at the outset I'd like to thank Vice
Chancellor Joan Prince for her excellent
work and organizing our panel and
convening this this first event today
Joan thank you very much your work on
this today marks an important inaugural
event one that for our campus will
kick-off a year-long series and provides
a platform for civil discourse for
students faculty staff and others in our
community around free speech freedom of
expression these are among the top
issues being discussed on campuses
nationwide and in communities in fact
just today Professor Enrique showed me
an article in the New York Times and
professor Figueroa when we just took a
look at that I think the headline
correct me if I'm wrong front story of
the New York Times today is that
Attorney General Jeff Sessions takes aim
at campus speech that is that pretty
close approximation for that that this
is today this is real time so nothing
could be much more relevant in terms of
the timeliness there are additional
events student projects and related
programming sponsored by the faculty and
departments that are part of this series
and we've had a campus committee working
on this with faculty students and staff
over the last several months that have
been planning these events there's a
freedom of expression website that we
have its UWM edu slash freedom
- expression so once again UWM edu slash
freedom - expression of special note is
a student generated symposium for a
World Cafe style that will be held in
the spring semester as well as a TEDx
event later this fall the planning team
here is led by Warren chair of our
inclusive excellence Center Thank You
Warren in advance for your work on that
in today's society we have seen an
erosion of civility and openness to hear
ideas our role as educated citizens in a
Democratic Society includes a
responsibility to respectfully and
thoughtfully address issues with which
we disagree or may not agree at all free
speech is now
about screaming and one another when we
disagree it's not about shutting down
those with opposing opinions free speech
is a right and it must be protected
especially at UWM and other academic
institutions we have an unwavering
commitment to inclusivity civility
equity and respect as a public
university we will always be a forum for
the free exchange of ideas even if some
of those ideas are disagreeable even a
current and challenging our thinking and
sometimes terribly uncomfortable ways
this is not easy there are difficulties
and sensitivities with balancing free
speech and speech that marginalized
marginalizes as I think we will talk
about in depth today this series though
will help us in terms of developing and
providing strategies techniques and
opportunities to move discourse in a
direction that is in fact civil
inclusive at all of all and in alignment
with our values and the dignity of our
campus so this is our opportunity to set
the stage around civil discourse
different opinions and how we use our
teaching learning and research agendas
in these important discussions this is a
good time for me to now introduce our
next speaker please welcome provost and
vice chancellor for academic affairs
johannes britz
Thank You Chancellor mone and good
morning everybody as the chief academic
officer I delighted I think we take the
lead in many cases in discussing this as
an open forum on a campus where we truly
believe in freedom of expression freedom
of speech where we can have a public
sphere we can exchange our ideas I'll be
very short I just want to acknowledge
the Provost that we invited from the
system that are here this morning in
particularly Provost Jon Coker from
Oshkosh I know he is here and then also
my Dean fellows over here colleagues
that are here this morning I want to
thank you for taking your time to be
here this morning and also John thank
you for taking the lead and initiative
and also making available mini grants
for our faculty members to work with our
students on freedom of expression on
campus we have three awards Leslie
Harris I don't know if Leslie he is here
this morning the issues at the back and
also a bulky I don't know if you're here
there's bull at the back there from
English and I've paid from Social Work
Dave I don't know if you're here this
morning if you could make it maybe
you're teaching and then also working
with our students on this and Richard
Grusin Richard are you here this morning
21st century oh he's in Italy okay is
maybe he thought this morning but he is
also they have this 50th anniversary of
the Center for 21st century studies this
year and part of this celebration will
actually be around freedom of speech
freedom of expression and the regulation
there off so I just want to acknowledge
that and I'm looking forward to today
and welcome again thank you very much
good morning good morning good morning
Thank You Chancellor mone and provost
britz
just a few logistics and then on to our
panel please know that this event is
being live-streamed and will be
available for viewing at a later date on
our website and for any reason that you
might have to leave the room we're going
to ask that you do so quietly at this
time it's the only time you get so if
you would check all of your devices and
make sure that they are silent we would
appreciate that as well while there are
no live microphones for
today's symposium please know that
several of the questions that will be
discussed by our panel were actually
generated by students and they're
incorporated into the panel discussion
and now let me introduce the panel we'll
start with Daniel Daniel kefka calf kheh
is a UWM student who is one of our
military vets he served four years in
the Army he is a political science and
Italian major from Milwaukee and would
you please help me welcome him and thank
him for his service next to Daniel is
dr. Blaine Neufeld
dr. Neufeld is an associate professor in
the department of philosophy here at the
University of Wisconsin Milwaukee his
research and teaching interests are in
political philosophy and ethics he
serves as the director of the
certificate in ethics values and society
he holds a PhD from the University of
Michigan and a master's of philosophy
from the University of Oxford
dr. Neufeld is the author of several
books and publications and is well known
and highly respected for his work in
political liberalism and education and
he came down from Canada for me just for
today so I'm really appreciative to him
please welcome dr. new field next to dr.
