Welcome everybody. Good morning. Today our Judiciary Committee considers an important and timely topic. The First Amendment on College Campuses. Senator feinstein and i will give Opening Statements and we will also have Opening Statements from the chairman and Ranking Member of the constitution subcommittee that senator collins and senator blumenthal. Higher education rests on the free flow of ideas. Education requires that positions be held tentatively tested by opposing arguments that are actually considered and evaluated. All must protect free speech. Public institutions must adhere to the various guarantees over First Amendments. Too often all the these fundamental principles have been under assault. Even worse some people who exercise their First Amendment rights have them selves than assaulted. As a result those who would curtail free speech have been emboldened and those who disagree with the prevailing orthodoxy have been censored or chilled from speaking freely. There is no point in having a student body on campus if competing ideas are not exchanged and analyzed and respected by each other. At Kellogg CommunityCollege Administrators required prior approval for speech to Public Forums, a twofold violation of the First Amendment. Amazingly the students there were arrested for distributing copies of the u. S. Constitution. Their lawsuit against the college and against its administrators in their personal capacity is pending. Many students erroneously think that speech that they consider hateful is violent. Yet some students engage in acts of violence and speech and universities have failed adequately punish that violence. On the university of californiaberkeley, too invited speakers were prevented from speaking due to mob violence and other projected safety concerns that the university failed to control. That university should be reminded of a passage of one of Supreme Courts most important First Amendment rulings. Quote if there is any fake star in our constitutional constellation it is that no official can prescribe what shall be orthodox politics end quote. A lawsuit has been brought that alleges that berg way systemically and intentionally suppressed speech protected by the First Amendment because its different from that of University Administrator said at middleburgs college sam and it scholar mr. Charles murray was there for shouted down from speaking and then when the event was moved students pulled the fire alarm to prevent him from speaking. It was not dr. Mar yvette the students who essentially falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. The middle very professor who administered, who moderated the debate was physically assaulted and has yet to fully recover from her serious injuries. It was not a mere handful of students but a mop who engaged in such appalling conduct at an institution theoretically devoted to rationality. Not including those who were not captured on video the College Discipline more than 70 students but none was expelled or even suspended. It is as if practical matter no one received any more punishment than the secret as a penalty that is dr. Moran noted such week punishment will not deter any future students. The First Amendment is very clear. The Supreme Court has decided that free speech is protected, that speech cannot be restricted based on viewpoint, the Public Forums must be places where freespeech rights can be exercised and restraint on speech is our highly disfavored. Otherwise any speech that anyone found offensive could be suppressed. Little free speech would survive as Justice Holmes said quote if there is any principle of the constitution that calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate end of quote. Onto many campuses today free speech appears to be sacrificed at the altar of political correctness. Many administrators believe that students should be shielded from hate speech, whatever that is as an exception to the First Amendment. Unfortunately this censorship is no different from many other examples in history when speech that authorities seem to be the radical has been suppressed based upon its content. Even more unfortunate the anticonstitutional attitude that is so pervasive that students are being socialized and possibly indoctrinated into favoring censorship at odds with our First Amendment. A recent gallup poll found that students buy a 6931 margin believe that it is desirable to restrict the use of slurs and other language intentionally offensive to certain groups and by a 7227 margin they favor restricting restriction of political views that are upsetting or offensive to certain groups. College students vote, not only academia but our democracy depends on the ability to advocate to inform or to change minds. When university suppressed speech they not only damage freedom today, they establish important norms harmful to democracy going forward. These restrictions may cause and exacerbate the Political Polarization that is so widely lamented in our society. Whatever the nature of the speech being suppressed we all ought to be concerned and i am however prominent liberal universities lament that they vast amount of free speeches on the conservative side of the spectrum. Recent commandment commencement address that i will put in the record the lack of conservative ideas on campuses and as former stanford provost has observed quote there is a growing intolerance at universities, apolitical onesided thus that is the antithesis of what universities should stand for end of quote and he fears that University Administrators will take the easy route of giving in to students pressure to restrict debate and i ask consent to include his excellent remarks in the record as well. He fears his fears are being realized. In a recent interview the president of Northwestern University undercuts the apparent lip service that he paid to the First Amendment rather than making students confront this page that makes him uncomfortable he advocated making students feel comfortable by ensuring a safe space where they will not hear it. Even worse when asked whether he would be comfortable where the speaker were shouted down the middle very to speak at northwestern he replied that he would permit their appearances quote unquote on a casebycase basis. The First Amendment does not permit arbitrary restraint on speech by University Administrators on a casebycase basis. That is an open invitation to discriminate based on viewpoint. That is where too many colleges are right now. A reality great universities would welcome numerous speakers whose positions made the president of the university and many others uncomfortable oncampus uncomfortable. Some may advocate legislation theoretically private colleges that accept federal funds subject to individual private lawsuits when freespeech rights occur or dont occur including religious free speech. If those are all violated some even suggest an analog section section 1933. Under that approach officials at private universities that accept federal funds would be subject to an individual right of action for damages if they violate free speech or fail to Train University officials and Campus Police to the First Amendment. Fortunately not all schools adopt the censorship approach. The university of chicago has adopted a policy that some of the universities have followed which i will put in the record that this policy prohibits university from suppressing speech that even most people on campus would find offensive or immoral and calls for counter speech rather than suppression of people who disagree with speech and while protecting protest expressly prohibits quote otherwise interfering the freedom of others to express views that they were jacked. Finally it commits the university to protect that freedom on others attempt to restricted end of quote. We have a distinguished panel of guests that i welcome. Senator feinstein. Thank you very much mr. Chairman. Im going to put my remarks in the record and im just going to make a few reflections on some of your comments. I agree with some of what you said. I disagree with others. Lets take a look at the First Amendment. The First Amendment says that Congress Shall make low no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or