Transcripts For CSPAN3 African American Students And The First Amendment 20180219

Hes the author of the forthcoming book. The New York Historical society hosted this hour long event. Good evening. Im dale gregory. Vice president for Public Programs and im thrilled to welcome you to our spectacular Robert H Smith auditorium. Tonights program, the First Amendment, the constitution on campus is part the bernard and schwartz distinguished Speaker Series which is the heart of the Public Programs. I would like to thank mr. Schwartz for his support to invite so many authors and historians. Lets give him a big hand. [ applause ] id also like to recognize and thank three extraordinary Trustees Board chair, pam shafler and rick reese and susan danalo with us tonight. Give them a big hand as well. [ applause ] and we also want to thank our Chairmans Council and Frederick Douglas Council Members who are with us tonight for all their great work and support. One more hand. Thank you. So the program tonight will last an hour and include a question and answer session and q and a is conducted via note cards. You should have received a note card and pencil. If not the staff are walking up and down the aisle and have cards and pencils to hand out. Let them know and later on in the program we will be answering collecting the cards and answering your questions. We are thrilled to welcome Randall Kennedy back to the New York Historical society. Hes the Michael R Klein professor at Harvard Law School where he teaches courses on contracts and criminal law and regulation of Race Relations. Hes also a former clerk of Supreme Court Justice Thurgood marshall. Professor kennedy is the author of several books including race and crime and the law for which he received the robert f. Kennedy book award and the forthcoming from protest to law, triumphs and defeats of the black revolts, 1948 through 1968. He has been with us quite a number of times. I know youll find he is a dynamic, wonderful speaker and before we begin, i want to ask that if you have a cell phone, a beeper, please turn it off and also tonight we ask that no one takes photographs. So now for this wonderful gentleman, please welcome Randall Kennedy. Thank you. [ applause ] thanks so much for the gracious introduction and even more for all of those who have made it possible for me to be here. I love coming to this auditorium and i love speaking to audiences here. Because i find that the audiences here are usually invariably knowledgeable and curious and ask really challenging questions. I always learn a lot from coming here. My remarks this evening are drawn from the book im writing from protest to law. Its a book about a time sometimes people refer to it as the civil rights revolution. Sometimes people refer to it as the time of the black liberation movement, sometimes people refer to it as the second reconstruction. When people think about the second reconstruction, the civil rights movement, they usually think about changes in the law of Race Relations. And of course, there were a number of very important changes wrougt by the protests of that period. The great achievements of the period would include the invalidation of jury segregation, the land mark case brown versus board of education. Another triumph of the period would involve the attack on socalled private Racial Discrimination. See for instance the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title 2 which prohibited Racial Discrimination in places of public accommodation or title 7, invalidating as a matter of federal law, Racial Discrimination in many parts of the employment market. Or, the Civil Rights Act of 1968 that was passed in the aftermath of Martin Luther king jr. s assassination, attacking Racial Discrimination in many aspects of the housing market. And in the third great triumph would be the attack on racial disfranchisement and of course the Great Monument to that effort would be the Voting Rights act of 1965. These are the things that people often think about and rightly so. But there was another aspect of the second reconstruction for that the protest of that period aimed not only at undoing racial hierarchy, the protest of that period also prompted the growth of expansive constitutional doctrines involving Civil Liberties. And indeed its that aspect that im going to focus on tonight. During the second reconstruction, there were a number of doctrines that were generated. So for instance, to protect members of the National Association for the advancement of colored people from damaging exposure by segregationists, activists were very successful in moving courts to recognize organizational privacy. To shield civil rights attorneys from rules that would have crippled their efforts to further their cause through lawsuits, advocates nudged the courts to acknowledge litigation as a form of political expression. Warranting protection under the First Amendment. To insulate news organizations from local officials who loathe publicity that put jim crow customs in a bad light, lawyers convinced the supreme to transform the law of libel. To protect civil rights protesters against hostile authorities, advocates persuaded courts that inhibit the squel muching of mass dissent. Students played a big part in all of these efforts. It was students who contributed mightily to the dual campaign for Racial Justice and enhanced liberties. A seminole