Transcripts For CSPAN2 Liberal Arts Education 20170809 : vim

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen welcome back to our conference on a worthy life, finding meaning in america. The class of 82 annual conference of James Madison institution here at Princeton University. The final panel for the day addresses issues having to do with liberal Arts Education and the search for truth. We have a very distinguished group of panelists who will answer the question. I want to begin though with the personal testimony of my own and really an expression of gratitude. We will be discussing topologies, undeniable topologies 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 haters or what have you. Those pathologies as i say our undeniable. They exists. They are very widespread. Many people in the academy across the political spectrum not only recognize them but recognize that they present an urgent problem and truly a threat. Provost at Stanford University recently in a public letter called the threat the threat from within the university saying that no threat to Higher Education coming from outside of universities is the equal of the threat inside the universities stemming from a certain kind of ill liberalism, a lack of Viewpoint Diversity among faculty and students a tendency to group think and an unwillingness to question established orthodoxies or even to permit discussions of key issues to go forward. Some of you perhaps read the piece in the wall street journal by the selfdescribed leftwing president of Wesleyan University in connecticut calling for of all things not something i personally favor but interesting that he would make the proposal. Affirmative action for conservatives in american Higher Education and his reason is the need to have viewpoints across the spectrum representative for learning to take place. I said i wanted to begin with an expression of her attitude and i had a wonderful opportunity in this conference to do it and thats gratitude to my Home University Princeton University who is sponsoring our conference here today. James monessen program of Princeton University. This program is flourished in princeton for 17 years now and im enormous lake ray full to my colleagues and to successive president s of university who have not only permitted are programmed to live but indeed to flourish. I am now completing my 31st very happy year at Princeton University. [applause] thank you. Perhaps not all my colleagues will cheer but id like to think that some would. I entered this University Fresh out of graduate school in the fall of 1985 and i was out of the closet as a questioner, a denier of the local gods in a questioner of the established campus orthodoxies on clinical and moral questions from the very beginning but princeton did not deny me a position at the university because of that. In fact i was hired. I was granted tenure. I was promoted. I was installed in jurisprudence and establish the James Madison Program American ideals and institutions so whatever is to be said about the pathologists afflicting american Higher Education, whatever we will say and without claiming that my university is near perfection i do feel a profound sense of gratitude especially in view of what i know, people who are far superior to me in their scholarship and ability and achievements have suffered at other institutions around the country. I think well be hearing a bit about that in the presentations. To discuss these vital issues we have assembled an outstanding panel and i went to deuce them all right now in the order in which they will speak. Aurelian craiutu a former fellow india situation here at princeton and a ph. D. Graduate of this university a professor of Political Science at indiana where he hosts a policy analysis. One of formations most distinguished authority allen guelzo director of civil war era studies and professor of history at Gettysburg College in pennsylvania. His work on lincoln and the civil war is simply unsurpassed and has been ignored for its excellence with prize after prize after price. Lincoln prize after lincoln prize. We are delighted to have allen back. Allen has been a fellow professor in the Madison Program here at princeton. Zena hitz also ph. D. Graduate of her university as a tutor at st. Johns college and teaches liberal arts as all tutors at st. Johns college do. She writes in defense of intellectual activities the pursuit of truth, the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake as against the defense of the intent cruel intellectual life for political reasons than she was in 2010 and 11 a fellow at the James Madison program. And then finally the distinguished scholar in his honor we have convened this conference, leon kass who is a scholar at the American Enterprise institute and Professor Emeritus in the committee on social thoughts at the university of chicago. Leon will bat cleanup and i will first recognize professor aurelian craiutu. Im very honored to be on this panel so thank you for joining me to join the other panelists and since its late in the day and we have gone through several i thought i should entertain you with a nice story which has the theoretical part ended juicier part which is the second part. Every Spring Semester like many in the audience i teach a book that defends as you know vigorously for freedom of thought and freedom of speech against Public Opinion and undue government interference. This is one of the books on the mandatory reading lists for all