new field is a familiar familiar face to
many of you since 1996 dr. Michelle Bria
has served as the chief executive
officer of the journey house a
community-based organization on
Milwaukee's near South Side that
empowers families to move out of poverty
by offering adult education workforce
readiness youth development and family
engagement programs journey house
annually serves more than 6,000 children
and families at six locations
dr. Bria has received numerous awards
for her work in the community in March
2016 Donald Driver awarded dr. Bria with
the Donald Driver driven to achieve
award for her outstanding community
efforts she's one of us she received her
doctoral
grief from the University of
wisconsin-milwaukee and received her
Bachelors of Arts and Masters of Arts
from a university across town how's that
for not naming anything
please welcome dr. Brio would you please
the next person behind me I'll skip him
for last so I'm going to skip over to
that way Samuel Rogers Sam is a junior
with a political science and global
Studies major
he is also a vet having served eight
years in the Army he also serves as a
veterans advocacy senator for the UWM
Student Association and I would hope
that you would welcome him and again
thank him for his service to our country
thank you so much next to Sam is Bridget
Bridget Reese is our PhD student in
media cinema and digital studies she was
feeling a little under the weather so
we're really appreciative that you were
able to make it and what she will bring
to the table and she's asked me to
specifically emphasize is that she also
teaches in our LGBT studies so Bridget
welcome and if anytime you don't feel
well raise your hand okay thank you
would you welcome Bridget please and
next to Bridget is Rick Rick esenberg is
the founder and current president and
general counsel of the Wisconsin
Institute for law and liberty it is a
conservative libertarian public interest
law firm headquartered in Milwaukee Rick
is a frequent columnist in the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel and commentator in both
the local and national media he writes
the culture Khan column for Wisconsin
magazine and is a frequent contributor
to write Wisconsin his work has been
featured in such publications as The
Wall Street Journal the National Review
Online and US News and World Report he
holds a JD magna cum laude from Harvard
Law School where he was an editor of the
Harvard Law Review and a BA in political
science from you guessed it the
University of Wisconsin Milwaukee
please welcome Rick esenberg Rick
and since March of this year
Chris OTT has served as the executive
director of the American Civil Liberties
Union of Wisconsin he is a Milwaukee
native and a graduate of Ozaukee high
school in Fredonia and Brown University
in Providence Rhode Island prior to
those two his role to this role excuse
me he served as the communications
director for the ACLU of Massachusetts
in Boston for ten years and before that
he led the LGBT rights organization fair
milwaukee would you please help me
welcome Kris OTT and before I introduce
our speaker I would like you also to
acknowledge our to sign interpreters
this morning they're so funny I asked
them their names I got a first name it's
like no you were kind of born with the
first and last name so we need to know
that and we really need to thank you for
being here it is my pleasure to
introduce Jill Kim chakra Jill and Erin
Johnson Erin thank you and now it is my
extreme pleasure before this podium
disappears and it will disappear have no
fear to introduce our moderator for this
for this morning actually clearance page
clearance page is the 1989 Pulitzer
Prize winner for commentary has but he
has been a columnist and a member of the
Chicago Tribune's editorial board since
1984 his column is syndicated nationally
by Tribune media services and close to
200 papers and he has been based in
Washington DC since 1991 in September of
2014 his latest book culture warriors
selected columns was published by Amazon
so make sure you go online and buy it
Paige was a regular panelist on the
McLaughlin group until the passing of
the host John McLaughlin he serves as a
guest panelist on CBS's Face the Nation
he is a regular contributor of essays to
PBS Newshour and has hosted
documentaries
on the Public Broadcasting System he has
also participated in a Chicago Tribune
Task Force on vote fraud which won the
Pulitzer Prize he has received public
service awards from Illinois and
Wisconsin chapters of the ACLU for his
columns educating readers on
constitutional rights he received he
began his journalism career I think
that's important to know as a freelance
writer and photographer for the
Middletown Journal and Cincinnati
Enquirer at the age of 17 he received
his Bachelor of Science and journalism
from Ohio University and he has also
received honorary doctorates from
several universities he is married to
the former Lisa Johnson of Chicago and
they have one child and it is my extreme
pleasure to present your panel thank you
and that'll be fine with me so I can see
all of you
thank you hello nice to see you
I've been rustling papers like crazy
here because this is such a timely topic
that more material pops up in the
headlines just about every day I have
I'm reminded of the lately great Walter
Cronkite who described TV News as trying
to put a hundred pounds of information
into a five-pound bag that's what we're
going to do for the next hour here
ladies and gentlemen so I'm gonna try to
move things along as swiftly as possible
so you could hear from my magnificent
panel here as well I want to say a few
opening words to set the tones the tone
of debate and discussion and then just
really have a conversation here about
various aspects of what we mean by free
speech these days what is endangering it
and how do we move forward from here
this week with the Vietnam series on PBS
I've been having flashbacks like crazy
to campus life as well as my own
military experience because they're
these same issues were percolating back
then only then I was arguing with my
father for example about he felt that we
students were going too far with free
speech and you had Mario Savio of course
out of Berkeley here back in 1964 who
launched what was called the Free Speech
Movement today we see Berkeley as a
scene of violent protests and counter
protesters fighting over who should be
allowed to speak there is a different
kind of mood in the air now for now I I
am a father now I am living the immortal
parental curse just wait'll you have
children of your own
because I have a young twentysomething
who's in very close friendship with a
number of members of antifa which
according to Fox News is second only to
cancer and AIDS as a threat to America's
future and he tells me that free speech
is apparently a right-wing conservative
plot and I point out to him the glories
of the founders and of course they are
dismissed as dead white males which
aren't worthy of entering into the
discussion and as I assured him well
these are the fathers of our country and
thanks to modern DNA tests were able to
see just how much they fathered so the
discussion that debate goes on today we
have a young fellow Milo you Napoles
staged a free speech week a few days ago
which rather fizzled because it had a
very low turnout nevertheless cost the
University of california-berkeley
eight hundred thousand dollars in
security because of fears of further
violence and Milo is the kind of fellow
who has the kind of speech or gives the
kind of speech which I abhor because it
punches down it goes after the weak one
of his line one of his slogans is a
feminism is cancer unquote I referred to
his gathering as the coachella of
conservatism it was rather less than
that
but nevertheless Milo has a right to
speak and in fact I'm glad he speaks
because I think he demeans himself by
his own speech and he his own argument
is so self-destructive this was what
kept me going for many years on the
mawatha group but the great irony of
that and I thank you very much for that
for the program I've been very gratified
by the kind of response we've gotten
from viewers around the country I
thought this show was what kind of old
hat because everybody shouts at each
other on talk shows now but I started
putting my welcome group back in 1988
it'll be 30 years ago next year and
after his death at the at his funeral I
learned something about where the theory
of the show came from one of his friends
pointed out that John's vision for the
show was four or five old friends who
meet together once a week at a sidewalk
cafe and they have other favorite
beverages and they argue about politics
and current events feverishly getting
almost embarrassingly cutting and biting
sometimes but in the end they may part
as friends and say see you next week
that little simple concept I think is
why after years of being ridiculed by my
friends for participating in quote the
shouting show and now I hear people come