confrontation involving students stem from events on february 25th, 1960, when 35 students in montgomery, alabama, 35 students who were enrolled at the all black Alabama State college, participated in a sitin. Their target was a segregated grill in the basement of the county courthouse in montgomery, alabama. These students were actually they were continuing a struggle that had been begun on february 1st, 1960. February 1st, 1960, the sitin in greensborough, north carolina, the four freshmen who sat in to object to Racial Discrimination in a privately owned place of public accommodation. The students in alabama were continuing that. So they go in to this this segregated grill and they sit down and the manager says, you know, youre not supposed to be here and were not going to serve you. They werent served and they just waited. And they were told that they would have to leave or else they would be arrested. And when the police came the students left. There were no arrests. There was not any disruption other than the manager just didnt serve people while the students were there. And so they left. And there was a newspaper article about their protest and the governor of the state, John Patterson, read the newspaper article, was enraged and John Patterson called up the president of Alabama State college. And he says to the president , president trentholm, he says, you know, i think you should consider expelling the participants in this demonstration. And the president of the college goes to the students and says, listen, i dont want any more demonstrations. I just got a call from the governor of the state whos very exercised about this. If there are any more demonstrations, theyll be consequences. Well, there are more demonstrations. And there are consequences. The president of the university of the college sends a letter to nine students informing them that they had been expelled, quote, for conduct prejudicial to the school and for conduct unbecoming a student or future teacher in schools in alabama for insubordination and insur recollection or inciting other pupils to like conduct. They received this letter informing them that they were summarily expelled. As of that moment they were expelled. Well, six of the students who received this letter challenged the legality of their expulsions. And they had very fine attorneys, these six, fred gray was one of their attorneys. Thurgood marshall, pretty good attorney, Jack Greenberg and derek bell. Four wonderful attorneys took up their case and argued that their expulsion violated the federal constitution. And the attorneys mainly focused on the absence of any notice or hearing before the imposition of punishment. Well, the case went to a United States District Court and the students were lucky insofar as they received they obtained a very fine judge overseeing their case, Frank Johnson. One of the heroes of the second reconstruction was the judge presiding over their case. Frank johnson became very well known and renowned for his slis tud on behalf of those who were challenging the jim crow system. But to show you the state of the law in 1960, these are the students. Frank johnson got this case and very quickly ruled against the students. Frank johnson basically by the way Frank Johnson was simply following the settled law of the time. Frank johnson basically his theory went like this, well, the right to attend a Public College or university is not in and of itself a constitutional right. You know, the state makes this available to you but you dont have a constitutional right to attend the school. And secondly, the judge posited that to the extent that you are accepted as a student, youre acceptance and your presence is conditioned upon an individual students compliance with the rules and regulations of the institution. Well, in alabama, the Alabama State board of education had a provision that declared as follows. Just as a student may choose to withdraw from a particular college at any time for any personally determined reason, the college may also at any time decline to continue to accept responsibility for the supervision and service to any student with whom the relationship becomes unpleasant and difficult. Judge johnson saw these terms as having the effect of reserving to the college the right to dismiss students at any time for any reason without divulging its reason other than it being for the general benefit of the institution. Holding in favor of the college. Well, the students lawyers well, the students lawyers didnt stop there, they appealed the case to the fifth Circuit Court of appeals and there the students were lucky again because the students got a panel that consisted of judge john minor wisdom, another hero of the second reconstruction. He was probably the most liberal judge on the fifth circuit. The fifth circuit was a court of appeals that really supervised the federal judiciary in the deep south during that period. He was a staunch liberal and joined by another strong liberal, Richard Taylor reeves and indeed it was Richard Taylor reeves who wrote the opinion of the panel. The third judge, ben f. Cameron was a fervent segregationist. Two liberals won out. The two liberals reversed judge johnson, and with and judge reeves writing for the fifth circuit basically said listen, its true you dont have a constitutional right to attend a public university, but any time the government acts, said