those who care about deeper education and can still read i should have the conflicts 19th century sentences were 19th century leaders. Our students today im not so sure can master the art. In this wonderful book a reminds us we should listen to those who disagree with us and gives us in the 21st century a few compelling reasons for doing so. First our opponents are invaluable because they can sharpen our arguments and can point out possible flaws in our own arguments claims or beliefs. Second it reminds us of the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of any appearance. By doing so we throw out the existing generation of the opportunity to test their beliefs and correct them if necessary. This is what he writes. They are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth. If wrong they lose the pure perception of truth produced by deletion with the error. However he reminded us we can never be really sure that the opinions that we are endeavoring to stifle our a false opinion. Liberty as you well know is widely taught in our universities today and hurt Princeton University as well. Many of our colleagues seem to like the ideas of the book in theory. [laughing] but what about in practice i would ask. Do they still guide themselves by recommendations . Do they live up to the recommendation . I do want to imply anything and they do not pretend that this our rhetorical questions. I do not pretend that the what i would like to do is add to them by telling you a small story, hopefully a relevant one for the panel. It is not the recent lecture given by Charles Murray from the American Enterprise institute on april 11 in bloomington one month after the now unfortunately famous lecture he had previously tried to give and had successfully given at Middlebury College where the person who invited murray was bitten and suffered a concussion. The middlebury event is well known and has been widely discussed in the media. The bloomington lecture is less known but i think it can teach us something important about liberal education today. In particular about free speech and pluralism and disagreement. I think it also, it also might is taking free speech disagreement and pluralism seriously is not such an easy task. Quite the contrary im afraid. Marie was invited so there are few details about the strict marie was about to speak in bloomington about the 2016 elections as the author of coming apart, book he published in 2012. The invitation was extended by a small group of students, two students to be precise. [laughing] that formed a very small American Enterprise Institute Chapter on campus and Informal Group not registered to university on the bloomington campus. The main sponsor of the talk was the American Enterprise institute, and the smalltalk program by the honor of electing at indiana chose to cosponsor it without offering a monetary compensation. The reason for doing so is this past semester, like anyone else in the country, we have struggled to be honest to come to terms and understand the results of the 2016 elections. To this effect in collaboration with the Provost Office and the scent of Representative Government led by the former representative lee hamilton, we have organized a series lectures and roundtables that sought to shed light on increasing ideological polarization and intransigence in our society and on our campus would begin in february with bill kristol who was here earlier spoke about american politics in the age of trump and yes, he did mention that name during his talk. [laughing] next we organized a roundtable on of all things stability in moderation with the group of philosophers, sociologists and political theorists your we thought the discussion of Charles Murrays ideas from coming apart would be a good fit for our series since his 2012 analysis highlighted several trends that subsequently led to the victory of donald trump in november 2016. November 2016. Murray as you well know, indeed earn on a spirit of the age that others seem to have missed and that has since been exploited relentlessly by our media. This year he has been invited to speak on major campuses middlebury and villanova to duke, and columbia and we are happy to work with students again the two very pretty students to join our efforts in bringing him to bloomington for free. We had no doubt the controversial nature of his previous work, the bell curve, described by his critics as races, fugitives and misogynist would trigger strong protest. That book made a few controversial claims linking success to cognitive intelligence or suggesting a possible link between race and genetics. Psalm judged this claim to be possible. It is still controversial. Others accuse it of racism. But few if any of the serious academic critics treated it as hate speech. Worthy of being censored. Maybe it 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 falls which must be taken into account and verified for their accuracy. Yet we invited murray to speak not about the bell curve but about the coming apart because this is what really interested us. What wilkinson got all that we are also aware that major scholars on the left such as cornell west, i intended to say brother cornell but thats not appropriate. Cornell west and others and harvard had been teaching this semester coming apart. The book that interest us at Harvard University this semester, this was one of the only five books on their required reading for the course on american democracy. I checked. There