Bruce klinger discussing north koreas missile test and nuclear threat. Be sure to watch washington journal live at 7 00 eastern this morning. Join the discussion. Now i look at freedom of speech on College Campuses with a group of professors and offers. This from a two Day Conference called finding meaning in america. Good afternoon and welcome back to our conference on a worthy life finding meaning in america. We have a very distinguished group of panelists to adjust the question. I want to begin with a personal testimony of my own and an expression of gratitude. We will be discussing pathologies, undeniable pathologies, that exist in american Higher Education these days. Compromising of Academic Freedom violations of Core Principles of freedom of speech, the lack of viewpoint diversity, the phenomenon of trying to win debates by labeling other people as bigots or haters or what have you. Those pathologies are undeniable. They exist. They are very widespread. Many people in the academy across the political spectrum not only recognize them, but recognize they present an urgent. Roblem and truly a threat recently a public letter called the threat the threat from within the university, code saying that no threat coming from outside the universitys is the equal of the threat inside the universities stemming from a certain kind of ill liberalism illiberalism. A tendency to groupthink and an unwillingness to permit discussions of key issues to go forward. Some of you read the oped piece in the wall street journal by the selfdescribed leftwing president of Wesleyan University notonnecticut, calling for something i favor but interesting that he would make the proposal, affirmative action for conservatives in american Higher Education. His reason is the need to have the points across the spectrum represented for learning to take place. I said i wanted to begin with it with an expression of gratitude. That is a gratitude to my home university, Princeton University which is sponsoring our conference. The James Madison program is a program of Princeton University. This program has flourished for 17 years. I am grateful to my colleagues in two successive president s at Princeton University who have not only permitted our program to live, but indeed to flourish. I am now completing my 31st very happy year at Princeton University. [applause] thank you. Perhaps not all of my colleagues which year would cheer. I entered this University Fresh out of graduate school in the fall of 1985. I was out of the closet as a questioner, a denier of the local gods. A questioner of the established campus orthodoxies from the very beginning. Me aeton did not deny position at the university because of that. In fact, i was hired. I was granted tenure could i was promoted and installed and permitted to establish the James Madison program in american ideals whatever is to be said about the pathologies conflicting amick in Higher Education, whatever we will say. Without claiming that my , i dosity is perfection feel a profound sense of gratitude, especially in view of what i know, people i know who are far superior to me in their scholarship and ability and achievements have suffered at other institutions around the world around the country. I think we will be hearing about that. To discuss these vital issues, we have assembled an outstanding panel. I will introduce them all right now. A really incredible or really where he also directs the Tocqueville Program associated with the workshop and political theory and policy analysis. Allen guelzo one of our nations most distinguished historians is director of civil war era studies at Gettysburg College in pennsylvania. His work on lincoln and the civil war is unsurpassed and has been in knowledge for its excellence with prize at the prize. Lincoln prize after lincoln prize after lincoln prize where delighted to have him back. He is been a visiting professor in the Madison Program here at princeton. Graduate, also a phd of our university is a tutor at st. Johns college that teaches across the liberal arts. Defense ofin intellectual activity, the pursuit of truth, the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake as against the defense the intellectual life on purely instrumental grounds for economic work economic or political reasons. She was in 2010, a visiting fellow at the James Madison program. Finally, the distinguished scholar in whose honor we have convened this conference, leon kass, who is the scholar at the American Enterprise institute and Professor Emeritus on the committee on social thought at the university of chicago. Leon will clean up and i will first recognize the first professor. Thanks to robbie and bread for inviting me to join the other panelists and since it is late and we have gone through several panel sites, i thought i would entertain you with a nice story. It has a theoretical part and a juicier part, the second part. [laughter] teach ong semester, a , freedomhich is a book of thought and freedom of speech against the tyranny of public apparent public opinion. This is one of the books that should be on the mandatory reading list for those who care about education. [indiscernible] our students today can master the art. In this wonderful book, it reminds us that we should listen to those who disagree with us and gives us the leaders a few compelling reasons for doing so. First, he tells us that our opponents are invaluable as they can sharpen our arguments and can point out possible flaws in our own arguments, claims or beliefs. Second, he reminds us of the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of any opinion by doing so opinion. Andg so, we deny correct them if necessary. This is what he writes, if the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of. Xchanging error for truth if wrong, they lose the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth provided, produced by the