil
liberties seriously.
We're not going
to listen to you.
And we're also going
to censor people
who say things that upset
other people in the community.
And they, therefore,
establish expectations
that are in conflict with
First Amendment values.
Adrienne, did you want
to-- you've been listening,
and I just want to give
you a shot before I
go to the last question.
ADRIENNE GREEN: I would only
add that I agree with everything
that is said here, except for
the fact-- or not the fact,
but my opinion-- that these
things get one degree more
nuanced, one degree more
sensitive, one degree more
principled when you're talking
about someone's identity.
So to go back to the point
that you made about one way
to deal with noxious
speech is to have
more corrective
speech-- sometimes
that can veer into the
category of someone
having to defend their identity.
So in the position that
colleges and universities take
that hands-off approach,
where you guys duke it out
with each other, I can imagine
that it's a hard position
to be in when someone is saying
something sexist, or racist,
or derogatory about a religion.
And that's something
where you have
to defend your personhood,
not your opinion, not
your thoughts, not
your disagreement.
You're disagreeing with
an element of my identity.
CATHERINE ROSS: But it
can be just too difficult.
ADRIENNE GREEN: And that is
a difficult level of debate.
That is different
than just "We disagree
about the way we
go about a thing."
CATHERINE ROSS: And you
wrote a wonderful piece
about the real harm,
the measurable harms,
that this does to
students of color,
when they have all these
extra pressures that impact
not only their personal
happiness in the university
setting, but also their
academic performance
and their long-term.
ADRIENNE GREEN: Absolutely.
I mean, I made the
point that clearly.
I'm black.
And so being a black student
at the same time that you're
being a black American--
that's a double jeopardy.
So I remember being
in college and dealing
with the death of Trayvon
Martin, and the death of Eric
Garner, and trying to
process all of those things
as a person of color.
And then having to
process them also
kind of academically or
theoretically in the classroom,
and feeling challenged by that.
Not that I felt like we
should never discuss it,
because that's unrealistic.
But just an
acknowledgement of the fact
that students from
different identities,
and different backgrounds,
and different walks of life
have a different entry point
into these conversations that
sometimes feels wrong to
make them debate that.
So they're, like, debating
a piece of themselves.
And that--
CATHERINE ROSS: Or another
comment that a lot of students
have made is, when there's
a discussion about race,
everybody looks at the one
or two African-Americans
in the room, and expects
them to educate us.
That's not fair.
That's a burden.
So my last question
for the panel,
before we open this up to
discussion and questions
from the floor,
picks up, actually,
on something that
Greg said about what's
going on more generally
in our fractured society.
And this is to
try to relate what
we've been talking about to
some broader political issues
about the current election.
Many commentators
view this season
as a real low point in
our political discourse.
I'm going to name names.
Donald Trump's coming
to Chicago on Friday--
not to the university,
to the city.
We've seen name-calling,
reference to male genitals,
horrible xenophobic
comments, and statements
about people of
different religions,
to the point where even
members of his own party
have said his comments
are disqualifying.
So to what extent is the
kind of cultural shift
that we've been
talking about-- or I
don't want to characterize
it as a shift,
but the culture or the
problems surrounding
the culture of free expression
related to this broader
phenomenon, both in terms
of speakers and listeners,
who appear to be accepting
rather than drowning out
by better speech--
not by shouting down--
this kind of what passes
for political discussion.
AARON HANLON: I'm
going to say something
that I don't hear a lot
in these kinds of debates,
which sounds counterintuitive.
But I think if we
even think about what
is political correctness,
it's in some sense
a product of a classically
liberal free marketplace
of ideas.
We don't, in other words,
just wake up one day and say,
with a directive
and a cold sweat,
"You shall not ever
laugh at a gay joke."
What happens is,
over years gradually,
if not decades, interlocutors
in a free society, as it were,
have discussions about
values and what should we do?
What should we think?
And it starts off with,
I think, what does it
mean to think x, y,
and z about gay people?
And then it moves quite
logically into, if that, then,
if these things aren't right,
if they're not true, what, then,
does it mean to say x, y, z?
So the language is a reflection
of the change in values.
And so if we understand
political correctness that way,
I think it opens up,
I think, a better way
of understanding it as not just
about free speech versus not
free speech, but about
what are the parameters?
What are the limitations
for making and enforcing
value judgements?