of the right of people peaceably, peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress. The fact of the matter is there are certain occasions on which individuals assemble not to act peaceably but to act as destructively as they possibly can and i know a little bit about the university of california. You cited berkeley. The president of that university is known to all of us. She was the governor. She headed a 250,000 staff Homeland Security department here. She is tough, she is strong, she is fair, she is able and the question comes that when you have a set group of people that come to create a disturbance and some of them even wearing and wearing certain clothing, what do you do . Big University Police departments, its been my experience dont always have the equipment meaning mental and training equipment to be able to seek it out, to handle it into a isolated. So you run the risk of substantial harm and that was what judgment the University Made in the one situation recently that it would become a drawing card for groups that range from anarchists to just very unsavory people to be violent. That is really a horse of another color. I was mayor during the Democratic Convention in 1984 and i can tell you with a lot of fear at that time about what might happen at that convention, so we took made a lot of plans to be able to handle it and got extra help and we did handle it and there was no violence and it was a good convention. Maybe universities should be steeped in and have the ability financially to really develop the kind of intelligence you need and the kind of policing that you need at some of these events. I mean i went to a smaller private university. There was never a problem but you have big universities and one of the largest is the university of california which have turned campuses with over 250,000 students. So there are instances of problems from time to time but i think our efforts would be much better, finding methodologies to handle those incidents. I know of no effort at berkeley, the university of california to stifle student speech, none and if there is a specific effort i would certainly appreciate it if people brought that to my attention. But i do believe that the university has a right to protect its students from demonstrations once they become acts of violence. I hope today that there will be some discussion of when does speech become violent and what do you do to stop that violence because we all want freedom of speech. I dont want anything different than you wanted that regard but maybe ive been indifferent world having been there a tumultuous time, having gone through assassinations and understanding what happens in a big dissent. So do know my state isnt your state that the volume here can be very large so i just wanted to make those comments and say that its not a simple matter when demonstrations become violent. Senator thune. Too thank you mr. Chairman thank you for holding this very important hearing. Free speech matters. Diversity matters. Diversity of peoples backgrounds but also diversity of thought, diversity of ideas. Universities are meant to be a challenging environment for young people to encounter ideas they have never seen, they never imagined at the they might passionately disagree with. If universities become homogenizing institutions that are focused on inculcating and indoctrinating rather than challenging we will lose what makes universities great. The First Amendment is not about opinions you agree with. Not about opinions that are right and reasonable. The First Amendment is about opinions that you passionately disagree with and the right of others to express them. Its tragic what is happening at so Many American universities where College Administrators and faculty have become complicit in functioning essentially a Speech Police deciding what speech is permissible and what speech is sent. You see violent protests. The senior senator from california referred to it and acting effectively peppers are violent thugs come in and say this particular speaker i disagree with here she has to say and therefore i will threaten physical violence if the speeches last to happen in far too many colleges and universities quietly roll over and say okay the threat of violence we will effectively reward the violent criminals and muscle the First Amendment. I saw a recent study from the Knight Foundation is said that a majority of College Students believe the climate on the campus has prevented people from saying what they believe out of fear of giving offense. What an indictment of our university system. And what does it say about what you think about your own ideas . If ideas are strong and if ideas are right you dont need to muscle the opposition. He should welcome the opposition when you see College Faculty and administrators being complicit or active players in silencing those with opposing views, what theyre saying is they are afraid. They are afraid of their ideas cannot band the dialectic, cannot stand opposition, cannot stand facts or reasoning or anything on the other side. It is only through force and power that their ideas can be accepted. I am one who agrees with John Stuart Mill the best solution for bad ideas, for bad speech is , more speech and better ideas other people with not just ideas in the world . Absolutely but not these grotesque and repulsive than evil and our constitution they have a right to speak and the rest of us have a moral obligation to announce what they say. A bunch of racist bigoted bugs bugs expressed their views and we have an obligation than to confront those views which are weak, poisonous and ron and confront them with truth. They dont use need to use brute force to silence them because the truth is far more powerful so this is an important hearing and i think the witnesses for being here and i think the chairman. Senator coons chairman of the committee on Constitution Center blumenthal the Ranking Member ill go to senator blumenthal now. Thank you to the witnesses for being here today on this very important topic. We would do well to remember that this issue is hardly new to democracy and in particular a democracy. During the height of the beginning of the vietnam controversy when his car literally was founded on and he was physically threatened by protesters. The Vietnam Protest Movement like others often lend itself to successes threatening at the time and then theres a reporter as a reporter had the privilege of covering this convention in chicago in 1968 not in the Convention Hall but in the streets where teargas and physical confrontation were more common than rational discourse. Differences of opinion can lead to disagreements which in turn can lead to and what we celebrate always on this committee which establishes lines that many of us conduct where people have to wait a minute rather than a respect for each others opinions and that brings me to the main point that i want to make which is respect for the rule of law is really so fundamental to this conversation and disrespect for the rule of law we have seen all too often outside the universities as well as in. Diversitys are not isolated enclaves that are in some ways aberrant. The kinds of confrontations that we have seen on universities reflect the fighting words often used by politicians and others in our society that may be designed to promote violence and we should be mindful of our own duties to be respectful of the law and to make sure that we particularly respect the First Amendment which says that senator feinstein put it so well , no law abridging those rights. The state attorney general prosecutor and out of the began a speech or hate crimes i should say, and respect for speech that could be preserved and ascribing to the balance is one area that i think we need to take lessons from the experience you bring to us today while we talk about the respect for the rule of law i want to take this opportunity to thank you and the Ranking Member for beginning or invest in investigation exemplified by the finance director and related actions and i hope that we will pursue that political interference rigorously and comprehensively because i think again any kind of interference obstruction of j