judge reeves, any time the government acts, the government has to work within the constraints of due process. And due process includes at the basic minimum notice and a hearing. And the students were entitled to at least that. Now, there was a dissent. Judge cameron dissented. He groused that this ruling would undercut School Authority and subvert student discipline and make federal functionaries into a gargantuan aggregation of wet nurses and babysitters. But wisdom and reeves insisted that under the federal constitution, the student protesters were entitled to due process, and that under the circumstances, due process required notice and some opportunity for a hearing. Now, i would bet that for many people in here, the feeling would be gosh, thats all . I mean, thats the big case youre talking about . This case, st. John dixon versus Alabama State college, was a seminal case. It broke with a deeply ingrained judicial tradition of deference to school authorities. When you read the opinion, judge reeves tries to make it seem as though he and wisdom werent doing anything revolutionary, that they were not engaged in innovation, but thats just the way judges act. They try to play down innovation. This was a big innovation. To show you how big it was, let me make reference to another case, actually a new york case. Steyer versus new york state education commissioner. It involved, and was decided just a few months before the events that triggered st. John dixon versus Alabama State college. Steyer involved a student, arthur steyer, who wrote letters to the president of Brooklyn College complaining that the Schools Administration was wrongly dominating student organizations. All the student did was write a letter to the president of Brooklyn College. He was suspended for six months under a rule requiring students to, quote, conform to the requirements of good manners and good morals, end quote. After six months, he was readmitted under the condition that he would agree to have a change in spirit. He comes back and he gives an interview with the Student Newspaper and talks about his experience and the Student Newspaper publishes an article about this. He is expelled. He challenges his expulsion. The case goes up to the second Circuit Court of appeals. Courts rule against him. Courts rule against him. One of the judges say yeah, sure, he had a right to speak, a constitutional right to speak, but he doesnt have a constitutional right to say anything he wants and be a student at Brooklyn College. As far as the judges viewed it in the steyer case, his being at Brooklyn College was a matter of grace and he had to conform to the schools rules and regulations and since he didnt, he could be chucked out of there. Steyer was no outlier. Federal law permitted students to be disciplined, even expelled, on virtually whatever terms School Officials determined. It is against that backdrop that the dixon case is rightly seen as a pioneering ruling. Here i want to stop for a minute. I mean, you all read the newspapers. Every other day there are some newspaper articles about First Amendment issues arising on college campuses, Public College campuses all across the United States, and usually when these articles are written, theres the obligatory reference to the Free Speech Movement at berkeley, right, and what happened at berkeley was wonderful, as far as im concerned, with the students, and was very important, but the actions that were taken by the black students in the deep south has really been largely forgotten. And it shouldnt be. The actions they took were deeply influential and in fact, any student today, any student today on any at any Public Institution, when any student today does something that falls under the umbrella of constitutional protection, any student today who does anything that falls under the constitutional umbrella of the federal constitution owes a debt of gratitude to those students at Alabama State college. I want to say a little more about the students at Alabama State college, because i have been talking thus far about the doctrinal issue, the legal issue. There was also an interesting sociological thing going on in alabama in 1960. Im going to go into this a little bit because it adds a bit of point poignancy to what the students were up to and struggling against. The students in dixon were confronting a white power structure behind the jim crow system. But thats not all that they were confronting. They were also confronting a black power structure. They were confronting among other things the president of their institution, the president of their institution was a black president. And the black president of the Alabama State college was in a very tough position himself. He was there under the sufferance of an all white board of trustees. At all of the predominantly black colleges, it wasnt until the mid 1960s that there were any black people on boards of trustees at the black Public Institutions. In the early 1960s, they were all white. It was an all white board of trustees. The governor of the state, John Patterson, was the exofficio chairman of the board. These black institutions got their operating funds from these legislatures that were fervently segregationists. They were all white legislatures, all deeply committed to segregation. And the white power structure typically put into place black educators that would toe the segregationist line