The final panel for the day addresses issues having to do with liberal Arts Education and the search for truth. We have a distinguished group of panelists to address the question. I want to begin though with a bit of personal testimony of my own and then really 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 labeling other people as bigots or haters or what have you. Those pathologies as i say are undeniable. They exist. They are very widespread. Many people in the capital across the political spectrum not only recognize them but recognize that the present an urgent problem and truly a threat. A provost from Stanford University recently the public letter called that threat the threat from within the university saying that no threat to Higher Education coming from outside the universities is the equal of the threat inside the universities stemming from a certain kind of illiberalism, a lack of Viewpoint Diversity among faculty and students, a tendency to groupthink, and in willingness to question established orthodoxies or even to permit discussions of key issues to go forward. Summa you perhaps read the oped piece in the wall street journal by the selfdescribed leftwing president of wesley and 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 they need to have viewpoints across the spectrum represented for learning to take place. I said it once again with an expression of gratitude and have wonderful opportunity in this conference to do it and thats gratitude to my home university, Princeton University which is sponsoring our conference here today. The James Madison program is a program of Princeton University. This program has flourished at princeton for 17 years now and im enormously grateful to my colleagues and the successive president s of 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 my colleagues which you but i would like to thank that some would. [laughing] i entered the 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, a question of the established orthodoxies on political and moral questions from the very beginning that princeton did not deny me a position at the university because of that. I think we will be hearing a bit about that in the presentations. To discuss the vital issues we have assembled an outstanding panel and i will introduce them all right now in the order in which they will speak. The fellow of the James Madison fellow. And at the phd graduate of this university. He also directs the program associated with the workshop in political theory and policy analysis. One of our nations most distinguished historians is director of civil war era studies at Gettysburg College in pennsylvania. It is simply surpassed and has been acknowledged for the excellence with prize after prize indeed the lincoln prize. We are delighted to have alan back. He has been a visiting professor. In the Madison Program here Medicine Program here at princeton. Also a phd graduate. I tutor at st. Johns college. Has all tutors do. She writes in defense of intellectual activity the pursuit of truth the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake as against the defense of intellectual lice life on political reasons. And she was in 2010 in 2011 was also a visiting fellow at the James Madison program. And then finally the distinguished scholar in whose honor we have convened this conference leon kass. The professor americas. On the committee on social thought. At the university of chicago. Leon will bat cleanup and i will recognize our professor. Thank you for inviting me to join the other families. Since we have gone through several i thought i should entertain you with a nice story. It has a theoretical part in the juicier part. Every Spring Semester like many in the audience i teach that on liberty. The tyranny of Public Opinion and undue government here is this is one of the books that should be on the mandatory reading list for all of those who care about liberal education and can still read the complex 19 sensory sentences. Im not sure that they can master that art. In this wonderful book we are reminded that we should listen to those who disagree with us and gives us that in the 21st century and the reasons for doing so. First they tell us that the opponents are valuable because they can sharpen our arguments. In our own arguments. Second, they remind us of the peculiar evil of the silencing of opinion of any the existing generation of the opportunity to test their beliefs and correct them if necessary. And this is what neil writes. If the opinion is right. They are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging era for truth. They needed the clear perception and the impression of truth produced by that. Moreover neil reminded us that we can never really be sure that the opinion that we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion. And even if we were sure of that he said stifling it would be an evil spirit. All these and the leveraging views is in fact arrogant assumption on our part and a failure to take any precautions against our own views. A failure to take precautions. The liberty as you will know is widely taught in our universities today and here at Princeton University as well. Many of our colleagues seem to like the ideas of the book. In theory. But what about a applying them into practice i would ask. Do they still guide themselves by the recommendations. Do they live up to the recommendation. I dont want to imply anything and i do not pretend that this is rhetorical questions. What i would like to do is enter them right telling you a small story and hopefully a relative one on the education. Its about