GREG LUKIANOFF: Yeah, and
just a part of my background
is cultural studies.
And my father is Russian,
and my mother is British.
And they couldn't be
more different in the way
they approach things.
And the point that
I'm always trying
to make when it comes to how
political correctness can lead
to the alienation sort of
effect and the polarization
is the fact that
the more specific
your ideas of what politeness
is-- what the right way
to interact with each
other are, to be kind,
to be thoughtful--
the more you're
creating a narrow culture.
And my dad was always
teaching me, just hear people.
Hear people out.
So I'll give an example
from one of our interns
from Vanderbilt. She's a gay
woman living in Nashville.
And she has a lot of
gay and trans friends
who are just from Nashville.
And she has a lot of
gay and trans friends
who are from Vanderbilt.
And her friends at
Vanderbilt don't
like her bringing her
friends from Nashville
around, because they don't
like the way they talk.
Basically, they're too earthy.
That's more or less
the way they put it.
And I've watched this
happen time and time again--
that if you create a very narrow
set of ideas of how you're
supposed to talk, and
almost by definition--
like when I used to
live in San Francisco,
or when I was in Stanford,
I would look with horror
at the way some of
my friends would
talk about people from Kansas.
And I'm, like, OK, my
dad's from Yugoslavia.
Insert Yugoslavia instead
of Kansas to the way
you just described
those people as just
being a bunch of
ignorant people,
and you can't understand
why they're mad at you?
So definitely, I think it's
one of these situations where
we have this sort of
auto-catalyzing, polarization
effect, where we're getting
more and more into these camps.
And frankly, as
of this election,
it's gone off the rails.
CATHERINE ROSS:
But how does that
explain the tolerance for
what Donald Trump is saying?
GREG LUKIANOFF:
Because basically,
I think kind of like the
backlash from political
correctness-- the reason
why he gets off on so much
of the political
correctness stuff--
is because he's trying to
pretend like all these people
think you're
idiots, but I don't.
I'm the one who's actually
going to speak my mind.
And I think, sadly, it's a ploy.
He defines elitism.
He's of the elite.
He's a 0.001 percenter.
But nonetheless, he's been able
to tap into this sort of sense
of, like, we're not
being respected,
more or less, by largely white,
lower and middle-class voters.
ADRIENNE GREEN:
Also sorry, I didn't
mean to cut you off--
what I would say
is, pertaining to Donald Trump,
but kind of the elections
in general, I think people
have a tendency this way--
saying what you say
equates to what you are.
So Donald Trump
says racist things,
and thus he is a racist.
And I watched a really
good video the other day
with this guy named Jay Smooth,
about how what somebody says
is very easy to interact with.
It's very easy to have
corrective speech around.
It's very easy to
have debate around it.
What somebody is is very
difficult to tamp down.
And so I think Donald Trump
has gotten away with being,
like, well you
think I'm a racist.
And I don't think I'm a racist.
So what are you
going to do about it?
And a lot of the time with
a lot of these politicians,
we haven't really taken
the time to go forward
about what they're saying,
and what it implies,
and what it means to be
a kind of person that
can think a thing, and then say
a thing, and then do a thing.
It's just making broad
generalizations about
because you said this thing,
this is the kind of person
that you are.
And that's very
difficult to tamp down,
or to identify, or to correct.
It's just kind of
you are who you are.
CATHERINE ROSS: Geoff, to you.
GEOFFREY STONE:
There are people who
are attracted to certain views
and to certain attitudes.
And whether it's George
Wallace, or Joseph McCarthy,
or Donald Trump, they are
appealing to certain parts
of the constituency.
And they are effective
with those parts
of the constituency.
And they alienate others.
And in a political system,
the chips fall where they may.
GREG LUKIANOFF: And
just I got to tell you.
I work so hard to keep
my nonprofit nonpartisan.
And I try not to talk about
political candidates and all
this kind of stuff.
But this season it's so hard.
CATHERINE ROSS: Oh,
it's impossible.
And I'm sorry to put
you in that position.
One last thing that's
kind of simplistic,
but it runs through a lot of
what we've been talking about,
from civility to
political correctness
to the law and culture.
Just because you have a
right to say something
doesn't mean you
ought to say it.
So there's a difference
between the advice
we might give to our children,
and what the law permits
them to actually say.