collegian with error. We can never be really sure that the opinion that we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion. Even if we were sure that, stifling it would be an evil still. All silencing of dissenting or disturbing threatening views is in fact an arrogant assumption of infallibility on our part. A failure to take any precautions against our own fallible views, a failure. Liberty is widely taught in our universities today and here at princeton. Many of our colleagues seem to like the idea of the book in theory. [laughter] what about applying them into practice. Do they still guide themselves . Do they live up to his recommendations . I dont want to imply anything. I dont pretend that this rhetorical question i dont pretend that these are rhetorical questions. I like to answer them by telling you a small story, hopefully irrelevant one. It is about a recent lecture given by Charles Murray from the American Enterprise institute on april 11 in bloomington. The famous lecture he tried to give at Middlebury College where the person who invited murray was bitten and suffered a concussion. It has been widely discussed in the media. The bloomington lecture is less known but it can teach us something important about indication today. In particular, about free speech and pluralism and this agreement. Speech seriously is not such an easy task. Quite the contrary. Murray was invited so here are a few details. He was invited to speak in bloomington about the 2015 elections as the author of coming apart. The invitation was extended by small group of students two students to be precise. An informal group, not registered to the university on the bloomington campus. The main sponsor was the American Enterprise institute chose tomall cosponsor it. So is thisfor doing past semester like everyone else in the country, we had struggled to come with terms and to understand the results of the 2016 elections. To this effect in collaboration with the Provost Office and the center on Representative Government led by the former representative lee hamilton, we have organized a series of lectures that such a shed light on the increasing ideological polarization and the intransigence in our society. We began in february with bill kristol who spoke about american politics in the age of trump, and yes, he did mention that name. Tablewe organized a round on civility and moderation with a group of philosophers and political theorists. We felt that the discussion of charles marries ideas from coming apart would be a good feet. His 2012 analysis highlighted several trends that subsequently led to the victory of donald trump in november of 2016. On ay caught early zeitgeist, a spirit of the age that others have missed and has since been exploited relentlessly by our media. This year, he has been invited to speak on major campuses from middle barry from middlebury to villanova. We were happy to work with the students to join our efforts and bring him to bloomington for free. We have no doubt that the controversial nature of his previous work, the bell curve, described by his critics as racists and misogynists which are strong protest. That book made a few controversial claims linking success to cognitive intelligence or a link between race and genetics. Some judge this claim to be possible and is still controversial peter others accuse it of racism. Few if any of the critics treated it as hate speech. Was worthy of being discarded but certainly worthy of being discussed and discarded. It was seen as a claim based on data, perhaps true, perhaps false. Yet, we invited murray to speak, not about the bulk curve but about the coming apart the bell curve, but about the coming apart and we were aware that major scholars on the left, such as cornell west, i was attentive to say brother cornell but that is not appropriate. The book that interests us at harvard university, this was one of only five books for their course on american democracy. I checked, there were only five, along with tocqueville. Cornell west democracy matters. West, unger and digest charlesn murrays coming apart. They can do it. Furthermore, only a couple of weeks before murrays talk at indiana, in the same room that he spoke in the furnished president s all, Washington Post [indiscernible] toed our students to listen those whose views they do not share generally. He called on his friends on the. Eft to try and develop empathy theres too much elitism he suggested that divides the country into bubbles, thick or thin, and prevents understanding dialogue and debate. It is time to end this elitism and treat the Middle America between new york and a leg. New york and l. A. The announcements of murrays lectures were met with strong criticism by faculty members and students. A good number of them were in humanities and in the English Department. The critics implied that merely listening to a controversial speaker like murray would amount to endorsing his views. That is according to them racist views and misogynists views that can have no place on any discussion on campus. An open letter so that more people can sign it was drafted at the initiatives of two students from my own department that challenged, exercise their right to free speech and challenge the universitys decision to offer that platform to a racist writer and promoter of white nationalism. ,he signatories of the letter perhaps 200 by now, believed that providing a platform to Charles Murray was unwise. Who are there words here are there words. I quote, we are strong believers in Academic Freedom and speech. We do not advocate for blanket censorship of controversial views state institutions, nor by private actors and for that reason, we respect the right of Charles Murrays sponsors to extend to him an invitation to speak at indiana university. At the same time, public universities all so have a response ability act judicially particularly in the