up to me and say wait I missed that show
you have such civil discussions you had
both right and left on the show not just
one side and your talk and you argued
and and you got your words in but they
were tight and and concise and in the
end I look forward to seeing you all
again the next week that's the kind of
rapport that you really can't buy in a
store when you put a TV show on and I I
appreciate John so many more ways than I
appreciate him back when he was alive I
mean I've had so many people say how do
you how can you stand doing that program
I say well two reasons fame and fortune
I mean I brought when my son was 10
years old
we got lampooned and Mad Magazine what
more could a young man ask for in life
I was such a hit with the fifth graders
at my son's school you can't you can't
buy that anywhere we're in an age now
where people wonder what's happened to
civility what has happened to our
ability to talk to each other in a civil
manner I am it is the obligation as my
son reminds me all the time of younger
generations to shock their elders and I
am recently shocked by a survey perhaps
you all read about which came from the
Brookings Institution looking at the
attitudes of today's college students
according to this new study there's a
study of 1500 undergraduate students at
four-year colleges found that 51 percent
of them thought it was just fine for a
student group to loudly and repeatedly
disrupt quote a very controversial
speaker who is known for making
offensive and hurtful statements unquote
so the audience cannot hear him or her
1/5 19% of undergraduates surveyed said
it's okay to use physical force to
silence a speaker who makes quote
offensive and hurtful statements unquote
and 40% of the students said the First
Amendment does not protect hate speech
spoiler alert ladies and gentlemen it
does this study was conducted by John
Aviles senior as senior fellow at
Brookings on a public policy professor
at UCLA but his is not the first to find
such a trend a 2016 Gallup poll found
that 78% of students said schools should
promote an environment that exposes them
to a range of viewpoints
however 69 percent believe universities
should a respect speech restrict speech
that was quote intentionally offensive
to certain groups unquote and a Pew
Research Center survey two years ago
found Millennials are far more likely
than older generations to say the
government should be able to prevent
people from making offensive statements
of
minority groups now these are not insane
opinions these are opinions that I
actually are quite rational depending on
how you were raised
however it is certainly in the American
tradition legally constitutionally and
otherwise for us to believe that the
best response to offensive speech is
more speech the best response to speech
that you don't agree with is more speech
give the other side you know alternative
views have a real dialogue being able to
come to some kind of synthesis if you
will between the between the premise and
the antithesis this is the kind of
atmosphere that I appreciate it back
when I was in college and I'd like to
see more of that today I think we all
would and I am as a result I'm very
happy we having this discussion today I
am going to get things rolling by asking
each of our panelists a question to get
their thoughts and then give an
opportunity for panels to respond to
each other and hopefully move the
dialogue along I'm in that interest of
equal time I am going to turn to well
Rick esenberg
can't think of a better person to follow
me and my classic liberal establishment
viewpoint than for you to come and tell
me who I am wrong and give us some other
perspective of the question I'd like to
put to you is as you just heard
according to my son free speech is now
associated with a racist and a right
wing attacks today was this connection
purposeful by the right that is I say a
question from one of the students but
it's one that we've argued back and
forth in our house and let me ask you
what you think of it
well you know it's interesting because I
appreciated your comments about the way
that these issues played out differently
forty to fifty years ago when it was a
speech on the left on campus that was
attempted to be suppressed and the
problem I have with your your son's
formulation of the issue and I'm sure
he's a very intelligent young man is
that look where you came from
the problem is is that our traditional
notions Western notions of freedom of
speech are not an effort to entrench
power but they are appreciation of the
way in which power can be abused the
notion that error has no rights has a
long history in human civilization and
it's a quite bloody history because
human beings have a tendency to come to
believe that everything with which they
disagree is Error and so the price we
pay to check power and to check the
abuse of power is to tolerate points of
view with which we disagree College is a
perfect place to learn how to do that
it's a place where your presuppositions
are supposed to be challenged it's not a
place where you're supposed to be safe
it's supposed to be a place where you
begin to encounter ideas that are
different than your own and it's
important that you learn to do that
because the world is not a safe space
and and people will not always think
like you do and they will not always
believe that that your security and your
peace of mind requires them to conform
their thinking to yours but there's a
there's a caution right there's a
qualification to all of that and I think
it's a it's a caution that right
in the present moment I particularly
want to repeat to many of my friends on
the right and that is to say that you're
for freedom of speech and to say that
you're against political correctness is
not a warrant for incivility you can't
enforce civility particularly well by
coercion or by a centralized set of
rules but what you can do is contribute
a culture of civility one that says I'm
willing to listen to you without calling
new names and in exchange for that I
want you to listen to me and as a as a
panther class of 78 spent a lot of time
working with the university legal clinic
up on the third floor and I have to
admit a lot of time sleeping in the
chairs on the second floor I'm really
gratified to see my alma mater hold a
discussion like this and thank you for
coming and leading it well thank you for
hosting me Rick I really appreciate it
I'm gonna turn to like the Chris up from
the dreaded ACLU according to my friend
so much Mott's news and let's put the
same question to you
why is free speech become associated
with the right these days in your
opinion especially about my young people
in particular like like my son and a
couple of students who contribute
questions along the way hmm I guess I'm
not sure that I agree that it's become
associated with the right and I mean if
anything I think that this is something
that has played out for a long time
throughout our history and and you know
the ACLU is an organization that's been
around for a hundred years
almost 100 years now and so we've seen
this in various forms you know I think
that what we're seeing today
is is sort of multi-varied and and not
that much different from debates that
we've seen in the past and but I think
that the the most important thing to
keep in mind are you know sort of the
big picture principles you know we we
take the view that the framers of our
Constitution didn't make it the First
Amendment for nothing you know freedom
of expression gives us power to to
defend other rights that that we are all
supposed to have as Americans it helped
in the in the creation of our country
and our government it's helped us to you
to correct order to put a stop to some
of the worst wrong it's in our country's
history including slavery preventing
whole categories of people to vote and
and even today in this you know
situation that we're in I mean I hope
that we all feel lucky to feel to be in
to live in a time when people are so
inventive in finding ways to use their
their First Amendment rights whether
that is taking place online or
protesting pipelines or kneeling during
the national anthem before a game and I
think there's just a lot going on and
it's it's a it's challenging and it's
uncomfortable sometimes but I think it's
really interesting and important
does the name Robert Mercer mean
anything to you let me just ask that
show of hands just people who know who
Robert Mercer is a few scattered around
here and there Robert Mercer Robert
Mercer is a hedge-fund billionaire who
along with his wife have funded by Bart
news they funded Cambridge analytics
well-known a controversial political
data collection firm and they funded the
campaign of a candidate for president
named Donald Trump and have continued to
be closely involved with Steve Steve
Bannon now that he's back over her word
right mark and they both BuzzFeed
recently reported and I know this is a
new age when I'm exciting a website