So you might say, well, where
is Donald Trump's mother?
What did she teach him?
Or parents-- let's be a
non gender-specific about.
GEOFFREY STONE:
Apparently, she taught him
how to get the
Republican nomination.
CATHERINE ROSS: OK,
so we'd like to take
the first couple of questions,
preferably from students
at the University of Chicago.
AUDIENCE: Hello, I'm a student
at the University of Chicago.
So my question
relates particularly
to an incident that occurred
at the University of Chicago
in student politics a number of
weeks ago with Anita Alvarez,
and then more broadly, to
the University of Chicago's
free speech and free
expression principles,
and those that are being
expanded across the country.
So with Anita Alvarez,
a public official,
a political candidate
was interrupted
by protesters who
had to shut down
the event, similar to what
you had talked about occurring
at Yale in the 70s.
What I find to be the
point of students doing
that is particularly-- and
I wonder what your opinion--
if there should be
special considerations
for political speech and
political candidates.
Protest is often
used when students
don't believe that
dialogue can occur,
because particularly political
candidates would not actually
engage in such dialogue, and
would only answer questions
in a way that would
suit their candidacy.
So I'm wondering
if you think at all
that bears special
consideration, should perhaps
it be a policy alongside
the University of Chicago's
free speech principles and
principles of free expression,
such that a
questioner be required
to push for a direct answer.
So if you were actually looking
to engage in free speech
and dialogue, if, for
example, Anita Alvarez
or any political
candidate didn't directly
answer a question, should
it be in our code of conduct
that the questioner
push them regardless
of whether that makes it harder
to get speakers in the future?
Which is why journalists
don't always do it.
Should it be part of
our code of conduct
that you have to
push for the answer,
and don't take bullshit?
CATHERINE ROSS: Geoff,
you want to take that?
GEOFFREY STONE: Sure.
The university statement makes
clear that the university does
not, and should not
tolerate efforts
that are designed to
prevent others from engaging
in free discussion and debate.
One can protest a speaker in
all sorts of different ways--
and that's completely
legitimate, and defended,
and important-- but not
in a way that prevents
those people who want to have
a discourse from having it.
So to that extent, I
think it's quite clear
that both under the First
Amendment, by the way,
and more immediately under
the university policy,
there is no defense
for preventing others
from engaging in
what otherwise would
be a legitimate discourse.
On the question of
pursuing the question,
within reasonable limits,
I think that's appropriate.
But I think that to
the point it becomes
disruptive of the larger
purpose of the event,
I think you could
be told to be quiet.
AUDIENCE: Great.
Thank you.
CATHERINE ROSS: Thank you.
AUDIENCE: Hi my name is Adam.
I'm a second year here
at the University.
And I guess I should
preface my question.
I am a college conservative.
And no, I will never
vote for Donald Trump.
However, one of the things
that is really important to me
is something like free speech.
And not so I can
just say whatever
I want, to just run my mouth.
But because I truly treasure
discourse and civil discourse,
particularly over
issues that I think
are being crowded out
of the political sphere
right now, because so
many people want to touch
on the emotional issues.
I am happy to talk
about those as well.
And a lot of it
happens in that field.
For instance, this
year alone, we've
seen people speak on the
Israel-Palestine issue
on completely different
sides in this very room.
One of those events
was shut down.
Naturally, as a
college conservative,
I do lean more in
favor of Israel.
But the thing that I would
love to have is a discussion.
How do I, as someone who
is in a minority viewpoint,
bring people to the table
simply to have civil discourse?
I don't want to view this
as a stark animosity.
I want to just
have a discussion.
I did debate in high school.
I love talking about it.
What do you think
college students should
be doing to avoid leading
to protests that block out
different opinions, and
to bring people together
to talk in a civil manner?
GREG LUKIANOFF: That's
a great question.
I have a lot of
experience with this.
And my normal answer is,
the best way to really make
people engage with
this is make sure
that it's not a dialogue--
that it's a debate.
So for example, John Tomasi
runs a conservative libertarian
center at Brown.
And instead of just having
Justice Scalia speak there,
he'd have Justice Scalia
debating Nadine Strossen,
former head of the ACLU.
And turns out, that's awesome.
People show up in droves.
Because they're like,
this is going to be meaty,
to the very fundamentals
of the idea.