the recent lecture given by Charles Murray from the American Enterprise institute. A month after the famous lecture he have previously tried to give and have get and have successfully given in the end. What the person who invited him was victim and separate the concussion. The event is well known and has been widely discussed in the media. Is less known however but i think it can teach us something important about liberal education today. In particular about free speech in the disagreement. I think it can also remind us that taking free speech seriously is not such an easy task as nero and others would want us to believe. Quite the contrary i believe. Here are the few details about this. He was invited to speak about the 2016 election. A book he published in 2012. The invitation was extended by a small group of students to students that formed a very small American Enterprise institute and Informal Group not rescued registered with the university. University. The main sponsor was the American Enterprise institute and the small talk that i have the honor of directing indiana chose to cosponsor it. Without offering a monetary compensation. Like everyone else in the country we had struggled to come to terms and to understand the results of the 2016 election. To this effect with that center on Representative Government led by the former representative we had organized a series of lectures and roundtables that should shed light on the polarization. In our society and it now came to seth. We began in february with a built crystal was here earlier this morning. And yes he did mention that name. Next we organized a roundtable on of all things civility and organization. And we thought that discussion of the idea was coming apart would be a good fit for our series since his 2012 highlighted several twin trends that led to the entry of of donald trump in november 2016. As you will know. He caught indeed early on a spirit of age the others seem to have missed and that has since been exploited relentlessly by our media. This year he has been invited to speak on the major campuses and we are happy to work with the students again the two very brave students to join our efforts and bring him to bloomington for free. Weve no doubt that the controversial nature of the previous work described by his critics as misogynist would feature strong progress. It made a few controversial claims linking them to intelligence or a possible link between them and race in genetics. They judged this claim to be probable. Others accused of racism. If any treated it as hate speech. Worthy of being censored. Certainly worthy of being discussed and discovered. It was seen as a claim based on data. It must be taken into account for the accuracy yet we invited murray to speak about the bell curve but the coming apart. This is not really interested us. We were concerned about all of that. We were and where the major scholars at harvard have been teaching this semester coming apart. The book that interest us at Harvard University this was one of the only five bucks on the required reading for their course on american democracy. Along with the fierce democracy in america. In the future of american progressivism. We thought if they can digest Charles Murray coming apart show should people in the middle of the country. Furthermore only a couple of weeks before he spoke in vienna in the same room where he spoke in the president s hall Washington Post columnist urged our students to try to understand and listen to whose values they do not share generally. Especially his friends on the left to try to develop empathy for causes that might have marketed people to vote for donald trump. Thick or thin. And prevents understanding and debate. It is time to end this elite is a. Between new york and la. And now for the juicy details even waiting for. The announcement was met with strong criticism and was made by most faculty members. A good number of them were in humanities and i should add in the English Department. It implied that merely listening to the controversial speaker would amount to endorsing his views. That is according to them racist views and misogynist views that can have no place on any discussion on campus. So that more people can sign it. They are challenged. It is wonderful and challenged the universitys decision to offer a platform to a racist writer. The place of the letter. Perhaps 200 by now. They believed that providing a platform to trust murray was on wise wise and hear those words. I beg you to Pay Attention to those. We have with strong believers in Academic Freedom and speech we do not advocate for controversial views by state institutions nor by private actors. For that reason we respect the right of the sponsors to extend it to him an invitation to speak at indiana university. At the same time public universities and institutions all have a responsibility to act judiciously. Particularly in the present climate of racial tension. In this case we believed that believe that providing a platform is highly responsible and judgmental to our university and community. And in a perfect logic after declaring its commitment to free speech the letter ask them to dissipate Charles Murray. It was followed by questions about the legality of the invitation which i have to answer at the request of the chairman. In the complaint was indeed launched. If you wondered about the format of the lecture claiming that it was inappropriate since it did not allow for a debate or question and answer it did have a question and answer as you do see in a moment. Others see that the scholarship was shabby reprehensible. And