called BuzzFeed but they get a lot of
interesting scoops one of them is that
Bob Mercer has been heavily funding a
million appleís as well as other campus
conservatives or say conservatives who
speak on campus or seek to speak on
campus and is's and was this a all right
founder a Richard Stirling is the name
he I'm sorry Richard Spencer I'm sorry
Richard Spencer thank you very much I
I'm an old man but the files are up here
just takes me longer to go through them
Richard Spencer who's been on a
publicity wave in recent months heavily
funded by a number of conservative
benefactors including the Mercer's and I
think that might be a reason one reason
why so many college students who do live
in a world different from us older folks
I have come to associate free speech
with the right that you two gentlemen
that might have some to do with that you
know I I it's hard for me to say I I
think I would disagree I I would
disagree because I think that and I
always say when somebody asked me to
talk about Donald Trump I always say
that during the election last year my
team which is sort of the classically
liberal conservative movement the one
that was represented by Reagan we didn't
make the playoffs last year we didn't
really have a candidate in the election
and you think about the thinking
conservatives well I would go beyond
that because I actually think that what
we're seeing in the Trump movement is
actually an ideological challenge to
what the conservative movement has been
traditionally been this is not simply in
that or a style it is not simply a
matter of not thinking it's a matter of
actually supporting a different set of
policies which in some ways we've moved
the Republican Party to double to the
left but I think that the the reason
that free speech on campus has been
associated with the right is
the same reason that free speech on
campus in the 60s was associated with
the left and that is because the the
campuses in the 50s and the 60s were
dominated by the right and they
attempted to suppress the speech of the
left campuses today are dominated by the
left and they will try to suppress the
speech of the right because this is not
because conservatives are bad or
liberals a gourd or vice versa this is
because what human beings do when they
have power they tend to abuse it and
that is why the First Amendment and I
agreed almost I think I agree with
everything you said Chris and this is a
wonderful moment is a sort of star on
the calendar for today there's a reason
that the First Amendment is the first
one because it is the most essential
check on the abuse of power that we have
to us Nicola sure I mean I think that
you know what you're what you're getting
at the the money that's that behind
that's funding some of these groups and
some of these speakers adds adds a layer
to this I mean we're not only talking
about the sort of textbook case of you
know one view versus another people just
sort of saying what they believe you
know on their own I mean there are there
well financed groups that are making
some of this happen so that's you know
that's something that requires some
thought certainly and I think that in a
lot of ways that the First Amendment
provides an answer to that too because
it's you know when people have the right
to speak and express themselves really
they can call that sort of thing out and
and you know would point to the the
funding that particular groups or
speakers may get I think that the First
Amendment gives us a tool that is still
really you know especially relevant
today well let me turn to look to a
budget Keefe's I'm really eager to hear
your response to this you of course our
specialist and LGBT studies that you've
seen the race diversity issues play out
on campus and elsewhere what are your
thoughts when you
here this kind of argument going on
about what should be allowed to be
spoken on campus versus what should not
yeah so I'm really lucky to work with
the LGBTQ student population pretty
extensively so we do tend to be
dominated by thoughts on the left and
one of the things that I do when I start
each semester is try to cultivate what I
call safe space for dangerous ideas so I
have various games and activities to
intended to create a culture where we
feel that we all respect each other that
we understand that we're here to have
civil discourse and if we can create
that culture then we can encounter ideas
that are maybe the opposite of what
values we think we hold ideas that we
don't want to encounter ideas that might
seem threatening to our morality so
that's the that's the culture that I try
to craft in my classes but you know my
the concern that weighs heavily on my
mind as an LGBT identified person and
someone who works with these students is
that I can't control that environment
outside the classroom so I've had
students who were doxxed that is their
names and identities were revealed
publicly on the web
leading to students being afraid to come
to campus because they were identified
as UWM students and they felt that they
would be either subject to violence or
harassment once they arrived here
students trans students have been dead
named which is their incorrect name was
used to identify them rather than the
correct name that corresponds to their
true gender identity and it's really
hard to think that this you know these
abstract notions of free speech that I
have that I hold very dear which are not
that different than big that we might
politically be really different it's
very hard to hold those idea of an
abstract and actually look at a student
who's been subject to violence and say
you're just a victim of the First
Amendment get over it then that's the
price we pay you know so that the
question that way is really heavily on
my mind how do I look at a student and
hey this is this is acceptable well how
do you look at a student tell them this
example I mean like like a line I just
supported for from LA Annapolis feminism
is cancer not very funny by the way on
me he's supposed to be a comedian
I need a feminism or cancer oh I don't
know I mean we you know one of the
activities that I'll just pivot and tell
you what I do do okay and so one of the
things that I tend to do with the start
of the semester is give out the
University of Chicago dean's letter to
incoming first-year students from last
fall which said you know the University
of Chicago does not support the idea of
safe spaces or trigger warning that's
not the culture we want to create here
and I asked my students to consider
where that letter might be coming from
what climate or concerns to the
administration and have that might be
encouraging that and what ways do we
think that they might be
misunderstanding the value of creating a
safe culture on campus in order to
engage in critical thinking so I try to
strike a balance where we understand
that we might hear things we don't like
but it's our job as students as scholars
to address them with logic and
dispassion and critical thinking well I
wish you well with that I'm not sure if
I before they accomplish that I find my
logic dispassionate and critical
thinking worked very well with everybody
but my own son but that's something else
again anyway let me turn to Michelle
Bria Michelle you deal with diverse
commits a very diverse community and you
deal with the loud K through 12
youngsters and much of what I've talked
about like I said before because I how
you were raised what kind of attitude
you have towards free speech or toward
diversity toward people's feelings etc
etc what do you tell young people who
are
budding and growing up what what do you
tell them what would you advise we tell
them about free speech or offensive
speech well at journey house we partner
with the International Association for
human values and a program called yes
youth empowerment seminar teaching
advanced breathing to manage stress and
I think what happens with free speech is
we've developed we don't teach that art
of discourse and disagreement anymore
and so what happens is when a young
person art only person you know where
human beings are sensitive and we don't
agree with what up the other person is
saying we've come to a society or in our
community that if someone's looked at
the wrong way they could get shot or
died you know it's very intense and
there's no management of emotions in
that if you allow people to push your
buttons and there there's no knowledge
of what that other understanding what
that other person is doing it can lead
to very deadly consequences and the
traumatic and so what we do is we really
believe in bringing people to that
awareness of you know we button through
people and so you even see that recess
like you're not gonna let someone else
push your buttons but what that is doing
is teaching listening is teaching
understanding because it's very easy to
go to the negative and can it's very
easy to condemn someone because they
don't view things of the way you view
all or you know they upset you and so