and would certainly, certainly suppress rebellion on campus. That was the expectation. And trapped by dependency for financing and other essential resources, these black College President s did toe the line. They were again, in a very interesting position. On the one hand, they were privileged. They knew very important people. They knew very wealthy people. They knew sometimes very family the familiarly the leading white political figures in their region. They had a position few black people had. After all, the careers of their students, the careers of their faculty members were in their hands. The black president s of these colleges actually had considerable power. But they did not have considerable power visavis the whites. So they were in this funny position. Same was the case of the president of Alabama State college. For instance, when the governor of the state called the president of Alabama State college, the president of Alabama State college snapped to. One day, the president of the governor of the state, John Patterson, called up president trenholm and said listen, you have a faculty member, lawrence d. Reddick, head of your history department. He is an agitator, attacking segregation. Must be a communist sympathizer. You need to get rid of him. In fact, i want you to get rid of him before the sun goes down. Trenholm got rid of him. Just like he expelled the student dissidents. Now again, many people faulted president trenholm and the position he took vis a vis the students. There was one correspondent that wrote the following. It is indeed unfortunate, this is a person writing from chicago, it is indeed unfortunate that you have become the hatchet man for the governor of alabama and expelled those kids. Another person wrote him and said the uncle toms are supposed to be dead. Does Economic Security mean so much . How will you face tomorrow . Another observer wrote we must not jump every time the white man speaks. Heres one more person. This is a correspondent from dayton, ohio who happened to be president trenholms own cousin. This person wrote, you should have resigned yourself. Interestingly enough, many students had a somewhat more generous view toward their president. Many students recognized his vulnerable position and the agonizing compromises that attended it. The same day that he warned activists to desist from further protests, one of the dissident students sent a remarkable petition addressed not to president trenholm but to the governor of the state, the figure he saw as the real power behind the repression. We know the name of the student. The student was named bernard lee. He was expelled. He became a plaintiff in the dixon case and subsequently emerged as a key aide to Martin Luther king junior. Im going to read three paragraphs from bernard lees petition to the governor of alabama. I think it deserves extended quotation. It is one of the things frankly that makes me happy to be doing this research. Because over and over and over again, as i do this research, i come across things that are just so profoundly inspiring. This is bernard lee. To the honorable governor John Patterson, we have taken cognizance of your mandate to president trenholm of Alabama State college to dismiss from the school those students who participated in the sitdown strike at the county courthouse snack bar thursday, february 25th, 1960. We, a united group of students of said college, humbly request that you reconsider your order to president trenholm. This decision is out of tune with the spirit of americanism. The snack bar at the courthouse is a symbol of injustice to the citizens of montgomery, a flagrant contradiction of the christian and democratic ideals of our nation. We went to the snack bar not as hoodlums but in the same manner and spirit in which other college and University Students have done in other parts of the country. Our purpose was to express our resentment of a scheme that fails to recognize its responsibility to decent and orderly persons of all creeds, color, or nationalities. Our cause is just. We are asking that you study it with an open mind and give president trenholm the authority to settle this issue with us. We are reasonable and considerate. We may be crushed, but we shall not bow to tyranny. Lee and the other expelled students ultimately won their lawsuit from the fifth circuit. They ultimately won. But they never went back to school. Never went back to school. Eventually, though, their sacrifice did receive a bit of recognition. In 2010, Alabama State college reinstated the nine and conferred upon them honorary degrees. Now, dixon versus Alabama State college involved college students. What about federal Constitutional Rights for high School Students . The most famous case recognizing a right to freedom of expression for high School Students is a case called tinker versus Des Moines School district. It was decided by the Supreme Court in 1969. In the tinker case, a principal suspended junior high School Students who refused to remove black arm bands symbolizing protests against the vietnam war. Noting the absence of any evidence that the students symbolic protest caused any disruption or posed threat of substantially interfering with the work of the school, the Supreme Court ruled that the principal of the school had violated the young dissidents First Amendment rights by suspending them. Writing for the Supreme Court, the