present climate of racial tension. Providing a climate that providing a platform to Charles Murray is highly irresponsible to our community. In a perfect logic after declaring its commitment to free speech, the open letter asked for the university to this invite giles murray. Murray. Invite charles i do answer at the request of the chairman. A complaint was launched with the faculty council. That it was inappropriate since he did not allow for debate or question and answers. He did have a questionandanswer eo questionandanswer period. , somethingarlatan like an coulter. The indication was that his place was not in an academic setting, respectable one like bloomington. In spite of the fact that murray had earned his degree from m. I. T. And has authored more than 10 books more precise, 12. Even murrays latest work, coming apart, they claim builds on the same evidence used in the bell curve. Other spoke about the damaging decisions to invite to campus hate speech or even inside it or even incited hate crimes. Hiss despicable despicable ideas do not deserve to be debated because they are racist, sexist, demeaning to women and threatening. If you think that i am exaggerating, lets listen to what they actually said. I am going to quote twice. Murrays views are not just one side of interesting debate, they are vile and wrong. They are also being endorsed and disseminated in some form from the highest office in the country right now and for many numbers of the congress. It is an intimidating environment for many of us and this speaker brings that Chilling Effect home. A student said this, i am for free speech, but i am against giving people platforms to speak whose work is not up to academic expectation of indiana university, classified as hate speech. In the end the lecture was not canceled. The provost back to us and we went on with the Massive Police protection offered by the police department. They worked very hard to make sure the violence that had previously occurred at middle barry would not be repeated middlebury but not be repeated. The venue was selected in the number of free tickets distributed was limited to 150 which did not prevent the protesters to acquire 80 tickets and burn them. The protesters mobilized and they had the right to do so just bread their disagreement. They encourage students to get their tickets and burn them afterwards so that the room would be close to empty. After do isld we really need to to make it relevant again. Another claimed she was not listening to someon. Omeone who would normalize the noise was audible inside the room, distracting the speaker. While the protesters were exercising their right to free , we discussed why some of White America voted for trump, bringing up issues that should have been of interest to critics on the left. Take a quiz to see how thick or thin your bubble is, and i did take it, and my number is very low, 12, some a number is very sick. Exclusivelked about zip codes and how they contribute to the fragmentation of america. Minutefollowed by a 30 discussion moderate up by an undergraduate. Each was invited to ask a question. There was no censorship, just an uninhibited conversation. Everyone agreed and i must in i am not necessarily agreement, but the answers were civil and constructive. It was demonstrated by an article in the new york times. Surprised bybeen universal, basic income. When it wasccurred xit ther murray to egg building. Escort murrayy to out of the lecture building. Sitting protesters had to be moved off the ground, but no one was arrested and there was no significant violence. The only unpleasant thing was that my office door was fanned allies by was vandalized by a group called, and im not kidding, students against violence. Painted a slogan on the door that said no racism and glued the lock was super glue. Linealso posted a post on that claimed the event, which was nice so we could all know who they were, but it was anonymous. I received a threat on my office , after which the police disconnected it and i was assigned a new phone. Some of my colleagues criticized me for cosponsoring murrays lecture. I did nothing heroic. Common sense. Communis i was accused of complicity with i wasews because instrumental in organizing a that discussed the fragmentation of our society and propose some remedies for our programs. We brought people from the left to bloomington. ,e brought other people jonathan israel, bill kristol, and others. Murrays lecture tested our commitment to free speech and show many of us believe in free speech, but as only as long as we agree with their positions. They are ready to censor views with which they disagree, find deplorable, dangerous, and that threaten their safe bubbles. They are ready to discuss civility and engage in witchhunt against those whose views they find disagreeable. One of my colleagues proposed id denied a pay raise for 10 years for having invited murray. If some of my colleagues failed the free speech test, i was pleased to discover that it was passed with flying colors. A sophomore studying law and createpolicy, i cant effective policy if i refuse to read and listen to opinions of people i disagree with. My student remarked it was an contrast, dr. Murrays nuanced analysis versus the protesters uninformed and perhaps intellectual chance outside. Communitys of the pass the free speech test when they were asked whether it was right to invite murray and all to do yes, it was right so. It did more than test our commitment to freeze each. It taught us that while disagreement is normal and inevitable, it must be realpanied by reliance on facts, balanced moderation, and real civility and we should never think of ourselves as infallible moral authorities, that we are never allowed to pigeonhole people, call names, avoid seeing the world in black and white and we should never make pronouncements before we examiningcts right them critically and lis