they're pushing your buttons and so it's
very easy to go that way but it's very
hard to have that courage to be
compassionate and understand the other
side I really think we live in an era
that no matter that cuts across income
class that cuts across all the different
isms that we want to and rightly so as
parents
checked our children's feelings but now
that protection of feelings but with
that comes not the creation of that
thick skin and you know that's the
sensitivity that can now it's not just a
young person gets young person this
young person against a teacher who's
trying to teach them and feeling you
have the right not only to speech but my
right to like hit a teacher and cross
that line to violence and so working
with young people and you know just
teaching them how to manage their
emotions and human beings are very
complicated and it's a very complicated
very very complicated situation
especially if you're that's eighth grade
or whatever if you're in the eighth
grade I think it's very it's very hard
as a young person especially in those
teenage years but then when you come to
a wonderful campus when you get to
everyone has their bubble whether you're
in the near South Side bubble or you
come from whatever bubble you come from
when you come on to a campus now you
hear a diversity of speeches and maybe
in the neighborhood you handled it in a
certain way but on campus or in the
corporate world you're not going to be
able to handle it and so we try to teach
that civility and we teach that civility
through kinda relationship building and
building strong relationships and using
using incentives such as sports or
athletics or the arts or theater things
that young people are interested in to
pull them in so that we can help help
well we've all done an excellent job of
being very civil I thank you very much
I'm going to turn to a genuine
philosophy professor now Blaine I can
can you help to well make some sense out
of all this for us here with me on the
right track
are we having a right discussion about
speech within the boundaries of that
which does not lead to violence or
to flip it around the anti-fur question
is violence okay to stop speech that you
think is going to be dangerous I don't
think violence is okay to stop speech
well we got better so that's the easy
question to answer I do think hey you
know there's some borderline cases I
guess if you're shutting fire and a
crowded theater to use a classic example
you can maybe tell us there is a fire
everybody forgets that part I do think
though that we need to I think in terms
of the debate over free speech we need
to have a bit of a real at reality check
and that we live in a world where
there's never be more free speech people
can say whatever they want online
there's Twitter that's Facebook that
blogs these editorials there's the
Internet
there is a surf fight of speech some of
it very vile some of very aggressive so
a bit wonderful excellent so it's not as
if if there's an absolutely there's a
lack of speech now on the worry that
you're raising I think is about
controversial speakers invited to
universities and there I do think that
there is a First Amendment right at
public universities of free speech for
invited speakers there's no way around
that and it's a good thing most of the
time and so it should be respected but I
do think that simply because you have a
right to do something so a student group
has the right to invite someone like
Milo Annapolis does it mean that you
shouldn't exercise that right
responsibly so people have a right of
free speech to lie short of fraud people
have a right of free speech to insult
others but those aren't the certain
exercises of free speech are not morally
helpful or right and I think we need to
situate the university understand it as
an association with a particular mission
it's not Facebook it's not Twitter it is
not a free-for-all for people to shout
and scream and say whatever they want a
university is an association that is
committed to the structured
investigation and dissemination of
knowledge and so I think that student
groups and other organizations who make
use of the public space that the
university provides should exercise
discretion in deciding whom they invite
they should invite people who are going
to be supportive of the mission of a
university right now they have the right
to invite people are going to be
destructive the milos the end Coulter's
people who are not interested in
positively engaging in ideas in
discussing views calmly and rationally
with others
they have that right but they should
think about how they want to exercise
that right they and I would suggest that
they try to exercise that right by
inviting people who will engage in
activities like this one who will calmly
and civilly discuss ideas I treat each
other with respect and serve the
function of the university so if the
university if Milo can't speak about the
university I mean it's not hard to find
out what he thinks if Ann Coulter is you
know cancels her or her talk at Berkeley
it's really easy to figure out what Ann
Coulter herb use our I mean I wish I
could filter them out I try to but it's
not as if there's a problem in terms of
finding out what these people think
rather as a member of a university
community I think we should think about
how we exercise the rights we have the
rights to free speech not we have in
ways that further than the goals of the
university further intelligent
discussion further debate on on
important topics you pressure a little
bit there because we're talking here in
a real world about the speakers who are
invited not by the University per se but
very often by student organizations
number one should asteroids they
shouldn't have the right to invite
whoever they want to a university
facility including state universities
that there are no public property and
should you limit yourself to inviting
people whose views you don't know I mean
you just said we already have other ways
to find we I know too much about what
Ann Coulter
as far as I'm concerned as well as Milo
and the rest but I still I'm not gonna
stand in the way of somebody who wants
to invite them to campus and and in most
of the cases I know of it was like the
campus Young Republicans for example or
or one of those rare student
conservative groups which are harder to
find out in them that might have been in
the past but nevertheless I I personally
think they ought to have that right how
do you feel about that
sure yes they should have that right and
they do have that right so all I'm doing
is imploring them to use that right
responsibly I mean you know people have
the right to make up for other
falsehoods right right insult each other
that's all protected but I don't think
that's a constructive way of exercising
one's right so yes they have that right
if they choose to exercise it that way
then I respect their bad exercise but I
would ask them to think about whether
they are furthering the mission of the
university in doing so whether and are
they actually doing something that's
constructive for their own view I don't
think about inviting a provocateur
actually makes others more sympathetic
to conservative views I think it has a
precisely the opposite effect so they
might want to even from the point of
view of self-interest they might want to
think about what they're doing in terms
of their inviting so I think it's very
important to distinguish between having
a right to do something and exercising
that right in a morally responsible way
and it's a very important distinction
well so you advocate the power of
persuasion related with these people who
invite these so if you go to an academic
conference as a professor you can insult
people you can you can lie you can claim
that you can say oh and whatever you
want but you won't get invited back
right and you'll have a very poor
reputation so these are informal norms
of academic discourse that we maintain
that that is conducive to the production
and dissemination of knowledge
understanding different points of view
and so I would ask other members of the
university so other members of the
university like student groups to think
about what they're on a university as
opposed to simply renting a hall
somewhere as members of a university the
they they exercise their rights
responsibly as most of the time
researchers do and scholars do thank you
very much
I'm going to turn to our two fellow
fellow veterans here on the panel as if
somebody decided to separate us which is
just as well perhaps after seeing walk
in the room earlier before the program
and we were all telling war stories here
mostly me who never went to combat but
nevertheless went through the experience
and the experience of coming back and
posing you have been following a Vietnam
series like I was drafted late in the
war in 69 when everybody was tired of it
and when when we would go off post we
would address it in our civilian clothes
because we just to avoid harassment or