justice declared neither students nor teachers shed their Constitutional Rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. As is usual, however, the judgment of the Supreme Court represented a ratification rather than the initiation of a legal proposition. Fortis acknowledged that courts in the deep south had previously grappled with the issue of constitutionally protected rights to freedom of expression for secondary School Students. In one of the key disputes, case called burnside versus buyers, the black principal of the black booker t. Washington high school in philadelphia, mississippi, forbade students from wearing freedom buttons to school. These buttons were little buttons that were emblazoned with the slogan one man, one vote. They were also emblazened with some initials that might resonate with some of you. Sncc. Student nonviolent coordinating committee. The students go to school with the buttons and the principal says no, youve got to leave. And actually, all of the students who were wearing the buttons, they leave. And the next day nobody comes to school with any of the buttons. But then the next day droves of students come back with the buttons. And they were suspended. Three challenged the constitutionality of their punishment, they argued the punishment wrongfully encroached on constitutionally protected freedom of speech. The state contended the prohibition of the principal should be permitted under the circumstances because it assisted in the maintenance of proper discipline. Allowing students to wear political buttons would inevitably result in distraction, thereby undercutting the Schools Educational mission. The plaintiffs lost the first round when a United States district judge declined to issue preliminary injunction against the suspension. On appeal, however, the plaintiffs prevailed. And the burnside decision that fifth Circuit Court of appeals bestowed on high School Students a right protected by the First Amendment to express themselves unobtrusively, even against the wishes of school authorities. The fifth circuit thus anticipated by three years the Supreme Courts tinker decision. So again, when high School Students, day in and day out, in our time, seek the shelter of the First Amendment, they today owe a tremendous debt of gratitude for those students in mississippi in 1964. Im going to discuss one more case. One more case. It is an important case doctrinally. But actually, theres another reason why this case is so close to me, this third case. Im from columbia, South Carolina. I was born in the year of brown versus board of education, born in 1954. And many of my relatives, my mother got her education at South Carolina State College, and many of my aunts and many cousins went to school at South Carolina State College. So i want to tell the story that arises from a dispute at South Carolina State College. This is a dispute that also involves a protracted episode of intraracial conflict over Civil Liberties in the second reconstruction. It involves another president of a college. This time the president of the college was a man by the name of binner c. Turner. Very interesting character. He was born into an affluent family in columbus, georgia. He attended Phillips Academy in andover, massachusetts, went on to Harvard College and Harvard Law School. He served as dean of the South Carolina state law school before being selected in 1950 as the president of South Carolina State College by then governor strom thurmond. Like other africanamerican president s of black segregated Public Institutions, turner occupied a precarious position. He served at the pleasure of the political regime committed to maintenance of white supremacy. Annually, he had to bet an all white segregationist legislature for funding. Had to wrest support from lawmakers that openly and unapologetically favored white schools over black schools. Had to contend with influential arbitors of white Public Opinion who maintained that under segregation, Race Relations were harmonious and that blacks ought to be satisfied with what they had received. The negro, the times and democrat newspaper announced in 1955, has much for which to thank the white race. He has been given through public monies a splendid educational establishment in this state. I mean, thats what the president of South Carolina State College had to contend with. And he tried as best he could. Turner was an interesting guy. In certain ways, he was a good College President. South carolina State College grew during his presidency, became accredited. He improved the institution. This was a very Important Institution for the black community in South Carolina. From his point of view, from president turners point of view, to protect his institution he had to be authoritative. He had to be repressive to protect his institution from the greater repression that would have overcome his institution had he not been repressive. That was his theory. And there was something to it. Of course, that wasnt the whole story. He had various motivations, as do we all. President turner was actually he was a despot. He didnt like being challenged. He especially didnt like being challenged by other black people. So when students in the 1960s started protesting in sympathy with fellow students around the country who were protesting, he repressed them unsteningly. Not only did he repress students, he repressed