college campuses may be under attack, political speech gets nasty. some universities offering a new course for students, parents and alumni on civil discourse. leland is looking into it. reporter: american university has a project on civil discourse, the national institute for civil discourse, who could be against civility? especially with video like this from the university of california at berkeley were students turn violent triggered by the appearance of a conservative speaker. millbury college in vermont, they shouted down the speaker they disagreed with and shoved him in the parking lot. wall street will report identifies college programs focused on teaching civility.
officials, is taking away someone up security clearance the same thing as taking away their free speech? know. it is important to keep in mind what is being taken away. in order to have security clearance, the right to access classified information is not a constitutional right. it is a privilege and it rests in the hands of the president. the president decides who gets access and who doesn t. it doesn t prevent mister brennan or anyone else on this hypothetical list of people who might have their clearance revoked from speaking their mind. people worry it is a form of retaliation. if you have security clearance it makes you more valuable in washington, you can work on classified project into losing his financial time. i don t think the court ever upheld a case where someone has said my losing security currents because of an illegitimate is a violation of my free-speech rights. cases from the 50s and 60s where people say you can t deny me
even the most liberal ports deemed it more issue of patriotism than religious belief. shannon: thank you so much. it is time for night court. legal eagles, the national center for life and liberty along with washington times legal affairs correspondent assigned their roles. i don t know where they are personally so let s start with this in god we trust. a lot of folks say this is part of our patriotic heritage and our national motto. the ninth circuit ruled it part of the heritage, the most liberal court upheld it. for the opponents their strongest argument would be the decades ago the supreme court held schools on certain prayer is unconstitutional say the can argue this motto is similar to that, school sponsored speech and it could encourage one religion over another or any
directly against them. tell me how the court reconciled it. i m blown away. i think this is going to be completely short-lived. it s a violation of the constitution. my argument is a legal one. this is either government speech or school sponsored speech. either way it s unlawful. for those who are rolling their eyes at me at this legal argument make room for the sign to say praise allah and god doesn t exist go wildcats. where in the constitution do it say anything about church and state. nowhere. but where it does say, freedom of religion. the supreme court. you look at constitution. it has been interpreted in various ways by the courts. and this is where the courts drew the line. where does it say this? it doesn t say anywhere in the constitution. what it talks about if you look at genesis of the constitution.