So debate is a
good way to do it.
But I'm going to give a caution,
and a little note of sadness.
I was speaking at Harvard
a couple years ago.
And I had a student who
came up to me and said,
that's exactly
what I want to do.
He was a conservative
do, saying,
that's exactly
what I want to do.
But every time I
bring up a topic,
I'm told, if it's immigration,
or affirmative action,
or if it's any of the
things-- or abortion--
any of the stuff that is
actually the radioactive topics
that we probably most
need to be discussing,
or are most interested in
debating, all the students go,
no, we can't debate that.
And they're trying to find safe
topics, which kind of defeats
the point.
So I think in some cases,
putting a pinky toe
in the water-- IQ Squared
is a great example of how
debates can be civil and fun.
And I think it's
good to watch that.
But I really do wish we
could do a better job.
I mean, one more point for this.
At UCLA several years ago, there
was a libertarian group that
was absolutely open borders.
And they were like,
listen, confirmation bias--
we're going to have someone
who's anti-immigration
come to debate.
And they were protested.
And they were told
that they would
have to pay $10,000 if they
wanted that person there,
which of course,
they couldn't afford.
And we had to sent a
letter saying, listen,
you can't tax away--
CATHERINE ROSS: Pay
to the university?
GREG LUKIANOFF:
For security, yeah.
CATHERINE ROSS:
Oh, for security.
GREG LUKIANOFF: And
they thought they'd
come up with this new trick.
And like, sorry, we've seen
this trick a million times.
It's like, here's this Supreme
Court opinion that strongly
indicates you can't do that.
So it's tough.
But if you get in
trouble, contact FIRE.
AUDIENCE: Thank you.
AUDIENCE: When you take
talking about US liberty,
or like Bergen
Young in Utah, so I
must think about what are the
examples of internationally?
And I couldn't find.
And even this topic is
perhaps uniquely American,
in that there is
some British cases,
but not in most of
the rest of the--
GREG LUKIANOFF: There are a
ton of British cases, sorry.
Go on.
AUDIENCE: Yeah, but not
most like-- the president
of universities that say, if
you are not a devout Christian,
if you don't really believe
in it, don't come here.
Do they impact this discussion
at other universities,
where students say, if these
university's administrations
can say, if you're not
one of us you can't come,
then we can't push
our universities
to be like Oberlin, or like
very liberal and push them out.
Do you think that these
have negative consequences?
And if so, how do we deal
with these universities?
Or should they be
allowed [INAUDIBLE]?
AARON HANLON: Yeah,
it's like a firing line.
So I should also
just clarify, even
those universities should strive
for intellectual diversity.
Universities based around
affinity, religion,
and so on-- it's good that
they're up front about it.
But even they should strive
for intellectual diversity.
That being said,
universities do tend
to take on different
character, which also, I think,
is better expressed kind
of openly rather than not.
So I don't think it's
a particularly negative
consequence for institutions
to be open about what
their values are.
I do think it's a
particularly careful task
to configure those values.
And I think the place
where we are right now,
in terms of the climate for
this kind of discussion,
is very interesting.
On the question of the
Liberty University,
for example-- when Liberty
University hosted--
who was the politico?
CATHERINE ROSS: Bernie Sanders.
AARON HANLON: Bernie
Sanders-- it was one, I think,
a good thing.
But two, it was like everybody
was saying Liberty is so great.
It's so liberal.
It's more free than every
other institution in the United
States, even if every other
day at Liberty, people
aren't allowed to hold hands
or whatever it is that they do.
[INAUDIBLE].
So one has to be careful
about which kinds of,
like the degrees that
we're talking about.
AUDIENCE: Thank you.
AUDIENCE: In the
discussion of Trump,
I don't think anybody
actually pointed out
that a lot of the huge
emotional support behind Trump
is a reaction to
political correctness
and, let's say,
the speech codes.
So that when Trump
says things that
would be banned by
speech codes, he
gets a huge emotional charge.
However, then Trump turns to
say that journalists should
be killed, and he'll change
the libel laws to make them not
say things I don't like.
So it seems to be turning to a
question of whose ox is gored.
So as an example of
that, a few years ago,
Salaita himself was here.
And there was a panel discussion
about him being fired.
But one of the panelists
boasted that he
had shut down, he had
organized shutting down,
at [INAUDIBLE] talk.