faculty members. There was a faculty member that was the head, the leading she was the faculty adviser for the newspaper. The newspaper ran an article about the protests and about Racial Discrimination, and president turner saw this article and didnt like it, and got mad with her for allowing it to be published. And he fired her, again, summarily. Any students who participated in protests, he would summarily expel. Finally, finally some students turned to some lawyers and challenged the president , and the case went to court. And because of earlier cases i mentioned, the United States district judge who presided over the case at trial ruled against the president and said listen, you cant just summarily expel students without a hearing or notice. You cant lay down a rule at a Public Institution and give yourself the power to examine the Student Newspaper before it is published and just kick out anybody who writes anything that you dont like. You just cant do that. You have to work within the federal constitution. One month after that decision came down, president turner resigned. Now again, you say all of this, i think its important to know about these cases in part because in our own time, its not as if the issue of the First Amendment on campus is an issue that doesnt concern us. It does concern us. One of the things thats happened of late is that champions of Racial Justice have been or have sometimes thought of themselves as being pitted against champions of Civil Liberties. And i think that recalling these cases, recalling these cases should suggest to people that that need not be the case. In fact, over the course of American History, over the course of American History the champions of Racial Justice and champions of Civil Liberties have typically marched arm in arm. Theres no reason for them to be at loggerheads. Another reason these stories are important to recall i mentioned before, it is all too often the case that the contributions of black americans to the development of our democracy, it is overlooked. And i think a classic case has to do with these students that i have been discussing. And it is for those two reasons in particular that i think it is useful for us to remember these cases. Im going to subside and i hope i get some good questions. I know that i will. Thank you very much. [ applause ] i knew i wouldnt be disappointed. First question. Shouldnt private universities be subject to the same First Amendment values public universities are mandated to . Actually theres a big debate going on over this. There are people whom i deeply respect, deeply respect who think that private universities should be held to the same legal standards as public universities. Private universities and public universities, should be no difference insofar as regulation of freedom of expression. Lot of people think that. For instance, one my Home University, my Home University is Harvard University. Derrick bach, wonderful educator. A quarter century ago, he was very insistent that Harvard University be under the same rules as a public university. I disagreed with him 25 years ago and i disagree with him today. I dont think that public universities should necessarily be under the same federal constitutional requirements as public universities. Why do i say that . I say that because of my commitment to pluralism. The system that we have in the United States, you know, we have Public Institutions, we have private institutions. I think Public Institutions should definitely be i am all for a thorough going commitment to First Amendment values. And want them to be wide open. On the other hand, this is a huge country. 300 Million People occupying a huge land mass. People have all sorts of different beliefs. I think, for instance, lets imagine that people want to gather together and have a university thats devoted to, i dont know, communism. Were going to have Lenin University and at Lenin University, we are going to preach the axioms of communism. And thats all were going to preach. Well, im not going. Im not going to send my kids there. But on the other hand, if there are people who want that, my attitude is fine. Its a big place. I think it is a mistake to subject all institutions to the same standards. Thats a heterodox view in my community but thats the view that i have. Let me say one more thing about this. It is, if a private institution is going to take the position it wants to impose upon its community a more restrictive set of standards, i think it should be transparent about that. I dont think a private university should be able to essentially advertise itself in one way and then be a different way. But again, if a private institution wants to impose its private values upon the community that it creates, again, for purposes of pluralism, i think that should be permitted. And therefore i was against and am against proposals for federal legislation that would try to put all institutions of Higher Education under the same standard. Okay. Do you see any parallel between the second reconstruction and current protest and movement for womens rights against Sexual Harassment . Sure. I mean, the second reconstruction was part of an ongoing struggle in america for social decency. Throughout American History there have been such struggles. In the 19th century, the struggle against slavery, feminist struggle in the 19th century. Struggle on behalf of working people. 