Amendment on College Campuses. Heard from College Students and University Officials at this event held by the Senate Judiciary committee. Its two hours. Welcome everybody. Good morning. Today our Judiciary Committee considers an important and timely topic. 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 cruz 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 rightfully considered and evaluated. All colleges therefore must protect free speech. Public institutions must adhere to the various guarantees of our First Amendment. Too often all these fundamental principles have been under assault, even worse some people will have exercised their First Amendment rights have themselves been assaulted. As a result, those who would curtail free speech have been emboldened, and those who disagree with the prevailing orr orthodox si have been censored or killed for speaking freely. Theres 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 of speech in public forum, a twofold violation of the First Amendment. Amazingly, students there were arrested for distributing copies of the u. S. Constitution. Their lawsuit against the college and against administrators in a personnel capacity is pending. Many students erroneously think that speech that they consider hateful is violent, yet some students engage in acts of violence against speech and universities have failed to prevent or adequately punish that violence. On the university of california berkeley, two 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 in one of the Supreme Courts most important First Amendment rulings, quote, if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no fictional higher betting can be described as orthodox in politics, end of quote. A lawsuit has been brought that alleges that berkeley has systemically and intentionally suppressed speech protected by First Amendment because viewpoint differs from that of University Administrators. At middleburg college, the eminent scholar dr. Charles murray was at first shouted down from speaking, then when the event was moved students pulled the fire alarm to prevent him from speaking. It was not dr. Murray but the students who essentially yelled fire in a crowded theater. The 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 mob who engaged in such appalling conduct at an institution theoretically devoted to rationality and intellectualism. Not including those who were not captured on video, the College Discipline warden 70 students, but none was expelled or even suspended. As a practical matter more students received no more serious punishment than the double secret probation immortalized. As dr. Murray noted such weak punishment will not deter any future students destruction. The First Amendment is very clear, the Supreme Court has decided that offensive speech is protected, that speech cannot be restricted based on viewpoint, that Public Forums must be places where free speech rights can be exercised and that prior restraint on speeches are highly disfavored. Otherwise any speech that anyone found offensive could be little free speech would survive. As justice said, quote, if there is any principle of the institution that more imperatively 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 and oppose. But on too many campuses today free speech appears to be sacrificed at the alter of political correctness. Many administrators believe students should be shielded from hate speech, whatever that is, as an exception to the First Amendment. Unfortunately this censorship is now different from any other examples in history when speech that authorities deem to be has been sub rest based upon its content. Even more unfortunate the anticonstitutional attitude 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 students by 6139 margin believe that it is desirable to restrict the use of slurs and other language intentionally offensive to certain groups, and by 7227 margin they favored restricting expression of political views that are upsetting or offensive to certain groups. College students both not only academia but our democracy depends on the ability to try to advocate, to inform or to change minds. When universities suppress speech, theyre not only damage freedom today, they establish norms our hope to democracy going forward. These restrictions may cause and exacerbate the political pervasive that is so widely lamented in our society. Whatever the nature of the speech suppressed, we all ought to be concerned, and i am. However, prominent liberal University Administrators admit that the vast amounts of disfavored speech is on the conservative side of the spectrum. Harvard president recent commencement address, which i will put in the record, notes the lack of conservative ideas on campuses. And as former standard pro vo has observed, quote, there is a growing intolerance at universities, a political onesidedness that is the antithesis of what universities should stand for, end quote. And he fears that University Administrators will take the easy route of giving in to students pressure to restrict debate. I ask to include his records on the mark as well. Many fears are being realized in a recent interview the president of North Western university undercut the apparent lip service he paid to the First Amendment rather than making students confront the speech that makes them uncomfortable, he advocated making students feel comfortable by ensuring a safe space where they will not hear it. Even worse, when they ask whether would be comfortable or the speaker shouted down in middlebury and berkeley to speak at North Western, he replied that he would permit their appearances, quote unquote, on a case by case basis. No, the First Amendment does not permit arbitrary prior speech on administrators on a case by case basis. That is an open invitation to discriminate based on viewpoint. Thats where too many colleges are right now. A reality great universities would welcome speakers whose position made the president of the university and many others uncomfortable on campus uncomfortable, some may advocate legislation in this area, theoretically private colleges that accept federal funds could be subject to individual private lawsuits when free speech rights occur. Or dont occur, including religious free speech, if those are all violated. Some may even suggest analog section 1933 under that approach officials at private universities that accept federal funds would be subject to individual rights of action for damages if they violate free speech or fail to train University Officials and Campus Police to adhere to the First Amendment. Fortunately, not all schools adopted censorship approach. University of chicago has adopted a policy that some other universities have followed, which i will put in the record. This policy prohibits the university from suppressing speech that even most people on campus would