or or find it easier to to meet girls
excuse me women they were girls in those
days but the one thing that gets me is
I'm curious as to for the YouTube what
it's like coming to campus these days in
the kind of liberal environment that we
have talked about and where there is no
draft now so the wars themselves for
their Afghanistan Iraq or whatever our
farther away from day to day life over
here and I would like to know how you
feel as veterans on campus today do you
think it's different than the experience
was in in my era and I want to start
with Sam Rogers
over here to my left good thank you so I
guess first I want to make it clear that
I'm not speaking on behalf of all
veterans despite being the veteran
advocate on campus a lot of times people
here at veterans speak they will
associate that viewpoint with the you
know 1.5 million current service members
and 70 million veterans and it's very
diverse group so I don't hold anybody
else to what I say
so I guess my experience is mostly
focused on that I spent my entire adult
life in a Mary
institution where there were limitations
on free speech that were upheld by the
Supreme Court and some of the effects of
that that that despite looking good on
paper a lot of people don't think about
so essentially the things that we take
for granted or that I can now take for
granted as a as a college student and
and real people again are the ability to
speak my mind in the service you're not
given really that protection and not
only are not given that protection it's
unlike being at a traditional employer
where voicing your dissatisfaction with
your boss or the political persuasion of
your CEO it doesn't get you necessarily
just fired it also carries with it the
the threat of force that the government
has that you know could lead to
deprivation of your means to provide for
yourself your freedom lots of benefits
after being separated from the service
they're very real threats to that to the
supposedly politics free Defense
Department and it's it doesn't end up
being that essentially what is created
is echo chambers that reflect the your
supervisor or your commander your
commander may tolerate viewpoints openly
stated that support his or her own and
those who might think differently will
have that limits limitation of freedom
of military expression applied to them a
good example is a Don't Ask Don't Tell
policy where essentially the highest
executive commander in chief issued a
policy that created created a
circumstance where to speak out against
that policy was not allowed right it was
speaking out against the commander in
chief executive policy and violated the
your limitations military
and what that created I was environment
where the opposite was naturally tacitly
encouraged which was anti-lgbt speak and
conversations and attitudes and those
things grew there as was seen with a lot
of the resistance to the repeal of
don't-ask don't-tell
and so mostly i I implore people to
think about the second and third order
effects of signing a wanting to give
away some of your constitutionally
perfected protected freedoms because
rarely do they work out as good as they
may look on paper or in your head and I
I like them I'm new to having this and
so I really enjoy it a lot it's a in
that regard I might not be any I'm 30
and I have kids but I may not be that
much different than a 18 year old coming
to this institution where I'm excited to
finally be able to participate safely in
in politics and free speech and civil
discourse and and I'm not entirely
excited about the prospect of that
changing thank you very much Sam Dan
Kafka do you feel somewhat liberated now
with with as far as the speech issue is
concerned on campus really really
liberating because you can't like you
like you already mentioned you can't
even speak ill about president you
disagree about the president's views or
what the president is doing that's your
own business to stay at home you don't
bring that into workspace when you're in
the military so coming out into the
civilian world
and coming to school I didn't come
straight let's go up I got me on me I
went to did the the job industry for a
little while and being in that it was a
wake up call like oh you can't say all
the things that you thought you could
say so it's like it's it's not so much
that you are limited but you are limited
in the military in the military you're
limited by free speech because you can't
say things in political nature or the
biggest reason that people want free
speech is because they want to be able
to talk about their
officials you don't get that right in
the military but because you don't have
that right the I would say that the
experience of at least a small unit
level is that you're more Cavalier and
what you say you don't care as much
about offending each other because you
know that you're not truly trying to
defend each other and when you come out
of the military
suddenly the things that you say or that
you worry about to say in the military
are now offensive and you don't
understand why so I would say that the
biggest challenge
besides accepting that freedom getting
out of the military is understanding how
not to abused that freedom out how to
use that freedom appropriately enough
over the top then coming to university
helps you even more a lot of people and
I'm the same as some things that I'm not
going to speak for all veterans but I
will speak from what I see for veterans
there is still that difficulty trying to
understand what we can and cannot say or
allow the states to if I understand what
is protected speech what isn't protected
speech and a lot of times it's not
explained a lot of people just get mad
right away and they tell you that you're
not supposed to say that they don't give
you a reason why so you just sit there
confused and one of the things I like
about UWM
which is the college campus in general
is that it is a safe space not in the
way that safe space has been hijacked
where you have to you are not allowed to
say anything that's going to offend me I
don't think that's what a safe space at
all is I think a safe space what we get
here at UWM is the ability to say just
about whatever you want to stay without
fear of somebody punching you in the
face or being able to have that civil
discourse without having to worry about
it turning into a shouting match but you
know it is building dependence so let me
let me pursue it a little bit the
military is about the most diverse work
environment you can have yes right right
and when when I was in back in the 60s
they became aware well guys that's a
story in itself a diversity in the
military in the early 60s well in the
beginning of the Vietnam War the
mortality rate Aki is killed in action
among African Americans what was
accidentally higher proportion than
among whites this became an issue in
science outside of military the Pentagon
took steps to equalize assignments and
risk
and it was remarkably effective you know
more seriously the urban riots going on
in our cities in the 60s were also
happening in military fashion within the
military various major fights the
outbreaks of violence and conflicts the
Pentagon tackled this head-on in dealing
with diversity sensitivity promotions
fairness etc etc and produce the kind of
environment that we know today I'd like
to ask each of you when you talk about
how you feel like this is a safe space
here well I know a lot of people in the
military would say well that's a safe
space there but it'll be that's a
different kind of a society as you both
implied it's a different society
different standards something about you
could say something that folks outside
might find offensive but but you know
that within your group everybody
understands I've seen more controversies
erupt over that when somebody said
something that everybody didn't
understand and next thing you know boom
got a big desktop but I'm just wondering
why do you think the military is has
been so effective with managing
diversity while we're still arguing and
wrestling with it so much in the
civilian world I think the military has
made great strides in managing diversity
certainly and I think it's always a work
in progress but I think it's that
there's much more at stake in the
military drives the I mean really it's
the only time anything gets done in the
military as if someone's gonna die if it
doesn't get fixed and so and so I think
that especially a time of conflict lies
we've had for the last 16 years I think
that has driven the need for that
especially in especially in the
all-volunteer service where essentially
you can't just round people up and have
them do everything people
people want a diverse experience it's
the most it's the only organization with
the closest actual representation of the
American people and every single unit I
was fortunate to be and reflected that
and it has a good experience for a lot
of people it's good exposure much like
I'm sure colleges for college students