And there was the University
of Chicago Law School
professor, who I think
was the moderator,
didn't even raise
the point that there
might be some incongruity here.
So this question that all
turns on whose ox is gored
seems to be a forgetting
of the idea of America.
And probably that has a lot
to do with the inability
to have discourse
across partisan lines.
So I wonder what you all would
think as a kind of remedy,
that there actually be courses
that address discourse,
and include the idea that
in Socratic dialogues,
identity is really the very
point that they often turn on.
It's not a question
of is justice
the rule of the stronger and
intellectually true idea?
But it's that is your
identity such that you
would subscribe to this?
So challenging identities
is the very point
of a lot of the quest for truth,
or especially normative truths.
And so gays, blacks,
people who have
won rights have gained
them by making people
feel uncomfortable with
their received truths
and with their identities.
So that if one
listened to people
demonstrating before the
IOP, that there should
be safe spaces, and
people shouldn't
be allowed to say what makes
people feel uncomfortable,
their very movement would have
been stifled at the beginning.
So to sum this
diatribe up, it seems
like what's really required
is that universities actually
have courses that teach people
how, when they hear something,
not to hear it as being
in the most offensive way
so they can report
them and turn them
in to political correctness
police, which is really
how administrators proceed now.
But rather, when you
hear something offensive,
hear it in a way that you
know your identity is being
challenged, but
also that you should
be able to make a defense of
your identity, as uncomfortable
as it is.
And especially at
an elite university,
you should be able to have
developed the resilience
to be able to do that.
CATHERINE ROSS: So
I guess the question
is, do people on this panel
agree with your proposition?
No, pose that as the question.
And I just want to
make a distinction
before seeking these comments
between the sort of identities
that Socrates was dealing with,
because the people he engaged
with were not every level of
Greek society and every race
that lived in Greece,
but just the elite.
And I think there's a difference
between personal identity that
you forge because you choose
to, or you're exploring whether
or not in late adolescence
or early adulthood you accept
the values and principles
you were raised with,
or want to strike
out on your own,
and the kind of identity that
we've been talking about,
which is identity that you were
born with, and cannot change.
And certainly, again, returning
to perhaps the protection
of the Constitution
under the 14th Amendment,
that is what is protected--
people who have identities that
they have no choice
about, and cannot change.
So the idea of courses
dealing with identity,
confronting about
identity-- any comments?
GEOFFREY STONE: I think one
of the goals of a college
education is to prepare students
for being effective citizens
in the world.
And in the real
world, we are not
protected from those things
that offend and upset us.
And the university that fails
to prepare its students for that
has failed its students.
And so my sense is
that it is imperative
that institutions give students
the responsibility of learning
how to do this.
And there's this
interesting point
about who are college
students today?
Historically, college
students wanted
to be treated like adults.
That was a central
theme of their demands.
Get rid of parietal hours.
Let us do all sorts of things
that previously were supervised
by the institution.
And now there is a sense
of students saying,
I'm not really an
adult. I'm not really
capable of dealing with things
that make me uncomfortable.
So protect me.
I don't want to think
that that's the case.
I do know that there
are reasons to believe
in generational
child-rearing differences.
There are people who say
because of helicopter parents,
and so on, that 18-year-olds
today are 16-year-olds
of the past.
I'd like not to think that.
And even if it's
true, I think our job
is to turn them into
22-year-olds who
can work in the
real world, and be
responsible, and effective,
and courageous, and tough.
And I think that's one of
the fundamental things we
need to do.
CATHERINE ROSS: I just
want to say-- stepping out
of my moderator role
for one minute-- I've
made the same argument
about high-school students.
I think students are
a lot more resilient
and can take on a lot more
responsibility than adults
and society at large often
give them credit for.
They have to learn how to
handle these things when
they are out there
as an adult in a bar,
having a political dispute.
And a school is a
fairly safe space--
not to use that term in
an inappropriate way--
to do this where there are
some protections in place,
and some adults around.
ADRIENNE GREEN: I would
only respond to that
that I think there's a
difference between an inability
and a willingness.
So I agree with the
point that colleges
are supposed to be spaces
that develop people
into adulthood and the way
that they engage in adulthood.
But I think part of
engaging in adulthood
is understanding
your willingness
to engage or not engage
with ideas of other people.