find offensive or immoral, it calls for counterspeech rather than suppression of people who disagree with speech and while protecting protest, it expressly prohibits, quote, obstructing or otherwise interfering with the freedom of others to express views that they reject or even loathe. Finally, it commits the university to actively, quote, protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it, end 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 i am just going to make a few reflections on some of your comments. I agree with some of what youve said. I disagree with others. Lets take a look at the First Amendment. The First Amendment says that Congress Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Or of the freedom of speech or of the press or right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 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. And 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 Masks or wearing certain clothing, what do you do . And Big UniversityPolice 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, to isolate it. So you run the risk of substantial harm. And that was what judgment the University Made in 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 there was a lot of fear at that time about what might happen at that convention. So we took a lot of made a lot of plans to be able to handle it, got extra help and we did handle it. And there was no violence. And it was a good convention. And maybe universities should be 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 with ten campuses 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 incidence. I know of no effort at berkeley, the university of california, to stifle students 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. And i hope today that there will be some discussion of when does speech become violent skpr, and do you do to stop that violence . Because we all want freedom of speech. I dont want anything different than you want in that regard. But maybe i live in a different world having been a mayor at y tim ul chous time, having gone through assassinations and understanding what happens in big dissent. So, you know, my state isnt your state, but 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 cruz. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And 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 never seen, they never imagined and that they might passionately disagree with. If universities become homogenizing institutions that are focused onn indoctrinating rather than challenging, we will lose what makes universities great. First amendment is not about opinions you agree with. Its 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 in so Many American universities where College Administrators and faculties have become complicit in functioning essentially as speech police. Deciding what speech is permissible and what speech isnt. You see violent protests, senior senator from california referred to, in acting effectively a hecklers veto where violent thugs come in and say this particular speaker i disagree with what he or she has to say and therefore i will threaten physical violence if the speech is allowed to happen. And far too many colleges and universities quietly roll over and say, okay, the threat of violence we will effectively reward the violent criminals and muzzle the First Amendment. I saw a recent study of the foundation found majority of College Students believe the climate on their campus has prevented people from saying what they believe. Out of fear what an indictment of our university system. And what does it say about what you think about your own ideas . If ideas are strong, if ideas are right, you dont need to muzzle the opposition. You should welcome the opposition. When you see College Faculties and administrators being come police it pli sit in silencing what theyre saying is they are afraid. Theyre afraid their ideas cannot stand the opposition, cannot stand facts or reasoning or anything on the other side. And it is only through force and power that their ideas can be accepted. Im one who agrees with john stewart mill, the best solution for bad ideas, for bad speech is more speech and better ideas. Are there people with not good ideas in the world . Absolutely. The nazis are gro tes k and repulsive and evil. And under our constitution they have a right to speak and the rest of us are a moral obligation to denounce what they say. The ku klux klan are a bunch of racist bigoted thugs. Who a right to express their views. And we have an obligation then to confront those views which are weak, poisonous and wrong and confront them with truth. We dont need to use brute force to silence them. Because truth is far more powerful than force. This is an important hearing. I thank the witnesses for being here. I thank the chairman for hosting. Senator cruz is chairman of the subcommittee on constitution. Senator blumenthals Ranking Member. I go to senator blumenthal now. Thanks, mr. Chairman. And thank you to all my colleagues for their comments and to the witnesses for being here today on this very important topic. We would do well if this issue hardly new to democracies and in particular our democracy. I can remember well as a Young Harvard student observing the visit of secretary of defense Robert Macnamara to our campus during the height of the beginning of the vietnam controversy when his car literally was pounded on, and he was physically threatened by protesters. The vietnam protesting went like others, often lent itself to excesses that seemed threatening at the time. And then as a reporter, i had the privilege of covering the convention in chicago in 1968, not in the convention hall, but in the streets where tear gas and physical confrontation were more common than rational discourse. It is the essence of democracy that we have diversity as senator cruz observed quite correctly. Diversity involves differences and differences of opinion can lead to disagreements, which in turn can lead to conflict, physical conflicts. And what we celebrate always on this committee is the rule of law, which establishes blame and also lines at town halls that many of us conduct where people have to wait in line rather than interrupting each other. So rule of law really provides a sense of order and a respect for each others opinions. And that brings me finally to the main point that i think i want to make, which is that 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 universities as well as in. Universities are not isolated enclaves that are in some way the kinds of confrontations weve seen on universities reflect the fighting words that are often used by politicians and others in our society that may be designed to provoke 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 as senator feinstein quoted so well, no law. Now, i recognize that some