people taken out of their comfort zones
and and learn pretty quickly that
there's not all that many differences to
each other so to me vampa effect well
that's with the handle diversity if they
are handling and well as the fact that
at least from the army standpoint
everybody's green there's no such thing
as the color in the military so you
don't really have to worry about that
too much
certainly there are people that come
with their own biases or whatever but
generally speaking when you get into the
military because of the volunteer force
there they can't take everybody they
want to but it reflects more of the
United States and given that the United
States isn't doesn't have I think as big
the problems as far as that's not the
right way to say that I don't think that
some of the problems that are shown in
the civilian sector as a media are s as
big as they're made to BL and especially
when you get military since we sample
from essentially every demographic
background in the country you really see
what America is really like in the
military I love what Americans are
really what you see you see of Americans
at their worst time being their best and
it's really it's a really fantastic
thing so I would go back to that great
thing it's just the fact that we're all
in the same room we all know that we're
fighting for the same purpose when you
select the people you're not selecting
people that are trying to get out of
being in the military like what was
happening in Vietnam you're selecting
people that want to be in the military
that at least have someone are sending
the constitution are imparting to
protect that constitutional right
whether that's what they end up doing or
not in the military is a different story
but that's usually why they start
joining the military in the first place
so I think that adds to it a lot you
said the it's important that the command
come down from the top down and the sets
the standard for how people are going to
behave with each other yes and no
I would say that it's always had the
standard is always set from the top so
in that way I would agree with you but
since the top is usually not there in
the military I can't say that the
standard where the practice is enforced
or anything from the top I think the
standard is just relayed by the top and
they say this is how we expect you to
act and then it's lower enlisted
soldiers that do the police car or
airmen or whatever branch it might be
that do the policing up the roam of
their own people and they make sure that
they're walking the line that they're
supposed to walk so it's a lot more
community driven efforts to make sure
that we're doing what we're supposed to
be doing to make sure that we're being
emblematic of the uniform that we'll
learn things like that it's not
necessarily the fact that we know that
from the top down we're getting in
trouble that does have don't have you
know as well it definitely has an effect
going in that top might come down and
get you but largely selfies Justin we
have told corporate managers that it's
like one thing the Pentagon taught me
was that when the order does come from
the top down you will get along people
get along yeah yeah but if it come from
the bottom up who knows what's gonna
happen you know some some platoons I get
along better than other platoons will I
want to throw out another question that
was given to me by a student and I wanna
throw this out to the whole panel
whoever wants to respond the Republican
and Democratic parties appear to be in
shambles what can we do as a nation
moving forward to bring all sides to the
table in unity the far right the far
left we'll all have to meet in the
middle at some point how do we even
begin to do this if we can't talk to
each other decently who wants to take
that on something like this is a good
way to do that okay because I don't know
I knew some of the political persuasions
of people coming up here because they
had told me but largely I didn't know
and I think that would help the
conversation if you come into the
conversation and you know and you're
like I'm out I'm out left I'm alright
well you're probably not going along
because you already think that you're
diametrically opposed but if you come to
the table when you haven't told anybody
what the political persuasion is and you
just want to listen now you have the
opportunity to actually talk but as long
as you want to throw labels on it and
throw labels all around there's not a
single conversation you can see on
Facebook right now from
out of the other that doesn't say the
rights doing this the less doing that
that's just ridiculous it's more it's
more likely the case that it's not just
the right of lab that it's across all
inspection to the United States that
doing so I think the best solution to
have the conversation is to not bring up
a little appreciation or in the first
place and then have the conversation
afterwards if you want to tell each
other oh by the way I'm a socialist or
by the way I'm a libertarian or
something like that that's fine you've
already on the conversation then you can
go hate each other later I guess we're
good
who else was fond of that before I start
calling names Rick yeah I would say this
is sort of a rule of thumb life is
paradoxical and if you believe that the
people who disagree with you are either
ignorant evil or crazy you could be
right it might be but the odds are that
they're not right the overwhelming odds
are that you're probably wrong about
assuming that and so I might disagree
politically with with Clarence or with
Brigid but I have an obligation to try
to understand why you feel the way you
do and it it won't be perhaps easy
because I'm committed to my perspective
it I'm I struggle with confirmation bias
the same way that everybody else does
boy I ought to try to do it and it turns
out that it's not that hard
it doesn't mean I'll change my opinion
but it means that I might be able to
engage you more sympathetically and I
hope that we should follow that rule and
try to assume that obligation towards
each other indeed uh you think well
Chris do you think it is actually
profitable for the media or for
political parties to keep us divided
that they for parties it's a better
fundraising tool and for the media it's
a better audience builder if they can
get people to show more conflict than
cooperation well that's a good question
I mean it probably is and you know
looking out on our polluted
today I would I would say I would have
to say that it's probably working but I
but I also think that that there that
there's hope right I hope that there's
hope in the in the sense that the the
ACLU is a non partisan organization and
you know to prove it we've you know
we've caused problems for every
presidential administration reformed but
but I see something going on today that
I've certainly never seen in my life
before which is I think that there that
people are you know some of the the
almost hourly insults that we've seen
from the President of the United States
on Twitter
combined with the actual injuries that
we're seeing coming from the White House
and and from elsewhere you know against
potat whole groups of people immigrants
LGBT people people of color women you
know I think that this is jolting people
out of a sense of complacency that may
have existed before and you know
certainly we have ACLU have never seen
anything like the surge of support that
we've seen over the last ten months or
so which were very grateful for I think
people are sort of realizing that there
are fundamental American values and
ideals at stake and they are kind of
rallying to defend them so I hope that
that is what prevails or the true sense
Election Day or do you just sit before
well the we definitely saw it before the
election but we really thought after the
election you know we saw we saw it's in
the days immediately after the election
and then when for instance when the
White House announced the Muslim travel
ban we saw people you know web traffic
to our sites like we've never seen
before we saw people spontaneously going
to nerve woods to just sort of rally and
show their opposition to the Muslim
travel ban to this kind of religious
discrimination I don't know in fact
gives me hope well on the flip side then
I said headline recently about the ACLU
will no longer defend gun rights or gun
rights cases well no
that we you know there has been a little
fake news I think probably what you're
referring to is that you know after
Charlottesville
when we took a you know sort of
traditional First Amendment stand and
you know we did defend the right of the
the person who applied for the permit in
Charlottesville but then given you know
how that actually played out the the
violence that we saw there you know I
think that we we are going to take you
know where we're probably going to
continue to take that stand we always
have we probably always will but I think
that we're gonna take a closer look at
these kinds of situations in the future