So if you are
offended, that is not
to say, shield me
from all things that
offend me in the world.
But it is my choice as an
individual and an adult
to engage with or not
engage with those ideas.
And I think that is the
thing that we should
strive for in universities.
It's not, oh, let me
just be able to take
whatever type of
speech is hurled at me,
be able to navigate whatever
situation I become in.
It's when I am exposed to an
idea that I don't understand
or don't agree with, it
is my choice as a person
to navigate that
scenario, or to not,
and deal with the
implications of that.
But I don't think it makes you
less of an adult to choose.
CATHERINE ROSS: And that's
another First Amendment
principle that we
have not touched
on this evening, which is
the right of the listener
to walk away.
Throw the pamphlet in the trash.
You don't have to let
people bombard you with what
you don't want to hear.
But you also have
the choice to engage.
ADRIENNE GREEN: And
all of those things
are developed in supportive
environments, which
is kind of the point that he
was making about the classes.
I can't speak to whether or not
these discourse classes should
exist or shouldn't exist, but--
CATHERINE ROSS: Or
whether they should
be mandatory or optional.
ADRIENNE GREEN:
Whether they should
be mandatory-- that's not really
an area that I can speak to.
But what I can
speak to is the idea
that that scenario
would require trust.
And that's what universities
are tasked with developing,
is developing an
environment where
we can engage or not engage.
We can develop discourse, or
get challenged with ideas.
You're 18 oftentimes, when
you're entering adulthood.
And so to say that at that age,
you should be able to come down
on every issue, decide whether
or not you want to engage,
or where on the spectrum
you are at that point--
you're allowed to develop.
You're allowed to arc.
That's what college is about.
But colleges and
universities are
responsible for creating a
climate and an environment
where all people feel an ability
to engage in that way, not just
some people.
CATHERINE ROSS: Which
nourishes the entire community.
ADRIENNE GREEN:
Which helps everyone,
yeah, regardless of what
type of speech you employ,
or whether you feel
like you can employ it.
CATHERINE ROSS: Quickly.
GREG LUKIANOFF: I just want
to add one thing real quick,
as far as there is no silver
bullet to fixing things.
But I think we'd be living in
a much more interesting world
if we could instill in students,
basically right before--
almost like a boot
camp right before they
go to college-- a strong
sense of epistemic humility,
knowing that there's an
ocean of knowledge to have.
And even if you
work your butt off,
you only get about
that much of it,
and a voracious
sense of curiosity.
But I think the reason why
we don't teach those things
is we'd be terrified
of those people.
CATHERINE ROSS: Absolutely.
AUDIENCE: Hi, so my name is Eli.
I'm a first year, and I'm
actually from San Francisco.
So I was wondering to
what degree you guys felt
that universities
have a responsibility
to act as agents
for redistribution,
or rather, a more equitable
distribution of opportunity
in America?
And the reason why
I ask that question
is because if you
believe that universities
have at least some
responsibility to that role,
but you also believe that
they have a firm commitment
or that they should have a
firm commitment to free speech,
but you also
recognize that there
could be a measurable harm to
students of marginalized groups
when they are put, by a
free-speech environment,
in a situation
where they're forced
to defend their identity,
that there might
be a sort of conflict
between one university
goal and another.
And so, yeah.
AARON HANLON: So
it's a good question.
I think on one hand,
part of the reason
why we have these controversies
and we have these problems
is largely because a
lot of institutions
covet and recruit--
as we should.
So the first question,
yeah, we should play a role
in equitable distribution
of opportunity.
One of the reasons, though,
why we have a lot of problems
sometimes is because
we're like this far down
the path on that goal.
But we haven't produced
the right environment.
And we don't always have
the infrastructure--
I don't mean like buildings.
So that was maybe
a poor word choice.
But I mean the right
campus culture for that.
And if we're going
to, as institutions,
we should take responsibility.
If we're going to, as we
should, covet and recruit
a diversity of students to
broaden access and opportunity,
we have to hold up our
end of the bargain.
And I think that picks
up Adrienne's point.
We have to hold up
our end of the bargain
and create the right
environment for everybody
to learn, not just the majority.
CATHERINE ROSS: Thank you.
AUDIENCE: I'm a little shorter.
My name's Adaline.
I'm a first year.
And I'm interested
in ideas, if you're
interested in
throwing them around,
about the differences between
offensive speech and hate
speech.