that he was Something Like that like and culture. The implication was that his place was not in an academic setting or respective a one like lymington in spite of the fact that he have earned his phd from mit and has authored more than ten books today. On some of which were published by major presses. Even the latest work coming apart. It builds along the same evidence discussed and used in the bell curve. They spoke with indignation about the damaging decisions to campus and also promoted hate speech. And who would discredit those in my own apartment. The speaker ideas they do not deserve to be debated because they are racist, sexist and threatening in general. If you think that im exaggerating lets listen to what they actually said i will quote twice. Here the views are not just one side of an interesting debate they are vile and wrong someone wrote. They are also being endorsed in some form from the highest office in the country right now and for many members of the congress it is an intimidating and frightening environment for many of us in the speaker brings that home. Student actually said this for free speech and i am against giving people platforms to speak whose work isnt his work isnt up to the academic expectations of the university. Its classified as hate speech she said. The lecture was not canceled as they asked them to do. We went on with the Massive Police protection offered by the police department. They worked very hard to make sure that the violence that have previously occurred it would not be repeated at indiana and it was not. The venue was carefully selected. It was limited to 150. They have the right to do that in the disagreement. They encourage students to get those and burn them afterwards so that the room would be close to empty. We felt about 80 seats. Outside electoral hall they exercise their right to free speech. They shouted slogans like Charles Murray go away and there was an even better one. What we really need to do is to make him relevant again. Hes always been a great student. Another claimed that she was not interested in listening to someone who would normalize white supremacy. One them banked on that. Outside the lecture room and made a big noise was audible inside the room distracting the speaker at times. They were voicing their opposition outside. Exercising their right to free speech we discussed some of the reasons why they voted for trump. It shouldve been of interest to those on the left. He invited the audience to take his famous bubble quiz. I did take it. I have to confess that my number is very low. How they contribute to the fragment of america. One of the two. Each of them was given a pen and paper was invited to ask a question there was no censorship only an uninhibited conversation. Everyone agreed with marie of course and i must say not necessarily an agreement but the questions and answers were constructive. They turned out to a spouse. They were demonstrated by that. The conservatives must have been surprised by his democracy for example. The basic income. No fewer than 12 police cars were packed behind the building. They have to be removed off the ground. There was no significant violence. The officer was vandalized. They painted an anti racist message on the door. They deleted it. Include the lack lock which is a new technique. They also posted a post online that claimed the authorship of the event. We can all know who they are. It was anonymous however. I also received calls on my office phone. At which my police signed it. And some of my colleagues who criticized me for my role in cosponsoring that. I stood for free speech. I did nothing heroic. Just applied common sense. I thought that i could stand up for free speech. With the views simply because along with others i was instrumentally and organizing. They only read a single page. We even brought that. We brought other people to join. The interesting thing was attested the commitment to free speech. They are ready to censor views for which they disagree. They find jean juris and threatened the safe bubbles. And they are ready to discuss civility and engage in witchhunts against those whose views they find disagreeable. One of my colleagues proposed that i would be denies pay raise. If they fail the test. That is the reason of hope for us today. Some of them are starting law and public policy. I cant create effective policy. With the culture and virgins. In the professors and perhaps anti intellectual chance. The members of the outside Community Also passed the free speech test when ask whether by the local paper whether they were right to invite murray. They all agreed yes it was right to do so. But his lecture did much more than test our commitment to free speech on campus. It reminded us that one disagreement is normal and inevitable. It must be accompanied by the real facts and balance moderation and civility. We should never think our sales dash itself is infallible. We are never allowed to pigeonhole people are called names. We should avoid seeing the world in black and white. We should never make any pronouncements before we get the facts. Listen to different interpretations. Thats why i think as neil put it the study habit of correcting in completing our own pinions should be a habit that we should cultivate in our liberal Arts Education. Everything that could be brought against our position. Its only way that they can be could be sure that our positions are right. If they follow that important truth and they do not exist is indefensible and supply them with the sharpest arguments anything it is the advocate procedure. I think we should apply the