20th century, the same. In our century, the same. And one of the things that we see among the various struggles, they learn from one another. They learn from one another. They learn from one another in terms of slogans, learn from one another in terms of imagery. They learn from one another in terms of tactics. They pass the baton. So yes, indeed, i see a parallel. Theyre all different. One cant, you know, press analogies too much, theyre all different. They all arise in different contexts, but are there parallels between them . Sure, there are parallels between them. And our minds work through analogy, and of course we analogize between them, and as far as im concerned, thats all to the good. Do students have a right to demonstrate in favor of male supremacy . Sure, at a Public Institution, sure. Martin luther king, jr. , in his first speech as a civil rights leader, first speech as civil rights leader as an extemporaneuoextemporane extemporaneous speech he gave, a great speech, and in this speech he said the great glory of american democracy is the right to protest for right. The night before he was killed in his last speech as a civil rights leader he voiced the exact same sentiment in the exact same words. The right to protest, the right the great glory of american democracy is the right to protest for right. Now i would actually offer one amendment to that. Actually, the great right in the United States is the right to protest for wrong. And here again, you know, i would imagine that there would be people who would disagree with me. But again, if one takes a look, well, go back to 19th century. Tremendous struggle over Civil Liberties, having to do with the struggle, the fight over slavery. And one of the big differences between the abolitionists and the party for slavery had to do with Civil Liberties. The party for slavery destroyed Civil Liberties. So you couldnt go beneath the masondixon line and speak in favor of abolition. Could not be done. And in fact if you sent the liberators, sent abolitionist literature through the mail, you could be prosecuted. Wouldnt allow it. Abolitionists were very different. Abolitionists said we will allow the proponents of slavery to speak. We will allow that. And they were very proud of the difference they drew between themselves and their adversaries. In the 20th century, one goes and takes a look what did people say about Civil Liberties with respect to the activists in the second reconstruction, over and over and over again, champions of Racial Justice. My former boss, no stronger proponent of Civil Liberties, including Civil Liberties of people whom he abhorred than thurgood marshall. And on this, as on so many fronts, i would link arms with him. Is there a legally defined threshold that characterizes what counts as protected free speech versus incitement. Thats what we have lawyers and courts for. I mean, you know, its a wonderful question. And its not so clear. Its not so clear. Are there limits . Of course there are limits. There are limits to everything, including in the area of freedom of expression. There are always lines to be drawn and we have to be attentive to that. I think we do always have to be very, very, very careful. In our world, and indeed, in our country, every day just reading the papers, every day reading the papers, it seems to me we should become more and more and more attentive to the need to be extremely careful, extremely vigilant, extremely protective of our liberties. There are lots of things that are wrong in the United States of america. Lots of things that are wrong in the United States of america. And we need to be attentive to those things that are wrong. We also need to be very attentive to the aspects of American Life that really are beacons to the world. And the protection of freedom of expression, people having the right, and people utilizing the right to express themselves is absolutely precious and we need to be very attentive to that. That, too, is a reason why i think it is useful for us to remember those students that i have discussed this evening and discusses with admiration and a real sense of gratitude. Thank you very much. [ applause ] Randall Kennedy, thank you so much for the talk this evening. We look forward to your return on february 25th for another program. If you dont have a brochure, please pick one up and look into it. There are still some tickets left. I also want to remind you that Randall Kennedys books are in our museum store, so please stop by. There will not this evening be a formal book signing, but his books are there. He and his books are wonderful. We thank you all so much for coming this evening. This is what we love to do. We love to have you here, people like you, and people like you. You are what makes our world go around. So thank you very much. Thank you, Randall Kennedy. [ applause ] this is American History tv. 48 hours all weekend, every weekend. Next, on the presidency, an exploration of the relationships forged between Ronald Reagan and george h. W. Bush and russian leader Mickael Gorbachev during the final years of the cold war. Scholars convened looking at the complicated history of the u. S. And russian leaders over the last century. The discussions included assessments of franklin roosevelt, jfk, George Hw Bush and bill clinton as well as their russian counterparts. This is an hour and 20 minutes. We have a great panel