This was something that
The Maroon brought up
in an editorial response to
the university's statement
about free speech on campus.
And I think in your
discussion of this,
it might be interesting to hear
a consideration of the fact
that I think when things are
called "offensive speech,"
it's usually considered
not to be an attack
on someone's
identity necessarily,
but on their opinions.
Whereas hate speech
is considered
to be an attack on someone's
identity in a much more
fundamental way.
Just how that plays a
role in those definitions,
considering that we have
seen in this discussion
that identity is kind
of a fluid thing,
and that what one person
might see as their identity,
another person might see as
their political standpoint.
GREG LUKIANOFF: Just
for legal clarification,
I think one of the
reasons why you're
having a hard time figuring
out what the definition of hate
speech is, is because there is
no definition for hate speech
that distinguishes it
from offensive speech.
European countries
have struggled with it.
And they've done a terrible
job of it, in my opinion.
There is no exception for
hate speech under the First
Amendment, for
example, which comes
as jarring to an awful lot
of people, that, oh, my god,
so you can call
someone racial epithets
and there will be
no consequence?
That's not exactly right.
In any community I'm
familiar with, at least,
there will be
terrible consequences
of everybody knowing that you're
a horrible bigot after that.
But every time you
empower state authority
to be able to put you
in jail, to fine you
for that, in my opinion, it
consistently tends to backfire.
For example, countries that have
passed Holocaust denial laws.
Every single one of
them has seen huge rises
in anti-Semitism.
They end up not working.
They end up creating Trump
situations, essentially.
I do understand the desire to
want to prevent hate speech.
But I also do think
that sometimes, we
jump from the idea
that we think this
is a horrible kind of
speech, and if the state just
had the power to ban it, we'd
be in a much better situation.
We'd be in a situation
where we wouldn't
know who the bigots are.
And the idea that
we're safer when
you don't know who the
dangerous people are, I think,
is not going to pan out.
AUDIENCE: Can I just clarify?
GREG LUKIANOFF: Sure.
AUDIENCE: We may construe
these definitions differently
on a college campus,
for the purposes
of college administrators
stepping in,
in the case where a
large group of students
feel uncomfortable or unsafe.
CATHERINE ROSS: Thank you.
OK, I'm being told
that unfortunately, we
need to wrap up the
question period,
with apologies to this
very patient person who's
been waving.
You've been a great audience.
The one thing in closing,
I'd just like to suggest--
and it's picking
up on some things
that some of the
panelists said--
is as you think
about speech, I think
it's very important to
engage in hypotheticals
about whose ox is being gored.
So instead of
thinking about today,
and political
correctness, or even
if conservatives were dominating
the political correctness
debate, step back to the
1950s in the deep South
and the battle for civil
rights and voting rights.
And if that majority were
allowed under the First
Amendment, they did a lot of
things to suppress activists,
but if they were
allowed to say demands
for voting rights
from African-Americans
are so painful for white
people to listen to that we
are going to restrict that.
We're going to consider
that outside the corridor
of acceptable discourse.
I venture to guess, or I presume
that most people in this room
would not have felt that
was an acceptable limitation
on speech.
And in fact, every
form of change--
more recently, the battle
for rights for LGBTs
required courageous
people to say things
that were very out
of the mainstream,
and that many people
felt uncomfortable.
That's still being debated,
this bill with the filibuster
blocking the state now.
And thank you, it
was heard today.
So you need to always
test your proposal
that we be able to
define hate speech,
or define speech so
offensive we can't
live with it, against
ideas that you hold dear.
And I think, then it's easier
to see where the problem lies.
But it's been a wonderful
panel, a fabulous audience,
fabulous questions.
And--
STEVE EDWARDS: And
I'm right here.
CATHERINE ROSS: Oh,
you're right behind me.
I'm looking for you.
OK.
STEVE EDWARDS: I want
to echo the thanks here.
Please join me in
thanking our panelists
for this really thoughtful
conversation, Catherine
as well.
[APPLAUSE]
Thank you all so much for
your thoughtful questions.
We look forward to seeing
you at future events
here at the IOP coming
up in spring quarter.
You can find out more
about her upcoming events
at politics.uchicago.edu.
Thank you all so
much for being here.
We'll see you again very soon.
[APPLAUSE]