were only five pick along with the moxie in america, the next american nation, democracy matters, the left alternative and the future of american progressivism. And coming apart by Charles Murray. We thought if harvard people can digest Charles Murrays coming apart from social people in the middle of the country. They can do it. Furthermore only a couple of weeks before his talk at indiana in the same room where he spoke in the beautifully furnished president hall, Washington Post columnist a. J. Dion urged our sins to try to understand and listen to those values they do not share generally. He called on the left to try to develop empathy for causes that might motivate people to vote for donald trump. On the right. Theres too much elitism he suggested that divides the country into baubles, thick or thin evidence understand the dialogue and debate. It is time he concluded to in this elitism and treat the Middle America something other than the flyover country between the two coasts, between new york and l. A. And now follow the juicy details youve been waiting for. [laughing] denouncements of the lectures was met with strong criticism and this may buy mostly faculty members and, of course, greater students. A good number of them were in humanas, and i should add in the english department. The critics implied that merely listening to a controversial speaker like murray would amount to endorsing his views. That, according to them, racist views and misogynist views that can have no place on any discussion on campus. An open letter, always an open letter so that more people can sign it, was drafted at the initiatives of two students from a department that challenged, exercise the right to free speech, which is wonderful and challenge the universities decision to offer a platform to an allegedly racist writer and promote up white nationalism. The signatories of the letter was in 100 the the last time i checked perhaps 200 by now believe providing a platform to Charles Murray was unwise. Here are their words and faq to Pay Attention to that. I quote, we have strong blues and Academic Freedom and speech. We do not advocate for blanket censorship of controversial views by state institutions nor by private actors. For that reason we respect the right of Charles Murrays sponsors, i. E. Myself and others can to extend you an invitation to speak at indiana university. At the same time, public universities and institutions within them also their responsibility to act judiciously, one providing famous for speakers particularly in the present climate of racial tension. In this case we believe providing a platform to Charles Murray is highly irresponsible and judgmental to our university community. In a perfect logic after declaring its commitment to free speech, the open letter asked the universities disinvited Charles Murray. [laughing] it was followed by questions about the legality of the invitations which i had to answer at the request of the chairman of the bloomington faculty council, and the complaint was indeed launch to my knowledge. A few wondered about the format of the lecture, claiming that it was inappropriate since it did not allow for debate a question and answers. It did have a question and answer time frame as you will see tomorrow. Others claim Charles Murrays scholarship was shabby, reprehensible and, frankly, loath some. And he was a charlatan, Something Like ann coulter. The implication was his place was not an academic setting, a respectable one like bloomington. In spite of the fact that Marie Tedford his degree from mit and is authored more than ten books to date to be precise, 12 if im not mistaken. Some of which were published by major press. Even his latest work coming apart they claim builds upon the same discredited evidence discussed and use in the bell curve. If you others spoke with indignation about the damaging decision strings to invite to campus and author who promoted hate speech or even incited all buy it vicariously hate crimes and he would discredit my own department. His despicable ideas did not deserve to be debated because they are racist, sexist, demeaning to women and threatening in general. So if you think im exaggerating lets listen to what they actually said, and im going to quote twice. Murrays views are not just one side of interesting debate, they are vile and wrong someone wrote. They are also being disseminated in some form from the highest office in the country right now and fo from many members of the congress. It is an intimidating and frightening environment for many of us in this speaker brings that children affect home. A student actually said this, i am for free speech but im against giving people platforms to speak whose work isnt up to the academic expectation of indiana university. Its hate speech, she said. In the end of the lecture was not canceled as the signatories of the open letters as the provost to be in the provost back to us and we went on with a Massive Police protection offered by the Police Department of my university. They worked very hard to make sure the violence that it proves good at middlebury would not be repeated at indiana, it was not. The venue was carefully selected at the number free tickets distributed with limited to 1500 which did not prevent the protesters to acquire about 80 tickets and burned them so the room was only twothirds full. The protesters mobilized and have the right to do so to spread their disagreement. They encouraged students to get their tickets a