and in Charlottesville it wasn't
actually gun violence that took
someone's life but we're gonna look at
that in in the future I mean we are in
this you know there's a we're in this
situation now where so many states have
open carry laws and guns and other
weapons bring a new element of danger
and volatility to this question and it's
hard to exercise your First Amendment
rights when you're staring at people who
are heavily armed Bridger do you think
we have well that they would have a
better job now of recognizing different
groups on campus and enabling for a free
speech or are we starting to get into
our cocoons that's a great question I
mean I've been playing the higher ed
game for about 10 years now and it does
feel like there's been a shift in that
time so I'd be curious to get the
opinion of a colleague around longer to
see if they feel like it's even more
entrenched I don't want to build on what
Rick was saying though about this
unwillingness to encounter the opposite
because you see the opposing side as
immoral or evil and I think that's true
but I also think that part of it is
we're afraid that by encountering the
other side it will weaken our own
opinion and I think one way to sort of
solve this problem is by from an
education standpoint again making it
clear to students
that actually when you encounter someone
whose value system doesn't align with
yours
that doesn't make yours weaker it
actually helps you sharpen your own
political views your values your
religious beliefs because you know what
to ping them off of right so I think the
more that we can teach people that you
have to have a contrast to understand
your own values I think the more willing
we will be to listen to each other and
arguing effectively helps you to sharpen
your own argument more and become more
knowledgeable and effective right right
that's what I learned in my membership
on the Tribune editorial board does it
does help and for that matter McLaughlin
group too so we we also should be so
fortunate as to have such educated
people are you with well what do you
think about that
I just asked up in terms of of different
groups are we getting pulling back into
our cocoons more now at the community
level in the neighborhood level yeah I I
really think going back to all these
questions that the bottom line is that
relationship building and learning how
to listen and listen without defense you
know to really hear what other people
are saying and to we have so much work
to do in our community you know it's
heavy lifting and we have amazing
amazing bright shining stars that have
so much energy and inspiring and we
needed positive adults that are just
circulating and supporting them but we
have to help adult we always say we have
to develop our adults to develop our
kids because our kids are gonna do what
they see not always say and so it's
really important to have those positive
role models through our coaches our
mentors our teachers our instructors and
the more the more you know if anyone's
looking for something to do there's
plenty
we have thousands of kids but really
it's really those positive adults that
are circling them every day and building
those relationships and listening
without defense because in teenage years
when it does speak no matter who they
are no matter what party they just hear
the wah wah wah wah and when you can
teach them to listen in it sometimes you
need to hear 100 things from a hundred
different people that's where we're
gonna build in it in you know we talk a
lot about this a journey house they'll
steal from coach Brown it really is a
national defense issue we need to do we
need to build our community we need to
build our young people because our but
you know the stronger would make our
neighborhoods the stronger would make
our community stronger Milwaukee
stronger Wisconsin stronger United
States very good Blaine I got a question
here that from from a student that seems
to be tailor-made for you free speech is
an ethical tool how do we define ethics
when it appears no one knows how or what
political ethics are no one knows I mean
this reminds me of President Trump
saying who knew health care would be so
complicated so what was the question
again how do we define ethics I think
what they mean is how do we act on
ethics or behave ethically when it
appears that no one knows what political
ethics are well I think that lots of
people know on political ethics are but
they choose not to comply or conform to
them we know what it is to treat people
with respect we know what it is to be
polite to listen to respond to the
substance of what they say even if we
end up disagreeing these things are
pretty straightforward but it's we live
in a world facilitated by wonderful
innovations in technology but in a world
where these norms are where there's a
certain thrill to violating norms of
mutual respect a certain exhilaration to
trolling one's opponents to being a
provocateur now hopefully this will
eventually die down
I don't know maybe uh 10,000 years from
now but the novelty of violating norms
of civil discourse will perhaps subside
and this this is not a new thing right
if you go back if you look at the
history of political life you'll see
times when it's very respectful and and
people engage with one another in a
civil manner and you see times in which
people start violating these norms and
being rude saying outrageous things
mocking people denigrating them and so I
hope that eventually that will we'll see
a movement back towards norms of
civility norms mutual engagement one
thing that I think could help is having
is using institutions to Phyllis a
facilitate respectful debate right so I
have a kind of a debating background you
know when I was asked for I engaged in
parliamentary style debates and what I
loved about those exchanges that you had
two opposing teams but you had rules
structuring how long they could speak
they could rise some points of order
points of personal privilege if they
were being insulted you had a speaker to
adjudicate these disputes but then the
aim of the debate was to respond to the
substance of the arguments of your
opponent right and so the rule is
actually the discipline of those rules
actually facilitated the free exchange
of ideas the evaluation of arguments so
I wish I mean certainly a you know I
think a university is uniquely qualified
to promote those kinds of activities to
invite visitors who are willing to
engage in a formal debate with one
another on opposing sides now it's not
necessarily at the end of the day that
one is one side is going to convince the
other but at least there'll be a deeper
level of mutual understanding sometimes
people are convinced so I don't want to
rule that out I've changed my view once
so it's possible but I do think that
it's important that using institutions
the problem with things like Facebook
and Twitter and inviting provocateurs
who are simply going to identify
individual students and mock them and
things like that so there's no discourse
there's no structure to the to the
exchange of ideas you're simply
screaming and trolling and insulting one
another so if you have rules like the
Parliament
a style debates where you you advance
position is the position of our team of
the government the X and you provide a
number of reasons for it and then the
opposition gets up and repute tries to
refute those reasons then I think that
is a way to promote the free exchange of
ideas without prejudicing or being or
censoring the content of the ideas in
any way very good
I'm getting the whistle blown on me here
which is only appropriate I want to
thank our panel I want to thank all of
you in our audience today for joining us
and and somebody's folks are going to
hang around so we get a chance to chat
more informally after the program I just
want to close by reminding us of why we
are all here to hopefully build a better
society hopefully help us all to work
together more a goal which reminds me of
what dr. Martin Luther King said about
50 years ago just before he was taken
away from us that we all have a task and
let us all go out and do it with a
divine dissatisfaction now let us be
dissatisfied as long as there's a wealth
of creeds and a poverty of Deeds let us
be dissatisfied as long as the inner
city of outer city of wealth and hope is
separated from the inner city of poverty
and despair let us be dissatisfied until
a lion can lie down with the lamb and
none shall be afraid let us be
dissatisfied until that day when there's
no white power there's no black power
but there's only God's power and human
power but those words have kept me going
over the years especially when I I think
about how the lion does need to lie down
with the lamb but the lamb won't get
much sleep
that's kind of where we are today so
with that in mind others remember what
the country preacher said that we've
matured your heart can believe your body
can achieve so keep your eyes on the
prize hold on thank you very much
you
